Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roybal-Allard amendment to stop the privatization of immigration information officer positions. As the ranking member on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have serious concerns about the impact this privatization initiative will have on our Nation's security. Immigration information officers and contact representatives interview immigrants, they review their documents for fraudulent and illegal activities, and they perform criminal background checks.

In order to do their jobs, these employees must acquire a large body of information and knowledge about our ever-changing and incredibly complicated immigration laws. To abandon the years of accumulated expertise of this group of Federal employees places our Nation at risk. In the war on terror, there is no room for error.

At a time when we must be focusing on security at our borders, we should not create the turmoil that is inherent in competition for these security-related jobs. After September 11, this Congress determined that giving the critical task of securing passengers and their baggage at airports should not be awarded to the lowest bidder, and we federalized the TSA screening force. Why would we give an even more critical and complex task of reviewing whether a passenger may be a terrorist to the lowest bidder? I urge adoption of the amendment of the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I wanted to offer which is subject to a point of order would try to remedy a problem which I think we all understand exists, and that is we are continuing to be under the threat that some terrorist group will ship into the United States in a cargo container or by truck a nuclear device or a dirty bomb.

I want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the committee for adding money to this item over and above what the President requested. The committee added $50 million to help purchase radiation portal monitors. But unfortunately, as the committee's own report states, the President's request includes 165 additional radiation portal monitors, and the committee is aware of the need for 1,000.

What I was attempting to do by this amendment is to increase the funding for radiation portal devices so this next fiscal year we could fully deploy radiation portal monitors in all of our ports to be sure that we are prepared to defend against the possibility of a terrorist group putting in a container some nuclear device or dirty bomb. I recognize it is a significant increase, but I believe in light of the urgency that it is the right thing to do rather than continue on what would probably be a 2- to 3-year program to fully deploy.

point of order

I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the work that the chairman and the ranking member have done on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, all of us in this Chamber know that we have to work together in a bipartisan way to make the homeland as safe as it needs to be from the threat of terrorism. We also know that we are a country at war against al Qaeda and related groups. It is a war that demands we fight the terrorists wherever they exist. It is a war that demands we commit ourselves through our actions abroad to prevent the rise of future terrorists. And it is a war that requires us to ensure that our homeland is fully protected.

This cannot be business as usual. We must act with the same sense of urgency that we all had after September 11. As we look at these appropriations for the next year, our actions will demonstrate to the American people whether we are moving with the degree of speed that we need and the sense of purpose that we must have to protect our country.

The proposed increase for the Department of about $1 billion above the President's request is important and necessary, but we must put that $1 billion in perspective. We spend $1 billion a week in Iraq. We have committed our troops to winning that war. But we must also win the war against terrorism here at home. The cost of failure here at home would far exceed the investments we should be making to ensure that America is as secure as it needs to be.

Annual spending on homeland security still amounts to less than one- half of 1 percent of the gross domestic product. Since 9/11, we have increased the level of annual spending on the agencies that now make up the Department of Homeland Security by about $15 billion. During that same period, the annual increase in our defense budget has been about $100 billion. We must devote the resources we need to win the war on terror abroad, but we must also invest in the homeland security needs we have here at home.

The truth is, Mr. Chairman, the President's request, and this appropriations bill, will not close critical security gaps that we continue to face. For example:

This bill fails to provide the additional $200 million needed to ensure that nuclear materials and dirty bombs can be detected at all of our seaports and border crossings by next year;

It fails to provide sufficient funding--at least $1 billion--to improve the security of our rail and public transit systems;

It fails to provide over $400 million that the Coast Guard says it needs to protect our Nation's ports.

It does not provide sufficient funds for airports across the country to upgrade or install explosive detection systems;

It does not provide the $100 million needed to increase the number of personnel who guard our Nation's northern and southern borders; and

It fails to provide the needed communications, equipment and training for our Nation's first responders.

Later today, we will consider an amendment by Mr. Obey of the Appropriations Committee that seeks to add $3 billion in additional resources to correct these and other shortfalls. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

In the war against al Qaeda, we must provide ALL the resources required to protect the homeland. We cannot fail on any front. However, the total amount proposed for the Department of Homeland Security for next fiscal year will not meet our constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense.

Mr. Chairman, the limitations imposed on our homeland security efforts is a direct function of choices that we make. If we want to take faster and stronger action to close the security gaps we face, we could do so. The American people are watching the choices we make and if the terrorists strike again and we are not ready we will be held accountable.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment which I bring before the committee is one that has been supported by many Members, particularly the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished ranking subcommittee member, the gentleman from (Mr. Sabo); and I want to especially thank the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers), for working with us on this amendment to craft it in a fashion that was acceptable.

