Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), for sponsoring this resolution.

It was one year ago that we all shared in the tragedy of the Space Shuttle Columbia. A team of seven astronauts traveling back home from the frontier of outer space paid the ultimate sacrifice as their spacecraft broke apart across the blue skies of East Texas. The seven who perished showed great patriotism and courage, serving our Nation in the field of the space exploration.

The NASA astronaut corps is the very best and brightest of our Nation, men and women unafraid to strap themselves into a spacecraft and launch off into the unknown so that our Nation and our world can expand our knowledge and improve our well-being.

These astronauts were pursuing their dreams and ours. And when tragedy struck their ship, a Nation in grief united to show honor to their service. Over 25,000 workers and volunteers spent months searching through the woods and fields of East Texas, seeking to recover the Columbia and her crew. In towns like Hemphill, Rusk, Nacogdoches, San Augustine and Lufkin, the citizens of East Texas and my congressional district responded as did all citizens across America.

East Texans are patriotic folks who are known to help a neighbor or friend in need. For weeks on end they combed through the thickets of the piney woods, they cooked meals, they brought in supplies, they gave shelter to those who came from all across America to help.

The NASA family became a part of the East Texas family, and they will always remain in our hearts. The scriptures bring us solace and hope in times like these. The psalmist David wrote, ``The heavens declare the glory of God. The skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day, they pour forth speech. Night after night they display knowledge.''

Today, we remember the crew of the Columbia and their legacy. We remember their sacrifice and honor their family and friends who remain in our prayers on this difficult anniversary.

The seven brave astronauts who died would want us to look forward to the future with determination to press on. They would want us to uphold the mission of NASA in times of tragedy, as well as in times of triumph, and most of all, they would want us to keep reaching, to keep learning more, to explore more, to venture on into space for the benefit of all mankind.

Today, we honor Colonel Rick Husband, Commander William McCool, Dr. Kalpana Chawla, Dr. Laurel Clark, Dr. David Brown, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Anderson, Colonel Ilan Ramon. A grateful Nation will always remember, and in their memory, may we never cease to reach for the heavens.

Mr. Speaker, for years the pleas of our hurting seniors fell on the deaf ears of our Republican majority until one day our Republican friends were struck with an ingenious idea, wrapping a plan to privatize Medicare into a deceptive package called prescription drugs for seniors.

It keeps the drug companies happy because they can still charge twice as much for medicine here as anywhere else in the world. It keeps insurance companies happy by paying them 25 percent more to cover seniors than taxpayers pay to cover seniors under traditional Medicare. It keeps doctors and hospitals happy by paying them billions while leading them like sheep into the perils of managed care.

And it costs taxpayers $400 billion for a meager prescription drug savings of 25 percent, a savings that could be achieved at no cost to taxpayers by giving seniors the right to buy drugs at the same price they can get them in Canada. All this slight of hand to force seniors into private insurance and some day to give them a voucher and tell them fend for yourself. No security, no certainty, no guaranty of coverage, you are on your own. And the promise of Medicare is no more.

My seniors in east Texas see right through this. In a poll conducted tonight, over 6,000 seniors in my district, 85 percent said they were opposed to the Republican plan. Dress it all up as fancy as you can, it is a bad deal for America's seniors and they know it.

Mr. Speaker, I will be offering a motion to recommit to give seniors a meaningful prescription drug plan. This motion matches the conference report dollar for dollar on provider payments. It allows the Secretary of HHS to negotiate lower drug prices. It eliminates premium support ensuring that seniors will not have to pay more to keep the Medicare coverage they know and trust. It rejects the poison pill language that guts reimportation, and it prevents millions of retirees from losing their benefits and protects

low-income seniors by allowing Medicaid to provide wrap around coverage.

