Floor Statements

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.

Mr. Speaker, as we begin the debate on the 9/11 Commission recommendations today, we must ask the central question: are we as safe as we need to be. The answer is no, and it is all about the choices that we have made.

In the 2 years before 9/11, we secured more loose nuclear material than we did in the 2 years after 9/11. We have yet to install the radiation portals we need at our ports to detect nuclear material. We still do not have a unified terrorist watch list. Mr. Speaker, 120,000 hours of untranslated terrorist-related wiretaps remain untranslated at the FBI. Mr. Speaker, 20,000 illegal immigrants from places other than Mexico were released into our own country last year because of a lack of detention space.

In 2004, we invested about $20 billion more in homeland security than we did in the year of 9/11, but we granted 4 times that in tax relief to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.

It is all about choices, and we have made the wrong choices because our leadership has not committed us to making America as safe as we need to be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think Members on both sides of the aisle have the same intention, that is, to make America as safe as it needs to be, but I do think there is a very different view of what it will take to ensure the safety of the American people against the threat of al Qaeda and the threat from bin Laden.

When we look at the current level of expenditures for homeland security, what we see is there is much that we have not done. We have not secured the loose nuclear material that is around the world and which represents the greatest threat to our security, that is, the possibility and likelihood that a terrorist would try to detonate a nuclear bomb within one of our cities. We spent more money trying to secure loose nukes in the 2 years prior to 9/11 than we did in the 2 years after 9/11.

We look at the results of the efforts that have been made and how they fall far short of our goal. We do not yet have a unified terrorist watch list. We had 120,000 hours of untranslated wiretaps at the FBI that was reported in the newspaper just this week. We know there are 20,000 illegal immigrants who were caught and released into our country last fiscal year because there was no funding for the detention space to hold them, illegal immigrants from places other than Mexico.

We know that in 2004, last year, we had invested about $20 billion more in homeland security than we did in the year prior to 9/11. We know that is a lot of money, and yet we also know that in terms of our priorities and in terms of our $850 billion discretionary spending budget, it was not a major change in commitment.

The truth of the matter is, we need to do better. We must make America safer. It is all about choices. It is all about priorities.

When you look at the tax cuts that were given to the top 1 percent of Americans in fiscal year 2004, they totaled four times more than the additional investments we made in homeland security over the year prior to 9/11.

We have a whole list of unmet needs. We are told we need $2.7 billion to secure our rail and public transit systems. We are told we need at least $200 million more to install all of the radiation portal detectors this year to make sure we do not have a nuclear weapon shipped into our country by land or sea or air. We know that we need $100 million to hire additional security personnel on the northern border and an estimated $1 billion to truly secure the southern border. We know that in this appropriations bill we have zeroed out the funding for interoperable communications grants, such a critical issue to our first responders all across this country.

I recognize that the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) has made his best effort and worked within the constraints that he was handed, and I am pleased that we have close to half a billion dollars more in this bill than the President has requested. But it was very telling to me the other night during the debate when John Kerry enumerated several of these needs that we have to improve our homeland security, and the President replied, ``He doesn't tell you how he is going to pay for this.'' He said it is like a big tax gap.

Mr. Speaker, today we are borrowing half of our discretionary spending, and if the President really believes that we are in a war on terror, as I do, I think he would place homeland security as a priority in terms of what we do.

So, yes, under the leadership of the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers), we are appropriating more money than the President even asked for to protect the homeland, and yet it is still far from meeting the needs that we have.

When you look at the amount we are spending and you compare it to what we are spending in other places in our budget, the spending for fiscal year 2005 is about $1 billion above the level for last year. That $1 billion is equal to about a week of what we spend in Iraq.

I would say to you, if the threat is, as I believe, a threat of international terrorists attacking us on our own soil and this is a war we must win, I would suggest that we change our priorities. We will make different choices, and we will ensure that America is safe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) who I have the highest respect for, but I think it would be a great mistake to lead the American people to believe that we have done all we should be doing to secure the homeland.

If you look at our record, though you may claim America is safer, it is far from as safe as it might be in light of the threats we face.

One year after 9/11, bin Laden on his Web site said his goal is to kill 4 million Americans. The greatest threat we face today is a nuclear bomb brought into one of our major cities by terrorists.

In the 2 years before 9/11, we did more to secure loose nukes than we did in the 2 years after 9/11. Three years after 9/11, we still do not have a unified, accessible terrorist watch list.

We just read in the paper the other day that 120,000 hours of untranslated wiretap intercepts are at the FBI. We know that 20,000 illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico were caught and released last year into our country because we did not fund the detention space to hold them.

We know that our administration says we need anthrax vaccines to vaccinate 25 million Americans in the event of an anthrax attack, and today, in our stockpile, we have enough vaccine to vaccinate 500 people.

