[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.

                          ____________________