president sort of washington mr president there are a few bills that we deal with here in washington d c that are more critical to the safety and wellbeing of our community than the bill that we're considering here in the florida day this legislation is going to help federal law enforcement and justice programs that are absolutely essential if we're going to keep our neighborhoods safe keep our justice system strong and make sure that our communities are healthy at a time when our budgets are very tight and our needs are very great leadership that there is subcommittee to make a sound investment in the health of our communities the president has said that he will veto the bill according to the administration the additional funding in this bill is quote responsible and excessive well mr president that is very hard to fathom when this administration is asking for over one hundred and ninety billion dollars in emergency appropriations to fight the wars in iraq and afghanistan for just one year while this president easily is spending our money overseas local communities in my home state and around the country are going without the money that they need for very critical programs the increases this legislation calls for are just  what this president spends on the morning here the money in this bill will go to revitalize programs that have been overlooked by this administration my home state for example is experiencing a dangerous shortage of f b i agents who do a sense the work to ensure that we prevent another terrorist attack at home and who perform critical law enforcement duties that shortage is just one example of how this president has mixed up the nation's priorities but this bill does make a small step a step towards fixing some of those years of problems in my home state the lack of f b i agents for critical law enforcement needs has been a serious confers concern for some time but the urgency of the situation was driven home recently in a series of articles by the seattle post intelligencer the paper's first article noted that since nine eleven in our quote the white house and the justice department have failed to replace at least two thousand four hundred agents transferred from law enforcement to counterterrorism leaving far fewer just fewer agents on the trail of identity thieves con artists hate mongers and other criminals unquote the article that i just referred to found that washington state has a mere two point one f b i agents for every one hundred thousand resident residents that is nearly half the national average so this past week i met was pleased she sent chairs from across my state and they agreed that this shift has had a real impact on state and local and law enforcement one please she told me that the f b i had virtually disappeared from white collar crime investigations a sheriff told me that the local law enforcement now investigates and prosecutes over ninety percent of bank robberies even though this is traditionally ban an f b i responsibility another police chief told me that the f b i does not have the law enforcement resources to adequately staff antigun task forces even at the gang presence and gang related crime increases in our community all of these jurors and police chiefs had nothing but praise for the essential work but f b i agents perform in their communities but even asked the f b i focuses on counterterrorism they ask that it not abandon law enforcement the seattle f b i field office has remained under staffed even for counterterrorism agents that is especially troubling this president because washington state's industry leading companies international seaports and important military facilities make it a prime target for a terrorist attack and three years from now thousands of people are going to travel through my home state to attend the twenty ten vancouver winter olympics we have got to be prepared for the worst yet come only washington state ranks thirty fifth in per capita f b i agents clearly that makes no sense i want to thank senator mikulski and senator shelby for working with me on this issue specifically an amendment that would end this disconnect and ensure that we are placing  i agents where they can best protect our communities and it will also get the f b i to tell us how it intends to distribute its resources that amendment is the first step towards ensuring that the f b i priorities are in sync with our country's security needs and its own stated priorities and i want to commend senator murray mccuskey for her recognition of that need her work to include additional funding for the f b i in this bill is a very good first step the next step is to increase funding to hire train and place new f b i agents throughout the country that will help begin to ease the burden the f b i has had to bear since nine eleven changed its mission but i think we all know more funding is needed unfortunately if this president believes that increase in our f b i budget is you responsible in excess of any plans to veto this bill we will not be able to make the necessary investments today that will make our country more secure tomorrow mr president while federal agents are critically important to important to maintain the security of our country we all know that state and local law enforcement are the real guardians for our communities in this post nine eleven world leave asked them to place counterterrorism at the top of their priority but criminals haven't stopped abusing children or robbing stores or dealing drugs the local police have been told they need to do more with less but we have reached a point today where we fin please can ask them to do more without doubt a recent f b i crime report that shows that after a decade of decline violent crime is now rising for the second straight year we've got to make sure that it doesn't rise again this bill restores funding for our state and local law enforcement to nearly two point seven billion dollars and fills a major gap after the president cut its budget  half that this will also provide one point four billion for state and local law enforcement grants and includes five hundred fifty million dollars for cops grants and over five hundred million dollars for burn grants these funds are critically important and they support anti drug an anti gay task forces around the country they fund communications equipment that helps our police and our merchants the response teams talk to each other something that we all know is desperately needed in all of our communities they find critical programs to deal with the spread of methamphetamine and police chiefs and sheriffs have consistently told me that these grants were absolutely essential to their ability to protect our communit unfortunately i said we have heard the president say he's going to veto this legislation mr president this bill addresses critical priorities across our country and i urge all of my colleagues to support the bill and send the president a message from our constituents at home that he's taking our country safety and economic well being in the wrong direction and that we need to change focus and give our communities what they need to be safe and sound and secure  president i ask that my whole statement be printed in the record without objection thanks mr president under the previous order there will now be thirty minutes of debate on member number thirty three seventeen offered by senator from south dakota mr thune equally divided and controlled by the senator from south dakota and the senator from iowa  vulnerable sis citizens low income americans who need help with their most critical legal need now first of all i want to say that i am a strong supporter of the a bill before  us the president proposed a drastic cuts in funding for state local law enforcement but the bill provides a toll of two point six billion for state and local law enforcement which is a about one and a half billion above the president's request that the president's budget also propose to reduce the number of federal law enforcement agents working to combat violent crime but this bill rejects that cut as well as lifting the hiring freeze on d h and i want to point out something else that the bill for there provides one point seven billion for u s attorneys that's ninety two million more than last year and it directly addresses native american needs the bill provides thirty five million dollars for tribal law enforcement efforts the bill father provides a million dollars in research violence against native american women now i know that senators mcculloch and shelby did their best to provide additional resources especially given the severe budget constraints we face but the answer to the problems that the native americans may have with domestic violence and violent crime is not to deprive them and other poor citizens of our country basically legal service that's with us do an amendment does he is putting more money into the u s attorneys to combat violent crime but he's taking it out of legal services well that tradeoff is just wrong and i encourage my colleagues to reject that through an amendment and support the level of funding provided in the bill  let me just take a minute to explain why the increase in funding for legal services is so important in one nine hundred ninety six legal services took a drastic cut by the congress went from four hundred fifteen million dollars to two hundred seventy eight million dollars almost cut in half well we've been trying to get the funding back up since that time i point out it if at that time from one thousand nine hundred five to now we had get pace with inflation legal services would be about five hundred fifteen million dollars this bill gets it up to three hundred ninety million dollars so we aren't even back up where we were in two thousand  hundred five and i said these two amendment cuts twenty million dollars out of this gives it to u s attorneys but i've pointed out u s attorneys already got a ninety two million dollar increase for one point seven billion dollars so again it's not just native americans but victims of katrina even victims of nine eleven now currently a lot of people losing their homes because of  foreclosures and the scandal in the subprime lending market a lot of these people are low income and they're going to need help from legal services because they won't be able to afford an attorney so again make no mistake  even under this bill as it is legal services is not able to serve the legal needs of all low income americans for example fifty percent of eligible applicants requesting legal assistance  services corporation grantees are turned away fifty percent who apply are turned away because of lack of funding and again keep in mind that in order to be eligible for legal services you have to be at or below one hundred twenty five percent of the poverty level that's an income of twenty five thousand dollars a year for a family of four again that means we're turning away right now half of the families earning less than twenty five thousand dollars a year that need legal help now in some parts of the country it's even higher in west concent eighty percent of poor households problems do so without an attorney california sixty six percent number asked eighty six percent utah eighty seven percent new mexico eighty percent on and on those are figures i'm citing to say that that's how many people and those states who face a legal problem who are low income don't get any help so every cent is crucial and the adoption of the through an amendment that only result in furthering the justice gap in this country and hurt and hurt the very people that the senator from south dakota wishes to help native americans many for example the clients of legal services corporation funded programs are the most vulnerable among us and many of them are native americans since two thousand and one two point eight percent of all of the appropriations going to legal services have gone to meet the legal needs of disadvantaged native americans in this country that means that under this bill about ten point four million would go to native american legal services that include south dakota and m r and in many of these states like south dakota a majority of legal services go to serve native american population in fact in two thousand and six fully sixty seven percent of the clients served by several legal services in south dakota were native americans sixty seven percent so why taking money from legal services you're hurting the very people that need legal help are native americans mr president wonder if the senator would feel for a question on the diet you'll get my friends from north dakota mr president  i've listened to the senator's presentation i have been the case to my colleague from south dakota that i share his instinct and we need better law enforcement and indian reservation i don't think there's any question about that i appreciate the fact that senator m senator shelby added back funds that have been eliminated in the president's budget but we have a long way to go and we've talked about that here the instinct is right to try to provide more funding so that we're able to deal with those issues i held a hearing last week  report shows that thirty four percent of indian women will be raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetime that's unbelievable we have serious law enforcement problems but i must vote against this amendment for the following reason i cannot support an amendment that even though it adds money we need that will be paid that will pay forward by eliminating or should say lemonade by reducing funding for legal services precisely because as the senator from iowa says legal services is the access to the legal system for low income folks it's the only opportunity they have in many cases to access the legal system and that that budget has been cut and cut repeatedly now we're trying to add some back to cut it now would be the wrong thing future we must do that and they've been partially restored in some of these areas by senator because can shelby but i i think the senator from iowa allowing me to weigh in and say that i certainly