Jim Turner

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) for their work on producing this conference report. I am pleased that the report contains more funding than was requested by the President.

However, it is clear that this conference report does not contain the level of resources needed to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security, our Border Patrol agents, our airport security workers, our port directors, and our first responders urgently need in order to make America safe.

This failure has occurred despite vigorous efforts to strengthen the bill. The ranking member of the House Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and the ranking member of the Senate committee, Senator Byrd, attempted to add $2 billion to the conference report for critical homeland security needs; but, regretfully, they were defeated on a 9 to 8 vote.

We are at war against al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden declared one year after 9/11 that his goal is to kill 4 million Americans. Business as usual is not an option. Our terrorist enemies are not waiting. We must do all we can as fast as we can to protect this country.

The administration tells us regularly that al Qaeda may attack us anywhere, any time, and admits that we are not as safe as we must be. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission issued that same warning.

Faced with the reality of an imminent threat of another terrorist attack, the President requested only a 4.6 percent increase, about $1 billion, in our homeland security funding for this fiscal year. We spend that much in Iraq every week. In last night's debate, the President declared that he has tripled homeland security funding since 9/11. That $20 billion increase, however, is only 2 cents out of every dollar of Federal discretionary spending.

The gap between the rhetoric of protecting the homeland and the reality of protecting the homeland is wide indeed.

The fiscal policies and priorities of the President and the Republican leadership are a record of wrong choices while America is at war. While the President expresses pride in spending $20 billion more on homeland security last year than we spent in the year of 9/11, the President's tax cuts gave the top 1 percent of American taxpayers, those making over $1 million, four times that amount of tax cuts, all the while America is at war.

The reckless fiscal policy that has been pursued by the Republican leadership has resulted in our government borrowing $422 billion last year alone. This is half of all of the money we appropriated to fund the entire government last year.

For the first time in American history, we have sent young men and women into war while passing the burden of paying for it to the next generation.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we have not taken strong enough action in the wake of 9/11 to make our country safe from terrorist attack. Here are a few examples: America is not safe when we fail to install sufficient numbers of radiation detection monitors at all of our ports of entry. America is not safe when we fail to screen 100 percent of the cargo that travels on passenger planes. America is not safe when over 24,000 illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico are caught, but released into our communities because the Department of Homeland Security lacks funding for detention space.

America is not safe when we screen only 5 percent of the 7 million cargo containers that enter our country each year for weapons of mass destruction. America is not safe when the government has only enough anthrax vaccine in our stockpile to inoculate 500 people. America is not safe when our Nation's first responders lack the equipment they need to talk to one another in the event of an emergency. America is not safe when the Department of Homeland Security's own Inspector General concludes that 3 years after 9/11 we still lack an integrated, comprehensive terrorist watch list. And America is not safe when our border inspectors and our police officers do not have access to the full range of information held by our government on terrorist suspects.

We all know that it is only a matter of time before al Qaeda strikes us again. Can we say in all honesty that we have made America as safe as we need to be if we increase our investment in protecting the American people here at home by no more than what we spend in 1 week in Iraq?

It is all about choices, and there can be no doubt that the American people will hold us accountable for the choices we make.

We are at war against al Qaeda. Usama Bin Ladin declared 1 year after 9/11 that his goal is to kill 4 million Americans. ``Business as usual'' is not an option. Our terrorist enemies are not waiting. We must do all we can--as fast as we can--to protect our country.

The administration tells us regularly that al Qaeda may attack us anywhere, anytime--and admits we are not as safe as we must be. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission issued the same warning.

Faced with the reality of imminent threat of another terrorist attack, the President requested only a 4.6 percent increase--about $1 billion--in homeland security funding for this fiscal year--we spend that much in Iraq every week. In last night's debate, the President declared that he has tripled homeland security funding since 9/11. That $20 billion increase, however, is only 2 cents out of every dollar in fiscal discretionary spending.

The gap between the rhetoric of protecting the homeland and the reality of a real commitment to protect the homeland is wide indeed.

The fiscal policies and priorities of the President and the Republican leadership are a record of the wrong choices while America is at war.

While the President expresses pride in spending $20 billion more on homeland security last year than in the year of 9/11, the President's tax cuts gave the top 1 percent of American taxpayers--those making more than $1 million a year--four times that amount--all while America is at war.

This reckless fiscal policy has resulted in our government borrowing $422 billion last year alone--this is over one-half of all the money we appropriated last year to fund our entire government.

For the first time in American history, we have sent young men and women into war while passing the burden of paying for it on to their generation.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we have not taken strong action in the wake of 9/11 to make our country safe from terrorist attack. Let me give you some examples:

America is not safe when we secured less nuclear material in Russia and around the world in the two years after 9/11 than in the two years before 9/11.

