Bobby Jindal

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for that generous introduction, for yielding time as well.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard now from I think every member of Louisiana's delegation. We have heard from both parties telling you how important this bill is for Louisiana's future. So many of us saw after the disastrous storms of 2005 Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, both storms, so many people wondered wouldn't it have been more effective to have prevented, to have defended against that damage in the first place? Indeed, we heard and recited numbers that are familiar to residents of Louisiana; for example, knowing that every couple of miles of healthy wetlands reduces tidal surges by a foot. We heard, for example, for years there have been projects in the works to raise the levees around New Orleans. We heard, for example, that for years there have been studies after studies on the Morganza-Gulf and other hurricane protection projects. And what we saw that awful year was incredible destruction, incredible loss of life. We also have learned, and we have seen, that every year Louisiana loses 30 miles a year off our coast. That year alone we lost 200 miles off our coast. Many of the Nation's best environmental scientists say that now is the time to act, not just for Louisiana but for America.

Louisiana is home to 30 percent of the Nation's fisheries. Thirty percent of the Nation's energy production comes off of Louisiana's coast. Investing in restoring Louisiana's coast is important for the people of Louisiana. But it is also important for the people of the entire country all over the United States.

Now, as we rebuild from the storms, I certainly want to thank my colleagues on both sides for their continued support, for their generosity. But that is the reason I stand today, to ask for your continued support by voting to override this veto of this very important piece of legislation.

In terms of Louisiana's ongoing recovery, passing the WRDA bill is one of our three top priorities, in addition to full funding of the Road Home program, as well as continued support of offshore revenue sharing so that we can repair our coast, repair our levees, make our people safe. I have heard several colleagues on this House floor, Democrat and Republican, talk about the need to encourage people to come back to south Louisiana and talk about the need to help businesses come back, help hospitals and medical offices open their doors, help schools reopen. Again, we are thankful for the help that has already been provided to make those things possible. More help is needed.

But all of that is dependent on making people safe. All of that is dependent on guaranteeing to the people of south Louisiana that they can be safe living and working in their communities. The WRDA bill takes a huge step forward, whether it is the 100-year flood protection authorization for the greater New Orleans area, whether it is the Morganza-Gulf project, whether it is the port projects. These are incredibly important hurricane and flood protection projects.

This is a bill long overdue. This House is accustomed to passing a WRDA bill every couple of years. This bill is over 7 years overdue. I would encourage my colleagues to vote to override the veto of this very important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the 2005 hurricane season featured 14 hurricanes, including Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the gulf coast and became the most costly natural disaster in U.S. history. The season's hurricanes were responsible for over $100 billion in damage and over 1,800 deaths. Both Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated my home State of Louisiana.

On August 23, 2005, Hurricane Katrina was nothing more than a mass of organized clouds over the Bahamas, but later that day, the storm quickly intensified and headed toward the U.S. coastline. Late on August 25, the storm made the first landfall just south of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, as a category 1 hurricane. By early in the morning of August 28, Hurricane Katrina's winds reached a remarkable 175 miles per hour, a category 5 storm. Hurricane Katrina seemingly intensified overnight from category 3 to a category 5 hurricane.

Just before Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August 29, NASA's QuikSCAT satellite mapped the storm's wind speeds. The data from the satellite helped forecasters describe Katrina's dangers in public information bulletins issued just before the storm slamming into New Orleans. Unfortunately, forecasting efforts may be crippled as data from the QuikSCAT satellite will become unavailable as the satellite's lifespan expires.

Measuring a storm's intensity and tracking its direction are critical to determining appropriate level of emergency preparedness efforts. Forecasters need alternate methods to measure intensity in order to convey potential storm damage. In addition to space-based monitoring platforms on which hurricane research and forecasting scientists rely, new research is now being conducted by NOAA that will allow forecasters to recognize rapid changes in intensity much more quickly.

The National Hurricane Research Initiative has been estimated to have an annual cost of as much as $300 million, but will accelerate and improve measurement of hurricane wind structure. The President's 2008 budget request calls for just $2 million in additional studies aimed at improving hurricane intensity forecasts, an area that the NOAA Administrator claims is one of the agency's key concerns.

The amendment that I offer to the appropriations bill would double the President's increase for NOAA's hurricane intensity research. The amendment adds an additional $2 million to improve NOAA's ability to forecast hurricane intensity and to provide better and more usable information for emergency managers and the public. The activities will aid NOAA's operational hurricane forecasters and improve understanding of hurricane intensity and changes in storm structure, especially on the gulf coast where residents are so sensitive about potential evacuations, it would be extremely helpful to have better and more accurate information about intensity as well as the direction of a storm.

The offset comes out of salaries and expenses in the General Administration for the Department of Justice. This account received $104.7 million, which is $6.9 million more than last year's funding levels.

My amendment will reduce errors in the 48-hour hurricane intensity forecasting. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

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

If the gentleman would yield?

I certainly would be happy to withdraw the amendment. I look forward to working with the chairman. I thank him for his interest in improving the ability of NOAA and to predict the accuracy and intensity of hurricanes as they form along the coast.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, the Labor-HHS Subcommittee has funded the Center for Disease Control's Division of Tuberculosis Elimination at $150 million in this bill. Over the past 15 years, funding for this program has been level. There has been no increase in funding for this program since 1993.

