[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 92 (Monday, July 11, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7974-S7980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPRESSING SYMPATHY FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, last Thursday, a series of four explosions
struck the heart of London during the morning rush hour. At least 49
innocent victims were killed and 700 others were injured. A previously
unknown group called the ``secret group of al-Qaida's jihad'' in Europe
claimed responsibility in the name of al-Qaida for the attacks.
On behalf of the U.S. Senate and the American people, we express our
heartfelt condolences to the victims, their families, and to the
British people, our cousins across the Atlantic. We share in your grief
and in your determination to hunt down the criminals who carried out
this despicable act. We consider the attack last week on British soil
an attack on the civilized world. We stand with the British people just
as they have long stood with us.
For nearly two centuries, the United States and the United Kingdom
have enjoyed a special relationship. We speak the same language. We
share a heritage of freedom and our economies are inexorably
intertwined. Our militaries, our intelligence services, our great
corporations, and our distinguished universities share deep
relationships. Today, our forces fight side by side in Iraq and
Afghanistan, sharing the sacrifices and the victories.
As we learned on 9/11, our enemies are coldblooded killers who
deliberately target innocent victims--women and men on their way to
work, schoolchildren starting the new school year, and vacationers at
the beach.
Our enemies pervert religion. They despise freedom. They seek to
overthrow regimes and dominate the world. But as they learned on 9/11,
America, the United Kingdom, and the free people of the world will not
stand by. We are taking the fight to their soil, to their caves, to
their hideouts. We are disrupting their terror cells and financing
operations. We are strengthening our homeland defenses and sharing
information among intelligence agencies and nations.
Brave men and women are working every day to thwart the enemy, to
find him and bring him to justice. But as President Bush observed
today, the terrorists need to be right only once. Free nations tend to
be right 100 percent of the time. They need to be. And the best way to
defeat the enemy is to stay on the offense.
We will call upon the international community to renew and strengthen
its efforts to defeat the terrorists, dismantle their networks, and to
drain the swamps of injustice, oppression, poverty, and extremism that
feed their hateful ideology.
In the war on terror, we will not stop. We will not waiver. We will
stand united against the enemies of freedom. And whatever it takes,
wherever it takes us, we will win.
Mr. President, under the previous agreement, we will now have a
moment of silence in memory of those whose lives were lost.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will recognize 1 minute of silence.
(The Senate observed a moment of silence.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
consider S. Res. 193. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 193) expressing sympathy for the
people of the United Kingdom in the aftermath of the deadly
terrorist attacks on London on July 7, 2005.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the adoption
of the resolution.
[[Page S7975]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the resolution. The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
Lott), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the
Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
Smith), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas), and the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) would have
voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus),
the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from California (Mrs.
Boxer), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton), the Senator from
Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln), the
Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Florida (Mr.
Nelson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), and the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor)
would each vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 173 Leg.]
YEAS--76
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Coburn
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
McConnell
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--24
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Boxer
Chambliss
Cochran
Cornyn
Dayton
Hutchison
Inhofe
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Martinez
McCain
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Sessions
Smith
Thomas
Thune
The resolution (S. Res. 193) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 193
Whereas the United States and a broad international
coalition have been engaged in a Global War on Terrorism
since the terrorist attacks in Washington, D.C., New York,
and Pennsylvania that occurred on September 11, 2001;
Whereas the people and Governments of the United States and
the United Kingdom enjoy a deep and enduring friendship
undergirded by shared history, language, and values;
Whereas the United Kingdom has been a strong and steadfast
ally to the United States through two World Wars, the Cold
War, the Gulf War, and the Global War on Terrorism, including
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq;
Whereas terrorists have planned and conducted attacks
around the world during the four years after the Global War
on Terrorism began in 2001, most notably the bombing of a
night club on the Indonesian island of Bali on October 12,
2002 that killed 202 people and injured an additional 209,
the bombings of two synagogues and the British Embassy in
Istanbul, Turkey in November 2003, in which 56 people were
killed and over 450 injured, and the bombing of the train
system in Madrid, Spain on March 11, 2004 that killed more
than 190 people and injured approximately 1,500;
Whereas on July 7, 2005, a series of four explosions struck
the London public transportation system during the morning
rush hour, killing at least 49 innocent civilians and
injuring approximately 700 others;
Whereas a previously unknown terrorist group claimed