Mr. Speaker, let us give the greatest generation the certainty, the security, and the guarantee they deserve. Vote for this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute of a distinguished public servant, Dr. Leonard L. Coleman. To the people of Grimes County, in East Texas, Dr. Coleman is a living legend. Considered by many to be the father of modern medicine in Grimes County, Dr. Coleman's surgical skills have helped mend and save lives for more than 34 years.

Dr. Coleman's distinguished medical career, during which he touched the lives of thousands of East Texans, represents the very best American values of commitment, selflessness, and hard work.

Not only a fine doctor, Dr. Coleman has been a dedicated public servant as well. At a time when many physicians were moving to larger communities and increasing the sizes of their practices, Dr. Coleman remained committed to the community in which he was raised throughout his career. As part of this commitment, Dr. Coleman has been a community leader, serving in a variety of civic positions, including President of the School Board, City Commissioner, Elder in the Presbyterian Church, and school physician. He has been a lifelong public servant in the truest sense of the word.

Dr. Coleman was also a teacher. He mentored young men who thought they might be interested in a medical career. During many summers, high school and college students assisted Dr. Coleman in surgery, while he made rounds and house calls, and worked with him in the Navasota Clinic laboratory. Dr. Coleman's charm, wit, and warmth enchanted everyone he met, including both his patients and his students.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in commending Dr. Coleman on a distinguished career and in thanking him for a lifetime of outstanding medical care and selfless service to the citizens of East Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I returned from Iraq last night, and every American can be very proud of the work that our men and women in uniform are doing there for our country. The sacrifice they are making and the danger they face demand that we provide them with the best in equipment, supplies, and quality of life that we possibly can as they continue the effort to bring stability to Iraq.

I commend our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for the efforts he has made to move more of the $87 billion to protect our troops. Irrespective of one's views about the wisdom of preemptive action against Saddam Hussein and concerns about the intelligence analysis upon which that action was based, we are now confronted as a Nation with a challenge and a responsibility where failure is not an option. The future of Iraq and the success there will depend upon the willingness that we have to stay the course. This will require sacrifice on the part of the American people, and I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for calling upon the top 1 percent of Americans measured by income to share in the sacrifice being made by our troops in Iraq.

The future stability of the region demands stability in Iraq. I found the Iraqi people to be capable, intelligent, and determined to provide a better way of life for their people. And in the eyes of Iraqi teachers, in the eyes of the Iraqi policemen and firefighters that we are training, and in the eyes of members of the Iraqi governing council, I found hope. We have assumed a stake in the success of their future, and we must not fail; and I hope that we will be joined by others in the world community in assisting us in achieving success in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, my colleague, for yielding me this time on what is a very, very important motion to instruct, and one that I would hope would be received favorably by our Republican colleagues, because there are provisions in this motion that I think are important to many of us, particularly those of us who come from rural areas.

When we look at what this bill looked like as it left the House, as my colleagues will recall, it only passed by one vote, and I think it took over an hour to get that one vote after a little arm-twisting. So this bill clearly was one that did not sail out of this House, and I think that the provisions that are in it are important.

First of all, it is, I think, appropriate in this motion to ask that the very best provisions of both the House and the Senate bill on improving Medicare payments to health care providers in rural areas be in the final conference report, because many of us in rural areas have been hurt by some of the changes and cutbacks in Medicare funding. I have people come into my office all the time from my district who are administrators of hospitals, who tell us that they are having a hard time keeping the doors open and pleading with us to try to provide adequate reimbursement for Medicare services in our rural hospitals.

It is true that since 1998, 57 percent of the hospitals treating Medicare patients in this country have lost money, and that is only the beginning of the story. As we listen to the individual hospitals who come and talk to us, they tell us that they may be closing the doors if we do not do better in terms of Medicare reimbursements. So this is not a partisan issue; this is a bipartisan issue that particularly affects those of us in rural America. At a time when we are being called upon to spend billions of dollars to reconstruct Iraq, we do not need to be closing the doors of hospitals right here in America.

I also think the provision of the motion to reject any cuts that may affect a rural hospital is an appropriate and similarly arguable meritorious provision to have in this motion.

