Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Let me illustrate with a couple of examples. There are so many things one could talk about. For example, the violence at the border has increased 108 percent, according to the U.S. attorney in Arizona, Paul Charlton, in testimony before our subcommittee. The number of crimes and number of criminals crossing is up dramatically. Over 10 percent of all of the people apprehended now at the border have criminal records--and these are serious crimes. This is murder and rape and kidnapping and drug crimes and the like. So it is not just people coming across the border to find work here. There is a substantial number of criminals, and they are not just from our neighbor to the south, Mexico; they are from countries all over the world. When you see the apprehensions of people from Russia and Vietnam or China or Iran or Iraq or other countries, you also wonder how many people we are not apprehending who are criminals or who can be terrorists. So there is that element. I spoke to the matter of vehicle barriers. One of the areas they are adding barriers right now and want to add more is in the area of the Barry Goldwater Gunnery Range. This is known to the people in the military as the finest area of training for our pilots in the world. There are wide-open spaces. There is nothing to prevent the kind of activity that occurs, which includes dropping bombs. From all over the country, our pilots come to train there. There is one problem. With illegal immigration, the Marine Corps now has to go out on patrol to make sure there are not any illegal immigrants in the area where the bombing or strafing will occur. Obviously you don't want to hurt anyone. They do that at great cost. They come back and report the area is clear, our planes are gassed, ready, loaded with the bombs and so on, maybe take off, and then they get a report that more immigrants are streaming into the area. They have had to call off their missions. Over the past couple of years there have been hundreds of missions that had to be canceled. Thousands of flying hours have been lost as a result. My point is this: There are costs for not having secured the border that I think many in America aren't even aware of. There are huge environmental costs. Tons of garbage are left behind rotting, a danger that leads to the people as well as to the livestock, the way the ranchers' operations are disrupted when the fences are torn down, the water lines are broken, and all the other things that occur. The bottom line is that we have to secure the border, and adding fencing helps to do that. That is why the amendment is so important. We have to make up the difference between what we have authorized and what the Border Patrol says they need, with what we have already provided in funding in the amendment to make up the difference to ensure that we have full funding for what we have to do at the border.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate that. We had testimony before the Terrorism Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, which I chair and on which Senator Feinstein is the ranking member, about what the results of that fencing in San Diego have meant--on both sides of the border. The testimony was that it has reduced crime on both sides of the border. The people in Mexico are very pleased because the gangs and the coyotes that used to gather together before they would try to bring their load of illegal immigrants across the boarder--preying on them, stealing from them, robbing them, beating them, and committing other crimes against them--that whole milieu has ended because the fencing has made it impossible to cross, so the coyotes have gone to other places to try to take their loads across the border. They are no longer congregating and hanging out in that area in Tijuana and south of the San Diego area, and as a result, on both sides of the border, crime has gone down dramatically. The environment has improved dramatically because you don't have these thousands and thousands of people crossing, cutting all these trails, leaving their garbage behind. In fact, I am told nobody has actually gotten across the fencing in that entire sector. I don't have the statistics off the top of my head here, but the testimony before our subcommittee was dramatic in terms of the number of apprehensions before the fencing and the number of apprehensions afterward. I am proud that I was a sponsor, along with Senator Feinstein, of the fencing in that area which has made such a dramatic difference there. As I said in the Judiciary Committee, when I got the authority to add fencing in Arizona, a lot of those folks who were crossing in California are now trying to do it in Arizona. Wherever that traffic is now attempting to cross the border, we need to provide the Border Patrol with all the tools it needs to get the job done, and that includes a substantial amount of fencing.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me briefly describe what this amendment does. We will have a unanimous consent request later today to deal with this amendment in the most expeditious way. I appreciate the cooperation of Senator Stevens and his staff and Senator Domenici in helping to work out how we deal with this particular amendment. This amendment deals with some unfinished business before the Senate. As we will recall, yesterday the Senate overwhelming passed S. 3711, which is the Gulf of Mexico Security Act of 2006. This bill would open new areas off the gulf to oil and gas exploration and development. S. 3711, which I voted for, is an important first step in providing our energy independence and reducing energy prices for American consumers. Once again, it raises a matter of concern: a history of lapses and mistakes in royalty collection and payments for oil and gas production under deepwater leases. It also underscores the prospect that future payments will go uncollected due to royalty provisions that are still on the books. We must step up and deal with this unfinished business of royalty reform. That is why Senator Wyden and I are offering this amendment today. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Wyden who has been working with me on a bipartisan basis on this issue, along with Senator DeWine, who is an original cosponsor of this royalty reform legislation, S. 3760, and Senators Lieberman, Feinstein, Cantwell, and Salazar. There are three important aspects of the royalty program that need fixing. First, we need to deal with the mistakes that were committed by the Clinton administration in 1998 and 1999. In those years, the Department of the Interior, through the Mineral Management Service, issued leases that did not include price thresholds. That is a big deal. Energy prices have skyrocketed, and without price thresholds to trigger payment for royalties, the U.S. Government and the American people will not see a dime from these leases. The GAO estimated that this mistake could cost the taxpayers at least $7 billion in lost revenues to the U.S. Treasury. Second, we need to deal with leases that were issued in 1996, 1997, and 2000 that included price thresholds in the lease terms but which are being challenged. A few of the oil and gas companies who signed leases in those years have refused to pay royalties on production even though the thresholds have been exceeded. One of the companies has sued the Department of the Interior, arguing that Interior does not have the authority to establish price thresholds or any leases issued between 1996 and 2000. If the lawsuit is successful, this could have significant implications for royalties already collected. The Federal Government would likely be required to refund approximately $525 million in royalties paid by the industry and be precluded from collecting between $18 billion and $28 billion over the next 5 years. Third, we need to deal with new leases that have royalty relief in the lease terms. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress reinstitutes royalty relief on production in the deep waters but did not require the Department of Interior to put price thresholds in new leases that include royalty relief. The 1998 and 1999 leases demonstrate that the Interior Department can't be trusted to do this on its own, and we cannot afford another $7 billion mistake. Let me explain how the amendment fixes these three problems. Let's take the 1998 and 1999 leases first, since they are the most controversial. In the context of the fiscal year 2007 Interior appropriations bill, there have been efforts to address this problem by Senator Gregg, Senator Domenici, and Senator Feinstein. This amendment today builds on those efforts. In our approach, we try to get companies to do the right thing by giving them a choice: Keep your existing leases royalty free but be barred from bidding on new leases or renegotiate in good faith with the Federal Government and retain your eligibility to bid on new leases in the future. The major difference in our amendment is that we provide time to renegotiate. Every company that wants to come to the table has a full year from the date of enactment of this Act to reach agreement. One year is more than enough time to address any concerns that need to be explored and worked out. I am told many of the companies holding leases from 1998 and 1999 are already renegotiating those leases. I applaud the efforts of those companies. However, Congress cannot stand by and watch consumers pay record prices at the pump knowing that American taxpayers are not getting fairly compensated for the oil and gas extracted from public land. We need to deal with this problem. Incidentally, I note that Senator Domenici has inserted in a separate appropriations bill an amendment that deals with this problem, hopefully, over the course of the next year. What Senator Wyden and I are saying is let the process that Senator Domenici has begun have an opportunity to work. We hope it does work. But in the event that it does not work after a year, our amendment kicks in to, in effect, force a solution. The other two fixes are less controversial and probably in the future actually even more important. Let's turn to the leases first issued between 1996 and 2000 and the Secretary's authority to impose price thresholds limiting royalty relief when oil and gas prices are high. The amendment we are offering simply reaffirms that Congress intended the Secretary to have the authority to vary the suspension of royalties based on the price of production in all leases subject to the deepwater royalty relief action. The language is exactly the same as Senator Domenici offered on another bill. After all, the whole point of royalty relief was to provide companies that undertook high-risk investments in deep water specific volumes of royalty-free production to help cover a portion of their capital costs before starting to pay royalties. It was not to pad the pocketbooks of the oil and gas companies at the expense of the American taxpayer. Price thresholds are the mechanism that ensures the companies do not benefit from both high market prices and royalty-free volumes. Finally, Congress needs to require that new oil and gas deepwater leases that the Federal Government issues include price thresholds. This seems like a no-brainer, but right now there is no requirement that price thresholds be included in leases that have royalty relief. The language says ``may,'' not ``shall.'' Our amendment will say ``shall.'' It is a one-word change that directs the Secretary of Interior to include price thresholds in all new leases. This is an important action to ensure that the Interior Department collects royalties on the American people's energy resources at times when oil and gas prices warrant it. I am hoping that as we debate this important Defense bill we can do the right thing and fix this problem. We are talking about a program that accounts for 30 percent of the oil and 23 percent of the natural gas produced domestically and is a major source of revenue for the Federal Government. According to the Mineral Management Service, Federal revenues from offshore leases are estimated at $6.3 billion in fiscal year 2005. Of the $6.3 billion in revenue for fiscal year $2005, $5.5 billion was from royalties. Securing royalty receipts is important. I recognize this amendment may be deemed legislating on an appropriations bill, but my colleagues and I have tried to go the traditional route up to this point to no avail. This problem is too important to ignore. We are running out of time. We are willing to submit this amendment to a 60-vote threshold. I look forward to working with Senator Domenici to work an agreement to that effect soon. As President Bush and the oil and gas companies have said, we don't need these additional incentives to explore and develop oil and gas at current prices. Let's give the American taxpayer fair compensation for the oil and gas that is extracted from public lands. I hope my colleagues will agree to our amendment. I note, in passing, that the score of this, according to CBO, is a $9 billion revenue gain to the Treasury. This is one of those few times when we are actually going to be able to help the Treasury rather than take some money from it. I conclude by thanking my colleague from Oregon. The Senator from Oregon and I have worked in a bipartisan way now for several weeks. We have come to a good resolution of the issue that our colleagues should be able to support. Senator Wyden is seeking recognition, and I will let him comment at this point.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in response to my friend from North Dakota, I would note that the difference between the position he articulates--and it is a position a lot of people in Washington hold--and the position that a lot of the rest of us hold is between those who worry a lot about how much money the Government has versus those of us who think it is a better idea to let people keep more of what they earn, that they are probably in a better position to make good judgments about how that money should be spent, and especially when it comes to their death and their loved ones who have to face the difficult choice of deciding how to pay the death tax that, unless something is done, is going to go up to effectively 60 percent. Can anybody imagine a 60-percent tax rate? It is actually on the books at 55 percent, but because of the way the Code works, it can be as much as 60 percent. Can you imagine a 55- percent or 60-percent tax rate? You cannot pay it unless you sell the farm or sell the business. I know people to whom that has applied. So it is a difference between those who worry how much money Washington has and those of us who are concerned about people keeping more of what they earn.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order of speakers be as follows: Senators Kyl, Murkowski, Talent, and Alexander, with the understanding that Democrats will be accommodated if they come to the floor.