A resolution expressing sympathy for the people of the United Kingdom in the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attacks on London on July 7, 2005.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill.

Protecting the security of our people and our homeland is the most important responsibility that any Member of this body possesses. It is, therefore, our solemn obligation to review this bill carefully and make certain it adequately addresses our Nation's vulnerabilities.

The question should be, Have we done all that we can do to make America safe? Now, obviously, none of us can look into the minds, the perverted minds of the terrorists and know everything they might do to harm us or people around the world, as we saw again in London last week. But I think we do have an obligation to do all we can. Does that mean even after we do it there will never be an attack? Of course not. But we have to try, to the best of our human ability, to protect our citizens and make our Nation safe by deterring, detecting, and preventing terrorist attacks.

I believe--and I am sure many of my colleagues would agree--that to make America truly safe we need to carefully allocate our homeland security resources. We need to make sure the money we appropriate in Congress gets to where it is most needed; that the American cities, States and places that are under the greatest threat, that are most vulnerable, receive the funding they need to be protected.

I have advocated for threat-based allocation of homeland security funds for several years now. Last year, the 9/11 Commission made a very specific recommendation. It urged Congress to base Federal funding for emergency preparedness solely--solely--on risks and vulnerabilities.

Over the last 4 years, the Department of Homeland Security and its agencies have provided $11.3 billion to State and local governments to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism. Additionally, $3.2 billion in grants and other assistance provided by other Federal agencies has also gone to State and local responders to take on the terrorist threat.

Unfortunately, nearly half of this $14.5 billion has been allocated according to congressionally mandated formulas that bear little relation to need, risk, vulnerability, or threat.

Last September, when the Senate took up consideration of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, I offered an amendment to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to allocate formula-based grants to State and local governments based on an assessment of threats and vulnerabilities, in accordance with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Although the amendment was tabled, I am thankful, as are I am sure millions of my fellow Americans who live in high-threat communities, that the President has finally heard our concerns. He proposed, in the fiscal year 2006 budget, a restructuring of $2.6 billion in grants for States, urban areas, and infrastructure protection. Under the President's proposal, DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, will target grants to fill critical gaps in State and local terrorism prevention and preparedness capabilities, taking into consideration threats and vulnerabilities.

While I am not completely satisfied with the formula--of course I could not be, representing New York, which remains, by all the intelligence we are privy to, the No. 1 target of the terrorists in our country--I am pleased by the recognition of the President and Secretary Chertoff that we are now called upon to look at threat-based funding. That is indeed welcome news.

While this bill we are considering makes important steps toward securing our homeland, there are certainly some deficiencies that we cannot afford to ignore. Last week's tragic events in London highlighted one of our Nation's most glaring homeland security deficiencies--the vulnerability of our rail and transit systems.

We have seen these senseless, evil terrorist attacks in Japan, Russia, Spain, and now England. These attacks, like the one that struck our own country on 9/11, hit when innocent people were going about their everyday lives. All of these cowardly acts were not merely attacks on individuals but an attack on a way of life.

These attacks on the subway and transit systems around the world are a clear signal to this Congress that we have to fill this glaring hole in our national security budget.

Now, our resolve to stand against these acts of terrorism will not waiver. But courage and determination is not enough. We must also commit, with equal force, to developing a comprehensive plan and allocating adequate resources to guard against similar attacks in our own cities and States.

I know there are some who argue against increasing the funding for homeland security because they say: Well, we can't possibly guard against every risk and vulnerability. I read a comment by one think tank pundit who said: We can't childproof our Nation.

Well, childproofing a home when a new baby arrives is something I take very seriously. I think most parents do as well. We go out and we buy those little plugs to put into outlets. We move to a higher shelf household cleaners and poisons. We go out and maybe buy one of those little gates to put at the top and bottom of stairs. We obviously take steps to childproof our homes.

Starting in the 1970s, responsible parents got some help from the Federal Government, which, looking at the evidence, determined that a lot of children were getting into the prescription pills of their parents and suffering severe injury, even death. So along came the childproof top that made it very difficult for little hands to open those dangerous pill bottles. And other steps were taken so that responsible parents could have some control over the circumstances in their homes and in their communities that their children would face.