We all know that securing our borders while maintaining the flow of people and commerce is one of the central challenges of our new Department of Homeland Security. We are clearly investing in technology to achieve our goals, but we all know that technology alone can never do the job. It takes people.

We know that people inspect packages and cargo coming into our country; people run the new programs, like the U.S. Visit Program, which has recently been awarded by the Department; people patrol the thousands of miles of our southern and northern borders; people detain and apprehend drug dealers and terrorists and criminal aliens.

Since 9/11, the demands upon these border personnel have increased substantially. We know that the new Department of Homeland Security continues to fail to meet the demands of controlling our borders, as evidenced by the 7 to 12 million people that are estimated to be undocumented immigrants in our country and by the continuing reports of our porous southern and northern borders. The amendment we offer today would help address these significant security gaps.

When inspectors from our former Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the agents from the Border Patrol were all merged into the new Department of Homeland Security, each former agency was operating under a pre-9/11 staffing model that reflected the missions of those agencies at that time. Since then, our frontline officers are working longer hours, dealing with new security threats and helping to implement new border security programs. The men and women on our frontlines are working hard to meet this new challenge, and we have an obligation to help them.

This amendment supports our frontline officers by commissioning an independent study to try to answer the central question, how many people do we need on our front lines to secure our Nation's borders while moving people and cargo across our borders in a reasonable amount of time? This study would take into consideration a variety of factors: threat and vulnerability information, the impact of the implementation of new technology, and the wait times that we know exist.

Mr. Chairman, we need to know how many people we need to have on the frontline. The cost of not doing this study would far outweigh the $450,000 set aside in this amendment, transferred from the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection from the Department's Headquarters Management Account.

This amendment has the support of a diverse group, including the National Border Patrol Council, the 18,000 frontline inspectors who make up the National Immigration and Naturalization Service Council, the American Federation of Government Employees, as well as the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

We must do all we can, Mr. Chairman, in this time of war against al Qaeda, to ensure that our borders are as secure as they need to be.

I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for working with this and supporting us on this amendment, and I appreciate also the language to be included as report language in support of this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for his leadership on this very critical issue, and I am glad to see that we have good people on all sides of this issue tonight.

I joined with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) in offering this amendment. I do agree with the ranking member that when this screening cap was put in place more than a year ago, we were looking at a TSA that was a bureaucracy out of control. It had hired more than 60,000 screeners, and it was still growing. There was no clear strategy or budget plan. It was unknown how much technology would help in moving people and baggage through screening checkpoints. So at that time, the cap made a lot of sense, and it certainly sent a very strong message to the Department.

Today, however, we have a very different situation. TSA has met, to a large extent, demanding congressional requirements and has its leadership and budget team in place. As a testament to the public's trust in air safety, air traffic has increased dramatically. Yet we have the same screener cap in place, and it is impeding the ability of the Department to manage a growing passenger load.

Many Americans are all too familiar with the long security lines at airports. Many of us travel and see those long lines. I see them regularly at Reagan airport. Many see it at Dulles. I also see them at the Houston airport.

What is less obvious than the long lines is the damage that screener understaffing is doing to aviation security. I have had a chance to talk to some of the airline screeners in Houston who are afraid to openly acknowledge the way their operations are run. When the lines get too long, they simply push people through. That kind of conduct does not build confidence in airport security and certainly is demoralizing to those who work so diligently to protect the public at our airports.

The General Accounting Office has reported that staffing shortfalls have prevented the TSA from checking or sending checked baggage through electronic screening, and we have heard from screeners over and over again that passenger lines get longer, and the pressure that I mentioned is on them to move the passengers through faster. According to many media accounts, even though TSA regulations require four screeners per checkpoint, staffing shortfalls have, in some cases, reduced that to two.

In legislation that I joined the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) in introducing recently, we would require TSA to conduct a comprehensive study of its staffing needs so that Congress could provide the appropriate resources. Determining the right mix of full- time and part-time screeners and developing a model to measure the staffing needs at every airport is long overdue.

I understand TSA will have such a study completed shortly. If this study reveals the need for more screeners, we

should not tie the Department's hands with an arbitrary cap; and keep in mind, if we do not lift this cap, it is likely to remain in place for at least the next 15 months.

By eliminating the cap now, we are one step closer to making sure that the changes that need to be made in our airports can happen quickly when they are needed.

I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I want to say I think we have all seen the pitfalls tonight of these formula-based funding formulas that divide this House along regional, urban, and rural lines.

I want to mention something that the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) mentioned early in this debate, and that is that there is a better way to do this, and it is contained in legislation that the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and I have cosponsored that came out of the Select Committee on Homeland Security unanimously, that went through the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Transportation and the Committee on the Judiciary. It also is reaffirmed by the language the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) placed in this bill. And that is to say that we ought to have one grant fund that is distributed to establish and to fund what we call the essential capabilities that every State, every community, and every region needs to prepare and defend against a terrorist attack.