support his presentation i also support the instinct of the senator from south dakota and wanting to try to improve this area of funding but we can't do it by taking away from such important funding is legal services i appreciate the senator from north dakota again i if you're asking do i have any problems with where the money is going  that the senator south dakota wants to know i just have a summary taken from and at best my basic problem is because all the data we know and what we know about legal services they're helping the very people we're talking about can be worked out if they have a lawyer separation for example child custody that type of thing which are civil matters but u s attorneys don't handle that that's what legal services do so violence towards native american women is tragic as as the senator pointed out i think in his presentation really said that there are seven times more likely to be victims of domestic violence than other women and that sort of an again what the senator from north dakota was saying but again it's precisely these citizens who legal services corporation funded programs assist three out of four clients are legal services or women through out of fo legal aid programs identify domestic violence as one of the top priorities in their caseload and recent studies have shown that the only public service that reduces domestic abuse in the long term is a woman's access to legal aid assistance this amendment would drastically curtail so they do make a big difference as i said is and it's not just native americans i'm talking about we're still helping victims of nine nine eleven flood victims katrina victims and now we have a whole new group of people access the legal services i'm almost embarrassed to say this mr president there's another group that we now see accessing the cable services in a big way you know they are our soldiers and their families our soldiers and their families because some of these these that are private low they don't get enough money they may have problems separation they've been gone a long time there's family problems they don't have enough money to hire an attorney their spouses might not and so they're accessing legal  this amendment would say no we're going to cut back on that so again i think it's important for us to keep this in mind i know that the senator from south dakota had mentioned about the problems of legal services leaving no one was more upset than this senator when this all came out a year ago with the g eight with the i g's investigation and the g a o report i say that because i started my life after law school as a legal services attorney that's what i did and i know that every cent in the field counts so if they're wasting money up here in washington with their chauffeured limousines and fancy hotels and all that kind of stuff makes my blood boil it i know what the legal services attorneys in the field are living with and their pension pennies and are not paid a lot and that's why i was glad in the in the in the education bill that passed earlier we included legal services lawyers as those that would have their loans forgiven if they stayed in and became legal services attorneys so again i share with the senator and i and others again just  by total aborts of what was going on in the hierarchy i will say this that the g a o recommended a number of things for them to do that is now being implemented in terms of the the board structure and what they're setting up to do now why it wasn't done before i don't know there's no excuse for it absolutely no excuse for it but i can say that the that the legal aid is now the board is now implementing the the the suggestions and the recommendations of the of the g a o i made it very clear as a longtime supporter of the legal services corporation i made it very clear to management that they needed to act immediately to address the g a o recommendations i know that both senator shelby and senator mikulski have said the same thing to them so they know that the people here are watching and i which outlines the steps they are taking to ensure better management at headquarters without objection so again regardless of what we may think about the management of legal services and what the board or was not doing asleep at the switch it's important to note that this amendment would not impact management at all only thirteen million of the three hundred ninety million appropriate in the bill goes for management and administration and that account has not received a single penny increase in the funding thanks to senator shelby thanks to senator mikulski i know this because i worked with them and i championed the increase included in the bill but to ensure that the money went where it was needed to the programs in the field and not the management here in washington so senator there was amendment and taking this money out of legal services may talk about the management but none of the increase that we put in here goes to management it all goes to the field operations and those are the people that need it the most so again like i i would echo what my friend from north dakota said i think the thrust of what senator thune is trying to do is lot of will obviously we i have a problem with domestic violence and and and abuse of native american women and obvious they need to be prosecuted i would i would say that before that step that we need to make sure they have legal services available to them so that we cut down on the incidence of domestic abuse and domestic violence and for that reason i would oppose the amen president sort of shot the coat of mr president a minute number thirty three seventeen i submitted last night i spoke to at that point and but i would like to again make some some comments with regard to the amendment and the need that exists in indian country for this additional funding and i appreciate the my friend from iowa his passion for the legal services corporation in support of that organization but i would simply say mr president that once again these appropriation bills are forcing us to make decisions about what our priorities need to be this debate is about choosing priorities and i would also say to my friend from iowa that the we're not talking about cutting legal services corporation over we're at the level they were out last year they were three hundred forty eight million dollars in fiscal year two thousand and seven my amendment would still allow a twenty two million dollar increase over last year's level that would fundament three hundred seventy million dollars instead of the three hundred ninety million dollars at the at the ten that's included in the base bill so you're still talking about a six point three percent increase in funding for the legal services corporation so that they can can't continue to do the work that they need to do to fill fulfill their obligations to the american public and the american taxpayers but what this simply does is says that we have a very desperate need in indian country and that this twenty million dollars could go to very good use in helping us combat violent crime on our reservations and i guess the question that we come down to in these debates on appropriations is in particularly with this regard this amendment is should we provide more badly needed funding to fight funding to fight violent crime in indian country or should we put additional funds into an organization that has engaged according to the g a o and the inspector general in wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars by providing what would be a substantial increase above the president's recommendation of three hundred eleven million dollars and as i said before in excess in increase of the a full forty two million dollars over the three hundred forty eight million dollars that legal services corporation received in last year's appropriation bill this bill provides the underlying the base bill provides three hundred ninety million dollars to legal services corporation it's a program that hasn't been reauthorized since one nine hundred eighty and that is a twelve percent increase over the amount appropriated in the legal services corporation in fiscal year two thousand and seven and a twenty percent increase over the recommendation that was made earlier this year in the administration's budget that substantial increase comes at a time when the legal services corporation has face very serious questions about its management expenditure of taxpayer dollars the g a o and the office of expect inspector general within the legal services corporation clearly lay out the management in ways that's been going on in the l s e as i and again i would say that in august if you look at the g a o and their report it's not it's not some dated thing this is august of two thousand and seven the g a o in their report entitled legal services corporation governance and accountability opinion last may concluding that elysee had not complied with the statutory limitation on the rate of compensation g o agreed with that conclusion went on to state that without a properly designed and implemented process for overseeing compensation elysee remains at risk of not complying with related laws and regulations and engaging in prudent management practices now as my friend from iowa has noted they are responding to that is rightly they should to address those things but i think the question is do you want to reward with a twelve percent increase a significant increase over fiscal year two thousand and seven that kind of behavior we have an opportunity here again to set priorities and in my view we have a very serious priority the need to be dealt with on our indian reservations in this country which has been pointed out in a number of different stories in articles i have lots of examples personal examples that i can offer from people who actually live on reservations who work in education systems and schools i have a letter here from a superintendent from a reservation school who says we have one school resource officer in our school system who is certified as a law enforcement officer however on this particular reservation we have a total of seven a policeman to patrol two point two million of reservation response time by the b i police department and the hours for our residents on the reservation are typically result in no response at all and if you look at the way that these these cases get prosecuted on the reservation i have another letter here from a constituent who lives out there is some of these situations of people committing the criminal activities have been caught they've been sent to jail released and back on the street committing more crimes sometimes within twenty four hours of the last crime and as i said this principal in his letter talked about what is becoming a very deepen demick problem on reservations and that is the increased presence of organized gangs violence and drugs and there's a as i said lots of anecdotal examples that i could share of the need for additional law enforcement presence now i co sponsored along with senator dorgan an amendment earlier to this bill that would increase the number of law enforcement personnel that would be on the reservations to address what is the the issue of actually apprehending and catching people when they commit crimes what my and them it does with couples with that the other the other aspect of that and that is making sure that when people are apprehended for committing these types of crimes that they ought to go on to get prosecuted i mean what's what's really amazing is if you look at the rate of prosecution on the indian reservations in this country and how it compares with prosecutions elsewhere there's an article just recently that was written in the wall street journal that says that this is based on just justice department data that only thirty percent of tribal land crimes referred to u s attorneys were prosecuted according to the justice department that compares with fifty six percent for all other cases and it goes on to talk about that one of the reasons those cases don't get prosecuted in indian country is because federal prosecutors they have long distances involved they have a lack of resources they have a cost of calling witnesses and defendants to federal court and as a consequence a lot of these cases that are being brought in the court system or are not are not being dealt with and the u s attorneys in this country have made it very clear that the u s attorney and the deals with this in a very admirable way in my state of south dakota but suffers from a lack  the work that's necessary to make sure that crimes that are committed on the reservation are dealt with and dealt with in an expeditious way and so mr president again if you look at the data this is justice department data from two thousand nine hundred ninety two to two thousand and one the average rate of violent crime among american indians was two and a half times the national rape in fact according to one report in the indian country today newspaper native american women are seven times more likely to be the victims of domestic violence than are other women and more than sixty percent of indian women will be victims of violent assault during their lifetime senator dorgan was on the floor yesterday discussing this issue and he noted that one third of indian women will be raped or sexually assaulted during their lifetime mr president this is unacceptable this has to stop and what we are simply saying in this amendment is here's a way to address this issue again we need more law enforcement personnel on the reservations which this bill will attempt to  address and in amendment that was offered earlier by senator dorgan i co sponsored the memmott today that was offered by senator begin one from new mexico that would allow the cops the meth hotspots legislation the cops that are made available under that legislation to be able to to be used by by indian reservations but it's really important mr president that we get at the the issue of making sure u s attorneys in this country are in a position to be able to prosecute when violent crimes are committed in indian country and