I submit to my colleagues that the increased spending on homeland security has not been near what it should be. The other night, during the presidential debate, when John Kerry enumerated some of these shortcomings, President Bush had an interesting response. He said, well, that is going to cost a lot of money, and we have a big tax gap. It shows us where the priorities have been in the administration.

Last fiscal year, our appropriations for homeland security were $20 billion more than they were in the year before 9/11, $20 billion. The tax cuts last fiscal year benefiting the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans was four times that. I say we have made the wrong choices. We have had the wrong priorities, and we should be focusing on the real threat to the security of the American people, al Qaeda.

We increased homeland security appropriations this year in the bill we just approved a few minutes ago by $1 billion. It sounds like a lot of money. We spend $1 billion every week in Iraq. It is time to take the real threat of al Qaeda and bin Laden seriously to protect this country to be sure we are safe from terrorist attacks.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for the bipartisan effort that he has put in with me on the Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders Act, which is included in H.R. 10. I might say it has been an honor and a pleasure to serve with him over the last 2 years in what is I think the most important challenge of our time: making America safe.

We took 2 bills and we made them into one. It was a truly bipartisan effort. We are going to, for the first time, use the billions of dollars in first responder grants to build the essential capabilities that we need in this country to make America safer. We do not know today what we are getting for our investment; we certainly do not know what progress we are making. That will change with this bill. Instead of basing funding on arbitrary formulas, we will, for the first time, base funding on the risk and vulnerabilities that our communities, our regions, and our States are facing.

The bill before us improves our grant system in 2 ways. It builds a system of planning and accountability that does not exist today, and it allocates a much higher percentage of first responder funds to the areas that face the greatest threats and vulnerabilities. I appreciate the good work the chairman and I have been able to do together on this bill, as well as the work of the other members of our committee.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there are many other issues of critical importance that have not been addressed in H.R. 10. The Menendez substitute is a much more comprehensive effort to implement all 41 recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. H.R. 10 is, in fact, a missed opportunity to take concrete steps to win the war against our terrorist enemies.

As the bipartisan 9/11 Commission stated, and virtually everyone has agreed, to defeat radical Islamic terrorism over the long term requires pursuing three strategies simultaneously. First, we must aggressively attack the terrorist cells wherever they exist. Secondly, we must protect the homeland. And third, we must create conditions to prevent the rise of future terrorists. Any legislation that purports to implement the findings of the 9/11 Commission must contain meaningful provisions on all three strategies.

The 9/11 Commissioners have strongly urged that all 41 of their recommendations be enacted. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues who drafted H.R. 10 did not heed the advice

of the 9/11 Commission. We looked at the recommendations of H.R. 10 and found that it implements only 10 of the 41 fully, it implements 15 of the recommendations only partially and, of the final 15, they are either completely ignored or dealt with in no meaningful way.

In contrast, the bipartisan bills coming out of the Senate and the Menendez substitute implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. H.R. 10 falls short in moving us forward faster and stronger in the war on terror.

Three years after 9/11, Mr. Chairman, bin Laden, the enemy who attacked us, is still on the loose, and al Qaeda is expanding its reach. Just last week, General Abizaid warned us about the growing threat in the Middle East and Central Asia region. We must double our special forces to go after the terrorists in over 60 countries around the world.

Three years after 9/11, we still do not have a fully integrated terrorist watch list. Three years after 9/11, the government still checks the watch list on airline flights that come from overseas after the plane is in the air, rather than before the passengers board. And we still do not check all of the air cargo for explosives that fly on the airplanes with us every day.

The greatest threat, Mr. Chairman, we face is a nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist. Yet, 3 years after 9/11, we still have not installed sufficient numbers of radiation detectors to check all of the cargo containers that come into our country by sea, land, and air. Three years after 9/11, our first responders still cannot communicate with one another in the event of an emergency, even though technology exists that allows them to do so. Three years after 9/11, our intelligence agencies can still not communicate one with another and share an integrated database so that a border inspector or a law enforcement officer can identify whether the person standing before them is a suspected terrorist or not.

Three years after 9/11, we still have 120,000 hours of untranslated terrorist-related wiretaps at the FBI that may contain information about the next terrorist attack. Three years after 9/11, our borders are still porous. A recent investigation by our committee revealed that over 25,000 illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico came into this country, were released on their own personal bond, and 90 percent of them never showed up again.

Mr. Chairman, it has been 2 years since we were attacked with anthrax here on Capitol Hill and the administration said we need anthrax vaccines to vaccinate up to 25 million Americans. Today, in our national stockpile, we have enough vaccine for anthrax to vaccinate 500 people.