That process of establishing essential capabilities would end the debate we are having tonight. The essential capabilities would be determined based on the threat and vulnerability information that this Congress already has required in the Homeland Security Act that the Homeland Security Department prepared.

If we did that, we would have a road map. Tonight we are flying by the seat of our pants. We do not know what the real needs are to defend this country.

The establishment of essential capabilities would give us that road map, we would know how much progress we would make, we would know what the measures, the metrics, the standards are we are trying to achieve, and it would end the kind of debate we are having to have tonight.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members when that bill hopefully comes to the floor that we adopt it, that we agree unanimously that the right way to defend America is to be sure that we develop essential capabilities for every community in America based on the real threats and vulnerabilities that this Nation faces.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule because I felt very strongly that this House should be given the opportunities to provide what I believe to be the essential additional funding to protect the homeland.

This Congress and this House has had a long tradition of supporting national defense in a bipartisan way. If you look at the additions that we have made in spending in the area of national defense, particularly in light of the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have spent in the neighborhood of an additional $150 billion or so in the defense of this effort.

The truth of the matter is, our additional spending on homeland security dwarfs by way of comparison and yet in both instances we are at war. We are at war against an enemy who desires to destroy us, an enemy who will exploit our vulnerabilities, and what we should be doing is debating in an open way whether or not we believe we should be prepared to deal effectively with these threats.

We need to install radiation portal devices immediately in our ports. We need to provide sufficient security funding for our rail and public transits. We need to provide the Coast Guard with additional funds to protect our ports. We need to be sure that we install explosive detection equipment in our airports. We need to have inspectors and personnel at our northern and southern borders sufficient to do the job. We need to fund adequately our first responders. The list goes on. But I frankly believe, Mr. Speaker, that this House if given the choice would provide additional dollars for homeland security. I regret that this rule denies us this opportunity.

Offered By: Mr. Turner of Texas

Amendment No. 21: In title I, in the item relating to

``Office of the Under Secretary for Management'', insert

after the first dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by

$1,000,000)''.

In title II, in the item relating to ``Customs and Border

Protection--salaries and expenses'', insert after the first

dollar amount the following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Turner of Texas

Amendment No. 22: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding. I want to thank all of my colleagues. I want to thank the distinguished majority leader from Texas for cosponsoring this legislation with me along with other colleagues from Texas.

This legislation, I think, does something that needs to be done, that should be done; and I think our former colleague, Congressman Charles Wilson, could think of nothing that he would rather for this Congress to do than to put his name on the veterans outpatient clinic in Lufkin, Texas, which is the largest community in our congressional district.

Charlie Wilson had a distinguished career in this body as well as in the Texas legislature. He served the public for over 36 years. He served three terms in the Texas house, three terms in the Texas Senate, and 12 terms in this body.

Charlie Wilson is, first and foremost, a soldier. In his very youngest years he dreamed of being a soldier, and he became a student of history because he loved to read about battles and about the great wars. He ended up being admitted to the Naval Academy and served both at home and abroad in the United States Navy with great distinction.

Charlie Wilson served in this body on the House Committee on Appropriations, and when he left this body he was the most senior Democrat on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, and a senior Democrat on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. He was appointed to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the 100th Congress.

Charlie Wilson became a recognized expert on defense and intelligence matters. And as the gentleman from Florida mentioned earlier, in the book ``Charlie's War,'' the story is recounted of Charlie's devotion, commitment, and his enthusiastic efforts to help kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan. We all know that that was the last big battle before the Soviet Union fell, and many credit our efforts against the Soviets in Afghanistan as leading to the fall of the Iron Curtain.

Charlie Wilson believed in this country. He was a fierce fighter against the Communist influence that at that time was going around the world.

Charlie Wilson was recognized for his expertise not only in defense and intelligence but in the area of international energy policy. He served on the Energy Conference Committee that is responsible for the landmark comprehensive National Energy Act of 1978.

Charlie Wilson established the outpatient clinic in Lufkin. It was something that he really believed in, because in our part of this country and the rural piney woods of East Texas we have a large number of patriotic Americans who have served in the United States military. He knew that our veterans in our part of the State were having to travel over 100 miles to get to the nearest VA hospital to receive care. Because Charlie was a veteran, because he believed in standing up for veterans and he believed that every veteran should be honored for the service they have given, he fought to establish this outpatient clinic in Lufkin; and it has served the people of our area very well.

Charlie Wilson worked hard during his career to serve the needs of all veterans and of all senior citizens, and he had in his office one of the largest caseloads of veterans work of any Member of Congress. I have been pleased, in succeeding him, to have carried on that responsibility of assisting the many veterans in deep East Texas.