Does that mean every risk facing every child was eliminated? Of course not. But we saved a lot of lives. We protected a lot of children. We provided a lot of peace of mind to many mothers and fathers.

So when somebody in a kind of offhand, critical way says, ``What do these people expect when they call for more money for rail and transit security or for border security or for chemical plant security? They are trying to childproof the Nation,'' I view that as an ignorant insult. Of course we are trying to protect our Nation. That is our highest obligation. We know we cannot protect against everything, but we have to do all we can to make sure every community is as protected as we can make it.

We know from every expert who has looked at rail and transit security that we are woefully underfunding it. In fact, based on the research and analysis I have seen, it would take approximately $7 billion to protect across this country the tens of millions of people who use our mass transit systems--our subways, our buses, our trains, our ferries-- every single day to get back and forth to work, to go about their daily lives.

We know millions of Americans use this because they have to. It is convenient. It is inexpensive. It fills their needs. In New York, we have millions and millions of New Yorkers who ride the bus and the subway and the ferries and the trains every single day. So when the tragedy struck in London, it was again a tragic wakeup call for our own country.

I know we cannot provide all the funding that many of us believe is necessary to take the steps required to protect our transit systems. But we certainly must do more than the $100 million currently in the Senate bill. I am grateful the Senate majority leader has recognized the bill's reduction from last year's $150 million to $100 million was a step in the wrong direction and that at a minimum we need to restore the $50 million that was cut.

If we look at how much money has been spent on airline security, we find it totals $18 billion. We all know that following the attacks of 9/11, spending that money on airline security was absolutely necessary. Some of it went a little overboard--people who have no profile of fitting any kind of terrorist identity being strip-searched or being stopped or people going through all the security--but we spent that money because we knew we had to deter those people who might wish us ill by using our air against us.

We simply cannot continue to shortchange rail and transit security. More people are riding our transit systems than ride our airplanes and commercial aviation.

Last October, the Senate passed the Rail Security Act of 2004. The bill was introduced by Senator McCain, and I was proud to be an original cosponsor. That bill would have authorized Amtrak and New York to receive over $570 million to upgrade the six tunnels for better ventilation, electrical and fire safety technology upgrades, emergency communications and lighting systems, and emergency access and egress for passengers.

A couple of years ago I stood right in this spot with pictures of what the tunnels in New York look like. We now know one of the explosions in London took place in Kings Cross. The rescue workers have not even been able to get there yet. They are not even sure they have recovered all of the bodies.

We will learn from this horrible tragedy, and we will be able to do an even better job in what we need to do to protect tunnels and bridges and other essential infrastructure for our rail and transit systems. But I am bewildered because the $150 million we appropriated last year for rail and transit security has not yet been fully distributed by the Department of Homeland Security to the cities and the States that need it. Instead of being put to work on behalf of improved safety in our rail and transit systems, it is sitting on the ledgers of the Department of Homeland Security.

We need to spend that money, and we need to be smart about how we spend it. But the plans that city and State transit systems have developed can't be implemented if the Federal Government doesn't do its part.

I hope, as we consider the Homeland Security appropriations bill this week, we will support the amendments that increase funding for securing our Nation's rail and transit systems. I hope we will do so because it is the right thing to do and because the bombings last Thursday in London were such a tragic reminder of what we still need to do to protect our own homeland from senseless and barbaric actions of extremists.

I am proud to join Senators Shelby, Sarbanes, Inouye, Reed, and other colleagues in an amendment to add over $1.3 billion in additional rail and transit security grants. I am absolutely confident that our Nation is up to the task of securing our mass transit systems. I am absolutely confident that this body is capable of dedicating the resources necessary to get this essential job done. I hope this week proves that we are ready, we are willing, and we are able to do everything possible to protect our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to add a comment or two to our colleague from New York. I believe in the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill, which is currently in effect, there was about $150 million that could be used for improving transit and rail security. I believe, as of last week, none of that money had been allocated. I hope that is not true, but that is what I have been briefed by my staff. None of that $150 million has been allocated. One has to wonder what it takes. I fear that it may take some tragedy to really get our attention, the attention of the executive branch to begin allocating the money and putting it where it can do the most good most promptly.