It is all about choices. The fiscal year 2004 appropriation is $20 billion more than we spent in the year of 9/11. Last year alone, the top 1 percent of Americans by income received 4 times as much in tax cuts as we spent in increased funding for homeland security over that 4-year period. Just today on this floor, we moved to instruct the FY 2005 homeland security appropriations bill and in it, the President had requested a half a billion dollars more. Fortunately, we gave him $1 billion more, and yet we spend $1 billion every week in Iraq.

It is all a matter of priorities. And, Mr. Chairman, we must get our priorities straight and make America safe again.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Border Security and Infrastructure of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

The 9/11 Commission said very clearly that to win the war on terror, we had to pursue three strategies simultaneously. We had to go after the terrorists more aggressively; we have to protect the homeland; and thirdly, we have to prevent the rise of future terrorists. Any legislation that purports to deal with the 9/11 Commission recommendations must have meaningful provisions in all three of these areas.

The 9/11 Commission had 41 recommendations. If we look at H.R. 10, 15 of the recommendations of the Commission are not implemented at all. Fifteen of the recommendations of the Commission in H.R. 10 are dealt with only partially. Eleven of the recommendations are implemented in

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for bringing the amendment forward. As I said, it is something that should have been done under the law we passed 2 years ago when we passed the Homeland Security Act.

To show my colleagues how bad it is, the minority members of our Select Committee on Homeland Security did a 6-month investigation on the southern border and issued this report just last month: ``Transforming The Southern Border.'' One of the many facts that was laid out and discovered as we did this report is that today, a border inspector watching people come across our border has to search eight different databases to find out whether they have a suspected terrorist before them.

So I support the Souder amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about what I believe to be the most difficult and the most important issue facing this Congress, a Congress that has the responsibility under the Constitution to provide for the common defense, and that problem is the threat of international terrorism.

It has been over 3 years now since the horrific attacks against our Nation occurred on September 11. Our world has changed in many respects since then. We know that we are engaged in a global war against terrorism. New security measures have been put in place at our ports, along our borders, and even along the roads leading to our Nation's capital. We know now that the circumstances in Arab and Muslim countries on the other side of the globe can affect the safety and security of all Americans right here at home.

With our national elections less than 5 weeks away, the American people are asking whether we are truly winning this war against our terrorist enemies. They want to know whether this government is taking the steps necessary to ensure that we are as safe as we need to be.

The members of the Select Committee on Homeland Security have been studying this issue closely for almost 2 years. We have visited our ports and our borders. We have heard testimony from hundreds of government officials and expert witnesses, and we have met with law enforcement and security professionals in our congressional districts. My colleagues and I are here tonight to say that, no, we are not as safe as we need to be. We say this reluctantly and regretfully, but it is our constitutional duty to be honest with our constituents and to tell the Nation how it really is.

Despite the rhetoric that we hear so often from this administration, the truth is that our government has not taken the steps necessary to provide genuine security from the threat of terrorism, and whether or not we are winning the war on terror has yet to be determined.

Indeed, 2 months ago, the 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan group appointed by this Congress in very important legislation, they drew the same conclusion that we draw tonight. That bipartisan report identified severe defects in the administration's policies to counteract terrorism, many of which were well-known years ago, but have not been adequately addressed. Indeed, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report and its recommendations are an indictment of this administration's efforts over the past 3 years to secure the homeland and to defeat our terrorist enemies.

The 9/11 Commission concluded, as we did in our report called ``Winning the War on Terror,'' that we must engage on three fronts simultaneously. First, we need a more aggressive strategy to attack the terrorists directly by using our military and our other national security agencies wisely and cutting off the terrorists' source of funds. Such an aggressive strategy should ensure that we strengthen our intelligence capabilities to penetrate terrorist organizations and ensure that we translate and analyze all of the intelligence information that we collect in real-time.

Yesterday, the New York Times revealed in an article that the Justice Department's own Inspector General has determined that nearly a quarter of all ongoing FBI counterterrorism and counterintelligence wiretaps are not being monitored and that nearly 120,000 hours of wiretap recordings from terrorist investigations since September 11 have not even been translated.

This is unacceptable. This is the same problem that we had before 9/ 11. It was one of the key reasons that 9/11 occurred. If we are serious in our efforts to attack the terrorists, we must take full advantage of the information that is collected by our intelligence agencies. And to learn that 3 years after 9/11, our government has yet to get itself in a position to be able to translate the intelligence that we are collecting, to be able to have the linguists available to make those translations occur rapidly is totally unacceptable.

Additionally, we need to increase our special forces in our military to more aggressively attack our terrorist enemies. We must create greater numbers of small and light forces that have proved so successful in hunting down terrorist cells, and we must dry up the sources of funds for the terrorists and for their organizations. We must lead an effort to establish international financial standards to halt money laundering and to help other countries

crack down on individuals and organizations who provide money to terrorist groups.

One may rightfully ask, why has this administration not done these things some 3 years after 9/11? The gap between the rhetoric on protecting the homeland and the reality of protecting the homeland is indeed very great.

