[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15841-15867]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will speak to the underlying bill for a 
moment. I find it interesting in debating this Homeland Security 
appropriations bill, there have been many colleagues come to the floor 
expressing the intention to amend the bill to add more resources here 
or there or someplace else. I think it is instructive that the chairman 
of this subcommittee has this year determined it is beyond the time 
that we need to begin fully funding some of the particular accounts 
that enable us to better control our border and that my colleagues are 
now coming, I suggest in the case of some later than I would like, but 
at least to the realization that we have not begun to put the resources 
to controlling our border and some of our other homeland areas of need 
that we should have.
  This is a good development in the sense that we are finally beginning 
to realize we have not done what we should do. But I am troubled a 
little bit that there still is not adequate funding available to do 
everything we need to do on the border that I am concerned about, and 
that is our southwest border.
  Compliments to the subcommittee and to the Appropriations Committee 
for substantially increasing the funding for more Border Patrol agents, 
for more detention space for people whom we have to detain who should 
not be in the United States and who cannot be returned to their country 
of origin immediately, for the technology which is funded here, and for 
all the other things we are trying to do to secure our border. 
Congratulations to Chairman Gregg and to the other members of the 
committee for doing this. For my colleagues who would like to add more, 
I appreciate their efforts as well because we all know that whatever we 
are able to do this year, it is still not going to be enough to 
actually gain control of our border.
  One of the problems that has arisen is the problem of what the border 
control calls ``other than Mexican'' illegal immigrants. As we all 
know, most of the people coming across our southwestern border are from 
the country of Mexico, but a lot of them are simply transiting through 
Mexico. This population is of increasing concern to us. In fact, we 
were recently informed that already this fiscal year over 119,000 
third-country nationals, that is third country other than Mexico, have 
been apprehended crossing our borders. We know there is a rough rule of 
thumb that three or four are not apprehended for every one that is 
apprehended, so you get a situation here where it is pretty clear that 
we have a huge influx of people coming into the United States from 
countries other than Mexico.
  What does this mean? We know most of the people coming in from Mexico 
are coming for work. Perhaps some have criminal backgrounds or other 
nefarious purposes, but at least we don't suspect most of them are 
coming here for purposes of harming us. In the case of these ``other 
than Mexican'' nationals, the same thing cannot be said because between 
20 or 30 of these countries are countries of special interest to the 
United States; in other words, countries from which terrorists have 
come. The question is both on the southern and on the northern border, 
which is equally a problem here, how many of the folks coming into this 
country from countries other than Mexico mean us harm?
  We all know, for example, that in the days of testimony from former 
DHS Deputy Secretary Loy, advising the Senate Intelligence Committee, 
that:

       [r]ecent information from ongoing investigations, 
     detentions and emerging threat streams strongly suggest that 
     al-Qaida has considered using the southwest border to 
     infiltrate the United States. . . . Several al-Qaida leaders 
     believe operatives can pay their way into the country through 
     Mexico, and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous 
     than legal entries for operational security reasons.

  Secretary of State Rice commented later that:

       We have from time to time had reports about al-Qaida trying 
     to use our southern border. . . . [it] is no secret that al-
     Qaida will try to get into this country . . . by any means 
     they possibly can. . . . [t]hat's how they managed to do it 
     before and they will do everything they can to cross the 
     borders.

  There is at least one specific case of a terrorist having been 
apprehended coming into the United States.
  There is more we can discuss here, much of it involving intelligence, 
but on both the northern and southern border there is a threat that 
people could come into this country and we would not be able to stop 
them. We wouldn't even know they are here. And clearly because of that 
means of entry as opposed to coming, say, from an airplane from London 
or another city, you could at least be carrying contraband here that 
could be detrimental to us in the form of a chemical or biological 
agent. It is even conceivable you could bring nuclear material in as 
well.
  So the security of our borders is critical to homeland security, yet 
up to this year we have not had the kind of appropriations necessary to 
begin making a dent in the problem. I am, again,

[[Page 15842]]

exceedingly grateful to the chairman this year for seeing to it we are 
able to get that funding to begin this effort.
  One of the concerns about these ``other than Mexican'' detainees I 
mentioned is that, unlike the case in Mexico where we can simply send 
people back to the border to be returned, to be repatriated to their 
country, it is not that easy in the case of people from other 
countries. Obviously Mexico will not take them because they are not 
Mexicans, even though they transited through Mexico. So you have to 
begin a long, drawn-out process of contacting the country of origin and 
trying to get the paperwork in order to see if you can get the country 
to take the individual back, to begin that repatriation process. Some 
countries will not even take their people back. Other countries take a 
long time. What do we do in the meantime?
  Obviously we need to detain those people. So we detain them--right? 
Wrong. There is not adequate detention space. So we give them a piece 
of paper and say, Come back in 90 days or 30 days, whatever the time 
period is, and report in so we can remove you from the United States.
  Guess how many of them voluntarily return for removal to their 
country of origin? The percentages differ, but you get my drift. A very 
high percentage choose to simply meld into American society and become 
part of our illegal population here.
  That cannot continue. We have called repeatedly on the Department of 
Homeland Security to come up with a plan to ensure that we can detain 
these individuals until their time for removal. It has yet to come to 
us.
  One very worthwhile program is called ``expedited removal.'' The 
chief of the Border Patrol, David Aguilar, testified before my 
Terrorism Subcommittee recently that it is their intention and hope to 
begin to expand this expedited removal program to all of the Border 
Patrol sectors on the southern and southwestern border. There are 20-
some sectors, but only two have expedited removal today, the Laredo, TX 
and Tucson, AZ sectors. Here is why that is important. In most cases 
the average time to remove one of these detainees from another country 
is at least 3 months. It is about 90-some days. In the case of 
expedited removal we can actually accomplish this within less than 30 
days, so at least you lessen the time for detention. You cut that in 
third, by one-third, and therefore if you have to put somebody in a 
detention space that is federally owned, you don't have to kick 
somebody else out in order to detain this person. If you have to rent 
the space from somebody else, it is going to cost you about one-third 
as much. It costs about $90 a day to house one of these detainees, and 
you can do that in State and local detention facilities.
  The bottom line is we don't have enough of that detention space, so 
even today people are not being detained. They are being released on 
their own recognizance, told to come back when the paperwork has been 
developed with their country of origin so they can be returned.
  That is wrong. We have to get the money to detain these folks and 
make sure we have a policy to do so at the same time we are trying to 
expand the expedited removal. There is money in this bill for that 
detention.
  Again, I thank Senator Gregg for his alertness to this problem and 
willingness to put money in against the problem. But I fear the 
Department of Homeland Security has still not got a plan in place to 
both pursue the expedited removal for all sectors and, in the meantime, 
detain those who need to be detained.
  If we should have a situation arise, as arose in England recently, in 
Great Britain, where people have come into the country--in this case 
they appear to be indigenous to the country itself--but where they have 
decided to engage in some act of terrorism, and it has been our own 
fault that we have allowed them to meld into our society illegally, 
then obviously we have no one to blame but ourselves.
  I am calling this to the attention of my colleagues in the hope we 
can continue to both provide the funding the administration needs and 
to encourage the administration to get onto the solution of this 
particular problem as well.
  The problem here is multipronged. I think all of us have understood 
that with the event in Great Britain a week ago, it illustrates to us 
the kind of harm that can be caused by a conventional kind of attack of 
terrorists. It doesn't take a major 9/11 kind of attack to create this 
kind of chaos. Yet it calls into question what we could do to provide 
total security within our homeland, because a train station, a bus 
station, other places of public congregation--be they shopping areas, 
sports events or the like--all suggest it is a virtual impossibility 
before the fact to provide 100-percent security. It simply cannot be 
done. That is why you have to try to prevent the problem from arising 
in the first place.
  I will close by noting that part of our effort, in this appropriation 
bill, in order to control the border itself, is to provide a thousand 
new Border Patrol agents at the border, also 300 new Immigration and 
Customs investigators, the new enforcement agents. This bill provides 
460 of those. Incidentally, all of these are in addition to numbers 
provided in the supplemental appropriations bill. So we have added to 
the number that we already acted on at the end of last year.
  We fund over 40,000 positions dedicated to protecting our borders and 
enforcing immigration laws. To break it down, over 12,000 Border Patrol 
agents, 18,000 Customs and border protection officers, nearly 6,000 
criminal investigators, nearly 1,300 deportation officers, 2,700 
immigration enforcement agents and detention officers. We also have 
money for more training of Border Patrol and immigration enforcement 
personnel.
  We have money to support the deployment of the US VISIT Program, 
which will help us better track the people who both come into our 
country and leave the country. We have over a half billion dollars for 
air and marine operations, as I mentioned before, money for over 2,000 
new detention beds for these apprehended illegal aliens, and with the 
supplemental, that adds about 4,000 new detention spaces for this 
purpose.
  We more than double the number of ports that have our container 
security initiative, 41 that take part in that, and nearly $1 billion 
for biological countermeasures. These things, by and large, are in 
place to try to prevent the capability of the terrorists from pulling 
off an attack in the first place. They are not responding to an attack 
after it has occurred. We have to have responses, but our primary goal 
here should be to take the fight to the enemy, to try to provide the 
protection going in, because there is no way, once they are in the 
United States, to protect every bit of this wide-open and liberty-
loving society. So it is better to try to stop them before they get 
here, and it is better to try to degrade their ability to attack us by 
taking the fight to them.
  That is why later on we are going to get into things such as 
reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act, on which we just heard testimony, as a 
critical component in our war on terror and protecting our homeland and 
other ways in which we can take the fight to the enemy. For now, this 
appropriations bill provides us a significant capability to stop the 
terrorists at our border as well as providing some internal protection 
in those areas that have the highest priority and for which we can get 
the biggest bang for the buck in terms of protection.
  Again, I compliment the members of the Appropriations Committee, 
particularly the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, for 
their attentiveness to this issue, their willingness to make a 
significant effort to help fight this battle.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation when we get to that 
point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I be 
recognized to speak for 10, no more than 15 minutes, Senator Clinton of 
New York be recognized to speak at that time.

[[Page 15843]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I just returned from a week back in my State of 
Illinois traveling from Chicago through downstate southern Illinois 
meeting with many people at Fourth of July parades, the usual standard 
procedure in scheduling for many Members of the Senate and Congress. 
Many people came to say hello, but there were a couple who stand out in 
my memory of that week. One was a man in southern Illinois who pulled 
me aside and in very quiet tones said, ``Bring our troops home.'' And 
another, a man standing at O'Hare Airport, as I walked by, recognized 
me and said, ``Support our troops.''
  I think in those two brief sentences we really have a lot of the 
public sentiment of America. Support our troops. That is clear. These 
are our sons and daughters. If you have been there, as I was this last 
March, and seen them, in Iraq, in Baghdad, risk their lives, see those 
fresh-faced young people who are standing there so proudly on behalf of 
our country, you can't help but support these men and women. You must. 
And we have. We should continue to do so.
  But there is a growing sentiment as well that they should come home. 
Some say bring them home right now. I am not one of those people. I do 
not believe we can just end our commitment today and leave Iraq. I am 
afraid what would be left behind would be chaos, a training ground for 
terrorism that would threaten not only the Middle East but the entire 
world. But yet I do believe all of us feel, even the President, that we 
should be looking to the day when our troops do come home and how we 
will reach that day because every single day we wait in anticipation of 
those troops coming home we are losing soldiers.
  This morning's Washington Post, as it does every day, published the 
number of American soldiers killed in Iraq to this moment: 1,755--
1,755--and more than 13,000 grievously wounded. Many of them I have met 
and seen. Some of the Illinois families, I have been to their funerals, 
met their families, dropped notes to and spoken to them. It breaks your 
heart to think that they have lost someone they love so much.
  How do we reach this point where we can bring these troops home and 
feel that we have achieved what we set out to do? Well, we came up with 
a way to try to measure this and set us on a course for it to happen. 
When Congress passed the supplemental appropriations bill, we 
authorized $35 billion directly associated with U.S. operations in Iraq 
and $5.7 billion on top of that to train and equip Iraqi security 
forces. That is the way we bring American soldiers home, by training 
and equipping Iraqis to take their place.
  That same bill required the Secretary of Defense to provide a 
detailed report on how the training was progressing and what U.S. troop 
levels would likely be by the end of the year. The report that was 
mandated by that supplemental appropriations bill was due in 60 days 
after it was enacted. The due date was July 11. Today is July 13, and 
we still have not received the report required by law. Some media 
reports the Pentagon is still working on it. Others say the report is 
on Secretary Rumsfeld's desk. When we call the Pentagon, the answers 
are conflicting.
  Congress has approved over $200 billion for the war in Iraq. Although 
I have had serious misgivings about the initial invasion of Iraq as to 
whether we had a plan for success, not just for deposing Saddam Hussein 
but for building a peace, while I was concerned that we did not have 
allies to stand with our troops soldier by soldier--only the British 
came forward with any substantial numbers--and while I was concerned 
about the American burden of this war not only in human life but in 
treasure, I have decided, and I think most of my colleagues agree, we 
will not shortchange our troops in the field.
  The last time we had a supplemental appropriations bill, $82 billion 
for our troops passed unanimously in the Senate. Many of us who had 
voted against the war voted for that money. If it were my son or 
daughter, I would want them to receive every single penny they needed 
to perform their mission, to perform as they have, and come home 
safely.
  Despite having voted for this money, I stand here today with my 
colleagues in the Senate uncertain as to our progress because this 
report from the Pentagon which we had asked for, one which attempts to 
measure how we are progressing, how the Iraqis are progressing, has 
still not been delivered, and it is a concern to me because I think 
this report really goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve. 
We are trying to finally learn where we stand in Iraq, how soon our 
troops are likely to come home. There have been a lot of claims--
150,000 Iraqi soldiers ready to come into battle--and yet when it comes 
to the real battles it is American soldiers--American soldiers--risking 
their lives. That is why we have asked for the Pentagon to tell us what 
progress is being made.
  The conference report to the supplemental stated that a new 
assessment is necessary because the Pentagon's existing performance 
indicators and measures of stability and security in Iraq are not 
adequate. We have heard about these claims, how many Iraqi soldiers and 
policemen are ready. Police have been recruited by the tens of 
thousands, according to reports from the Pentagon, but many are just 
missing in action.
  The report that we require under law asks for a detailed assessment 
of Iraqi military, political and economic progress. Iraqi battalions 
must be able to operate on their own against the insurgency, and Iraqi 
forces must be able to secure their own borders.
  The draft of the new constitution in Iraq is due next month. The 
Iraqis have made some progress toward creating a new political system 
of government, and they had an absolutely historical election with 
turnout evidencing a thirst for new leadership in their country, but 
Iraqi unemployment may be as high as 50 percent, and some of the most 
fundamental things of civilized life are not there, whether it is 
electricity, sewage treatment, water, security in your home.
  The report we asked for demands an assessment on how far we 
progressed toward our goals. The fact that this report has not been 
filed is a source of real concern. Progress in Iraq is critical to 
bringing America's soldiers home with a victory. This report asks our 
Pentagon what U.S. force levels will be needed by the end of next year. 
We say that if there is any part of it that needs to be classified, do 
so. Don't disclose anything that could jeopardize the security and 
safety of our troops.
  An amendment has been offered by Senator Reid of Nevada and Senator 
Kennedy and myself, an amendment to the Homeland Security bill before 
us, asking that this report be provided to Congress on a timely basis. 
It is long overdue. This is an administration which has measured many 
things in terms of performance and quality. So many different agencies 
of our Government were held to the standard of what are you producing 
for the money that is being provided. What we are asking is the same 
type of accountability and the same type of metric when it comes to our 
progress in Iraq.
  I would agree with many who say setting a timetable for withdrawal 
may be counterproductive, but it is not unreasonable to hold the Iraqis 
to a timetable, a timetable to develop their government and their 
security force and their defense so that American soldiers can come 
home. I think that is reasonable. It was passed overwhelmingly on a 
bipartisan basis by Members of Congress.
  The fact that there has been such a delay in providing this 
information is troubling, but I am hoping that even as I speak here 
today, the Secretary of Defense is preparing this report and sending it 
so we can learn as quickly as possible how soon our soldiers can come 
home to their families and those of us who love them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 15844]]




                           Amendment No. 1105

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 
1105.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1105.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require an accounting of certain costs incurred by, and 
  payments made to, New York City, the State of New York, and certain 
related entities, as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
                                 2001)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ___.(a) Not later than 15 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
     acting through the Director of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency (including the Emergency Preparedness and 
     Response Directorate and all other staff under the direction 
     of the Secretary) (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Secretary''), shall provide to the Subcommittee on Homeland 
     Security of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate--
       (1) a detailed list that describes, as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act--
       (A) all associated costs (as determined by the Secretary) 
     incurred by New York City, the State of New York, and any 
     other entity or organization established by New York City or 
     the State of New York, as a result of the terrorist attacks 
     of September 11, 2001, that were paid using funds made 
     available by Congress; and
       (B) all requests for funds submitted to the Department of 
     Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     by New York City and the State of New York (including the 
     dates of submission, and dates of payment, if any, of those 
     requests) that have been paid or rejected, or that remain 
     unpaid; and
       (2) a certified accounting and detailed description of--
       (A) the amounts of funds made available after the terrorist 
     attacks of September 11, 2001, that remain unexpended as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act;
       (B) the accounts containing those unexpended funds; and
       (C) a detailed description of any plans of the Secretary 
     for expenditure or obligation of those unexpended funds.
       (b) Not later than 15 days after the date of receipt of a 
     request from the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate for any information 
     in addition to information described in subsection (a), the 
     Secretary, and such staff located in a regional office of the 
     Department of Homeland Security or the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate, shall provide the information to the 
     Subcommittee.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I understand Chairman Gregg and Senator 
Byrd have agreed to accept this amendment as modified. I ask unanimous 
consent that this amendment be agreed to as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1105), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ___. (a) Not later than 15 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
     acting through the Director of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency (including the Emergency Preparedness and 
     Response Directorate and all other staff under the direction 
     of the Secretary) (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Secretary''), shall provide to the Subcommittee on Homeland 
     Security of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate--
       (1) a detailed list that describes, as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, all associated costs (as determined by 
     the Secretary) incurred by New York City, the State of New 
     York, and any other entity or organization established by New 
     York City or the State of New York, as a result of the 
     terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that were paid using 
     funds made available by Congress; and
       (2) a detailed description of--
       (A) the amounts of funds made available after the terrorist 
     attacks of September 11, 2001, that remain unexpended as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act;
       (B) the accounts containing those unexpended funds; and
       (C) a detailed description of any plans for expenditure or 
     obligation of those unexpended funds.
       (b) Not later than 15 days after the date of receipt of a 
     request from the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate for any information 
     directly related to information described in subsection (a), 
     the Secretary, and such staff located in a regional office of 
     the Department of Homeland Security or the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate, shall provide the information to the 
     Subcommittee.

                           Amendment No. 1106

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1106 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1106.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to report to 
Congress regarding the vulnerability of certain facilities and measures 
          to provide greater security, and for other purposes)

       On page 100, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 519. (a) Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall 
     assess and report in writing to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Government Affairs, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate on the following:
       (1) The vulnerability posed to high risk areas and 
     facilities from general aviation aircraft that could be 
     stolen or used as a weapon or armed with a weapon.
       (2) The security vulnerabilities existing at general 
     aviation airports that would permit general aviation aircraft 
     to be stolen.
       (3) Low-cost, high-performance technology that could be 
     used to easily track general aviation aircraft that could 
     otherwise fly undetected.
       (4) The feasibility of implementing security measures that 
     would disable general aviation aircraft while on the ground 
     and parked to prevent theft.
       (5) The feasibility of performing requisite background 
     checks on individuals working at general aviation airports 
     that have access to aircraft or flight line activities.
       (6) An assessment of the threat posed to high population 
     areas, nuclear facilities, key infrastructure, military 
     bases, and transportation infrastructure that stolen or 
     hijacked general aviation aircraft pose especially if armed 
     with weapons or explosives.
       (7) An assessment of existing security precautions in place 
     at general aviation airports to prevent breaches of the 
     flight line and perimeter.
       (8) An assessment of whether unmanned air traffic control 
     towers provide a security or alert weakness to the security 
     of general aviation aircraft.
       (9) An assessment of the additional measures that should be 
     adopted to ensure the security of general aviation aircraft.
       (b) The report required by subsection (a) shall include 
     cost estimates associated with implementing each of the 
     measures recommended in the report.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask that Senators Lautenberg, Corzine, 
and Schumer be added as cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this is a commonsense amendment 
regarding the potential threat that all of our cities and States face 
from the theft or misuse of general aviation aircraft by criminals or 
terrorists.
  This amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, to assess the 
dangers posed to high-risk, large population, and critical 
infrastructure areas should general aviation aircraft be stolen and 
used as a weapon by a criminal or terrorist.
  This study would require the two Secretaries to assess the 
vulnerability of general aviation airports and aircraft and study what 
low-cost, high-technology devices could be available to better track 
general aviation aircraft.
  Last month, a 20-year-old young man, while intoxicated and 
accompanied by two other individuals, breached a perimeter fence of an 
airport in Danbury, CT. He and his companions stole a small Cessna 172 
aircraft, departed from the airport without detection, flew across the 
eastern border of New York, and eventually, thankfully, landed without 
incident at

[[Page 15845]]

the Westchester County Airport in New York very near to my home.
  What is alarming about this is that this happened, and it happened 
without detection. So far as we know, no one knew the aircraft had been 
stolen or that the joyride was taking place. This incident occurred 
very close to New York City, very close to Indian Point, the nuclear 
facility in the county. Thankfully, this particular incident ended 
without any damage, destruction, or death, and the individuals were 
eventually detained by law enforcement.
  Following the incident, which, as you might imagine, happening so 
close to New York City involving stolen aircraft raised a great deal of 
concern among my constituents, I wrote to Secretary Chertoff and 
Secretary Mineta asking for an investigation into this incident, and I 
hope to hear back from them both soon. But this incident should be a 
forewarning of the types of threats we still face from aircraft. We 
have been very focused on the big commercial aircraft that many of us 
use on a regular basis, but we cannot forget that most aircraft are in 
private hands in local airports, many of them privately owned or 
privately leased, and that they still pose a potential danger to key 
infrastructure, to populated areas, and we need to be more aware of 
what that threat could be.
  The 9/11 Commission, which looked at this, concluded:

       Major vulnerabilities still exist in cargo and general 
     aviation security. These, together with inadequate screening 
     and access controls, continue to present aviation security 
     challenges.