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I come to the Senate floor to talk briefly about S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, which will open new federally controlled areas in the gulf to oil and gas leasing. I support the purpose of this bill as a necessary step in securing American oil and natural gas for America's energy consumers. It will start to address the root cause of high energy prices which is, of course, demand outpacing supply. However, there is one aspect of our Federal oil and gas leasing program that needs fixing. That program is the Royalty Relief Program. I am hoping we will have the opportunity to offer some modest reforms to this part of the program. Let me first explain how it works. Royalties are collected by the Department of Interior from leases as a fixed percentage of the net value of oil or gas produced from the leased area. The terms of the lease specify the royalty rate that applies to future production from that area, on average, about 15 percent, as well as the conditions under which the lessee may qualify for a royalty holiday, a waiver of royalty payments commonly called royalty relief. Mandatory royalty relief was provided pursuant to the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995 as an incentive to companies to undertake investment in the deep waters. The incentive was intended to provide companies that undertook these investments specific volumes of royalty- free production to help recover a portion of their capital costs before starting to pay royalties. The act also gave the Secretary of the Interior the authority to limit royalty relief based on market price. These limits are called price thresholds. Price thresholds act to set a gross revenue ceiling so that companies do not benefit from both high market prices and royalty-free volumes. These incentives were offered at a time when oil and gas prices were low and interest in deep water exploration and development was lacking. Since the passage of the 1995 act, natural gas production is up 407 percent and oil 386 percent based on figures provided by the American Petroleum Institute. Despite the program's successes, recent news reports and the administration's own statements suggest that the Government may be unable to collect billions in royalties from leases issued under this act. Many have probably heard the reports to the effect that in 1998 and 1999 the Clinton administration issued leases that did not include price thresholds. Why is this a big deal? It is a big deal because energy prices have skyrocketed and without price thresholds to trigger payment of royalties, we will not see a dime from these leases. GAO estimates that the mistake could cost up to $10 billion in lost revenues. I wish that were the only problem, but it isn't. A few producers who signed leases in 1997, 1998, and 2000 that did include price thresholds have refused to pay royalty on production even though the thresholds have been exceeded. One of the companies has sued the Department of the Interior, arguing that Interior does not have the authority to establish price thresholds for leases issued between 1995 and 2000. This could have significant implications for royalties already collected. GAO estimates the potential return revenue to be almost $60 billion. Despite these concerns, the Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act which, again, made royalty relief mandatory in deep water leases but did not require that royalty relief be conditioned upon price thresholds. This brings me back to the bill under consideration and the modest reforms to the royalty program that I seek to offer to improve the program going forward. First, Congress must require that the Secretary of Interior impose price thresholds in all new leases that include royalty relief. Directing the Secretary to include price thresholds in all leases is an important near-term action that will ensure that the American taxpayer gets a fair return for the oil and gas produced from Federal land. The 1998 and 1999 leases demonstrate that the Interior Department cannot be trusted to do this on its own, and we cannot afford another $10 billion mistake. Second, Congress must reaffirm the Secretary's authority under the 1995 act to put price thresholds in leases. Congress intended that royalties be paid when prices were high. We must ensure this is the case. This bill is a natural place to make these fixes to the Royalty Relief Program. After all, any royalty payments made or not made will directly affect the revenues that can be shared under this bill. I urge my colleagues to work with me on these important reforms. I hope we can all agree that including these reforms in this bill will improve and not hinder the bill. I conclude by saying that I have spoken with Senator Domenici, the author of the bill, and that Senator Wyden and I have urged some form of this relief be included in the bill. I appreciate very much Senator Domenici's leadership on this issue overall and hope that we can reach some kind of agreement. In conclusion, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Legislative Notice produced by the Republican Policy Committee on S. 3711.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Child Custody Protection Act, I am pleased to see that this legislation is finally being considered and hopeful that it will be passed quickly. S. 403 makes subject to fines or imprisonment up to 1 year anyone who ``knowingly transports a minor across a State line, with the intent that such minor obtain an abortion, and thereby in fact abridges the right of a parent under a law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision, in force in the State where the minor resides.'' The provision I cite is an admirably clear piece of legislative language. It not only makes a salutary change in existing law; it provides an convincing explanation as to why it is needed. Notwithstanding the abortion debate's notoriously divisive character, parental involvement statutes constitute an area of near-consensus around which pro-life and pro-choice Americans can come together. Forty-five States--including my own--have enacted statutes aimed at ensuring that parents of minor girls are not deprived of the opportunity involved in this most sensitive decision, one with profound implications for their daughters' physical and mental health. Public opinion polls demonstrate overwhelming support for the proposition that in all but the most extraordinary circumstances--in which instances, the State statutes in question provide for a judicial bypass--parents must be involved in decisions affecting the health of their minor children. Unfortunately, the public record now provides ample evidence suggesting that these laws are frequently circumvented--often by individuals who by facilitating an abortion may be covering up evidence of a crime: statutory rape. When abortionists buy advertisements in the yellow pages directories serving communities in neighboring States with parental involvement statutes, and when they adorn the ads with helpful reminders that their services can be obtained without parental consent, both the authority of State lawmakers and the sanctity of the parent-child bond are mocked. As a father and grandfather, I believe it is vital that the Senate today draw a line against this egregious manifestation of the abortion culture. Colleagues who support a liberal abortion regime but claim that they want the practice to be rare should welcome this opportunity to support a unifying commonsense measure that helps give effect to public policies embraced by legislators of both parties in the States.