Charlie Wilson was a colorful Member of Congress. One did not have to wonder where Charlie Wilson stood on the issues, and one did not have to know whether you were getting a straight story or not. Because whether Charlie was talking about an issue on the floor of the Congress or talking about something going on in his district or talking about something in his own personal life, he was always very candid with his constituents; and for that they reelected him 12 times to this body.

So I am very proud that my colleagues have joined with us in introducing this resolution honoring Charlie Wilson, and I would invite all Members to join with us in adopting it.

Mr. Speaker, it has been almost 3 years since the September 11 attacks by a small, but deadly, network of terrorists; and America is asking, are we winning the war on terror? Are we better off today than we were 4 years ago?

To win the war on terror, we must succeed on three fronts simultaneously: we must attack the terrorists, we must protect the homeland, and we must prevent the rise of future terrorists.

Our protracted conflict in Iraq has overextended our military and limits our capacity to confront the emerging threats around the world. The terrorist threat is growing into an even larger network of loosely affiliated groups whose common thread is their hatred of America.

We have yet to pursue a strategy to strengthen the voices of moderation in the Muslim world that are our best hope for preventing the rise of future terrorists.

Serious security gaps remain at our ports, in the air, on our trains, at our borders. Chemical, biological, nuclear, and conventional threats are increasing.

We are fighting the war on terror, but are we winning? To make Americans safer, we must move faster and be stronger than we are today.

Yes, I am in opposition, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services.

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

Let me say first that this amendment is not about friendship. We are clearly friends with the People's Republic of China and the people of Taiwan, and let there be no mistake about that. Let me also say that this amendment is not about military exchanges, because they are already authorized under the Taiwan Relations Act.

What this amendment does that is new is requires a higher level of exchanges between high-level military personnel and high-level civilian personnel, which has never, to date, been authorized by any administration.

So I think this is clearly an amendment that is interfering with a very delicate balance that exists with regard to our One China policy. It is opposed by the State Department, it is opposed by the National Security Council members, and employees who work with China. One of them said, ``This is unhelpful to the national interest. It could backfire. It works against our purpose.''

I urge Members to leave this matter in the hands of our President, to allow him to do this. Never have we required these higher-level visits, which to date have never been approved. I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services for their leadership on this bill today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of our troops and in support of this defense authorization bill, but I urge my colleagues to be up front with the American people about the true cost of our operations in Iraq. The supplemental $25 billion included in this bill for operations is not enough. We all know that at the rate we are spending money in Iraq, this will only last a few more months.

Democrats on the Committee on Armed Services unanimously supported a $67 billion authorization to ensure we can do what is necessary to provide stability in Iraq, and we have been denied the opportunity to have a vote on this issue on the floor by the Committee on Rules.

To accomplish our goal in Iraq, we need additional troop strength; we must commit whatever is necessary to force protection; we need to increase recruiting and training for the Iraqi military and police forces; and, finally, we need a bold and urgent plan that gives the Iraqi people the opportunity to determine their own destiny.

We have set a June 30 deadline for the handover of political authority to the interim Iraqi Government. The President has correctly said we must keep this deadline. Deadlines are important motivators; they give purpose and direction and urgency to both planning and execution. The Iraqi people must also keep the deadline to adopt a permanent constitution on or before October 15, 2005.

It is equally clear that we should also establish a clear and unambiguous deadline of December 31, 2005, to turn over complete responsibility for peacekeeping to the Iraqi civilian police and the Iraqi military. Thereafter, we should commit, if invited by the new government to participate in an international advisory group, to assist the Iraqi people in a successful transition to stability and democracy.

The Iraqi people are capable, resourceful, and educated; and we know that stability can be achieved with hard work and strong commitment. We can and should encourage and support democracy in Iraq; but in the final analysis, the Iraqi people must choose democracy and a form of government fashioned by their own history, their own values, and their own initiatives.

Our brave soldiers and the American people have already and will continue to pay in blood and treasure to achieve this goal. A clear timetable will more likely achieve a successful outcome. Both the people of America and the people of Iraq deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, I am greatly disturbed that we are debating a $275 billion transportation measure without taking strong action in this bill to increase security in our rail and transit systems.

Three weeks ago, a terrorist group related to al Qaeda conducted several coordinated bombings on commuter trains in Madrid. Two hundred civilians were killed and more than 1,500 injured. The tragedy was enough to shock the nations of Europe into immediate action to get serious about transit security, but we have not responded here at home with sufficient urgency to protect the lives of the many Americans who travel every day by rail and transit.

Earlier this week, British police arrested eight and seized half a ton of ammonia nitrate. Philippine authorities arrested four members of a terrorist group linked to al Qaeda and seized 30 pounds of TNT. Each of these cases may have prevented another Madrid-style attack.