responsibility for the attacks in the name of al Qaeda;
Whereas the terrorist attacks in London coincided with the
opening of the G-8 Summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, a Summit
committed to bringing help and hope to the poorest countries
of the world;
Whereas President Bush immediately condemned the terrorist
attacks and extended the ``heartfelt condolences'' of the
people of the United States to the people of the United
Kingdom;
Whereas Prime Minister Tony Blair vowed, on behalf of the
United Kingdom and the world leaders attending the G-8 Summit
in Gleneagles, Scotland, to remain steadfast and strong in
the fight against terrorism, stating, ``All of our countries
have suffered from the impact of terrorism. Those responsible
have no respect for human life. We are united in our resolve
to confront and defeat this terrorism that is not an attack
on one nation, but all nations and on civilized people
everywhere. . . . It's important . . . that those engaged in
terrorism realize that our determination to defend our values
and our way of life is greater than their determination to
cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to
impose extremism on the world'', and declared, ``We shall
prevail, and [the terrorists] shall not'';
Whereas the North Atlantic Council, the governing body of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, after meeting in an
extraordinary session, reaffirmed the determination of the
members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to combat
the scourge of terrorism and defend the values of freedom,
tolerance, and democracy using all available means;
Whereas world leaders attending the G-8 Summit in
Gleneagles, Scotland expressed condolences to the people of
the United Kingdom and issued a joint statement to ``condemn
utterly these barbaric attacks''; and
Whereas Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking on behalf of
the world leaders attending the G-8 Summit in Gleneagles,
Scotland, declared, ``We are united in the resolve'' to
defeat terrorism, which is ``not an attack on one nation, but
on all nations'': Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) expresses deepest sympathies and condolences to the
people of the United Kingdom and the victims and their
families for the heinous terrorist attacks that occurred in
London on July 7, 2005;
(2) condemns these barbaric and unwarranted attacks on the
innocent people of London;
(3) expresses strong and continued solidarity with the
people of the United Kingdom and pledges to remain shoulder-
to-shoulder with the people of the United Kingdom to bring
the terrorists responsible for these brutal attacks to
justice; and
(4) calls upon the international community to renew and
strengthen efforts to--
(A) defeat terrorists by dismantling terrorist networks and
exposing the violent and nihilistic ideology of terrorism;
(B) increase international cooperation to advance personal
and religious freedoms, ethnic and racial tolerance,
political liberty and pluralism, and economic prosperity; and
(C) combat the social injustice, oppression, poverty, and
extremism that breeds terrorism.
(At the request of Mr. Durbin, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on the way from California to
Washington this morning, my plane had engine trouble, and I had to
return to California. As a result, I was not able to make the vote on
the resolution condemning the terrorist bombings in London last week
and expressing sympathy for the people of the United Kingdom.
Had I been present, I would certainly have voted for the resolution.
I hope that it serves to strengthen our resolve to go after the
terrorists and to do everything we can to protect the people of the
United States, particularly by doing more to secure our rail and
transit systems.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, on Monday, July 11, 2005, I
testified before the Base Closure and Realignment Commission regional
hearing in San Antonio, TX, regarding Department of Defense recommended
changes to military installations in Arkansas and Texas. Therefore, I
was absent during vote No. 173 on the Senate Resolution condemning the
terrorist attacks in London on July 7 and expressing sympathy for the
victims, their families and the people of the United Kingdom.
[[Page S7976]]
Had I been present, I would have voted yea in support of this
resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this point, just to inform the
membership, what is going to happen is Senator Feinstein is going to
introduce an amendment, and then Senator Isakson is going to take time
to speak to his amendment.
Tomorrow morning, we hope to reach an agreement where Senator
Feinstein's amendment will be debated along with the amendment of
Senator Collins for up to 3 hours evenly divided, and then we will have
votes on those two amendments.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
New Hampshire, the chairman of the subcommittee. I will very shortly
propose an amendment which will stand next to Senator Collins's
amendment.
The purpose of my amendment is simple. It provides that the Secretary
of Homeland Security will ensure that Homeland Security grants are
allocated based on the assessment of threat, vulnerability, and
consequence to the maximum extent practicable.
This amendment dovetails S. 1013 which Senator Cornyn and I submitted
earlier. Cosponsors are Senators Lautenberg, Boxer, Hutchison, Kerry,
Martinez, Schumer, Nelson of Florida, Clinton, Corzine, Kennedy, and
Dodd.
Amendment No. 1215 to Amendment No. 1142
(Purpose: To improve the allocation of grants through the Department of
Homeland Security, and for other purposes)
I send this amendment to the desk and ask it be set aside until 10
a.m. tomorrow morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself
and Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Hutchison,
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Nelson of Florida,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Dodd,
proposes an amendment numbered 1215 to amendment No. 1142.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading
of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set
aside and my amendment be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1070
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Isakson] proposes an
amendment numbered 1070.
Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate that inadequacies in
border protection and alien and drug smugglers' methods, routes, and
modes of transportation are potential vulnerabilities that can be
exploited by terrorists to illegally smuggle terrorists and their
weapons into the United States, surveillance of the entire border
between the United States and Mexico is essential to protect the United
States, and the Mexican Government must commit to addressing its own
domestic border security policies, which contribute to the present
inadequacies in our Nation's homeland security)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING BORDER SECURITY.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The illegal alien population has risen from 3,200,000
in 1986 to 10,300,000 in 2004.
(2) In fiscal year 2001, United States Border Patrol agents
apprehended almost 1,200,000 persons for illegally entering
the United States.
(3) Senate Report 109-083 states, ``there are an estimated
11,000,000 illegal aliens in the United States, including
more than 400,000 individuals who have absconded, walking
away with impunity from Orders of Deportation and Removal''.
(4) Between 1,000 and 3,000 special interest aliens from
countries with an active terrorist presence enter the United
States each year.
(5) Of the 1,200,000 illegal aliens apprehended on the
border between the United States and Mexico, 643 were from
countries with known terrorism ties, including Syria, Iran,
and Libya.
(6) Senate Report 109-083 states, ``officials of the
Department of Homeland Security have conceded the United
States does not have operational control of its borders'',
including areas along the 1,989-mile southwest border between
the United States and Mexico.
(7) The daily attempts to cross the border by thousands of
illegal aliens from countries around the globe continue to
present a threat to United States national security.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) this Nation cannot thoroughly address the security of
the United States without recognizing the reality of
terrorists taking advantage of inadequacies in border
security along the border between the United States and
Mexico;
(2) every effort should be made to increase the technology
and efficiency in preventing these individuals from entering
the United States across the Mexican border;
(3) the Mexican Government has an obligation to secure its
side of the border between the United States and Mexico; and
(4) the Mexican Government must commit to addressing
inadequacies in its own domestic and border security
policies, which are contributing to the present dilemma in
border security.
Mr. ISAKSON. I express my appreciation to the subcommittee chairman,
Senator Gregg of New Hampshire. It is my understanding from the
chairman that it has been agreed to accept the amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe the Senator can ask unanimous
consent for approval.
Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1070) was agreed to.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, the amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate
amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill dealing with
border security. I commend the subcommittee chairman on the tremendous
investment this bill makes in homeland security and in border security
to the United States of America.
A few months ago when I made one of the first speeches in the Senate
with regard to the floor supplemental, I talked a little bit about REAL
ID and what is the largest single domestic issue in the United States
today, illegal immigration.
In that particular speech I made a note that I love our system of
immigration, love the fact you can come to this country and become a
citizen--I am a second-generation American myself--but we have been
flooded as a nation over the past decade by a tremendous influx of
those who have come illegally, many over the border of the south,
although obviously to the north as well.
This goes a long way toward providing the funding to Customs and to
Immigration to begin enforcing laws on the books, making it tougher to
come into the United States the wrong way and hopefully making it
easier to come to the United States the right way, the legal way.
We need a partner on our southern border. The sense-of-the-Senate
amendment is very simple. It simply asks the Government of Mexico to
assist in helping to secure the border between the United States and
Mexico to ensure that those who immigrate into this country are coming
in consistent with the laws of the United States of America.
We have a great trading partner to the south. We have a great
neighbor to the south. We have a country that shares many common
interests. We have a country that we enjoy being our neighbor. We also
would like for them to be our partner in seeing to it that the border
we share is secure so that those who are crossing are crossing legally
and consistent with the laws of that nation.
I thank the subcommittee chairman for his cooperation. I thank the
Senate for agreeing to this amendment. I am pleased we can express this
sense of the Senate that the common interest of
[[Page S7977]]
both countries is in the best interests of America when it comes to the
border security between ourselves and the country of Mexico.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following
Senators be added as cosponsors of the Collins-Lieberman amendment No.
1142: Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Bingaman, and Senator
Harkin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. This is in addition to the cosponsors previously cited.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the fiscal year
2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill.
Protecting the security of our people and our homeland is the most
important responsibility that any Member of this body possesses. It is,
therefore, our solemn obligation to review this bill carefully and make
certain it adequately addresses our Nation's vulnerabilities.
The question should be, Have we done all that we can do to make
America safe? Now, obviously, none of us can look into the minds, the
perverted minds of the terrorists and know everything they might do to
harm us or people around the world, as we saw again in London last
week. But I think we do have an obligation to do all we can. Does that
mean even after we do it there will never be an attack? Of course not.
But we have to try, to the best of our human ability, to protect our
citizens and make our Nation safe by deterring, detecting, and
preventing terrorist attacks.
