Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee for his devotion to this issue during his entire career in the Congress. I don't think that this is a complicated question that is here before us today. I think that it is very clear. It is very clear in terms of the values of the American people. Why wouldn't a Congress, any Congress, offer health insurance for its most vulnerable citizens, the little ones, of our country?

That is what is on the floor today. That is what is on the floor. They are smart, and they are grinning. Grinning. But do you know what? There are going to be the votes for this bill, and the bill is going to pass. And imagine the person that stands at the doctor's door and not allow children to go through: the President of the United States.

This is a bipartisan effort. The people of our country want us to come together for the families of this country, for the betterment of our country, to make an investment. Yes, through taxing tobacco. I would rather tax tobacco and protect the children of our country than to blow $10 billion a month in Iraq. I am proud of the Democrats. I am proud of the Republicans that support it. We should pass this and say a prayer that the President will come out of his cloud and sign the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Health Subcommittee as well as all of my colleagues that have worked so hard to bring this bill forward. So I rise, obviously, in support of it because I think the bill is going to make an enormous difference in the safety and the effectiveness of drugs and medical devices used to treat adults and children.

I think the bill also strengthens the FDA. I think the American people want the FDA to be an agency that is strong in its protection of consumers around the country. We know that there have been shortcomings that have had terrible effects on many families in our country. So, I think this bill is a victory in that arena.

I am also pleased that the bill adopts much of my legislation relative to children and pharmaceutical drugs for children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has instructed us that only about 25 percent of drugs administered to children have been appropriately tested and labeled for use in kids. Pediatricians often had to prescribe adult pharmaceuticals for children by telling parents, ``cut the pill in half, cut it in thirds, cut it in quarters.'' We understood that we had to do better. By every measurement, the reauthorization of this legislation, previous legislation, was supported because it was very, very successful. We know that children are not small adults, and the legislation recognizes that. We have reauthorized, and we are doing the right thing.

I am pleased that the blockbuster provision is not a part of this legislation. The other body supported that. I didn't. This bill doesn't. In all negotiations, there is always give-and-take. There are items I supported that didn't make it into the package, including the permanent extension of the Pediatric Research Equity Act, which I championed, obviously, as part of my legislation in the original House bill. I hope that we can get to this at some point. I am sorry it is not in this bill.

Overall, I want to thank all of my colleagues that made this possible and that we are here today; certainly, Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton, most especially the professional staff, because they do so much work, no one more than John Ford of our staff, and Virgil Miller. I would like to also thank Jennifer Nieto Carey, formerly of my staff, who worked so hard and extensively to help bring us to this point.

So this is a good bill. I think the whole House should support it. I think it is a tribute to the substance of it, that it is coming up under suspension. I salute everyone that made the effort a winning one. Most importantly, I think the bill is a winner for the people of our country, both children and adults.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3580, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act.

This bill will make an enormous difference in the safety and effectiveness of drugs and medical devices used to treat adults and children.

I'm pleased that the bill adopts much of my legislation (H.R. 2589, Improving Pharmaceuticals for Children Act) to renew the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) and the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA). Together, BPCA and PREA represent two halves of a comprehensive effort to make sure that prescription drugs are appropriately tested and labeled for children.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, about 25 percent of drugs administered to children have been appropriately tested and labeled for use in kids. Pediatricians often have to prescribe drugs for ``off-label'' use, because the drug has not been studied in appropriate FDA-approved pediatric clinical trials. Children are not small adults; they have specific medical needs that have to be considered when drugs are used. Children have died or suffered serious side effects after taking drugs that were shown safe for use in adults but had different results in children.

The bill helps improve drug safety for children in two ways. First, under BPCA, the bill provides an incentive, an extra 6 months of marketing exclusivity, for a drug if the innovator company agrees to undertake comprehensive pediatric studies requested by the FDA. Second, under PREA, FDA is granted authority to require studies when there is a demonstrated need and drug companies are required to submit a pediatric assessment each time they apply to market a new drug or change an existing drug's indication.