America is not safe when we fail to install radiation detection monitors at all ports of entry and other critical sites.

America is not safe when we fail to screen 100 percent of the cargo that travels on passenger planes.

America is not safe when over 24,000 illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico are caught but released into our communities because the Department of Homeland Security lacks detention space. Two years ago, on its website, al Qaeda took note of our porous borders.

America is not safe when we screen only 5 percent of the 7 million cargo containers that enter our country each year for weapons of mass destruction.

America is not safe when 120,000 hours of terrorist-related wiretap information lies untranslated at the FBI.

America is not safe when the government has only enough anthrax vaccine in our stockpile to inoculate 500 people.

America is not safe when we fail to aggressively deal with the threat of biological weapons by pursuing a ``Manhattan Project'' to

shorten the time between the discovery of a ``bug'' and the development of a drug or vaccine to counter it.

America is not safe when cities like Chicago and New York have only 1 health care worker vaccinated for smallpox for every 40,000 people, and some States have only a couple of dozen health care workers vaccinated against smallpox to enable them to respond to a smallpox attack.

America is not safe when our Nation's first responders lack the ability and the equipment they need to talk to one another during an emergency.

America is not safe when the Department of Homeland Security's own Inspector General has concluded that 3 years after 9/11 we still lack an integrated, comprehensive terrorist watch list.

America is not safe when our border inspectors and police officers do not have access to the full range of information held by our government on terrorist suspects.

America is not safe when we fail to protect the thousands of chemical plants that could serve as ``pre-positioned toxic weapons of mass destruction'' if hit with explosives by terrorists.

America is not safe when we fail to prevent the rise of future terrorists by supporting the voices of moderation in the Arab and Muslim world through economic, educational, and cultural partnerships.

America is not safe when we fail to keep our focus on Usama bin Ladin and al Qaeda--the enemy responsible for the attacks of 9/11.

We can provide the resources necessary to improve our military counterterrorism capabilities, invest in smart, effective homeland security measures, and win the hearts and minds of people in the Arab and Muslim worlds--we can win the war against our terrorist enemies. But--it will require the right choices and the right priorities.

We all know that it is not a matter of ``if' but ``when'' al Qaeda will strike again.

Can we say that we have made America safe when we increase our investment in protecting the security of the American people by no more than what we spend in one week in Iraq? It's all about choices, and there can be no doubt that the American people will hold us accountable for the choices we make.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is no example any better of the failure of the administration to make America safe than is illustrated by the amendment offered by my colleague from Texas today. What the amendment says is that we need 2,500 more bed spaces so that we can end this deplorable, unacceptable practice of catching illegal immigrants who come across our borders every day from countries other than Mexico and seeing them immediately released into our country, knowing that 80 to 90 percent of them will never show up again for a deportation hearing.

Mr. Chairman, it is a practice that must end, but our administration has allowed this to go on for year after year after year. And it is very unfortunate, even though I appreciate greatly the intent expressed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), my colleague, it is very unfortunate that all the amendment does is direct the Department of Homeland Security to somewhere in their budget find the money for an additional 2,500 beds so we can end this practice that represents a serious threat to the security of our country.

The truth of the matter is the gentleman from Texas is on the Committee on Appropriations, and when we look at what the Committee on Appropriations did to try to help solve this problem, all they did was what the President asked for. He asked for 117 additional bed spaces, when the President knows that even today we have only appropriated money to hold 1,944 detainees who cross the border illegally every day and we are holding 22,500. We are stretched to the limit now.

As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) points out, we need at least 2,500 more and probably 5,000 more beds, which is provided for in his amendment but not funded.

Nowhere is the gap between the rhetoric of the administration on protecting America and the reality of the failure to protect America any clearer than it is right here.

The Democrats on the House Committee on Homeland Security did a 6- month investigation of the problems of our border. We produced a report entitled Transforming the Southern Border. It pointed out a lot of interesting facts, one of which is the one we are discussing. As our staff traveled along the Rio Grande south of El Paso, we took this picture. What it shows is a cargo van backed up to a school bus just across the border inside the United States, along with an 18-wheeler, another cargo van, and another school bus.

As the staff flew over, nobody was to be seen who would be a part of our Border Patrol. So they called into the Border Patrol to tell them about this suspicious-looking activity. When they flew back over, the bus and the van and all the vehicles were gone. We do not know if they were exchanging illegal immigrants, illegal goods, narcotics, or nuclear weapons.

As the 9/11 Commission said, our borders are porous and we must remedy this problem. But to do so it is going to take more than rhetoric.