In addition to attacking the terrorists directly, we need to protect our homeland by constructing and strengthening the layers of protective measures overseas, at our borders, at our airports, our seaports, and our critical infrastructures like the nuclear and chemical plants that are targeted by our terrorist enemies.

As an example, we must commit the necessary resources and take constructive steps with our allies to ensure that our dangerous nuclear and radiological materials are safe and secure overseas and do not threaten us here at home. We must ensure that we install the radiation portal detectors at our ports to ensure that a weapon of mass destruction cannot be shipped into our country on an 18-wheeler or in a cargo container coming off a ship at one of our seaports.

It is unacceptable that 3 years after 9/11 we still have not installed sufficient radiation portal detectors to know that this country is safe from our terrorist enemies bringing a nuclear bomb or a radiological device into our country. We must move much faster to protect our borders, to protect our ports, to secure our airports, our airplanes, and improve the capabilities of our Nation's first responders; and we must ensure that we can protect our citizens from the threat of bioterrorism, one of the most serious threats that we face today and increasingly will face in the years ahead.

As we aggressively fight our terrorist enemies, as we work to improve our homeland security, we must also engage in the third prong of making America safe as recommended by the 9/11 Commission. We must create a political, a social, and an economic strategy for this country to engage the Arab and Muslim nations to prevent the rise of future terrorists. Many observers who have looked closely at the war on terror acknowledge very freely that we cannot win the war on terror with military power alone. It will take all the tools in our national arsenal to defeat al Qaeda and our terrorist enemies.

It is clear that we cannot coexist with our terrorist enemies. We cannot bridge over our differences with al Qaeda, but we must be aware of the nature of the current ideological struggle that is going on and is very much a part of the war on terror. We must know our enemies, we must understand what motivates them, and then we must support initiatives to rob them of that support.

To prevent the rise of future terrorists, we must first pursue policies that promote and support the voices of moderation in the Middle East and offer an alternative vision of hope for the millions of people, particularly young people, who today are appealed to by the message of bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Secondly, we must promote and support democratic institutions and practices worldwide, making it possible for democracy to rise in those places in the world where it does not currently exist. We must have the wisdom to recognize that democracy cannot be forced upon others; but it must be the result of people willingly, freely choosing liberty for themselves. We must launch an economic development partnership in the Arab and Muslim world that is in the spirit of the Marshall Plan that followed the Second World War. I would call this effort a renaissance partnership, for it would lead to a rebirth of prosperity and a new spirit of openness and tolerance in the Middle East. People without hope, people without the chance for a better way of life, they are the ones who respond to the ideology and to the message of the terrorists. We can change the world, but we must do so by engaging the world, by uniting with our allies in the rich Arab States to improve the conditions of the Muslim and Arab world.

All three of these tasks, going after the terrorists more aggressively, securing the homeland better than we are doing today, and preventing the rise of future terrorists, must be the principal focus of our national efforts to win the war on terror. Unfortunately, we do not have a comprehensive strategy in place today to deal with these elements in the war on terror, and that is why today we are not as safe as we need to be.

Tonight I will be joined by some of my colleagues on the Select Committee on Homeland Security and other Members who have played a leading role in homeland security issues in this House. We will discuss what we need to do to fight a smarter, a stronger, and a more effective war against terrorism. We will talk about the security gaps facing our Nation and our ideas for closing them.

We know that our terrorist enemies are not waiting. They continue to plot. They continue to scheme to attack America. We must have a sense of urgency, for the time to act is now; and we cannot wait any longer.

I am pleased to yield to the distinguished delegate from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), who has been a leader on the Select Committee on Homeland Security on the issues of bioterrorism and public health preparedness. Her background in the medical field has enabled her to have unique insights into what we need to be doing as a Nation to be better prepared to deal with the threats it faces.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much. I thank her again for her leadership on this issue.

Next, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), another member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, a lady who has shown not only leadership on our committee on behalf of homeland security but great leadership on the House Committee on Appropriations. She has also worked vigorously to protect her State from the threat of terrorism, the great State of New York. So it is a pleasure to yield to her.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her comments and her leadership.

Next, Madam Speaker, I wish to yield the floor to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a distinguished Member of this House who has worked diligently on our committee, who not only is a good legislator but a fine gentleman and is very committed to implementing the third prong of the war on terror as recommended by the 9/11 Commission, which is preventing the rise of future terrorism.

Madam Speaker, next I would like to yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), a gentleman who is most active on behalf of the first responders across our country or those on the front lines in the war on terror. He is a gentleman who serves on our Democratic Task Force on Homeland Security, a gentleman who is most respected by all of his colleagues in this House, and who has served here for many years with distinction.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his leadership and for his conviction.

