Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 1718.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the death of William Hubbs Rehnquist leaves us saddened but also grateful for his more than three decades of service to his country as a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, including 19 years as its Chief Justice. I first met Chief Justice Rehnquist when he was a lawyer in Phoenix. He spent most of the 1950s and 1960s practicing law in our State, and raising a family there with his wife, Natalie, who passed away in 1991. He made an annual return to Arizona from 1994 until last year, to teach a course on Supreme Court history at the University of Arizona College of Law, my alma mater. Appointed to his seat by President Nixon in 1972, and elevated to Chief Justice by President Reagan in 1986, he provided steady leadership at the Court through turbulent decades. He showed that one man of integrity really can make a difference. He was a conservative whose philosophy did not always carry the day, especially in his early years on the Court. More recently, there has been greater acceptance of his notion of balance between the authority of States and the Federal Government. His decisions helped prevent the rights of criminal suspects from being overemphasized to the point that law enforcement was hampered in doing its job. They curbed the Government's use of racial quotas, deemed by most Americans to be a squandering of the moral authority of the civil rights movement. They reaffirmed the religious freedom clause of the first amendment. They upheld restrictions on the practice of abortion, again in keeping with the views of most Americans. On a personal level, William Rehnquist had a quick, dry wit and a manner that was warm and courteous. He was a straight shooter, devoid of pretentiousness, yet deeply learned in the law and many other things. The legacy he leaves includes the histories he wrote, namely his four books on the Court and the American legal system: ``The Supreme Court: How It Was, How It Is,'' 1987; ``Grand Inquests: The Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson,'' 1992; ``All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime,'' 1998; and ``Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876,'' 2004. Notice those titles. We had, during his tenure as Chief Justice, a Presidential impeachment--over which he presided with a dignity and good sense that were reassuring to all, in and out of the Senate Chamber. We had a disputed election--in which he led the Court in delivering the U.S. Government and the country from a nightmare of litigation and partisan combat. His death has left mourners even among those who disagreed with him. The liberal law professor Laurence H. Tribe offered words of praise for his brilliance, his honesty, and his calm leadership. He called Chief Justice Rehnquist ``a master'' at enabling the Court to ``earn the respect of all who take part in its proceedings or are affected by its rulings.'' Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said he ``was the fairest, most efficient boss I have ever had.'' The admiration he inspired in people all across the political spectrum is due also to the superb job he did as the Federal judiciary's top administrator, which is part of the role of Chief Justice. He staunchly asserted the independence of the Federal court system and fought to see that those who worked in it were adequately compensated. William Rehnquist loved his family; he loved the law; he loved America and its history; and he loved the Supreme Court as an institution. The courage and tenacity he showed, despite suffering from thyroid cancer, were typical of him. He presided over oral arguments in the spring and continued his work on that group of cases until just last month. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial, and independent as the lot of humanity will admit. So said the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which influenced the writing of the U.S. Constitution. William Rehnquist was a free, an impartial, and an independent judge. His combination of strong- mindedness and meticulous fairness made him perfect for the position he held. He makes Americans, and especially Arizonans, very proud. We mourn his loss.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Cornyn of Texas, to introduce the ``DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005.'' This act will allow State and Federal law enforcement to catch rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals whom it otherwise would be impossible to identify and arrest. The principal provisions of the DNA Fingerprint Act make it easier to include and keep the DNA profiles of criminal arrestees in the National DNA Index System, where that profile can be compared to crime-scene evidence. By removing current barriers to maintaining data from criminal arrestees, the act will allow the creation of a comprehensive, robust database that will make it possible to catch serial rapists and murderers before they commit more crimes. The impact this act will have on preventing rape and other violent crimes is not merely speculative. We know from real life examples that an all-arrestee database can prevent many future offenses. In March of this year, the city of Chicago produced a case study of eight serial killers in that city who would have been caught after their first offense--rather than after their fourth or tenth--if an all-arrestee database had been in place. This study is included in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. The first example that the Chicago study cites involves serial rapist and murderer Andre Crawford. In March 1993, Crawford was arrested for felony theft. Under the DNA Fingerprint Act, the state of Illinois would have been able to take a DNA sample from Crawford at that time and upload and keep that sample in NDIS, the national DNA database. But at that time--and still today--Federal law makes it difficult to upload an arrestee's profiles to NDIS, and bars States from keeping that profile in NDIS if the arrestee is not later convicted of a criminal offense. As a result, Crawford's DNA profile was not collected and it was not added to NDIS. And as a result, when Crawford murdered a 37- year-old woman on September 21, 1993, although DNA evidence was recovered from the crime scene, Crawford could not be identified as the perpetrator. And as a result, Crawford went on to commit many more rapes and murders. On December 21, 1994, a 24-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned building on the 800 block of West 50th place in Chicago. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the September 1993 murder, and this December 1994 murder could have been prevented. On April 3, 1995, a 36-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned house on the 5000 block of South Carpenter Street in Chicago. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the two earlier murders that he had committed, and this April 1995 muurder could have been prevented. On July 23, 1997, a 27-year-old woman was found murdered in a closet of an abandoned house on the 900 block of West 51st Street in Chicago. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the three earlier murders that he had committed, and this July 1997 murder could have been prevented. On December 27, 1997, a 42-year-old woman was raped in Chicago. As she walked down the street, a man approached her from behind, put a knife to her head, dragged her into an abandoned building on the 5100 block of South Peoria Street, and beat and raped her. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the four earlier murders that he had committed, and this December 1997 rape could have been prevented. In June 1998, a 31-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned building on the 5000 block of South May Street in Chicago. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the four earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this June 1998 murder could have been prevented. On August 13, 1998, a 44-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned house on the 900 block of West 52nd Street. Her clothes were found in the alley. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the five earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this August 1998 murder could have been prevented. Also on August 13, 1998, a 32-year-old woman was found murdered in the attic of a house on the 5200 block of South Marshfield. Her body was decomposed, but DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the six earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this additional murder could have been prevented. On December 8, 1998, a 35-year-old woman was found murdered in a building on the 1200 block of West 52nd Street. She had rope marks around her neck and injuries to her face. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the seven earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this December 1998 murder could have been prevented. On February 2, 1999, a 35-year-old woman was found murdered on the 1300 block of West 51st Street. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the eight earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this February 1999 murder could have been prevented. On April 21, 1999, a 44-year-old woman was found murdered in the upstairs of an abandoned house on the 5000 block of South Justine Street. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the nine earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this April 1999 murder could have been prevented. And on June 20, 1999, a 41-year-old woman was found murdered in the attic of an abandoned building on the 1500 block of West 51st Street. DNA evidence was recovered from blood on a nearby wall, indicating a struggle. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the ten earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this additional murder could have been prevented. As the city of Chicago case study concludes: In January 2000, Andre Crawford was charged with 11 murders and 1 Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault. If his DNA sample had been taken on March 6, 1993, the subsequent 10 murders and 1 rape would not have happened. The city of Chicago study goes on to discuss the cases of 7 other serial rapists and murders from that city. Collectively, together with Andre Crawford, these 8 serial rapists and killers represent 22 murders and 30 rapes that could have been prevented had an all-arrestee database been in place. The DNA Fingerprint Act eliminates current federal statutory restrictions that prevent states from adding and keeping arresttee profiles in NDIS. In effect, the Act would make it possible to build a comprehensive, robust national all-arrestee DNA database. Here is how the DNA Fingerprint Act works: First, under current Federal law, a DNA profile from an arrestee cannot be uploaded to NDIS until the arrestee is charged in an indictment or information. Thus today, even an arrestee charged in a pleading cannot have his DNA uploaded to the national index. The act eliminates this restriction, allowing arrestees to be included as soon as they are arrested. It also eliminates a statutory restriction that bars inclusion of profiles from suspects who provide so-called ``exoneration'' samples. The act recognizes that criminal suspects have no legitimate interest in evading identification for crimes that they have committed. Second, the act requires an arrestee to take the initiative to opt out of NDIS if charges against him have been dismissed or he has been acquitted, and he does not want his DNA profile compared to future crime scene evidence. Current law places the burden of determining who may be removed from the index on the administrator of the DNA database, thus requiring the administrator to track the progress of individual criminal cases. This bureaucratic burden discourages states from creating and maintaining comprehensive, all-arrestee DNA databases. It also effectively precludes the creation of a genuine national all- arrestee database. In effect, only convicts' DNA profiles can be kept in the database over the long term. The act would allow arrestee profiles to be kept in the database as well. Third, the DNA Fingerprint Act would allow expanded use of CODIS grants. Congress currently appropriates funds for use by states to expand their DNA databases. Current law restricts the use of these grants, however, to only building databases of convicted felons. This bill expands this authorization to allow use of these funds to build a database of all DNA samples collected under lawful authority--including samples taken from arrestees. Fourth, the DNA Fingerprint Act allows the Federal Government to take and keep DNA samples from arrestees. The act gives the Attorney-General the authority to develop regulations allowing collection of DNA profiles from federal arrestees or detainees. The authority to issue such regulations would give the Attorney General the flexibility needed to respond to new legal developments and changes in technology. And finally, the act tolls the statute of limitations for Federal sex offenses. Current law generally tolls the statute of limitations for felony cases in which the perpetrator is implicated in the offense through DNA testing. The one exception to this tolling is the sexual- abuse offenses in chapter 109A of title 18. When Congress adopted general tolling, it left out chapter 109A, apparently because those crimes already are subject to the use of ``John Doe'' indictments to charge unidentified perpetrators. The Justice Department has made clear, however, that John Doe indictments are ``not an adequate substitute for the applicability of [tolling].'' The Department has criticized the exception in current law as ``work[ing] against the effective prosecution of rapes and other serious sexual assaults under chapter 109A,'' noting that it makes ``the statute of limitation rules for such offenses more restrictive than those for all other Federal offenses in cases involving DNA identification.'' The DNA Fingerprint Act corrects this anomaly by allowing tolling for chapter 109A offenses. Further evidence of the potential effectiveness of a comprehensive, robust DNA database is available from the recent experience of Great Britain. The British have taken the lead in using DNA to solve crimes, creating a database that now includes 2,000,000 profiles. Their database has now reached the critical mass where it is big enough to serve as a highly effective tool for solving crimes. In the U.K., DNA from crime scenes produces a match to the DNA database in 40 percent of all cases. This amounted to 58,176 cold hits in the United Kingdom 2001. (See generally ``The Application of DNA Technology in England and Wales,'' a study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice.) A broad DNA database works. The same tool should be made available in the United States. Some critics of DNA databasing argue that a comprehensive database would violate criminal suspects' privacy rights. This is simply untrue. The sample of DNA that is kept in NDIS is what is called ``junk DNA''-- it is impossible to determine anything medically sensitive from this DNA. For example, this DNA does not allow the tester to determine if the donor is susceptible to particular diseases. The Justice Department addressed this issue in its statement of views on S. 1700, a DNA bill that was introduced in the 108th Congress: [T]here [are no] legitimate privacy concerns that require the retention or expansion of these [burdensome expungement provisions]. The DNA identification system is already subject to strict privacy rules, which generally limit the use of DNA samples and DNA profiles in the system to law enforcement identification purposes. See 42 U.S.C. 14132(b)-(c). Moreover, the DNA profiles that are maintained in the national index relate to 13 DNA sites that do not control any traits or characteristics of individuals. Hence, the databased information cannot be used to discern, for example, anything about an individual's genetic illnesses, disorders, or dispositions. Rather, by design, the information the system retains in the databased DNA profiles is the equivalent of a ``genetic fingerprint'' that uniquely identifies an individual, but does not disclose other facts about him. Elsewhere in its Views Letter, the Justice Department also explained why the restrictive expungement provisions in current law are unnecessary and contrary to sound public policy. The letter noted that the FBI maintains a database of fingerprints of arrestees--without regard to whether the arrestee later was acquitted or convicted. The letter states, ``With respect to the . . . exclusion of DNA profiles of unindicted arrestees, it should be noted by way of comparison that there is no Federal policy that bars States from including fingerprints of arrestees in State and Federal law enforcement databases prior to indictment.'' The Justice Department also pointed out that ``[t]here is no reason to have a . . . Federal policy mandating expungement for DNA information. If