Closer to home, Amtrak's trains were stopped this last Tuesday and searched

in Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania after bomb threats were reported. We are enormously vulnerable to rail and transit attack and have an estimated need for $2 billion in investments in security for mass transit.

Yet since the attacks of September 11 of 2001, the Department of Homeland Security has made available only $115 million for this purpose.

Today, we have a $275 billion bill that barely addresses security. It does not specifically dedicate one dollar to rail or transit security.

I offered three amendments in the Committee on Rules, two of them designed to make a down payment of $250 million in grants to local transit agencies to improve security through surveillance and communications systems, detectors for weapons of mass destruction, training, education and other uses.

In light of terrorist threats that we face, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to understand why we are not allowed to take up these amendments on the floor of the House today.

Mr. Speaker, we are on this floor today trying to get our financial house back in order, trying to get this House to adopt a very simple, straightforward rule requiring us to pay as we go that has already been adopted by the Senate.

And it is really hard for me to understand why our Republican colleagues do not want to do this. I always thought they were the party of fiscal conservatism. They always wanted to balance a budget. Yet now they come to the floor and claim that the only remedy here is to cut spending when, in fact, they control both Houses of the Congress and they control the White House. So if they think that is the answer, why do not they get on with it?

We just simply believe that you have got to run the Congress and the Federal Government like we do any household or any business. We have got to pay our bills. We have got to pay as we go. And why do we think that is so important? We think it is important because next year it is projected we will have the largest Federal deficit in the history of this country, over half a trillion.

We are going to come to this floor, and we are going to vote on 13 appropriations bills as we do every year to fund this government, and we are going to borrow 60 percent of that total of those 13 appropriations bills. One could not get by with that at home. One could not get by with that in their business. One cannot get by with it at city government, county government, State government. Why do they think we can do it here in Washington?

My colleagues act like it just does not matter anymore, that somehow they can just say it is all going to work out when they presented a budget that never even purports to get back into balance.

And deficits do matter. They are making this country weaker. How can we defend against terrorism if we do not have any cushion to fall back on financially? How can we expect to get this economy going again and how can we expect to avoid the high interest rates that everyone projects in the future that will be contributed to by the fact that the Federal Government is borrowing all these billions of dollars?

Deficits do matter. That is a simple rule adopted by the Senate to try to impose a little discipline on this Congress, on this House. And the truth of the matter is, if you vote with us, the Committee on Rules majority can waive this rule any time they get ready and my colleagues can do whatever they want to out here.

All we are trying to do is send a clear message that this Congress and the fiscal conservatives in this Congress believe we need to get back to balancing our budget, paying as we go, and recognizing that deficits do matter because they make this country weaker, they make us have an inability to have a strong economy, they make it impossible for us to be able to have a strong national defense.

And it is morally irresponsible to pass on debts created by this generation to the next generation. We have got soldiers today in Iraq fighting for this country that are going to come home and enter the private sector and get to pay the bills for the war that they are fighting that we refuse to pay for.

There has never been a war in the history of our country where the American people did not step forward and pay the bills for the war. This is the first. We want fiscal discipline. We believe it is important for this country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget's comments.

We simply looked at our budget today, and we see that if we take all nondiscretionary spending that we are going to vote on in the 13 appropriations bills and we just eliminate all nondefense homeland security, we are not paying for the defense of homeland security portion of our budget. That is how bad a shape we are in.

So I would say it is fair to say we are not paying for defense, we are not paying for the conflicts that we are facing.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think it is pretty clear that when you look at the Blue Dog budget and compare it to the Republican budget, the Blue Dog budget moves us to a balanced budget in 8 years. The Republican budget does not. In fact, the Republican budget makes no effort to move us toward a balanced budget. It is really hard to comprehend that next fiscal year we are projected to have a $521 billion deficit. That means under the Republican game plan, of those 13 appropriations bills that we are going to pass to run the government for the next year, 60 percent is going to be borrowed money. How we can ask this Congress or the American people to accept a Republican budget that does not move us toward balance is hard to comprehend. The Blue Dog budget will balance in 2012. The Blue Dog budget does that by making the difficult choices that this Congress and the American people expect the Congress to make.

When we look at where the Republican budget puts its priorities, we see very clearly that the Republican budget, in an effort to try to present something to the House that will provide some framework for the appropriations process, provides cuts in critical areas of homeland security. The Blue Dog budget does not cut homeland security. The Blue Dog budget maintains what the President has requested. Yet the Republicans' own budget cuts below the President's budget for homeland security at a time when we all know we are under serious threat of another al Qaeda terrorist attack.

When we look at the Blue Dog budget, we have an alternative that I hope will be appealing to the Republicans. I hope that some of them will join with us. It is a responsible plan, it should be a bipartisan plan, and we offer it to them with the best intention of moving away from the terrible deficits that the Republicans have offered us in recent years.