I believe--and I am sure many of my colleagues would agree--that to
make America truly safe we need to carefully allocate our homeland
security resources. We need to make sure the money we appropriate in
Congress gets to where it is most needed; that the American cities,
States and places that are under the greatest threat, that are most
vulnerable, receive the funding they need to be protected.
I have advocated for threat-based allocation of homeland security
funds for several years now. Last year, the 9/11 Commission made a very
specific recommendation. It urged Congress to base Federal funding for
emergency preparedness solely--solely--on risks and vulnerabilities.
Over the last 4 years, the Department of Homeland Security and its
agencies have provided $11.3 billion to State and local governments to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism. Additionally,
$3.2 billion in grants and other assistance provided by other Federal
agencies has also gone to State and local responders to take on the
terrorist threat.
Unfortunately, nearly half of this $14.5 billion has been allocated
according to congressionally mandated formulas that bear little
relation to need, risk, vulnerability, or threat.
Last September, when the Senate took up consideration of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, I offered an
amendment to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to allocate
formula-based grants to State and local governments based on an
assessment of threats and vulnerabilities, in accordance with the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
Although the amendment was tabled, I am thankful, as are I am sure
millions of my fellow Americans who live in high-threat communities,
that the President has finally heard our concerns. He proposed, in the
fiscal year 2006 budget, a restructuring of $2.6 billion in grants for
States, urban areas, and infrastructure protection. Under the
President's proposal, DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, will
target grants to fill critical gaps in State and local terrorism
prevention and preparedness capabilities, taking into consideration
threats and vulnerabilities.
While I am not completely satisfied with the formula--of course I
could not be, representing New York, which remains, by all the
intelligence we are privy to, the No. 1 target of the terrorists in our
country--I am pleased by the recognition of the President and Secretary
Chertoff that we are now called upon to look at threat-based funding.
That is indeed welcome news.
While this bill we are considering makes important steps toward
securing our homeland, there are certainly some deficiencies that we
cannot afford to ignore. Last week's tragic events in London
highlighted one of our Nation's most glaring homeland security
deficiencies--the vulnerability of our rail and transit systems.
We have seen these senseless, evil terrorist attacks in Japan,
Russia, Spain, and now England. These attacks, like the one that struck
our own country on 9/11, hit when innocent people were going about
their everyday lives. All of these cowardly acts were not merely
attacks on individuals but an attack on a way of life.
These attacks on the subway and transit systems around the world are
a clear signal to this Congress that we have to fill this glaring hole
in our national security budget.
Now, our resolve to stand against these acts of terrorism will not
waiver. But courage and determination is not enough. We must also
commit, with equal force, to developing a comprehensive plan and
allocating adequate resources to guard against similar attacks in our
own cities and States.
I know there are some who argue against increasing the funding for
homeland security because they say: Well, we can't possibly guard
against every risk and vulnerability. I read a comment by one think
tank pundit who said: We can't childproof our Nation.
Well, childproofing a home when a new baby arrives is something I
take very seriously. I think most parents do as well. We go out and we
buy those little plugs to put into outlets. We move to a higher shelf
household cleaners and poisons. We go out and maybe buy one of those
little gates to put at the top and bottom of stairs. We obviously take
steps to childproof our homes.
Starting in the 1970s, responsible parents got some help from the
Federal Government, which, looking at the evidence, determined that a
lot of children were getting into the prescription pills of their
parents and suffering severe injury, even death. So along came the
childproof top that made it very difficult for little hands to open
those dangerous pill bottles. And other steps were taken so that
responsible parents could have some control over the circumstances in
their homes and in their communities that their children would face.
Does that mean every risk facing every child was eliminated? Of
course not. But we saved a lot of lives. We protected a lot of
children. We provided a lot of peace of mind to many mothers and
fathers.
So when somebody in a kind of offhand, critical way says, ``What do
these people expect when they call for more money for rail and transit
security or for border security or for chemical plant security? They
are trying to childproof the Nation,'' I view that as an ignorant
insult. Of course we are trying to protect our Nation. That is our
highest obligation. We know we cannot protect against everything, but
we have to do all we can to make sure every community is as protected
as we can make it.
We know from every expert who has looked at rail and transit security
that we are woefully underfunding it. In fact, based on the research
and analysis I have seen, it would take approximately $7 billion to
protect across this country the tens of millions of people who use our
mass transit systems--our subways, our buses, our trains, our ferries--
every single day to get back and forth to work, to go about their daily
lives.
We know millions of Americans use this because they have to. It is
convenient. It is inexpensive. It fills their needs. In New York, we
have millions and millions of New Yorkers who ride the bus and the
subway and the ferries and the trains every single day. So when the
tragedy struck in London, it was again a tragic wakeup call for our own
country.