the person whose DNA it is does not commit other crimes, then the information simply remains in a secure database and there is no adverse effect on his life. But if he commits a murder, rape, or other serious crime, and DNA matching can identify him as the perpetrator, then it is good that the information was retained.'' From the Chicago study--which examines the experience of just one American city over recent years--we know that an all-arrestee database can and inevitably will make the critical difference in solving and preventing violent sex offenses. From the British experience, we know that a comprehensive database can be a highly effective tool in solving crimes. And we know that DNA databasing does not violate the right to privacy. I urge the Congress to enact the DNA Fingerprint Act--before another preventable sex crime occurs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Chicago study be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Law Enforcement Officers' Protection Act of 2005. This act will guarantee tough, mandatory punishment for criminals who murder or assault police officers, firefighters, judges, court employees, ambulance-crew members, and other public-safety officers in the course of their duties. Attacks on police officers and judges are serious crimes. They merit the toughest penalties. LEOPA imposes the following terms of imprisonment for attacks on public-safety officers: (1) second degree murder, 30 years to life; (2) voluntary manslaughter, 15 to 40 years; (3) assault resulting in serious bodily injury, 15 to 40 years; (4) assault with a dangerous weapon, 15 to 40 years; and (5) assault resulting in bodily injury, 5 to 20 years. The act also imposes commensurate penalties for retaliatory murders, kidnappings, and assaults committed against the family members of public-safety officers. LEOPA includes additional provisions that will deter attacks upon police officers. The act expedites Federal-court review of state convictions for murder of a public-safety officer; it limits the damages that can be recovered by criminals for any injuries experienced during their arrest; it removes arbitrary barriers to retired officers' right to carry concealed weapons under Federal law; it makes it a crime to publicize a public-safety officer's identity in order to threaten or intimidate him; and it increases existing penalties for obstruction of justice and interference with court proceedings. Aggravated assaults against police officers are a serious national problem. According to the most recent F.RI. report on the subject, 52 law-enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the United States in 2003. In the 10 year period from 1994 through 2003, a total of 616 lawenforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in the United States. These officers' assailants unquestionably are among the worst criminals. Of those individuals responsible for unlawful killings of police officers between 1994 and 2003, 521 had a prior criminal arrest, including 153 who had a prior arrest for assaulting a police officer or resisting arrest. The individuals who commit these types of offenses are among the most dangerous members of the criminal class. Tough sentences for these criminals not only protect those who risk their lives to protect us; they also directly protect the public at large by removing a dangerous class of criminals from society. Ordinary assaults against police officers have become a widespread problem. More than 57,000 law enforcement officers were assaulted in the course of their duties in 2003, and more than a quarter of these assaults resulted in injury to the officer. These numbers represent more than one of every 10 officers serving in the United States. Our society apparently has reached a point where criminals feel entitled to assault a police officer when they are being arrested. LEOPA is designed to change that understanding, to show criminals that assaults against police officers are unacceptable. It bears mention that because of improvements in technology, recent years' numbers of officers killed in the line of duty even understate the extent of the violence that officers face. As the Los Angeles Times noted in 1994, ``the number of officers killed--an average of 60 to 70 a year since the late 1980s--would have broken records, too, if not for the advent of bulletproof vests, police experts say; about 400 officers have survived shootings over the last decade because they were wearing protective armor.'' (Faye Fiore & Miles Corwin, Toll of Violence Haunts Families of Police Officers, N.Y. Times, Feb. 21, 1994, at 1). As the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police noted recently, ``there's less respect for authority in general and police officers specifically. The predisposition of criminals to use firearms is probably at the highest point in our history.'' (Jerry Nachtigal, Crime Down, but Number of Police Officers Killed Holds Steady, Associated Press Newswires, Apr. 11, 1999). Violence against police officers also inhibits effective law enforcement. It breeds caution among officers and hinders robust investigation. LEOPA is designed to restore balance to the law. It is designed to ensure that police officers do not fear for their safety when enforcmg the law, but instead, that criminals fear the consequences of breaking the law. Finally, aside from their broader effects on law enforcement and society, aggravated assaults and murders of police officers simply are terrible crimes. The victims often are young and in the prime of life, leaving behind young children, spouses, and grieving parents. A few recent incidents in the news serve to illustrate the horrific toll that these homicides take on the surviving victims: Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Shayne York, 26 years old, was murdered during an invasion robbery while waiting for his fiancee at a hair salon on August 16, 1997. He was killed solely because of his status as a police officer. The Los Angeles Times gave the following account of the crime from the testimony at the killer's trial: The robbers yelled racial slurs and ordered customers and employees to the floor, snatching valuables from everyone inside. When one of the bandits found a law enforcement badge in York's wallet, he kicked York as he lay on the ground, according to testimony from [York's fiancee], also a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy. The gunman asked York if he ever mistreated blacks and Crips gang members at Los Angeles County's Pitchess Detention Center, where York worked. York responded, ``No, sir.'' [The killer,] an alleged Crips gang member, then pointed a pistol at the back of York's head and squeezed the trigger, prosecutors said. [York's fiancee] testified she saw York's body go limp as she felt his blood flowing onto her legs. She said she heard the gunman say, ``I always wanted to kill a pig.'' (Jack Leonard & Monte Morin, Man Guilty of Killing Off-Duty Deputy, L.A. Times, Aug. 23, 2000, at B1.) Deputy York's killer never expressed any remorse over this senseless crime. When jurors read their verdict at his trial, he shouted at them, ``May Allah kill you all, pagans, infidels.'' (Stuart Pfeifer & Richard Marosi, Jury Recommends Death for Robber Who Killed Deputy, L.A. Times, Sept. 8, 2000, at B7.) California Highway Patrol Officer Don Burt, 25 years old, was shot seven times by a member of a street gang during a traffic stop on July 13, 1996. As Officer Burt lay wounded on the ground, the killer shot him in the head. The Los Angeles Times, covering the killer's trial, gave the following account of the testimony describing the devastating impact of Officer Burt's death on his family: [Don Burt's father] relived some of his happiest memories with his son--the wedding of his son and [daughter-in-law] Kristin, and the day he was told he was going to be a grandfather. But the proudest moment for both father and son was when the younger Burt joined the Highway Patrol. ``I pinned on his badge and 1 hugged him,'' the father said, tearfully. ``The proudest I'd ever seen him. The gleam he had in his eye--he was so proud.'' It was a quiet summer night the night his son died, [Burt's father] told the 12-member jury. He and his wife had just finished dinner. The telephone rang. It was their daughter- in-law's father, also a CHP officer, saying there had been a shooting in the area that the younger Burt patrolled. The elder Burt, a 30-year veteran trooper, called the CHP dispatch center to learn more. A patrol car arrived to take the parents to the hospital. ``We drove [to the hospital] in dead silence,'' Burt said. ``I knew my son was dead and 1 couldn't tell my wife. She was sitting there with hope and 1 couldn't tell her.'' Jeannie Burt said she didn't realize how serious her son's injuries were until a few minutes after they arrived at the hospital. ``I thought he wasn't hurt too bad, that everything was going to be all right,'' Jeannie Burt told jurors. But then, ``I saw Kristin's brother and he just shook his head. And 1 knew my son was dead.'' Tears streamed down Jeannie Burt's cheeks through most of her testimony. ``He wasn't perfect, but pretty close to it,'' the mother said through her tears. ``I'm grateful 1 had my son for the 25 years 1 had him. 1 wouldn't trade that with anything. I'm just so sad that my daughter-in-law has lost the love of her life. That his son does not have a father.'' Kristin Burt, widow of the slain officer, said she was seven months pregnant with their first child when her husband of nearly three years was killed. She took the stand Monday, faltering and fighting back tears as she described how the coroner told her that her husband was dead. The coroner ``held my hand and slipped Don's wedding ring into my hand,'' Kristin Burt said. (Louis Roug & Meg James, Rage in the Courtroom, L.A. Times, Apr. 18, 2000, at B1.) Officer Burt's son, Cameron, was born two months after he was killed. Compton Police Officers Kevin Burrell and James MacDonald were shot and killed by a wanted criminal during a traffic stop on February 22, 1993. Newspapers gave the following account of the crime: ``The officers were wearing bulletproof vests when they stopped a red pickup truck about 11 p.m., but were knocked to the ground by bullet wounds to their limbs. With the officers lying in the rain-soaked street, [the killer] pumped bullets into their heads, execution-style.'' (Jodi Wi1goren, Killer of 2 Compton Police Officers Sentenced to Death, L.A. Times, Aug. 16, 1995, at 1.) Officers Burrell and MacDonald were both young men, with all of their parents still living, at the time of their deaths. At the killer's trial, their families described the deep trauma that the crime created. The Los Angeles Times gave the following account: One after another, the mothers and fathers of Officers James Wayne MacDonald and Kevin Michael Burrell took the stand to cry out their losses. Three could not complete their testimony without breaking down so badly that court recessed. Burrell's mother told how she had heard the shots that killed her son a few blocks from her home. MacDonald's father, sobbing uncontrollably, blurted, ``Come home, Jimmy, let me trade places with you,'' when he was asked what he would tell his son if he could bring him back. James and Tonia MacDonald told how they visit their son's grave twice each day in their hometown of Santa Rosa, just to chat. Clark and Edna Burrell told how neither of them can bear to visit the cemetery where their son now lies. ``I heard the shots,'' Edna Burrell said. Then she told how she reasoned that her son had been hit. ``I was listening to my police scanner,'' she said, ``and I knew it was Kevin because I didn't hear them call his name'' on other dispatch calls. ``So when she (a police officer) knocked on my door, all I could do is scream, 'Oh God, they shot my baby. ``, With that, Edna Burrell broke down. Overwhelmed, she was led from the courtroom, past where [ the killer] sat staring straight ahead. Sobbing softly, she repeated what she had said on the stand: ``How could he do that? How could he do that?'' Both sets of parents said the deaths of their sons left them feeling empty, lost and angry. ``The whole time I was praying, just to let Jimmy live until I could see him again,'' Tonia MacDonald sobbed, remembering the hours after she was told about the shooting. ``And then I was so mad at God. All I wanted was to see him one more time.'' All four parents said old friends have fallen away as grief consumed their lives. Mother's Day, James MacDonald testified, has become unbearable. ``This year, when I got up, I didn't tell her (his wife) 'Happy Mother's Day' because it's a tough day,'' he said. ``I could see the tears in her eyes.'' (Emily Adams, Slain Officers'' Parents Tell of Pain, L.A. Times, June 1, 1995, at 1.) It bears mention that all of the criminals responsible for the murders described here were convicted of capital offenses, and will be subject to the expedited federal review provisions in section 6 of LEOPA once they complete their State appeals. Section 6 of the bill is named for Dr. John B. Jamison, a Coconino County, AZ, Reserve Sheriffs Deputy who was murdered while responding to a fellow deputy's call for assistance on September 6, 1982. The killer fired 30 rounds from an assault rifle into Dr. Jamison's car, killing the deputy before he could reach his gun or even unbuckle his seatbelt. Dr. Jamison was survived by his 13-year-old son and 10-year- old daughter. State courts completed their review of the killer's conviction and sentence in 1985. Federal courts then delayed the case for an additional 15 years. One judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit even tried to postpone the killer's final execution date on the alleged basis that the killer was wrongfully denied state funds to investigate a rare neurological condition that his lawyer had learned of while watching television. Dr. Jamison's killer ultimately was executed in 2000--18 years after the crime occurred, and 15 years after federal habeas-corpus proceedings began. Section 6 is designed to prevent these kinds of delays in Federal review of cases involving state convictions for the murder of a public- safety officer. In the district court, parties will be required to move for an evidentiary hearing within 90 days of the completion of briefing, the court must act on the motion within 30 days, and the hearing must begin 60 days later and last no longer than 3 months. All district-court review must be completed within 15 months of the completion of briefing. In the court of appeals, the court must complete review within 120 days of the completion of briefing. In most cases, these limits will ensure that federal review of a defendant's appeal is completed within less than 2 years. This section also makes these deadlines practical and enforceable by limiting federal review to those claims presenting meaningful evidence that the defendant did not commit the crime--defendants would be barred from re-litigating claims unrelated to guilt or innocence. (Defendants still will be permitted to litigate all their legal claims in state court on direct review and state-habeas review, and in petitions for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.) The need for this provision is particularly stark in the judicial circuit that includes my home state of Arizona. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's pattern of blocking capital punishment for all murderers--including those who kill police officers--is well documented. A recent committee report of the U.S. Senate, for example, notes that: ``Data for the last ten years show that outside of the Ninth Circuit, usually 70 to 80 percent of death sentences are affirmed by a [federal] Court of Appeals on collateral review. In almost every year, however, the Ninth Circuit has reversed the majority of death sentences that it reviews. Moreover, this percentage has climbed sharply in recent years . . . In the last three years, the Ninth Circuit has reversed 88 percent, 80 percent, and 86 percent of the death sentences that it has reviewed.'' (S. Rep. No. 107-315 (2002), at 72-73) The Senate report also notes that a core group of Ninth Circuit judges vote to reverse virtually every death sentence that they review. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, for example, had reviewed 31 death sentences by 2002, and voted to reverse every single one. Other Ninth Circuit judges have similar records. As Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski has noted, ``there are those of my colleagues who have never voted to uphold a death sentence and doubtless never wil1.'' He continued: ``Refusing to enforce a valid law is a violation of the judges' oath--something that most judges consider a shameful breach of duty. . . . [But] to slow down the pace of executions by finding fault with every death sentence is considered by some to be highly honorable.'' (Alex Kozinski, Tinkering with Death, The New Yorker, Feb. 10, 1997, at 48-53) This pattern of behavior extends to the Ninth Circuit's review of death sentences imposed for the murder of police officers. In the nine States under the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction, 34 criminals have been sentenced to death for murdering police officers since the late 1970's. Only one--the man who killed Dr. Jamison--has ever been executed. The Ninth Circuit consistently has obstructed all other death sentences for criminals convicted of murdering police officers in the western States. As one Orange County newspaper columnist notes, these numbers reflect poorly on our society's commitment to ensuring justice for slain police officers and their families: When California voters reinstated the death penalty in 1978, they made killing an on-duty peace officer one of the ``special circumstances'' that could subject the killer to execution. The idea behind that was simple enough. If you made killing a cop a death-penalty offense, maybe it would make criminals think twice before doing it. . . . But it's doubtful that the special circumstance concerning peace officers strikes any fear into the heart of a would-be cop- killer. Because in the 24 years since the new death-penalty law was passed, not one cop-killer has been executed in California. During that time, more than 200 California peace officers have been murdered in the line of duty, including eight in Orange County, and dozens of cop-killers have been sent to death row. But not one has died for his crime. True, California hasn't been in any hurry to execute other murderers, either. Since 1978, more than 700 killers have been sent to death row, but only 10 have been executed. But the justice system seems particularly reluctant to actually enforce the death penalty against cop-killers. ``That sends a terrible message,'' says Marianne Wrede of Anaheim Hills, whose son, West Covina Police Officer Kenneth Wrede, was murdered in 1983. ``It says the justice system doesn't respect the sacrifices of police officers and their families.'' (Gordon Dillow, State Balks at Executing Cop- Killers, The Orange County Reg., Dec. 5, 2002) These unconscionable delays have greatly increased the suffering experienced by the surviving families of murdered police officers. Again, a few examples from recent news stories illustrate the nature of the problems created by the current system of decades-long post- conviction review: On August 31, 1983, West Covina Police Officer Kenneth Wrede, 26 years old, responded to a call about a man behaving strangely in a residential neighborhood. Wrede confronted the man, who became abusive and tried to hit Wrede with an 8-foot tree spike. Wrede could have shot the man, but instead attempted to defuse the situation. The man then reached into Wrede's car and ripped the shotgun and rack from the dashboard. Wrede drew his gun and persuaded the man to lay down the shotgun, but the man picked it up again when Wrede lowered his revolver and shot Wrede in the head, killing him instantly. Years later, Wrede's parents described the terrible impact of this crime on their family. Marianne Wrede told of how ``a half hour before local television newscasts would broadcast the story, her doorbell rang. On the steps stood her son's commander and a police lieutenant. Between them stood Kenneth Wrede's distraught wife. `I knew it was bad news,' Marianne Wrede said. `I shut the door in their faces and I said, `It can't be my boy.' '' (Laura-Lynne Powell, Grief Unites Kin of Fallen Officers, The Orange County Reg., June 20,1991, at EO1) Many years after the crime, she reflected that ``every day I miss my son and it never goes away.'' (Anne C. Mulkern & Tiffany Montgomery, Caring Counts in Line of Duty, The Orange County Reg., Sept. 25, 1996, at BO1) Ken Wrede's father also described the impact of the loss of his son. ``My life will never be the same. I deal with it every day; when I hear a police siren and immediately think of my son, when I pull up next to a police car and think that that could have been him. I still stop as often as I can and tell the officers to have a good day and be careful.'' (David Haldane & Michael Wagner, For Some, a Reminder of Past Tragedy, L.A. Times, July 15, 1996, at A3) Officer Wrede's killer was sentenced to death in 1984, and that conviction was affirmed by the California Supreme Court in 1989. Then in 2000--17 years after Ken Wrede's murder--a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the killer's death sentence. The Ninth Circuit found that the killer's lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase because he did not present additional evidence of the killer's abusive childhood and drug use. At the time, Marianne Wrede noted, ``We thought we finally were close to getting this behind us. And now this.'' (Gordon Dillow, Long Wait for Justice Gets Worse, The Orange County Reg., May 11, 2000, at BO1) A California Deputy Attorney General denounced the decision, stating that ``it can always be suggested a jury should have heard something else in the penalty phase of a death penalty case.'' (Richard Winston, Reversal of Death Penalty in Officer's Killing Decried Courts, L.A. Times, May 10, 2000, at B3) West Covina Corporal Robert Tibbets, the original investigator at the scene of Wrede's murder, described the Ninth Circuit's decision as a ``miscarriage of justice.'' (Id.) He had promised Wrede's parents that he would accompany them to every court hearing for their son's killer. He made good on his promise, even 19 years later, when the killer was retried and again sentenced to death in 2002. But the Wredes now face another round of state and then federal appeals. At the retrial, Ken's father noted that ``my family and 1 had endured 19 years of trial, appeals, delays, causing us to relive the trauma of Kenny's death over and over again.'' The trial judge agreed. He stated, ``It is an obscenity to put anyone through this needlessly for 19 years. It is inexcusable for us in the system that we need to look at this case for 19 years to get it resolved. The system at some point in the line has become clogged and broken.'' (Larry Welborn, 19 Years and no Resolution for Parents, The Orange County Reg., Sept. 21, 2002) Riverside Police Officers Dennis Doty and Philip Trust were killed by a man whom they attempted to arrest at his home on May 13, 1982. The man was in bed when the officers arrived and they permitted him to dress. The man then pulled out a gun that he had been sitting on and shot and killed both officers. He apparently sought revenge for injuries that he sustained when he was shot while committing a bank robbery. Officer Doty had served a tour of duty in Vietnam, where he had received a purple heart and bronze star. The State supreme court affirmed the killer's conviction and death sentence in 1991. In 2002, 20 years after the murders, Federal district court reversed the killer's death sentence, finding that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not trust his lawyers. Local Superior Court judge Edward Webster denounced the decision, declaring that he was ``outraged by the entire federal process.'' He declared that ``this [ decision] is just a product of judges'' personal opinions and philosophies opposing the death penalty.'' (Marlowe Churchill, Riverside Judge Takes Federal Court to Task, The Press-Enterprise, July 22, 1995, at BO1) The Riverside assistant police chief noted that the decision was particularly unfortunate for the officers' families: ``They lived this 20 years ago, and not to have closure on the trial process is particularly difficult'' (Mike Kataoka, Court Annuls Death Decree, The Press Enterprise, May 31, 2002, at BO1) Los Angeles Police Detective Tom Williams was shot and killed by a man against whom he had testified several hours earlier in a robbery trial on October 31, 1985. Detective Williams was killed while picking up his son at a day-care center. A local newspaper gave the following account of the crime: ``With [his son] Ryan sitting beside him in the front seat of his truck, Williams, 42, saw the man in the ski mask, saw the automatic weapon pointing out of the driver's side window of the passing car. But he was helpless to do anything to protect himself. All he had time to do was scream for Ryan to get down, then cover the boy with his own body.'' (Dennis McCarthy, Youth Feels Need to Serve, L.A. Daily News, Aug. 24, 1993, at Nl) The Los Angeles Times gave the following account of testimony from the killer's trial: A seventh-grade pupil at a Canoga Park church school testified Wednesday that he saw 6-year-old Ryan Williams sitting on the ground crying moments after the boy's father, a Los Angeles police detective, had been gunned down in the street on Oct. 31,1985. Thomas C. Williams, 42, was picking up Ryan from school at 5:40 p.m. when he was struck by eight bullets from an automatic weapon. The detective died, slumped against the driver's side of his orange pickup truck. . . . [The pupil] said he looked toward Williams' truck, parked in front of the Faith Baptist Church school, and saw the windshield shatter. ``It split into pieces,'' [he] said. ``Then I ducked. I couldn't see anything. I got up because I heard some little boy cry. I walked over. He was sitting on the ground and he was crying and he had a bloody lip.'' (Lynn Steinberg, Boy Tells of Fatal Attack on Detective, L.A. Times, Feb. 11, 1998, at 12) Detective Williams's killer remains on death row today, 20 years after committing this crime. Garden Grove police officer Donald Reed was shot and killed while arresting a man at a bar on June 7, 1980. The killer appeared at first to cooperate with police, but then pulled a pistol from his jacket and began firing. One officer who comforted Reed as he lay on the ground describe the scene: ``I could see a sense of panic in Don's eyes. He said, `I am not gonna make it' '' (Daniel Yi, Slain Officer's Family Testifies, L.A. Times, Feb. 9, 2000, at B1) When Reed died, he had two toddler sons, ages 3 and 1\1/2\. Reed's killer was sentenced to death, but the sentence was reversed on appeal, and he was retried and sentenced to death again in 2000. Reed's sons were 22 and 21 by the time of the retrial. Still coping with the loss of their father, they chose not to attend the second trial. ``I was a mother, a father, I had to teach them everything,'' Reed's widow stated. (Id.) Of her husband, she simply noted, ``He was taken unnecessarily.'' (John McDonald, Officer's Widow Details Trauma, The Orange County Reg., Feb. 9, 2000, at B01) She also described the impact on her family of holding a second trial 20 years after the crime. ``We had all moved on, and then this came back and smacked us in the face. It really just tears you apart.'' (Daniel Yi, Slain Officer's Family Testifies, L.A. Times, Feb. 9, 2000, at B1) Los Angeles Police Officer Paul Verna was gunned down during a traffic stop on June 2, 1983, by two men who earlier had committed a series of violent robberies. The first man shot Verna from inside the car, and the second then exited the vehicle and shot Verna five more times as he lay on the ground. Verna was survived by his wife and two young sons. Years later, the state supreme court reversed the death sentence of one of the killers. A new trial was held in 2000. At the first trial, Verna's widow described the devastating impact of the crime on her family. She spoke of how ``no one who has not done it can know how difficult it is to tell two young boys that the daddy they loved so much is gone.'' (Janet Rae-Dupree, 2 Sentenced to Die for Killing Policeman, L.A. Times, Sept. 21, 1985, at 6) A local newspaper gave the following accounts of the sentencing retrial: Vema's sons were young boys, 4 and 9, when he was murdered. This past week, they testified as young men. They told the jury that they did not have a lot of first-hand recollection of their dad. They did have the memories of stories from their mom and many others as to what their dad was like. Ryan [the younger son] spoke of sometimes feeling uneasy at being told how much he looked like and even acted like his dad, whom he does not remember. Sandy, Verna's widow, spoke of the challenge of properly raising two very young boys alone. (Jim Tatreau, Who Was Paul Verna? Murdered Officer Deeply Missed Hero, L.A. Daily News, Oct. 22, 2000, at V3) ``At age 33, to be a widow--my roles in life completely changed. The very hardest part was when they were very young kids--when Ryan, who was 4 years old when his father died, would get hurt and would cry to his mother at bedtime, `Mommy, I just want my daddy.' I couldn't give that to him, no matter how hard I tried. I could do everything else, but I couldn't give him his daddy.'' (Jason Kandel, Retrial Brings Victim's Family to Tears, L.A. Daily News, Sept. 27, 2000, at

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank you, Madam President. I thank my colleague. I know that the chairman of the committee is anxious to conclude the legislation so I will be brief. I simply reiterate the point that I hope colleagues sincerely consider the points made by the senior Senator from Arizona--not meant to embarrass but to get us to focus on how we could better fund our transportation needs in the country. We are all pretty bright and pretty good on identifying what is necessary, but far better it would be, as he pointed out, to let the States keep the money raised in the States and for them to decide how best to use the money in their own States. It would be much more fair than taxing some States and giving it to residents of other States. Even for the donor States such as ours, instead of getting close to 100 percent of the targeted amount that was provided in the bill in the first year, some are lucky if they get there at the very end of the period of time. There needs to be a fix to this problem sooner or later. I hope my colleagues again will sincerely consider the remarks of those who regrettably are required to vote against this legislation because of its unfairness and because of the way taxpayer dollars are used for projects, some of which do not even relate to highways or to transportation. Madam President, I yield the floor. SteeLGrid Reinforced Concrete Decking

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I understand the need for a good highway and transit bill. As debate on this bill has dragged on over the last year and a half, I have heard from many Arizonans in industry, as well as users of our surface transportation system detailing the pressing needs in our state. But throughout that time, I have expressed concern that the reauthorization legislation that has been brought before this Chamber has had certain fundamental deficiencies. The conference report before us today preserves two of the most objectionable defects: a grossly unfair formula for apportioning highway funds among the States and a staggering quantity of pork-barrel earmarks. It is simply impossible to explain to my constituents why more than 9.5 cents out of every dollar in gas taxes they pay at the pump goes to subsidize road construction in other States. And while it is true that this conference report makes the barest progress toward equity by ensuring that rate of return to high-growth States like Arizona will inch up to 92 cents on the dollar, I believe that much more progress could have been attained given that this bill expends some 30 percent more than its predecessor. This conference report preserves Arizona's rock-bottom standing in the donor/done sweepstakes. And it does so in a way that adds insult to injury, for even as Arizona and other high-growth states continue to heavily subsidize the others, and are only moved up to the higher rate of return in the bill's fourth year, others are raised up immediately. Even as the sponsors of this legislation suggested that we ignore the extent to which Arizona highway users will be compelled to subsidize those in other States, but they ensured that their own apportionments were promptly and generously supplemented. I must also object to the out-of-control earmarking in this conference report. Earmarking is, of course, the insertion into the bill of projects selected not through a merit-based process, but through the influence of Members. Consider: The 1982 highway bill contained 10 such projects. The 1991 bill had 538. The 1998 bill had 1,800. This bill has somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,000. The list alone goes on for 250 pages. Among those listed is the notorious ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' the 200 foot high $223 million bridge connecting Ketchikan, AK, to an island that is home to 50 people and is currently accessible to the mainland by a 10 minute ferry ride. I hope that between now and the next time Congress takes up a highway bill, we will take a serious look at the flawed process that results in the diversion of funds from fast-growing States, as well as at the unsustainable rate at which earmarking has been proliferating. But for now I can only note my disappointment in what we have produced, a bill the Wall Street Journal today describes as a monument to ``extravagance''--and vote against this conference report. I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Cornyn of Texas, to introduce the ``DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005.'' This act will allow State and Federal law enforcement to catch rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals whom it otherwise would be impossible to identify and arrest. The principal provisions of the DNA Fingerprint Act make it easier to include and keep the DNA profiles of criminal arrestees in the National DNA Index System, where that profile can be compared to crime-scene evidence. By removing current barriers to maintaining data from criminal arrestees, the act will allow the creation of a comprehensive, robust database that will make it possible to catch serial rapists and murderers before they commit more crimes. The impact this act will have on preventing rape and other violent crimes is not merely speculative. We know from real life examples that an all-arrestee database can prevent many future offenses. In March of this year, the city of Chicago produced a case study of eight serial killers in that city who would have been caught after their first offense--rather than after their fourth or tenth--if an all-arrestee database had been in place. This study is included in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. The first example that the Chicago study cites involves serial rapist and murderer Andre Crawford. In March 1993, Crawford was arrested for felony theft. Under the DNA Fingerprint Act, the state of Illinois would have been able to take a DNA sample from Crawford at that time and upload and keep that sample in NDIS, the national DNA database. But at that time--and still today--Federal law makes it difficult to upload an arrestee's profiles to NDIS, and bars States from keeping that profile in NDIS if the arrestee is not later convicted of a criminal offense. As a result, Crawford's DNA profile was not collected and it was not added to NDIS. And as a result, when Crawford murdered a 37- year-old woman on September 21, 1993, although DNA evidence was recovered from the crime scene, Crawford could not be identified as the perpetrator. And as a result, Crawford went on to commit many more rapes and murders. On December 21, 1994, a 24-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned building on the 800 block of West 50th place in Chicago. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the September 1993 murder, and this December 1994 murder could have been prevented. On April 3, 1995, a 36-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned house on the 5000 block of South Carpenter Street in Chicago. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the two earlier murders that he had committed, and this April 1995 muurder could have been prevented. On July 23, 1997, a 27-year-old woman was found murdered in a closet of an abandoned house on the 900 block of West 51st Street in Chicago. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the three earlier murders that he had committed, and this July 1997 murder could have been prevented. On December 27, 1997, a 42-year-old woman was raped in Chicago. As she walked down the street, a man approached her from behind, put a knife to her head, dragged her into an abandoned building on the 5100 block of South Peoria Street, and beat and raped her. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the four earlier murders that he had committed, and this December 1997 rape could have been prevented. In June 1998, a 31-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned building on the 5000 block of South May Street in Chicago. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the four earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this June 1998 murder could have been prevented. On August 13, 1998, a 44-year-old woman was found murdered in an abandoned house on the 900 block of West 52nd Street. Her clothes were found in the alley. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the five earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this August 1998 murder could have been prevented. Also on August 13, 1998, a 32-year-old woman was found murdered in the attic of a house on the 5200 block of South Marshfield. Her body was decomposed, but DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the six earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this additional murder could have been prevented. On December 8, 1998, a 35-year-old woman was found murdered in a building on the 1200 block of West 52nd Street. She had rope marks around her neck and injuries to her face. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the seven earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this December 1998 murder could have been prevented. On February 2, 1999, a 35-year-old woman was found murdered on the 1300 block of West 51st Street. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the eight earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this February 1999 murder could have been prevented. On April 21, 1999, a 44-year-old woman was found murdered in the upstairs of an abandoned house on the 5000 block of South Justine Street. DNA evidence was recovered. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the nine earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this April 1999 murder could have been prevented. And on June 20, 1999, a 41-year-old woman was found murdered in the attic of an abandoned building on the 1500 block of West 51st Street. DNA evidence was recovered from blood on a nearby wall, indicating a struggle. That DNA evidence identifies Crawford as the perpetrator. If the DNA Fingerprint Act had been law, and Crawford's profile had been collected after his March 1993 arrest, he would have been identified as the perpetrator of the ten earlier murders and one rape that he had committed, and this additional murder could have been prevented. As the city of Chicago case study concludes: In January 2000, Andre Crawford was charged with 11 murders and 1 Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault. If his DNA sample had been taken on March 6, 1993, the subsequent 10 murders and 1 rape would not have happened. The city of Chicago study goes on to discuss the cases of 7 other serial rapists and murders from that city. Collectively, together with Andre Crawford, these 8 serial rapists and killers represent 22 murders and 30 rapes that could have been prevented had an all-arrestee database been in place. The DNA Fingerprint Act eliminates current federal statutory restrictions that prevent states from adding and keeping arresttee profiles in NDIS. In effect, the Act would make it possible to build a comprehensive, robust national all-arrestee DNA database. Here is how the DNA Fingerprint Act works: First, under current Federal law, a DNA profile from an arrestee cannot be uploaded to NDIS until the arrestee is charged in an indictment or information. Thus today, even an arrestee charged in a pleading cannot have his DNA uploaded to the national index. The act eliminates this restriction, allowing arrestees to be included as soon as they are arrested. It also eliminates a statutory restriction that bars inclusion of profiles from suspects who provide so-called ``exoneration'' samples. The act recognizes that criminal suspects have no legitimate interest in evading identification for crimes that they have committed. Second, the act requires an arrestee to take the initiative to opt out of NDIS if charges against him have been dismissed or he has been acquitted, and he does not want his DNA profile compared to future crime scene evidence. Current law places the burden of determining who may be removed from the index on the administrator of the DNA database, thus requiring the administrator to track the progress of individual criminal cases. This bureaucratic burden discourages states from creating and maintaining comprehensive, all-arrestee DNA databases. It also effectively precludes the creation of a genuine national all- arrestee database. In effect, only convicts' DNA profiles can be kept in the database over the long term. The act would allow arrestee profiles to be kept in the database as well. Third, the DNA Fingerprint Act would allow expanded use of CODIS grants. Congress currently appropriates funds for use by states to expand their DNA databases. Current law restricts the use of these grants, however, to only building databases of convicted felons. This bill expands this authorization to allow use of these funds to build a database of all DNA samples collected under lawful authority--including samples taken from arrestees. Fourth, the DNA Fingerprint Act allows the Federal Government to take and keep DNA samples from arrestees. The act gives the Attorney-General the authority to develop regulations allowing collection of DNA profiles from federal arrestees or detainees. The authority to issue such regulations would give the Attorney General the flexibility needed to respond to new legal developments and changes in technology. And finally, the act tolls the statute of limitations for Federal sex offenses. Current law generally tolls the statute of limitations for felony cases in which the perpetrator is implicated in the offense through DNA testing. The one exception to this tolling is the sexual- abuse offenses in chapter 109A of title 18. When Congress adopted general tolling, it left out chapter 109A, apparently because those crimes already are subject to the use of ``John Doe'' indictments to charge unidentified perpetrators. The Justice Department has made clear, however, that John Doe indictments are ``not an adequate substitute for the applicability of [tolling].'' The Department has criticized the exception in current law as ``work[ing] against the effective prosecution of rapes and other serious sexual assaults under chapter 109A,'' noting that it makes ``the statute of limitation rules for such offenses more restrictive than those for all other Federal offenses in cases involving DNA identification.'' The DNA Fingerprint Act corrects this anomaly by allowing tolling for chapter 109A offenses. Further evidence of the potential effectiveness of a comprehensive, robust DNA database is available from the recent experience of Great Britain. The British have taken the lead in using DNA to solve crimes, creating a database that now includes 2,000,000 profiles. Their database has now reached the critical mass where it is big enough to serve as a highly effective tool for solving crimes. In the U.K., DNA from crime scenes produces a match to the DNA database in 40 percent of all cases. This amounted to 58,176 cold hits in the United Kingdom 2001. (See generally ``The Application of DNA Technology in England and Wales,'' a study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice.) A broad DNA database works. The same tool should be made available in the United States. Some critics of DNA databasing argue that a comprehensive database would violate criminal suspects' privacy rights. This is simply untrue. The sample of DNA that is kept in NDIS is what is called ``junk DNA''-- it is impossible to determine anything medically sensitive from this DNA. For example, this DNA does not allow the tester to determine if the donor is susceptible to particular diseases. The Justice Department addressed this issue in its statement of views on S. 1700, a DNA bill that was introduced in the 108th Congress: [T]here [are no] legitimate privacy concerns that require the retention or expansion of these [burdensome expungement provisions]. The DNA identification system is already subject to strict privacy rules, which generally limit the use of DNA samples and DNA profiles in the system to law enforcement identification purposes. See 42 U.S.C. 14132(b)-(c). Moreover, the DNA profiles that are maintained in the national index relate to 13 DNA sites that do not control any traits or characteristics of individuals. Hence, the databased information cannot be used to discern, for example, anything about an individual's genetic illnesses, disorders, or dispositions. Rather, by design, the information the system retains in the databased DNA profiles is the equivalent of a ``genetic fingerprint'' that uniquely identifies an individual, but does not disclose other facts about him. Elsewhere in its Views Letter, the Justice Department also explained why the restrictive expungement provisions in current law are unnecessary and contrary to sound public policy. The letter noted that the FBI maintains a database of fingerprints of arrestees--without regard to whether the arrestee later was acquitted or convicted. The letter states, ``With respect to the . . . exclusion of DNA profiles of unindicted arrestees, it should be noted by way of comparison that there is no Federal policy that bars States from including fingerprints of arrestees in State and Federal law enforcement databases prior to indictment.'' The Justice Department also pointed out that ``[t]here is no reason to have a . . . Federal policy mandating expungement for DNA information. If the person whose DNA it is does not commit other crimes, then the information simply remains in a secure database and there is no adverse effect on his life. But if he commits a murder, rape, or other serious crime, and DNA matching can identify him as the perpetrator, then it is good that the information was retained.'' From the Chicago study--which examines the experience of just one American city over recent years--we know that an all-arrestee database can and inevitably will make the critical difference in solving and preventing violent sex offenses. From the British experience, we know that a comprehensive database can be a highly effective tool in solving crimes. And we know that DNA databasing does not violate the right to privacy. I urge the Congress to enact the DNA Fingerprint Act--before another preventable sex crime occurs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Chicago study be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Law Enforcement Officers' Protection Act of 2005. This act will guarantee tough, mandatory punishment for criminals who murder or assault police officers, firefighters, judges, court employees, ambulance-crew members, and other public-safety officers in the course of their duties. Attacks on police officers and judges are serious crimes. They merit the toughest penalties. LEOPA imposes the following terms of imprisonment for attacks on public-safety officers: (1) second degree murder, 30 years to life; (2) voluntary manslaughter, 15 to 40 years; (3) assault resulting in serious bodily injury, 15 to 40 years; (4) assault with a dangerous weapon, 15 to 40 years; and (5) assault resulting in bodily injury, 5 to 20 years. The act also imposes commensurate penalties for retaliatory murders, kidnappings, and assaults committed against the family members of public-safety officers. LEOPA includes additional provisions that will deter attacks upon police officers. The act expedites Federal-court review of state convictions for murder of a public-safety officer; it limits the damages that can be recovered by criminals for any injuries experienced during their arrest; it removes arbitrary barriers to retired officers' right to carry concealed weapons under Federal law; it makes it a crime to publicize a public-safety officer's identity in order to threaten or intimidate him; and it increases existing penalties for obstruction of justice and interference with court proceedings. Aggravated assaults against police officers are a serious national problem. According to the most recent F.RI. report on the subject, 52 law-enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the United States in 2003. In the 10 year period from 1994 through 2003, a total of 616 lawenforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in the United States. These officers' assailants unquestionably are among the worst criminals. Of those individuals responsible for unlawful killings of police officers between 1994 and 2003, 521 had a prior criminal arrest, including 153 who had a prior arrest for assaulting a police officer or resisting arrest. The individuals who commit these types of offenses are among the most dangerous members of the criminal class. Tough sentences for these criminals not only protect those who risk their lives to protect us; they also directly protect the public at large by removing a dangerous class of criminals from society. Ordinary assaults against police officers have become a widespread problem. More than 57,000 law enforcement officers were assaulted in the course of their duties in 2003, and more than a quarter of these assaults resulted in injury to the officer. These numbers represent more than one of every 10 officers serving in the United States. Our society apparently has reached a point where criminals feel entitled to assault a police officer when they are being arrested. LEOPA is designed to change that understanding, to show criminals that assaults against police officers are unacceptable. It bears mention that because of improvements in technology, recent years' numbers of officers killed in the line of duty even understate the extent of the violence that officers face. As the Los Angeles