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

I would like to point out to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee that the Blue Dog budget does balance, contrary to his comment earlier, and I think he was challenging my colleague from Texas to lay out a balanced budget, I guess, for next year. It must have been what he was referring to.

But here is our chart. We balance in 2012, 8 years from now. Under the chairman's 5-year budget plan, they do not balance and apparently have no plans to balance. So here is the chart.

The Blue Dog budget is in blue, and we balance in 2012. The chairman's plan does not balance, and apparently there is no plan by which it will balance.

And I also want to correct another statement the distinguished chairman made, and that is the allegation that the Blue Dogs cut defense. We do not cut defense. We maintain the President's numbers on defense. And in fact, if there is any criticism due here, it should be on the chairman's budget when they cut homeland security $800 billion below what the President recommended. We happen to think that it is important to pursue the war on terror both at home and abroad, and in

our budget we stay with the recommendations of the President on that issue.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me time and thank him for his leadership on this portion of the effort on the budget resolution.

I am glad to be here today with my colleague on the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has worked tirelessly on behalf of first responders.

We heard this morning the Director and Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency testify before the 9/11 Commission that we are at war every day against al Qaeda. All of us know that terrorists have attacked our homeland and that they are going to seek to do it again, and it may be soon. We should need no reminders after witnessing the deadly attacks in Spain. That is why we must do all we can as fast as we can to protect our Nation against those who seek to do us harm.

It is shocking to me that in time of war against al Qaeda, that the Republican budget resolution proposes cutting funding for homeland security by a total of $857 million over 5 years. Instead of correcting the shortfalls in the President's budget request, the Republicans in the House have further cut their President's own budget request on homeland security.

We cannot reduce funding for homeland security in time of war. We must ensure that the needed resources are available to close the security gaps that we have.

The President's budget and the Republican budget fail to provide any improved security for rail and public transit systems. It fails to provide the Coast Guard the things that the Coast Guard itself says it needs. We fail to provide in a rapid fashion the radiation portal monitors that should be installed at all of our ports of entry. The Republican budget does not provide any new funding for security of the cargo that travels on the same passenger planes that we fly on every week. And it cuts resources for our Nation's first responders in their effort to protect us against terrorists.

Mr. Chairman, there are ways to improve this Republican budget. I suggested one just a few moments ago to the Committee on Rules, to suspend the deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as was done by the Senate in a bipartisan manner, generating $1.7 billion for deficit reduction and homeland security.

Mr. Chairman, a budget resolution is an expression of national priorities, and I have no need of reminding anyone in this House that we are at war and that we must provide for the homeland security needs of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

The Matthew Perry Courthouse

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on a very critical subject, the subject of homeland security. There is no responsibility of this Congress more important than the exercise of vigorous and thorough oversight in the area of homeland security. Just one year ago, the Congress created the Department of Homeland Security from 22 separate agencies of this Federal Government. Implementing the largest reorganization of the Federal Government in almost 50 years would be daunting enough, but given the urgency to prevent, to deter and to respond to terrorist attacks, and knowing that failure is never an option when dealing with terrorism, it is clear to me that the administration, that the new Department and its congressional overseers, face a challenge unlike any in our history before.

A lack of leadership or focus, errors in prioritization or judgment, any of these can place thousands of American lives at risk. Poor management can result in a waste of taxpayer dollars as the new Department enters into multibillion-dollar contracts under pressure to get this critical job done.

The Democrats on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, in exercising our responsibility for oversight, have produced a 135-page review of the Department of Homeland Security's activities during its first year. This document is entitled ``America at Risk: Closing the Security Gap.'' We have relied upon in preparation of this document our own independent investigations, our own research, as well as a wide range of expert opinion from throughout this country. This report highlights the very significant security gaps that still remain, and offers recommendations on how we can best go about closing these security gaps.

From the very founding of our Nation, the very first charge of government is to provide security for the American people. The opening words of our Constitution call on us to provide for the common defense. We gather here today in the shadow of a grave and gathering threat to the safety and the security of the American people. Those who delivered the deadly blows against our Nation on September 11, 2001, are poised for further attacks against our homeland.

Just days ago, Ayman al-Zawahari, the mastermind behind al Qaeda's operations and Osama bin Laden's closest confidant, threatened America once again. In an audiotape released to the Al Jazeera network, Zawahari had this to say: ``Bush, strengthen your defenses and your security measures, for the Muslim nation, which sent you the legion of New York and Washington,

has determined to send you legion after legion seeking death and paradise.''