  In addition, the 9/11 Commission told us that we needed to be 
imaginative, we needed to think outside the box. Unfortunately, we 
needed to think like those who wish us harm about what the new and 
emerging threats could be.
  The Transportation Security Administration, known as TSA, issued 
security guidelines for general aviation airports in May of 2004, and 
they outlined some guidelines that general aviation airports should 
follow in order to secure the aircraft and the airfield. There are more 
than 19,000 landing facilities nationwide, including heliports, lakes, 
and dirt landing strips from which aircraft could be launched and more 
than 200,000 general aviation aircraft in our country.
  Of course, it is impossible to avoid every threat that is posed to 
the public or that we can imagine, but we should be vigilant to make 
sure we have a partnership so that local communities, private 
individuals, and private businesses can all take necessary steps to be 
vigilant and protective.
  My amendment requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, to conduct a threat 
assessment posed by security breaches at general aviation airports and 
to look at the potential impact such threats could pose to a number of 
potential targets if an aircraft were used as weapon or were loaded 
with explosives by terrorists.
  The Department of Homeland Security would assess low-cost 
technologies to track general aviation aircraft, the feasibility of 
implementing additional security measures and background checks, an 
analysis of airports with unmanned air traffic control towers and what 
costs may be associated with implementing necessary additional security 
measures.
  We have been very blessed that we have not suffered another terrorist 
attack. That is due to the hard work and vigilance of countless 
Americans who have responded not just heroically but in a very 
steadfast, daily way to prevent, detect, deter, and defend against 
potential threats.
  In this building, we have experienced evacuations which, thankfully, 
were caused by either false alarms or as a result of errors by pilots. 
Recently, another general aviation aircraft breached the airspace over 
Camp David while the President of the United States was present.
  It is important to evaluate the threats that could be posed. In its 
2004 report, the TSA stated that as many vulnerabilities within other 
areas of aviation have been reduced, general aviation may be perceived 
as a more attractive target and consequently more vulnerable to misuses 
by terrorists.
  I have flown in just about every little kind of plane you can 
imagine--medium-sized plane, big plane, crop dusters. I have had doors 
blow off, windows blow off, I have had emergency landings in pastures 
and cow fields and roads. I have been in so many airports at all hours 
of the day and night when no one was around except those getting into 
the airport or those just landing. I have a good idea how available 
these airfields are.
  I appreciate the work the Aviation Security Advisory Committee 
Working Group did in advising the TSA. However, given the heightened 
vulnerability that we all are aware of, given some of the recent 
events--including the evacuations of our own Capitol involving general 
aviation aircraft--we need to roll up our sleeves and take another hard 
look at this. I hope we can do it hand in hand with the general 
aviation fixed-base operators, pilots, owners, airport managers, and 
others who have been working hard to increase security measures at so 
many of these small airports.
  I believe in general aviation. I take advantage of it practically 
every week. It is a significant and important contributor to our 
national economy. I want to be sure we do everything possible to make 
sure it is not in any way affected by any potential criminal or 
terrorist activity.
  This amendment does not mandate any new costs for general aviation. 
It simply requires the study be conducted on vulnerabilities and a 
report made to Congress within 120 days. Most people who own these 
airports, most people who own these general aviation aircraft, want to 
be safe. They want to do what is necessary to protect their investment. 
But we need to have a good analysis of what the threats might be so we 
can be smart about how we address them. We certainly do not want to 
wait until an incident happens.
  I appreciate Chairman Gregg and Senator Byrd who have agreed to 
accept this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent amendment 1106 be agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1106) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 1104

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside to call up amendment 1104.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1104.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require the Transportation Security Administration to 
    implement the use of multi compartment bins to screen passenger 
                  belongings at security checkpoints)

       On page 69, line 12, after ``presence:'', insert the 
     following: ``Provided further, That of the amount made 
     available under this heading, an amount shall be available 
     for the Transportation Security Administration to develop a 
     plan to research, test, and implement multi compartment bins 
     to screen passenger belongings at security checkpoints:''

                    Amendment No. 1104, as Modified

  Mr. ENSIGN. I send a modification to that amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1104), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 69, line 12, after ``presence:'', insert the 
     following: ``Provided further, That of the amount made 
     available under this heading, an amount shall be available 
     for the Transportation Security Administration to develop a 
     plan to research, test, and potentially implement multi 
     compartment bins to screen passenger belongings at security 
     checkpoints:''

  Mr. ENSIGN. I understand both sides have agreed to the amendment, as

[[Page 15846]]

modified, and I ask unanimous consent this amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  The amendment (No. 1104), as modified, was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 1124, as Modified

  Mr. ENSIGN. I call up amendment numbered 1124 for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Does the Senator wish to call for regular order with respect to that 
amendment?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Yes. I send a modification to the desk to that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1124), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 77, line 20, insert ``of which $367,552,000 may be 
     transferred to Customs and Border Protection for hiring an 
     additional 1,000 border agents and for other necessary 
     support activities for such agency; and'' after ``local 
     grants,''.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President; last year when the Senate was considering 
the national intelligence reform bill, we adopted several 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  One of those recommendations was to hire an additional 2,000 new 
custom and border protection agents each year for the next 5 years.
  This body agreed with the recommendation. We agreed that our national 
security depended on such an investment, and we enacted that 
recommendation into law.
  We are now considering the Homeland Security appropriations bill. The 
bill that was reported out of committee includes funding for 1,000 new 
agents in the coming fiscal year. I understand there are problems with 
training 2,000 agents.
  My amendment as modified would provide the Secretary of Homeland 
Security with the discretion to shift $367 million to hire 2,000 new 
agents next year. This amendment is fully offset. I rise today to urge 
the Senate to adopt my amendment so that we can keep the commitment 
that we made to the American people last year. I thank John McCain for 
cosponsoring our amendment.
  The threat of illegal border crossing by people who wish to kill us 
is very real.
  The 9/11 Commission found that many of the 19 hijackers that attacked 
on 9/11 could have been placed on watch lists. But without adequate 
staff and coordinated efforts, the terrorists were allowed to enter the 
United States. Once here they learned how to fly airplanes at American 
flight schools. They conducted surveillance to assess our weaknesses. 
And they attacked.
  In order to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil, we 
must improve every aspect of our Nation's security. Our security is 
truly only as strong as our weakest link.
  For too long, the lack of funding for border agents has been a weak 
link. By funding additional agents, we protect both our southern and 
our, often neglected, northern border. This will make it harder for 
terrorists to enter the United States and attack us.
  There have been several news reports recently that I want to bring to 
my colleagues' attention.
  A few months ago, intelligence officials confirmed that the terrorist 
Zarqawi plans to infiltrate America through our borders. He plans to 
attack targets such as movie theaters, restaurants, and schools. My 
amendment commits the resources to make sure that this does not happen.
  Just last month, in Detroit, a Lebanese national named Mahmoud 
Youssef Kourani, who was in the United States illegally, pled guilty in 
Federal court to conspiring to raise money for a recognized terrorist 
group. He was in the United States raising money to fund terrorists. 
That is outrageous. But what is equally outrageous is how he came into 
the United States in the first place.
  Kourani took advantage of our porous border. Kourani paid a Mexican 
consular official in Beirut $3,000 for a visa to enter Mexico. Once in 
Mexico, he snuck across the U.S.-Mexican border in 2001 and settled in 
Michigan.
  According to Federal prosecutors, Kourani and another member of his 
family are heavily involved with the same group that killed 214 marines 
in Beirut in 1983 and which is also responsible for bombing two U.S. 
embassies.
  While in the United States, Kourani also helped harbor other illegal 
immigrants. Thankfully, he was prosecuted before he could inflict any 
direct harm on any American.
  Given how easy it is for people like Kourani to enter the United 
States, I believe that my amendment is imperative to our national 
security.
  My amendment does not require any additional spending. It gives the 
Secretary discretion which, if used, is completely offset. This 
amendment is paid for.
  Homeland security spending must be based on priorities. The fact that 
terrorists would use our borders to gain access to the United States to 
attack is a real threat. So we must provide funds for customs and 
border protection.
  Three and a half years ago it only took 19 people to change the 
course of this country. We must do everything that we can to prevent 
another terrorist attack on American soil.
  The world has changed dramatically since 9/11 when the terrorists 
used our open and trusting society against us. We cannot allow a repeat 
of that tragedy.
  This amendment will help those who guard our frontiers by providing 
the necessary, and I stress necessary, tools to ensure the safety of 
our citizens.
  In conclusion, I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Chairman 
Gregg, for the job he has done prioritizing what we are doing in the 
area of Homeland Security. His is a very difficult job. We have limited 
resources. It is a question of where are we going to manage our risk 
with the limited resources we have in this global war on terrorism. 
Chairman Gregg has a huge, huge task ahead not only this year but in 
the years to come.
  This year's bill is going a long way to reprioritizing what we need 
to do to defend ourselves against the terrorists. Although the bill 
goes in the right direction, our amendment takes the bill that much 
further toward protecting our national security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the commitment of Senator Ensign and Senator 
McCain on the issue of border security. They have been aggressive in 
their commitment and have done a lot of constructive work. I will leave 
it to the Senate to decide how to handle this amendment.
  I make these points for the purpose of fair disclosure. First off, 
the amendment takes about $360 million out of the first responder 
program and moves it over to the Border Patrol for the purpose of 
hiring 1,000 new border agents. That means first responder money would 
go from $1.9 billion to $1.4 billion.
  In addition, the money that will be moved would be money that would 
go out under threat. In other words, there are two pools of first 
responder money. There is the money that is distributed on the basis of 
threat, and there is the money that is distributed on the basis of 
formula.
  Now, the language of the amendment says ``may.'' I respect the 
decision of the authors of this amendment to use the term ``may'' 
because that will leave it up to the Homeland Security agency to make 
the decision as to where the money should go, whether it should stay in 
the area of first responders or whether it should be moved over to the 
Border Patrol. That is probably good policy in many ways.
  The second thing I think that needs to be noted, however, is the 
reason we arrived at the number 1,000 that we funded--myself and 
Senator Byrd--in this bill for new Border Patrol is because when you 
combine that number with the supplemental, where there were 500 new 
Border Patrol agents added, you are up to 1,500 Border Patrol agents, 
and we know, through efforts of our staff and requests of the 
Department, that because of the facilities' restrictions--we moved most 
of the training from South Carolina over to

[[Page 15847]]

 New Mexico--we can only train probably about 1,300 agents a year right 
now.
  Now, this bill has money in it to get those facilities up to a 
position where they can do a much more robust effort in the area of 
training. In fact, my hope is next year we can train upwards of 2,500 
when we expand these facilities. But right now they have, basically, 
limits on the number of people they can train. So it is not clear these 
additional Border Patrol agents would be able to be trained should we 
want to bring them on line. We do want to bring them on line; it is 
just a question when we can bring them on line. So that is a concern I 
think Members should know about.
  In addition, the physical effort of hiring Border Patrol agents has 
become a problem for the Border Patrol. One of the reasons they were 
not able to hire up to the 2,000, which was originally requested a few 
years ago, was because they could not find qualified people to meet the 
enlistment rolls. We are not sure whether they are going to be able to 
find 1,500 new Border Patrol people. We hope they will. It will put a 
lot of pressure on them to try to find 2,500 new people, which is what 
this number will be if this amendment is adopted.
  But, again, this is an issue of policy. I think the body has the 
right to make a decision on this issue. I do not intend to make any 
points of order against it. I will leave it to the majority of the body 
to decide where they want to have this money spent and how they want to 
set the policy on this issue when the amendment comes up for a vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 1218

  Mr. President, the amendment that the minority leader offered on my 
behalf would provide an additional $1.33 billion above the underlying 
bill for security funding needed for our transit systems, intracity 
buses, intercity rail, and freight rail.
  Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of the London bombings. 
For all of us, the pictures were all too graphic reminders of how 
quickly disaster can strike and how deadly terrorist strikes can be.
  The horrific attacks in London a few days ago were eerily similar to 
the attacks in Madrid, Spain, in March 2004: targeted, coordinated, and 
timed bombings.
  Sadly, crowded subway systems and trains have become inviting targets 
for terrorists. We have witnessed the hysteria and the chaos that these 
events can trigger. Could it happen here? Of course. Are our systems 
more secure? I wonder.
  Last week, when asked if additional funding was needed to secure mass 
transit, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff responded by saying:

       I wouldn't make a policy decision driven by a single event.

  Well, with all due respect to the Secretary, the alarm bells have 
been ringing for years.
  On July 8, the Washington Post printed a chart that provides a 
chronology of bombings with al-Qaida links. This chart shows that, 
starting in 1993 at the World Trade Center in New York City, there have 
been 16 bombings worldwide linked to al-Qaida.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this chart be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          BOMBINGS WITH AL QAEDA LINKS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date                      City             Country          Facility         Attack type      Dead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/26/93.......................  New York City....  U.S.............  World Trade       Car bomb (some          6
                                                                      Center.           participants
                                                                                        later became
                                                                                        associated with
                                                                                        al Qaeda).
6/25/96.......................  Dhahran..........  Saudi Arabia....  Khobar Towers     Truck bomb (some       19
                                                                      housing.          evidence of al
                                                                                        Qaeda).
8/7/98........................  Nairobi..........  Kenya...........  U.S. Embassy....  Truck bomb......      247
8/7/98........................  Dar es Salaam....  Tanzania........  U.S. Embassy....  Truck bomb......       10
10/12/00......................  Aden.............  Yemen...........  Destroyer USS     Bomb on small          17
                                                                      Cole.             boat.
9/11/01.......................  New York,          U.S.............  World Trade       Planes flown        2,973
                                 Washington,                          Center,           into buildings,
                                 Pennsylvania.                        Pentagon,         field.
                                                                      Pennsylvania.
12/22/01......................  Paris-Miami......  Airliner........  Attempted plane   Richard Reid            0
                                                                      bombing.          caught with
                                                                                        shoe bomb.
4/11/02.......................  Djerba Island....  Tunisia.........  Synagogue.......  Truck bomb......       21
6/14/02.......................  Karachi..........  Pakistan........  U.S. consulate..  Suicide car bomb       14
10/6/02.......................  Mina al-Dabah....  Yemen...........  French            Bomb on boat....        1
                                                                      supertanker
                                                                      Limburg.
10/12/02......................  Bali.............  Indonesia.......  Two nightclubs..  Suicide bombings      202
11/28/02......................  Mombasa..........  Kenya...........  Israeli-owned     Suicide car bomb       16
                                                                      Paradise Hotel.
5/12/03.......................  Riyadh...........  Saudi Arabia....  Three compounds   Car bombs.......       23
                                                                      for Westerners.
5/16/03.......................  Casablanca.......  Morocco.........  Five locations..  Suicide bombings       45
8/5/03........................  Jakarta..........  Indonesia.......  JW Marriott       Car bomb........       12
                                                                      Hotel.
3/11/04.......................  Madrid...........  Spain...........  Four trains.....  Bombs in sachels      191
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Washington Post database.

  Mr. BYRD. The alarms do not stop there, Mr. President. According to 
the RAND Corporation, between 1998 and 2003, there were 181 terrorist 
attacks on rail targets worldwide. The Congressional Research Service 
has reported that passenger rail systems in the United States carry 
about five times--five times--as many passengers each day as do the 
airlines. Yet the administration has continuously opposed funding to 
increase security on our trains, subways, and buses.
  Public transportation is used nearly 32 million times a day--think of 
that: 32 million times a day--which is 16 times more than travel on 
domestic airlines. According to the Government Accountability Office, 
nearly 6,000 agencies provide transit services by bus, subway, ferry, 
and light rail to about 14 million Americans each weekday. Amtrak 
carried an all-time record ridership of 25 million passengers in fiscal 
year 2004. Are these lives not worth protecting? How about it?
  What about the dangerous and hazardous materials that are transported 
by rail? We simply are not doing enough. Without proper security 
measures in place, these transports are vulnerable to attack or 
sabotage. Many of these shipments travel to or through major urban 
areas, such as Washington, DC, and, frankly, only minutes down the road 
from where we stand today.
  The Homeland Security Council released a report in July 2004 
indicating that a chlorine tanker explosion in an urban area could kill 
up to 17,500 people. According to a New York Times editorial on June 
20, 2005:

       One of the deadliest terrorist scenarios the Department of 
     Homeland Security has come up with is an attack on a 90-ton 
     rail tanker filled with chlorine. As many as 100,000 people 
     could be killed or injured in less than 30 minutes.

  Yet only 2 out of every 100 transportation security dollars in this 
bill will be spent on rail and transit. What does this mean? This means 
that 98 percent of transportation security funding is going--for 
what?--going for aviation security.
  Since 9/11, I have offered amendments on seven different occasions--
seven different occasions--to add money for transit and rail security. 
However, every time the administration opposed my efforts. So I regret 
the Secretary's comments last week that policy should not be driven by 
a single event.
  I was astonished to learn that the $150 million that Congress 
approved for mass transit and rail security last October is still 
sitting--where?--sitting in the Treasury.
  Finally, on Tuesday, the Department notified Congress how they intend 
to allocate the funds. But an announcement does not make Americans 
safer.

[[Page 15848]]

It takes time for transit and rail systems to actually put these 
security improvements in place, so there is no excuse for these 
bureaucratic delays in Washington.
  Within very limited allocations, Congress has taken the lead by 
providing $265 million between fiscal years 2003 and 2005 for transit 
security. Unfortunately, the administration has let the money sit in 
Washington far too long. It was all of 8 months before all of the 2003 
funding was awarded, and 6 months before the 2004 funding went out the 
door. And here we are again, 9 months after the fiscal year 2005 
transit funding was enacted, and what happens? Well, it is deja vu all 
over again. It is still sitting--where?--in Washington, right here in 
Washington. The administration must overcome the hurdles that have 
caused those delays.
  Clearly, the administration is not taking this threat seriously. It 
certainly would not appear to be. So we must press the administration 
to do more. The horrific events we witnessed just a few days ago ought 
to serve as a call to action by this Government to protect our citizens 
from future attack. For far too long, the administration has put its 
head in the sand where rail and mass transit security are concerned.
  We should be taking steps right now to improve deterrence in our 
transit and rail systems by investing in surveillance cameras, 
investing in locks, in gates, in canine teams, in sensors, and other 
tools.
  Last October, the Senate passed two bipartisan rail security 
authorization bills, S. 2273 and S. 2884, that authorized additional 
funding for securing mass transit and rail systems, but the bills did 
not make it to the White House.
  The bill that is before the Senate reduces funding from $150 million 
in fiscal year 2005 to $100 million. The amendment would increase the 
$100 million to $1.43 billion. That is the amendment that I offer. Let 
me say it again. The amendment would increase the $100 million to $1.43 
billion. The $1.43 billion includes $1.166 billion for transit security 
and $265 million for rail security. So we are taking care of both 
transit security and rail security. That seems to meet both needs, at 
least part way.
  Our security efforts cannot be delayed, Mr. President, and must not 
be underfunded. The lives of the American people depend on strengthened 
security. And whose life is it? It may be your own. It may be your 
relative's. It may be your friend's. The time for hand wringing is 
over. It is time to act.
  So I urge all Senators to support the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the following Senators 
have their names added as cosponsors to the amendment: Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
Sarbanes, Mr. Reed of Rhode Island, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
Kennedy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lautenberg, 
Mr. Dayton, and Mr. Corzine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1120

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feingold, I call up 
amendment No. 1120. The amendment requires the Department of Homeland 
Security to report to the Congress on the use of data-mining 
procedures.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for Mr. 
     Feingold, for himself, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. 
     Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 1120.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require reports to Congress on Department of Homeland 
                      Security use of data-mining)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Data-mining.--The term ``data-mining'' means a query or 
     search or other analysis of 1 or more electronic databases, 
     whereas--
       (A) at least 1 of the databases was obtained from or 
     remains under the control of a non-Federal entity, or the 
     information was acquired initially by another department or 
     agency of the Federal Government for purposes other than 
     intelligence or law enforcement;
       (B) a department or agency of the Federal Government or a 
     non-Federal entity acting on behalf of the Federal Government 
     is conducting the query or search or other analysis to find a 
     predictive pattern indicating terrorist or criminal activity; 
     and
       (C) the search does not use a specific individual's 
     personal identifiers to acquire information concerning that 
     individual.
       (2) Database.--The term ``database'' does not include 
     telephone directories, news reporting, information publicly 
     available via the Internet or available by any other means to 
     any member of the public without payment of a fee, or 
     databases of judicial and administrative opinions.
       (b) Reports on Data-Mining Activities by the Department of 
     Homeland Security.--
       (1) Requirement for report.--The head of each department or 
     agency in the Department of Homeland Security that is engaged 
     in any activity to use or develop data-mining technology 
     shall each submit a report to Congress on all such activities 
     of the agency under the jurisdiction of that official. The 
     report shall be made available to the public.
       (2) Content of report.--A report submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall include, for each activity to use or develop data-
     mining technology that is required to be covered by the 
     report, the following information:
       (A) A thorough description of the data-mining technology 
     and the data that is being or will be used.
       (B) A thorough description of the goals and plans for the 
     use or development of such technology and, where appropriate, 
     the target dates for the deployment of the data-mining 
     technology.
       (C) An assessment of the efficacy or likely efficacy of the 
     data-mining technology in providing accurate information 
     consistent with and valuable to the stated goals and plans 
     for the use or development of the technology.
       (D) An assessment of the impact or likely impact of the 
     implementation of the data-mining technology on the privacy 
     and civil liberties of individuals.
       (E) A list and analysis of the laws and regulations that 
     govern the information being or to be collected, reviewed, 
     gathered, analyzed, or used with the data-mining technology.
       (F) A thorough discussion of the policies, procedures, and 
     guidelines that are in place or that are to be developed and 
     applied in the use of such technology for data-mining in 
     order to--
       (i) protect the privacy and due process rights of 
     individuals; and
       (ii) ensure that only accurate information is collected, 
     reviewed, gathered, analyzed, or used.
       (G) Any necessary classified information in an annex that 
     shall be available to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Homeland Security, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
       (3) Time for report.--Each report required under paragraph 
     (1) shall be submitted not later than 90 days after the end 
     of fiscal year 2006.