I think many of us are dismayed by the lack of preparedness 3 years after 9/11 at a time when our government tells us every day that we are faced with another terrorist threat, even estimating that we may be attacked between now and the election or between now and the end of the year. These are deadly, serious matters. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his leadership and for his hard work on behalf of first responders and on behalf of the security of our country.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield the floor to my friend, my fellow Texan, fellow member of the Committee on Homeland Security, from the great city of Houston, and I have seen the gentlewoman work on behalf of first responders in her great city. I have seen her talk to the many citizens who gather at her town meetings to discuss their concerns about security. I have seen her visit the port of Houston and the FBI office in Houston to talk about security. I know of her dedication and leadership, and it is a pleasure to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

I thank the gentlewoman from the great State of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

I offered a substitute, which I believe is much stronger in preventing frivolous lawsuits than the bill offered to the House. In addition, it preserves the right that was mentioned earlier to sue a foreign corporation, which is jeopardized in the bill offered before us.

The Republican bill also weakens our civil rights laws by having a chilling effect upon suits relating to civil rights, and our substitute carves out an exception for civil rights litigation. But, most importantly, it does not eliminate the possibility that one may be unable to sue a foreign corporation in the United States.

First of all, our bill strengthens the provisions against frivolous lawsuits. Members on both sides of the aisle uniformly, unanimously agree that our laws and our rules of procedure must prohibit frivolous lawsuits. Our bill imposes a mandatory ``three strikes and you're out'' provision on frivolous pleadings and discovery violations. Thus, it is far more stringent than the Republican bill, which merely subjects these violations to mandatory payment of cost and fees. More importantly, our bill includes clear and specific civil rights carve outs so there will not be a chilling effect on these actions. We also amend the United States Code so that the change is not subject to future changes and modifications by the courts as the Republican bill would be.

Second, our bill limits the ability of corporate wrongdoers to conceal any conduct harmful to the public welfare by requiring that court records may not be sealed unless the court first enters a finding that such sealing is justified. This provision will help ensure that information on dangerous products and actions is made available to the public. A nearly identical provision passed by voice vote in the 107th Congress with the support of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner). The Republican bill does not contain this very important protection.

Third, we provide that parties which destroy documents in connections with civil proceedings shall be punished with mandatory civil sanctions, held in contempt of court, and referred to the State bar for disciplinary proceedings. Again, this is far tougher than the Republican bill, which does not provide for contempt of court and disciplinary proceedings.

And, fourth, we specify that the Civil Justice Reform Act, which has been so successful in the Federal courts, be applied to all courts in order to speed up the pretrial process and to weed out junk lawsuits.

And, finally, unlike the Republican bill, our substitute does not have this new rule of jurisdiction that operates to make it impossible to sue a foreign corporation in this country and, further, by the absence of such provision, promotes corporations in our own country continuing this despicable process of relocating their headquarters overseas in order to avoid U.S. taxes, and now they will do so to avoid being sued. There is no reason to give these companies a windfall profit, windfall gain, at the expense of corporations who do the right thing and stay here at home.

This is a common sense substitute. It cracks down on frivolous lawsuits even more forcefully than the Republican bill. It preserves our antitrust laws and our ability to obtain justice against foreign corporations. It is a better bill, a stronger bill, and one that we would urge this House to substitute for the bill offered by our Republican colleagues.

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

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

I would remind the distinguished chairman that careful reading of our bill would reveal to him there is no safe harbor allowing any period of days, 21 or otherwise, to withdraw pleadings that may be frivolous. What we have done in our bill is we have amended the statute. We have provided a new statute against frivolous lawsuits; we do not disturb rule 11. We urge him to take a closer look at the bill and what we propose.

I would also suggest to the distinguished chairman that the provision in our bill to protect the public against automatic sealing of certain court records which may be important and contain important information that should be available to the public to protect the public against things like defective products and other things, the decision to seal is one that is in the hands of the court and the sealing must be justified clearly. In the cases of sexual abuse, that sealing is justified. I do not know any judge in the land that would not understand that. And, certainly, I do not see any judge taking the language that we have offered and overturning any State law or issuing any ruling contrary to State law that would not result in the sealing of sexual abuse cases.

The major principal defect in the Republican bill relates to the fact that you are unable to sue a foreign corporation because they attempt to change the law as it presently exists and to make the provision require that you file against a corporation where their principal place of business is. There are many foreign corporations that may be in the United States that do not have their principal place of business here; it is overseas. So the language that has been offered has the effect of denying a plaintiff with a genuine injury, not a frivolous lawsuit, but a genuine, valid lawsuit from being able to sue a foreign corporation.

That provision, perhaps the Republican drafters of their bill did not understand what they were doing with the language they offered, but that is the effect of it; and I think anyone who votes for the Republican bill and says that we are denying an American citizen the opportunity with a legitimate claim to file a suit in the United States against a foreign corporation is casting a vote they will regret.