Times noted in 1994, ``the number of officers killed--an average of 60 to 70 a year since the late 1980s--would have broken records, too, if not for the advent of bulletproof vests, police experts say; about 400 officers have survived shootings over the last decade because they were wearing protective armor.'' (Faye Fiore & Miles Corwin, Toll of Violence Haunts Families of Police Officers, N.Y. Times, Feb. 21, 1994, at 1). As the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police noted recently, ``there's less respect for authority in general and police officers specifically. The predisposition of criminals to use firearms is probably at the highest point in our history.'' (Jerry Nachtigal, Crime Down, but Number of Police Officers Killed Holds Steady, Associated Press Newswires, Apr. 11, 1999). Violence against police officers also inhibits effective law enforcement. It breeds caution among officers and hinders robust investigation. LEOPA is designed to restore balance to the law. It is designed to ensure that police officers do not fear for their safety when enforcmg the law, but instead, that criminals fear the consequences of breaking the law. Finally, aside from their broader effects on law enforcement and society, aggravated assaults and murders of police officers simply are terrible crimes. The victims often are young and in the prime of life, leaving behind young children, spouses, and grieving parents. A few recent incidents in the news serve to illustrate the horrific toll that these homicides take on the surviving victims: Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Shayne York, 26 years old, was murdered during an invasion robbery while waiting for his fiancee at a hair salon on August 16, 1997. He was killed solely because of his status as a police officer. The Los Angeles Times gave the following account of the crime from the testimony at the killer's trial: The robbers yelled racial slurs and ordered customers and employees to the floor, snatching valuables from everyone inside. When one of the bandits found a law enforcement badge in York's wallet, he kicked York as he lay on the ground, according to testimony from [York's fiancee], also a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy. The gunman asked York if he ever mistreated blacks and Crips gang members at Los Angeles County's Pitchess Detention Center, where York worked. York responded, ``No, sir.'' [The killer,] an alleged Crips gang member, then pointed a pistol at the back of York's head and squeezed the trigger, prosecutors said. [York's fiancee] testified she saw York's body go limp as she felt his blood flowing onto her legs. She said she heard the gunman say, ``I always wanted to kill a pig.'' (Jack Leonard & Monte Morin, Man Guilty of Killing Off-Duty Deputy, L.A. Times, Aug. 23, 2000, at B1.) Deputy York's killer never expressed any remorse over this senseless crime. When jurors read their verdict at his trial, he shouted at them, ``May Allah kill you all, pagans, infidels.'' (Stuart Pfeifer & Richard Marosi, Jury Recommends Death for Robber Who Killed Deputy, L.A. Times, Sept. 8, 2000, at B7.) California Highway Patrol Officer Don Burt, 25 years old, was shot seven times by a member of a street gang during a traffic stop on July 13, 1996. As Officer Burt lay wounded on the ground, the killer shot him in the head. The Los Angeles Times, covering the killer's trial, gave the following account of the testimony describing the devastating impact of Officer Burt's death on his family: [Don Burt's father] relived some of his happiest memories with his son--the wedding of his son and [daughter-in-law] Kristin, and the day he was told he was going to be a grandfather. But the proudest moment for both father and son was when the younger Burt joined the Highway Patrol. ``I pinned on his badge and 1 hugged him,'' the father said, tearfully. ``The proudest I'd ever seen him. The gleam he had in his eye--he was so proud.'' It was a quiet summer night the night his son died, [Burt's father] told the 12-member jury. He and his wife had just finished dinner. The telephone rang. It was their daughter- in-law's father, also a CHP officer, saying there had been a shooting in the area that the younger Burt patrolled. The elder Burt, a 30-year veteran trooper, called the CHP dispatch center to learn more. A patrol car arrived to take the parents to the hospital. ``We drove [to the hospital] in dead silence,'' Burt said. ``I knew my son was dead and 1 couldn't tell my wife. She was sitting there with hope and 1 couldn't tell her.'' Jeannie Burt said she didn't realize how serious her son's injuries were until a few minutes after they arrived at the hospital. ``I thought he wasn't hurt too bad, that everything was going to be all right,'' Jeannie Burt told jurors. But then, ``I saw Kristin's brother and he just shook his head. And 1 knew my son was dead.'' Tears streamed down Jeannie Burt's cheeks through most of her testimony. ``He wasn't perfect, but pretty close to it,'' the mother said through her tears. ``I'm grateful 1 had my son for the 25 years 1 had him. 1 wouldn't trade that with anything. I'm just so sad that my daughter-in-law has lost the love of her life. That his son does not have a father.'' Kristin Burt, widow of the slain officer, said she was seven months pregnant with their first child when her husband of nearly three years was killed. She took the stand Monday, faltering and fighting back tears as she described how the coroner told her that her husband was dead. The coroner ``held my hand and slipped Don's wedding ring into my hand,'' Kristin Burt said. (Louis Roug & Meg James, Rage in the Courtroom, L.A. Times, Apr. 18, 2000, at B1.) Officer Burt's son, Cameron, was born two months after he was killed. Compton Police Officers Kevin Burrell and James MacDonald were shot and killed by a wanted criminal during a traffic stop on February 22, 1993. Newspapers gave the following account of the crime: ``The officers were wearing bulletproof vests when they stopped a red pickup truck about 11 p.m., but were knocked to the ground by bullet wounds to their limbs. With the officers lying in the rain-soaked street, [the killer] pumped bullets into their heads, execution-style.'' (Jodi Wi1goren, Killer of 2 Compton Police Officers Sentenced to Death, L.A. Times, Aug. 16, 1995, at 1.) Officers Burrell and MacDonald were both young men, with all of their parents still living, at the time of their deaths. At the killer's trial, their families described the deep trauma that the crime created. The Los Angeles Times gave the following account: One after another, the mothers and fathers of Officers James Wayne MacDonald and Kevin Michael Burrell took the stand to cry out their losses. Three could not complete their testimony without breaking down so badly that court recessed. Burrell's mother told how she had heard the shots that killed her son a few blocks from her home. MacDonald's father, sobbing uncontrollably, blurted, ``Come home, Jimmy, let me trade places with you,'' when he was asked what he would tell his son if he could bring him back. James and Tonia MacDonald told how they visit their son's grave twice each day in their hometown of Santa Rosa, just to chat. Clark and Edna Burrell told how neither of them can bear to visit the cemetery where their son now lies. ``I heard the shots,'' Edna Burrell said. Then she told how she reasoned that her son had been hit. ``I was listening to my police scanner,'' she said, ``and I knew it was Kevin because I didn't hear them call his name'' on other dispatch calls. ``So when she (a police officer) knocked on my door, all I could do is scream, 'Oh God, they shot my baby. ``, With that, Edna Burrell broke down. Overwhelmed, she was led from the courtroom, past where [ the killer] sat staring straight ahead. Sobbing softly, she repeated what she had said on the stand: ``How could he do that? How could he do that?'' Both sets of parents said the deaths of their sons left them feeling empty, lost and angry. ``The whole time I was praying, just to let Jimmy live until I could see him again,'' Tonia MacDonald sobbed, remembering the hours after she was told about the shooting. ``And then I was so mad at God. All I wanted was to see him one more time.'' All four parents said old friends have fallen away as grief consumed their lives. Mother's Day, James MacDonald testified, has become unbearable. ``This year, when I got up, I didn't tell her (his wife) 'Happy Mother's Day' because it's a tough day,'' he said. ``I could see the tears in her eyes.'' (Emily Adams, Slain Officers'' Parents Tell of Pain, L.A. Times, June 1, 1995, at 1.) It bears mention that all of the criminals responsible for the murders described here were convicted of capital offenses, and will be subject to the expedited federal review provisions in section 6 of LEOPA once they complete their State appeals. Section 6 of the bill is named for Dr. John B. Jamison, a Coconino County, AZ, Reserve Sheriffs Deputy who was murdered while responding to a fellow deputy's call for assistance on September 6, 1982. The killer fired 30 rounds from an assault rifle into Dr. Jamison's car, killing the deputy before he could reach his gun or even unbuckle his seatbelt. Dr. Jamison was survived by his 13-year-old son and 10-year- old daughter. State courts completed their review of the killer's conviction and sentence in 1985. Federal courts then delayed the case for an additional 15 years. One judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit even tried to postpone the killer's final execution date on the alleged basis that the killer was wrongfully denied state funds to investigate a rare neurological condition that his lawyer had learned of while watching television. Dr. Jamison's killer ultimately was executed in 2000--18 years after the crime occurred, and 15 years after federal habeas-corpus proceedings began. Section 6 is designed to prevent these kinds of delays in Federal review of cases involving state convictions for the murder of a public- safety officer. In the district court, parties will be required to move for an evidentiary hearing within 90 days of the completion of briefing, the court must act on the motion within 30 days, and the hearing must begin 60 days later and last no longer than 3 months. All district-court review must be completed within 15 months of the completion of briefing. In the court of appeals, the court must complete review within 120 days of the completion of briefing. In most cases, these limits will ensure that federal review of a defendant's appeal is completed within less than 2 years. This section also makes these deadlines practical and enforceable by limiting federal review to those claims presenting meaningful evidence that the defendant did not commit the crime--defendants would be barred from re-litigating claims unrelated to guilt or innocence. (Defendants still will be permitted to litigate all their legal claims in state court on direct review and state-habeas review, and in petitions for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.) The need for this provision is particularly stark in the judicial circuit that includes my home state of Arizona. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's pattern of blocking capital punishment for all murderers--including those who kill police officers--is well documented. A recent committee report of the U.S. Senate, for example, notes that: ``Data for the last ten years show that outside of the Ninth Circuit, usually 70 to 80 percent of death sentences are affirmed by a [federal] Court of Appeals on collateral review. In almost every year, however, the Ninth Circuit has reversed the majority of death sentences that it reviews. Moreover, this percentage has climbed sharply in recent years . . . In the last three years, the Ninth Circuit has reversed 88 percent, 80 percent, and 86 percent of the death sentences that it has reviewed.'' (S. Rep. No. 107-315 (2002), at 72-73) The Senate report also notes that a core group of Ninth Circuit judges vote to reverse virtually every death sentence that they review. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, for example, had reviewed 31 death sentences by 2002, and voted to reverse every single one. Other Ninth Circuit judges have similar records. As Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski has noted, ``there are those of my colleagues who have never voted to uphold a death sentence and doubtless never wil1.'' He continued: ``Refusing to enforce a valid law is a violation of the judges' oath--something that most judges consider a shameful breach of duty. . . . [But] to slow down the pace of executions by finding fault with every death sentence is considered by some to be highly honorable.'' (Alex Kozinski, Tinkering with Death, The New Yorker, Feb. 10, 1997, at 48-53) This pattern of behavior extends to the Ninth Circuit's review of death sentences imposed for the murder of police officers. In the nine States under the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction, 34 criminals have been sentenced to death for murdering police officers since the late 1970's. Only one--the man who killed Dr. Jamison--has ever been executed. The Ninth Circuit consistently has obstructed all other death sentences for criminals convicted of murdering police officers in the western States. As one Orange County newspaper columnist notes, these numbers reflect poorly on our society's commitment to ensuring justice for slain police officers and their families: When California voters reinstated the death penalty in 1978, they made killing an on-duty peace officer one of the ``special circumstances'' that could subject the killer to execution. The idea behind that was simple enough. If you made killing a cop a death-penalty offense, maybe it would make criminals think twice before doing it. . . . But it's doubtful that the special circumstance concerning peace officers strikes any fear into the heart of a would-be cop- killer. Because in the 24 years since the new death-penalty law was passed, not one cop-killer has been executed in California. During that time, more than 200 California peace officers have been murdered in the line of duty, including eight in Orange County, and dozens of cop-killers have been sent to death row. But not one has died for his crime. True, California hasn't been in any hurry to execute other murderers, either. Since 1978, more than 700 killers have been sent to death row, but only 10 have been executed. But the justice system seems particularly reluctant to actually enforce the death penalty against cop-killers. ``That sends a terrible message,'' says Marianne Wrede of Anaheim Hills, whose son, West Covina Police Officer Kenneth Wrede, was murdered in 1983. ``It says the justice system doesn't respect the sacrifices of police officers and their families.'' (Gordon Dillow, State Balks at Executing Cop- Killers, The Orange County Reg., Dec. 5, 2002) These unconscionable delays have greatly increased the suffering experienced by the surviving families of murdered police officers. Again, a few examples from recent news stories illustrate the nature of the problems created by the current system of decades-long post- conviction review: On August 31, 1983, West Covina Police Officer Kenneth Wrede, 26 years old, responded to a call about a man behaving strangely in a residential neighborhood. Wrede confronted the man, who became abusive and tried to hit Wrede with an 8-foot tree spike. Wrede could have shot the man, but instead attempted to defuse the situation. The man then reached into Wrede's car and ripped the shotgun and rack from the dashboard. Wrede drew his gun and persuaded the man to lay down the shotgun, but the man picked it up again when Wrede lowered his revolver and shot Wrede in the head, killing him instantly. Years later, Wrede's parents described the terrible impact of this crime on their family. Marianne Wrede told of how ``a half hour before local television newscasts would broadcast the story, her doorbell rang. On the steps stood her son's commander and a police lieutenant. Between them stood Kenneth Wrede's distraught wife. `I knew it was bad news,' Marianne Wrede said. `I shut the door in their faces and I said, `It can't be my boy.' '' (Laura-Lynne Powell, Grief Unites Kin of Fallen Officers, The Orange County Reg., June 20,1991, at EO1) Many years after the crime, she reflected that ``every day I miss my son and it never goes away.'' (Anne C. Mulkern & Tiffany Montgomery, Caring Counts in Line of Duty, The Orange County Reg., Sept. 25, 1996, at BO1) Ken Wrede's father also described the impact of the loss of his son. ``My life will never be the same. I deal with it every day; when I hear a police siren and immediately think of my son, when I pull up next to a police car and think that that could have been him. I still stop as often as I can and tell the officers to have a good day and be careful.'' (David Haldane & Michael Wagner, For Some, a Reminder of Past Tragedy, L.A. Times, July 15, 1996, at A3) Officer Wrede's killer was sentenced to death in 1984, and that conviction was affirmed