  Mr. BYRD. The amendment is cosponsored by Senator Corzine. I urge 
adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1120) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the amendment 
was agreed to be reconsidered.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 1155, as Modified

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Boxer, I call up 
amendment No. 1155, with a modification which I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for Mrs. Boxer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1155, as modified:

     (Purpose: To provide oversight of homeland security spending)

     SEC.  . SPENDING OVERSIGHT.

       ``None of the funds made available in this Act shall be 
     used for items identified in the Inspector General's Report 
     of March 2005 `Irregularities in the Development of the

[[Page 15849]]

     Transportation Security Operations Center' as wasteful.''

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does the modification need unanimous 
consent?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? 
Without action, the amendment is so modified.
  Mr. BYRD. The amendment, as modified, prevents funds from being used 
for wasteful expenditures. I urge adoption of the amendment, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1155), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move that the vote be reconsidered by 
which the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1201

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 1201.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1201.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require State and local governments to expend or return 
                              grant funds)

       On page 81, strike line 20 and insert the following:

     award: Provided further, That any recipient of Federal funds 
     granted through the State Homeland Security Grant Program, 
     the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and the 
     Urban Area Security Initiative Program, or any predecessor or 
     successor to these programs, as appropriated in fiscal year 
     2004 and fiscal year 2005, shall expend funds pursuant to the 
     relevant, approved State plan by September 30, 2007: Provided 
     further, That any recipient of Federal funds granted through 
     any program described in the preceding proviso, as 
     appropriated in fiscal year 2006, shall expend funds pursuant 
     to the relevant, approved State plan by September 30, 2008: 
     Provided further, That any funds not expended by September 
     30, 2007 or September 30, 2008, respectively, as required by 
     the preceding 2 provisos shall be returned to the Department 
     of Homeland Security to be reallocated to State and local 
     entities based on risk and in conformance with the 
     assessments now being conducted by the States under Homeland 
     Security Presidential Directive 8.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment would require that States and 
localities spend their first responder funds pursuant to approved State 
plans within 2 years of the end of the fiscal year that they received 
the funds. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1201) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are in the process of trying to reach an 
understanding on votes. It is not clear what that understanding will 
be, but we do intend to have votes this evening, maybe as many as five. 
In addition, I understand the Senator from Nevada wishes to be 
recognized on an amendment. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                Amendment No. 1219 To Amendment No. 1124

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Senator's 
amendment No. 1124.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], for himself and Mr. 
     McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 1219 to amendment No. 
     1124:

 (Purpose: To transfer appropriated funds from the Office of State and 
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness to the U.S. Customs and 
  Border Protection for the purpose of hiring 1,000 additional border 
                    agents and related expenditures)

       Strike all after the first word and insert the following:
       On page 77, line 20, insert ``of which $367,551,000 may be 
     transferred to Customs and Border Protection for hiring an 
     additional 1,000 border agents and for other necessary 
     support activities for such agency; and'' after ``local 
     grants,''.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I 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. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2006 
Homeland Security appropriations bill. The first fundamental 
responsibility for our Federal Government is to protect the American 
people through a strong national defense and effective homeland 
security. Border security and immigration reform are essential elements 
of providing for a secure homeland. With that, I am here this afternoon 
to commend the chairman of the Appropriations Homeland Security 
Subcommittee, Senator Gregg, and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, for 
their aggressive and decisive steps forward that are being demonstrated 
in this legislation.
  This bill continues to improve that which made our Nation and our 
people much safer than we were before and immediately after 9/11. I am 
proud to serve with the chairman and the ranking member and our 
colleagues on this subcommittee. We need to do more to improve our 
border security and immigration enforcement, however. It is important 
for Americans to understand that this Congress is making significant 
progress in this area.
  Earlier this year, as a result of a Byrd-Craig amendment to the 
fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, we began 
the process of adding 500 new Border Patrol agents, 1,950 additional 
detention beds, and approximately 118 additional investigators, agents, 
and officers to the whole effort at Border Patrol. In fiscal year 2006, 
the bill that is before us continues to implement and build upon the 
progress that we have made in the Byrd-Craig amendment.
  This bill, as reported by the committee, provides for 1,000 more 
Border Patrol agents. It increases the total number of beds at 
immigration detention centers by 2,240 to a total of 22,727.
  It also adds 300 new immigration investigation positions and 200 new 
immigration enforcement agents and detention officers.
  This bill, as reported, in combination with the supplemental bill we 
passed earlier, makes record increases to commit record resources to 
border security and immigration enforcement.
  In total levels of key personnel alone, the Appropriations Committee 
has provided for 12,400-plus Border Patrol agents; 18,200-plus Customs 
and border protection officers; 6,000-plus criminal investigators for 
Customs and immigration work; 1,200-plus deportation officers; and 
2,700-plus immigration enforcement agents and detention officers.
  In other words, in these positions alone, this bill provides for 
literally an army of more than 40,000 agents and officers fighting on 
the front lines for border security and immigration enforcement.
  The committee has made an earnest attempt to add resources and 
personnel as fast as the Department of Homeland Security can absorb 
them and use them effectively. The bill, as reported, makes available 
more than $7.1 billion for Customs and border protection, and more than 
$4.5 billion in immigration and Customs enforcement.
  While those dollars and personnel numbers reflect something of our 
commitment to improve border security and immigration enforcement, it 
is important to emphasize the work being

[[Page 15850]]

done and the progress being made for the American people.
  More than 1 million individuals a year are being apprehended 
attempting to enter the country illegally, and formal removals have 
increased sixfold over the last decade. Worker identification checks 
have intensified. Development continues on US VISIT--the United States 
Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology Program. Personnel 
are being trained. Technology is being modernized.
  This bill calls on the administration, and provides resources to 
help, to close the gaps at our borders, to improve interagency 
coordination inside the Department of Homeland Security and with 
outside agencies, and to meet the challenges remaining from the 
historic, and massive, reorganization that created the Department.
  As I have said, we do need to do more. The Federal Government has no 
laurels to rest on when it comes to border security or immigration. The 
problem of illegal immigration has grown to crisis proportion, with an 
estimated 10 million undocumented persons now living here in this 
country.
  During much of the 1990s, and at different times in preceding 
decades, the Federal Government simply paid lipservice to enforcing the 
law while mostly looking the other way. This was with the quiet 
complicity of much of the public, in large part, because whole sectors 
of the economy have become increasingly dependent on the labor of these 
people. This is an intolerable situation.
  Our Nation's immigration system and laws are broken. Whether we are 
talking about more money, more law, or both, a policy that focuses 
exclusively on more enforcement is not enough, and it will not work. It 
is a part of the total picture.
  The United States has 7,458 miles of land borders and 88,600 miles of 
tidal shoreline. We can secure those frontiers well, but not perfectly. 
As we have stepped up border enforcement, we have locked persons in 
this country at least as effectively as we have locked them out of the 
country. Even as we have increased border enforcement, net illegal 
immigration is estimated at 400,000 to 500,000 a year. Fellow Senators, 
that is a figure worth repeating. Net illegal immigration in our 
country still, today, at this moment, in this year, will be between 
400,000 to 500,000. To search door to door, as some would advocate, to 
find 10 million persons and flush them out of their homes, schools, 
churches, workplaces, and other areas is simply something the American 
people, in the end, would never tolerate. The question of civil 
liberties would grow and that effort would fall apart. We fought a 
revolution once in this great country of ours against search of our 
homes and, once again, I think the American people would react to that 
as not only unconstitutional, but dramatically intrusive.
  So what do we do? This bill is a major step in the right direction. 
First and foremost, we secure our borders. As I have said, that is step 
one. Step two, to me, is we change the law and we change the character 
of the law to deal with the problem that clearly is at hand; provide 
incentives for those inside our borders to come forward and identify 
themselves; laws that ensure there is a supply of legal guest workers 
to take jobs Americans don't want or won't take. For example, when 
American agriculture briefly had a widely used legal guest worker 
program in the 1950s, illegal immigration plummeted by more than 90 
percent. That program was called the Bracero Program. It worked well, 
but it had lots of criticism for the way the foreign nationals were 
treated inside this country. As a result, it fell apart. We were then 
given what we have today--a very cumbersome law that no longer works.
  Last year, that law identified about 42,000 to 45,000 legal workers 
for American agriculture. Yet, we know there were well over a million 
working in this country for American agriculture that were probably 
illegal. That, too, is an intolerable situation. It is why several 
years ago I began to look at ways to solve this problem--at least for 
agriculture--because American agriculture is nervous, and they ought to 
be; they know that even though those workers who come to them have what 
appear to be legal documents, the reality is that they are, by 70 
percent of their workforce, working illegal foreign nationals. If it is 
not corrected, it is an intolerable situation for American agriculture 
to be in.
  That story can be played out in a variety of other industries. But as 
I began to focus on this a good number of years ago, I recognized there 
was a significant problem that had to be dealt with. It is not a 
popular thing to do, but immigration and immigration reform is never 
popular. Those of us who are the children of immigrants sometimes hold 
the attitude, close the border and let no one in. Yet, today, in the 
American workforce we know that at a growing high record of employment 
we still have well over 10 million foreign nationals, undocumented, 
working in our economy in jobs that Americans oftentimes choose not to 
work in.
  That is why I created the bill AgJOBS, now supported by well over 60 
Senators. We got a vote this year of 53 to 45 on a procedural motion to 
allow that Agricultural Job Opportunity and Benefit Security Act to 
come to the floor and ultimately work through the process and become 
law. Other colleagues of mine are working on types of reform.
  So what we are doing today with the Homeland Security Appropriations 
bill is making a quantum leap in the right direction. No immigration 
policy, no matter how forward-looking, how flexible, and how reasonable 
it might be to identify those who are in the country, to allow the ebb 
and flow necessary to meet both the economic needs and humanitarian 
needs that we are all for--you cannot do it without controlling your 
borders, without controlling the flow that comes across them. That is 
what this bill makes a major step in doing.
  I am pleased to be a member of the subcommittee and to join with 
Chairman Gregg and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, whom I have worked 
with on this issue before. I believe this bill deserves the support of 
the Senate. If you are for immigration reform, if you believe in 
controlling our borders, if you recognize this is an issue that has 
gone well out of control, then you would want to vote for this 
legislation. Is it a tremendous investment? You bet it is. But it is an 
investment long coming, because it is the investment we have denied and 
ignored as necessary to make for well over two decades. As a result of 
that, we have the consequences of the situation we deal with today.
  Now is the time to correct it. Now is the time to reshape immigration 
policy in our country, and to do so recognizing that it is a two-front 
issue--both to have the right law in place, and to secure our borders 
so that those who come across are identified and move across legally 
and appropriately, consistent with the laws of our land.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Boxer 
and Kerry have their names added to the Byrd transit amendment No. 
1218.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1166

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1166.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1166.

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

[[Page 15851]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: To designate a port of entry)

       On page 70, line 20, strike ``purposes.'' and insert the 
     following: ``purposes: Provided further, That MidAmerica St. 
     Louis Airport in Mascoutah, Illinois, shall be designated as 
     a port of entry.''.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is a very brief and simple amendment. 
It designates MidAmerica St. Louis Airport in Mascoutah, IL, as a port 
of entry.
  MidAmerica Airport is the civilian side of Scott Air Force Base, one 
of the region's largest employers. MidAmerica and Scott Air Force Base 
have a successful joint-use plan.
  MidAmerica is classified as a foreign trade zone and is a finalist to 
be classified as an interior transshipment point for international air 
cargo. The MidAmerica Airport does not currently have international 
traffic, although a passenger terminal was built to host pre-9/11 
Customs activities. International air cargo transport is nonexistent in 
the region, and it would give MidAmerica a means to enhance the 
region's economy. This would be beneficial to homeland security and 
would enhance economic development in the metro East St. Louis region.
  Mr. President, I ask that this amendment be set aside.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have no problem agreeing to this 
amendment if the Senator wants to ask unanimous consent for its 
approval.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
1166 be considered and agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? 
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1166) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1205

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 1205.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], for himself, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Schumer, Ms. 
     Stabenow, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Byrd, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Lieberman, 
     Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Kerry, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1205.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To appropriate funds for transit security grants for fiscal 
 year 2006 equal to the amount authorized in the Public Transportation 
                   Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004)

       On page 77, line 18, strike ``$2,694,300,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,760,300,000''.
       On page 78, strike line 25 and all that follows through 
     ``(E)'' on page 79, line 5, and insert the following: 
     ``security grants; and
       ``(D)''.
       On page 79, between 22 and 23, insert the following:
       (7) $1,166,000,000 for transit security grants, of which--
       (A) $790,000,000 shall be for grants for public 
     transportation agencies for allowable capital security 
     improvements;
       (B) $333,000,000 shall be for grants for public 
     transportation agencies for allowable operational security 
     improvements; and
       (C) $43,000,000 shall be for grants to public or private 
     entities to conduct research into, and demonstration of, 
     technologies and methods to reduce and deter terrorist 
     threats or mitigate damages resulting from terrorist attacks 
     against public transportation systems:


                    Amendment No. 1205, as Modified

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I further ask to modify the amendment with 
a modification that I sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 1205), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 77, line 15, strike all through page 79, line 6 and 
     insert the following:
       ``For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     activities, including grants to State and local governments 
     for terrorism prevention activities, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, $3,860,300,000, which shall be 
     allocated as follows:
       (1) $1,518,000,000 for State and local grants, of which 
     $425,000,000 shall be allocated such that each State and 
     territory shall receive the same dollar amount for the State 
     minimum as was distributed in fiscal year 2005 for formula-
     based grants: Provided, That the balance shall be allocated 
     by the Secretary. of Homeland Security to States, urban 
     areas, or regions based on risks; threats; vulnerabilities; 
     and unmet essential capabilities pursuant to Homeland 
     Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8).
       (2) $400,000,000 for law enforcement terrorism prevention 
     grants, of which $155,000,000 shall be allocated such that 
     each State and territory shall receive the same dollar amount 
     for the State minimum as was distributed in fiscal year 2005 
     for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants: Provided, 
     That the balance shall be allocated by the Secretary to 
     States based on risks; threats; vulnerabilities; and unmet 
     essential capabilities pursuant to HSPD-8.
       (3) $1,531,000,000 for discretionary transportation and 
     infrastructure grants, as determined by the Secretary, of 
     which--
       (A) $200,000,000 shall be for port security grants pursuant 
     to the purposes of 46 United States Code 70107(a) through 
     (h), which shall be awarded based on threat notwithstanding 
     subsection (a), for eligible costs as defined in subsections 
     (b)(2)-(4);
       (B) $5,000,000 shall be for trucking industry security 
     grants;
       (C) $10,000,000 shall be for intercity bus security grants;
       (D) $100,000,000 shall be for intercity passenger rail 
     transportation (as defined in section 24102 of title 49, 
     United States Code) and freight rail security grants;
       (E) 1,166,000,000 shall be for transit security grants, of 
     which--
       (i) $790,000,000 shall be for grants for public 
     transportation agencies for allowable capital security 
     improvements;
       (ii) $333,000,000 shall be for grants for public 
     transportation agencies for allowable operational security 
     improvements; and
       (iii) $43,000,000 shall be for grants to public or private 
     entities to conduct research into, and demonstration of, 
     technologies and methods to reduce and deter terrorist 
     threats or mitigate damages resulting from terrorist attacks 
     against public transportation systems; and
       (F) $50,000,000 shall be for buffer zone protection plan 
     grants.''.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the funding level in this amendment is 
based on many things, and I will tell you about it. In fiscal year 
2006, we were planning to have the Public Transportation Terrorism 
Prevention Act that would have provided a total of $1.166 billion for 
public transportation security grants based on risk. It provides for 
grants for capital infrastructure improvements, for public 
transportation systems, as well as operational costs for drills and 
training and research funding. Everything--cameras, dogs, and you might 
go further with it.
  We have taken necessary and prudent steps toward protecting our air 
travel from terrorism--we hope. We made strides toward hardening our 
aviation systems and making them less vulnerable to attack. Now I 
believe is the time to do the same for public transportation.
  In 2004, the last year that data was available, over 9.6 billion 
passenger trips were taken on buses, trains, and other forms of public 
transportation. The American Public Transportation Association 
estimates that over 14 million Americans ride on public transportation 
each weekday. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that 
another 25 million use public transportation less frequently but on a 
regular basis.
  Securing public transportation presents many challenges. We know 
that. The public transportation system includes over 100,000 miles of 
rail, almost 1,000 train and subway stations, and 60,000 buses. Meeting 
this challenge will require devoted resources and steadfast commitment 
to the task.
  Today this amendment I am offering on behalf of myself, Senator 
Sarbanes, and others is an amendment to the Department of Homeland 
Security appropriations bill. As the Banking Committee has jurisdiction 
over transit security issues, a lot of the colleagues on

[[Page 15852]]

the Banking Committee on both sides of the aisle are joining me in this 
amendment.
  The London attacks well illustrate the threats we face in this 
country, and we know all too well that England is not alone. Terrorists 
have targeted public transportation systems the world over, and we know 
they would delight in a successful attack here.
  To this date, most terrorist attacks around the world have occurred 
on public transportation. Examples are, as you know, Mr. President, 
Spain, Israel, Japan, and other countries, and this should cause us to 
consider how we will aim to prevent such terrible attacks on our soil.
  Over a year ago, Senator Sarbanes and I reported out of the Banking 
Committee the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act. It had 
numerous cosponsors and passed the Senate with a unanimous vote. The 
bill was crafted in a thoughtful and considered manner after a series 
of hearings held in the committee.
  In those sessions, we spoke to terrorism experts and industry 
officials to ascertain the best way to protect public transportation 
systems in the country. The product was a bill that had the support of 
industry and terrorism experts alike. This amendment we are offering 
today comes out of that bill.
  I believe we must provide resources toward mitigating these security 
threats, and we must do so as soon as possible. We cannot wait.
  I also appreciate the challenge that Chairman Gregg of the committee 
faces. I serve on the Appropriations Committee with him, and I, too, am 
chairman of a subcommittee on appropriations. As he attempts to address 
the multitude of security challenges in this appropriations bill, the 
allocation of funding is daunting. Attempting to find the balance 
between ports, rail, public transportation, and other targets is a 
difficult task.
  We could have infinite resources to spend and still not be totally 
protected. We must realize this. We must concede that in the debate. 
But I think we have to do more to protect our public transportation 
system. It is in that spirit, I am offering this amendment tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


         Amendment No. 1220 to Amendment No. 1205, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk and ask it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1220 to amendment No. 1205, as modified.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the first word and insert the following:
       grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     activities, including grants to State and local governments 
     for terrorism prevention activities, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, $2,694,299,000, which shall be 
     allocated as follows:
       (1) $1,417,999,000 for State and local grants, of which 
     $425,000,000 shall be allocated such that each State and 
     territory shall receive the same dollar amount for the State 
     minimum as was distributed in fiscal year 2005 for formula-
     based grants: Provided, That the balance shall be allocated 
     by the Secretary of Homeland Security to States, urban areas, 
     or regions based on risks; threats; vulnerabilities; and 
     unmet essential capabilities pursuant to Homeland Security 
     Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8).
       (2) $400,000,000 for law enforcement terrorism prevention 
     grants, of which $155,000,000 shall be allocated such that 
     each State and territory shall receive the same dollar amount 
     for the State minimum as was distributed in fiscal year 2005 
     for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants: Provided, 
     That the balance shall be allocated by the Secretary to 
     States based on risks; threats; vulnerabilities; and unmet 
     essential capabilities pursuant to HSPD-8.
       (3) $465,000,000 for discretionary transportation and 
     infrastructure grants, as determined by the Secretary, which 
     shall be based on risks, threats, and vulnerabilities, of 
     which--
       (A) $195,000,000 shall be for port security grants pursuant 
     to the purposes of 46 United States Code 70107(a) through 
     (h), which shall be awarded based on threat notwithstanding 
     subsection (a), for eligible costs as defined in subsections 
     (b)(2)-(4);
       (B) $5,000,000 shall be for trucking industry security 
     grants;
       (C) $15,000,000 shall be for intercity bus security grants;
       (D) $200,000,000 shall be for intercity passenger rail 
     transportation (as defined in section 24102 of title 49, 
     United States Code), freight rail, and transit security 
     grants; and
       (E) $50,000,000 shall be for buffer zone protection plan 
     grants.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                    Amendment No. 1205, As Modified

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the distinguished chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs Committee. The need to improve security throughout 
our Nation's public transportation system has been apparent for quite 
some time. In fact, last year in the committee, I worked closely with 
Chairman Shelby and with Senator Reed of Rhode Island who have been 
leaders on this issue both within the committee and throughout the 
Senate, on the Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
  That legislation came out of the committee unanimously and was 
approved in the Senate last October 1 by unanimous consent. So every 
Member of this body, in effect, validated that legislation. That bill 
authorized $3.5 billion over 3 years in security for our Nation's mass 
transportation systems. Of that amount, $1.16 billion was scheduled for 
fiscal year 2006.
  This funding level was authorized to begin to address the critical 
security needs that exist throughout the thousands of public 
transportation systems in our country. The amendment offered by the 
chairman of the committee, which I have joined in cosponsoring, along 
with my able colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, and others, 
seeks to provide the appropriations level to sustain the authorized 
level, which this body has heretofore approved.
  In the wake of the tragic attack in London last Thursday, which has 
claimed over 50 lives and left hundreds more injured, we clearly need 
to more fully fund transit security, and going to the previously 
Senate-authorized level seems to make imminent good sense. The Senate 
anticipated this problem in the authorization, and the committee 
brought out well-considered legislation which this body passed 
unanimously. We have not provided the wherewithal to support the 
authorization, and this amendment seeks to do exactly that.
  The threat to transit is not new. We have had terrorist attacks 
against transit systems in Moscow, South Korea, and London. In fact, in 
2002, the GAO found that one-third of all terrorist attacks worldwide 
were against transit systems. Despite this significant threat, security 
funding has been grossly inadequate.
  Our Nation's transit systems have been unable to implement necessary 
security improvements, including those that have been identified by the 
Department of Homeland Security. In an editorial last Friday, the 
Baltimore Sun stated that, ``Since September 11, 2001, the Federal 
Government has spent $18 billion on aviation security. Transit systems, 
which carry 16 times more passengers daily, have received about $250 
million. That is a ridiculous imbalance.''
  They go on to state:

       Transit officials estimate it would take $6 billion to make 
     buses and rail systems safe. And Congress has in the past 
     considered authorizing $3.5 billion over three years for the 
     same purpose.