I also think it is important to point out that the sanctions that are provided in the Democratic substitute are stronger than the provisions in the Republican bill. It is also, I think, important to point out that our sanctions apply to State courts where interstate commerce is involved. Your ``three strikes and you are out'' provision does not apply in State courts, perhaps, again, by drafting error; but it does not apply.

So we think it is very critical that this bill be the one the House adopts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, do I close or does the chairman close?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say the language regarding the establishment of the forum is very clear in the Republican bill as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) pointed out. It says the suit should be filed where the defendant has its principal place of business.

Now, the distinguished chairman says, well, the law has established that you can sue where somebody is registered to do business and all these foreign corporations have to register to do business.

That is not what the language offered in the Republican bill says. It does not say you can sue a foreign corporation in States where it is registered to do business. It says where its principal place of business is located, and many foreign corporations have no principal place.

I would suggest to the gentleman who offered up the quote of Senator Edwards, we agree with Senator Edwards. We should ban frivolous lawsuits, and the bill that we have offered does it more forcefully and effectively than the Republican bill does. At the end of the third strike under the Republican bill you can be barred in practicing law in that court. You are suspended. Under our bill, the third strike, you are referred to your State bar association for disciplinary proceedings, to include possible disbarment.

Now, under your bill a lawyer from New York can come down to east Texas and file a lawsuit and if it is frivolous then he gets barred from ever practicing law in the Eastern District of Texas again.

What good is that going to do for a New York lawyer who may never come back to east Texas anyway? What good will it do to say you cannot come to east Texas? Even if he has to come back he can send a law partner and let him file the frivolous lawsuit again.

If you want to get a lawyer's attention, you refer them to the State disciplinary board that governs their right to practice law in that State.

I practiced law for many years, and anytime a lawyer gets referred to the State bar association for disciplinary action, it is a serious thing. If a lawyer continues to file frivolous lawsuits, they should be disbarred; and then we would not have to worry about them running to another court to file another frivolous lawsuit where they had not already filed one before. They would not be practicing law.

So I would suggest, if my colleagues really want to get tough on frivolous lawsuits, they will support the Democratic substitute, and if they want to be sure that an American citizen who is injured in America has the right to sue a foreign corporation that was the perpetrator of a tortious act, they better vote against the Republican bill and vote for the substitute.

I know the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) did not intend for that to be the effect, but that is the effect of the language that he has offered up today; and I would suggest that any Member on either side of the aisle would be well advised to vote against his bill to ensure that that does not occur to an American citizen who would be denied the right to file a lawsuit against a foreign corporation.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on June 19, 2004, the City of Lufkin and the state of Texas lost a friend with the passing of ``Bubba'' Shands, Jr. Bubba was an invaluable member of the community in Lufkin for many years, and he will be sorely missed.

The Lufkin Daily News recently called Bubba a ``a Lufkin icon'' and ``East Texas' favorite son.'' I think those are two fitting names for Bubba, but I also think there are many more that we could add to that list: husband, father, grandfather, brother, athlete, patriot, leader, believer, and always, great friend to all.

Hilliard Judge ``Bubba'' Shands was born on November 18, 1926 in Lufkin, Texas. He grew up as a highly accomplished student-athlete, first at Lufkin High School and then at the University of Texas.

Bubba began working in the banking industry in 1958, and continued working in that industry until 1991. He was a bank executive for First Bank & Trust (formerly Republic Bank) for many years, and he also served on the boards of several other financial institutions, such as First Bank of Conroe, Angelina Savings Bank, and Balcones Resources in Austin.

Bubba always realized the importance of community service and was involved with many volunteer and civic organizations throughout his life. He worked diligently towards the creation of Angelina County Airport and the Salvation Army's Adult Day Center in Lufkin, and he was also deeply active in the movement to fund and create Angelina College. He served on the board of the United Way of Angelina County, the Angelina College Board of Trustees, the Lufkin Rotary Club, and he was an active member of the First United Methodist Church in Lufkin.

We pray for God's comforting spirit to be with his wife, Ann; his sister, Mary; his daughter Becky; his son, Jay; and his five grandchildren, Matt, Hill, Rob, Richie, Annie and Hunter.

Today, we honor the memory of a great East Texan, Hilliard Judge ``Bubba'' Shands, and we ask that we may all celebrate and enjoy life the same way Bubba did for each of his 77 years on this Earth.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is this the legislation that authorizes funding for the Customs and Border Protection Agency and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency within the Department of Homeland Security?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, was this bill referred to the Select Committee on Homeland Security?

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

I think we all understand that to win the war on terror we have to be much more aggressive about going after the terrorists wherever they are. Breaking up international terrorist cells is project number one for the national defense of this country.

We also know that we have to strengthen our homeland defenses and protect our vulnerabilities and protect our population from threats posed by challenges as the one addressed in this bill today, bioterrorism.