I know we cannot provide all the funding that many of us believe is
necessary to take the steps required to protect our transit systems.
But we certainly must do more than the $100 million currently in the
Senate bill. I am grateful the Senate majority leader has recognized
the bill's reduction from last year's $150 million to $100 million was
a step in the wrong direction and that at a minimum we need to restore
the $50 million that was cut.
[[Page S7978]]
If we look at how much money has been spent on airline security, we
find it totals $18 billion. We all know that following the attacks of
9/11, spending that money on airline security was absolutely necessary.
Some of it went a little overboard--people who have no profile of
fitting any kind of terrorist identity being strip-searched or being
stopped or people going through all the security--but we spent that
money because we knew we had to deter those people who might wish us
ill by using our air against us.
We simply cannot continue to shortchange rail and transit security.
More people are riding our transit systems than ride our airplanes and
commercial aviation.
Last October, the Senate passed the Rail Security Act of 2004. The
bill was introduced by Senator McCain, and I was proud to be an
original cosponsor. That bill would have authorized Amtrak and New York
to receive over $570 million to upgrade the six tunnels for better
ventilation, electrical and fire safety technology upgrades, emergency
communications and lighting systems, and emergency access and egress
for passengers.
A couple of years ago I stood right in this spot with pictures of
what the tunnels in New York look like. We now know one of the
explosions in London took place in Kings Cross. The rescue workers have
not even been able to get there yet. They are not even sure they have
recovered all of the bodies.
We will learn from this horrible tragedy, and we will be able to do
an even better job in what we need to do to protect tunnels and bridges
and other essential infrastructure for our rail and transit systems.
But I am bewildered because the $150 million we appropriated last year
for rail and transit security has not yet been fully distributed by the
Department of Homeland Security to the cities and the States that need
it. Instead of being put to work on behalf of improved safety in our
rail and transit systems, it is sitting on the ledgers of the
Department of Homeland Security.
We need to spend that money, and we need to be smart about how we
spend it. But the plans that city and State transit systems have
developed can't be implemented if the Federal Government doesn't do its
part.
I hope, as we consider the Homeland Security appropriations bill this
week, we will support the amendments that increase funding for securing
our Nation's rail and transit systems. I hope we will do so because it
is the right thing to do and because the bombings last Thursday in
London were such a tragic reminder of what we still need to do to
protect our own homeland from senseless and barbaric actions of
extremists.
I am proud to join Senators Shelby, Sarbanes, Inouye, Reed, and other
colleagues in an amendment to add over $1.3 billion in additional rail
and transit security grants. I am absolutely confident that our Nation
is up to the task of securing our mass transit systems. I am absolutely
confident that this body is capable of dedicating the resources
necessary to get this essential job done. I hope this week proves that
we are ready, we are willing, and we are able to do everything possible
to protect our Nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to add a comment or two to our
colleague from New York. I believe in the fiscal year 2005
appropriations bill, which is currently in effect, there was about $150
million that could be used for improving transit and rail security. I
believe, as of last week, none of that money had been allocated. I hope
that is not true, but that is what I have been briefed by my staff.
None of that $150 million has been allocated. One has to wonder what it
takes. I fear that it may take some tragedy to really get our
attention, the attention of the executive branch to begin allocating
the money and putting it where it can do the most good most promptly.
As I understand it, the administration has asked for no appropriation
in their budget proposal for fiscal 2006 for rail security and transit
security. The committee has put in $100 million for that purpose, and I
believe the committee has agreed to raise it to the current level of
appropriation of $150 million. But if the administration is not going
to spend the money, what good does it do for us to allocate. It is very
disappointing. I hope it is not true, but I am afraid it probably is.
I thank my colleague for bringing this to our attention and join her
in saying we can do a lot better and we have to.
Some time tomorrow, we are going to have the opportunity to vote on
several options for allocating aid to first responders in our 50
States, firefighters, police, paramedics, and others who are first on
the scene. When tragedy strikes and that tragedy happens to be a strike
launched by terrorists, they will be the first to be there, whether it
is Delaware, Missouri, New York, or any other State.
I rise to express my strong support for an amendment that is going to
be offered tomorrow by Senators Collins and Lieberman. That amendment
seeks to streamline the system for distributing first responder aid to
States, tries to make the system more fair, and seeks to ensure that
every State, large or small, receives the funding that may be needed to
respond to terrorist attacks and to other disasters.