  That is a direct reference to the Public Transportation Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004, which, as has been noted, passed the Senate 
unanimously.
  These moneys will be used for such necessities as: security cameras, 
radios, front-line employee training, and extra security personnel. 
They are not extravagant requests.
  Let me give one example of a critical need right here with respect to 
Washington's Metro. Their greatest security need is a backup control 
operations

[[Page 15853]]

center. This need was identified by the Federal Transit Administration 
in its initial security assessment and then identified again by the 
Department of Homeland Security in its subsequent security assessment. 
This critical need remains unaddressed because it has been unfunded. 
This amendment provides the funding to match what was set out in the 
authorization.
  We know that transit systems are potential targets for terrorist 
attacks. We know the vital role these systems play in our Nation's 
economic and security infrastructure. We can wait no longer to address 
these critical security needs of the transit systems throughout the 
Nation. This amendment begins the important process of providing these 
critically needed funds.
  Again, I thank the able chairman of the committee for his excellent 
leadership on the transit security issue and Senator Reed for his 
strong and continued commitment on this issue and his perseverance over 
a sustained period of time. I thank all of our colleagues who have 
joined as cosponsors of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the Baltimore Sun of 
July 8 referenced in my statement be printed in full at the end of my 
statement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Security Derailed

       Yesterday's attack on London's transit system was 
     frighteningly familiar. Just 16 months ago, terrorists in 
     Madrid killed nearly 200 people and wounded more than 1,500 
     by setting off bombs in commuter trains. Both demonstrated 
     the potential vulnerability of buses and rail systems. Yet, 
     until yesterday, many in Washington seemed unconcerned that 
     something similar could happen in the United States.
       Last month, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to 
     reduce the Department of Homeland Security's budget for 
     transit and rail security from $150 million (the amount spent 
     annually now) to $100 million in the upcoming fiscal year. 
     Certainly, no one knew terrorists would target London, but 
     the 2004 bombings in Spain should have been fresh in 
     senators' minds. What does it take for Congress to grasp this 
     issue?
       Since Sept. 11, 2001, the federal government has spent $18 
     billion on aviation security. Transit systems--which carry 16 
     times more passengers daily--have received about $250 
     million. That's a ridiculous imbalance. Transit officials 
     estimate it would take $6 billion to make buses and rail 
     systems safe. And Congress has in the past considered 
     authorizing $3.5 billion over three years for the same 
     purpose.
       How would those in charge of the nation's public transit 
     systems spend the extra money? Chiefly for necessities like 
     security cameras, radios, training and extra security 
     personnel. Those aren't extravagant requests. Local 
     governments have spent $2 billion to keep buses and trains 
     safe over the past four years, according to the American 
     Public Transit Association.
       The Bush administration originally asked for significantly 
     more than $150 million to create a Targeted Infrastructure 
     Protection Program that would not only increase transit 
     security but also assist vulnerable shipping ports and energy 
     facilities, too. And though transit and rail systems might 
     have been shortchanged by that arrangement, it is not 
     unreasonable to let DHS officials set their own investment 
     priorities--if an adequate budget is made available to them.
       Transit advocates are hopeful that the $50 million cut can 
     be restored. The attacks in London suggest much more is 
     needed. Advocates want $2 billion for transit and rail 
     security in the fiscal 2006 budget (not counting the amount 
     needed to protect Amtrak). Suddenly, that doesn't seem quite 
     so unreasonable an expenditure.
       Still, the failure to address transit security in the wake 
     of last year's bombings in Madrid underscores Capitol Hill's 
     inability to set appropriate spending priorities in matters 
     of domestic security. As the 9/11 commission pointed out, 
     Congress has treated portions of the DHS budget like so much 
     bacon, apportioning more per capita to Wyoming than to New 
     York. Between the costly war in Iraq and record budget 
     deficits, the nation can ill afford to be so foolish with its 
     security resources.

  Mr. SARBANES. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to commend Chairman Shelby for his 
leadership on this issue and Senator Sarbanes for his leadership. I am 
proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment along with Chairman Shelby 
and Senator Sarbanes. They have said it very well. We understand that 
transit systems are threatened by terrorists. That understanding was 
developed after 9/11, but certainly it was sharpened last week with the 
attack in London that left 52 dead and over 700 injured.
  We recognize that we have to protect these vulnerable transit 
systems, and the purpose of this amendment is to provide the resources 
to do that. There are 6,000 transit systems in the United States, so 
this money, although it seems significant, will barely keep up with the 
demands for security improvements to transit systems across the United 
States.
  Each day, 14 million riders use transit to get to work, to get to 
appointments, to get to hospitals, to do what they must do. Let me 
disabuse the notion that this is just the province of the very biggest 
metropolises like New York City. In Dallas, for example, on a yearly 
basis, 55 million trips a year on transit; Houston, 96 million trips a 
year; Atlanta, 137 million trips per year; Portland, 95 million; 
Charlotte, NC, 16 million trips per year; Philadelphia, PA, 297 million 
trips per year; and Minneapolis, 56.9 million trips per year.
  Millions of Americans each day get on a subway or a bus and use the 
transit system. They are today not as well protected as they should be. 
The point of this amendment is to begin to get the resources together 
to start those sensible investments in capital equipment, in 
operational techniques and training and in consequence management that 
are so important for transit security.
  As Senator Sarbanes pointed out, the GAO has found that one-third of 
the terrorist attacks in the last several years have been directed 
against transit systems. We know it is a target.
  After 9/11, as I was acting as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Housing and Transportation, I held a hearing--in fact several 
hearings--about the need for improvement of transit security. Today, 
that evidence is even more compelling based upon what has happened in 
London, Moscow, and Spain. All of these things should compel us to 
support this amendment enthusiastically.
  One final point: Not only is transit important, not only is it a 
target for terrorists, but in terror attacks transit is an important 
aspect in consequence management. People were evacuated from the 
Pentagon because of the subway systems and the Metro systems in 
Washington. Transit trains moved underneath the World Trade Center. In 
fact, cool action by some of the transit police and transit dispatchers 
was able to minimize casualties. That will not happen if they do not 
have the communication equipment, the training, and the ability to 
respond and react to a possible terrorist attack.
  So not only is transit a likely target, but it is an essential means 
of managing the consequences of an attack in any urban area anywhere in 
the United States.
  So I again urge my colleagues to join Senator Shelby, Senator 
Sarbanes, and our other colleagues who support this amendment. It is 
important. It is more than timely; it is, frankly, after last week, 
overdue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it appears we will be able to begin voting 
here around 6:30, just for Members' edification. The first vote will be 
on the point of order relative to the amendment of Senator Dodd, 
followed hopefully with a second amendment dealing with one of the 
amendments of Senator Akaka.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1202, As Modified

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have cleared this with the distinguished 
manager of the bill. I send a modification of the Dodd amendment, 
amendment No. 1202, to the desk.

[[Page 15854]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? 
Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 77, line 18, strike $2,694,000,000 and insert 
     $13,863,377,000.
       On page 77, line 20, strike $1,518,000,000 and insert 
     $7,810,788,066.
       On page 77, line 21, strike $425,000,000 and insert 
     $2,058,178,673.
       On page 78, line 13, strike $365,000,000 and insert 
     $1,878,088,040.
       On page 78, line 16, strike $200,000,000 and insert 
     $1,029,089,337.
       On page 78, line 22, strike $5,000,000 and insert 
     $25,727,233.
       On page 78, line 24, strike $10,000,000 and insert 
     $51,454,467.
       On page 79, line 1, strike $100,000,000 and insert 
     $514,544,668.
       On page 79, line 5, strike $50,000,000 and insert 
     $257,272,334.
       On page 79, line 7, strike $50,000,000 and insert 
     $257,272,334.
       On page 79, line 9, strike $40,000,000 and insert 
     $205,817,867.
       On page 79, line 21, strike $321,300,000 and insert 
     $1,653,232,019.
       On page 81, line 24, strike $615,000,000 and insert 
     $3,164,802,000.
       On page 81, line 24, strike $550,000,000 and insert 
     $2,830,311,000.
       On page 81, line 26, strike $65,000,000 and insert 
     $334,491,000.
       On page 82, line 12, strike $180,000,000 and insert 
     $926,284,000.
       On page 83, line 12, strike $203,499,000 and insert 
     $1,047,210,000.
       On Page 89, line 3, strike $194,000,000 and insert 
     $998,327,800.

  Mr. DODD. Let me begin once again by expressing my appreciation to 
the chairman and the manager of this bill, Senator Gregg, and my 
colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. They have done a good job 
with this bill. This bill deals with several complicated issues. The 
events during the past few days in London have highlighted the 
importance of these issues concerning our homeland security. I want to 
express my appreciation to Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd for operating 
within the constraints of the budget caps.
  I realize by offering an amendment so large--50 percent of the entire 
amount in this bill--I am offering an extraordinary amendment. I tried 
to make it clear today that these are extraordinary times with 
extraordinary events. Since 1983, when the bombing of the Marine 
barracks took place in Beirut where we lost 242 Marines, 221 major 
terrorist attacks have occurred around the world. Fifty-eight of those 
attacks, almost 25 percent, were carried out in transit systems, with 
the use of trucks or cars or in seaports.
  We know today in our own country that we are glaringly lax in 
providing the security we need within our transit systems, harbors, and 
ports.
  The amendment I am offering is not one that I have crafted on my own. 
It was crafted largely from the recommendations Senator Warren Rudman, 
our former colleague, had suggested in a report sponsored by the 
Council on Foreign Relations that included many distinguished Americans 
who have worked in areas of national security as well as public health, 
intelligence, and bioterrorism. They suggested strongly in their report 
that we spend some $20 billion a year in order to fully invest in what 
we need to make our country more secure.
  Let me quote, if I can, once again, because I think his comments are 
worth repeating, the language of Senator Rudman in that report. Senator 
Rudman said at that time:

       The terrible events of September 11 have shown the American 
     people how vulnerable they are because attacks on that scale 
     had never been carried out on U.S. soil. The United States 
     and the American people were caught underprotected and 
     unaware of the magnitude of the threat facing them.

  He goes on to say:

       In the wake of September 11, ignorance of the nature of the 
     threat or of what the United States must do to prepare for 
     future attacks can no longer explain America's continuing 
     failure to allocate sufficient resources in preparing local 
     emergency responders. It would be a terrible tragedy indeed 
     if it took another catastrophic attack to drive that point 
     home.

  Let me also, if I can, read once again the language of Les Gelb, in 
preparing the foreword of that report. Les Gelb wrote, on the occasion 
of this report being filed:

       As I sit to write this foreword, it is likely that a 
     terrorist group somewhere in the world is developing plans to 
     attack the United States and/or American interests abroad 
     using chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or 
     catastrophic conventional means. At the same time, diplomats, 
     legislators, military and intelligence officers, police, 
     fire, and emergency medical personnel and others in the 
     United States and across the globe are working feverishly to 
     prevent and prepare for such attacks. These two groups of 
     people are ultimately in a race with one another. This is a 
     race we cannot afford to lose.

  I think those words ought to be taken to heart. Since that report was 
filed, of course, we have seen the attacks in Madrid on their transit 
system and the people there who lost their lives in March of 2004 and 
we have seen the attacks in London, the suicide bombings that we now 
know occurred there--the first time suicide bombers appeared in the 
West. What kind of attack will it take for us to realize we can no 
longer wait to do what needs to be done to prepare our transit systems, 
our ports, our harbors--what more needs to be done to make America more 
secure?
  Is my amendment a large amendment? It is. Is it extraordinary in its 
size? It is. But I strongly suggest to my colleagues the events we are 
facing as a people are no less extraordinary and demand, I think, 
extraordinary action.
  While there will be a move here, obviously, to raise the point of 
order on the budget against this amendment because of its size--and I 
have asked to waive that point of order--at some point we are going to 
be faced again with these tragedies. I only hope we have the resources 
at hand to minimize them. How many events will it take? What 
catastrophic occurrence is going to have to occur before we realize we 
need to make these investments?
  I know all the bureaucratic arguments that are being made here, but I 
don't think they apply. I think when we are faced, as we have been 
historically, with major events, major problems, this body, this 
Congress, the American people have responded accordingly. I think the 
American people expect nothing less of us at this hour. So I urge my 
colleagues to support this motion to waive and to support this 
amendment so we can do what needs to be done to make our country more 
secure.
  Again, I appreciate immensely the efforts of the Senator from New 
Hampshire. I understand his points. They are points that are well 
taken. But I also believe the point I am making here is one deserving 
of attention.
  Mr. President, I list here, for those who may be interested, the 221 
significant terrorist incidents since 1983. I have categorized each of 
them that occurred and the numbers of lives lost. I ask unanimous 
consent to have that printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961-2003: A Brief Chronology

       Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut, April 18, 1983: Sixty-
     three people, including the CIA's Middle East director, were 
     killed and 120 were injured in a 400-pound suicide truck-bomb 
     attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The Islamic 
     Jihad claimed responsibility.
       Naval Officer Assassinated in El Salvador, May 25, 1983: A 
     U.S. Navy officer was assassinated by the Farabundo Marti 
     National Liberation Front.
       North Korean Hit Squad, October 9, 1983: North Korean 
     agents blew up a delegation from South Korea in Rangoon, 
     Burma, killing 21 persons and injuring 48.
       Bombing of Marine Barracks, Beirut, October 23, 1983: 
     Simultaneous suicide truck-bomb attacks were made on American 
     and French compounds in Beirut, Lebanon. A 12,000-pound bomb 
     destroyed the U.S. compound, killing 242 Americans, while 58 
     French troops were killed when a 400-pound device destroyed a 
     French base. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
       Naval Officer Assassinated in Greece, November 15, 1983: A 
     U.S. Navy officer was shot by the November 17 terrorist group 
     in Athens, Greece, while his car was stopped at a traffic 
     light.


                                  1984

       Kidnapping of Embassy Official, March 16, 1984: The Islamic 
     Jihad kidnapped and later murdered Political Officer William 
     Buckley in Beirut, Lebanon. Other U.S. citizens not connected 
     to the U.S. government were seized over a succeeding two-year 
     period.
       Restaurant Bombing in Spain, April 12, 1984: Eighteen U.S. 
     servicemen were killed and 83 people were injured in a bomb 
     attack

[[Page 15855]]

     on a restaurant near a U.S. Air Force Base in Torrejon, 
     Spain.
       Temple Seizure, June 5, 1984: Sikh terrorists seized the 
     Golden Temple in Amritsar, India. One hundred people died 
     when Indian security forces retook the Sikh holy shrine.
       Assassination of Indian Prime Minister, October 31, 1984: 
     Premier Indira Gandhi was shot to death by members of her 
     security force.


                                  1985

       Kidnapping of U.S. Officials in Mexico, February 7, 1985: 
     Under the orders of narcotrafficker Rafael Caro Quintero, 
     Drug Enforcement Administration agent Enrique Camarena 
     Salazar and his pilot were kidnapped, tortured and executed.
       TWA Hijacking, June 14, 1985: A Trans-World Airlines flight 
     was hijacked en route to Rome from Athens by two Lebanese 
     Hizballah terrorists and forced to fly to Beirut. The eight 
     crew members and 145 passengers were held for seventeen days, 
     during which one American hostage, a U.S. Navy sailor, was 
     murdered. After being flown twice to Algiers, the aircraft 
     was returned to Beirut after Israel released 435 Lebanese and 
     Palestinian prisoners.
       Attack on a Restaurant in El Salvador, June 19, 1985: 
     Members of the FMLN (Farabundo Marti National Liberation 
     Front) fired on a restaurant in the Zona Rosa district of San 
     Salvador, killing four Marine Security Guards assigned to the 
     U.S. Embassy and nine Salvadoran civilians.
       Air India Bombing, June 23, 1985: A bomb destroyed an Air 
     India Boeing 747 over the Atlantic, killing all 329 people 
     aboard. Both Sikh and Kashmiri terrorists were blamed for the 
     attack. Two cargo handlers were killed at Tokyo airport, 
     Japan, when another Sikh bomb exploded in an Air Canada 
     aircraft en route to India.
       Soviet Diplomats Kidnapped, September 30, 1985: In Beirut, 
     Lebanon, Sunni terrorists kidnapped four Soviet diplomats. 
     One was killed but three were later released.
       Achille Lauro Hijacking, October 7, 1985: Four Palestinian 
     Liberation Front terrorists seized the Italian cruise liner 
     in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, taking more than 700 
     hostages. One U.S. passenger was murdered before the Egyptian 
     government offered the terrorists safe haven in return for 
     the hostages' freedom.
       Egyptian Airliner Hijacking, November 23, 1985: An EgyptAir 
     airplane bound from Athens to Malta and carrying several U.S. 
     citizens was hijacked by the Abu Nidal Group.
       Airport Attacks in Rome and Vienna, December 27, 1985: Four 
     gunmen belonging to the Abu Nidal Organization attacked the 
     El Al and Trans World Airlines ticket counters at Rome's 
     Leonardo da Vinci Airport with grenades and automatic rifles. 
     Thirteen persons were killed and 75 were wounded before 
     Italian police and Israeli security guards killed three of 
     the gunmen and captured the fourth. Three more Abu Nidal 
     gunmen attacked the El Al ticket counter at Vienna's 
     Schwechat Airport, killing three persons and wounding 30. 
     Austrian police killed one of the gunmen and captured the 
     others.


                                  1986

       Aircraft Bombing in Greece, March 30, 1986: A Palestinian 
     splinter group detonated a bomb as TWA Flight 840 approached 
     Athens airport, killing four U.S. citizens.
       Berlin Discotheque Bombing, April 5, 1986: Two U.S. 
     soldiers were killed and 79 American servicemen were injured 
     in a Libyan bomb attack on a nightclub in West Berlin, West 
     Germany. In retaliation U.S. military jets bombed targets in 
     and around Tripoli and Benghazi.
       Kimpo Airport Bombing, September 14, 1986: North Korean 
     agents detonated an explosive device at Seoul's Kimpo 
     airport, killing 5 persons and injuring 29 others.


                                  1987

       Bus Attack, April 24, 1987: Sixteen U.S. servicemen riding 
     in a Greek Air Force bus near Athens were injured in an 
     apparent bombing attack, carried out by the revolutionary 
     organization known as November 17.
       Downing of Airliner, November 29, 1987: North Korean agents 
     planted a bomb aboard Korean Air Lines Flight 858, which 
     subsequently crashed into the Indian Ocean.
       Servicemen's Bar Attack, December 26, 1987: Catalan 
     separatists bombed a Barcelona bar frequented by U.S. 
     servicemen, resulting in the death of one U.S. citizen.


                                  1988

       Kidnapping of William Higgins, February 17, 1988: U.S. 
     Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel W. Higgins was kidnapped and 
     murdered by the Iranian-backed Hizballah group while serving 
     with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization 
     (UNTSO) in southern Lebanon.
       Naples USO Attack, April 14, 1988: The Organization of 
     Jihad Brigades exploded a car-bomb outside a USO Club in 
     Naples, Italy, killing one U.S. sailor.
       Attack on U.S. Diplomat in Greece, June 28, 1988: The 
     Defense Attache of the U.S. Embassy in Greece was killed when 
     a car-bomb was detonated outside his home in Athens.
       Pan Am 103 Bombing, December 21, 1988: Pan American 
     Airlines Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, by 
     a bomb believed to have been placed on the aircraft by Libyan 
     terrorists in Frankfurt, West Germany. All 259 people on 
     board were killed.


                                  1989

       Assassination of U.S. Army Officer, April 21, 1989: The New 
     People's Army (NPA) assassinated Colonel James Rowe in 
     Manila. The NPA also assassinated two U.S. government defense 
     contractors in September.
       Bombing of UTA Flight 772, September 19, 1989: A bomb 
     explosion destroyed UTA Flight 772 over the Sahara Desert in 
     southern Niger during a flight from Brazzaville to Paris. All 
     170 persons aboard were killed. Six Libyans were later found 
     guilty in absentia and sentenced to life imprisonment.
       Assassination of German Bank Chairman, November 30, 1989: 
     The Red Army Faction assassinated Deutsche Bank Chairman 
     Alfred Herrhausen in Frankfurt.


                                  1990

       U.S. Embassy Bombed in Peru, January 15, 1990: The Tupac 
     Amaru Revolutionary Movement bombed the U.S. Embassy in Lima, 
     Peru.
       U.S. Soldiers Assassinated in the Philippines, May 13, 
     1990: The New People's Army (NPA) killed two U.S. Air Force 
     personnel near Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines.