Finally, the guarantee that is in the Senate bill that there is a fallback to a Medicare prescription drug plan if there are not two plans offered by private companies in your area seems to only make common sense. After all, most seniors in this country are happy with Medicare; and they would be well pleased, as I have always been, in advocating a prescription drug benefit under regular Medicare. But because our Republican colleagues have insisted that we have a privatization of Medicare in order to get a prescription drug benefit, it seems only to make common sense that as we enter into that experiment, if that is the direction the Republicans choose to lead us, that we have some protection. After all, it is an experimental venture. In my area we had cutbacks in Medicare offerings by private companies.

So I think this motion should be well received by both sides of the aisle, and I hope it will be adopted.

Mr. Speaker, we all know it is the first duty of this Congress to protect and provide for the defense of the American people. In the first days of the 21st century, this means that we have to do everything we can to protect America from terrorist attack.

After September 11, the question that each of us must answer is are we doing all we can to protect America. With only 3 percent of our cargo containers being checked as they enter American ports, can we say that we are doing enough to close that security gap?

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am very much aware of it. I am just convinced that we are not doing it enough, and we are not providing the essential security that we need.

I participated just yesterday in an exercise out at the National Defense University, went through a simulation of a terrorist attack utilizing container cargo. The estimates of the devastation to our country and our economy that something coming through on cargo containers would do to this Nation is shocking, and I think it is very important that we do even more than we are doing today.

Mr. Speaker, I do agree we are doing more than we were. The question is are we doing enough to protect America?

When we look at what we are doing to protect our borders, we have yet to meet the levels that we mandated in the PATRIOT Act for border security guards, and we clearly do not know today who comes into this country and who leaves this country, and that is without dispute. We also know that we have got 12 incompatible terrorist watch lists, and it has been 2 years since we all knew that we had to have a common single watch list to be sure that all agencies of government knew who was on the terrorist watch list. We know the Coast Guard struggles with outdated equipment, equipment that needs to be upgraded. The list could go on and on and on.

The Council on Foreign Relations issued a report just about a month ago entitled Emergency Responders Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared, a bipartisan report issued by a bipartisan group chaired by Warren Rudman, former Republican Senator.

There seems to be no question, Mr. Speaker, that we must do more to protect the security of America, and when we look at it in the context of the priorities, what we see is the increase in the Homeland Security budget provided by this conference report is only 2\1/2\ percent above what it was last year. That is a $535 million increase in funding for Homeland Security, and keep in mind, this Homeland Security budget funds all these 22 agencies that we had in existence before we combined them into one agency. So we are really paying for a whole lot in this bill that we were already doing, and the total increase is about the rate of inflation.

In terms of priority, the President has requested that we spend approximately $20 billion additional to rebuild Iraq, and it is probably just a down payment. We are spending only 2\1/2\ percent additional on homeland security, 2\1/2\ percent of that $20 billion here at home to protect America. When we look at the total size of this increase, $535 million, that is just one one-thousandth of the size of the deficit that we have this year.

So in terms of priorities, there should be no debate that we are not doing enough to protect America, to protect America from chemical attack, from biological attack, from nuclear attack, from traditional explosives. This is what the war on terror is all about, and we must wake up and be prepared to defend America against the terrorist enemies that we know are plotting as we speak to harm America and American citizens here and around the world.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is time for us to be real about what our needs are in the area of homeland security. I will be the first to tell my colleagues that we also need to get smarter about how we spend our money. That is why the Democrats on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, joined by most of the Democratic Caucus, will introduce legislation today to create a task force that will be a grassroots group of local responders that will advise the Department of Homeland Security as to what the legitimate essential needs are of every community in America, because today we do not pass out money on any rational basis.