the statistics are stunning when you look at the number of native american women who are subject to these types of violent crimes in many cases sexual assault that go on prosecuted because of a lack of resources to r us a in the justice department so that our u s attorneys can bring those cases in court so mr president i would again come back to the basic premise of the meme it's very simple as i said it does increase funding for legal services corporation in the underlying bill does the base bill increases it to three hundred ninety million dollars from a three hundred forty eight million dollars level in fiscal year two thousand and seven and again as i said before the president the administration's budget actually recommended three hundred eleven million dollars so three hundred eleven to three hundred ninety million is about a twenty percent increase that was over the administration's budget it's about twelve percent base bill over last year's fiscal year two thousand and seven level from three hundred forty eight million three hundred ninety million what my amendment does is pairs back the size of that increase by twenty million dollars so it will now go from three hundred forty eight million dollars in fiscal year two thousand and seven to three hundred seventy million dollars in fiscal year two thousand and eight and that is as i said mr president is a better than six percent increase so we are not taking away anything from legal services corporation or their ability to do their job we are simply saying that a part of that substantial increase increase coming at a time when the legal services corporation is under tremendous scrutiny and criticism from the general accounting counting office as well as from their own inspector general it just makes sense in my view that to be able to take those dollars those resources those twenty million dollars out of that particular account apply that to giving the u s attorneys in this country the resources they need to combat violent crime on our indian reservations mr president there isn't anything that works if you don't have a secure safe environment public safety is the most important responsibility that we have in our indian today are suffering from a tremendous lack of enforcement of laws a tremendous failure on the part of our government to respond to providing security i've talked as i said with school superintendents and principals in schools out there who children cannot learn when they don't have a safe learning environment and that is what we're dealing with today because of a lack of law enforcement personnel and a lack of the capability on the behalf of the u s attorneys to be able to prosecute crimes that are committed in indian country so that those who perpetuate their perpetrate those types of crimes are not released and back out on the street to commit further crimes so mr president straightforward amendment twenty million dollars out of legal services corporation increases substantial increases i said still over what they received last year and take that twenty million dollars and apply it to a verily very a desperate need that we have in this country and particularly on our reservations to make sure that we're doing our best to provide public safety so that our young children on in indian country have an ability to learn to get educated and to be able to conduct their lives and to create an opportunity where the the economy an indian country can can can grow and prosper as well and you can't do that absent  public safety and security so mr president with that i would reserve the balance of my time sort of south dakota reserves valences time roughly three minutes has been reserved who seeks recognition again so no i just want to respond well but first of all again i want to read from the bill just so it's very clear in everyone's mind that none of the the money that the senator from south dakota is taking out of legal services will come from the the bill itself says right here page eighty one you can read it for yourself that three hundred seventy three million dollars is for basic field programs thirteen point eight million for management administration exactly what they had last year so again there's we're not rewarding them for being bad actors on the board and for and the management of what they did we're keeping them at the same level so the money will come from the field operations and secondly again  glass half full half empty about this big increase for legal services i pointed out that over ten years ago twelve eleven years ago this congress cut legal services in half since that time the number of people in poverty has grown we have more poor people in this country and yet we still aren't even at the level we were at in one thousand nine hundred five for legal services imagine that if we had been if we had just kept pace with inflation from  five to now legal services would be funded at the low bill of about five hundred fifteen million dollars this bill only gets it back to three hundred ninety million dollars so we're not even where we were in one thousand nine hundred ninety five last while i understand what the senator from south dakota saying about violent crime in indian country on reservations we're all we are cognizant of that but why take the money away from the very services that are helping our native americans as i point out sixty seven percent of the legal services money spent in south dakota go to native americans and i would submit that a lot of that goes to help prevent the kind of domestic violence that results in prosecutorial action later on so think of it like preventative medicine better to have the legal services there access for poor indians who want to come in  may have domestic problems landlord tenant problems you may have child custody problems whatever that may lead to some kind of domestic violence better to let them have access to legal services and take care of it that way then before it blows up into into a violent situation so i would again hope that the senators would reject the amendment from the senator from south dakota versus recognition mr president sort of i would just in response to my colleague from iowa simply say again this amendment doesn't take anything away from legal services corporation they received three hundred forty eight million dollars in fiscal year two thousand and seven what this base bill does is proposes to increase that by forty two million dollars or about twelve percent to three hundred ninety million dollars in two thousand and eight this isn't taking away anything they currently have and in fact in  take away in fact we're going to see a six point three percent increase in funding what this again simply does it shifts money to what i in my view as a much higher priority and that is the need that we have in indian country for making sure that we've that we're doing a better job of prosecuting cases and enforcing the law i mean we just we've got a serious serious problem i mean this is from the justice department american indians annually experience seven sexual assaults per one thousand residents compared with three per one thousand among african americans and to prolong thousand among whites according to the justice department these are this is to sticks are plainly in front of us and we cannot afford again to allow this situation these conditions to continue to exist at a time when we have a lot of young people coming up on any reservations who need access to good education need an opportunity to to achieve their dreams and you just can't do that absent public safety and what we've got today in indian country is a very very serious situation which has been as i said everybody who comes into my office this is the the issue that continues to recur that they share with me that we've got to address and i believe we have a responsibility to do that i think we're doing this this amendment does it in a responsible way not by cutting anything from an organization from where it is today but simply it reduces the increase that the legal services corporation would get from a twelve percent increase over last year's level to a six point three percent increase over last year's level which to me seems to be again a very fair way of going about this and so i would ask mr president that urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to do something about  law enforcement in the crime problem that exist today on america's indian reservations and in so doing improve the quality of life for for our citizens who live and on america's reservations and hopefully provide a safer mr president i know the hour between three and three fifteen is not been designated for debate on this but as the manager of the bill and also as a professionally trained social worker i'm going to speak in against the thr men mr president first what we want to acknowledge is the vote good a team of the concerns to find help for the indian tribes let's go to facts fact number one the president's request budget request is limited aided dedicated funding for tribes this very president this ferry administration has eliminated dedicated funding for tribes now this committing on a bipartisan basis rejected that it is true we do need to follow and help get those resources and to indian country we do not doubt the validity of that and in response when he said no to the president a limited dedicating funding and yes to every three million dollars this subcommittee will put eighty three million dollars for tribal programs to fight crime protect victims and to help troubled tribal youth thirty five million for tribal wallen foresman for training hiring for training for a quitman for court improvement project twenty i know and for additional tribe assistance ten million for youth intervention programs six million for domestic violence programs we have said no to the president of lemonade ing this and yes so wait a three million dollars even the way o m b counts mr president that's real money the second thing is we should not get one group of needy americans against the needs of other americans let's go to legal services this agency was created in one thousand nine hundred seventy four and it has legal services endured a fifty percent cut in their funding now in one thousand nine hundred eighty the funding was three hundred million dollars remember what we're talking about now in nineteen and scares me in two thousand and seven funds we're talking about three hundred ninety million if way i can funding at the nih keynoting levels just within clear inflation legal services would be seven hundred and fifty seven one million need to be turned away fifty percent of the people who come from legal services had to be turned away because of the lack of voyeurs paralegals and other support staff got me say this as a social worker and i might add i'm a dues paying national association social worker member i was a foster care worker i was a child abuse worker i was an anti poverty program worker and i'm still that kind of social worker  fight it on the floors of the united states senate rather than in the neighborhoods of baltimore we had a social workers two of our best friends our best friends were legal service lawyers and our school nurses we could turn to them to have a came to help get families and when the right track we would turn to those legal services warriors where of spouse was in a domestic violence situation we could get the law enforcement help to help them we could get them through a divorce proceedings 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 another scams it was the legal service lawyers that we would turn to god for the legal service lawyers now the senator from south dakota says this won't hurt anybody you're not going after a corporation you're a lemonade ing lawyers and paralegals and the social support staff to help one million people you darn right you're having an impact you're not going after something called a corporation you're going after our increases there now we didn't fund administrative cost we didn't 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 seventy percent of the the service population and found the kota are native americans are native americans so i would hope that we're not getting one group of needy americans and we add against another group of needy americans we hope you reject the soon amendment support the mc shelby bipartisan bill that puts eighty three million dollars in to help with tribe was systems we're looking at how to deal also with additional resources when the met the issues that snag put vaghul services back on track let's help those lawyers let's help those paralegals let's help that social support staff work with people family and children services to turn lives around one of the best ways to help really fight crime is those early interventions we can do with families so really i just ask you with every professional experience i ever had in these areas let's stick with legal services mr president  excuse me madam president i yield not quite madam president i ask unanimous consent that the votes sequence now commanded three thirty p m today under the same conditions limitations representatives when we initially wrote the children's health insurance program it was written by a democratic president with a republican house and a republican senate it's worked splendidly for the last ten years it's it is  in fact provided health insurance for literally millions and millions and millions of american middle class families families making a little bit too much for medicaid to qualify for medicaid but families not earning quite enough either to buy insurance or not working at a place that offers insurance at a decent reasonable rate we know that the children who are in the children's health insurance program are sons and daughters of working parents again working parents overwhelmingly making between about twenty thousand and fifty thousand dollars a year after the senate the senate passed the children's health insurance program expansion which would have meant in addition to the six point six million children in our country receiving health insurance under the