                                  1991

       Attempted Iraqi Attacks on U.S. Posts, January 18-19, 1991: 
     Iraqi agents planted bombs at the U.S. Ambassador to 
     Indonesia's home residence and at the USIS library in Manila.
       Sniper Attack on the U.S. Embassy in Bonn, February 13, 
     1991: Three Red Army Faction members fired automatic rifles 
     from across the Rhine River at the U.S. Embassy Chancery. No 
     one was hurt.
       Assassination of former Indian Prime Minister, May 21, 
     1991: A female member of the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil 
     Eelam) killed herself, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, and 16 
     others by detonating an explosive vest after presenting a 
     garland of flowers to the former Prime Minister during an 
     election rally in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.


                                  1992

       Kidnapping of U.S. Businessmen in the Philippines, January 
     17-21, 1992: A senior official of the corporation Philippine 
     Geothermal was kidnapped in Manila by the Red Scorpion Group, 
     and two U.S. businessmen were seized independently by the 
     National Liberation Army and by Revolutionary Armed Forces of 
     Colombia (FARC).
       Bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, March 17, 
     1992: Hizballah claimed responsibility for a blast that 
     leveled the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 
     causing the deaths of 29 and wounding 242.


                                  1993

       Kidnappings of U.S. Citizens in Colombia, January 31, 1993: 
     Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) terrorists 
     kidnapped three U.S. missionaries.
       World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993: The World 
     Trade Center in New York City was badly damaged when a car 
     bomb planted by Islamic terrorists exploded in an underground 
     garage. The bomb left 6 people dead and 1,000 injured. The 
     men carrying out the attack were followers of Umar Abd al-
     Rahman, an Egyptian cleric who preached in the New York City 
     area.
       Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, 
     April 14, 1993: The Iraqi intelligence service attempted to 
     assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a visit 
     to Kuwait. In retaliation, the U.S. launched a cruise missile 
     attack 2 months later on the Iraqi capital Baghdad.


                                  1994

       Hebron Massacre, February 25, 1994: Jewish right-wing 
     extremist and U.S. citizen Baruch Goldstein machine-gunned 
     Moslem worshippers at a mosque in West Bank town of Hebron, 
     killing 29 and wounding about 150.
       FARC Hostage-taking, September 23, 1994: FARC rebels 
     kidnapped U.S. citizen Thomas Hargrove in Colombia.
       Air France Hijacking, December 24, 1994: Members of the 
     Armed Islamic Group seized an Air France Flight to Algeria. 
     The four terrorists were killed during a rescue effort.


                                  1995

       Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995: Two 
     unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a 
     third in Karachi, Pakistan.
       Tokyo Subway Station Attack, March 20, 1995: Twelve persons 
     were killed and 5,700 were injured in a Sarin nerve gas 
     attack on a crowded subway station in the center of Tokyo, 
     Japan. A similar attack occurred nearly simultaneously in the 
     Yokohama subway system. The Aum Shinri-kyo cult was blamed 
     for the attacks.
       Bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, April 19, 
     1995: Right-wing extremists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols 
     destroyed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City with a 
     massive truck bomb that killed 166 and injured hundreds more 
     in what was up to then the largest terrorist attack on 
     American soil.
       Kashmiri Hostage-taking, July 4, 1995: In India six 
     foreigners, including two U.S. citizens, were taken hostage 
     by Al-Faran, a Kashmiri separatist group. One non-U.S. 
     hostage was later found beheaded.
       Jerusalem Bus Attack, August 21, 1995: HAMAS claimed 
     responsibility for the detonation of a bomb that killed 6 and 
     injured

[[Page 15856]]

     over 100 persons, including several U.S. citizens.
       Attack on U.S. Embassy in Moscow, September 13, 1995: A 
     rocket-propelled grenade was fired through the window of the 
     U.S. Embassy in Moscow, ostensibly in retaliation for U.S. 
     strikes on Serb positions in Bosnia.
       Saudi Military Installation Attack, November 13, 1995: The 
     Islamic Movement of Change planted a bomb in a Riyadh 
     military compound that killed one U.S. citizen, several 
     foreign national employees of the U.S. government, and over 
     40 others.
       Egyptian Embassy Attack, November 19, 1995: A suicide 
     bomber drove a vehicle into the Egyptian Embassy compound in 
     Islamabad, Pakistan, killing at least 16 and injuring 60 
     persons. Three militant Islamic groups claimed 
     responsibility.


                                  1996

       Papuan Hostage Abduction, January 8, 1996: In Indonesia, 
     200 Free Papua Movement (OPM) guerrillas abducted 26 
     individuals in the Lorenta nature preserve, Irian Jaya 
     Province. Indonesian Special Forces members rescued the 
     remaining nine hostages on May 15.
       Kidnapping in Colombia, January 19, 1996: Revolutionary 
     Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. 
     citizen and demanded a $1 million ransom. The hostage was 
     released on May 22.
       Tamil Tigers Attack, January 31, 1996: Members of the 
     Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) rammed an explosives-
     laden truck into the Central Bank in the heart of downtown 
     Colombo, Sri Lanka, killing 90 civilians and injuring more 
     than 1,400 others, including 2 U.S. citizens.
       IRA Bombing, February 9, 1996: An Irish Republican Army 
     (IRA) bomb detonated in London, killing 2 persons and 
     wounding more than 100 others, including 2 U.S. citizens.
       Athens Embassy Attack, February 15, 1996: Unidentified 
     assailants fired a rocket at the U.S. Embassy compound in 
     Athens, causing minor damage to three diplomatic vehicles and 
     some surrounding buildings. Circumstances of the attack 
     suggested it was an operation carried out by the 17 November 
     group.
       ELN Kidnapping, February 16, 1996: Six alleged National 
     Liberation Army (ELN) guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. citizen in 
     Colombia. After 9 months, the hostage was released.
       HAMAS Bus Attack, February 26, 1996: In Jerusalem, a 
     suicide bomber blew up a bus, killing 26 persons, including 
     three U.S. citizens, and injuring some 80 persons, including 
     three other U.S. citizens.
       Dizengoff Center Bombing, March 4, 1996: HAMAS and the 
     Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) both claimed responsibility for 
     a bombing outside of Tel Aviv's largest shopping mall that 
     killed 20 persons and injured 75 others, including 2 U.S. 
     citizens.
       West Bank Attack, May 13, 1996: Arab gunmen opened fire on 
     a bus and a group of Yeshiva students near the Bet El 
     settlement, killing a dual U.S./Israeli citizen and wounding 
     three Israelis. No one claimed responsibility for the attack, 
     but HAMAS was suspected.
       AID Worker Abduction, May 31, 1996: A gang of former Contra 
     guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. employee of the Agency for 
     International Development (AID) who was assisting with 
     election preparations in rural northern Nicaragua. She was 
     released unharmed the next day after members of the 
     international commission overseeing the preparations 
     intervened.
       Zekharya Attack, June 9, 1996: Unidentified gunmen opened 
     fire on a car near Zekharya, killing a dual U.S./Israeli 
     citizen and an Israeli. The Popular Front for the Liberation 
     of Palestine (PFLP) was suspected.
       Manchester Truck Bombing, June 15, 1996: An IRA truck bomb 
     detonated at a Manchester shopping center, wounding 206 
     persons, including two German tourists, and caused extensive 
     property damage.
       Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996: A fuel truck carrying 
     a bomb exploded outside the U.S. military's Khobar Towers 
     housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military 
     personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. 
     personnel. Several groups claimed responsibility for the 
     attack.
       ETA Bombing, July 20, 1996: A bomb exploded at Tarragona 
     International Airport in Reus, Spain, wounding 35 persons, 
     including British and Irish tourists. The Basque Fatherland 
     and Liberty (ETA) organization was suspected.
       Bombing of Archbishop of Oran, August 1, 1996: A bomb 
     exploded at the home of the French Archbishop of Oran, 
     killing him and his chauffeur. The attack occurred after the 
     Archbishop's meeting with the French Foreign Minister. The 
     Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA) is suspected.
       Sudanese Rebel Kidnapping, August 17, 1996: Sudan People's 
     Liberation Army (SPLA) rebels kidnapped six missionaries in 
     Mapourdit, including a U.S. citizen, an Italian, three 
     Australians, and a Sudanese. The SPLA released the hostages 
     11 days later.
       PUK Kidnapping, September 13, 1996: In Iraq, Patriotic 
     Union of Kurdistan (PUK) militants kidnapped four French 
     workers for Pharmaciens Sans Frontieres, a Canadian United 
     Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) official, and 
     two Iraqis.
       Assassination of South Korean Consul, October 1, 1996: In 
     Vladivostok, Russia, assailants attacked and killed a South 
     Korean consul near his home. No one claimed responsibility, 
     but South Korean authorities believed that the attack was 
     carried out by professionals and that the assailants were 
     North Koreans. North Korean officials denied the country's 
     involvement in the attack.
       Red Cross Worker Kidnappings, November 1, 1996: In Sudan a 
     breakaway group from the Sudanese People's Liberation Army 
     (SPLA) kidnapped three International Committee of the Red 
     Cross (ICRC) workers, including a U.S. citizen, an 
     Australian, and a Kenyan. On 9 December the rebels released 
     the hostages in exchange for ICRC supplies and a health 
     survey for their camp.
       Paris Subway Explosion, December 3, 1996: A bomb exploded 
     aboard a Paris subway train as it arrived at the Port Royal 
     station, killing two French nationals, a Moroccan, and a 
     Canadian, and injuring 86 persons. Among those injured were 
     one U.S. citizen and a Canadian. No one claimed 
     responsibility for the attack, but Algerian extremists are 
     suspected.
       Abduction of U.S. Citizen by FARC, December 11, 1996: Five 
     armed men claiming to be members of the Revolutionary Armed 
     Forces of Colombia (FARC) kidnapped and later killed a U.S. 
     geologist at a methane gas exploration site in La Guajira 
     Department.
       Tupac Amaru Seizure of Diplomats, December 17, 1996: 
     Twenty-three members of the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary 
     Movement (MRTA) took several hundred people hostage at a 
     party given at the Japanese Ambassador's residence in Lima, 
     Peru. Among the hostages were several U.S. officials, foreign 
     ambassadors and other diplomats, Peruvian Government 
     officials, and Japanese businessmen. The group demanded the 
     release of all MRTA members in prison and safe passage for 
     them and the hostage takers. The terrorists released most of 
     the hostages in December but held 81 Peruvians and Japanese 
     citizens for several months.


                                  1997

       Egyptian Letter Bombs, January 2-13, 1997: A series of 
     letter bombs with Alexandria, Egypt, postmarks were 
     discovered at Al-Hayat newspaper bureaus in Washington, New 
     York City, London, and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Three similar 
     devices, also postmarked in Egypt, were found at a prison 
     facility in Leavenworth, Kansas. Bomb disposal experts 
     defused all the devices, but one detonated at the Al-Hayat 
     office in London, injuring two security guards and causing 
     minor damage.
       Tajik Hostage Abductions, February 4-17, 1997: Near 
     Komsomolabad, Tajikistan, a paramilitary group led by Bakhrom 
     Sodirov abducted four United Nations (UN) military observers. 
     The victims included two Swiss, one Austrian, one Ukrainian, 
     and their Tajik interpreter. The kidnappers demanded safe 
     passage for their supporters from Afghanistan to Tajikistan. 
     In four separate incidents occurring between Dushanbe and 
     Garm, Bakhrom Sodirov and his group kidnapped two 
     International Committee for the Red Cross members, four 
     Russian journalists and their Tajik driver, four UNHCR 
     members, and the Tajik Security Minister, Saidamir Zukhurov.
       Venezuelan Abduction, February 14, 1997: Six armed 
     Colombian guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. oil engineer and his 
     Venezuelan pilot in Apure, Venezuela. The kidnappers released 
     the Venezuelan pilot on 22 February. According to 
     authorities, the FARC is responsible for the kidnapping.
       Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997: A 
     Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation 
     deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing 
     a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United 
     States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the 
     gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman 
     claimed this was a punishment attack against the ``enemies of 
     Palestine.''
       ELN Kidnapping, February 24, 1997: National Liberation Army 
     (ELN) guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. citizen employed by a Las 
     Vegas gold corporation who was scouting a gold mining 
     operation in Colombia. The ELN demanded a ransom of $2.5 
     million.
       FARC Kidnapping, March 7, 1997: FARC guerrillas kidnapped a 
     U.S. mining employee and his Colombian colleague who were 
     searching for gold in Colombia. On November 16, the rebels 
     released the two hostages after receiving a $50,000 ransom.
       Hotel Nacional Bombing, July 12, 1997: A bomb exploded at 
     the Hotel Nacional in Havana, injuring three persons and 
     causing minor damage. A previously unknown group calling 
     itself the Military Liberation Union claimed responsibility.
       Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, September 4, 1997: Three 
     suicide bombers of HAMAS detonated bombs in the Ben Yehuda 
     shopping mall in Jerusalem, killing eight persons, including 
     the bombers, and wounding nearly 200 others. A dual U.S./
     Israeli citizen was among the dead, and 7 U.S. citizens were 
     wounded.
       OAS Abductions, October 23, 1997: In Colombia ELN rebels 
     kidnapped two foreign members of the Organization of American 
     States (OAS) and a Colombian human rights official at a 
     roadblock. The ELN claimed

[[Page 15857]]

     that the kidnapping was intended ``to show the international 
     community that the elections in Colombia are a farce.''
       Yemeni Kidnappings, October 30, 1997: Al-Sha'if tribesmen 
     kidnapped a U.S. businessman near Sanaa. The tribesmen sought 
     the release of two fellow tribesmen who were arrested on 
     smuggling charges and several public works projects they 
     claim the government promised them. They released the hostage 
     on November 27.
       Murder of U.S. Businessmen in Pakistan, November 12, 1997: 
     Two unidentified gunmen shot to death four U.S. auditors from 
     Union Texas Petroleum Corporation and their Pakistani driver 
     after they drove away from the Sheraton Hotel in Karachi. The 
     Islami Inqilabi Council, or Islamic Revolutionary Council, 
     claimed responsibility in a call to the U.S. Consulate in 
     Karachi. In a letter to Pakistani newspapers, the Aimal 
     Khufia Action Committee also claimed responsibility.
       Tourist Killings in Egypt, November 17, 1997: Al-Gama'at 
     al-Islamiyya (IG) gunmen shot and killed 58 tourists and four 
     Egyptians and wounded 26 others at the Hatshepsut Temple in 
     the Valley of the Kings near Luxor. Thirty-four Swiss, eight 
     Japanese, five Germans, four Britons, one French, one 
     Colombian, a dual Bulgarian/British citizen, and four 
     unidentified persons were among the dead. Twelve Swiss, two 
     Japanese, two Germans, one French, and nine Egyptians were 
     among the wounded.


                                  1998

       UN Observer Abductions, February 19, 1998: Armed supporters 
     of late Georgian president Zviad Gamsakhurdia abducted four 
     UN military observers from Sweden, Uruguay, and the Czech 
     Republic.
       FARC Abduction, March 21-23, 1998: FARC rebels kidnapped a 
     U.S. citizen in Sabaneta, Colombia. FARC members also killed 
     three persons, wounded 14, and kidnapped at least 27 others 
     at a roadblock near Bogota. Four U.S. citizens and one 
     Italian were among those kidnapped, as well as the acting 
     president of the National Electoral Council (CNE) and his 
     wife.
       Somali Hostage-takings, April 15, 1998: Somali militiamen 
     abducted nine Red Cross and Red Crescent workers at an 
     airstrip north of Mogadishu. The hostages included a U.S. 
     citizen, a German, a Belgian, a French, a Norwegian, two 
     Swiss, and one Somali. The gunmen were members of a sub-clan 
     loyal to Ali Mahdi Mohammed, who controlled the northern 
     section of the capital.
       IRA Bombing, Banbridge, August 1, 1998: A 500-pound car 
     bomb planted by the Real IRA exploded outside a shoe store in 
     Banbridge, North Ireland, injuring 35 persons and damaging at 
     least 200 homes.
       U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998: A 
     bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. Embassy in 
     Nairobi, Kenya, killing 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service 
     Nationals (FSNs), and 247 Kenyan citizens. Approximately 
     5,000 Kenyans, 6 U.S. citizens, and 13 FSNs were injured. The 
     U.S. Embassy building sustained extensive structural damage. 
     Almost simultaneously, a bomb detonated outside the U.S. 
     Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 7 FSNs and 3 
     Tanzanian citizens, and injuring 1 U.S. citizen and 76 
     Tanzanians. The explosion caused major structural damage to 
     the U.S. Embassy facility. The U.S. Government held Usama Bin 
     Laden responsible.
       IRA Bombing, Omagh, August 15, 1998: A 500-pound car bomb 
     planted by the Real IRA exploded outside a local courthouse 
     in the central shopping district of Omagh, Northern Ireland, 
     killing 29 persons and injuring over 330.
       Colombian Pipeline Bombing, October 18, 1998: A National 
     Liberation Army (ELN) planted bomb exploded on the Ocensa 
     pipeline in Antioquia Department, killing approximately 71 
     persons and injuring at least 100 others. The pipeline is 
     jointly owned by the Colombia State Oil Company Ecopetrol and 
     a consortium including U.S., French, British, and Canadian 
     companies.
       Armed Kidnapping in Colombia, November 15, 1998: Armed 
     assailants followed a U.S. businessman and his family home in 
     Cundinamarca Department and kidnapped his 11-year-old son 
     after stealing money, jewelry, one automobile, and two cell 
     phones. The kidnappers demanded $1 million in ransom. On 
     January 21, 1999, the kidnappers released the boy.


                                  1999

       Angolan Aircraft Downing, January 2, 1999: A UN plane 
     carrying one U.S. citizen, four Angolans, two Philippine 
     nationals and one Namibian was shot down, according to a UN 
     official. No deaths or injuries were reported. Angolan 
     authorities blamed the attack on National Union for the Total 
     Independence of Angola (UNITA) rebels. UNITA officials denied 
     shooting down the plane.
       Ugandan Rebel Attack, February 14, 1999: A pipe bomb 
     exploded inside a bar, killing five persons and injuring 35 
     others. One Ethiopian and four Ugandan nationals died in the 
     blast, and one U.S. citizen working for USAID, two Swiss 
     nationals, one Pakistani, one Ethiopian, and 27 Ugandans were 
     injured. Ugandan authorities blamed the attack on the Allied 
     Democratic Forces (ADF).
       Greek Embassy Seizure, February 16, 1999: Kurdish 
     protesters stormed and occupied the Greek Embassy in Vienna, 
     taking the Greek Ambassador and six other persons hostage. 
     Several hours later the protesters released the hostages and 
     left the Embassy. The attack followed the Turkish 
     Government's announcement of the successful capture of the 
     Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Ocalan. Kurds 
     also occupied Kenyan, Israeli, and other Greek diplomatic 
     facilities in France, Holland, Switzerland, Britain, and 
     Germany over the following days.
       FARC Kidnappings, February 25, 1999: FARC kidnapped three 
     U.S. citizens working for the Hawaii-based Pacific Cultural 
     Conservancy International. On March 4, the bodies of the 
     three victims were found in Venezuela.
       Hutu Abductions, March 1, 1999: 150 armed Hutu rebels 
     attacked three tourist camps in Uganda, killed four Ugandans, 
     and abducted three U.S. citizens, six Britons, three New 
     Zealanders, two Danish citizens, one Australian, and one 
     Canadian national. Two of the U.S. citizens and six of the 
     other hostages were subsequently killed by their abductors.
       ELN Hostage-taking, March 23, 1999: Armed guerrillas 
     kidnapped a U.S. citizen in Boyaca, Colombia. The National 
     Liberation Army (ELN) claimed responsibility and demanded 
     $400,000 ransom. On 20 July, ELN rebels released the hostage 
     unharmed following a ransom payment of $48,000.
       ELN Hostage-taking, May 30, 1999: In Cali, Colombia, armed 
     ELN militants attacked a church in the neighborhood of Ciudad 
     Jardin, kidnapping 160 persons, including six U.S. citizens 
     and one French national. The rebels released approximately 80 
     persons, including three U.S. citizens, later that day.
       Shell Platform Bombing, June 27, 1999: In Port Harcourt, 
     Nigeria, armed youths stormed a Shell oil platform, 
     kidnapping one U.S. citizen, one Nigerian national, and one 
     Australian citizen, and causing undetermined damage. A group 
     calling itself ``Enough is Enough in the Niger River'' 
     claimed responsibility. Further seizures of oil facilities 
     followed.
       AFRC Kidnappings, August 4, 1999: An Armed Forces 
     Revolutionary Council (AFRC) faction kidnapped 33 UN 
     representatives near Occra Hills, Sierra Leone. The hostages 
     included one U.S. citizen, five British soldiers, one 
     Canadian citizen, one representative from Ghana, one military 
     officer from Russia, one officer from Kyrgystan, one officer 
     from Zambia, one officer from Malaysia, a local bishop, two 
     UN officials, two local journalists, and 16 Sierra Leonean 
     nationals.
       Burmese Embassy Seizure, October 1, 1999: Burmese 
     dissidents seized the Burmese Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, 
     taking 89 persons hostage, including one U.S. citizen.
       PLA Kidnapping, December 23, 1999: Colombian People's 
     Liberation Army (PLA) forces kidnapped a U.S. citizen in an 
     unsuccessful ransoming effort.
       Indian Airlines Airbus Hijacking, December 24, 1999: Five 
     militants hijacked a flight bound from Katmandu to New Delhi 
     carrying 189 people. The plane and its passengers were 
     released unharmed on December 31.