Senator Collins and I have been working with Senator Lieberman and
other members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee on this issue for some time. In fact, Senator Collins and I
first introduced legislation on this topic more than 2 years ago. That
original bill came after a series of hearings we held in our committee,
highlighting the fact that the way we help States prepare for disasters
simply makes little sense. The application process is lengthy and
confusing. More importantly, the funding formula simply isn't getting
money to those who need it the most.
States, counties, cities, and first responders all told us in one
voice that we need to do something about it. Much of what Senator
Collins and I and our colleagues did in that initial legislation a
couple years ago to respond to the concerns is reflected in the
amendment that will be offered tomorrow by Senators Collins and
Lieberman.
That amendment mirrors in many respects the bill that Senator Collins
and I introduced 2 years ago. For example, the amendment streamlines
the grant application process. It creates a one-stop shop within the
Department of Homeland Security where State officials and others can
seek grant information. It also ensures that funds are distributed as
quickly as possible and requires States to go through a planning
process that would include both localities and first responders.
In addition, we take steps in this amendment to give States more
flexibility in spending their first responder aid. Not every State is
the same. Missouri's needs may be different than Delaware's. This
amendment, as with our earlier bill, gives States the ability to ask
for a waiver from the Department. If they want to use a little more
money for training or equipment or exercises or planning, they can go
to the Department and ask for a waiver to do so. One size does not fit
all. This amendment, such as our earlier bill, acknowledges that.
Funding formulas are akin to what they used to say about beauty.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The beauty of a funding formula
is oftentimes in the eye of the particular State that is eyeing the
formula. I believe we have gone a long way toward addressing the
concerns that some of our colleagues from more populous States have
raised over the years. There were concerns among a number of Senators,
both on and off the Homeland Security Committee, that the current
program in our original legislation directed too much aid to smaller
States, to less populated States, at the expense of larger States or
more populated States and high-threat urban areas. I believe we have
addressed those concerns.
A version of this amendment that was added by a unanimous vote to the
intelligence reform bill last year provide additional allocations to
the dozen or so largest States in the country. It also allowed the
Secretary of Homeland Security to distribute a portion of the funding
made available for State grants directly to the most at-risk urban
areas. We go even further this year, further than some of the
supporters of our original legislation might like to have gone. In an
effort to shift even more funding to those parts
[[Page S7979]]
of the country most at risk, Senator Collins, Senator Lieberman, and
the rest of us who support their amendment have negotiated a new
funding formula that actually reduces the baseline allocation or the
so-called small State minimum guaranteed to every State.
Currently in the bill, it is 0.75-percent minimum for every State.
The amendment that will be offered tomorrow by Senators Collins and
Lieberman and myself and others would take that minimum down to 0.55
percent. We have also added language in this amendment that gives the
Secretary the discretion to allocate up to half of the available funds
to big cities. In total, these efforts have resulted in what I think is
a balanced formula that I am told allocates about twice as much aid on
risk as we did in last year's appropriations bill.
There will be some who will argue that the baseline allocation in
this amendment should be even smaller or that it should not exist at
all. I respond to that argument by simply pointing out that my own home
State of Delaware may be small. We may have a small population--about
800,000 people, in fact. That is more than about six States that are,
frankly, bigger than us in size have. But Delaware is home to
significant critical infrastructure such as chemical facilities, oil
refineries, and one of the most important ports in the country, and
those could be unfortunately on a terrorist target list.
Right across the Delaware River, about 15 miles from my home, are two
nuclear powerplants. Up and down the northeast corridor we have I-95
carrying, each day, hundreds of thousands of cars, trucks and vans,
including trucks carrying some dangerous material. We have the
northeast rail corridor through which some of our largest freight
railroads pass, again carrying all kinds of cargo, goods, including
some which are hazardous, potentially a target to terrorists. We have
the Delaware River, the Delaware Bay. Every day dozens of ships go up
and down the Delaware River, any number of which carry cargo that could
be considered hazardous.
My staff and I have talked to any number of public safety officials
in Delaware. Here is what they tell us. They tell us that they are not
getting the resources they need to enable them to respond to incidents
that the Department of Homeland Security itself has told us have a real
possibility of happening in our State. I am sure many of my colleagues
from States large and small could share similar stories with us, and
they probably will during the course of this debate. That is one reason
why we need to approve this amendment.
I urge all of our colleagues to support this compromise amendment. It
does the best job of any proposal that I have seen at getting the most
at-risk parts of our country the first responder aid that they need
without arbitrarily shortchanging smaller States like Delaware that may
be small in size but the risk profile belies the modest size in
population.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
amendment no. 1129
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to address the VA health care
system's funding crisis. I thank my colleague, the Democratic leader,
Senator Reid, for his determination to ensure that $1.5 billion is
provided as soon as possible. At this point, it is widely known that VA
is facing a tremendous funding shortfall this year. What we need to do
now is ensure that VA gets these funds as expeditiously as possible.