jones health insurance program today it would add about another four million american children about two hundred thousand children in my state from ash beulah to to hamilton from wasi on to marietta two hundred thousand children in my state now receive coverage under the children's health insurance program this would have added about tens of thousands more to the health insurance program unfortunately couple of weeks ago the president ited states decided to veto this legislation even though it passed with ford more than four dozen republican votes in the house joining almost every democrat passed with almost two dozen republican votes in the senate the president i wish the president before he'd veto this legislation had done what a lot of us i know that the presiding off sir from missouri has done this and so many of us have talked to families in our states and i've both of his parents work they're playing by the rules they're working hard to pay entered their taxes but without chip without the children south insurance program tanner can't get the kerry needs sef novak has a three year old boy who lives in lebanon ohio down the southwest corner of the state near cincinnati seth has down's syndrome and needs the children's health insurance program to help him stay healthy again his parents are working but they simply can't get the insurance in part with many of these children because of a preexisting condition also because of the finances the family faces and the lack of health coverage in way danko of columbus also has down syndrome without emily has no insurance i wish the president had talked to the  novak family the danco family and talk to them about their situation i'm not sure he would have vetoed this bill if he had done that unfortunately though the president made the decision to veto the bill when he did it he mentioned several things and i just like to briefly touch on what he said in what the truth really is the president ited states said that this will sift all kinds of good will will result in all kinds of families shifting their children from private health insurance to government health insurance were it so that it's all these families that he talked about have read private health insurance that they all have private health insurance we would be concerned madam president about this children's health insurance program but the fact is most most of these families the overwhelming majority of families that that will be on this children's health insurance program expansion are not getting private insurance or they're getting very inadequate private insurance the present said that families making up to eighty thousand dollars a year could get this insurance that's patently untrue if a state wants to do that they have to apply to the federal government the president's already said no to the state of new york he could say no to other states so that's clearly simply not true president also said the children's health insurance program is just too expensive seven billion dollars a year increase over the next five years seven billion dollars a year to insure four million children a year seven billion dollars a year contrast to with what we spend on the war in iraq two and a half billion dollars a week seven billion dollars a year for four million children versus two and a half billion dollars in climbing per week for a war we never should have been and a war the president  civil war the president continues to immerse our nation in with no plan to end the last thing the president said that this program is socialized medicine that we're going down the path of socialized medicine president forgets to say that that he and many members of congress get health care from both as they go out to bethesda and get their health care government doctors taking care of members of congress and the president the president also doesn't forgets to mention that that when he calls it socialized medicine he forgets to mention that in fact this legislation was supported by partisanly ten years ago republican house republican senate the democratic president hardly socialized medicine supported by that many conservative republicans back then and today this legislation is supported by sixty eight senators including eighteen republicans supported by forty three governors including sixteen republicans is supporting by supported by more than two hundred  seventy organizations representing millions of americans mr president to prop madam president this legislation is that the beauty of it is for ten years it's worked america's children six million children six point six million children are or are have insurance today because with joan's health insurance program we can expand this at the cost of about three dollars and fifty cents a day to cover a child through the children's health insurance program and do that for vacated and ordered thank you very much a matter president about fifteen minutes will be voting on a series of amendments and i wish to comment now on one of them the ensign amendment thirty two ninety five i want my colleagues to know that i oppose the ensign amendment thirty to ninety five what did the senator from nevada is proposing is to reduce of the nasa funding in this bill by one hundred fifty million dollars and put it into something called the state criminal alien assistance program and again we're we're we're pitting good ideas against each other and that's why you have to rely rely upon a chairman and ranking member who tried to strike a balance in this bill in the c j s so we did more to fund the so called the the state criminal alien assistance program where we know how important it is because it reimbursed the states of detainees illegal immigrants this is a priority for this sub committee and we provided four hundred million dollars to do that we are very aware that state budgets are stretched then that they should not bear the cost of paying for the bill of  emigrants 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 four hundred veto because we restored the funding for the concert program now the cut to nasa is not a benign cut it would have a devastating blow to nasa and but 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 finding the next generation shuttle the shuttle as we now know it will retire in twenty thousand and ten it's getting older it's got fewer flights that it can mikulski who kind of been the space senators here also it's the number one priority for the administration and it's the number one priority for the director of nasa we need not to delay in getting ready for that vehicle that return just in space from two thousand and ten to over for another three to five years we will have no access to one space we're going to rely upon the kindness of valid eyes to go back we cannot go to spy we cannot lose ground our national security and our national honor depend upon it also this would have a tremendous impact when space science which really then goes to major efforts in terms of better understanding our planet earth where we do occasionally suspect there's intelligent life and then also the impact of the climate crisis you know we it's wonderful that we win the nobel  prizes on climate change and we support our former colleague of vice president gore but we've got to keep on winning those nobel prizes and they're going to come remember the nobel prize not only went to gore but it went to the scientists who are really starting this regardless about how you feel about the climate crisis even if it exists i think we need sound science and sensible solutions so please while we're looking at how are we going to pay the bill for the for the detention of the only goal salience in state facilities don't penalize nasa because in penalizing nasa it is an incredible setback again to national security to national honor to national innovation and a key administration priority so i hope that when and since thirty to ninety five comes up for a vote my colleagues will join me in  this bill again i just can't say enough about the cooperation of senator shelby in his staff about finding a balance in this bill because we had so many competing neet and  each one we tried to strike the balance we had the will but we didn't quite have the wallet that we needed to do what we more did but we certainly have made significant promise and went well beyond down payments and meeting our responsibility i'm president there is mela madam president our rise in opposition to the amendment number thirty two ninety five offered by the senator from nevada this amendment as you heard seeks to take one hundred fifty million dollars from nasa and give it to the state criminal alien assistance program a program that is already four hundred million dollars over the budget request of zero at first glance a reduction of one hundred fifty million for nasa this seventeen billion dollars budget would seem minimal but let's look at the facts after debating this bill it's clear that nasa is a priority for the senate and for the nation we debated and added madame president an additional one billion to nasa in order to partially compensate for this compensate for the funding shortfall that nasa has endured since the columbia disaster this funding madam president will only cover one third of the two point seven billion dollars needed to keep nasa own track madam president to cut funding will endanger nasa missions that will inform us about the world we live in and cripple our ability to be competitive in space we are in a space race while while we are in the current leader in space there are many countries that want to take our place and are aggressively moving forward to do so the administration has articulated in congress as indorsed a vision for exploration the return of our astronauts to the moon as a priority and we have provided the funding to accomplish that go now madam president this funding is in jeopardy and what are we jeopardizing our future for the state criminal a in the system's program a program that was not requested by the administration and currently is funded in this bill at four hundred million dollars we're been asked to add one hundred fifty million dollars to a program that barely touches many of our states since two thousand and five states have received seventy seven percent of the two point eight billion in funding for this program let me say this again seventy seven percent are two point two they two point eight billion dollars madam president for this program since two thousand is going only to five states that's can hardly be called a national program although i'm sure it's an important program yet our nation's space program benefits the lives of every american the work that nasa does from encouraging students into science and engineering careers to innovative technology advances improve our quality of life every day the forward and innovative thinking of nasa helps to ensure our net that our nation has the ability to compete and lead in the global economy we're committed to keeping our leadership role in space in order to do so we must make right investments in space at the right times that time madam president is now i encourage my colleagues to oppose the ensign amendment suggest the absence of a kor mr alexander senate working today on a fifty six billion dollars spending bill for the commerce and justice departments and the science programs you may have heard a few minutes ago senator mikulski mentioning that amendment vote is set for three thirty thanks to the two senators that are leading this bill is a merge and see funding for nasa to replace the funds that nasa had to expend as a result of the destruction of the space shuttle columbia these are funds that normally would be provided as they were over two decades ago in the destruction of the space shuttle challenger out of the emergency funds instead this time nasa has had to take it out of its hide out of its own operating funds and therefore all  planes of what nasa is doing to complete the international space station as well as prepare for the new vehicle orion an aries and the stack call constellation and a program to take us into human orbit again and eventually to the mood as well as all the scientific resorts that's going on it's all coming out of these funds instead about emergency funds and the two senators have offered the leadership to make nasa whole this little agency that's being starved o funds there they have restored these emergency funds and now here comes senator ensign warning the pain was nasa again i understand my time is up yield the floor that impression is ordered there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided and controlled prior to a vote in relation to amendment number three two nine four offered by the senator from nevada m president when ensign when the ensign amendment thirty two ninety four i support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do is well we have arrived at a bipartisan solution it  move that we adopt it as does and move that we vote mr alexander mr allard mr barrasso mr baucus mr by mr bennett mr biden mr benjamin mr bond mrs boxer mr brown mr brownback mr bunning mrs lincoln mr lott mr lugar mr martinez mr mccain mrs mr mcconnell mr menendez mrs murray mr nelson of florida  mr nelson of nebraska mr obama on mr pryor or mr reed of rhode island mr reid of nevada mr roberts mr rockefeller mr salazar mr sanders mr schumer mr sessions mr shelby senators voting in the affirmative and sung hearkened in the hall mccall skinny nelson of florida and shelby no senator voted in the negative mr sanders mr sanders  mr casey mr casey  under the previous law to there will now be two minutes of the equally divided and controlled prior to a vote in relation to amendment number three to ninety five offered by the senator from nevada mr and sign senator from nevada this president just very briefly this is an amendment that would take one hundred fifty million dollars out of the nasa budget we know that nasa has been increased by a billion dollars over last year's budget it was also increase this last week a billion dollars in emergency funding it's one hundred fifty million dollars not including