Madam Chairman, every State and most major cities have TB control programs. Approximately 75 percent of the funds appropriated for this program are used in the States.

Funding for this program is critically important because just last year, in 2006, more than 20 of the 50 States had increases in TB cases. My home State of Louisiana, as well as most other States, have a large number of workers who travel the globe to share their expertise. Unlike tourists who stay in hotels in environments where TB exposure does not normally occur, Louisiana's oil and gas workers spend months working and living in environments among the local population where exposure can and does occur. TB exposure in these communities can result in many fatalities.

Another key issue for States and cities is the huge number of foreign-born students attending universities in the United States. More than half of the TB cases in the United States stem from foreign-born students who come here on student visas and often return home for summers and holidays, risking exposure in their home country. While risk of exposure is high for these students, their return to universities in the United States with the possibility of a latent TB infection creates the same problem seen in oil and gas workers.

If the disease is activated, the number of people exposed is tremendous. The last such case at a Louisiana university exposed 120 contacts in classes as well as in the dorms.

At present, there is no mandatory screening of this group, and no vaccine to prevent disease. The Georgia man whose case recently made headlines was exposed while volunteering overseas. As in his case, volunteers or overseas workers can return to the United States with a latent TB infection and activate the spread of this disease in the United States, later exposing family, friends and coworkers. No routine screening is performed, and no effective vaccine is available to prevent the spread of this disease.

My amendment is supported by the American Lung Association, American Thoracic Society, National Coalition for the Elimination of Tuberculosis, and the National TB Controllers Association.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I won't take a lot of time. I just want to make one point.

I do thank the gentleman and the chairman for recognizing the good intent behind the amendment. I do want to point out that the offset still leaves in that account more money than what the President requested in his budget. The rationale for offsetting from that account is that, according to the administration there is a duplication of effort between the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, the State Department, USAID, and other agencies. So, even with the offset, we still leave more money in those accounts than the administration itself requested.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, the current bill provides $37.2 million for nurse education and retention at level funding from the last fiscal year.

Nursing is the Nation's largest health care profession, with an estimated 2.9 million active, licensed registered nurses. However, only 212,927 of these RNs received their licenses after 2000.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects there will be approximately 1 million new job openings for registered nurses by 2010.

In 1980, 26 percent of RNs were under the age of 30. Today, less than 9 percent of RNs are under the age of 30, with the average nurse being 46.8 years of age.

In 2004, the highest level of educational preparation for nurses was 17.5 with a diploma, 33.7 percent had an associate degree, 34 percent had a baccalaureate degree, and 13 percent with a master's or doctoral degree.

The number of full-time nursing faculty required to fill this nursing gap is approximately 40,000. Currently, however, there are less than 17,000 full-time nursing faculty in the system.

The average age of a nursing professor is 52, and the average age of an associate professor is 49. Retirement accounts for about 25 percent of the decline in nurse faculty.

In 2005, 81 percent of accredited nursing schools stated they needed additional faculty. Only 350 to 400 nursing students receive doctoral degrees each year. Given that 52 percent of nursing schools require doctorate degrees as a criterion for professorship, it is imperative to increase the number of student nurses receiving doctoral degrees.

Because of the faculty shortage of those both willing and skilled to teach, nursing schools turned away over 30,000 qualified applicants in 2005 and 16,000 in 2004 to entry-level BA nursing programs.

Madam Chairman, my amendment directs an additional $37.2 million for nurse education retention, which would double funding from fiscal year 2007 levels. This account targets the education, practice and retention in response to the growing nursing shortage.

And in anticipating a potential objection that the amendment doesn't specify this, it will be possible to fund this amount from other accounts while still providing increased funding for other accounts, for example, like Job Corps' construction and renovation or Job Corps administration. In other words, within the underlying bill, it is possible to fund this amount while still providing increases to other accounts. Other accounts have been increased. I simply would like to make sure that we provide additional funding to address the critical nursing shortage that we are facing in our country, to both improve access, improve quality and decrease the cost of our health care.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The amendment actually increases and reduces funding, so it's more to indicate an intent. But as an example, what I offered as an example was it would be possible to fund this amendment from accounts, for example, from the increase in the Job Corps construction and renovation account, from the Job Corps administration account, from other accounts that have been increased, while still leaving increases in those accounts.

So, even though this amendment does not take money from those accounts, it could be funded in that way.

If the gentleman would yield, again the amendment increases and then reduces by $37.2 million. But, for example, the money could come from the Job Corps construction and renovation fund, which is currently funded at $12.9 million above the President's request, from the Job Corps administration fund, which is funded at $28 million above last year's.

Absolutely. The amendment doesn't do this. But, for example, $7.9 million could be taken from the Job Corps construction and renovation fund. From the Job Corps administration fund, $14 million could be taken. From the community service employment fund, the remaining funds could be taken. In all three cases, it would actually leave more funding than was there in fiscal year 2007.

So, again, the amendment doesn't actually reduce those accounts by those three amounts, but the funding could be provided in that way, still leaving increased funding in those three accounts.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.