Just last Tuesday the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George Tenet, confirmed the stark reality of the al Qaeda threat, saying before this Congress, ``Al Qaeda is still capable of catastrophic attacks against the United States.'' Director Tenet made the nature of the conflict with al Qaeda clear when he said, ``We are still at war against a movement that is not going away any time soon.''

Mr. Speaker, we are at war, at war against a cruel and calculating foe who will not stop in its effort to deliver death and destruction to our shores, and we must do everything necessary to close those security gaps that make us vulnerable to terrorist attack, and we must move with the urgency of a Nation at war.

That is why the Democratic Members of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security have chosen the first anniversary of the Department of Homeland Security to issue this report to the American people. We present a review of our defenses, and we propose recommendations to close the security gaps that make us vulnerable to attack.

Mr. Speaker, we all understand that there is no responsibility of Congress more important than working to preserve the safety and security of every American. That requires this Select Committee on Homeland Security in this House to vigorously exercise our oversight responsibility. We know that we cannot afford to sleep while Rome burns.

There are some who say on this first anniversary of the new Department that we are safer than we were before September 11, 2001. That is true. But that sets the bar way too low. The real question that we must ask today is, are we as safe as we need to be in light of the threats that we face? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is no.

Our Nation remains vulnerable to potential catastrophic attacks involving nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological weapons. Pathways to the United States by land, sea and air are still insecure; our critical infrastructures have few defenses; and our communities are not as prepared as they need to be in the event of a terrorist attack. The results of our report, ``America at Risk: Closing the Security Gap,'' should serve as a call to action for this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there are some key defenses that we must have in place to prevent a catastrophic attack on our country. To keep the terrorists away from our shores, we must develop a unified terrorist watch list, and we must focus on preventing the threat of nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical attacks against the American people.

I would like to review for you just a few examples from this 135-page congressional oversight document which exposes the serious security gaps that we still have when it comes to protecting America from catastrophic attack.

Two and one-half years after September 11, 2001, there is still not a unified terrorist watch list in this government, a list that must be available to help our agents stop all suspected targets at our borders. The promised completion date for a unified terrorist watch list has slipped four times. In the past 2 weeks alone the completion date that is projected by the Department for this project has slipped another 9 months. We have the technology to create a unified terrorist watch list, but we need the focus and the discipline and the will to get this critical job done.

Many other systems that we are putting in place to protect America will depend upon an accurate, effective, real-time unified terrorist watch list. It is hard to understand or explain how 2\1/2\ years after September 11 we still have not gotten this job done.

Another example from this report of a security gap, millions of cargo and containers enter America every day and travel through our communities without having been screened for radiological and nuclear devices. This Congress has appropriated the funds to make sure cargo containers that enter our ports are free of nuclear material that could be used in a dirty bomb or a crude nuclear weapon, but the job is not yet done.

There are at least 57 different countermeasures that are needed to defend against diseases that are the greatest threat of biological terror. Today only one of these countermeasures can be widely distributed, just one.

Mr. Speaker, there is still no plan to secure the 123 chemical plants that we are told will threaten the lives of over 1 million people in the event of a massive breach of chemical containment due to terrorist attack. It remains an unassailable and uncomfortable fact that America is not as safe as it needs to be in the face of the threat of al Qaeda.

Mr. Speaker, we must take stronger and faster action to close these security gaps. The men and women who patrol our borders, who inspect our cargo at our ports, who respond to emergencies are setting a high standard for excellence, but they must have the leadership and the support and the direction that they deserve. That is the responsibility of the leadership of this Congress and of the new Department of Homeland Security and of our President.

On this, the first anniversary of the Department of Homeland Security, we should strive to regain that sense of urgency that we all had after September 11, 2001. We must have a renewed sense of purpose to close the security gaps which threaten the safety of the American people.

I am confident that, working together, we can accomplish these goals. I am confident that America can look forward to a day when we have won the war on terror.

But it will not happen unless this Nation continues to press forward with a sense of urgency that we all know must exist when we are at war.

Some have said, can we afford to protect America against the threat of terrorist attack? And there is no question that the cost of security has run to the billions of dollars. But the real question that we should be asking and that we should be willing to address is, can we afford not to close these security gaps? For the truth of the matter is that if we fail to close these security gaps and our terrorist enemies are successful in another catastrophic attack against our country, it will cost us far more than the cost of securing America.

When I look at the level of spending for homeland defense, though it is large, it is important to put it in the context of the total Federal budget and the cost of our government. And when we examine the President's budget request for this upcoming fiscal year, which will be considered over the next few months by this Congress, we see that the President has asked for an increase in homeland security, new spending for the Department of Homeland Security that is equal to the amount of money that we spend every month in Iraq.

Now, we know we must be successful in Iraq. We know that having committed, we cannot afford to fail to achieve the stability of that country and to achieve democracy for the people of Iraq. But when we recognize that we, in our own defense, have seen the President recommend increased spending for our own security here at home an amount of money equal to what we spend every month in Iraq, it causes one to ask, are we placing our priorities in the right place. Both are important, but most important is protecting the security of the American people here at home.