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think the point the distinguished assistant majority leader made is very important, and I am glad there is agreement on this important matter. I also wish to discuss one other of the bill's changes to section 5. That is the provision abrogating the Supreme Court's decision in Georgia v. Ashcroft. That Supreme Court case held that, when conducting a retrogression analysis of section 5 under the act, a court or the Justice Department should gauge whether a new electoral map has diminished a minority group's opportunities to participate in the political process by looking, in part, to whether the new plan creates coalition districts, or influences districts--that is the term they use--whether it protects positions in legislative leadership for minority representatives, and whether minority representatives support the new plan. Many people objected to this aspect of the Ashcroft decision because of its perceived potential to put a partisan thumb on the scale, so to speak, in the redistricting process. Their concern was if the fact that a coalition or influence district elects a candidate that minority voters largely voted for, then even if that candidate was not the minority group's preferred candidate of choice, any plan that does not preserve that district would be considered retrogressive under the Voting Rights Act. Similarly, there was concern that under Ashcroft, if a new voting map were to give advantage to legislative races to one party, and minority representatives--including committee chairmen and legislative leaders-- overwhelmingly were members of the opposite party, then that plan, too, would be deemed retrogressive for that reason. Personally, I do not think the Ashcroft decision should be read that way. I think it is clear the court intended to give States the option of using influence or coalition districts, but it did not intend to require the use of such districts, or to prevent them from later changing such districts.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me just say one final thing. I very much agree with Senator Hatch that the bill limits section 5, protecting those naturally occurring, compact majority-minority districts with which section 5 was originally concerned, and that nothing in this section of the act should be interpreted to require that the competitive position of the political party favored by minority voters be maintained or enhanced in any district. This change made by the bill is not intended to preserve or ensure the electability of candidates of any political party, even if that party's candidates are supported by members of minority groups.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Cornyn and Hatch from the Judiciary Committee--Senator Hatch having chaired the committee for several years--and the assistant majority leader of the Senate, Senator McConnell, to speak on the legislation renewing the Voting Rights Act. Let me begin by saying I support the Voting Rights Act extension. This law was critical to ending over 90 years of voting discrimination against African Americans in the South. Prior to this law, many States enforced discriminatory policies that were designed to and that did prevent African Americans from voting. Since that law was enacted, many of the same States where African Americans first voted in far lower numbers than Whites now have higher percentage of African Americans voting than other races. The Voting Rights Act is a historic achievement that has corrected one of the glaring injustices of our Nation's past. It has been an important step in our Nation's continuing progress toward our founding ideal that all men are created equal. Mr. President, I wish to address some questions that have been raised about this reauthorization and ask my colleagues if they concur in my interpretation. The bill amends section 5 by legislatively abrogating two Supreme Court cases interpreting the act: Reno v. Bossier Parish and Georgia v. Ashcroft. These changes are related to one another. They are designed to operate together to achieve a common objective: the protection of naturally occurring legislative districts with a majority of minority voters. The two changes to section 5 accomplish this goal by enhancing and refocusing the operation of section 5. These changes simultaneously bar redistricters from denying a large, compact group of minority voters a majority-minority district that it would receive in the absence of discrimination, and also to bar redistricters from breaking up a compact majority-minority district that has been created in the past. Some have raised the specter that Federal bureaucrats will abuse the authority we are giving them under this provision, that they will characterize all manner of practices as having a ``discriminatory purpose.'' In particular, there has been some suggestion that the new language will be abused by the Justice Department to require creation of the maximum number of Black majority districts possible or the maximum number of so-called coalition or influence districts, in which minority voters are combined with enough White voters of similar partisan leanings to elect a candidate. I don't think this is what the bill does, or that it can be reasonably read to do this. To say something has a discriminatory purpose is a term of art. It is the language of the jurisprudence of the 14th amendment, of cases such as Washington v. Davis, which define when particular action constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Constitution. There is a well-defined body of case law defining when racial discrimination violates the U.S. Constitution. That case law provides clear borders to the limits of the Executive discretion being granted in this bill. One traditional and important standard for identifying unconstitutional racial discrimination is to ask whether the challenged court action departs from normal rules of decision. In the case of redistricting, courts and the Justice Department would ask: Was the decision not to create a Black majority district a departure from ordinary districting rules? If a State has a large minority population concentrated in a particular area, ordinarily rules of districting-- following political and geographic borders and keeping districts as compact as possible--would recommend that these voters be given a majority-minority district. If the redistricters went out of their way to avoid creating such a majority minority--one that would be created under ordinary rules--that is unconstitutional racial discrimination, and it is banned by this bill. But this bill does not require the creation of a majority-minority district that would not be created under default districting rules. Nor does the bill require the creation of coalition or influence districts. It bars discrimination against racial minorities, not against electoral advantages sought by either Republicans or Democrats. Moreover, no group is entitled to always be included in a district where the candidate of its party will prevail. This section's abrogation of Bossier Parish does not permit a finding of discriminatory purpose that is based, in whole or in part, on a failure to adopt the optimal or maximum number of compact minority opportunity districts or on a determination that the plan seeks partisan advantage or protects incumbents. With the language of this bill, we are importing the constitutional test in section 5, and nothing else. With this understanding, I support this improvement to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. This legislation will create a national sex offender registry that will make it possible for law enforcement and concerned citizens to track sexual predators. The bill also includes tough penalties that will ensure that these individuals will actually register. There currently are over 100,000 sex offenders in this country who are required to register but are ``off the system.'' They are not registered. The penalties in this bill should be adequate to ensure that these individuals register. In addition to allowing up to 10 years in prison for an offender who fails to register, the bill also imposes a mandatory 5 years in prison for an offender who has neglected his obligation to register and commits a crime of violence. I would like to focus my remarks on legislation