                                  2000

       Car bombing in Spain, January 27, 2000: Police officials 
     reported unidentified individuals set fire to a Citroen car 
     dealership in Iturreta, causing extensive damage to the 
     building and destroying 12 vehicles. The attack bore the 
     hallmark of the Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA).
       RUF Attacks on U.N. Mission Personnel, May 1, 2000: On 1 
     May in Makeni, Sierra Leone, Revolutionary United Front (RUF) 
     militants kidnapped at least 20 members of the United Nations 
     Assistance Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) and surrounded 
     and opened fire on a UNAMSIL facility, according to press 
     reports. The militants killed five UN soldiers in the attack. 
     RUF militants kidnapped 300 UNAMSIL peacekeepers throughout 
     the country, according to press reports. On 15 May in Foya, 
     Liberia, the kidnappers released 139 hostages. On 28 May, on 
     the Liberia and Sierra Leone border, armed militants released 
     unharmed the last of the UN peacekeepers. In Freetown, 
     according to press reports, armed militants ambushed two 
     military vehicles carrying four journalists. A Spaniard and 
     one U.S. citizen were killed in a May 25 car bombing in 
     Freetown for which the RUF was probably responsible. 
     Suspected RUF rebels also kidnapped 21 Indian UN peacekeepers 
     in Freetown on June 6. Additional attacks by RUF on foreign 
     personnel followed.
       Diplomatic Assassination in Greece, June 8, 2000: In 
     Athens, Greece, two unidentified gunmen killed British 
     Defense Attache Stephen Saunders in an ambush. The 
     Revolutionary Organization 17 November claimed 
     responsibility.
       ELN Kidnapping, June 27, 2000: In Bogota, Colombia, ELN 
     militants kidnapped a 5-year-old U.S. citizen and his 
     Colombian mother, demanding an undisclosed ransom.
       Kidnappings in Kyrgyzstan, August 12, 2000: In the Kara-Su 
     Valley, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan took four U.S. 
     citizens hostage. The Americans escaped on August 12.
       Church Bombing in Tajikistan, October 1, 2000: Unidentified 
     militants detonated two bombs in a Christian church in 
     Dushanbe, killing seven persons and injuring 70 others. The 
     church was founded by a Korean-born U.S. citizen, and most of 
     those killed and wounded were Korean. No one claimed 
     responsibility.

[[Page 15858]]

       Helicopter Hijacking, October 12, 2000: In Sucumbios 
     Province, Ecuador, a group of armed kidnappers led by former 
     members of defunct Colombian terrorist organization the 
     Popular Liberation Army (EPL), took hostage 10 employees of 
     Spanish energy consortium REPSOL. Those kidnapped included 
     five U.S. citizens, one Argentine, one Chilean, one New 
     Zealander, and two French pilots who escaped four days later. 
     On January 30, 2001, the kidnappers murdered American hostage 
     Ronald Sander. The remaining hostages were released on 
     February 23 following the payment of $13 million in ransom by 
     the oil companies.
       Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000: In Aden, Yemen, a 
     small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. 
     Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters 
     of Usama Bin Laden were suspected.
       Manila Bombing, December 30, 2000: A bomb exploded in a 
     plaza across the street from the U.S. Embassy in Manila, 
     injuring nine persons. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front was 
     likely responsible.


                                  2001

       Srinagar Airport Attack and Assassination Attempt, January 
     17, 2001: In India, six members of the Lashkar-e-Tayyba 
     militant group were killed when they attempted to seize a 
     local airport. Members of Hizbul Mujaheddin fired two rifle 
     grenades at Farooq Abdullah, Chief Minister for Jammu and 
     Kashmir. Two persons were wounded in the unsuccessful 
     assassination attempt.
       BBC Studios Bombing, March 4, 2001: A car bomb exploded at 
     midnight outside of the British Broadcasting Corporation's 
     main production studios in London. One person was injured. 
     British authorities suspected the Real IRA had planted the 
     bomb.
       Suicide Bombing in Israel, March 4, 2001: A suicide bomb 
     attack in Netanya killed 3 persons and wounded 65. HAMAS 
     later claimed responsibility.
       ETA Bombing, March 9, 2001: Two policemen were killed by 
     the explosion of a car bomb in Hernani, Spain.
       Airliner Hijacking in Istanbul, March 15, 2001: Three 
     Chechens hijacked a Russian airliner during a flight from 
     Istanbul to Moscow and forced it to fly to Medina, Saudi 
     Arabia. The plane carried 162 passengers and a crew of 12. 
     After a 22-hour siege during which more than 40 passengers 
     were released, Saudi security forces stormed the plane, 
     killing a hijacker, a passenger, and a flight attendant.
       Bus Stop Bombing, April 22, 2001: A member of HAMAS 
     detonated a bomb he was carrying near a bus stop in Kfar 
     Siva, Israel, killing one person and injuring 60.
       Philippines Hostage Incident, May 27, 2001: Muslim Abu 
     Sayyaf guerrillas seized 13 tourists and 3 staff members at a 
     resort on Palawan Island and took their captives to Basilan 
     Island. The captives included three U.S. citizens: Guellermo 
     Sobero and missionaries Martin and Gracia Burnham. Philippine 
     troops fought a series of battles with the guerrillas between 
     June 1 and June 3 during which 9 hostages escaped and two 
     were found dead. The guerrillas took additional hostages when 
     they seized the hospital in the town of Lamitan. On June 12, 
     Abu Sayyaf spokesman Abu Sabaya claimed that Sobero had been 
     killed and beheaded; his body was found in October. The 
     Burnhams remained in captivity until June 2002.
       Tel-Aviv Nightclub Bombing, June 1, 2001: HAMAS claimed 
     responsibility for the suicide bombing of a popular Israeli 
     nightclub that caused over 140 casualties.
       HAMAS Restaurant Bombing, August 9, 2001: A HAMAS-planted 
     bomb detonated in a Jerusalem pizza restaurant, killing 15 
     people and wounding more than 90. The Israeli response 
     included occupation of Orient House, the Palestine Liberation 
     Organization's political headquarters in East Jerusalem.
       Suicide Bombing in Israel, September 9, 2001: The first 
     suicide bombing carried out by an Israeli Arab killed 3 
     persons in Nahariya. HAMAS claimed responsibility.
       Death of ``the Lion of the Panjshir'', September 9, 2001: 
     Two suicide bombers fatally wounded Ahmed Shah Massoud, a 
     leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, which had opposed 
     both the Soviet occupation and the post-Soviet Taliban 
     government. The bombers posed as journalists and were 
     apparently linked to al-Qaida. The Northern Alliance did not 
     confirm Massoud's death until September 15.
       Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Homeland, September 11, 2001: Two 
     hijacked airliners crashed into the twin towers of the World 
     Trade Center. Soon thereafter, the Pentagon was struck by a 
     third hijacked plane. A fourth hijacked plane, suspected to 
     be bound for a high-profile target in Washington, crashed 
     into a field in southern Pennsylvania. The attacks killed 
     3,025 U.S. citizens and other nationals. President Bush and 
     Cabinet officials indicated that Usama Bin Laden was the 
     prime suspect and that they considered the United States in a 
     state of war with international terrorism. In the aftermath 
     of the attacks, the United States formed the Global Coalition 
     Against Terrorism.
       Attack on the Jammu and Kashmir Legislature, October 1, 
     2001: After a suicide car bomber forced the gate of the state 
     legislature in Srinagar, two gunmen entered the building and 
     held off police for seven hours before being killed. Forty 
     persons died in the incident. Jaish-e-Muhammad claimed 
     responsibility.
       Anthrax Attacks, October-November 2001: On October 7 the 
     U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 
     reported that investigators had detected evidence that the 
     deadly anthrax bacterium was present in the building where a 
     Florida man who died of anthrax on October 5 had worked. 
     Discovery of a second anthrax case triggered a major 
     investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 
     The two anthrax cases were the first to appear in the United 
     States in 25 years. Anthrax subsequently appeared in mail 
     received by television networks in New York and by the 
     offices in Washington of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle 
     and other members of Congress. Attorney General John Ashcroft 
     said in a briefing on October 16, ``When people send anthrax 
     through the mail to hurt people and invoke terror, it's a 
     terrorist act.''
       Assassination of an Israeli Cabinet Minister, October 17, 
     2001: A Palestinian gunman assassinated Israeli Minister of 
     Tourism Rehavam Zeevi in the Jerusalem hotel where he was 
     staying. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine 
     (PFLP) claimed to have avenged the death of PFLP Mustafa 
     Zubari.
       Attack on a Church in Pakistan, October 28, 2001: Six 
     masked gunmen shot up a church in Bahawalpur, Pakistan, 
     killing 15 Pakistani Christians. No group claimed 
     responsibility, although various militant Muslim groups were 
     suspected.
       Suicide Bombings in Jerusalem, December 1, 2001: Two 
     suicide bombers attacked a Jerusalem shopping mall, killing 
     10 persons and wounding 170.
       Suicide Bombing in Haifa, December 2, 2001: A suicide bomb 
     attack aboard a bus in Haifa, Israel, killed 15 persons and 
     wounded 40. HAMAS claimed responsibility for both this attack 
     and those on December 1 to avenge the death of a HAMAS member 
     at the hands of Israeli forces a week earlier.
       Attack on the Indian Parliament, December 13, 2001: Five 
     gunmen attacked the Indian Parliament in New Delhi shortly 
     after it had adjourned. Before security forces killed them, 
     the attackers killed 6 security personnel and a gardener. 
     Indian officials blamed Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and demanded that 
     Pakistan crack down on it and on other Muslim separatist 
     groups in Kashmir.


                                  2002

       Ambush on the West Bank, January 15, 2002: Palestinian 
     militants fired on a vehicle in Beit Sahur, killing one 
     passenger and wounding the other. The dead passenger claimed 
     U.S. and Israeli citizenship. The al-Aqsa Martyrs' Battalion 
     claimed responsibility.
       Shooting Incident in Israel, January 17, 2002: A 
     Palestinian gunman killed 6 persons and wounded 25 in Hadera, 
     Israel, before being killed by Israeli police. The al-Aqsa 
     Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility as revenge for 
     Israel's killing of a leading member of the group.
       Drive-By Shooting at a U.S. Consulate, January 22, 2002: 
     Armed militants on motorcycles fired on the U.S. Consulate in 
     Calcutta, India, killing 5 Indian security personnel and 
     wounding 13 others. The Harakat ul-Jihad-I-Islami and the 
     Asif Raza Commandoes claimed responsibility. Indian police 
     later killed two suspects, one of whom confessed to belonging 
     to Lashkar-e-Tayyiba as he died.
       Bomb Explosion in Kashmir, January 22, 2002: A bomb 
     exploded in a crowded retail district in Jammu, Kashmir, 
     killing one person and injuring nine. No group claimed 
     responsibility.
       Kidnapping of Daniel Pearl, January 23, 2002: Armed 
     militants kidnapped Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl 
     in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistani authorities received a 
     videotape on February 20 depicting Pearl's murder. His grave 
     was found near Karachi on May 16. Pakistani authorities 
     arrested four suspects. Ringleader Ahmad Omar Saeed Sheikh 
     claimed to have organized Pearl's kidnapping to protest 
     Pakistan's subservience to the United States, and had 
     belonged to Jaish-e-Muhammad, an Islamic separatist group in 
     Kashmir. All four suspects were convicted on July 15. Saeed 
     Sheikh was sentenced to death, the others to life 
     imprisonment.
       Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, January 27, 2002: A suicide 
     bomb attack in Jerusalem killed one other person and wounded 
     100. The incident was the first suicide bombing made by a 
     Palestinian woman.
       Suicide Bombing in the West Bank, February 16, 2002: A 
     suicide bombing in an outdoor food court in Karmei Shomron 
     killed 4 persons and wounded 27. Two of the dead and two of 
     the wounded were U.S. citizens. The Popular Front for the 
     Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) claimed responsibility.
       Suicide Bombing in the West Bank, March 7, 2002: A suicide 
     bombing in a supermarket in the settlement of Ariel wounded 
     10 persons, one of whom was a U.S. citizen. The PFLP claimed 
     responsibility.
       Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, March 9, 2002: A suicide 
     bombing in a Jerusalem restaurant killed 11 persons and 
     wounded 52, one of whom was a U.S. citizen. The al-Aqsa 
     Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.

[[Page 15859]]

       Drive-By Shooting in Colombia, March 14, 2002: Gunmen on 
     motorcycles shot and killed two U.S. citizens who had come to 
     Cali, Colombia, to negotiate the release of their father, who 
     was a captive of the FARC. No group claimed responsibility.
       Grenade Attack on a Church in Pakistan, March 17, 2002: 
     Militants threw grenades into the Protestant International 
     Church in Islamabad, Pakistan, during a service attended by 
     diplomatic and local personnel. Five persons, two of them 
     U.S. citizens, were killed and 46 were wounded. The dead 
     Americans were State Department employee Barbara Green and 
     her daughter Kristen Wormsley. Thirteen U.S. citizens were 
     among the wounded. The Lashkar-e-Tayyiba group was suspected.
       Car Bomb Explosion in Peru, March 20, 2002: A car bomb 
     exploded at a shopping center near the U.S. Embassy in Lima, 
     Peru. Nine persons were killed and 32 wounded. The dead 
     included two police officers and a teenager. Peruvian 
     authorities suspected either the Shining Path rebels or the 
     Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement. The attack occurred 3 
     days before President George W. Bush visited Peru.
       Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, March 21, 2002: A suicide 
     bombing in Jerusalem killed 3 persons and wounded 86 more, 
     including 2 U.S. citizens. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad 
     claimed responsibility.
       Suicide Bombing in Israel, March 27, 2002: A suicide 
     bombing in a noted restaurant in Netanya, Israel, killed 22 
     persons and wounded 140. One of the dead was a U.S. citizen. 
     The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) claimed 
     responsibility.
       Temple Bombing in Kashmir, March 30, 2002: A bomb explosion 
     at a Hindu temple in Jammu, Kashmir, killed 10 persons. The 
     Islamic Front claimed responsibility.
       Suicide Bombing in the West Bank, March 31, 2002: A suicide 
     bombing near an ambulance station in Efrat wounded four 
     persons, including a U.S. citizen. The al-Aqsa Martyrs' 
     Brigades claimed responsibility.
       Armed attack on Kashmir, April 10, 2002: Armed militants 
     attacked a residence in Gando, Kashmir, killing five persons 
     and wounding four. No group claimed responsibility.
       Synagogue Bombing in Tunisia, April 11, 2002: A suicide 
     bomber detonated a truck loaded with propane gas outside a 
     historic synagogue in Djerba, Tunisia. The 16 dead included 
     11 Germans, one French citizen, and three Tunisians. Twenty-
     six German tourists were injured. The Islamic Army for the 
     Liberation of the Holy Sites claimed responsibility.
       Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, April 12, 2002: A female 
     suicide bomber killed 6 persons in Jerusalem and wounded 90 
     others. The al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
       Car Bombing in Pakistan, May 8, 2002: A car bomb exploded 
     near a Pakistani navy shuttle bus in Karachi, killing 12 
     persons and wounding 19. Eleven of the dead and 11 of the 
     wounded were French nationals. Al-Qaida was suspected of the 
     attack.
       Parade Bombing in Russia, May 9, 2002: A remotely-
     controlled bomb exploded near a May Day parade in Kaspiisk, 
     Dagestan, killing 42 persons and wounding 150. Fourteen of 
     the dead and 50 of the wounded were soldiers. Islamists 
     linked to al-Qaida were suspected.
       Attack on a Bus in India, May 14, 2002: Militants fired on 
     a passenger bus in Kaluchak, Jammu, killing 7 persons. They 
     then entered a military housing complex and killed 3 soldiers 
     and 7 military dependents before they were killed. The al-
     Mansooran and Jamiat ul-Mujahedin claimed responsibility.
       Bomb Attacks in Kashmir, May 17, 2002: A bomb explosion 
     near a civil secretariat area in Srinagar, Kashmir, wounded 6 
     persons. In Jammu, a bomb exploded at a fire services 
     headquarters, killing two and wounding 16. No group claimed 
     responsibility for either attack.
       Hostage Rescue Attempt in the Philippines, June 7, 2002: 
     Philippine Army troops attacked Abu Sayyaf terrorists on 
     Mindanao Island in an attempt to rescue U.S. citizen Martin 
     Burnham and his wife Gracia, who had been kidnapped more than 
     a year ago. Burnham was killed but his wife, though wounded, 
     was freed. A Filipino hostage was killed, as were four of the 
     guerrillas. Seven soldiers were wounded.
       Car Bombing in Pakistan, June 14, 2002: A car bomb exploded 
     near the U.S. Consulate and the Marriott Hotel in Karachi, 
     Pakistan. Eleven persons were killed and 51 were sounded, 
     including one U.S. and one Japanese citizen. Al Qaida and al-
     Qanin were suspected.
       Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, June 19, 2002: A suicide 
     bombing at a bus stop in Jerusalem killed 6 persons and 
     wounded 43, including 2 U.S. citizens. The al-Aqsa Martyrs' 
     Brigades claimed responsibility.
       Suicide Bombing in Tel Aviv, July 17, 2002: Two suicide 
     bombers attacked the old bus station in Tel Aviv, Israel, 
     killing 5 persons and wounding 38. The dead included one 
     Romanian and two Chinese; another Romanian was wounded. The 
     Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
       Bombing at the Hebrew University, July 31, 2002: A bomb 
     hidden in a bag in the Frank Sinatra International Student 
     Center of Jerusalem's Hebrew University killed 9 persons and 
     wounded 87. The dead included 5 U.S. citizens and 4 Israelis. 
     The wounded included 4 U.S. citizens, 2 Japanese, and 3 South 
     Koreans. The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) claimed 
     responsibility.
       Suicide Bombing in Israel, August 4, 2002: A suicide bomb 
     attack on a bus in Safed, Israel, killed 9 persons and 
     wounded 50. Two of the dead were Philippine citizens; many of 
     the wounded were soldiers returning from leave. HAMAS claimed 
     responsibility.
       Attack on a School in Pakistan, August 5, 2002: Gunmen 
     attacked a Christian school attended by children of 
     missionaries from around the world. Six persons (two security 
     guards, a cook, a carpenter, a receptionist, and a private 
     citizen) were killed and a Philippine citizen was wounded. A 
     group called al-Intigami al-Pakistani claimed responsibility.
       Attack on Pilgrims in Kashmir, August 6, 2002: Armed 
     militants attacked a group of Hindu pilgrims with guns and 
     grenades in Pahalgam, Kashmir. Nine persons were killed and 
     32 were wounded. The Lashkar-e-Tayyiba claimed 
     responsibility.
       Assassination in Kashmir, September 11, 2002: Gunmen killed 
     Kashmir's Law Minister Mushtaq Ahmed Lone and six security 
     guards in Tikipora. Lashkar-e-Tayyiga, Jamiat ul-Mujahedin, 
     and Hizb ul-Mujahedin all claimed responsibility. Other 
     militants attacked the residence of the Minister of Tourism 
     with grenades, injuring four persons. No group claimed 
     responsibility.
       Ambush on the West Bank, September 18, 2002: Gunmen 
     ambushed a vehicle on a road near Yahad, killing an Israeli 
     and wounding a Romanian worker. The al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades 
     claimed responsibility.
       Suicide Bomb Attack in Israel, September 19, 2002: A 
     suicide bomb attack on a bus in Tel Aviv killed 6 persons and 
     wounded 52. One of the dead was a British subject. HAMAS 
     claimed responsibility.
       Attack on a French Tanker, October 6, 2002: An explosive-
     laden boat rammed the French oil tanker Limburg, which was 
     anchored about 5 miles off al-Dhabbah, Yemen. One person was 
     killed and 4 were wounded. Al-Qaida was suspected.
       Car Bomb Explosion in Bali, October 12, 2002: A car bomb 
     exploded outside the Sari Club Discotheque in Denpasar, Bali, 
     Indonesia, killing 202 persons and wounding 300 more. Most of 
     the casualties, including 88 of the dead, were Australian 
     tourists. Seven Americans were among the dead. Al-Qaida 
     claimed responsibility. Two suspects were later arrested and 
     convicted. Iman Samudra, who had trained in Afghanistan with 
     al-Qaeda and was suspected of belonging to Jemaah Islamiya, 
     was sentenced to death on September 10, 2003.
       Chechen Rebels Seize a Moscow Theater, October 23-26, 2002: 
     Fifty Chechen rebels led by Movsar Barayev seized the Palace 
     of Culture Theater in Moscow, Russia, to demand an end to the 
     war in Chechnya. They seized more than 800 hostages from 13 
     countries and threatened to blow up the theater. During a 
     three-day siege, they killed a Russian policeman and five 
     Russian hostages. On October 26, Russian Special Forces 
     pumped an anesthetic gas through the ventilation system and 
     then stormed the theater. All of the rebels were killed, but 
     94 hostages (including one American) also died, many from the 
     effects of the gas. A group led by Chechen warlord Shamil 
     Basayev claimed responsibility.
       Assassination of an AID Official, October 28, 2002: Gunmen 
     in Amman assassinated Laurence Foley, Executive Officer of 
     the U.S. Agency for International Development Mission in 
     Jordan. The Honest People of Jordan claimed responsibility.
       Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, November 21, 2002: A suicide 
     bomb attack on a bus on Mexico Street in Jerusalem killed 11 
     persons and wounded 50 more. One of the dead was a Romanian. 
     HAMAS claimed responsibility.
       Attack on Temples in Kashmir, November 24, 2002: Armed 
     militants attacked the Reghunath and Shiv temples in Jammu, 
     Kashmir, killing 13 persons and wounding 50. The Lashkare-e-
     Tayyiba claimed responsibility.
       Attacks on Israeli Tourists in Kenya, November 28, 2002: A 
     three-person suicide car bomb attack on the Paradise Hotel in 
     Mombasa, Kenya, killed 15 persons and wounded 40. Three of 
     the dead and 18 of the wounded were Israeli tourists; the 
     others were Kenyans. Near Mombasa's airport, two SA-7 
     shoulder-fired missiles were fired at an Arkia Airlines 
     Boeing 757 that was carrying 261 passengers back to Israel. 
     Both missiles missed. Al-Qaida, the Government of Universal 
     Palestine in Exile, and the Army of Palestine claimed 
     responsibility for both attacks. Al-Ittihad al-Islami was 
     also suspected of involvement.
       Attack on a Bus in the Philippines, December 26, 2002: 
     Armed militants ambushed a bus carrying Filipino workers 
     employed by the Canadian Toronto Ventures Inc. Pacific mining 
     company in Zamboanga del Norte. Thirteen persons were killed 
     and 10 wounded. Philippine authorities suspected the Moro 
     Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), which had been extorting 
     money from Toronto Ventures. The Catholic charity Caritas-
     Philippines said that Toronto Ventures had harassed tribesmen 
     who opposed mining on their ancestral lands.
       Bombing of a Government Building in Chechnya, December 27, 
     2002: A suicide bomb

[[Page 15860]]

     attack involving two explosives-laden trucks destroyed the 
     offices of the pro-Russian Chechen government in Grozny. The 
     attack killed over 80 people and wounded 210. According to a 
     Chechen website run by the Kavkaz Center, Chechen warlord 
     Shamil Basayev claimed responsibility.