Mr. Chairman, when we look at what we are spending on homeland security today, we are spending $20 billion more than we did in the year of 9/11. That is a lot of money, but maybe not in an $850 billion discretionary budget. But last year alone, while we had increased homeland security spending, $20 billion, the richest 1 percent of Americans, those making over a million dollars, got four times the tax relief, almost $90 billion.

The reality is that we have made the wrong choice. We have failed to make America safe. And when illegal immigrants can come across our borders in the numbers that they are coming, last year alone 25,000 illegal immigrants were actually caught coming across our border from places other than Mexico. Every year there is close to a million that get across that are caught. No telling how many are not caught. But of those 25,000, because we did not have the detention space, the jail space to hold them, 80 to 90 percent of them never showed up because the 25,000 were given a free pass into America, released on personal bond.

Mr. Chairman, it does not surprise anybody that 80 to 90 percent of those 25,000 never show up. They are in our country today. This failure to protect America is inexcusable. I think we have got to stop it.

Mr. Chairman, I think I will vote for the amendment offered by my colleague, but I want to point out that we failed to fund the very issue he raises.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, yes, I will vote for the amendment because I believe it is based on a sincere intent to solve a serious problem. But I was simply pointing out that it provides no funding. The gentleman's Committee on Appropriations only provided funding for 117 beds in next year's budget and there is no money to do what is provided for in this amendment. To simply direct the department to take it out of their hide is simply unrealistic.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) offers an amendment that points to the very important relationships between our homeland security and what goes on in our private sector.

The 9/11 Commission recognized the critical role that the private sector plays in protecting our citizens from harm. The commission did not make the recommendations contained in the gentleman's amendment, but rather, one of the core recommendations of the 9/11 Commission did deal with the subject matter of the gentleman's amendment; and that is the recommendation to enhance preparedness for all disasters and emergencies, including acts of terrorism in the private sector.

They specifically recommended that the Department of Homeland Security promote the adoption of private sector preparedness standards that have been developed by the American National Standards Institute.

Once again, like many of the other recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, H.R. 10 includes no provisions to deal with the need for standards for private sector preparedness. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the commission found that many of the tenants of the World Trade Center were unprepared for the catastrophic events that occurred. Many businesses did not regularly practice evacuation drills. Few had alternative communication systems, and many firms lacked the ability to identify who was working on that particular day.

The Democratic substitute offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), like the Private Sector Preparedness Act which I introduced back in July, establishes a program to ensure the safety and security of citizens while they are at work. It would provide businesses with the guidance they need to develop evacuation plans to account for all of their employees and to get back in business as soon as possible following a disaster.

We understand that 85 percent of all critical infrastructure in our country is owned and operated by the private sector. It is, therefore, clear that a national standard is necessary to guarantee the safety of the American people. Yet, despite this very apparent and critical need, H.R. 10 fails to adopt in this 9/11 Commission's recommendations and, therefore, leaves a glaring gap in our Nation's security.

I commend the gentleman for his amendment. I think that it is one that the department could, under existing law in the Homeland Security Act, carry out, but the effect of the amendment will be to urge the department to recognize the critical role of the private sector in our preparedness for terrorist instances. And it will also, I think, point out to the department that we must make an even greater effort to ensure that, as we impose security, we do not jeopardize the movement of commerce, the movement of trade; we do not jeopardize tourism, which is so vitally important to this country, particularly to the district and the State represented by the gentleman who offered the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The distinguished Speaker said he is baffled by some of the complaints that were heard by those of us who supported the Menendez substitute. I think our complaints are easy to understand.

We feel very strongly that the 9/11 Commission presented us with a package of 41 recommendations that the Commission and their cochairs all said are important. H.R. 10 only fully implements 11 of those recommendations. The Republican bill only implements 15 of them partially, and the Republican bill ignores or only mentions in passing the other 15 recommendations.

The substitute that we offered on this floor implements all of the recommendations. It does it in an effective way, and it makes the kind of commitment that Democrats have argued for the last 2 years must be made to make America safe.

We are investing today $20 billion more on homeland security than we did prior to 9/11, but in the last fiscal year, when we were investing that additional $20 billion, we were investing four times that in tax cuts for American families who make over $1 million a year. That is the wrong choice, it is the wrong priority, and our bill moves faster, it moves stronger in protecting the homeland than H.R. 10 offered by the Republican leadership.

For that reason, we believe that the Senate bill, which passed yesterday, which reflects the contents of the Menendez substitute that was on this floor yesterday, is the superior alternative to helping America stay safe; and we hope that when this bill goes to conference that the provisions of the Senate bill that are absent in H.R. 10 will be added to the final product and come back to this floor with a conference committee report that clearly reflects the wisdom and the intent of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and the work that they did so well.