by the California Supreme Court in 1989. Then in 2000--17 years after Ken Wrede's murder--a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the killer's death sentence. The Ninth Circuit found that the killer's lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase because he did not present additional evidence of the killer's abusive childhood and drug use. At the time, Marianne Wrede noted, ``We thought we finally were close to getting this behind us. And now this.'' (Gordon Dillow, Long Wait for Justice Gets Worse, The Orange County Reg., May 11, 2000, at BO1) A California Deputy Attorney General denounced the decision, stating that ``it can always be suggested a jury should have heard something else in the penalty phase of a death penalty case.'' (Richard Winston, Reversal of Death Penalty in Officer's Killing Decried Courts, L.A. Times, May 10, 2000, at B3) West Covina Corporal Robert Tibbets, the original investigator at the scene of Wrede's murder, described the Ninth Circuit's decision as a ``miscarriage of justice.'' (Id.) He had promised Wrede's parents that he would accompany them to every court hearing for their son's killer. He made good on his promise, even 19 years later, when the killer was retried and again sentenced to death in 2002. But the Wredes now face another round of state and then federal appeals. At the retrial, Ken's father noted that ``my family and 1 had endured 19 years of trial, appeals, delays, causing us to relive the trauma of Kenny's death over and over again.'' The trial judge agreed. He stated, ``It is an obscenity to put anyone through this needlessly for 19 years. It is inexcusable for us in the system that we need to look at this case for 19 years to get it resolved. The system at some point in the line has become clogged and broken.'' (Larry Welborn, 19 Years and no Resolution for Parents, The Orange County Reg., Sept. 21, 2002) Riverside Police Officers Dennis Doty and Philip Trust were killed by a man whom they attempted to arrest at his home on May 13, 1982. The man was in bed when the officers arrived and they permitted him to dress. The man then pulled out a gun that he had been sitting on and shot and killed both officers. He apparently sought revenge for injuries that he sustained when he was shot while committing a bank robbery. Officer Doty had served a tour of duty in Vietnam, where he had received a purple heart and bronze star. The State supreme court affirmed the killer's conviction and death sentence in 1991. In 2002, 20 years after the murders, Federal district court reversed the killer's death sentence, finding that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not trust his lawyers. Local Superior Court judge Edward Webster denounced the decision, declaring that he was ``outraged by the entire federal process.'' He declared that ``this [ decision] is just a product of judges'' personal opinions and philosophies opposing the death penalty.'' (Marlowe Churchill, Riverside Judge Takes Federal Court to Task, The Press-Enterprise, July 22, 1995, at BO1) The Riverside assistant police chief noted that the decision was particularly unfortunate for the officers' families: ``They lived this 20 years ago, and not to have closure on the trial process is particularly difficult'' (Mike Kataoka, Court Annuls Death Decree, The Press Enterprise, May 31, 2002, at BO1) Los Angeles Police Detective Tom Williams was shot and killed by a man against whom he had testified several hours earlier in a robbery trial on October 31, 1985. Detective Williams was killed while picking up his son at a day-care center. A local newspaper gave the following account of the crime: ``With [his son] Ryan sitting beside him in the front seat of his truck, Williams, 42, saw the man in the ski mask, saw the automatic weapon pointing out of the driver's side window of the passing car. But he was helpless to do anything to protect himself. All he had time to do was scream for Ryan to get down, then cover the boy with his own body.'' (Dennis McCarthy, Youth Feels Need to Serve, L.A. Daily News, Aug. 24, 1993, at Nl) The Los Angeles Times gave the following account of testimony from the killer's trial: A seventh-grade pupil at a Canoga Park church school testified Wednesday that he saw 6-year-old Ryan Williams sitting on the ground crying moments after the boy's father, a Los Angeles police detective, had been gunned down in the street on Oct. 31,1985. Thomas C. Williams, 42, was picking up Ryan from school at 5:40 p.m. when he was struck by eight bullets from an automatic weapon. The detective died, slumped against the driver's side of his orange pickup truck. . . . [The pupil] said he looked toward Williams' truck, parked in front of the Faith Baptist Church school, and saw the windshield shatter. ``It split into pieces,'' [he] said. ``Then I ducked. I couldn't see anything. I got up because I heard some little boy cry. I walked over. He was sitting on the ground and he was crying and he had a bloody lip.'' (Lynn Steinberg, Boy Tells of Fatal Attack on Detective, L.A. Times, Feb. 11, 1998, at 12) Detective Williams's killer remains on death row today, 20 years after committing this crime. Garden Grove police officer Donald Reed was shot and killed while arresting a man at a bar on June 7, 1980. The killer appeared at first to cooperate with police, but then pulled a pistol from his jacket and began firing. One officer who comforted Reed as he lay on the ground describe the scene: ``I could see a sense of panic in Don's eyes. He said, `I am not gonna make it' '' (Daniel Yi, Slain Officer's Family Testifies, L.A. Times, Feb. 9, 2000, at B1) When Reed died, he had two toddler sons, ages 3 and 1\1/2\. Reed's killer was sentenced to death, but the sentence was reversed on appeal, and he was retried and sentenced to death again in 2000. Reed's sons were 22 and 21 by the time of the retrial. Still coping with the loss of their father, they chose not to attend the second trial. ``I was a mother, a father, I had to teach them everything,'' Reed's widow stated. (Id.) Of her husband, she simply noted, ``He was taken unnecessarily.'' (John McDonald, Officer's Widow Details Trauma, The Orange County Reg., Feb. 9, 2000, at B01) She also described the impact on her family of holding a second trial 20 years after the crime. ``We had all moved on, and then this came back and smacked us in the face. It really just tears you apart.'' (Daniel Yi, Slain Officer's Family Testifies, L.A. Times, Feb. 9, 2000, at B1) Los Angeles Police Officer Paul Verna was gunned down during a traffic stop on June 2, 1983, by two men who earlier had committed a series of violent robberies. The first man shot Verna from inside the car, and the second then exited the vehicle and shot Verna five more times as he lay on the ground. Verna was survived by his wife and two young sons. Years later, the state supreme court reversed the death sentence of one of the killers. A new trial was held in 2000. At the first trial, Verna's widow described the devastating impact of the crime on her family. She spoke of how ``no one who has not done it can know how difficult it is to tell two young boys that the daddy they loved so much is gone.'' (Janet Rae-Dupree, 2 Sentenced to Die for Killing Policeman, L.A. Times, Sept. 21, 1985, at 6) A local newspaper gave the following accounts of the sentencing retrial: Vema's sons were young boys, 4 and 9, when he was murdered. This past week, they testified as young men. They told the jury that they did not have a lot of first-hand recollection of their dad. They did have the memories of stories from their mom and many others as to what their dad was like. Ryan [the younger son] spoke of sometimes feeling uneasy at being told how much he looked like and even acted like his dad, whom he does not remember. Sandy, Verna's widow, spoke of the challenge of properly raising two very young boys alone. (Jim Tatreau, Who Was Paul Verna? Murdered Officer Deeply Missed Hero, L.A. Daily News, Oct. 22, 2000, at V3) ``At age 33, to be a widow--my roles in life completely changed. The very hardest part was when they were very young kids--when Ryan, who was 4 years old when his father died, would get hurt and would cry to his mother at bedtime, `Mommy, I just want my daddy.' I couldn't give that to him, no matter how hard I tried. I could do everything else, but I couldn't give him his daddy.'' (Jason Kandel, Retrial Brings Victim's Family to Tears, L.A. Daily News, Sept. 27, 2000, at

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today: I am pleased to join with Senator McCain to introduce the City of Yuma Improvement Act of 2005. This bill authorizes the conveyance to the city of Yuma of six small parcels of Federal land currently held by the Bureau of Reclamation in exchange for three railroad parcels owned by the city on which the Bureau of Reclamation rail line exists. A companion bill has already been introduced in the House by Congressmen Grijalva and Franks. These land conveyances will enable the city to complete the redevelopment of the riverfront in downtown Yuma. The Riverfront Master Redevelopment Plan was approved by the City Council in November, 2001. The plan was developed through a joint planning process with the city and the developer. The city's responsibility is to amass the property along the riverfront. The developer must raise the needed capital. The redevelopment includes the development of a welcome center, a new hotel, a conference center, and mixed-use retail stores. This redevelopment is designed to connect Main Street with the Heritage Area and the river to enhance the quality of life of Yuma's citizens and one of the primary economic assets of the area--tourism. Most of the land in this 22 acre area is already city-owned. However, the Bureau of Reclamation does own several parcels within the redevelopment area that the city seeks to acquire. Since 2001, when the redevelopment plan was approved, the city and the Bureau have been working together to effectuate this acquisition for this public purpose. These efforts include: relocating, at the city's expense, the Bureau facilities that were within the redevelopment area and completing the necessary environmental analyses of the project area, including historic resource studies, site assessments, and asbestos and lead-based paint inspections. Essentially, the deal is complete with one exception: the authority to accomplish the conveyances. Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation does not have the authority to exchange the lands it possesses for the railroad parcels it seeks--it must be done legislatively. There is broad support in Yuma for this legislated land swap given its public purpose objectives, thorough planning, and the economic opportunity it brings. I hope my colleagues agree and will work with me to pass this legislation this year.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator. I thank the Chair. Let me get back to the Levin amendment which is our pending business. This amendment was tabled last year, and it should be again defeated or tabled. It is an amendment which would, in effect, be a poison pill for the entire bill because, in effect, what it says is if you allege gross negligence or recklessness, then the exemption the bill provides evaporates. So you are a lawyer. All you do is allege gross negligence or recklessness and, bingo, you are back in court again. So it totally undercuts the purpose of this legislation. Secondly, last year the bill didn't contain a definition of gross negligence or recklessness. This year that was corrected, at least after a manner of speaking. But what definition do we have of gross negligence, for example? The bill provides that we turn to section B of the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. The definition of gross negligence under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act is totally different from the case law definition of any State in the Union. It is totally different from the settled or standard concept of gross negligence in tort law. Let me illustrate the difference. Under this bill, the term would mean: Voluntary and conscious conduct, including a failure to act by a person who at the time of the conduct knew that the conduct was likely to be harmful to the health or well being of another person. That is not gross negligence. Black's Law Dictionary captures the essence of the definition. It defines gross negligence as the intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another. And it consists of the conscious and voluntary act or omission which is likely to result in grave injury when in the face of clear and present danger of which the alleged tortfeasor is aware. And the standard, obviously in comparison to the Levin standard to be inserted into the statute this year, is quite different. Even if the judge were to look to the standard itself, he would find that that standard is significantly different than the usual concept of the term and does not rise, in any meaningful way, to what any of us who have practiced tort law would understand gross negligence to mean. Third, this is a highly regulated industry by law, by Federal law and State law and even some local laws. And most of the acts that would meet the definition of gross negligence would already be in violation of law. And if they are in violation of law, they are not exempted from this legislation. We don't try to exempt any gun manufacturer for conduct which is in violation of law. So by definition that would be an exemption from the provisions of the bill, if it becomes law, and therefore would not need to be included. The bottom line here is that if there really is a problem, that is to say, the conduct is so bad that it is a violation of law, no lawsuit is precluded under our bill in any way. And if it doesn't rise to that level, then it should not be considered to be within the concept of gross negligence under that term as it has always been applied in tort law. The definition that is to be substituted this year is clearly not a definition most of us would deem appropriate under these circumstances. So in fact if the gross negligence or reckless conduct of a person was the proximate cause of death or injury--that is the allegation--you are in court irrespective of this bill, and clearly it totally undercuts the purpose of the bill. So, Mr. President, I urge that our colleagues vote against the Levin amendment or table it, as was done last year, and recognize that this is designed to totally undercut the bill and, for that reason, would not be an appropriate amendment to be adopted.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today: I am pleased to join with Senator McCain to introduce the City of Yuma Improvement Act of 2005. This bill authorizes the conveyance to the city of Yuma of six small parcels of Federal land currently held by the Bureau of Reclamation in exchange for three railroad parcels owned by the city on which the Bureau of Reclamation rail line exists. A companion bill has already been introduced in the House by Congressmen Grijalva and Franks. These land conveyances will enable the city to complete the redevelopment of the riverfront in downtown Yuma. The Riverfront Master Redevelopment Plan was approved by the City Council in November, 2001. The plan was developed through a joint planning process with the city and the developer. The city's responsibility is to amass the property along the riverfront. The developer must raise the needed capital. The redevelopment includes the development of a welcome center, a new hotel, a conference center, and mixed-use retail stores. This redevelopment is designed to connect Main Street with the Heritage Area and the river to enhance the quality of life of Yuma's citizens and one of the primary economic assets of the area--tourism. Most of the land in this 22 acre area is already city-owned. However, the Bureau of Reclamation does own several parcels within the redevelopment area that the city seeks to acquire. Since 2001, when the redevelopment plan was approved, the city and the Bureau have been working together to effectuate this acquisition for this public purpose. These efforts include: relocating, at the city's expense, the Bureau facilities that were within the redevelopment area and completing the necessary environmental analyses of the project area, including historic resource studies, site assessments, and asbestos and lead-based paint inspections. Essentially, the deal is complete with one exception: the authority to accomplish the conveyances. Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation does not have the authority to exchange the lands it possesses for the railroad parcels it seeks--it must be done legislatively. There is broad support in Yuma for this legislated land swap given its public purpose objectives, thorough planning, and the economic opportunity it brings. I hope my colleagues agree and will work with me to pass this legislation this year.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. So we would have the opportunity if we were to invoke cloture to debate the Defense authorization bill for 30 hours.