                                  2003

       Suicide Bombings in Tel Aviv, January 5, 2003: Two suicide 
     bomb attacks killed 22 and wounded at least 100 persons in 
     Tel Aviv, Israel. Six of the victims were foreign workers. 
     The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
       Night Club Bombing in Colombia, February 7, 2003: A car 
     bomb exploded outside a night club in Bogota, Colombia, 
     killing 32 persons and wounding 160. No group claimed 
     responsibility, but Colombian officials suspected the 
     Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) of committing the 
     worst terrorist attack in the country in a decade.
       Assassination of a Kurdish Leader, February 8, 2003: 
     Members of Ansar al-Islam assassinated Kurdish legislator 
     Shawkat Haji Mushir and captured two other Kurdish officials 
     in Qamash Tapa in northern Iraq.
       Suicide Bombing in Haifa, March 5, 2003: A suicide bombing 
     aboard a bus in Haifa, Israel, killed 15 persons and wounded 
     at least 40. One of the dead claimed U.S. as well as Israeli 
     citizenship. The bomber's affiliation was not immediately 
     known.
       Suicide Bombing in Netanya, March 30, 2003: A suicide 
     bombing in a cafe in Netanya, Israel, wounded 38 persons. 
     Only the bomber was killed. Islamic Jihad claimed 
     responsibility and called the attack a ``gift'' to the people 
     of Iraq.
       Unsuccessful Hostage Rescue Attempt in Colombia, May 5, 
     2003: The FARC killed 10 hostages when Colombian special 
     forces tried to rescue them from a jungle hideout near Urrao, 
     in Colombia's Antioquia State. The dead included Governor 
     Guillermo Gavira and former Defense Minister Gilberto 
     Echeverri Mejia, who had been kidnapped in April 2002.
       Truck Bomb Attacks in Saudi Arabia, May 12, 2003: Suicide 
     bombers attacked three residential compounds for foreign 
     workers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The 34 dead included 9 
     attackers, 7 other Saudis, 9 U.S. citizens, and one citizen 
     each from the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the Philippines. 
     Another American died on June 1. It was the first major 
     attack on U.S. targets in Saudi Arabia since the end of the 
     war in Iraq. Saudi authorities arrested 11 al-Qaida suspects 
     on May 28.
       Truck Bombing in Chechnya, May 12, 2003: A truck bomb 
     explosion demolished a government compound in Znamenskoye, 
     Chechnya, killing 54 persons. Russian authorities blamed 
     followers of a Saudi-born Islamist named Abu Walid. President 
     Vladimir Putin said that he suspected that there was an al-
     Qaida connection.
       Attempted Assassination in Chechnya, May 12, 2003: Two 
     female suicide bombers attacked Chechen Administrator Mufti 
     Akhmed Kadyrov during a religious festival in Iliskhan Yurt. 
     Kadyrov escaped injury, but 14 other persons were killed and 
     43 were wounded. Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev claimed 
     responsibility.
       Suicide Bomb Attacks in Morocco, May 16, 2003: A team of 12 
     suicide bombers attacked five targets in Casablanca, Morocco, 
     killing 43 persons and wounding 100. The targets were a 
     Spanish restaurant, a Jewish community, a Jewish cemetery, a 
     hotel, and the Belgian Consulate. The Moroccan Government 
     blamed the Islamist al-Assirat al-Moustaquim (The Righteous 
     Path), but foreign commentators suspected an al-Qaida 
     connection.
       Suicide Bomb Attack in Jerusalem, May 18, 2003: A suicide 
     bomb attack on a bus in Jerusalem's French Hill district 
     killed 7 persons and wounded 20. The bomber was disguised as 
     a religious Jew. HAMAS claimed responsibility.
       Suicide Bombing in Afula, May 19, 2003: A suicide bomb 
     attack by a female Palestinian student killed 3 persons and 
     wounded 52 at a shopping mall in Afula, Israel. Both Islamic 
     Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed 
     responsibility.
       Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, June 11, 2003: A suicide 
     bombing aboard a bus in Jerusalem killed 16 persons and 
     wounded at least 70, one of whom died later. HAMAS claimed 
     responsibility, calling it revenge for an Israeli helicopter 
     attack on HAMAS leader Abdelaziz al-Rantisi in Gaza City the 
     day before.
       Truck Bombing in Northern Ossetia, August 1, 2003: A 
     suicide truck bomb attack destroyed a Russian military 
     hospital in Mozdok, North Ossetia and killed 50 persons. 
     Russian authorities attributed the attack to followers of 
     Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev.
       Hotel Bombing in Indonesia, August 5, 2003: A car bomb 
     exploded outside the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, 
     killing 10 persons and wounding 150. One of the dead was a 
     Dutch citizen. The wounded included an American, a Canadian, 
     an Australian, and two Chinese. Indonesian authorities 
     suspected the Jemaah Islamiah, which had carried out the 
     October 12, 2002 bombing in Bali.
       Bombing of the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad, August 7, 
     2003: A car bomb exploded outside the Jordanian Embassy in 
     Baghdad, Iraq, killing 19 persons and wounding 65. Most of 
     the victims were apparently Iraqis, including 5 police 
     officers. No group claimed responsibility.
       Suicide Bombings in Israel and the West Bank, August 12, 
     2003: The first suicide bombings since the June 29 Israeli-
     Palestinian truce took place. The first, in a supermarket at 
     Rosh Haayin, Israel, killed one person and wounded 14. The 
     second, at a bus stop near the Ariel settlement in the West 
     Bank, killed one person and wounded 3. The al-Aqsa Martyrs' 
     Brigades claimed responsibility for the first; HAMAS claimed 
     responsibility for the second.
       Bombing of the UN Headquarters in Baghdad, August 19, 2003: 
     A truck loaded with surplus Iraqi ordnance exploded outside 
     the United Nations Headquarters in Baghdad's Canal Hotel. A 
     hospital across the street was also heavily damaged. The 23 
     dead included UN Special Representative Sergio Viera de 
     Mello. More than 100 persons were wounded. It was not clear 
     whether the bomber was a Baath Party loyalist or a foreign 
     Islamic militant. An al-Qaeda branch called the Brigades of 
     the Martyr Abu Hafz al-Masri later claimed responsibility.
       Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, August 19, 2003: A suicide 
     bombing aboard a bus in Jerusalem killed 20 persons and 
     injured at least 100, one of whom died later. Five of the 
     dead were American citizens. HAMAS and Islamic Jihad claimed 
     responsibility, although HAMAS leader al-Rantisi said that 
     his organization remained committed to the truce while 
     reserving the right to respond to Israeli military actions.
       Car Bomb Kills Shi'ite Leader in Najaf, August 29, 2003: A 
     car bomb explosion outside the Shrine of the Imam Ali in 
     Najaf, Iraq killed at least 81 persons and wounded at least 
     140. The dead included the Ayatollah Mohammed Bakir al-Hakim, 
     one of four leading Shi'ite clerics in Iraq. Al-Hakim had 
     been the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic 
     Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) since its establishment in 1982, 
     and SCIRI had recently agreed to work with the U.S.-sponsored 
     Iraqi Governing Council. It was not known whether the 
     perpetrators were Baath Party loyalists, rival Shi'ites, or 
     foreign Islamists.
       Suicide Bombings in Israel, September 9, 2003: Two suicide 
     bombings took place in Israel. The first, at a bus stop near 
     the Tsrifin army base southeast of Tel Aviv, killed 7 
     soldiers and wounded 14 soldiers and a civilian. The second, 
     at a cafe in Jerusalem's German Colony neighborhood, killed 6 
     persons and wounded 40. HAMAS did not claim responsibility 
     until the next day, although a spokesman called the first 
     attack ``a response to Israeli aggression.''
       Assassination of an Iraqi Governing Council Member, 
     September 20, 2003: Gunmen shot and seriously wounded Akila 
     Hashimi, one of three female members of the Iraqi Governing 
     Council, near her home in Baghdad. She died September 25.
       A Second Attack on the UN Headquarters in Baghdad, 
     September 22, 2003: A suicide car bomb attack on the UN 
     Headquarters in Baghdad killed a security guard and wounded 
     19 other persons.
       Suicide Bombing in Israel, October 4, 2003: A Palestinian 
     woman made a suicide bomb attack on a restaurant in Haifa, 
     killing 19 persons and wounding at least 55. Islamic Jihad 
     claimed responsibility for the attack. The next day, Israel 
     bombed a terrorist training camp in Syria.
       Attacks in Iraq, October 9, 2003: Gunmen assassinated a 
     Spanish military attache in Baghdad. A suicide car bomb 
     attack on an Iraqi police station killed 8 persons and 
     wounded 40.
       Car Bombings in Baghdad, October 12, 2003: Two suicide car 
     bombs exploded outside the Baghdad Hotel, which housed U.S. 
     officials. Six persons were killed and 32 wounded. Iraqi and 
     U.S. security personnel apparently kept the cars from 
     actually reaching the hotel.
       Bomb Attack on U.S. Diplomats in the Gaza Strip, October 
     15, 2003: A remote-controlled bomb exploded under a car in a 
     U.S. diplomatic convoy passing through the northern Gaza 
     Strip. Three security guards, all employees of DynCorp, were 
     killed. A fourth was wounded. The diplomats were on their way 
     to interview Palestinian candidates for Fulbright 
     scholarships to study in the United States. Palestinian 
     President Arafat and Prime Minister Qurei condemned the 
     attack, while the major Palestinian militant groups denied 
     responsibility. The next day, Palestinian security forces 
     arrested several suspects, some of whom belonged to the 
     Popular Resistance Committees.
       Rocket Attack on the al-Rashid Hotel in Baghdad, October 
     26, 2003: Iraqis using an improvised rocket launcher 
     bombarded the al-Rashid Hotel in Baghdad, killing one U.S. 
     Army officer and wounding 17 persons. The wounded included 4 
     U.S. military personnel and seven American civilians. Deputy 
     Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, who was staying at 
     the hotel, was not injured. After visiting the wounded, he 
     said, ``They're not going to scare us away; we're not giving 
     up on this job.''
       Assassination of a Deputy Mayor in Baghdad, October 26, 
     2003: Two gunmen believed to be Baath Party loyalists 
     assassinated Faris Abdul Razaq al-Assam, one of three deputy 
     mayors of Baghdad. U.S. officials did not announce al-Assam's 
     death until October 28.

[[Page 15861]]

       Wave of Car Bombings in Baghdad, October 27, 2003: A series 
     of suicide car bombings in Baghdad killed at least 35 persons 
     and wounded at least 230. Four attacks were directed at Iraqi 
     police stations, the fifth and most destructive was directed 
     at the International Committee of the Red Cross headquarters, 
     where at least 12 persons were killed. A sixth attack failed 
     when a car bomb failed to explode and the bomber was wounded 
     and captured by Iraqi police. U.S. and Iraqi officials 
     suspected that foreign terrorists were involved; the 
     unsuccessful bomber said he was a Syrian national and carried 
     a Syrian passport. After a meeting with Administrator L. Paul 
     Bremer, President Bush said, ``The more successful we are on 
     the ground, the more these killers will react.''
       Suicide Bombing in Riyadh, November 8, 2003: In Riyadh, a 
     suicide car bombing took place in the Muhaya residential 
     compound, which was occupied mainly by nationals of other 
     Arab countries. Seventeen persons were killed and 122 were 
     wounded. The latter included 4 Americans. The next day, 
     Deputy Secretary of State Armitage said al-Qaeda was probably 
     responsible.
       Truck Bombing in Nasiriyah, November 12, 2003: A suicide 
     truck bomb destroyed the headquarters of the Italian military 
     police in Nasiriyah, Iraq, killing 18 Italians and 11 Iraqis 
     and wounding at least 100 persons.
       Synagogue Bombings in Istanbul, November 15, 2003: Two 
     suicide truck bombs exploded outside the Neve Shalom and Beth 
     Israel synagogues in Istanbul, killing 25 persons and 
     wounding at least 300 more. The initial claim of 
     responsibility came from a Turkish militant group, the Great 
     Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front, but Turkish authorities 
     suspected an al-Qaeda connection. The next day, the London-
     based newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi received an e-mail in which 
     an al-Qaeda branch called the Brigades of the Martyr Abu Hafz 
     al-Masri claimed responsibility for the Istanbul synagogue 
     bombings.
       Grenade Attacks in Bogota, November 15, 2003: Grenade 
     attacks on two bars frequented by Americans in Bogota killed 
     one person and wounded 72, including 4 Americans. Colombian 
     authorities suspected FARC (the Revolutionary Armed Forces of 
     Colombia). The U.S. Embassy suspected that the attacks had 
     targeted Americans and warned against visiting commercial 
     centers and places of entertainment.
       More Suicide Truck Bombings in Istanbul, November 20, 2003: 
     Two more suicide truck bombings devastated the British HSBC 
     Bank and the British Consulate General in Istanbul, killing 
     27 persons and wounding at least 450. The dead included 
     Consul General Roger Short. U.S., British, and Turkish 
     officials suspected that al-Qaeda had struck again. The U.S. 
     Consulate in Istanbul was closed, and the Embassy in Ankara 
     advised American citizens in Istanbul to stay home.
       Car Bombing in Kirkuk, November 20, 2003: A suicide car 
     bombing in Kirkuk killed 5 persons. The target appeared to be 
     the headquarters of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. PUK 
     officials suspected the Ansar al-Islam group, which was said 
     to have sheltered fugitive Taliban and al-Qaeda members after 
     the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan.
       Attacks on Other Coalition Personnel in Iraq, November 29-
     30, 2003: Iraqi insurgents stepped up attacks on nationals of 
     other members of the Coalition. On November 29, an ambush in 
     Mahmudiyah killed 7 out of a party of 8 Spanish intelligence 
     officers. Iraqi insurgents also killed two Japanese diplomats 
     near Tikrit. On November 30, another ambush near Tikrit 
     killed two South Korean electrical workers and wounded two 
     more. A Colombian employee of Kellogg Brown & Root was killed 
     and two were wounded in an ambush near Balad.
       Train Bombing in Southern Russia, December 5, 2003: A 
     suicide bomb attack killed 42 persons and wounded 150 aboard 
     a Russian commuter train in the south Russian town of 
     Yessentuki. Russian officials suspected Chechen rebels; 
     President Putin said the attack was meant to disrupt 
     legislative elections. Chechen rebel leader Aslan Maskhadov 
     denied any involvement.
       Suicide Bombing in Moscow, December 9, 2003: A female 
     suicide bomber killed 5 other persons and wounded 14 outside 
     Moscow's National Hotel. She was said to be looking for the 
     State Duma.
       Suicide Car Bombings in Iraq, December 15, 2003: Two days 
     after the capture of Saddam Hussein, there were two suicide 
     car bomb attacks on Iraqi police stations. One at Husainiyah 
     killed 8 persons and wounded 20. The other, at Ameriyah, 
     wounded 7 Iraqi police. Guards repelled a second vehicle.
       Office Bombing in Baghdad, December 19, 2003: A bomb 
     destroyed the Baghdad office of the Supreme Council of the 
     Islamic Revolution in Iraq, killing a woman and wounding at 
     least 7 other persons.
       Suicide Car Bombing in Irbil, December 24, 2003: A suicide 
     car bomb attack on the Kurdish Interior Ministry in Irbil, 
     Iraq, killed 5 persons and wounded 101.
       Attempted Assassination in Rawalpindi, December 25, 2003: 
     Two suicide truck bombers killed 14 persons as President 
     Musharraf's motorcade passed through Rawalpindi, Pakistan. An 
     earlier attempt on December 14 caused no casualties. 
     Pakistani officials suspected Afghan and Kashmiri militants. 
     On January 6, 2004, Pakistani authorities announced the 
     arrest of 6 suspects who were said to be members of Jaish-e-
     Muhammad.
       Suicide Bombing in Israel, December 25, 2003: A Palestinian 
     suicide bomber killed 4 persons at a bus stop near Petah 
     Tikva, Israel. The Popular Front for the Liberation of 
     Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack in 
     retaliation for Israeli military operations in Nablus that 
     had begun two days earlier.
       Restaurant Bombing in Baghdad, December 31, 2003: A car 
     bomb explosion outside Baghdad's Nabil Restaurant killed 8 
     persons and wounded 35. The wounded included 3 Los Angeles 
     Times reporters and 3 local employees.

  Mr. DODD. I know the Senate would like to vote quickly and I am 
prepared to do so. I thank the Senator for his patience and indulgence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the concern of the Senator from Connecticut 
and I know he is working hard in this area, but the response to this 
amendment is not bureaucratic. The response to this amendment focuses 
on the fact that this bill, and our efforts as a Nation, must be threat 
based as we address terrorism.
  I was interested today in a quote from Mayor Bloomberg in one of the 
New York papers. He essentially said if a professional terrorist, whose 
purpose it was to kill Americans indiscriminately, wishes to attack the 
transit systems of New York, it is virtually impossible to stop that 
individual at the site of the attack.
  Where do you stop that individual? You stop him by obtaining the 
intelligence necessary to interdict him before he can attack us. The 
energy we in this Nation are putting in the area of fighting terrorism 
is to do exactly that.
  One of the primary reasons we are fighting in Iraq, one of the 
primary reasons we are fighting in Afghanistan, is in order to develop 
intelligence which will give us the capacity to stop these individuals. 
These individuals come from that part of the world. One of the reasons 
we have Guantanamo Bay is to develop intelligence capability. A 
significant amount of our intelligence capability coming out of that 
facility is as a result of taking their prisoners, who are bad actors, 
people who are fundamentally focused on hurting Americans, and getting 
information from them in a proper way.
  One of the reasons we have the PATRIOT Act is to develop the 
intelligence we need to interdict an attack.
  One of the reasons we do profiling is in order to get the 
intelligence we need to catch these people before they attack us. This 
bill addresses intelligence. We have significantly improved or are 
trying to improve with this bill what is our highest risk relative to 
the capacity of a terrorist to attack us, which is the porousness of 
our borders.
  And so these funds which are being proposed here, $16 billion, which 
literally represents 50 percent of the entire budget of the Homeland 
Security agency being put into first responder programs when we already 
have $7 billion in the pipeline that hasn't been spent yet because the 
assessments and plans for spending the money haven't been properly 
prepared, would really be a true misallocation of resources, a true 
misallocation of resources in our effort to defend ourselves. They 
simply could not be handled, these types of dollars. The dollars 
already in the pipeline we have not been able to handle. This bill puts 
$4 billion into these accounts, and we know that $4 billion will not be 
out the door as quickly as it should. To put $16 billion on top of that 
is a political statement but is not going to have a dramatic impact 
because the system to handle the dollars is not there and lot of money 
will be wasted. Taxpayers will find that instead of getting more 
security, what they are getting is dollars that could have been used 
more efficiently somewhere else, that will have been drained off, and 
those dollars should be going into intelligence gathering and 
protecting our borders and to fighting these wars which we are 
participating in and making sure our military has adequate support in 
places such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Independent of that, the amendment dramatically exceeds the budget 
and is