that I have introduced that has been incorporated in this final bill. I am particularly pleased to see that the bill maintains the ChildHelp National Registry of Cases of Child Abuse and Neglect. Section 663 of the bill instructs the Department of Health and Human Services to create a national registry of persons who have been found to have abused or neglected a child. The information will be gathered from State databases of child abuse or neglect. It will be made available to State child-protective-services and law-enforcement agencies ``for purposes of carrying out their responsibilities under the law to protect children from abuse and neglect.'' The national database will allow States to track the past history of parents and guardians who are suspected of abusing their children. When child-abusing parents come to the attention of authorities--when teachers begin to ask about bruises, for example--these parents often will move to a different jurisdiction. A national database would allow the State to which these parents move to know the parents' history. It will let a child-protective-services worker know, for example, whether he should prioritize investigation of a particular case because the parent has been found to have committed substantiated cases of abuse in the past in other States. Such a database also would allow a State that is evaluating a prospective foster parent or adoptive parent to learn about past incidents of child abuse that the person has committed in other States. I am also proud to see that the Internet SAFETY Act, which I introduced with several colleagues earlier this year, has been incorporated as title VII of this bill. This title includes the following important provisions: Section 701 makes it a criminal offense to operate a child exploitation enterprise, which is defined as four or more persons who act in concern to commit at least three separate violations of Federal child pornography, sex trafficking, or sexual abuse laws against multiple child victims. This offense is punished by imprisonment for 20 years up to life. Section 702 provides that if an individual who is required to register as a sex offender under Federal or State law commits specified Federal offenses involving child pornography, sex trafficking, or sexual abuse against a minor victim, the offender shall be imprisoned for 10 years in addition to any penalty imposed for the current offense. Section 703 makes it a criminal offense to embed words or digital images into the source code of a Web site in order to deceive people into viewing obscenity on the Internet. Offenses targeting adults are subject to up to 10 years imprisonment; offenses targeted at child victims are subject to up to 20 years imprisonment. Section 704 authorizes appropriations for the U.S. Attorney General to hire 200 additional Assistant United States Attorneys across the country to prosecute child pornography, sex trafficking, and sexual abuse offenses targeted at children. Section 705 authorizes appropriations for the hiring of 30 additional computer forensic examiners within the Justice Department's Regional Computer Forensic Laboratories, and 15 additional computer forensic examiners within the Department of Homeland Security's Cyber Crimes Center. The additional computer forensic examiners will be dedicated to investigating crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children and related offenses. Section 706 authorizes the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to create 10 additional Internet Crimes Against Children, ICAC, Task Forces. Finally, section 707 of the Internet SAFETY title expands the civil remedies for sexual offenses by allowing the parents of a minor victim to seek damages, and by allowing a minor victim to seek damages as an adult. Title II of today's bill also includes a number of penalty increases and other improvements to Federal criminal sex offenses. Many of these provisions appeared in the Internet SAFETY Act, as well as in the Jetseta Gage Act, which was introduced by Senator Grassley in 2005 and of which I was an original cosponsor. Section 211 suspends the statute of limitations for all Federal felony offenses of sexual abuse, sex trafficking, or child pornography. Other provisions of title II increase penalties for coercion and enticement by sex offenders, conduct relating to child prostitution, aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact, sexual abuse of children resulting in death, and sex trafficking of children. Title II also makes sexual abuse offenses resulting in death eligible for the capital punishment, and expands the predicate offenses justifying mandatory repeat-offender penalties for offenses involving child pornography and depictions of the sexual exploitation of children. Finally, title II adds sex trafficking of children to the set of repeat offenses that are subject to mandatory life imprisonment. Another provision that I have pursued during this Congress and that is included in this final bill is section 212, which extends several of the guarantees of the 2004 Crime Victims' Rights Act to Federal habeas corpus review of State criminal convictions. Because such cases involve Federal courts but State prosecutors, this extension is limited to those provisions of CVRA that are enforced by a court--Congress cannot compel State prosecutors to enforce a Federal statute. The victims' rights extended by section 212 to Federal habeas proceedings are the right to be present at proceedings, the right to be heard at proceedings involving release, plea, sentencing, or parole, the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. The bill also makes some technical improvements to the DNA Fingerprint Act, which Senator Cornyn and I introduced last year and which was enacted into law as an amendment to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act at the beginning of this year. Section 155 of today's bill modifies the authority granted to the Federal Government by the DNA Fingerprint Act to collect DNA samples from Federal arrestees. Under current law, the Federal Government may collect a DNA sample from any person arrested for a Federal offense, but the authority to collect DNA from persons convicted of a Federal offense is limited to felonies and certain misdemeanors. Section 155 corrects this anomaly by including convictions in the Federal sample- collection regulatory authority, thus allowing the Federal Government to collect DNA from all persons convicted of a Federal crime. The 2006 Act also allows DNA to be collected from all arrestees, but in the case of persons detained under Federal authority this authority is limited to non-U.S. persons--i.e., foreign visitors who are neither U.S. citizens nor permanent residents. Problems might arise in the case of U.S. persons who are detained and facing Federal criminal charges, but who were not arrested by Federal authorities. Examples include persons who are being prosecuted federally but were arrested by the State officers participating in a joint Federal-State task force, and persons who turn themselves in to Federal authorities without being formally arrested. Arguably, the 2006 act's arrest authority should extend to such individuals--they are constructively arrested. Section 155 eliminates any ambiguity and possibility of litigation over these matters by expressly granting the Federal Government the authority to collect DNA samples from individuals facing Federal charges. Finally, I would like to take a moment to recognize all of the staff who worked so hard to see this bill through to completion. Please allow me to thank Ken Valentine and Tom Jipping of Senator Hatch's staff, Dave Turk of Senator Biden's staff, Julie Katzman and Noah Bookbinder of Senator