Mr. KYL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: Under the rules of the Senate, would it not be possible to debate the Defense authorization bill for 30 hours if we had voted for cloture or if we do vote for cloture?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I express support for the Senate resolution honoring the 15th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This piece of legislation is a celebration of the uniquely American notion that all of our citizens can contribute to society if we provide them with the tools and opportunities they need. Since the law was enacted in 1990, some 54 million disabled Americans have had better opportunities for employment and education. Our public spaces and transportation systems have been improved to ensure access to everyone. The Americans with Disabilities Act gives all people the opportunity to enjoy what American society has to offer, and it has changed public attitudes. The perception of helplessness and dependency has been largely replaced by a recognition that, with the aid of appropriate accommodations, disabled Americans can participate fully in all fields of civic life. In commending all those involved in the passage of this legislation, we should take time to single out then Senate Majority leader Bob Dole. Senator Dole's sacrifice for his country and service in the Congress prove that disability need not be debilitating. I admire the courage and perseverance of the millions of Americans who live with disabilities every day. This resolution celebrates not only the passage of the ADA, but also the positive contributions that all Americans make to our society.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is with reluctance that I urge that Senator Lugar's amendment be defeated. I say with reluctance because the spirit with which he offers this amendment is in keeping with his original concept, along with Senator Nunn, for providing assistance from the United States to countries with weapons we want to see eliminated, dismantled; primarily at that time the Soviet Union, now Russia. Through the program which was adopted which bears his name, Senator Lugar has helped not only to ensure the continued support for the program, but on a personal basis I am aware he has traveled frequently to these countries and personally participated in what he calls the hands-on implementation of the program, and in his case it has literally been hands on. So not only has he helped to sponsor the legislation, seen to it it is implemented every year, expressed frustration when delays have occurred--I have heard him do that--but he has also gone to these countries and helped to see to it that it is carried out in the proper way. It is therefore understandable when he expresses frustration at the fact that in the past the bureaucracy of the United States--and I am sure there are other reasons for this, too--has resulted in delays in making available funding for the program to be carried out in an expeditious way. We have all seen that in different kinds of programs, but it must be especially frustrating in this particular case. It was at least partially in response to that that the committee has offered a solution which is embodied in the bill which grants a permanent waiver authority for the President so that this problem of the past need no longer be a problem. In other words, the conditions that have been established that Senator Warner referred to, conditions for making the funds available for the dismantling of these weapons, can and have been waived. They can be waived and they have been waived. There is that authority in the law. But we go a step further in this bill by granting that permanent waiver authority for the President so that he doesn't have to rely anymore upon this slow-working bureaucracy to get the reports prepared, to answer the questions of whether the Russians have been cooperating fully, and all the other requirements which I will allude to in a minute. That is no longer a requirement. To some extent, I say with all due respect, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem. Whatever problem existed in the past, it should not exist in the future. In fact, the letter referred to from Secretary Rice notes that one alternative to the solution, and the problem that was discussed by Senator Lugar, is included in the April 7, 2005 defense transportation transmittal to Congress of the National Defense authorization bill and would renew permanently the authority under which existing certification requirements may be waived. That is precisely what was included in the bill. I suspect all Members support that. The question is, Why do we need to go the step further and remove what have been very important conditions to the granting of this money? There are two reasons for these conditions, but before I discuss them, let me state what they are so everyone knows what we are talking about. The first set of these were actually instituted at least partially as a result of Senator Warner's work in the authorizing legislation to make sure that the American taxpayers knew that the money we would be spending on this dismantlement would, in fact, be spent wisely. It is, in fact, a justification for the expenditure of taxpayer funds. But the conditions go further than that. What they do is tell a country such as Russia, for example, that we care about what they are doing; that, for example, we would not want to use our money to dismantle one of their weapons if they are going to turn right around and use their money and build a replacement. No one would want that to occur. That would not make any sense. That is one of the conditions, and it lets the Russians and others know that if they expect U.S. taxpayer assistance, they have to do their part as well. That is only reasonable. Here are the conditions: that the President certify that the recipient nation is committed to making substantial investment of its resources for dismantling or destroying WMD. It should not be a one-way street. It should not be just the obligation of the United States to help other countries dismantle their weapons. Second, forgoing any military modernization program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements and forgoing a replacement of destroyed WMD. That is what I referred to before. We would not want to be using taxpayer dollars to help Russia, for example, dismantle an aged weapons system, for example, only to see it use its money to replace that system with one that is even more robust and more threatening. That, obviously, is simply aiding the Russians in modernizing their forces. Obviously, that is not what this program is about. Three, forgoing any use of nuclear weapons of fissionable or other components of destroyed nuclear weapons. This is a key component in what Senator Lugar intended, and I am sure he agrees with this concept that we do not want them taking fissionable material out of the weapons we are destroying and putting them into a new weapon. That defeats the entire purpose of the destruction program. Four, facilitating U.S. verification of any weapons destruction carried out in the CTR Program. Obviously, if we are spending our money on dismantling these weapons, we have a right to at least do some checking to see whether it was done. When we set out to do the job, did it in fact get accomplished? I know from stories I have heard or reports I have read that the Russians--the Soviets before them--had an entirely different concept of how this might work. They have whole cities devoted to their weapons complex. One of their ideas was that U.S. money should be used to provide assistance to the people in those cities who were dismantling their primary means of making a living; we should provide them other ways of making a living and relieve the suffering they might occasion as a result of not having a job building these weapons anymore. That represented the difference of opinion about how our taxpayer dollars should be used and how the Russians saw it at the time. Another condition: complying with all relevant arms control agreements. Now, that ought to be a pretty minimal and bottom-line requirement. If we are going to be doing business with a country and providing taxpayer dollars to dismantle weapons, we want to make sure they comply with the agreements they have signed on arms control. Finally, observing internationally recognized human rights, including the protection of minorities. This is not directly related to the subject of the CTR, but it is something we have all agreed is an important goal that the United States has and a way for us to remind these countries that they need to be paying attention to this kind of issue as well as the dismantlement issue. These conditions are useful to continue to apply pressure to a country such as Russia to do the right thing, to provide assurance to the American taxpayer that our money is being spent appropriately, and also to provide Congress with the kind of information we need to ensure our continued support for the program. And they do, in fact, provide us that confidence. There has always been a waiver authority, and the President has exercised that waiver authority because, as Senator Lugar noted in the past, there have been delays in getting the certifications--that the Russians have met these requirements, for example--delays which have created problems in getting the resources to the country in time to do the dismantlement that was planned. So the President exercised that waiver authority. The current problem is that the waiver authority will expire in September of this year. That is one of the reasons we need to get this bill passed, so the waiver authority that is granted in the bill--now permanent authority that does not expire--will be the President's to exercise in the future. That will largely obviate the problem that has been discussed. The problem is not the conditions. The conditions are perfectly appropriate. Every Member would agree that there is nothing wrong with the goals of these conditions. The problem is in the implementation of the statute. That has apparently taken longer than it should have in certain cases. It has resulted in people being able to delay the program and perhaps not intentionally but at least unintentionally delaying the program because the conditions have to be certified. That is why the waiver has had to be used in order to get around the problem. As I said, when Secretary Rice responded to Senator Lugar's letter, she noted that one of the alternative solutions to the one proposed by Senator Lugar was this permanent waiver authority, which is what we have included in this bill. There is also a second very important aspect of this. We were having a hard time in using the CTR assistance for chemical weapons destruction in Russia. It was precisely because of that that conditions were specifically inserted into the law, and I will get the citation in a moment. But specifically, we added requirements for the CTR assistance to the elimination of the chemical weapons, and this program added conditions, and I will note for the record what those conditions are; it added these conditions so that we could actually begin providing assistance to add to the nuclear assistance the elimination or destruction of the chemical weapons so that program could go forward in Russia as well. The eligibility requirements, the conditions for CTR assistance, certainly no one would argue are inappropriate or should be repealed. It simply is a question of whether they have been administered in a way that has facilitated the implementation of the statute. From my point, I think they do remain an important element in assuring the American taxpayer that our dollars are being expended wisely here as well. They are also important to maintain strong public support for the program. Again, I said that it is with reluctance I oppose the amendment because of all the work Senator Lugar has done. No one is more keen to ensure that this program can work in the future than Senator Lugar. However, I also think we would probably all have to agree that the conditions themselves are totally appropriate conditions; that with the exception of human rights, they all pertain to the effectuation of the program itself; that they do serve the purpose of ensuring that countries such as Russia understand they have some obligations, and also providing information to Congress that permit us from year to year to continue to support the program. It is not the conditions themselves that are the problem; it has been the implementation of the program. And in the past, apparently, this has been a problem. The waiver authority has solved these problems but on a temporary basis. From now on, the President will have permanent waiver authority if we pass this bill. I believe that should be a solution to the problem that would be agreeable to all. Now, there may be some who want to go further and eliminate these conditions as well. I don't think that is necessary to make it work, and I do think there would be a downside for the reasons I have articulated. That is why I oppose the amendment, and I hope that the committee's mark, the bill we have before us, will be sustained when there is a vote on this amendment.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will speak to the underlying bill for a moment. I find it interesting in debating this Homeland Security appropriations bill, there have been many colleagues come to the floor expressing the intention to amend the bill to add more resources here or there or someplace else. I think it is instructive that the chairman of this subcommittee has this year determined it is beyond the time that we need to begin fully funding some of the particular accounts that enable us to better control our border and that my colleagues are now coming, I suggest in the case of some later than I would like, but at least to the realization that we have not begun to put the resources to controlling our border and some of our other homeland areas of need that we should have. This is a good development in the sense that we are finally beginning to realize we have not done what we should do. But I am troubled a little bit that there still is not adequate funding available to do everything we need to do on the border that I am concerned about, and that is our southwest border. Compliments to the subcommittee and to the Appropriations Committee for substantially increasing the funding for more Border Patrol agents, for more detention space for people whom we have to detain who should not be in the United States and who cannot be returned to their country of origin immediately, for the technology which is funded here, and for all the other things we are trying to do to secure our border. Congratulations to Chairman Gregg and to the other members of the committee for doing this. For my colleagues who would like to add more, I appreciate their efforts as well because we all know that whatever we are able to do this year, it is still not going to be enough to actually gain control of our border. One of the problems that has arisen is the problem of what the border control calls ``other than Mexican'' illegal immigrants. As we all know, most of the people coming across our southwestern border are from the country of Mexico, but a lot of them are simply transiting through Mexico. This population is of increasing concern to us. In fact, we were recently informed that already this fiscal year over 119,000 third-country nationals, that is third country other than Mexico, have been apprehended crossing our borders. We know there is a rough rule of thumb that three or four are not apprehended for every one that is apprehended, so you get a situation here where it is pretty clear that we have a huge influx of people coming into the United States from countries other than Mexico. What does this mean? We know most of the people coming in from Mexico are coming for work. Perhaps some have criminal backgrounds or other nefarious purposes, but at least we don't suspect most of them are coming here for purposes of harming us. In the case of these ``other than Mexican'' nationals, the same thing cannot be said because between 20 or 30 of these countries are countries of special interest to the United States; in other words, countries from which terrorists have come. The question is both on the southern and on the northern border, which is equally a problem here, how many of the folks coming into this country from countries other than Mexico mean us harm? We all know, for example, that in the days of testimony from former DHS Deputy Secretary Loy, advising the Senate Intelligence Committee, that: [r]ecent information from ongoing investigations, detentions and emerging threat streams strongly suggest that al-Qaida has considered using the southwest border to infiltrate the United States. . . . Several al-Qaida leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico, and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entries for operational security reasons. Secretary of State Rice commented later that: We have from time to time had reports about al-Qaida trying to use our southern border. . . . [it] is no secret that al- Qaida will try to get into this country . . . by any means they possibly can. . . . [t]hat's how they managed to do it before and they will do everything they can to cross the borders. There is at least one specific case of a terrorist having been apprehended coming into the United States. There is more we can discuss here, much of it involving intelligence, but on both the northern and southern border there is a threat that people could come into this country and we would not be able to stop them. We wouldn't even know they are here. And clearly because of that means of entry as opposed to coming, say, from an airplane from London or another city, you could at least be carrying contraband here that could be detrimental to us in the form of a chemical or biological agent. It is even conceivable you could bring nuclear material in as well. So the security of our borders is critical to homeland security, yet up to this year we have not had the kind of appropriations necessary to begin making a dent in the problem. I am, again, exceedingly grateful to the chairman this year for seeing to it we are able to get that funding to begin this effort. One of the concerns about these ``other than Mexican'' detainees I mentioned is that, unlike the case in Mexico where we can simply send people back to the border to be returned, to be repatriated to their country, it is not that easy in the case of people from other countries. Obviously Mexico will not take them because they are not Mexicans, even though they transited through Mexico. So you have to begin a long, drawn-out process of contacting the country of origin and trying to get the paperwork in order to see if you can get the country to take the individual back, to begin that repatriation process. Some countries will not even take their people back. Other countries take a long time. What do we do in the meantime? Obviously we need to detain those people. So we detain them--right? Wrong. There is not adequate detention space. So we give them a piece of paper and say, Come back in 90 days or 30 days, whatever the time period is, and report in so we can remove you from the United States. Guess how many of them voluntarily return for removal to their country of origin? The percentages differ, but you get my drift. A very high percentage choose to simply meld into American society and become part of our illegal population here. That cannot continue. We have called repeatedly on the Department of Homeland Security to come up with a plan to ensure that we can detain these individuals until their time for removal. It has yet to come to us. One very worthwhile program is called ``expedited removal.'' The chief of the Border Patrol, David Aguilar, testified before my Terrorism Subcommittee recently that it is their intention and hope to begin to expand this expedited removal program to all of the Border Patrol sectors on the southern and southwestern border. There are 20- some sectors, but only two have expedited removal today, the Laredo, TX and Tucson, AZ sectors. Here is why that is important. In most cases the average time to remove one of these detainees from another country is at least 3 months. It is about 90-some days. In the case of expedited removal we can actually accomplish this within less than 30 days, so at least you lessen the time for detention. You cut that in third, by one-third, and therefore if you have to put somebody in a detention space that is federally owned, you don't have