Let us get smarter, let us get real, and let us be honest about the security needs of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) for his outstanding leadership on this very important piece of legislation, H.R. 911, creating a national memorial to the victims of terrorism. I also want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) for his help and work on this bill, which we have been involved in for the past 2 years. I also want to thank the ranking minority member of the full committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for their work.

This bill originated shortly after September 11 of 2001 and, in the past Congress, was cosponsored by the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the then chairman, Jim Hansen, who retired and who worked very hard in putting together the initial version of this bill. So I am very grateful for the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the other Members who have supported this concept and have worked to make this bill one that we believe will be successful, one that will pay tribute and memorialize the victims of terrorism.

We have had over 218 Members of the House join in cosponsoring this bill. The occasion of September 11 always reminds us of the tragic events of 2 years ago. On that day, the attacks took thousands of innocent lives and changed the history of our Nation and of our world. Although it has been 2 years, the terrible images of that day, the pictures of the towers and flames, the horrors of the onlookers in lower Manhattan, the workers who rushed into the Pentagon to help save their colleagues, the determined faces of firefighters at Ground Zero and at the crash site in Pennsylvania all remain vividly in our memories. We can still feel the emotions of that day, our feelings of horror, anger, grief, and, most importantly, our commitment to ensure that this would never, ever happen again.

We know now that September 11 of 2001 was the beginning of what we might call a new world order. No longer would military might alone protect us. We know today that our world has grown smaller, and that our security is threatened not only by nations, but also by a small band of dedicated terrorists who hide in the shadows and who willingly use suicide missions to kill thousands of innocent victims. The savage attacks of September 11 made clear to all that war had been declared against America by a cruel and calculating foe, one that seeks to destroy this Nation, to take away our freedoms and liberties that form the bedrock of our great society.

Never before have so many Americans been killed on our own soil in a single day. The terrorists took the lives of over 3,000, fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, sons and daughters, citizens of America, and 80 other countries around the world. Since then, Americans have come together as a Nation to remember those who lost their lives and to pledge our unwavering resolve to win the war on terrorism, whatever the cost, and whatever the length of the battle.

As part of our commitment to defeat terrorism in all of its forms and to never forget the precious lives that have been lost throughout these years, this legislation, H.R. 911, would authorize the establishment of a national memorial to all victims of terrorist acts against the United States, including those who lost their lives on that fateful day 2 years ago.

The national memorial created in this bill would not only be dedicated to the memory of the victims who lost their lives at the hands of terrorists; it would be a living memorial where future generations of young Americans will come to learn about the challenges America faced when confronted by an enemy that knew no national boundaries and that used unconventional methods, including suicide attacks, to spread fear, death, and destruction.

It is my hope that this memorial will chart America's journey in the war against worldwide terrorism and will someday show the world how freedom, liberty, and justice overcame oppression, cowardice, and fanaticism.

This legislation creates a 13-member advisory board appointed by the President, the Speaker of the House, and President pro tempore of the Senate, and includes representatives from organizations dedicated to assisting the victims of terrorism. This advisory board will guide the design, the location, and will provide the leadership in raising the private funds necessary for the establishment and maintenance of the memorial. In accordance with the Commemorative Works Act, the advisory board will consult with the appropriate commissions regarding site selection and design.

When the House Committee on Resources first held a hearing on this bill last year, each of us were deeply moved by the stories of several Americans whose lives were permanently changed on September 11. Among our witnesses were Lisa Beamer, whose husband Todd was among the heroes of Flight 93. Todd was the young American who said, ``let's roll.'' Another of our witnesses was a staff member, a then staff member of the Committee on Resources, Liz Howell, whose husband was killed at the Pentagon. We also heard on that day from Joe Finley, a New York firefighter, who lost many friends in the World Trade Center and who worked in the rescue efforts at Ground Zero. Finally, we heard from Lieutenant Colonel Ted Anderson, who personally pulled victims from the burning Pentagon.