I have the opportunity to receive briefings from time to time as the ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security from our new Terrorist Threat Integration Center. I have the opportunity to look into the eyes of those CIA agents who daily have to listen to the threat reports from al Qaeda and other organizations against this country, and I can assure my colleagues that this country is at risk. And let there be no mistake about it: we must continue in our resolve to move faster and be stronger in protecting this country against the threat of al Qaeda and like-minded terrorist groups.

One of the members of our committee, a freshman member, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), expressed it this way the other day. He said, spending on homeland security is like buying insurance. You can either

pay the premium and get the insurance to protect you, or you can decline to pay the premium and face the risk of the consequences. This Nation remains at risk. We are engaged in a struggle unlike any in the history of this country, and we are facing an enemy that is driven by culture, by religion, by fanaticism, and that is intent upon doing harm to the people of our country. This threat is one that we must face head on. This threat is one that we must be sure that we prevail against. And this threat is one that we must be willing to pay the cost of.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that every Member of Congress and the American people will join with us in regaining the sense of urgency that we have in making sure that we have done everything necessary to ensure the protection of the American people. I would urge every Member of this Congress and every listener to take a look at this report and its contents on the Web site of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. The Web address is www.house.gov/hsc/democrats/. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker: www.house.gov/hsc/democrats/.

As my colleagues review this report, I think they will find that we as a Nation have a long way to go in being able to tell the American people that we are prepared enough to defend against, to prevent, to deter, and to respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that every Member of this Congress will join together in that same spirit that this Congress exhibited on September 11 of 2001 when we gathered just outside of this Chamber on the steps of this Capitol and joined together in expressing our resolve to prevail against al Qaeda, expressing our commitment to do whatever is necessary to win, and joined together in singing ``God bless America.'' For the truth is, we are the greatest Nation that has ever existed on the face of the Earth. We have tremendous responsibilities in our leadership in this world, and we must do whatever is necessary to prevail in the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, it does not happen very often on the floor of this House where a bill comes forward that has many good provisions in it, but there is one provision that is so damaging and so harmful and so unfair that it causes us to oppose an otherwise good bill. But as my colleagues have heard over and over again today in this debate, public school teachers in places like my State of Texas and other government employees feel very strongly that the government pension offset is wrong, that it must be corrected, the law must be changed; and this bill provided an opportunity to correct that injustice.

I know from personal experience how deeply this issue is felt by public school teachers. It was a couple of years ago in my office that I had a lady come to see me, and I really did not know why it was she really wanted to come see me, but my staff had said this lady really wants to talk to you, she needs to see you. So I said, well, let her come on, I would be glad to visit with her. I had no idea what it would be about.

She came and she began to tell me a story that quickly turned to tears in her eyes when she told me about how her husband had passed away just a few months before. After his death, she learned that she would not be able to collect any of the survivor benefits that she believed, rightfully, her husband had earned by a lifetime of contributions to the Social Security system. She explained to me that the law apparently said that because she was a public school teacher, an honorable profession, that somehow the law said that she could not qualify for survivor benefits that her husband had contributed for years to ensure that she would get. She told me, she said, if I had done anything else, if I had just worked in a private company, they tell me that I could get the survivor benefit; but because I am a teacher and receiving a benefit from the teacher retirement system, that I am disqualified. Her tears turned to anger as she said to me, this is wrong. And as I have learned over the years since, teachers all across my State of Texas feel very strongly about the unfairness of this provision of the Social Security law.

So I think with an overwhelming majority of this House having signed on to a bill to eliminate this offset, that we should have, in good conscience, taken the opportunity in this legislation to have corrected that unfair provision of the Social Security law.

I recognize that there are some who have logical arguments as to why this should not be changed, but I will tell my colleagues that after listening to this widow with tears in her eyes, I became convinced that she had the better side of the argument. Oh, I know it is going to have a cost to the Social Security trust fund to provide this benefit to all of these public school teachers who have had spouses who have passed away before them, but the reality is that getting it fixed is the right thing to do.

I would urge my colleagues today to take what will be perhaps somewhat of a difficult step and join with those of us who have stood on this floor arguing about this point for this entire hour of debate and vote against a bill that is otherwise a good bill, to give us the opportunity to correct what we believe, and many, many public employees believe, is a very unfair provision of the Social Security law.

I want to commend the gentleman from Florida for his leadership on Social Security. I know that he differs with us on this issue, but I hope that the Members who have joined on in supporting the McKeon bill to correct

this problem will also join with us today to vote against this bill so that once and for all we can do what is right for our teachers and for our public employees.