I am glad the administration has admitted that there is a shortfall.
But I point out that VA officials have proven themselves to be an
unreliable source of information. And judging by the supplemental sent
forward by the President, they are less than generous, and frankly,
less than accurate. The $975 million now proposed by the
administration--and carried forward by the House--falls short of
addressing all of VA's problems.
You need only look at the administration's own estimate for new costs
associated with returning service members. VA now believes that 103,000
more veterans will be treated this year. The cost of treating this kind
of patient is $5,437 a year, as documented by VA data. Yet, the
administration wants to now convince us that, in fact, the cost of
treating a patient is less than half of this amount. Again, using VA
data, the cost of caring for an additional 103,000 returning veterans
is $560 million and not the $273 million suggested by the
administration. Other key programs such as readjustment counseling and
dental care were also not sufficiently covered by the House in the VA
supplemental.
It is imperative that we make sure the funds we provide now are truly
sufficient, so we do not face this situation again. It is simply not
right to use out-of-date equipment to treat veterans or force them to
wait months for care.
The Senate has already spoken in a very bipartisan manner on this
issue. We are all very proud of our effort to arrive at the $1.5
billion figure previously agreed to before the July Fourth recess.
Given the House's work to provide less than the full amount needed, it
is clear that we have more work to do for this year.
The battle for next year's funding will be upon us shortly. During
the budget resolution debate in March, I offered an amendment to
increase VA's funding by $2.8 billion for next year. I stood before
this body and outlined the case for a significant increase for VA. But
we were rejected because the administration claimed VA needed far less.
Yet we are back to square one with regard to next year's funding.
Then, again, during the war supplemental debate in April--while VA
remained silent as they were beginning to see warning signs--we were
defeated in our efforts to secure more funding for this year. Again,
this was because the administration failed to be forthcoming about the
struggles that VA providers and patients were facing.
Hopefully, we all learned a clear lesson from this experience, that
communicating with health care providers in the field and with the
Veterans Service Organizations is invaluable. They told us what was
really going on months ago.
I know my colleagues agree that we do not want to see this scenario
repeat itself yet again. We have pressed this issue, and now we have
another opportunity to finally fix the problem and fulfill our promise
to this Nation's veterans. At the very least, this crisis has resulted
in longer waiting times for care, hiring freezes, and delayed upgrading
of medical equipment and facilities, to name a few.
This amendment is one way to fix the VA funding crisis. Providing
$1.5 billion in supplemental funding would ensure that each region of
the country can get the funds needed to pull themselves out of the
current crisis.
But I continue to be open to any approach that ensures the highest
quality health care for our Nation's veterans. Along those lines, I
appreciate the work that Senators Craig and Hutchison and our other
colleagues are doing to tackle this problem. I believe we can find a
solution, together.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now
be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak
therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Sexual Predators
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is a poster that shows what I
discovered on the Internet in North Dakota. I discovered this in the
month of April. I was going to have a meeting in Fargo and, just out of
curiosity, I called up the North Dakota registry of sex offenders, to
find out who was living within 2 miles of where I was having the
meeting, at city hall in Fargo, ND. In the briefing book I had, I
described this fellow to the people who came. His name is Joseph
Duncan. The entire country knows of Joseph Duncan now. When I described
Mr. Duncan, many people in the area didn't know him.
[[Page S7980]]
This sheet from the North Dakota Attorney General's Office, Bureau of
Criminal Investigation, shows that Joseph Duncan was living in Fargo,
ND. He was a sexual predator, and he had served a 20-year prison
sentence for a first-degree rape. In 1980, he raped a 14-year-old boy
at gunpoint, burned the victim, and made the victim believe he was
going to be killed by firing the gun twice on empty chambers. And he
went to prison.
In 2000, he was released from prison. He completed his full sentence,
and was released without probation or parole. He went to live in North
Dakota.
Again, I mentioned him in April of this year at a meeting simply
because his name came up on an inquiry I did about who was living in
Fargo, ND.
What I didn't know in April, when I mentioned Mr. Duncan, was that 1
month earlier he had been charged with molesting a 6-year-old boy at a
playground in Detroit Lakes, MN. He appeared in court April 5 on those
charges, a county judge set the bail at $15,000, and Joseph Duncan was
released, promising to stay in touch. Of course, he didn't. He promptly
disappeared.
As we know from substantial media coverage in recent weeks, Joseph
Duncan was subsequently arrested in Idaho for kidnapping 8-year-old
Shasta Groene. Her brother, 9-year-old Dylan, was missing. Their family
was murdered upon the abduction of these two young children. The
remains of Dylan have now been located. Duncan has been charged with
abducting and molesting both children and is also under investigation
for the murder of Dylan and the parents.