the billion dollars in emergency funding over the president's request and so we said something that is always underfunded and that is to help especially the the southwestern states and their local law enforcement be able to come back criminals who are illegal aliens there's a huge problem they don't have the resources and minutes and so we took one hundred fifty million dollars out of the nasa budget to put it toward programs to help combat not only illegal immigration but especially those who are here illegally who are committing crimes that's very simply what this amendment does  between two thousand and ten when the shuttle goes out of existence in two thousand and fifteen when the crew would turn vehicle comes online that is a security risk for the united states if we adopt this amendment we are going to lengthen the time that america cannot put anyone in space russia can china will probably be able to india may be able to but not america that is a security risk i'm not ready to take and i hope my colleagues will defeat this amendment we've got four hundred we've put four hundred million dollars in it i believe the amendment is unnecessary i oppose it and i'm a move to table the amendment and ask for the u s is there a sufficient s mr greg mr mr mccain no this is marie  move to lay on the table without objection under the previous order there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided and controlled prior to a vote in relation to amendment number thirty three seventeen that we have order so we can hear the senator from south dakota their conversations off of the floor so that we may hear the senator from south dakota senator from south dakota mr president last year the legal services corporation was funded it's three hundred forty eight million dollars this year the administration's budget proposed a funding level of three hundred eleven million dollars the base bill under consideration today funds legal services corporation a three hundred ninety million dollars which would be a twelve percent increase over the appropriated level in fiscal year two thousand and seven with my m m and simply as takes twenty million dollars out of that increase still increases legal services corporation by six point three percent over fiscal year two thousand and seven but takes twenty million dollars of that increase and applies it to fighting the senator will the senate please come to order so that the senator from south dakota can be heard the senate is now in will the senators who are now conversing on the floor please take their conversations off the floor the senator from south dakota is entitled to be heard senator from south dakota the u s president and it would take twenty million dollars of this proposed increase for the legal services corporation and apply it to fighting violent crime on america's indian reservations by increasing funding for u s attorneys so that they can prosecute crimes committed on  reservations around the country fifty six percent of crimes that are brought the u s attorney's offices end up being prosecuted on indian reservations that number is thirty percent people on indian reservation should not have to live in fear public safety is something that we have a responsibility for it's important that we do something to address that this amendment will move money toward fighting crime on any reservations to make it safer for people who live there mr senator from maryland mr president in behalf of senator harkin and myself we vigorously oppose this amendment we can you acknowledge that we should help people who are victims of crime on indian reservations but the administration of limited funds to do that the bipartisan mr bond mrs boxer mr brown mr brownback mr bunning mr  ms collins mr conrad mr and no way mr lieberman mrs lincoln mrs murray mr nelson of florida mr nelson of nebraska mr obama mr pryor mr reid of nevada mr roberts mr rockefeller mr sala mr sanders mr schumer mr sessions mr shelby mr smith ms snow mr specter  coburn coleman krag demand dole and sun and z grassley hatch in a hall kyle lott murkowski roberts sessions tester mr durban mr durban  are there any senators in the chamber who have not voted or who wish to change your vote if not on this vote on the motion to table the motion is a great two with a vote of sixty one to thirty two move to reconsider without objection mr president i now ask unanimous consent that it's six p m today the senate proceed to vote in relation to the of this or amendment number thirty two seventy seven with no amendment in order to be a minute prior to the vote and that the time from five thirty to six the equally divided in control of between senators programs and criminal activity act that i became a u s senator the police chief was such a big fan of the work of the boys and girls club that he had asked me how boys and girls club in his  jurisdiction rather than having him secure more funding for a couple more police officers vermont boys and girls clubs of succeed in preventing crime and supporting our children the first club was a stab at burlington sixty three years ago now we have six clubs in vermont twenty five other locations throughout the state managed by the boys and girls cause of america they serve well ten thousand children stay wide when you're in a small state like mine that's a very significant number i had terrific visit last month to the boys and girls club of burlington vermont as  and educators law enforcement offices dollars and keep doing this because our children a chance to grow up free of drugs and gang and cry the senior member of the senate appropriations committee i push for more federal funding for boys and girls clubs as a result of some of this extra money there now exists more than four thousand boys and girls clubs in all fifty states serving almost five million young people  senator hatch and i were together to shepherd a lot of reauthorization of these grants i was very surprised actually very disappointed when the president  kids safe in neighborhoods and also doing that very important work good that keeps the moon the straight and narrow both the senator from alabama my ranking member know i would like to do more for boys and girls clubs we are more than willing to accept the senator from vermont submit i believe it has been cleared on both sides of the aisle i therefore urge its a and if there is no further debate on the amendment been since the reading of the amendment be dispensed with regard to direction mr president i've just returned from north carolina where this morning handed a presentation by immigration and customs enforcement to the north carolina sheriff association i heard today as i've heard many times before that ice is resources for enforcing our immigration laws are woefully underfunded they tell me that they are stretched much too thin and they're asking for our hill have seen firsthand in parts of north carolina the programs carried out by ice work particularly where there partnerships with local wal enforcement in north carolina today we were announcing an exciting partnership between our hundred county sheriffs and ice where tools will be made available to local law enforcement so they can help a done a fine after hands and remove illegal aliens who have self agenda fides themselves back committing crimes but these programs that are so critical to enforcing our laws must have funding this is the senate's opportunity to act to make certain that these valuable programs are funded and our law enforcement professionals have the tools they need my men would target seventy five million dollars in funds appropriated by the state criminal alien assistance programs to benefit local law enforcement agencies as they assist ice and enforcing federal immigration laws when it comes to tackling this complex issue of immigration an important first step must be addressing the criminal element and ensuring that people can feel safe in their homes and their communities we've all heard about family shattered when illegal alien driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol or engaged in gang related activity kills a law abiding citizen many tragedies can be prevented if we give our local law enforcement officials the tools and resources to a dentist and process illegal criminal aliens providing greater funding for ice programs will demonstrate our commitment to helping local law enforcement officials secure the resources they need respectfully disagree with not with what her intent is but where she is getting the money i rise to oppose this amendment because she would take seventy five million dollars 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 would say to the general brady i've knowledge the work of north carolina and what they're doing the fact that they have this unique partnership that's been done and we so we acknowledge that and we had knowledge that other wall enforcement would also benefit from this this but she's talking about seventy five million dollars and there's the department of homeland security that got billions the price for the general way to make this fight was when homeland security was one of the four and she should have offered that as an amendment or 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 but let me tell you where we are when we got the president's budget in february i was hard fied as was my guess what the cops program was eliminated that's the program that actually puts money into the federal checkbook to put cops on the street to fight violent crime but it was all emanated under president bill clinton who created the program with the of course congress congress creates the programs but working in a partnership when we did have that with the white house we put on the streets of america one hundred eighteen thousand cops through that program and we reduce violent crime by ten percent but in this president's budget it was a lemonade then we sell another program called burn grants not burn as if when you're injured in a fire but b y r b y r and he named after edwin byrne a police officer killed in the line of duty and it was president bush's dad that created that program again local money going to local law enforcement to fight local problems including sheriff's departments now the gentle lady from north carolina is going to be got state and local law enforcement by taking seventy five million dollars out of it we can't do this we cannot do this filing crime in america  the rise murder burglaries rape other things so despicable i don't want to speak about it when the senate floor when the general lady talks about her sheriffs i have sh what i'm going to be of the posse that help them shoot straight that means they need their resources that would come from state and local the state and local law enforcement grants that we're going to provide for them to either add more police officers technology upgrades to maximize their efficiency and help them get real convictions and the kinds of things that are a help help them get the bulletproof vests that they need the other more advanced equipment that our rural communities as the senator from colorado knows doesn't have so what way did the mccoskey shelby bill restore one point five billion dollars so that we could have cops on the baby so that we could have money to fund go call law enforcement for technological upgrades the equipment we need to protect them bulletproof vests to protect them while they're busy helping us we have to make sure that they have those resources i do not deny what the general lady's talking about but i will say that what she is doing is right now she will gut the local law enforcement program she will have a draft kone in impact on our ability to put cops on the beat and to also give them the equipment to protect them the technology that needed to extend their effect of news and really make sure that the thin blue line doesn't get thinner so i think that this seventy five million dollar request  inappropriate and it's inappropriate not because of what she wants to accomplish but it's inappropriate because she's taking money out of the justice account and putting it in a homeland security account when we had a homeland security bill in the general way he could have added that there that was the place the make this fight now we're afraid that no matter how well intentioned this amendment is and i know it's 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've got their own hole subcommittee and that was the place to make that fight it's not about which committee this isn't about committees but i'm telling you this the senator from alabama and i have really worked hard really worked hard to make sure that we're helping our local law enforcement our very first line of defense have the resources that they need with more officers and better equipment so mr president i ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the go amendment occur at five p m with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote and at the time then it would be equally divided and controlled in the usual for without objection so ord mr president because senator from north carolina mr president i just simply want to make the point that what i have suggested ice works at common purpose with scab for money on the front lines where it's desperately needed by our law enforcement officials this is state and local law law enforcement so i think they're working at common purpose just want to add that comment brady from north carolina i'm sorry i was handling a procedural issue could you repeat what you just said i said that this of that that what i have said earlier works at common purpose with scout the ice funding for money on the front lines where it's desperately needed by our law enforcement personnel this is state and local local law enforcement but i would say to this the general lady from the north carolina who i work with when she was at the department of labor as well as the department of transportation along with other issues an era community for support for the concern of a battered women home with wounds so well known  this is not scad this is not the program that helps pay state