Finally, I hope we will soon learn that in order to win the war on terror we have to start addressing the policies that we need to pursue to prevent the rise of future terrorists so that someday we can stand on this floor and announce, as we did at the end of the Cold War, that we have won, that we have prevailed.

To win this war on terror, we must address the threat that is addressed by Project Bioshield, the threat of mass destruction through the use of bioweapons. Perhaps the most devastating weapon is a bioweapon of mass destruction. The anthrax attacks of 2001 woke this Nation up to the very real threat of bioterrorism. We know that al Qaeda intends to engage in bioterrorism, and we know that Osama bin Laden has called for the use of weapons of mass destruction against the American public. In fact, he has called it a religious duty.

In spite of this dire and clear warning, our biodefenses are no better than they were in September of 2001. No new medical treatments, vaccines, or lifesaving drugs have been approved for use. There is no antitoxin for ricin poisoning, no vaccine to protect against the plague, and no treatments of any kind against the deadly ebola virus.

Mr. Speaker, we must regain the sense of urgency that we all felt in this Chamber in the aftermath of September 11, and I hope that the passage of this bill will mark a renewed sense of urgency regarding the bioterror threat. Because this bill marks but the beginning, not the end, of a long road we must travel, I hope that the passage of this legislation will renew our urgency about the threat of bioterrorism. I support the Bioshield legislation because it is a good first step to addressing the challenge.

From the beginning of this process, I and many of my colleagues on the Democratic side have been concerned that this legislation is not enough to address the threats that we face. Whether Bioshield will be a success is yet to be determined. Bioshield is, in fact, an experiment. We do not know if the incentives in this bill will drive our pharmaceutical industry to develop medicines for biodefense when we all know they can make much more money developing and putting on the market other types of products. Many experts in the field believe that the best we can hope for is that in 10 years we may have a few new countermeasures that will plug some of the holes in our biodefenses.

The longer it takes for companies to step forward to fill these gaps, the longer we will remain vulnerable. Our terrorist enemies will not wait while we experiment and our national security is at stake. We must protect our population. That is our responsibility. If the private sector does not step up to address and accept the challenge presented in this bill, then our government needs to have the authority to do the job itself directly.

One example of a capability that we clearly need and that Project Bioshield does not address is the ability to respond rapidly to a previously unknown or engineered pathogen. Terrorists may soon be able to genetically manipulate biological agents so they are resistant to our current stockpile of countermeasures and perhaps to those we develop in the future. That is why I, along with 35 of my Democratic colleagues, introduced H.R. 4258, the Rapid Cures Act. This legislation recognizes the fact that the growing power of biotechnology can render a pathogen like anthrax or smallpox immune to the vaccines and drugs we may develop through Project Bioshield. We need to develop the mechanism to go from bug to drug, that is from the identification of a pathogen to the development of a countermeasure to combat it in a matter of a few months or even weeks.

Today the average development period for a vaccine is 8 years. That is too long to address the threat that our terrorist enemies of the future may present us. Personally, I cannot think of another research goal that would bring more benefits to the security and the health of this Nation than shortening the period of drug and vaccine development. It is that kind of capability that we need legislation to bring about today.

Finally, it is incumbent on this Congress to exercise vigorous oversight in the implementation of this law and to ensure that the investment in resources which could be as much as $6 billion over 10 years produces the results that we intend. We have had biodefense failures before. The national smallpox vaccine program which was announced by the President with much fanfare at the end of 2002 has fallen far short of its goal of vaccinating 500,000 health care workers with, in fact, less than 10 percent of that number actually vaccinated today.

Forty percent of our States report that they are unable to vaccinate their populations within 10 days, that critical period, 10 days of an outbreak of smallpox. As soon as next month, we are likely to hear of the award of the first-ever Bioshield contract for 75 million doses of new anthrax vaccine. We need to be asking now before the ink dries on this multimillion-dollar contract, what is the plan? How does this vaccine fit into our biodefenses? Given the failure of our smallpox vaccine program, do we really expect our citizens to be any more receptive to the anthrax vaccine than they were to the smallpox vaccine? And if the old anthrax vaccine, as some have told us, is now safe and effective for our troops, why in fact do we need a new one?

And if as is the case and we already have a vaccine but we lack good treatments for an anthrax infection, perhaps we need to be investing in the treatment for those who may contract anthrax and need a drug to cure that dread condition. And if anthrax is not a contagious disease and we know it is not and if this vaccine will only work after three injections over 3 weeks, as I understand the proposed new anthrax vaccine requires, how will that protect us in the event of an actual anthrax attack?

So before the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Health and Human Services decide to spend a billion dollars on a new vaccine, we in this Congress have a responsibility to get the answers to those questions.