Leahy's staff, Nicole Gustafson of Senator Grassley's staff, as well as Chad Groover, who has since left Senator Grassley's office but who played a critical role in developing many of the penalty enhancements included in title II, Christine Leonard of Senator Kennedy's staff, Lara Flint of Senator Feingold's staff, Nate Jones of Senator Kohl's staff, Sharon Beth Kristal of Senator DeWine's staff, Reed O'Connor of Senator Cornyn's staff, Jane Treat of Senator Coburn's staff, Greg Smith of Senator Feinstein's staff, Marianne Upton of Senator Durbin's staff, Bradley Hayes of Senator Sessions's staff, Bradley Schreiber of Mr. Foley's staff, and last but not least in this group, Brooke Bacak of my Republican Policy Committee staff. I would especially like to thank Allen Hicks and Brandi White of Senator Frist's staff, who were very helpful in securing the inclusion of the Child-Abuse Registry in this bill, Matt Miner of Senator Specter's staff, who played a critical role in negotiating the final bill, and Mike Volkov, Sean McLaughlin, and Phil Kiko of Mr. Sensenbrenner's staff. The bill that we have today would not exist were it not for the professionalism, expertise, and dedication of the Sensenbrenner staff. Often it is easy in Congress simply to pass any bill dealing with a subject so that we can say that we have addressed the problem. This is not such a bill. This is a strong, tough bill that will make a difference in the safety and security of our Nation's children. It is a bill of which we can all be proud, and Mr. Sensenbrenner's staff deserves recognition for their contribution to that result.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the majority and minority leaders for setting aside some time today to discuss the situation in the Middle East. While news of Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah rocket attacks have dominated the airwaves for over a week now, the issue has not been extensively debated on the floor of the Senate. What we have now, today, is an opportunity to stand together as the Senate and send an unequivocal message of support to our Israeli allies in their time of need. I am speaking about the Senate resolution which was adopted last evening, crafted in a bipartisan way by the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, a resolution which I am proud to cosponsor and which I believe eloquently expresses what I believe to be the true sense of this body and of the American people. It rightly points out that Israel has complied with the relevant Security Council resolutions regarding withdrawal from Lebanon and that, by contrast, Lebanon has failed to follow through on its obligation to disarm Hezbollah. The resolution correctly identifies the nexus of the problem not in Beirut or Gaza but in Tehran and Damascus, where State sponsorship of terrorism has reached new and disturbing levels. Finally, this resolution encourages continued U.S. support for Israel and renewed international action to end the conflict by eliminating support and freedom of action of Hezbollah. It is, in summary, an important expression by the Senate. I would like to take a moment now to address some arguments made by some over the years that Americans are too quick to equate our interests with those of Israel. There are recent articles by respected scholars who have argued that the role of the United States should be to push Israel toward an accommodation with these terrorists, the same terrorists bent on her destruction, rather than standing by her as she tries to lay the foundation for a lasting peace. I think this past week's conflict exposes the utter fallacy of that perspective. Israel is under attack today, not just from Hezbollah and Hamas but from Iran and Syria, the two most active State sponsors of global terrorism. Right now the United States is struggling with these same two countries over their counterproductive roles in Iraq, their WMD programs, and their role in financing and equipping terrorists throughout the world. The kind of attacks that Israel is enduring today could be visited on the United States or our troops tomorrow. For example, late last week an advanced Israeli warship was hit with an Iranian antiship missile. Despite the high-tech countermeasures on that ship, four sailors are now presumed lost. It is not hard to imagine these very same missiles used against American ships in the future, especially if the Iranians decide to blockade the Strait of Hormuz in response to U.S. pressure over that nuclear program. The attack on that ship can easily be perceived as directed as much against the U.S. Navy as it is against the Israeli Navy. Those fighting international terrorism are bound at the hip in this conflict. To believe otherwise is the height of foolishness. William Kristol stated in a editorial yesterday: It's our war. For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak. This conflict, in short, is not just about the interests of the Israeli or Palestinian or Lebanese people. It is about a broader state-sponsored jihad against Western civilization, a war in which we cannot afford to stumble or waver or appear to be weak. The Senate resolution is a sign that we will not stumble, that we stand by our Israeli allies as they fight on the frontlines of this war against terrorists. That the people of Lebanon have gotten caught in the middle of this war is not simply regrettable, it is criminal. But make no mistake who the perpetrators are: Iran and Syria and the terrorist groups they equip and encourage. This axis of violence cannot be allowed to operate with impunity against the State of Israel. The solution to this current crisis will not be easy. But the first step was identified by President Bush, in what some have characterized as an overly candid conversation with Tony Blair in Saint Petersburg. Paraphrasing the President, he said the international community must put pressure on Iran and Syria to curb the actions of their terrorist proxy armies. At the same time, the Government of Lebanon must act swiftly and directly to dismantle the Hezbollah infrastructure that threatens northern Israel. When these processes are in motion and the kidnapped Israeli soldiers have been returned, then is the time to again move toward the end game of this crisis. Many in the international community have urged restraint on the part of Israel in facing this crisis. They talk about proportionality. I think we can all agree that in international relations, restraint is generally a good thing, but Israeli restraint and forbearance should only be given in response to action on the other side. Israel's response against terrorism cannot be proportionate. It must be effective. Absent action by the international community and the Lebanese Government, restraint will look like weakness to Israel's enemies. And any show of weakness will only bring more blood-thirsty attacks. This is the experience of the region. This is the history of the region. No sovereign nation would tolerate the type of attacks that Israel has endured, nor would they prioritize restraint above effectiveness in their response. This is why I come back to the resolution that was passed in the Senate in a bipartisan expression of our support for the State of Israel, our condemnation of this action by terrorists and their State sponsors, and our commitment, as the Government of the United States, to do all we can to see to it that the terrorists are defeated, that the people in the region have an opportunity to live in peace, and that once and for all throughout the world the world can be safe from the threat of those who would attack others and to do so in the most heinous way. The kind of action that has been taken by these terrorists cannot be justified in any way, shape, or form, and it is altogether fitting for the Senate to have expressed its resolve against this action. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 5672 be star printed. The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, am I correct that we are now in a period of morning business?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise again today to discuss the situation in the Middle East where our Israeli allies are fighting unprovoked aggression by a terrorist army on their border. To date, over 1,000 rockets and missiles have been fired into Israel, killing more than a dozen civilians. It was especially disturbing to hear that the missile which collapsed a three-story building in Haifa earlier today was a Syrian model, loaded with ball bearings to cause maximum civilian casualties. At a time when one of our closest allies is threatened by indiscriminate attacks on its population centers and our President and Secretary of State are overseas, it is incumbent on this body to remain united in standing behind Israel. I am pleased that the leadership is drafting a resolution expressing bipartisan condemnation of Hezbollah's attacks and in support of Israel's right to respond in the name of self-defense. I am pleased that our allies, too, understand the grave nature of this crisis and its origins. The joint statement released over the weekend by the G8 states unequivocally that this violence: Results from efforts by extremist forces to destabilize the region and to frustrate the aspirations of the Palestinian, Israeli, and Lebanese people for democracy and peace. These extremist elements and those that support them cannot be allowed to plunge the Middle East into chaos, and a wider conflict. Even some Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, took the commendable step of chastising Hezbollah for its ``unexpected, inappropriate, and irresponsible acts.'' In light of the chaos being precipitated by Hezbollah's rocket and missile capability--a capability being provided directly to Hezbollah by the governments of Syria and Iran--I thought it would be appropriate to take a moment today to talk about how that threat can be addressed. The estimated 13,000 missiles currently in Hezbollah's arsenal are hidden throughout Southern Lebanon, in private homes, caves, and factories. At present, the only way to destroy these systems is to search them out on foot--a risky and potentially provocative solution. Alternatively, Israeli forces can strike at missile launchers after they have fired, meaning that at least one salvo will already be en route. It would be a vast improvement if Israel had the option of neutralizing the Hezbollah threat through defensive, rather than offensive means. Israel currently has access to Patriot and Arrow missile defense technologies, great systems which are critical for defending against longer-range missiles, but poorly suited to defend Israeli territory from the types of rockets and missiles currently being fired by Hezbollah. It is for this reason that I support the U.S. Missile Defense Agency efforts--in cooperation with the Israeli Missile Defense Organization-- to develop a system for short-range missile defense. Aimed at projectiles with a range of less than 200 kilometers, this system would provide Israel with another way to defend itself, rather than having to rely exclusively on offensive action. It is propitious that the Defense Appropriations Committee is marking up its bill this week. For more than a year, I have worked with Senators Stevens and Inouye to support the short-range missile defense program. Under their leadership, I believe that the committee will provide the investment necessary to accelerate fielding of the system. Unfortunately, the need for a redoubled effort is now clearer than ever. We still do not know how the current crisis is going to end. What we can and should say, however, is that Israel has the full support of this body in its ongoing efforts to fight terrorists, protect its citizens, and create the circumstances for peaceful coexistence with Lebanon, and all of its neighbors.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, my amendment is similar to that laid down by Senator Santorum in that the offset comes from the same housing loan program. It is an effort to reach the President's full goal rather than what the appropriations bill was able to accommodate, but in this situation to reach that goal for detention spaces rather than additional Border Patrol. If you combine the two amendments, what we will have accomplished is to achieve the funding of the full number of Border Patrol agents the President wanted to add and the full number of detention spaces the President wanted to add. That is the simple explanation. There simply was not quite sufficient money available to the Appropriations Committee to achieve 100 percent of both of those goals. Those goals were stated in the President's budget with respect to detention spaces. I will describe the detention space problem in a moment, but the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request requested an additional 6,700 beds. The legislation before the Senate funds an additional 1,000. The supplemental appropriations bill we passed earlier funded an additional 4,000. Adding those two together, you have 5,000 new beds. Subtract that from the 6,700 the President said he needed when he submitted the budget and we have an additional 1,700 beds we need to acquire. This legislation appropriated the funds for the additional 1,700 beds and uses the offset Senator Santorum will trigger in his bill, as well. Why is it important to add these detention spaces? The primary reason is to end, once and for all, this program of catch and release. When we apprehend an illegal immigrant from a country other than Mexico, you cannot return that person to Mexico. The person is not a citizen of Mexico. We have to return that person to their country of origin. This is a very difficult thing to do. First of all, some of the countries will not take their people back. Others will only do so after a great deal of time and effort are expended in paperwork to take them back. There are something like 40,000 Chinese nationals who need to go back to China but who are not being sent back to China. What happens to those people in the meantime? The program in the past has been, as I said, catch and then release them because there is no place to detain them pending their removal to their country of origin. The Secretary of Homeland Security would like to have enough detention space available that the people who need to be detained can be detained. They can be put on the airplane and sent back to their country of origin. The Secretary would like to expedite this removal so that in all cases it is done within a couple of weeks, if possible. Today, the average is about 3 weeks. The problem is, many people are apprehended and simply told to return in 3 weeks, 90 days, or whatever the period might be. Of course, most of them do not come back to be removed to their country of origin. That is the release part of it. As a result, we have a large population of illegal immigrants in this country from countries other than Mexico who have been apprehended, have been asked to come back so they can be sent back to their country of origin but who never come back to be sent back. Without the detention spaces, that is not going to stop. Once those detention spaces are available, the Secretary believes these illegal immigrants will cease coming here because the expense of their getting here is not going to be worth it since they will have the certain knowledge they will be apprehended, detained, and then sent back rather than detained and then released into