fines for the detention of of detained illegal immigrants this is taking real dollars in is good i know she's concerned of about the border enforcement and everything it goes with it even with immigration but that is the province of homeland security we have an appropriation bill dealing with homeland security i serve i happen to serve among others on that committee to but this is this bill deals with the justice department you know in related agencies and i don't think we should be taking money out of this bill to give the homeland security you know for something for him or taking money far out of homeland security to give to justice you know we have allocations as the president of the senate sitting here knows and i think she means well but i think this is the wrong wrong vehicle for what she's trying to do and i would  mrs lincoln mr lott mr lug mr menendez ms mccall ski mr pryor mr reed of rhode island mr reid of nevada mr roberts mr rockefeller mr salazar mr sanders mr schumer mr sessions mr shelby mr warner mr webb mr white house mr wyde mr sanders mr sanders  mr demand mr demand no mr bond mr bond no mr bunning mr bunning now mr tester mr tester no mr nelson of florida mr nelson of florida  mr alexander mr alexander no mr mcconnell mr  mr lieberman  here hatch mr hatch no mr white house mr white house mr coleman and mr coleman no mr sessions mr sessions no is there any senator in the chamber who wishes to vote or to change their vote on this vote the eyes are fifty the names are forty two and the motion to table is agreed to the pending question is now the vitter amendment and between five thirty and six the time will be equally divided you madam president iraq has strongly urged all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join together and support the veteran them that number thirty to seventy seven will be voting on that amendment shortly this is a commonsense straightforward amendment reasonable in nature that is supported by the vast majority of the american people and it's supported because it makes good common sense it says very simply that everyone in all levels of government should be part of the solution and should cooperate fully with federal immigration enforcement officials and should not refuse to cooperate refuse to give those officials trying to do a very difficult job information and those cases where local jurisdictions  not properly cooperate with federal officials as is currently mandated by federal law then those local jurisdictions won't get cops funding it's pure and simple this is present law so we tell local and state your actions please follow president federal law and if you don't don't expect for us to give you money from the federal government particularly in the area of cops illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act and section six forty two a of that legislation now over ten years old is very clear quote federal state or local government entities or officials may not prohibit or in any way were strict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from the immigration and naturalization service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status lawful or unlawful of any individual close quote couldn't be clear couldn't be simpler present federal law over ten years cooperate share information you cannot prohibit that basic straightforward reasonable sharing of information because our federal authorities have a very difficult job to do and can never never get it done without reasonable minimal help from other law enforcement officials around the country problem is  president there are these so called sanctuary cities sanctuary jurisdictions that have made it perfectly clear they're going to ignore that federal law they're going to break that federal law they're not going to cooperate in any way with enforcement of our immigration laws they're going to be part of an active movement to flaunt them to not enforce those laws to frustrate the enforcement of those laws not  clearest coming out of san francisco there the mayor said very very clearly this was this past april in response to a federal  oakland business which arrested thirteen foreign nationals who entered the country illegally the san francisco mayor said quote i will not allow any of my department heads or anyone associated with this city to cooperate in any way shape or form with these raids we are a sanctuary city make no mistake about it one of his counterparts in the area the mayor of richmond california just outside of san francisco actually went a little further if you can believe that if you can believe it's possible to go further it's this past february he said quote i really don't believe that any of our residents should be living in a climate of terror like this people have no real criminal behavior at all have been unjustly unjustly placed under arrest close quote that was actually in response to a raid by federal officials so san francisco mayor said we're not going to have anything to do with it we're going to do everything we can to frustrate federal law the richmond california mayor went beyond that and said we don't think federal immigration officials should be doing their job we think that's wrong this is reached a ridiculous level madam president and so it's no surprise to the american people that we're not enforcing our laws with local jurisdictions acting like this flaunting the law ignoring clear federal law that's been on the books for over ten years if we have any chance to rein in illegal immigration and enforce the rule of law federal officials need reasonable help that's what it will take to enforce our immigration laws and then enforcing our immigration laws we will make this country safer i clearly strongly disagree with these arguments that somehow this is going to lessen public safety this will increase public safety as we enforce our laws surely surely some horrible and tragic incidents from the past several months should make this clear for instance in virginia beach seventeen year old allison kunhardt and sixteen year old tessa trenchant were killed when their car was struck by a drunk driver who happened to be an illegal alien now that is tragic tragic enough but that illegal alien had multiple prior convictions for drunk driving it gone through the local criminal justice system multiple times and guess what not once had that been reported to immigration officials if it had and if immigration officials had properly acted that person would have been street unable to kill through his vehicle similarly in newark new jersey some college students were horribly and tragically shot execution style  that was out on bail awaiting trial on two separate felonies he was also in this country illegally so not only was he out on bail under questionable circumstances but if immigration officials had been notified and if they had acted properly he could have been under ross and or out of the conference instead three completely innocent college students were executed and are dead today this does have everything to do with the rule of law it has everything to do with public safety it has everything to do with getting ahold of our safety and immigration laws and everyone working cooperatively in the right spirit in the right thing following president federal law to do just that i would also note madam president that an identical amendments of this was passed quite easily as a matter of fact in the house of representatives by voice vote let's act on common sense let's be reasonable let's enforce federal law that's been on the books for over ten years now let's adopt this without madam president i reserve the balance  senator from maryland to recognize 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 five minutes you have eight minutes ok thank you very much madam president than a president you know as i listen to our colleague describe his amendment one would say well why shouldn't i support this amount of the problem is that there's a very issues that he describes including in my home state of new jersey would would not have been resolved by his amendment that's that's a breakdown of the system that had nothing to do with communities making a decision not to go ahead and assist and assist and inform when they actually have someone who has committed a crime in fact the the the status of that individual what this amendment will do what this amendment will do is it will undercut the ability of communities to actually prosecute the crime prosecute the crime why not because a crime is committed against an individual and if that individual happens to be a victim who is on documented in this country all that that community wants that's why communities across the country wants the victim to come forth and say hey i had this crime committed against me i had this robbery committed against me i was assaulted i was raped and you want the victim to come forward and talk about the crime and testify against the perpetrator because the society of the community is best served by having the criminal the criminal put away in jail now if you don't have people coming forth to testify about the crimes committed against them you know you might have had a sexual predator you might have had someone you know who was involved in a whole host of things the bottom line is if you don't have that person who was the victim coming forth you don't get to the person committing the crime and that person is allowed to stay out there committing more crimes or you're of witness to a crime madam president and as a witness to the crime you see it you're an eyewitness you can help the police you can help the prosecutor you can help the sheriff put that person away but no you're not to come forward because in fact your status in this country is unclear and ultimately why should you come forth and put yourself in jeopardy communities across the landscape of the country have said i want to get to the criminal element i want that witness to come force i wanted to come and testify what the vitter amendment does it cuts the legs out to law enforcement who say we prefer to get the perpetrator of the crime and we see that is much more important then ultimately going to the question as to whether or not that person has a legal status in this country that's why the large number of people who we trust every day put their life on the line for us in terms of protecting us as citizens have said that they oppose the veteran members including the national sheriff association the international association of chiefs of police the major city police chiefs the major county sheriffs association and those who actually are responsible as the chief executive officers of their minutes apologies for making sure that their citizens are protected the u s conference of mayors have all come out in opposition to this amendment because they understand that it goes to the very heart of being able to keep their community safe and this amendment would deny funding to over seventy law enforcement jurisdictions in alaska arizona california colorado connecticut's the district of columbia illinois maine maryland massachusetts michigan minnesota missouri mount canon of add a new jersey new mexico  york north carolina oregon pennsylvania texas washington and wisconsin that have made their decision to have laws and policies and practices that put the enforcement of the crime that puts the perpetrator away in jail as their primary go plenty of things that can be done to pursue people on documented in this country if we believe that that is the right policy but denying minutes a pallet is the funding for federal police for federal monies for police officers because they want to get the perpetrator versus get the young documented immigrant is in my mind the wrong policy that's why all these major law enforcement entities the people who we depend on consistently take opposition and last it seems to me that when the secretary the department of homeland security in testimony over in the house said nothing that these communities do stop ites who is ultimately responsible for prosecuting individuals for the tainting them into putting them nothing stops them by any of these jurisdictions are stopping them from being able to do that as it's been suggested that that's why this amendment is necessary i think it makes a very compelling  let's make sure that the victims of crime come for let's make sure that the witnesses of crimes come forth let's listen to the law enforcement entities that say they oppose the vitter amendment let's make sure that we have the full community policing opportunities to take place to reduce crime which has risen two years in a row in the country and let's all timidly even listen to the secretary of homeland security says nothing in these jurisdictions have stopped them from being able to have ice pursue their ability to proceed against an individual who's on documented in this country and you know i'd rather get the perpetrators of who's committing a rate who's committing a robbery who's a sexual predator who's doing all those things who's breaking the law the rule of law is very important and there's a lot of elements to that too we want to make sure the rule of law is preserved by osama ensuring that those who can help us put criminals away have the wherewithal to do so and not ultimately afraid to come forth that helps all the citizens in the community and that's why we should defeat the bitter lemon and i yield back the balance of whatever time i have to the senator from  municipalities where by a law in force one officials are barred from asking suspects about their immigration status or reporting them to immigration and customs enforcement generally sanctuary policies instruct city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens living in their community madam president the policy is also in the distinction between legal and illegal immigration so illegal aliens often benefit from city services to the amendment offered by that staying with senate lizanne a sense of that or would ensure that existing law was in force uniformly across the country by withholding cops federal funding for cities they choose to