I'm pleased this bill continues the BPCA incentive without the so- called ``blockbuster provision'' adopted by the Senate. The Senate's proposal would have reduced the incentive for drugs with annual sales of $1 billion, and, I believe the Senate language had the potential to kill ``the goose that laid the golden egg.'' The 6-month incentive has worked. According to GAO, 81 percent of the time FDA has offered this incentive for a drug, drug companies have accepted, undertaking studies that have generated pediatric data that would otherwise not have been available. Scaling back the incentive for ``blockbusters'' would risk that proven record of success. That is a gamble on the

health of children, and I'm pleased it's not in the bill.

In all negotiations there is give and take. There are items I supported that didn't make it into this package, including the permanent extension of PREA which I championed as part of my legislation and the original House bill. I hope we'll have a chance to revisit the issue in the next reauthorization, if not sooner.

On balance, this bill will make a huge improvement in the safety of drugs and devices. We should pass it and send it to the President today.

I want to commend Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton and the professional staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, especially John Ford and Virgil Miller, as well as Jennifer Nieto Carey formerly of my staff, who worked extensively on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I was not present during rollcall votes Nos. 865-866 on September 10, 2007. I would like the Record to reflect how I would have voted: On rollcall vote No. 865 I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall vote No. 866 I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation which I am proud to cosponsor, and I congratulate Chairman Berman for his exceptional leadership and on this complex issue.

I am proud to represent Silicon Valley, which is known worldwide for the innovation and developing technologies that continue to change and improve our lives. Nowhere in America--nowhere in the world--are ideas, invention, and intellectual property more important.

Patents and IP are the cornerstone of the Information Economy, and it is essential that the United States patent system continue to foster the ideas and innovation which fuel our economy and keep America competitive.

The patent system, unfortunately, has been subject to abuse, and unscrupulous opportunists have exploited the rights granted to legitimate patent holders to target innovative companies and file groundless lawsuits based on dubious patents.

The rapid pace of innovation and increasingly complex patent filings have strained the Patent and Trademark Office and patent claims of questionable validity have been granted.

Loopholes and shortcomings in the disposition of patent cases also allow baseless claims of infringement to create unnecessary litigation and extort nuisance settlements, sapping billions from economic growth, and creating a drag on real innovation.

Technology companies have become particularly enticing targets for this litigation because of the broad importance of patents to technology products. Just a single piece of high-tech equipment can contain hundreds of patents, and any one of them can now be used to sue for the value of the entire product.

One company in Silicon Valley--Cisco Systems--spent $45 million this year to defend patent infringement cases.

It is time to implement reforms to the patent system and ensure that we reward truly novel ideas and cutting edge innovation, not successful litigation strategies.

This bipartisan legislation enjoys broad support throughout the technology industry, major universities including the University of California, as well as major consumer groups such as Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and U.S. PIRG.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill which will restore balance to our patent system.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this energy package because the energy policies we adopt over the next 5 years will determine the future of life on our planet.

For too long, our energy policies have moved us in the wrong direction. Although we briefly made some progress in the mid-1980s because of increases in fuel economy standards, overall oil consumption has increased by nearly 4 million barrels per day since the mid-1970s. In that time, oil imports have also increased from approximately 40 percent to 60 percent. That dependence is putting our economic leadership and national security in peril according to top business leaders and national security experts.

The threat of global climate change has also grown and threatens to fundamentally change the global landscape. The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has given us a clear picture of the role that human activities, particularly our energy consumption, play in global warming, and it has projected severe impacts for our planet and our way of life.

Dr. James Hansen, NASA's renowned climate expert, now warns that we have less than a decade to start making significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if we're going to avert the most severe impacts of global climate change.

Top businesses, including the Big Three U.S. automakers, have also agreed that we must reduce greenhouse emissions in the U.S. by 60 percent to 80 percent by 2050.

Just as important, there are 2 billion people living in the developing world, including China and India, who do not have access to reliable sources of energy. They are striving to secure reliable energy and to achieve the prosperity we enjoy.

These factors represent both a challenge and an opportunity for our country and the world.

Silicon Valley, which is in my Congressional district, has reinvented itself time and again to anticipate the next economic challenge and opportunity. Today, the Valley is focused on energy, investing billions in new technologies and start-ups.