As I understand it, the administration has asked for no appropriation in their budget proposal for fiscal 2006 for rail security and transit security. The committee has put in $100 million for that purpose, and I believe the committee has agreed to raise it to the current level of appropriation of $150 million. But if the administration is not going to spend the money, what good does it do for us to allocate. It is very disappointing. I hope it is not true, but I am afraid it probably is.

I thank my colleague for bringing this to our attention and join her in saying we can do a lot better and we have to.

Some time tomorrow, we are going to have the opportunity to vote on several options for allocating aid to first responders in our 50 States, firefighters, police, paramedics, and others who are first on the scene. When tragedy strikes and that tragedy happens to be a strike launched by terrorists, they will be the first to be there, whether it is Delaware, Missouri, New York, or any other State.

I rise to express my strong support for an amendment that is going to be offered tomorrow by Senators Collins and Lieberman. That amendment seeks to streamline the system for distributing first responder aid to States, tries to make the system more fair, and seeks to ensure that every State, large or small, receives the funding that may be needed to respond to terrorist attacks and to other disasters.

Senator Collins and I have been working with Senator Lieberman and other members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on this issue for some time. In fact, Senator Collins and I first introduced legislation on this topic more than 2 years ago. That original bill came after a series of hearings we held in our committee, highlighting the fact that the way we help States prepare for disasters simply makes little sense. The application process is lengthy and confusing. More importantly, the funding formula simply isn't getting money to those who need it the most.

States, counties, cities, and first responders all told us in one voice that we need to do something about it. Much of what Senator Collins and I and our colleagues did in that initial legislation a couple years ago to respond to the concerns is reflected in the amendment that will be offered tomorrow by Senators Collins and Lieberman.

That amendment mirrors in many respects the bill that Senator Collins and I introduced 2 years ago. For example, the amendment streamlines the grant application process. It creates a one-stop shop within the Department of Homeland Security where State officials and others can seek grant information. It also ensures that funds are distributed as quickly as possible and requires States to go through a planning process that would include both localities and first responders.

In addition, we take steps in this amendment to give States more flexibility in spending their first responder aid. Not every State is the same. Missouri's needs may be different than Delaware's. This amendment, as with our earlier bill, gives States the ability to ask for a waiver from the Department. If they want to use a little more money for training or equipment or exercises or planning, they can go to the Department and ask for a waiver to do so. One size does not fit all. This amendment, such as our earlier bill, acknowledges that.

Funding formulas are akin to what they used to say about beauty. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The beauty of a funding formula is oftentimes in the eye of the particular State that is eyeing the formula. I believe we have gone a long way toward addressing the concerns that some of our colleagues from more populous States have raised over the years. There were concerns among a number of Senators, both on and off the Homeland Security Committee, that the current program in our original legislation directed too much aid to smaller States, to less populated States, at the expense of larger States or more populated States and high-threat urban areas. I believe we have addressed those concerns.

A version of this amendment that was added by a unanimous vote to the intelligence reform bill last year provide additional allocations to the dozen or so largest States in the country. It also allowed the Secretary of Homeland Security to distribute a portion of the funding made available for State grants directly to the most at-risk urban areas. We go even further this year, further than some of the supporters of our original legislation might like to have gone. In an effort to shift even more funding to those parts

of the country most at risk, Senator Collins, Senator Lieberman, and the rest of us who support their amendment have negotiated a new funding formula that actually reduces the baseline allocation or the so-called small State minimum guaranteed to every State.

Currently in the bill, it is 0.75-percent minimum for every State. The amendment that will be offered tomorrow by Senators Collins and Lieberman and myself and others would take that minimum down to 0.55 percent. We have also added language in this amendment that gives the Secretary the discretion to allocate up to half of the available funds to big cities. In total, these efforts have resulted in what I think is a balanced formula that I am told allocates about twice as much aid on risk as we did in last year's appropriations bill.

There will be some who will argue that the baseline allocation in this amendment should be even smaller or that it should not exist at all. I respond to that argument by simply pointing out that my own home State of Delaware may be small. We may have a small population--about 800,000 people, in fact. That is more than about six States that are, frankly, bigger than us in size have. But Delaware is home to significant critical infrastructure such as chemical facilities, oil refineries, and one of the most important ports in the country, and those could be unfortunately on a terrorist target list.