to kick somebody else out in order to detain this person. If you have to rent the space from somebody else, it is going to cost you about one-third as much. It costs about $90 a day to house one of these detainees, and you can do that in State and local detention facilities. The bottom line is we don't have enough of that detention space, so even today people are not being detained. They are being released on their own recognizance, told to come back when the paperwork has been developed with their country of origin so they can be returned. That is wrong. We have to get the money to detain these folks and make sure we have a policy to do so at the same time we are trying to expand the expedited removal. There is money in this bill for that detention. Again, I thank Senator Gregg for his alertness to this problem and willingness to put money in against the problem. But I fear the Department of Homeland Security has still not got a plan in place to both pursue the expedited removal for all sectors and, in the meantime, detain those who need to be detained. If we should have a situation arise, as arose in England recently, in Great Britain, where people have come into the country--in this case they appear to be indigenous to the country itself--but where they have decided to engage in some act of terrorism, and it has been our own fault that we have allowed them to meld into our society illegally, then obviously we have no one to blame but ourselves. I am calling this to the attention of my colleagues in the hope we can continue to both provide the funding the administration needs and to encourage the administration to get onto the solution of this particular problem as well. The problem here is multipronged. I think all of us have understood that with the event in Great Britain a week ago, it illustrates to us the kind of harm that can be caused by a conventional kind of attack of terrorists. It doesn't take a major 9/11 kind of attack to create this kind of chaos. Yet it calls into question what we could do to provide total security within our homeland, because a train station, a bus station, other places of public congregation--be they shopping areas, sports events or the like--all suggest it is a virtual impossibility before the fact to provide 100-percent security. It simply cannot be done. That is why you have to try to prevent the problem from arising in the first place. I will close by noting that part of our effort, in this appropriation bill, in order to control the border itself, is to provide a thousand new Border Patrol agents at the border, also 300 new Immigration and Customs investigators, the new enforcement agents. This bill provides 460 of those. Incidentally, all of these are in addition to numbers provided in the supplemental appropriations bill. So we have added to the number that we already acted on at the end of last year. We fund over 40,000 positions dedicated to protecting our borders and enforcing immigration laws. To break it down, over 12,000 Border Patrol agents, 18,000 Customs and border protection officers, nearly 6,000 criminal investigators, nearly 1,300 deportation officers, 2,700 immigration enforcement agents and detention officers. We also have money for more training of Border Patrol and immigration enforcement personnel. We have money to support the deployment of the US VISIT Program, which will help us better track the people who both come into our country and leave the country. We have over a half billion dollars for air and marine operations, as I mentioned before, money for over 2,000 new detention beds for these apprehended illegal aliens, and with the supplemental, that adds about 4,000 new detention spaces for this purpose. We more than double the number of ports that have our container security initiative, 41 that take part in that, and nearly $1 billion for biological countermeasures. These things, by and large, are in place to try to prevent the capability of the terrorists from pulling off an attack in the first place. They are not responding to an attack after it has occurred. We have to have responses, but our primary goal here should be to take the fight to the enemy, to try to provide the protection going in, because there is no way, once they are in the United States, to protect every bit of this wide-open and liberty- loving society. So it is better to try to stop them before they get here, and it is better to try to degrade their ability to attack us by taking the fight to them. That is why later on we are going to get into things such as reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act, on which we just heard testimony, as a critical component in our war on terror and protecting our homeland and other ways in which we can take the fight to the enemy. For now, this appropriations bill provides us a significant capability to stop the terrorists at our border as well as providing some internal protection in those areas that have the highest priority and for which we can get the biggest bang for the buck in terms of protection. Again, I compliment the members of the Appropriations Committee, particularly the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, for their attentiveness to this issue, their willingness to make a significant effort to help fight this battle. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation when we get to that point.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator McCain to introduce the Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2005. This legislation strengthens the investigative and enforcement authorities of the underlying Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. Native arts and crafts are the only indigenous art of America. Unauthentic reproductions and mass produced knock offs undercut sales of genuine articles, discouraging young Native Americans from learning traditional artisans' techniques and their decisions to pursue jobs in other industries. The end result is that if less Native people are practicing their arts, those traditions risk extinction. It would be a tremendous loss to the entire country's cultural heritage to lose these traditions. The Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, which I coauthored with now retired Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell when we were both Members of the House of Representatives, was enacted in response to growing sales of arts and crafts products misrepresented as being produced by Indians. It is a truth-in-advertising law, with civil and criminal provisions, that prohibits the marketing of products as ``Indian made'' when such products are not made by Indians as defined by the act. It is intended to protect Indian artists and craftspeople, businesses, tribes, consumers and our cultural heritage. Since the passage of the 1990 Act, we have had an opportunity to assess its effectiveness and make changes as necessary through the legislative process. Last year, now retired Senator Campbell and I, on the recommendation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board, agreed to consider amending the act to strengthen its investigative authority and enforcement provisions. The Board was becoming concerned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, charged with investigating violations of the act, needed some help. Fewer complaints that had been referred for investigation were receiving the attention they deserved and meritorious cases were not making it to the Attorney General for prosecution. During the last Congress, we proposed amending the act to strengthen the investigative and enforcement authorities, but these amendments were not enacted prior to adjournment. I am happy to say, the new Indian Affairs Committee chairman, Senator McCain, recognized these concerns still existed, and we agreed to work together to address them. The Amendments we are introducing today build upon the work in the last Congress. When enacted, they will make the act even more effective. The amendments expand the investigative authority under the act to include all Federal law enforcement officers as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 115 (c)(1). Expanding the investigative authority to include other Federal law enforcement beyond the Federal Bureau of Investigation will permit agencies with expertise in Indian issues and cultural resources, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement and the Department of Interior Cultural Resources, to thoroughly investigate complaints and work with Department of Justice attorneys to enforce these cases. The FBI will still have the ability to conduct such investigations should it choose to do so. I hope it will. These amendments also recognize the important role of the Attorney General in enforcement. The amendments require the transmission of all investigation reports from Federal investigators to the Attorney General. The Attorney General can work directly with the investigators, and prosecute cases that warrant prosecution without waiting for the report to be referred by the Indian Arts and Crafts Board. This is an efficiency measure and is not designed to take away any authority the Board has to refer cases to the Attorney General. The Board will continue to receive all investigative reports and make referrals. I believe these amendments to the act will strengthen the investigative and enforcement authority under the act and increase the number of complaints that are investigated and prosecuted. These violations are serious, and we need to provide the necessary federal resources to put an end to these crimes and preserve the cultural heritage of our Native people. I look forward to swift passage of these amendments.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator McCain to introduce the Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2005. This legislation strengthens the investigative and enforcement authorities of the underlying Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. Native arts and crafts are the only indigenous art of America. Unauthentic reproductions and mass produced knock offs undercut sales of genuine articles, discouraging young Native Americans from learning traditional artisans' techniques and their decisions to pursue jobs in other industries. The end result is that if less Native people are practicing their arts, those traditions risk extinction. It would be a tremendous loss to the entire country's cultural heritage to lose these traditions. The Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, which I coauthored with now retired Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell when we were both Members of the House of Representatives, was enacted in response to growing sales of arts and crafts products misrepresented as being produced by Indians. It is a truth-in-advertising law, with civil and criminal provisions, that prohibits the marketing of products as ``Indian made'' when such products are not made by Indians as defined by the act. It is intended to protect Indian artists and craftspeople, businesses, tribes, consumers and our cultural heritage. Since the passage of the 1990 Act, we have had an opportunity to assess its effectiveness and make changes as necessary through the legislative process. Last year, now retired Senator Campbell and I, on the recommendation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board, agreed to consider amending the act to strengthen its investigative authority and enforcement provisions. The Board was becoming concerned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, charged with investigating violations of the act, needed some help. Fewer complaints that had been referred for investigation were receiving the attention they deserved and meritorious cases were not making it to the Attorney General for prosecution. During the last Congress, we proposed amending the act to strengthen the investigative and enforcement authorities, but these amendments were not enacted prior to adjournment. I am happy to say, the new Indian Affairs Committee chairman, Senator McCain, recognized these concerns still existed, and we agreed to work together to address them. The Amendments we are introducing today build upon the work in the last Congress. When enacted, they will make the act even more effective. The amendments expand the investigative authority under the act to include all Federal law enforcement officers as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 115 (c)(1). Expanding the investigative authority to include other Federal law enforcement beyond the Federal Bureau of Investigation will permit agencies with expertise in Indian issues and cultural resources, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement and the Department of Interior Cultural Resources, to thoroughly investigate complaints and work with Department of Justice attorneys to enforce these cases. The FBI will still have the ability to conduct such investigations should it choose to do so. I hope it will. These amendments also recognize the important role of the Attorney General in enforcement. The amendments require the transmission of all investigation reports from Federal investigators to the Attorney General. The Attorney General can work directly with the investigators, and prosecute cases that warrant prosecution without waiting for the report to be referred by the Indian Arts and Crafts Board. This is an efficiency measure and is not designed to take away any authority the Board has to refer cases to the Attorney General. The Board will continue to receive all investigative reports and make referrals. I believe these amendments to the act will strengthen the investigative and enforcement authority under the act and increase the number of complaints that are investigated and prosecuted. These violations are serious, and we need to provide the necessary federal resources to put an end to these crimes and preserve the cultural heritage of our Native people. I look forward to swift passage of these amendments.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will just take 1 minute. The point I want to make is to correct something that was incorrectly noted before. It was stated this will be a brand new weapon. The truth is that this weapon was already developed during the Clinton administration. Using the current B61, which is a nuclear warhead, the B61 mod 11 was developed as an earth penetrator weapon. But it was determined by feasibility studies that it did not have sufficient capability to penetrate and thus provide a deterrent. The B61-11 is not sufficiently hardened to penetrate certain target geologies. So the feasibility study is designed to determine whether a more robust outer casing, which still protects the internal components of the warhead, could be developed for the B83 warhead. That is all it is, is to determine whether an existing warhead could be used with a different casing to penetrate, and thus replace a weapon that is already in our inventory.

Mr. KYL. I believe the agreement was that I had 5 minutes.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, that is exactly correct. There are no plans-- none--to test any kind of nuclear weapon. The study, as the Senator from Alabama has noted, is not to test any kind of nuclear weapon but simply to determine whether or not a casing, and fuse, and the other elements of a weapon could be designed to include an existing nuclear warhead within it in order to have this kind of capability. I believe my time is up. I inquire of my time.

Mr. KYL. Yes.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the Central America Free Trade Agreement, which is not just important for job creation and business opportunities in Arizona, but for the economic and political futures of five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic, all of which are eagerly awaiting the passage of this trade agreement. CAFTA will enhance both economic and political ties between Central America and the United States. It will also help promote freedom and democracy in our own Hemisphere. The United States exports $15 billion annually to the CAFTA-DR countries--El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic. This is more than our exports to Russia, India, and Indonesia combined. In my home State of Arizona, our top agricultural exports to the region are beef, vegetables, and cotton. We also exported more than $208.9 million in manufactured goods to CAFTA countries. The American Farm Bureau estimates that CAFTA will increase farm exports from Arizona to CAFTA countries by $8 million per year for beef, $1 million per year for vegetables, and $800 thousand per year for cotton, part of a total future annual increase of $12.14 million in agricultural exports over the anticipated pre-CAFTA growth level. The total national increase in agricultural products to CAFTA countries is estimated at over $1.5 billion, and manufacturing exports nationwide will increase dramatically as well, which is great for Arizona where 25 percent of the manufacturing jobs depend on exports. CAFTA will also reduce the U.S. trade deficit by $756 million. While the U.S. economy has been growing steadily over the past 2 years, creating record numbers of new jobs, we can expect even more growth with the passage of CAFTA. That, in turn, will foster the growth of Central American economies. Take, for example, the textile industry in the Central-America region. The CAFTA countries are the largest consumers of U.S. apparel and yarn exports, and the second largest consumers of U.S. fabric exports. 11,000 Arizonan jobs are supported by the textile industry, and approximately 700,000 Americans are employed in the yarn and textile sectors. The yarn and fabric we create and export to Central America and the Dominican Republic support another 500,000 jobs in the apparel sector in those countries. By working together, the United States and CAFTA countries can more efficiently compete with large textile markets such as those in the Asia region. With the expiration in 2004 of global multi-fiber quotas in effect since the 1970s on textiles and apparel, regional producers face a new competitive challenge from Asian imports. CAFTA would provide regional garment-makers--and their U.S. or regional suppliers of fabric and yarn--a critical advantage in competing with Asia. Many Arizona farmers and businessmen are excited about the economic growth CAFTA will bring them. There is also just as much excitement in Central American countries. I have been to El Salvador and I can tell you that people there are looking to the United States to pass CAFTA to give them better opportunities and a higher standard of living. They have hope that their country's economy will see dramatic growth, increasing jobs and the wages that those jobs pay. Without CAFTA, they fear that jobs once performed by El Salvadorian workers will be moved to Asia. CAFTA gives El Salvadorians hope for a better economic future, which means a more stable and peaceful future, through rising wages, decreasing unemployment rates, and more affordable basic commodities. This will raise the standards of living in El Salvador, as well as the other countries in this region. The President of El Salvador has said that CAFTA matters most to his country because it will strengthen the foundations of democracy by promoting economic growth, providing a solution to the persistent problem of poverty, and creating equality of opportunity. And by addressing the underlying problems of poverty and unequal economic opportunities, CAFTA will help stem the tide of thousands of Central Americans who leave their homes seeking a better life in neighboring countries to the north. CAFTA will help Central Americans to earn better livings and successfully support their families in their home countries. Economic growth fosters stability and peace throughout this region. To strengthen democracy in the region, its people need to see concrete benefits from economic freedom--tangible improvements in their daily life. When a middle class develops and people have a larger economic stake in their society, they demand more of a say in how that society is run. This is critical for a region's democratic success. We can be instrumental in the region's democratic, as well as economic, success by passing CAFTA now. If we fail to pass CAFTA, America will be turning its back on the hopes and dreams of our southern neighbors. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the Republican Policy Committee's recent policy paper, ``The U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement is a Win-Win.'' This paper goes into further detail as to why the CAFTA agreement is in America's interest.