It's time for Congress to recognize and respond to these facts by taking a new approach on energy policy, and that is what this bill does.

Instead of addressing issues of supply and demand and promoting dinosaur-age technology, we are fixed on achieving two goals: becoming energy independent and addressing the threat of global warming.

This legislation is not the end of our efforts; it is the first step in meeting these goals. It is signal legislation.

The bill cuts $16 billion in incentives for the oil and gas industry and invests it in renewable energy and efficiency. This includes eliminating the so-called Hummer tax loophole which gives a $25,000 tax deduction for the purchase of SUVs weighing more than 6,000 pounds. I introduced the first legislation in the House to close this loophole in 2003. By taking this step alone, we will save nearly $800 million that will be invested in consumer tax incentives to promote solar energy and plug-in hybrid vehicles.

The bill also raises 43 efficiency standards for appliances and buildings. Once fully implemented, the bill will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 10 billion tons. That is more than the emissions of all the cars on the road today. Included in this effort is a provision I proposed to improve the efficiency of computer data centers--the facilities that are the backbone of our information economy.

I believe we can and should do more.

First, we should do as California and many other States have done: Adopt a national renewable electricity standard (RES) and I will vote for the RES amendment that will require 15 percent of our electricity to come from renewable resources.

Second, we need to address the fuel economy of our automobile fleet. Although this is not part of our debate today, I look forward to addressing it as we take up additional energy legislation in the fall.

Madam Speaker, we have a long way to go toward fully addressing global warming and energy independence. This energy package represents an important first step and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

In listening to my colleague from California, he talked about technology, and I think I know something about it. I represent the place, Silicon Valley, which is the home of innovation and technology for our Nation and the world, but this isn't just a matter of how. This is a matter of who, of who.

Now, for the American people that are tuned in, what is this debate about? We all know that there are sworn enemies of our country. There are those that would do us harm and do us in, and every President of the United States deserves the best intelligence. We take an oath to protect our country and also to protect our Constitution.

So where's the dispute here? The dispute is that this bill allows the Attorney General, without any legal framework, when someone from outside the country calls, our government can monitor you, and we are saying that this is an abrogation of rights that we have.

This side, what we have fought for all along is to protect our country, protect our Constitution and have a legal framework. This is the administration that had to acknowledge that they were operating outside the law. This is the Attorney General that has disgraced himself, his office and the department with how he has conducted himself. Most frankly, this should not be a matter of trust of individuals. This should be a matter of legal framework, a matter of law, and this bill does not accomplish it.

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to honor a distinguished American, a trusted friend and constituent, Melvin B. Lane, who passed away on July 28, 2007 at the age of 85.

Mel Lane was born in 1922 in Des Moines, Iowa, and moved to San Francisco in 1928 with his family when his father purchased Sunset Magazine, a travel magazine. He graduated from Palo Alto High School and Pomona College and earned his Bachelor's Degree from Stanford University. He married the love of his life, Joan Fletcher Lane, and they had two beautiful daughters, Whitney and Julie.

Mel returned home after serving in the U.S. Navy during World War II and began working for Lane Publishing Co. and Sunset Magazine and Books. He and his brother, Ambassador L.W. ``Bill'' Lane, ran Lane Publishing for nearly 40 years, during which they helped make Sunset a national leader in advertising and transformed the book division into a major enterprise with hundreds of successful titles.

In 1965, Mel was drawn into environmental politics when then-Governor Pat Brown appointed him to the post of Chairman of the newly- established San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, a partnership of industry, government and the environmental community. Under Mel's strong leadership, the Commission established and implemented a plan to govern use of San Francisco Bay, which supports one of the Nation's busiest ports as well as a wide variety of fish and wildlife. His success on the Commission led to his appointment by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1972 as the first Chairman of the California Coastal Commission. The San Francisco Bay Plan and the California Coastal Plan, both of which were developed under Mel's leadership, still serve to this day as the blueprint for coastal protection around the world. Throughout his tenure on the Commission, Mel was an extraordinary advocate for environmental protection, always arguing that it was crucial to a healthy economy.