All of these spoke of the need for a national memorial to the victims of terrorism in the District of Columbia. The stories of these individuals remind us of the tragedy, the sacrifice, the heroism that marked that day. Each of them represents the spirit of the bravery and patriotism that arose in America's darkest hour. Each of them expressed in a very personal way the meaning that a national memorial would have to them.

Liz Howell so eloquently stated, ``I believe a national monument to terrorism would become a hallowed place for the people of this generation to remember and grieve. Perhaps even more importantly, it would teach future generations about the heroism, sacrifice, and patriotism that surrounded the deaths of people who died simply for being Americans.''

Lisa Beamer in her testimony said, ``It is my hope and expectation that the Memorial to Victims of Terrorism will motivate current and future generations to always be vigilant in protecting us from evil and always be practicing for great acts of heroism. If these lessons of September 11 are learned and remembered, the deaths of our loved ones will not be in vain.''

Lt. Colonel Ted Anderson who rushed into the Pentagon on that fateful day, put it this way, ``This is about a memorial to those who have fallen already and it is about a physical symbol of our unified commitment to persevere, prevail, and to preserve the sanctity of our endeavor and freedom and peace for our open people and for those who choose to join us.''

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed altogether fitting and proper that we remember and honor all victims of terrorism here in our Nation's capital. This memorial will mark the time in the course of our Nation's history when freedom and the respect for the dignity of man overcame prejudice, hate, and evil. It will stand for the time in our Nation's history when our country stood tall, persevered, and defended peace and civility for all mankind.

I know every Member of this House will join in adoption of H.R. 911.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I again want to thank Chairman Pombo for his leadership on this legislation along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) as well as their Democratic counterparts, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen). They have done an outstanding job in helping us put this bill together along with the 218 cosponsors who joined us.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the staff who worked on this bill over the last 2 years to be sure that it was in the proper form to accomplish our objective. On the majority side, Rob Howarth did an excellent job working on this bill, David Watson on the minority staff as well, and Trent Ashby and Amy Valentine on my staff. And we appreciate their good work.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the House to adopt H.R. 911, legislation creating a national memorial to the victims of terrorism.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the week that we remember that attack on America that occurred on September 11, 2001. It is a time of mourning, a time of remembrance. We all remember the horror of the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the crash in the open field in Pennsylvania. We remember the determination on the faces of firefighters and the workers who entered the fiery inferno in a valiant attempt to save the lives of people they did not know. We remember the resolve and the commitment that resounded throughout this Congress and this Nation in the aftermath of that dreadful day.

Never again, we said, would we be caught unprepared. Never again would we send some of our bravest citizens, our police, our firefighters, our emergency workers into harm's way unable to communicate with one another. Never again would we allow large security gaps that could be exploited by those who seek to do us harm.

Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of September 11, this Congress responded with unprecedented speed and unity. We authorized the President to use force against the al Qaeda network and their sponsors, the Taliban. We enacted legislation to overhaul airport security, fortify our borders, secure our seaports. We proposed formation of a new Department of Homeland Security. These actions were only the first steps in what we intended to be a sustained effort to secure America from the threat of terrorist attack.

But, Mr. Speaker, 2 years after the attacks, security gaps remain; and it is our solemn duty to do all we can to move faster, to take stronger measures to deliver security to the American people. Two years after September 11, we still lack a unified terrorist watch list to help us thwart the attacks before they occur. Two years after September 11, our forces on the border need reinforcement and the Coast Guard is stretched to its limits trying to carry out its mandate to secure our ports and coastlines. We must deploy stronger forces on our borders and protect our ports and coastline to close that security gap. Two years after September 11, the first responders, the valiant men and women who risk all to keep us safe, do not have the equipment and training that they need to meet the threats posed by chemical, biological, and radiological attacks. First responders do not have the equipment they need to communicate at a disaster site. Clearly, we must move faster; we must be stronger in our commitment to these frontline soldiers.

Therefore, I fully support the motion offered by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations.