our society, never to be heard from again. The President's 2007 budget did describe this practice of catch and release and described it as an unacceptable practice that must end. If we are going to end it, we need to have sufficient detention spaces, as the President pointed out, the additional 6,700 beds to accommodate these people. A number of Members have continually talked to the administration and the Department of Homeland Security about this problem. For one reason or another, it has always been a matter of, we need more detention spaces and we cannot accommodate this many people. It is a major breakthrough; the administration has finally calculated how many more spaces it needs and has begun the process of acquiring those spaces. We need to support the administration's full request and not simply get 60 or 70 percent of it accomplished. We are not going to solve this problem of catch and release until we have sufficient detention space. It is also a security problem for the United States because in many cases we do not know the identities of these people. These are not simply Mexican nationals coming across. They could be people from China, Russia, Vietnam, or countries of special interest to the United States in the Middle East, for example, countries from which terrorists have come. As a result, it is important not to simply release these people into the interior of our country never to be heard from again. They carry false documents. We do not know their true identities. It is important when we apprehend them to detain them. Let me quote from a June 22 letter from me to the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff: . . . because DHS lacks the detention space to hold OTMs [other than Mexican nationals] it necessarily releases 70 percent of them into the interior of the United States with a Notice to Appear for an immigration hearing. Approximately 70 percent of those released failed to appear for their hearings; of those who do appear, 85 percent fail to comply with final orders of removal and remain illegally in the United States. In effect, therefore, our national policy amounts to ``catch and release,'' and raises significant national security concerns. Moreover, it does nothing to deter further illegal immigration by OTM's. Indeed, it may have the opposite effect: A June 4th article in the San Diego Union Tribune indicates that Brazilians, who make up a large portion of the OTM's, actively seek out border patrol agents after illegally crossing the border, so that they may get a Notice to Appear and pass unmolested into the interior. In other words, it is actually a benefit for these people who have a piece of paper with them that, in effect, frees them from additional apprehension during this period of time prior to their notice to appear. When the time period is up and they are supposed to actually appear, they are gone. In the meantime, they basically had a free pass to travel wherever they want in the United States, unmolested by the Border Patrol or law enforcement. In a November 15, 2005, letter to Secretary Chertoff, I joined Senators McCain, Hutchison, and Cornyn in advising the Secretary that: . . . the Department should immediately resolve the ``catch and release'' practice, under which these non-Mexican illegal aliens are released into the interior due to lack of detention space. The result of that was an effort by the Department of Homeland Security to identify what was necessary in order to achieve the goal. As I said, their determination was 6,700 beds, the number called for in the administration's budget. I applaud the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, Senator Gregg, for finding the funding to add an additional 1,000 beds to the 4,000 that were put in the supplemental appropriations bill, also due to his efforts. The Committee on Appropriations has gone a long way toward getting this funding, but we are still not quite there. This legislation says this must be one of our priorities. As a result, having found a way to pay for it from other legislation, let's add these 1,700 so we can accommodate the full budget request of the President and say we have done everything we can to resolve this problem of catch and release. There are some additional things we could talk about here, but it is probably relatively uncontroversial for us to complete this job. If there is no opposition to this amendment, I don't think it is necessary for me to talk about some of the additional things we could discuss to make the case; that it is very important to stop this program of catch and release. I think almost everyone agrees with that proposition. My amendment is what is necessary to complete that unfinished business. I hope our colleagues would see the benefits of adding this to the bill and ensure we can complete the task of resolving this problem of catch and release. If there is further debate, I am happy to respond and cite additional information that I think will help make the case we need to do this, but I don't think it is a case that needs a great deal of elaboration. I ask my colleagues when we have the opportunity to vote on this, to support this amendment, as well as Senator Santorum's amendment, which I also wholeheartedly join in supporting. I am an original cosponsor of it. These are the two pieces of unfinished business we need to take care of in this legislation.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Santorum amendment be laid aside for the purposes of me laying down an amendment.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, when I described my amendment, I neglected to send it to the desk, so I send the amendment to the desk at this time.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise because of the recent attacks on Israel. The most recently breaking news: rocket attacks on the city of Haifa in Israel, which clearly represents an escalation of the attack from Lebanon. Therefore, I do rise to condemn the acts of war perpetrated against the nation of Israel by Hezbollah forces operating in southern Lebanon. Dozens of Katyusha rockets were fired at northern Israel on Wednesday and Thursday, and additional salvos have continued to rain down. Israeli soldiers were attacked as they attempted to respond to this unprovoked assault across an internationally recognized border. As a result of this aggression, eight Israeli soldiers are dead, two more are prisoners of Hezbollah, and the citizens of northern Israel are living in fear. I call on the international community to support Israel in its attempts to end terrorist operations in southern Lebanon, free the captive soldiers, and restore its territorial security. In the name of peace, Israeli forces withdrew from all Lebanese territory in the year 2000. The United Nations recognized this withdrawal as fully compliant with all relative Security Council resolutions. Unfortunately, the government in Beirut has not done its part to ensure that this disengagement enhanced the security of both nations. It is not surprising since 14 members of Lebanon's parliament and two cabinet ministers are members of Hezbollah. The Lebanese Government, which refuses to crack down on these terrorists, must be held accountable. In addition, Syria and Iran, whose governments sponsor Hezbollah's activities, must be condemned and, if they do not cease this support, sanctioned harshly. I regret to say we will probably witness more violence in the days and weeks ahead. Many innocent people on both sides of the border will likely suffer. It is incumbent on the United States and the international community to stand by Israel as she fights foreign- sponsored aggression on her borders, aggression that no sovereign nation could possibly be expected to tolerate