After retiring from the Commission in 1977, Mel continued his conservation work with the Peninsula Open Space Trust, the World Wildlife Fund, and he helped to establish the California Environmental Trust. He also served as a Trustee at Stanford University from 1981 to 1991, where he created an environmental institute and led efforts to establish a long-range land-use plan on campus in addition to rebuilding Stanford Memorial Church after the Loma Prieta earthquake. He also chaired the Sierra Club's National Advisory Committee, the California Fund for the Environment and the Conservation Foundation. In 1998, he was named Conservationist of the Year by the California League of Conservation Voters.

Mel was well-known amongst his friends and colleagues for his loyalty, his reliability and his quiet strength which he brought to everything he did. He was a man of great integrity and everyone who knew him came away a better person.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a national treasure and an exemplary American who changed the way we think about conservation. Mel Lane was a beloved husband, devoted father and trusted friend. He loved his community and his country, served both with distinction, making our Nation a better place for generations to come.

I thank our distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

I have listened very, very intently to the discussion on the floor this evening, as well as the news programs that have covered the debate about the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as well as participated in the many, many hearings and discussions at the House Intelligence Committee as a member of that committee and feel very privileged to have done so.

I can't help but think of those whose shoulders we stand on, our predecessors in the House of Representatives in the Congress of over 200 years. Would any of them, would any of them for a moment accuse another Member of not wanting to fully protect the Nation that we are sworn to protect and the Constitution that we are sworn to uphold? That's what this debate is about.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was born in 1978. And the reason our predecessors, Republicans and Democrats, set down this law was because of the abuses of those high in our government at that time, Richard Nixon. And Republicans and Democrats in the Congress as well as Republican and Democratic Presidents have honored the law, but they have also seen fit to change it, from 1978 on, to fit the needs of this great Nation.

And so to talk about blood on someone's hands, that there are some that do not love and want to protect this country does not deserve to be debated or even stated in this House. We all take the same oath. We all take the same oath. And when we take that oath, we say ``to defend the Constitution of the United States.'' That is the steel of our Nation. The flag that is behind us is the heart of our Nation, but the Constitution is the soul of our Nation.

And so, in all of this we say ``rule of law.'' This is not to cheapen FISA. This is not, as the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, making fun of attorneys and saying we're sending it off to people that are going to quibble. We are talking about the rule of law.

The Democratic leadership last night gave the principles to the DNI, Director of National Intelligence, last night. Something happened after that, and it's not satisfactory. But we will not turn over to an Attorney General who has misled the Congress, who has now made a hospital visit famous, who came to the Hill and lobbied for torture, we are not going to give over what we believe should dictate all of this, and that is the rule of law.

Madam Speaker, we rise today with great sorrow to honor the life of Joseph Nicholas Espinoza of Sacramento, California, who died in a tragic accident on July 23, 2007.

Joseph Espinoza was known to his family and friends as Joey. At a family dinner on May 25th, he celebrated his 21st birthday. He was 'best friend' to his brother John, his sister Marina, his cousins Sean, Connor and Michael, and his girlfriend Gina. He admired his father, confided in his mother and always sought their loving advice. He was a musician and an athlete, and was gifted in math and science, and his goal was to become an architect.

Joey was loved and always will be by his childhood friends and their families. His family knew that he was honest and earnest, that he had great energy and a tender and generous heart. He was open and trusting and was the keeper of the secrets of many who counted on his encouragement and courage.

Joey is survived by his parents Kate and John Espinoza of Sacramento, his brother John, and his sisters Marina, Kelly Rose, Jeannie and Mendi. He leaves his loving grandmothers Rose King and Rose Espinoza and he is mourned by his many aunts, uncles and cousins of his parents' families.

Madam Speaker, we hope this tribute to Joey will be a source of comfort to his family. We have known and treasured his grandmother, Rose King, for almost 40 years and we share her immeasurable grief. She has been the great anchor of her family and she has contributed mightily to the well being of Californians through her dedicated public service spanning many decades.

Our Nation has lost a precious citizen and we ask today that the entire House of Representatives join us in honoring the life of Joseph Nicholas Espinoza and extend to his grieving family our deepest sympathy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to provide minimum ``dwell-time'' for our troops who have served in Iraq.