violate the one nine hundred ninety six illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility and a similar amendment madam president was added to the house d g s appropriations bill recently in august a poll conducted by a rash mission reported a proportion of likely voters in favor of cutting federal funding for sanctuary cities at fifty five percent armed with just twenty nine  deportation because they prevent local police from reporting a b s t that the immigration and customs enforcement cities that blatantly ignore federal law and put their cities at increased harm  how much time does our side have seven minutes senator i yield three minutes to the senator from delaware who's leading expert on this matter members could undercut the efforts of state law enforcement and contribute to the growing crime rate first the amendment will take much needed funds away from state local and force and they just seize who are now struggling and i mean struggling to protect their communities against a rising of crime the f b i is uniform crime reports to six indicate that for a second year in a row now crime is increasing first six months of two thousand and six murders rose by one point eight percent in violent crime by one point nine percent in two thousand and five the place executive reach for research form found that many of the same cities to which the vitter members would deny cops funding have recently experienced double digit increases in murder and violent crime and the cops program is proving to be effective in fighting crime as a recent brookings institute study shows for every for every four for that every one point four billion dollars cop societies say between six and twelve billion dollars that's their report the immigrant community that would not otherwise report crimes in finding a member or a very successful federal current policies that recognize that state local and force meant knows best what is needed in their community to drive down the crime rate the amendment would disregard the judgment of seventy law enforcement jurisdictions who have found that immigration status confidentiality policies are ineffective part of community already in policing in their states counties and cities so madam president to vote for the vitter memet to to stay with the vitter memon is to vote i believe against effective law enforcement the vote for the amendment is a vote against this savior communities and i believe a vote for this amendment would perpetuate the rising crime rate all across the for the incredible job she's been doing in this and for the additional funding for the cops bill  floor present senator from louisiana to recommend i'd like to use two minutes of my remaining time and reserve the rest thank you madam president again madam president we're talking about present federal law over ten years old are we going to enforce it are we going to flaunt it and let's not kid ourselves we have all of these arguments about law enforcement i think everyone paying attention to this debate realizes this debate on down to whether you think it's really a problem it's really a big deal for folks to be here in this country illegally or not the other side of the argument doesn't even like to use the term being in the country illegally they talk about status issues and all of this other politically correct language for the fact that folks are in the country illegally haven't broken the law to get here and consistently breaking  to stay here that's what the disagreements about that's what the debate is about and it's obvious when you look at the fervor the political server with which so many of these sanctuary cities proclaim their sanctuary status it is a cause celeb because they basically don't think it's a problem for these folks to come to the country illegally and stay illegally pect as i said look at this quote from the mayor of richmond california he's criticizing the federal of the hardie's immigration authorities for doing their job in forcing federal law directly on the american people are watching and they know the fundamental question is are we going to get serious with the problem are we going to get serious with enforcement or not and a president i would suggest that this amendment is an excellent way to start and i reserve the or for marilyn a madam president how much time does the senator from louisiana have one minute and one second and how much time do i have four minutes i'll use three minutes for now and reserve the balance of one minute donor seconds madam president first of all i want to thank all of my colleagues who spoke in this bill i'm going to thank the assistant majority leader mr durban for helping me work good the reason i say i'm thanking them is this is really a very important amendment this isn't some throw away amendment when you know we can say we're being tough when illegal immigrants first of all we everything will senator here opposes illegal immigration we oppose illegal immigration this is why we voted for strong measures when border enforcement this is why we advocated comprehensive immigration reform we are opposed to illegal immigration but we are where we are madam president and guts to talk about why unisa penalities have said no to enforcing immigration laws many municipalities cities towns say they just can't afford to be the federal cop one to be they know that enforcing immigration law takes a tremendous amount of training and takes a tremendous amount of money and they simply can't put their resources into being able to do that the second is they have the right to decide how they best want to fight cr many municipalities have chosen not to ask their vocal law enforcement to enforce immigration laws exactly because they want to fight crime what they would say year is if we go  and we're ins officers or ice officers by proxy we will never find a witness when victims in many instances will not come forward so if you're a young girl and you've been gang raped by m i thirteen do you think you're going to come forward when you think when you do instead of getting the protection of the united states of america and  justice done that you're going to be doubly brutalized and your immigration status and you're the one that's punished do you think the witnesses to these brutal crimes that sometimes occur in communities not against good have someone were working at an office building saw a burglary would say heck i'm not going to report that even though i am an eyewitness because they're going to ask my immigration status where if you're walking down the street and you might be a day laborer and you see someone mugged and you haven't been able to go to do it so my time for the minute is expired but i think that we affirmative duty on local or state law enforcement to all of a sudden take up the responsibility of federal immigration officials they have no duty to start enforcing federal law and use up their budget and their time affirmatively enforcing federal immigration law but what we're saying and what president federal law says is that these jurisdictions can't a stablish a set policy that absolutely prohibits that sort of communication and information sharing with federal authorities and that's exactly what these sanctuary cities sank already jurisdictions have done it is a left political cause  i disagree with the interpretation of the senator's amendment i want to i want go cobol enforcement to get every nickel they're entitled to from the federal government again i oppose the vitter moment i move to table the vitter amendment and ask for the asian nation is there a sufficient second there appears to be a sufficient second there is a sufficient second the clerk  mr schumer i this is feinstein  is there anyone in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote on this the eyes are fifty two the nasar forty two the motion to table is agreed to move to reconsider without objection mr president amendments be considered and agreed to when block and that the motion to reconsider be graded on the table and any statements relating to these amendments appear at the proper place in the record with all the above occurring  mr president we are now coming to the closing hours of this debate as we get ready for the republicans greater ship q i will be offering an amendment and then senator shelby and i will be making the appropriate motion to move to final passage misrata misrata the republican leader and now move to commit the bill and send that motion to the desk the clerk will report the senator from kentucky mr mcconnell moved to commit h r thirty ninety three to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the senate with the total discretionary amount not exceeding the amount fifty one billion two hundred thirty eight five hundred twenty two thousand recommended in the president's budget for fiscal year two thousand and eight submitted to congress mr president other than later we are sixteen days into the fiscal year and congress as we all know has got to an act a single appropriations bill and this bill should have passed will never get signed into law it's time to start taking our obligations to the taxpayers seriously i believe we can do so in a fiscally responsible way the bill one reported from the committee and create spending by eight point one percent over last year's bill and it's only grown since it's been on the floor when we finish this bill we will we'll have increased spending by nearly ten percent a double digit increase at a time when the c p i went up by about two percent over the past year american people expect to congress to get serious about restraining spending we can pass the buck and fund government through multiple continuing resolutions or we can make the choices necessary to responsibly legislate senator lott and i propose to send this bill back to committee and instruct the committee to prioritize spending in a way that is both responsible to the taxpayer and will secure a presidential signature we will move to commit h r thirty ninety three to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report back with total amounts not to exceed fifty one point two billion dollars i would urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal responsibility and to support the motion mr president senator from maryland mr president with all due respect to the republican greater i rise to oppose the motion to recommit this bill to the full committee this bill is the product of strong bipartisan work our bill totals fifty four billion in discretionary budget authority some say we spend more than the president asked yes we did we're proud of the fact that what we spent money on was that we didn't overspend that the president over that the president underfunded mr president we had three and i say wait i'm talking about my ranking member senator shelby and i we have three priorities security keeping three hundred millions 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 of america and number three reform we were soundly won the side a fiscal accountability and stewardship of taxpayer dollars we stood sentry over waste fraud and abuse we stood sentry over safe we lifted they hiring freeze when a agents so that they could fight the taliban so that they could fight the heroin and powder and taliban in afghanistan as well as keeping our streets clear clean we were also at the same time added money for global law enforcement particularly dealing with the fact that the cops program had been eliminated and that the burn grants had been to cut down to only thirty two million yes we added a billion five we certainly did and i will tell you that people all over america who understand what violent crime means know this mr president i know that my colleagues other colleagues want to speak on this i do appreciate the republican leadership for morning fiscal accountability and stewardship but i believe we also need to fund america's priorities and i believe law enforcement in the fight against terrorism is number one and by god we did it in this bill and by god this bill should  senator from alabama friends and i rise in opposition to the motion the committee chairman woman mccullough skin i have worked hard with a lot of young both sides to meet the priorities of the senate and the nation this bill fun state local law enforcement one point six billion dollars over the administration's requests the budget proposes to cut all enforcement to an unacceptable level the bill fully funds the president's vision for space and makes critical investments  arrives in support of this motion to commit this appropriations bill back with instructions to report back to the senate forthwith with a total discretionary amount not exceeding the amount of fifty one billion two hundred thirty eight million five hundred twenty two thousand and best president let me make it clear i understand it these appropriations bills are difficult you've got a lot of demands from a lot of members you've got to work with administration got to work with outside people that have needs concerns  priorities it's not easy to live within a budget but if we're ever going to begin fiscal responsibility and some restraint on spending when is it going to be this is a bill that richly deserve to have some  straint applied to it this bill demonstrates i think why the american public has such a dismal view of the congress at a time when the c p i went up barely two percent and the average weekly earnings went up three point nine percent the senate is considering a bill that has double jeje increases for these departments that are involved here spending for the commerce department not the justice department and by the way i suspect of people got some doubts about some of the ways the justice department has been spending money but commerce is up fourteen percent spending on legal services corporation up twelve percent overall spending but commerce justice and science more than fifty five billion a ten percent increase how much is enough no wonder people don't think we have any desire to restrain spending and this is by the way not just a partisan charge it's a problem that has been building for quite