[[Page 15862]]

therefore subject to a point of order, which I have made, and the 
motion to waive has been made by the Senator from Connecticut, and we 
will have a vote on it.
  So at this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 6:30 
this evening the Senate proceed to a series of votes in relation to the 
following amendments and the motions where pending; further, that no 
second-degree amendments be in order to any amendments prior to the 
vote, and that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to 
each vote: The first amendment will be the Dodd amendment, a motion to 
waive the budget point of order, and the second amendment would be 
Akaka amendment No. 1112, and on that amendment there will also be a 
point of order and I presume the vote will be on the motion to waive 
the point of order since that amendment also significantly exceeds the 
budget allocation of this committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Is there an objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1112, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside and the amendment No. 1112 of Senator Akaka be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment by Senator 
Akaka provides spending in excess of the subcommittee allocation under 
section 302(b).
  I am sorry, I reserve that motion and I guess Senator Akaka is going 
to send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I reply to the chairman it does not affect 
the content of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Hawaii wish to send a 
modification to the desk?
  Without objection, the modification is accepted.
  The amendment (No. 1112), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 77, line 18, strike ``$2,694,300,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,181,300,000''.
       On page 77, line 20, strike ``$1,518,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,985,000,000''.
       On page 79, line 21, strike ``$321,300,000'' and insert 
     ``$341,300,000''.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this point I raise a point of order 
under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment 
provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, in accordance with section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are 
ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding that we will now have a vote on 
Senator Dodd's amendment, on the motion to waive the Budget Act, 
followed by a vote on Senator Akaka's motion to waive the Budget Act. I 
should inform Members that we actually are going to have three other 
votes following those two votes as soon as we line them up. The first 
vote will begin at 6:30.
  I think Senator Akaka wanted time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sarbanes be added 
as a cosponsor to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on my first 
responder amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  The distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee has 
cited $7 billion in unspent first responder grants as justification for 
reducing first responder funding in fiscal year 2006. I wish to take a 
moment to respond to the statement. First, much of the $7 billion 
figure has been legally obligated for specific purposes or in some 
cases even already spent. As the DHS inspector general observed in a 
March 2004 report on the distribution of first responder grants, the 
amount of funds drawn down by States provide an incomplete picture of 
the progress States and local jurisdictions are making. A more accurate 
way to monitor progress would be to identify the amount of funds 
obligated and spent by the State and local jurisdictions.
  Following this approach and looking at data received from DHS, 
virtually all the money that has been awarded to States in prior years 
under the three main homeland security first responder grant programs 
has been obligated.
  Second, the $7 billion includes fiscal year 2005 grant funds which 
were only made available to States by DHS very recently and could not 
reasonably be expected to have already been spent in the middle of the 
same fiscal year.
  We should not punish first responders for bureaucratic procedures and 
redtape. Our country cannot afford to take resources away from its 
first responders at a time when we rely on them more than ever.
  Mr. President, I urge support of our amendment. I have asked for the 
yeas and nays. I yield back my time.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to support this amendment 
to the fiscal year 2006 Department of Homeland Security appropriations 
bill to provide additional funding for our first responders and 
preventers--the men and women who go to work every day to keep our 
communities safe, and who rush into the face of disaster when it 
happens.
  Last Thursday, the world saw again with the despicable attacks in 
London that terrorists are still capable of killing innocent civilians. 
It is yet another wake up call to all of us, and a sign that we cannot 
let down our guard. We must stay vigilant.
  In fact, our intelligence and security experts have been telling us 
in no uncertain terms that the threat of terrorist attacks right here 
at home is one we will have to live with for some time to come. CIA 
Director Porter Goss has said, ``It may only be a matter of time'' 
before terrorists strike again within our borders with weapons of mass 
destruction. And FBI Director Robert Mueller has said our Nation is, 
``awash in desirable'' targets for terrorists.
  Given these pronouncements, it is wrong to leave our police, 
firefighters, and emergency medical workers undertrained and ill-
equipped to protect American citizens. We would never consider denying 
the training and equipment needs of our men and women fighting in Iraq 
and we should not deny the training and equipment needs of those we 
rely on to protect us in the war on terror at home.
  Yet that is exactly what this spending bill does. It sends the wrong 
message not only to first responders and the state and local officials 
struggling to cover the costs of preparing for new threats. It also 
sends a dangerous message of complacency to the public.
  The amendment that Senator Akaka and I are offering today would boost 
our first responder spending by $587 million--to restore three key 
grants programs to last year's funding levels. Those grant programs are 
the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Areas Security 
Initiative, and the Fire Assistance Grant Program--all of which supply 
first responders with the training and equipment they need to do their 
jobs effectively and safely.
  Opponents of this amendment will argue that Congress has already 
appropriated billions of dollars for first responders and preventers 
since September 11, and that some $7 billion remains unspent in the 
pipeline. This is a common misperception.
  First, the $7 billion figure includes fiscal year 2005 grant funds--
funds that

[[Page 15863]]

were only made available to states by DHS very recently and that could 
not reasonably be expected to have already been spent in the middle of 
the same fiscal year. Second, the $7 billion refers to money that has 
not actually been ``drawn down'' from the U.S. Treasury. Much of this 
money, however, has been legally obligated for specific purposes or in 
some cases even already spent. As DHS's inspector general observed in a 
March 2004 report on the distribution of first responder grants, ``The 
amounts of funds drawn down by states provide an incomplete picture of 
the progress states and local jurisdictions are making. A more accurate 
way to monitor progress would be to identify the amount of funds 
obligated and spent (outlays) by the states and local jurisdictions.''
  Following this approach and looking at data we have received from the 
Department of Homeland Security, it appears that virtually all the 
money that has been awarded to States in prior years under the three 
main homeland security first responder grant programs--the State 
Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, 
UASI, and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, has been 
obligated.
  At any rate, the billions we have appropriated over the years still 
pales by comparison to what most experts--Republican and Democrat--say 
is needed to adequately prepare our first responders and preventers. In 
June 2003, a nonpartisan task force chaired by former Republican 
Senator Warren Rudman reported that--over the next 5 years--we will 
under fund the needs of critical emergency responders by nearly $100 
billion. And that figure was arrived at based on maintaining 2003 
funding levels.
  The task force found that, on average, fire departments had enough 
radios to equip only half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing 
apparatuses for only one-third. Just 10 percent had the personnel and 
equipment needed to respond to a building collapse; and police 
departments did not have the protective gear needed to secure the site 
of a WMD attack. These dismal numbers may have improved somewhat since 
2003, but no one has suggested that our level of preparedness is near 
where it should be.
  On the key issue of first responder communications interoperability--
the top priority of State and local homeland security advisors--the 
task force recommended spending almost $7 billion over 5 years. And DHS 
estimates the cost of modernizing first responder communications 
infrastructure at $40 billion. No wonder most States have not yet 
achieved interoperability.
  In March, New York's Center for Catastrophe Preparedness and Response 
reported that emergency medical workers generally lack not only proper 
equipment but also proper training. And at a Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee hearing in April, we heard disturbing 
testimony that first responders are often not prepared to respond 
adequately to accidents at chemical facilities, leaving the American 
public dangerously exposed, even more so if there is deliberate release 
caused by terrorists.
  I cannot say it often enough: our first responders are on the 
frontlines of the war on terror here at home, and we must equip and 
train them to do their jobs safely and effectively. Words of praise are 
useless. They need dollars--dollars to help train and equip State and 
local police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians to help 
detect or disrupt terrorist activity before an attack occurs or to save 
as many lives as possible and contain the damage if an attack occurs.
  This amendment is a modest proposal--$587 million--and it seeks 
primarily to halt to downward trend in funding for our Nation's first 
responders, and important, and I hope achievable goal. Last year, we 
spent more on Mars exploration. I have consistently advocated that we 
spend much more to make sure that first responders have the training 
and equipment they need to keep the American people safe. For example, 
earlier this year, I proposed to the Budget and Appropriations 
Committees that we spend $4.2 billion more for first responders and 
preventers, consistent with the advice of experts who have told us that 
we need to invest billions more to secure our Nation.
  Yet this appropriations bill reflects, once again, an ill-advised 
administration strategy to reduce funding for first responders for the 
second year in a row. This is no time to retreat. I urge my colleagues 
to support this modest but urgent effort to meet our homeland security 
needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the work of the Senator from 
Hawaii. He is always a very positive and effective spokesperson in the 
Senate for a variety of different issues. He brings this amendment 
forward. The simple fact is that you can't disregard the fact that 
there is $7 billion in the pipeline for first responders--$3 billion 
from the year 2004, $4 billion from 2005--that hasn't been spent. This 
bill puts another $4 billion into these accounts, so we are not 
shorting these accounts. One of the reasons the Senate has offered this 
bill is it takes money from first responders that is not going to be 
spent in a timely manner, moves it over to Border Patrol where we do 
need the money, moves it over to weapons of mass destruction where we 
do need the money, and that is the priority we set as a committee, in a 
bipartisan way, because this has been, as I mentioned a number of 
times, a threat-based bill. This is the first time this bill has been 
brought forth recently, or ever, really, based on threat, and we 
determined the threat was weapons of mass destruction and border 
porousness. The fact there were $7 billion in the pipeline, retaining 
$4 billion in this account we felt was an adequate amount to fund those 
accounts for first responders, knowing that down the road we are going 
to put more money into first responders as it can be absorbed. But to 
put more in now would mean just holding it, and that money can be much 
more efficiently used as we propose to use it by adding more Border 
Patrol agents and detention beds, and more aggressive attempts to fight 
the use of a weapon of mass destruction against us. So that is why we 
are opposed to this approach.
  Clearly, it breaks the allocation which we have received. Therefore, 
it would add $587 million to the deficit, which would also be 
inappropriate, and that is why the point of order lies against it and 
that is why we oppose it at this point.
  I understand we are now on a minute equally divided on the Dodd 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The understanding is 2 minutes equally 
divided.
  Mr. DODD. The chairman is very gracious. He has probably worn out his 
patience on this amendment.
  This amendment is an extraordinary amendment. I fully understand 
that. I believe the events, particularly over the last week, have 
highlighted the extraordinary times we are in and the challenges we 
face.
  The bulk of the $16 billion is not to first responders but to 
harbors, port and chemical plants where there is great vulnerability 
today.
  Recently, I was in Seville, Spain, attending a conference. I rode the 
train from Seville to Madrid and arrived in the same station where the 
attacks occurred in March of 2004. My luggage, when I got on the train 
in Seville to go to Madrid, was quickly checked through a scanning 
system. We have nothing like that.
  I am not suggesting had something like that existed in London the 
problem could have been avoided. I know terrorists might have used 
another means to attack as they did that day, but it minimizes the 
possibility.
  The vulnerabilities we have in our country today in the areas I have 
described demand attention. With all due respect, this bill is a 
reduction in funding for these areas, not an increase. We ought to be 
doing more. This amendment is a large amount, but to do less would be a 
tragedy. I hope the waiver will be adopted.
  Mr. GREGG. This is $16 billion, $16 billion into an account where 
there presently is sitting $7 billion in the bank.

[[Page 15864]]

  We as a nation obviously have a lot of vulnerabilities because we are 
an open society. I wish we could cover them all. But the simple fact is 
there is not enough money to cover them all. We need to prioritize. 
This bill does that. This amendment basically flies in the face of good 
utilization of the dollars because we simply could not spend these 
types of dollars if they were appropriated effectively. They may get 
spent but not effectively, in our opinion.
  It is much more appropriate to look at addressing weapons of mass 
destruction, border patrol, airline security, and to make sure we have 
in place the proper systems in order to protect the homeland through 
these assessment programs which are going forward before we put a large 
amount of money--$16 billion, which would be half the budget of the 
Homeland Security agency--into new spending initiatives or additional 
spending initiatives, the $4 billion in the bill and the $7 billion in 
the pipeline.
  The point of order has been made. This is a motion to waive it. This 
amendment would add $16 billion to the deficit. We do not think it 
would accomplish what its purpose is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is now 
agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to Dodd 
amendment No. 1202, as modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), and the Senator from South Dakota 
(Mr. Thune).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. 
Landrieu), and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 36, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 177 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Murray
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--60

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Landrieu
     Lott
     Mikulski
     Thune
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 36, the nays are 
60. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, let me take a moment and update everybody 
on the schedule. We are going to have one additional vote scheduled 
this evening. We will be starting that momentarily. We have 14 
additional amendments pending at this time. We should be able to lock 
in a voting sequence for tomorrow morning, and thus we will have one 
more vote tonight, and then we will have a series of stacked votes 
beginning tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. As we have said again and again, 
we will be completing the bill this week, and we can complete the bill 
late tomorrow night but, if necessary, we would go into Friday. But we 
will finish the bill this week.
  Senators should be prepared to stay late tomorrow night. We will have 
one more vote starting shortly, and we will start stacked votes at 10 
in the morning. We will work straight through tomorrow, hopefully 
finish tomorrow night. We will be in on Friday as well, but I think we 
can finish this bill tomorrow night.


                    Amendment No. 1112, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Akaka amendment. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, we have been very concerned about first 
responders and funding they really need. My amendment simply seeks to 
maintain the fiscal year 2005 funding for first responders. Our country 
cannot afford to take the resources away from them. I urge support of 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment adds $587 million in new 
spending to first responder grants, above the levels provided already 
in the bill. There is no offset. The bill already provides $3.4 billion 
for first responder grants. In addition, there is nearly $7 billion 
previously appropriated that State and locals have available to spend 
at this time for first responders. The funding pipeline is full of 
money. This amendment will cause the subcommittee to exceed its 302(b) 
allocation. The Budget Act point of order should be sustained.
  Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the 
Akaka amendment No. 1112, as modified.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. 
Landrieu), and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 178 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--55

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Landrieu
     Lott
     Mikulski
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 42, the nays are 
55. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 1172

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time I call up amendment No. 1172 
on behalf of Senator Thomas and ask it be reported.

[[Page 15865]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. Thomas, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1172.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize and direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
designate Natrona County International Airport, Wyoming, as an airport 
at which certain private aircraft arriving in the United States from a 
 foreign area may land for processing by the United States Customs and 
               Border Protection, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall designate the Natrona International Airport in Casper, 
     Wyoming, as an airport at which private aircraft described in 
     subsection (b) may land for processing by the United States 
     Customs and Border Protection in accordance with section 
     122.24(b) of title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, and such 
     airport shall not be treated as a user fee airport for 
     purposes of section 122.15 of title 19, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (b) Private Aircraft.--Private aircraft described in this 
     subsection are private aircraft that--
       (1) arrive in the United States from a foreign area and 
     have a final destination in the United States of Natrona 
     International Airport in Casper, Wyoming; and
       (2) would otherwise be required to land for processing by 
     the United States Customs and Border Protection at an airport 
     listed in section 122.24(b) of title 19, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, in accordance with such section.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``private 
     aircraft'' has the meaning given such term in section 
     122.23(a)(1) of title 19, Code of Federal Regulations.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1172) was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 1173, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1173 on behalf of 
Senator Hutchison, and I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mrs. 
     Hutchison, proposes an amendment numbered 1173, as modified.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding coordination 
                      with the American Red Cross)

       On page 100, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 519. It is the sense of the Senate that the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency or any other organization within 
     the Department of Homeland Security should continue to 
     coordinate with the American Red Cross in developing a mass 
     care plan for the United States in response to a catastrophic 
     event.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment, 
as modified be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1173), as modified, was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 1171, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order on Senator 
McCain's amendment No. 1171, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.


         Amendment No. 1221 to Amendment No. 1171, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment on behalf 
of Senator Hatch to Senator McCain's amendment No. 1171.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. Hatch, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1221 to amendment No. 1171, as 
     modified.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify the source of funds allocated under amendment No. 
                           1171 to H.R. 2360)

       (A) On line 3, page 2, strike ``.'' and insert ``;''.
       (B) Add at the end, ``provided that the balance shall be 
     allocated from the funds available to the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security for States, urban areas, or regions based 
     on risks; threats; vulnerabilities pursuant to Homeland 
     Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8).''

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second-
degree amendment offered by Senator Hatch be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1221) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10 a.m. 
tomorrow, the Senate proceed to a series of votes in relation to the 
following amendments or motions where pending; further, that no second-
degree amendments be in order to any of the amendments prior to the 
votes, and that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to 
each vote; finally, that the first vote in the series be 15 minutes, 
with the remaining votes in the series limited to 10 minutes each. The 
first amendment will be Senators Ensign and McCain second-degree 
amendment No. 1219; the second amendment will be Senator Schumer's 
amendment No. 1189; third will be Senator Schumer's amendment No. 1190; 
fourth will be Senator McCain's amendment No. 1171, as modified, as 
amended by the Hatch amendment; and fifth will be Senator Stabenow's 
amendment No. 1217.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1161

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1161, which is at 
the desk. I wish to have it reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr. Biden, 
     and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 1161.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the submittal to 
        Congress of a report on performance indicators on Iraq)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) The Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany the 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the 
     Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 
     1090913) requires the Department of Defense to set forth in a 
     report to Congress a comprehensive set of performance 
     indicators and measures for progress toward military and 
     political stability in Iraq.
       (2) The report requires performance standards and goals for 
     security, economic, and security force training objectives in 
     Iraq together with a notional timetable for achieving these 
     goals.
       (3) In specific, the report required, at a minimum, the 
     following:
       (A) With respect to stability and security in Iraq, the 
     following:
       (i) Key measures of political stability, including the 
     important political milestones that must be achieved over the 
     next several years.
       (ii) The primary indicators of a stable security 
     environment in Iraq, such as number of engagements per day, 
     numbers of trained Iraqi forces, and trends relating to 
     numbers and types of ethnic and religious-based hostile 
     encounters.
       (iii) An assessment of the estimated strength of the 
     insurgency in Iraq and the extent to which it is composed of 
     non-Iraqi fighters.
       (iv) A description of all militias operating in Iraq, 
     including the number, size, equipment strength, military 
     effectiveness,

[[Page 15866]]

     sources of support, legal status, and efforts to disarm or 
     reintegrate each militia.
       (v) Key indicators of economic activity that should be 
     considered the most important for determining the prospects 
     of stability in Iraq, including--

       (I) unemployment levels;
       (II) electricity, water, and oil production rates; and
       (III) hunger and poverty levels.

       (vi) The criteria the Administration will use to determine 
     when it is safe to begin withdrawing United States forces 
     from Iraq.
       (B) With respect to the training and performance of 
     security forces in Iraq, the following:
       (i) The training provided Iraqi military and other Ministry 
     of Defense forces and the equipment used by such forces.
       (ii) Key criteria for assessing the capabilities and 
     readiness of the Iraqi military and other Ministry of Defense 
     forces, goals for achieving certain capability and readiness 
     levels (as well as for recruiting, training, and equipping 
     these forces), and the milestones and notional timetable for 
     achieving these goals.
       (iii) The operational readiness status of the Iraqi 
     military forces, including the type, number, size, and 
     organizational structure of Iraqi battalions that are--

       (I) capable of conducting counterinsurgency operations 
     independently;
       (II) capable of conducting counterinsurgency operations 
     with the support of United States or coalition forces; or
       (III) not ready to conduct counterinsurgency operations.

       (iv) The rates of absenteeism in the Iraqi military forces 
     and the extent to which insurgents have infiltrated such 
     forces.
       (v) The training provided Iraqi police and other Ministry 
     of Interior forces and the equipment used by such forces.
       (vi) Key criteria for assessing the capabilities and 
     readiness of the Iraqi police and other Ministry of Interior 
     forces, goals for achieving certain capability and readiness 
     levels (as well as for recruiting, training, and equipping), 
     and the milestones and notional timetable for achieving these 
     goals, including--

       (I) the number of police recruits that have received 
     classroom training and the duration of such instruction;
       (II) the number of veteran police officers who have 
     received classroom instruction and the duration of such 
     instruction;
       (III) the number of police candidates screened by the Iraqi 
     Police Screening Service, the number of candidates derived 
     from other entry procedures, and the success rates of those 
     groups of candidates;
       (IV) the number of Iraqi police forces who have received 
     field training by international police trainers and the 
     duration of such instruction; and
       (V) attrition rates and measures of absenteeism and 
     infiltration by insurgents.

       (vii) The estimated total number of Iraqi battalions needed 
     for the Iraqi security forces to perform duties now being 
     undertaken by coalition forces, including defending the 
     borders of Iraq and providing adequate levels of law and 
     order throughout Iraq.
       (viii) The effectiveness of the Iraqi military and police 
     officer cadres and the chain of command.
       (ix) The number of United States and coalition advisors 
     needed to support the Iraqi security forces and associated 
     ministries.
       (x) An assessment, in a classified annex if necessary, of 
     United States military requirements, including planned force 
     rotations, through the end of calendar year 2006.
       (3) The deadline for submittal of the report to Congress 
     was 60 days after the date of the enactment of the Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War 
     on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, that is July 11, 2005, 
     and every 90 days thereafter through the end of fiscal year 
     2006.
       (4) The report has not yet been received by Congress.
       (5) The availability of accurate data on key performance 
     indicators is critical to understanding whether the United 
     States strategy in Iraq is succeeding, and the substantial 
     resources provided by Congress, which total more than 
     $200,000,000,000 and an approximate monthly expenditure of 
     $5,000,000,000, with substantial resource expenditures still 
     to come, are being utilized effectively.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the information requested in the report described by 
     subsection (a) is critical--
       (A) to fulfilling the oversight obligations of Congress;
       (B) to ensuring the success of United States strategy in 
     Iraq;
       (C) to maximizing the effectiveness of the substantial 
     resources provided by Congress and the American people for 
     United States efforts in Iraq;
       (D) to identifying when the Iraqi security forces will be 
     able to assume responsibility for security in Iraq; and
       (E) to obtaining an estimate of the level of United States 
     troops that will be necessary in Iraq during 2005 and 2006, 
     and in any years thereafter;
       (2) the report should be provided by the Department of 
     Defense, as required by the Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and 
     Tsunami Relief, 2005 as soon as possible; and
       (3) the Secretary of Defense should communicate to Congress 
     and the American people why the report was not submitted to 
     Congress by the original deadline for its submittal.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in the 2005 Iraq Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations bill, the House and Senate conferees agreed to an 
extensive set of Defense Department reporting and benchmarking 
requirements on Iraq that addressed the security, economic, 
reconstruction, and governance areas.
  This report was due on July 11, and has yet to be provided to 
Congress.
  This amendment conveys the Sense of the Senate that this information 
is critical to formulating a strategy for success and that the report 
should be delivered to Congress as soon as possible.
  Over the last few weeks, the American people have been assured by the 
administration that they have a strategy for success in Iraq.
  Unfortunately, too often the rhetorical excesses of senior 
administration officials have left an impression with the American 
people of a credibility gap.
  Overly optimistic statements such as that by the Vice President that 
the insurgency is in its ``last throes'' have not matched what real 
experts, including the administration's own intelligence analysts and 
senior military officers, have said about the challenges ahead.
  With all this obfuscation, the American people are right to be 
concerned and right to demand that the administration report more cold, 
hard facts about Iraq on a regular basis.
  As the administration asks Congress for billions more in funding for 
the Iraq war in coming months, on top of the more than $218 billion we 
have provided so far, the American people are entitled to information 
measuring whether those resources are having an impact and moving the 
ball forward in Iraq.
  Let me remind my colleagues that this is important not just for our 
debate about Iraq but for our debate about other priorities such as 
homeland security. We spend more on Iraq in a month than we spend on 
first responders in an entire year. Since 9/11, we have spent $500 
million on mass transit security--an amount that we spend every 3 days 
in our operations in Iraq. This puts a premium on ensuring the 
taxpayers' money is being well spent.
  We won't know whether our strategy in Iraq is making true progress 
until real report cards start coming in.
  The amendment is a reminder that the first of these report cards from 
the administration was due this past Monday, and that the 
representatives of the people in Congress are waiting.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the amendment now pending in the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 1161 offered by the Democratic 
leader.
  Mr. REID. I ask that the Senate act on the amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1161.
  The amendment (No. 1161) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1075

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to 
amendment No. 1075. It is Senator Voinovich's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

[[Page 15867]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1075) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1151

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to 
McCain amendment No. 1151.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1151) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________