Madam Chairwoman, I opposed the war in Iraq from the outset and will continue to do so.

In 4 years, the war has done great damage to our global prestige, our national morale, and our national security. More than anything, it has damaged our military and their families.

It is Congress's duty to ensure that our troops are treated with respect and that they have resources for the missions they perform. Equally important, it is Congress's job to ensure our troops have the rest and training they need. With this bill, we will do right by our military personnel and their families by ensuring they have adequate time at home between deployments.

The Defense Department has established a goal to provide active duty service personnel

with 2 years at home between each year they are deployed, and 5 years at home for every year of deployment for reserves.

Regrettably that goal has not been achieved. In fact, the policy has been waived by the Defense Department for those serving in Iraq.

In the last 4 years our troops and reserves have shouldered the burden of multiple deployments overseas with professionalism and courage. The strain on them and their families grows with each day they are away from home, yet tours of duty have been extended time and again. Just this past April, Secretary Gates announced that tours of duty for the Army would be increased from 12 months to 15 months.

The strain is not only being felt by our troops and their families, it's also affected the Armed Forces, particularly the Army, in meet recruiting and retention goals.

With this bill, we call for time between deployments for active-duty personnel in Iraq to equal to or exceed the length of their most recent deployment. For National Guard and Reserve units and members, the bill calls for time between deployments of at least three times longer than the length of their most recent deployment.

This may seem like a small step, but for our troops it's essential.

I urge my colleague to vote yes on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Member, the chairman of the House Science and Space Committee.

Mr. Speaker, Americans of my generation and my parents' generation as well have always accepted it as an article of faith that the United States of America would lead the world in innovation, in ingenuity, and in invention. And, no matter what the challenge would be, that we as a Nation would rise to that test, we would meet the competition, and we would come out on top.

It was true in the 1930s, when President Roosevelt responded to the concerns of scientists in our country about the Nazi government and what they might develop with the Manhattan Project. It was true in 1961, when America awoke to the fact that a Soviet cosmonaut had been launched into space, and President Kennedy responded by saying as a Nation we have to commit ourselves to achieving the goal that, before the decade was out, that we would land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth. And we did when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon in 1969 and took a giant leap for mankind.

We know that there is a gathering storm when it comes to innovation and competition for our country, and that is what this legislation directs itself to.

We have to perform. We have to produce more scientists, more mathematicians, educate our children, invest in science, and research. That is what this bill is about.

I have an optimistic view of America. I don't share the somewhat depressed view that the distinguished minority leader offered. We can, we have in the past, we will in the future. This legislation today helps to lay the groundwork for our sure economic footing so that the 21st century is an American century.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kingston Amendment which would strike language from the bill to implement a fundamental change to the FDA's drug safety laws by allowing the commercial re- importation of prescription drugs.

The bill is a vast expansion of current policy. Besides allowing individuals to bring drugs across the border for their personal use, the bill would allow pharmacists and wholesalers to re-import prescription drugs for sale in the U.S.

Let me address the myth that allowing prescription drug reimportation will dramatically reduce drug costs for Americans. This has never been proven and according to a 2004 report by the Department of Health and Human Services, estimated savings to individuals would be less than 1 percent. I'm concerned about taking serious risks to patient health for little or no gain.

It's important to remember why prescription drug re-importation was banned in the first place. Nearly 20 years ago, Congressman John Dingell introduced and passed the Prescription Drug Marketing Act. He did so on the heels of a multi-year investigation by the Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee's investigation uncovered a string of abuses that were harming patients, including widespread importation of counterfeit drugs, drugs that had been tampered with and drugs that were incorrectly dosed or wrongly labeled. It showed that wholesalers who brought drugs back into the U.S. had no idea where the drugs originated, who they were buying them from and whether they were stored properly.

These problems have only worsened in the years that have followed. In 2003 the FDA and Customs Service found that 88 percent of imported medicines entering the U.S. were unapproved or otherwise illegal.

Mr. Chairman, the FDA is already a beleaguered and underfunded agency, a fact which was borne out by the recent incidents involving the importation of dangerous food and drug products from abroad, including tainted dog food and toothpaste, and Congress continues to struggle to find revenue for this vital agency. To require the FDA to take on the additional mandate of policing imported drugs will only place additional burdens on an already strapped agency.