For this Nation, Project Bioshield is an important first step, but much more work remains to be done, and we must take even stronger steps as soon as possible to protect us and to secure us in the days ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who has spent a great deal of time and energy working on this important issue.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has worked very hard in the area of trying to improve our bioterror defenses.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank all of the Members on both sides who have worked to bring us to this point in the passage of the legislation. I must say I have a great deal of agreement and sympathy for the remarks made by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) a few moments ago, because the urgency of this matter certainly dictates that we move much more quickly than we have been able to move on this legislation.

The President proposed this project in his State of the Union address in 2003. The House passed the bill in July of 2003, the Senate passed the bill 2 months ago, and we are just now bringing this conference report to the floor. So there is no question that in these times of terrorist threat the stakes are very high. The risks that we face are very great, and failure to close the security gaps in the area of bioterrorism or in a host of other areas where we have serious threats is not an option for this country.

We also know that in Project Bioshield and its implementation, we face great risk; and it is my hope that the three committees who worked so well together in crafting this bill will also each in their own way vigorously exercise the oversight that is necessary to ensure that Project Bioshield is successful.

When we know that we may be hearing of a decision in the near future by Secretary Ridge and Secretary Thompson to begin to acquire a new anthrax vaccine, I think it is incumbent upon each of us in our committees, in our oversight responsibilities to ask the tough questions about whether or not we are moving in the right direction; for that first contract could be in the neighborhood of a $1 billion Federal contract.

Failure in making that decision in the appropriate and proper way to ensure that it is successful is an essential oversight responsibility that each of us have.

So it is my hope that the good work and the good cooperation that occurred between the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Government Reform will be carried forward as we provide the necessary oversight to ensure the success of this important piece of legislation.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill, and I urge every Member of the House to vote aye.

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

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

This amendment, creating a sunset process, has been successful in many of our States. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and I have had personal experience with it in our State, where we have been able to eliminate unnecessary agencies. We have been able to streamline the activities of agencies.

I know that at the Federal level we all understand that it is very difficult job within our existing committee structures to really take a good, hard and complete look at the management and the functioning of our Federal agencies in the course of the appropriations process and the oversight responsibilities of our authorizing committees. So by creating a bipartisan commission of six Democrats and six Republicans, we do this with a long-term view to accomplish some goals that perhaps we are not as good at accomplishing in our usual process.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern, but I can assure him that in practice this has worked very well in Texas. We have never had the occurrence that the gentleman describes.

In trying to alleviate some of the concerns that he has expressed, the gentleman from Texas and I put in this bill clear language that would say that the laws administered by these agencies do not sunset. There have been Members from time to time who have said, well, if an agency happened to sunset, then all the laws we passed that that agency administers would then go away and a lot of valuable programs disappear. We specifically have language here to ensure that the laws that administer various programs, and that are important to a lot of constituencies, do not disappear when the agency disappears.

Having said that, in practical terms, when a sunset commission makes a recommendation to the Congress, if the Congress failed to be able to come to grips with the recommendations of the commission, what happens in most States, and it has certainly happened on a couple of occasions in Texas, is that the legislature, and I would hope the Congress, would simply extend the agency as it is and set a new sunset date to allow the process of review of that agency to continue.

What we are trying to do here is create a bipartisan entity that has the credibility to make recommendations for change in operations of an agency, create new efficiencies, eliminate obsolete programs and obsolete offices, and to do it in a way that that commission and its recommendations have the same kind of weight that we all hope the 9/11 Commission will have, where once they have reported, there is some momentum behind what this bipartisan group has recommended to the Congress.

So I think in terms of our efforts in the years ahead, to try to figure out how to make government more efficient, to be sure that we are eliminating unnecessary spending, that this is a very powerful tool that we should take advantage of. And I think the concern that the gentleman from South Carolina expressed is not one that is likely to occur.

Mr. Speaker, this House is entitled to have an open debate and an open vote on raising the debt ceiling. Any family or any business or corporation that applies for debt or to be able to borrow money is going to have to apply for the credit and going to have to make the case. This Congress should do the same.

The truth of the matter is our Republican colleagues do not want to have an open debate or an open vote on raising the debt ceiling because it points to the failed fiscal policies of this administration which has placed this country in the worst financial condition that we have been in our history. We are going to pass 13 appropriations bills to fund the government this year. We are going to borrow an amount equal to 60 percent of all of the appropriations that we vote on this year to run our government. We are in a ditch. We need to face up to it. We need to get honest.

It is particularly objectionable to me to try to hide it in the defense appropriations bill because the truth of the matter is we have sent young men and women to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan; and we are telling them that someday when they come home, they will have to pay for the war that they have been sent to fight. That has never happened in the history of this country. We have always paid our bills in time of war. It is time to do the moral thing, the right thing by our troops and pay for this war with current dollars and not pass it on to the next generation.