Right across the Delaware River, about 15 miles from my home, are two nuclear powerplants. Up and down the northeast corridor we have I-95 carrying, each day, hundreds of thousands of cars, trucks and vans, including trucks carrying some dangerous material. We have the northeast rail corridor through which some of our largest freight railroads pass, again carrying all kinds of cargo, goods, including some which are hazardous, potentially a target to terrorists. We have the Delaware River, the Delaware Bay. Every day dozens of ships go up and down the Delaware River, any number of which carry cargo that could be considered hazardous.

My staff and I have talked to any number of public safety officials in Delaware. Here is what they tell us. They tell us that they are not getting the resources they need to enable them to respond to incidents that the Department of Homeland Security itself has told us have a real possibility of happening in our State. I am sure many of my colleagues from States large and small could share similar stories with us, and they probably will during the course of this debate. That is one reason why we need to approve this amendment.

I urge all of our colleagues to support this compromise amendment. It does the best job of any proposal that I have seen at getting the most at-risk parts of our country the first responder aid that they need without arbitrarily shortchanging smaller States like Delaware that may be small in size but the risk profile belies the modest size in population.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is a poster that shows what I discovered on the Internet in North Dakota. I discovered this in the month of April. I was going to have a meeting in Fargo and, just out of curiosity, I called up the North Dakota registry of sex offenders, to find out who was living within 2 miles of where I was having the meeting, at city hall in Fargo, ND. In the briefing book I had, I described this fellow to the people who came. His name is Joseph Duncan. The entire country knows of Joseph Duncan now. When I described Mr. Duncan, many people in the area didn't know him.

This sheet from the North Dakota Attorney General's Office, Bureau of Criminal Investigation, shows that Joseph Duncan was living in Fargo, ND. He was a sexual predator, and he had served a 20-year prison sentence for a first-degree rape. In 1980, he raped a 14-year-old boy at gunpoint, burned the victim, and made the victim believe he was going to be killed by firing the gun twice on empty chambers. And he went to prison.

In 2000, he was released from prison. He completed his full sentence, and was released without probation or parole. He went to live in North Dakota.

Again, I mentioned him in April of this year at a meeting simply because his name came up on an inquiry I did about who was living in Fargo, ND.

What I didn't know in April, when I mentioned Mr. Duncan, was that 1 month earlier he had been charged with molesting a 6-year-old boy at a playground in Detroit Lakes, MN. He appeared in court April 5 on those charges, a county judge set the bail at $15,000, and Joseph Duncan was released, promising to stay in touch. Of course, he didn't. He promptly disappeared.

As we know from substantial media coverage in recent weeks, Joseph Duncan was subsequently arrested in Idaho for kidnapping 8-year-old Shasta Groene. Her brother, 9-year-old Dylan, was missing. Their family was murdered upon the abduction of these two young children. The remains of Dylan have now been located. Duncan has been charged with abducting and molesting both children and is also under investigation for the murder of Dylan and the parents.

It is so frustrating to be here talking about this. It is a breakdown in common sense. Martha Stewart was let out of a minimum security prison and was required to wear an electronic bracelet and, apparently, she still wears one at her home under the disposition of the court. But we have known violent sexual predators walking around this country with no such level of supervision.

I have been on the Senate floor many times talking about a bill I introduced called Dru's law. I have shown colleagues a picture of a young woman named Dru Sjodin, who was brutally murdered and whose alleged assailant is a man named Mr. Rodriguez.

Mr. Rodriguez was in prison for 23 years. He is a violent sexual predator. He was let out, even when he was judged to be a high risk for reoffending. We know that 70 percent of the time high-risk sexual predators are going to reoffend. In most cases, their next offense will be more violent. Mr. Rodriguez allegedly murdered Dru Sjodin. The evidence is very substantial. He was walking around with not much more than a ``see you later'' at the prison door, much like Joseph Duncan. Mr. Duncan had been convicted previously of violent sexual offenses, and then he was accused in April of molesting a 6-year-old boy. What happens to him? He goes through a revolving door in the criminal justice system to be let out at $15,000 bail. Martha Stewart is wearing that bracelet and this fellow is turned back out on $15,000. Then this young girl named Shasta Groene is kidnapped with her brother Dylan and they were sexually molested. People are dead.