some time at some point we have to begin to say that we've got to get a control on this let's send it back to the committees they know what's in this bill i don't want to pit one department of one agency against another and it won't be easy for them to do it but they have the knowledge the ability to get this under control the proposal the president set up was nine hundred million dollars over the previous year a one point eight percent increase but we've added i believe this is correct four point two billion over last year's spending it under control now hopefully get it under control along the way as we go into conference i supported the trade your transportation and hood appropriations bill i supported going to conference but there too it was three billion over the budget request of the president and if you add this up a billion here a billion there the combination is about forty billion over of the appropriations bills we have and you couple that with twenty billion more we added earlier in the we need you know hundreds of millions of dollars to be moved around here let these leaders that the committee that know where the funding is make some decisions of where we can bring the spending under control  command senator mikulski for her skillful management of this bill the commerce justice science video requires tough between critical programs that serve our country well i thank senator shelby for his many contributions to this bipartisan legislation i urge senators you hear me urge senators to vote no on the motion to commit to build to committee for the purpose of reducing the bill for the president to request is such a motion were approved the bill would need to be reduced that three point two billion dollars if you get that is such a motion were approved now the bill will have to be reduced  three point two billion dollars now though it is senators who intend to vote for the motion i ask this question this what programs would you cut should reduce funding from law enforcement grant to state and local governments when violent crime is on the rise in this country should we ask you  again should we reduce funding for law enforcement grants step up to the plate now he had reduced funding for law enforcement grants to state and local government violent crime is on the rise in this country this summer the president signed the america compete act of the congress's authority to participate in the appropriations process and there is a fundamental constitutional issue involved by this body at this time i believe we ought to be frugal and fiscally responsible and i have repeatedly supported the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget so that we would live within our means and i have supported the line  and in the ten year i've had here on the appropriations committee i have been zealous in supporting programs which were meritorious and worthy of the taxpayers money and we all pay taxes so we know how painful that is and i do not believe that we are bring being prolific it now there was an opportunity in the appropriations committee going to accept the president's figure that we are surrendering our constitutional authority to be involved in the appropriations process well congress doesn't act alone we all know  the constitution authority to congress on appropriations that we have a similar matter pending on s chip health care for children and congress has submitted the bill twenty five billion dollars increase over five years president has said it's too much it wants four point eight billion dollars and he has said he's prepared to negotiate well that's the way the political process works the congress passes a bill and the president vetoes it and we said down and try to work it out but i do not think it is appropriate for the congress to submit to whatever figure the president puts on it is he is he wiser than the four hundred thirty five members of congress does he have more authority under article two than the congress article two doesn't say anything about the president's authority on appropriations he derives that authority by virtue of the constitution which gives him the right to sign or veto but the appropriations authority all through the constitution vests with the congress now this is  an issue of a vote which goes far beyond this particular bill next we have the appropriation bill on labor health human services and education a committee a subcommittee which i chaired for many years i'm not now right and if we are going to submit on this bill to the president's figure you can be sure there'll be a motion to recommit that bill which is over the presidents figure out a motion to recommit all of the bills which are over the president's figure we might not even as well not convene an act of these appropriations bills are the result of a lot of very careful thought and a lot of hard work by staff and by senators and we have subcommittees we have full committee work and we presented where the government was shut down and i think a lesson was learned by both branches and i don't think that's going to recur about at least let's try to compromise to follow up on this bill and other bills at the same outline which the president has recommended president's view was we are in the goes straight and compromise on s champ and that ought to be done here if we're to fulfill our constitutional responsibility for appropriations this president senator from illinois as president rise in opposition to the motion to commit this appropriations process is about choices we have to make these choices and i think chairman of the commerce justice and science committee and a counterpart senator shelby have made good choices because if you look at the money that is spent here over what the president requested you have a right to ask what are we going to spend it on and when you ask the question you understand why they made the right choices does america need one hundred more f b i agents to fight the rising threat of violent crime we do in illinois and in maryland and in west virginia maybe even in mississippi where we find the violent crime rate rising in america we need one hundred more f b i agents that the senators called for i think the people across america would say obviously we do about the drug enforcement agency is the drug issue no longer a problem in america i wish that were the case we know better and what senator mikulski has done here is to put fifty million dollars in this bill for the drug enforcement agency to lift its hiring freeze to hire two hundred new agents to fight the drug peddlers and drug gangs across america is that a priority is that worth spending more than the president required or requested obviously it is have you been back to your home towns to meet with the police department in the fire department you remember what they asked you about first what you heard about burn grants what you heard about the cops program how about the safe program how about the federal money that's going down to police departments and fire departments so that they can have better training better equipment and be ready god forbid something terrible happens in that community that's what they asked me about  heard that senator shelby heard that and they put one point six billion dollars in to go back to state and local governments to help on fire and police preparedness this president if we ever face another act of terrorism it is unlikely that our local residents are going to pick up the phone and call members of congress they're going to dial nine one one and pray to god that the party on the other end of that call is a fire department and a police department and a medical responder ready to move and move quickly and effectively with this appropriation we will be able to do that the list goes on the thing that troubles me about this whole debate it is that last year when the republican congress sent spending bills to the president fifty billion dollars over his request he didn't veto one of them didn't even threaten to veto one of them didn't take a trip to south carolina to announce he was going to veto one of them not one this year we're twenty billion dollars over and the president says i'm standing my ground well let me tell you about the ground he's standing on it's shaky because in a week from now th same president is going to come to this congress and ask us for i say to the senator from west virginia a hundred and ninety two billion dollars more for the war in iraq a hundred and ninety two billion dollars for the war in iraq that is for one year that is not paid for and now we hear from the president's party we can't afford three point two billion dollars to make america safe at home for our own police departments our own fire department our own f b i our own drug enforcement agency i think the members who are pushing this motion to commit believe the senate is suffering from attention deficit disorder that we cannot think ahead that the president will just in a few days ask us for one hundred and ninety two billion dollars to make iraq safe we know that's coming they don't want to talk about that is it too much to ask three point two billion to make america safe there's a stronger america begin a home doesn't begin with our own department of justice doesn't begin with our own police departments and fire departments i would say to my colleagues we understand the choices here and the right choices have been made by this committee on a bipartisan basis they worked this bill through the committee and they worked hard on it senator mikulski senator shelby brought it to the floor amendment after amendment they've gone through the process and now the senate will make a decision are we going to toss all their work overboard or are we going to commit this bill back to the committee i hope we don't hope we stand up for this country we live in this country we love that deserves the protection that this bill will give it lets defeat this motion to commit mr president senator from oklahoma thank you i was listening to senator byrd his team chairman of the preparations committee and i asked who would stand up i'll stand up i think we ought to cut a lot of things but the first thing we ought to do is cut out claiming something that isn't true what we need to klein is that we can live within the same parameters that every family in this country has to live within we're not doing it on this bill it's not about whether or not is funded it's not about whether the a t f or the drug enforcement is about priorities or is just six hundred forty million dollars worth of earmarks not priority things in this bill so we could do that just we could get six hundred forty million away tomorrow out of earmarks that are not priorities and i'll be happy to list for anybody the total for every state for every senator that has a priority that they think is more important than families have to live within a budget that they have to live with every day this in a debate about the president this is a debate about the future of our country starting to live within the means that which we have the very things that we claim we want to do for all the states that they don't have the money to do by the way they budget surpluses over forty billion dollars right now ours is if you take washington speak one hundred sixty billion if you take true accounting that's three hundred thirty billion but the states have a surplus the justice department has the highest  expended balances they've ever had this last year almost one point six billion dollars and yet we think they need more money does anybody in this country think that every agency of this government couldn't run five percent more efficient nobody out sada washington believes they couldn't they know they can't because they know they have to make those same choices every day in everything they do because they can't run with a credit card and charge it to their grandchildren now ten percent growth in this bill is too much this motion to recommit doesn't have anything to do with the present has to do with whether or not we'll stand up and do what every other american has to do and that's the level of in the realities of the money available to us we can claim that we're doing everything since when is fire prevention totally responsibility of the federal government since when is police protection a total responsibility federal government is not going to go away if it's a higher priority then let's make it a higher priority let's get rid of some things that are there's no choices to get rid of things that are low priority we can't have it both ways those who want to grow the government can't have it both ways either you want to live within the means you want to be honest with the american people and say you're right we can do a better job this bill does not do a better job we ought to relook at it reformulate priorities that doesn't undermine what the committee's done it's just and we had a billion dollars on the floor that committee didn't do that we did what we ought to say is let's add two or three percent live with less than inflation do what every american has to do and if we do that all the way across the board then we will start solving the fiscal problems that are in front of th in order to the motion if the motion is defeated in further minutes or motions be an order and the bill read a third time and the senate proceed to vote passage of the bill that upon passage the senate insisted on its amendment request a conference with the house when the disagreeing votes of the two houses and the chair be authorized to appoint conferees when the part of the senate and that the subcommittee be appointed along with senators burton cochran the following morning business on wednesday october seventeenth the senate then proceed to the consideration of h r thirty forty three the labor a j just appropriations and further that if the motion is agreed to then the remaining mr bond mrs boxer mr brown mr brownback mr bunning mr  mr dorgan mr durban mr kennedy mr kerry mr lugar mr martinez mr mccain mrs mccaskill mr roberts mr rockefeller mr salazar mr sanders mr schumer mr sessions mr warner mr where mr white house