It is so frustrating to be here talking about this. It is a breakdown
in common sense. Martha Stewart was let out of a minimum security
prison and was required to wear an electronic bracelet and, apparently,
she still wears one at her home under the disposition of the court. But
we have known violent sexual predators walking around this country with
no such level of supervision.
I have been on the Senate floor many times talking about a bill I
introduced called Dru's law. I have shown colleagues a picture of a
young woman named Dru Sjodin, who was brutally murdered and whose
alleged assailant is a man named Mr. Rodriguez.
Mr. Rodriguez was in prison for 23 years. He is a violent sexual
predator. He was let out, even when he was judged to be a high risk for
reoffending. We know that 70 percent of the time high-risk sexual
predators are going to reoffend. In most cases, their next offense will
be more violent. Mr. Rodriguez allegedly murdered Dru Sjodin. The
evidence is very substantial. He was walking around with not much more
than a ``see you later'' at the prison door, much like Joseph Duncan.
Mr. Duncan had been convicted previously of violent sexual offenses,
and then he was accused in April of molesting a 6-year-old boy. What
happens to him? He goes through a revolving door in the criminal
justice system to be let out at $15,000 bail. Martha Stewart is wearing
that bracelet and this fellow is turned back out on $15,000. Then this
young girl named Shasta Groene is kidnapped with her brother Dylan and
they were sexually molested. People are dead.
Dru's law, which I introduced well over a year ago, has been passed
by the Senate once and didn't get through the House. Senator Specter
and I and others have introduced it again, and my hope is very much
that in the month of July we can get it through this Chamber and
through the House and get it to the President for signature. It has
three simple provisions: One, there should be a national registry of
sex offenders, a national registry of sexual predators. This isn't
rocket science. Somebody like this who rapes a 16-year-old boy at
gunpoint needs to go on a sexual predator registry, and no matter where
this person showed up in the criminal justice system, regardless of
state lines, the public should be able to know that he is out there. We
need a national registry of sexual predators.
Two, before a high-risk sexual predator is about to be released from
prison, the local State's attorney must be notified in the event that
they believe this person is so dangerous that they need to seek
additional civil commitment. That must be the case.
And three, if, in fact, a high-risk sexual predator is released at
the end of his term, there must be intensive monitoring by local
governments. Once again, electronic monitoring bracelets are not just
meant for Martha Stewart. They ought to be meant for very violent
offenders like this who abduct and brutalize young children at
gunpoint.
We can do much better. It is not only about Dylan and Shasta and Dru
Sjodin; month after month, we read these stories.
Jessica Lunsford, 9 years old, Mark Lunsford's daughter, was abducted
in February from her bedroom in her Florida home, and they found her
body a month later. The crime was committed by a 46-year-old convicted
sex offender with a 30-year history.
We know who these people are. They have been in the system before.
Sarah Michelle Lunde disappeared April 9 in Ruskin, south of Tampa,
FL. David Onstott, a convicted sex offender who once had a relationship
with the girl's mother, has confessed to killing her.
Jetseta Gage, of Cedar Rapids, IA, was abducted, sexually assaulted,
and murdered. Roger Paul Bentley has been arrested for that crime. He
is a convicted sex offender on Iowa's sex offender registry.
This has to stop. We know who these people are. Statistics tell us
that over 70 percent of the violent sexual predators, when let out of
prison, are going to reoffend. I am talking about type 3 sex offenders,
judged to be at highest risk, as Mr. Rodriguez was when he was let out
of prison and then within 6 months allegedly murdered Dru Sjodin.
When psychologists and psychiatrists evaluate sexual predators to be
the highest risk, we cannot any longer say goodbye, so long, good luck
at the prison door. We cannot let that happen again. We have to begin
protecting innocent people. There are too many children whose lives are
being lost.
Again, this is not rocket science. We know what is happening here,
and we know how to stop it. Mark Lunsford wrote to me after his
daughter was murdered. He said:
If my daughter's death is going to have any meaning, it
will be through your efforts strengthening existing laws, by
making our streets safe for all children. My heart continues
to break as I mourn the loss of my beautiful little girl. I
do not want other families to suffer as mine has, and I
believe your efforts will go far toward that important goal.
My hope is that Senator Specter and many others who have cosponsored
this bill that I have introduced will help to pass Dru's Law once again
through the Senate, and then work hard to get it through the House and
to the President's desk for signature. It is long past the time this
country has a national registry of sexual predators, violent sexual
predators who all too often are getting away with murder.
____________________