Dru's law, which I introduced well over a year ago, has been passed by the Senate once and didn't get through the House. Senator Specter and I and others have introduced it again, and my hope is very much that in the month of July we can get it through this Chamber and through the House and get it to the President for signature. It has three simple provisions: One, there should be a national registry of sex offenders, a national registry of sexual predators. This isn't rocket science. Somebody like this who rapes a 16-year-old boy at gunpoint needs to go on a sexual predator registry, and no matter where this person showed up in the criminal justice system, regardless of state lines, the public should be able to know that he is out there. We need a national registry of sexual predators.

Two, before a high-risk sexual predator is about to be released from prison, the local State's attorney must be notified in the event that they believe this person is so dangerous that they need to seek additional civil commitment. That must be the case.

And three, if, in fact, a high-risk sexual predator is released at the end of his term, there must be intensive monitoring by local governments. Once again, electronic monitoring bracelets are not just meant for Martha Stewart. They ought to be meant for very violent offenders like this who abduct and brutalize young children at gunpoint.

We can do much better. It is not only about Dylan and Shasta and Dru Sjodin; month after month, we read these stories.

Jessica Lunsford, 9 years old, Mark Lunsford's daughter, was abducted in February from her bedroom in her Florida home, and they found her body a month later. The crime was committed by a 46-year-old convicted sex offender with a 30-year history.

We know who these people are. They have been in the system before.

Sarah Michelle Lunde disappeared April 9 in Ruskin, south of Tampa, FL. David Onstott, a convicted sex offender who once had a relationship with the girl's mother, has confessed to killing her.

Jetseta Gage, of Cedar Rapids, IA, was abducted, sexually assaulted, and murdered. Roger Paul Bentley has been arrested for that crime. He is a convicted sex offender on Iowa's sex offender registry.

This has to stop. We know who these people are. Statistics tell us that over 70 percent of the violent sexual predators, when let out of prison, are going to reoffend. I am talking about type 3 sex offenders, judged to be at highest risk, as Mr. Rodriguez was when he was let out of prison and then within 6 months allegedly murdered Dru Sjodin.

When psychologists and psychiatrists evaluate sexual predators to be the highest risk, we cannot any longer say goodbye, so long, good luck at the prison door. We cannot let that happen again. We have to begin protecting innocent people. There are too many children whose lives are being lost.

Again, this is not rocket science. We know what is happening here, and we know how to stop it. Mark Lunsford wrote to me after his daughter was murdered. He said:

If my daughter's death is going to have any meaning, it

will be through your efforts strengthening existing laws, by

making our streets safe for all children. My heart continues

to break as I mourn the loss of my beautiful little girl. I

do not want other families to suffer as mine has, and I

believe your efforts will go far toward that important goal.

My hope is that Senator Specter and many others who have cosponsored this bill that I have introduced will help to pass Dru's Law once again through the Senate, and then work hard to get it through the House and to the President's desk for signature. It is long past the time this country has a national registry of sexual predators, violent sexual predators who all too often are getting away with murder.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the VA health care system's funding crisis. I thank my colleague, the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, for his determination to ensure that $1.5 billion is provided as soon as possible. At this point, it is widely known that VA is facing a tremendous funding shortfall this year. What we need to do now is ensure that VA gets these funds as expeditiously as possible.

I am glad the administration has admitted that there is a shortfall. But I point out that VA officials have proven themselves to be an unreliable source of information. And judging by the supplemental sent forward by the President, they are less than generous, and frankly, less than accurate. The $975 million now proposed by the administration--and carried forward by the House--falls short of addressing all of VA's problems.

You need only look at the administration's own estimate for new costs associated with returning service members. VA now believes that 103,000 more veterans will be treated this year. The cost of treating this kind of patient is $5,437 a year, as documented by VA data. Yet, the administration wants to now convince us that, in fact, the cost of treating a patient is less than half of this amount. Again, using VA data, the cost of caring for an additional 103,000 returning veterans is $560 million and not the $273 million suggested by the administration. Other key programs such as readjustment counseling and dental care were also not sufficiently covered by the House in the VA supplemental.