I understand the concern of many of my colleagues about the cost of prescription drugs, particularly for elderly Americans, and I believe there are ways to address these issues without endangering public health. We cannot and should not jeopardize the safety of our rug supply on the unproven mechanism of re-importation.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting YES on the Kingston Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, today is one of the most exciting days since I've come to the Congress, having been elected first in 1992. I think today is a day of history, a day of history for the children of our country, because the fact is that there are nearly 9 million American children without guaranteed access to health care in our Nation today. I think that is a national shame.

Today, we correct that. We build on a successful bipartisan program of Republican and Democratic Governors, of leaders in the Congress past, of a program that has worked.

It has not been riddled by fraud, and what we do today very simply is add 5 million American children in the rolls of health care. It is private insurance for almost all of the States.

We also strengthen Medicare. I would suggest that my friends on this side of the aisle are on the wrong side of history.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Chairwoman DeLauro for her excellent work on this bill and to address a specific issue that is of growing importance to my constituents.

This March, the light brown apple moth (LBAM), an exotic pest native to Australia, was discovered in California. The moth has been damaging to growers in Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties in my district. In Santa Cruz County, nearly 6,000 moths have now been detected.

This pest can affect a wide variety of plants, flowers, fruits and vegetables, and virtually any crop with a leaf is a potential host.

In order to halt the spread of this pest, USDA has imposed a quarantine in California counties where the moth has been found. Growers in these counties must subject their operations to a visual inspection to demonstrate that their facilities are not infested before they can be cleared to ship produce. For growers within 1.5 miles of a confirmed discovery of the moth, each shipment must be cleared by an inspection.

Canada and Mexico have also placed restrictions on the import of California products.

The quarantine and restrictions are a burden on growers in my district as well as on State and county agriculture officials, but it is a burden they recognize is necessary to prevent the further spread of the light brown apple moth.

What is critical is adequate Federal support and funding for the eradication and inspection effort. The USDA provided $5 million for this effort at the outset and they are seeking an additional $12.5 million through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). The request has been pending with OMB for several weeks now and it needs to be approved.

Even if the funding is released, it may only carry operations through the end of the year. In the coming years, it may take several million dollars more to ensure the job is complete.

This was a relatively late breaking issue to be addressed in this appropriations bill, and I commend Chairwoman DeLauro for recognizing how serious it is and for including report language that calls on the USDA to secure all funds needed from the Commodity Credit Corporation to eradicate the light brown apple moth. In the Senate, $1 million is included within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) specifically for this purpose.

As we move forward with this bill and subsequent legislation to deal with agriculture disasters, I look forward to working with the Chairwoman and my colleague, Mr. Farr, to build on what is already in the House and Senate bills in order to ensure that sufficient funding is provided and that it is made available in a timely fashion.

Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report.

This week marks 3 years since the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, issued a comprehensive set of bipartisan recommendations to Congress to address the shortcomings in our Nation's intelligence infrastructure that led to the tragic attacks of 9/11.

While Congress acted on some of the recommendations, many of the Commission's most important recommendations sat on a shelf for two-and- a-half years, until the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress.

We acted quickly to pass legislation to:

Ensure homeland security grants are targeted for states and high-risk urban areas based on risk of terrorism;

Improve interoperability of first-responder communications at local, State, and Federal levels;

Provide over $4 billion over 4 years for rail, transit, and bus security grants;

Mandate screening of all maritime cargo within five years and all airline cargo within 3 years; and

Provide sunshine on the activities of the Intelligence Community by requiring the President to publicly disclose the total budget for the intelligence community.

Now that the Senate has also acted and we have the Conference Report before us, I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation and send it to the President's desk for his signature.

These are not partisan issues. Assessing blame for past failures will not help us protect our future. However, refusing to recognize these failures and not take the critical steps to ensure that they don't ever occur again is not acceptable.

The American people owe a great deal to the work of the 9/11 Commission and the inspired leadership of the families of 9/11 victims, without whom the original legislation would not have become law.

These reforms are long overdue and we should not waste another day in enacting them into law.