It is imperative that we make sure the funds we provide now are truly sufficient, so we do not face this situation again. It is simply not right to use out-of-date equipment to treat veterans or force them to wait months for care.

The Senate has already spoken in a very bipartisan manner on this issue. We are all very proud of our effort to arrive at the $1.5 billion figure previously agreed to before the July Fourth recess. Given the House's work to provide less than the full amount needed, it is clear that we have more work to do for this year.

The battle for next year's funding will be upon us shortly. During the budget resolution debate in March, I offered an amendment to increase VA's funding by $2.8 billion for next year. I stood before this body and outlined the case for a significant increase for VA. But we were rejected because the administration claimed VA needed far less. Yet we are back to square one with regard to next year's funding.

Then, again, during the war supplemental debate in April--while VA remained silent as they were beginning to see warning signs--we were defeated in our efforts to secure more funding for this year. Again, this was because the administration failed to be forthcoming about the struggles that VA providers and patients were facing.

Hopefully, we all learned a clear lesson from this experience, that communicating with health care providers in the field and with the Veterans Service Organizations is invaluable. They told us what was really going on months ago.

I know my colleagues agree that we do not want to see this scenario repeat itself yet again. We have pressed this issue, and now we have another opportunity to finally fix the problem and fulfill our promise to this Nation's veterans. At the very least, this crisis has resulted in longer waiting times for care, hiring freezes, and delayed upgrading of medical equipment and facilities, to name a few.

This amendment is one way to fix the VA funding crisis. Providing $1.5 billion in supplemental funding would ensure that each region of the country can get the funds needed to pull themselves out of the current crisis.

But I continue to be open to any approach that ensures the highest quality health care for our Nation's veterans. Along those lines, I appreciate the work that Senators Craig and Hutchison and our other colleagues are doing to tackle this problem. I believe we can find a solution, together.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, last Thursday, a series of four explosions struck the heart of London during the morning rush hour. At least 49 innocent victims were killed and 700 others were injured. A previously unknown group called the ``secret group of al-Qaida's jihad'' in Europe claimed responsibility in the name of al-Qaida for the attacks.

On behalf of the U.S. Senate and the American people, we express our heartfelt condolences to the victims, their families, and to the British people, our cousins across the Atlantic. We share in your grief and in your determination to hunt down the criminals who carried out this despicable act. We consider the attack last week on British soil an attack on the civilized world. We stand with the British people just as they have long stood with us.

For nearly two centuries, the United States and the United Kingdom have enjoyed a special relationship. We speak the same language. We share a heritage of freedom and our economies are inexorably intertwined. Our militaries, our intelligence services, our great corporations, and our distinguished universities share deep relationships. Today, our forces fight side by side in Iraq and Afghanistan, sharing the sacrifices and the victories.

As we learned on 9/11, our enemies are coldblooded killers who deliberately target innocent victims--women and men on their way to work, schoolchildren starting the new school year, and vacationers at the beach.

Our enemies pervert religion. They despise freedom. They seek to overthrow regimes and dominate the world. But as they learned on 9/11, America, the United Kingdom, and the free people of the world will not stand by. We are taking the fight to their soil, to their caves, to their hideouts. We are disrupting their terror cells and financing operations. We are strengthening our homeland defenses and sharing information among intelligence agencies and nations.

Brave men and women are working every day to thwart the enemy, to find him and bring him to justice. But as President Bush observed today, the terrorists need to be right only once. Free nations tend to be right 100 percent of the time. They need to be. And the best way to defeat the enemy is to stay on the offense.

We will call upon the international community to renew and strengthen its efforts to defeat the terrorists, dismantle their networks, and to drain the swamps of injustice, oppression, poverty, and extremism that feed their hateful ideology.

In the war on terror, we will not stop. We will not waiver. We will stand united against the enemies of freedom. And whatever it takes, wherever it takes us, we will win.

Mr. President, under the previous agreement, we will now have a moment of silence in memory of those whose lives were lost.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the adoption of the resolution.