We have been told that we are safer today than we were before September 11 of 2001, but that is not the test that we must pass. The question before us is are we as safe as we must be to protect the American people. By this measure, we have much yet to do. The sums requested by this motion are essential to fulfilling our commitment to protecting the American people. This is the first responsibility of government, and nothing else matters if we fail.

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

To win the war on terror, we must do everything we can to protect the American people from the threat posed by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction. We know that our forces in Afghanistan uncovered plans by al Qaeda to engage in bioterrorism. We know from recent arrests in Europe that terrorist groups have the means and the will to carry out such attacks. It is without question that bioterrorism is a clear and present danger to the American people, perhaps one of our greatest threats.

In response to this threat, the administration is proposing this legislation, commonly known as Project BioShield. This bill is a first step toward ensuring that we protect Americans from the horror of bioterrorism. The purpose of the BioShield legislation is to provide incentives to private companies to produce the medicines, the vaccines, the antidotes we need to counter a biological attack.

Quite frankly, this concept is an experiment, a grand experiment, but no less an experiment. We do not know if the incentives will drive our pharmaceutical industry to invest the resources needed to truly prepare our country for the full range of possible biological attacks. If we do, we will have been successful and our country will be better off. If they do not, our country will remain dangerously vulnerable.

I support Project BioShield because I believe this is an experiment worth conducting; but from the beginning of this process, I have been working to build mechanisms into the legislation that would monitor whether the legislation is truly making our Nation safer.

For example, the Select Committee on Homeland Security added a requirement that the Secretary of Health and Human Services report annually if the President has identified biological agents that are threats to the United States, but no private company has contracted to produce a countermeasure. Thus, if there is a bioterrorist threat to the American people and private industry will not rise to the challenge of searching for a cure, we have the right to know about it.

These concerns were shared by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. They were also shared by the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

If BioShield does not work as we hope it will, we will need plan B. Thus, I am very pleased that the legislation contains clear authority that allows the government to operate an emergency program to develop and produce vaccines. In my view, this is so very important because protecting our population is our first responsibility. If the private sector is not producing the medicines we need and we find ourselves under the threat of biological attack, then the government needs to have the authority to do the job directly.

The language that has been inserted in the legislation gives the President, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Homeland Security the necessary authority to take action in the event that this experiment with the private sector fails to produce the results we all hope it will produce.

My final concern, Mr. Speaker, is that Project BioShield, despite its creative name, is really a fairly modest proposal. If we are lucky at the end of 10 years, we will have some vaccines to address a few of the possible pathogens that terrorists could use during a bioterror attack. But the potential problems are much more expansive. Terrorists may soon be able to genetically manipulate biological agents so they are resistant to our current stockpile of antibodies and perhaps to the vaccines we develop.

This possibility presents a daunting threat to our Nation. That is why I would like to see a much more robust proposal than the one before us today, an approach that moves us faster and stronger toward creating a comprehensive defense to the full range of threats we face from bioterrorism. Based on the information that we all know about, we clearly need a Manhattan Project to prepare this country to deal with the vast array and the diverse types of biological threats that we may face in the years ahead.

Time and time again when faced with such a great challenge, the government has played a central role in organizing a massive response. When war threatened to consume the world, we put an end to it through the success of the original Manhattan Project. When we raced the Russians to the stars, the Apollo Project put a man on the Moon. It will take these kinds of bold actions, this kind of bold leadership and deep resolve to prevail in the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this current legislation, but I also believe that our Nation must take even stronger steps much sooner in order to protect us and to secure us in the days ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), one of the most vigorous advocates for equipping and training first responders to protect America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), one of the foremost leaders in trying to prepare her city and this country to protect us against the threat of bioterrorism.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let me first commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox), along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for their excellent work on putting together this legislation in a bipartisan way. I know we all appreciate the work that Secretary Thompson and Secretary Ridge did on behalf of the President on this very important initiative.

I hope that we are successful with this legislation, and I hope that the desired result can be accomplished. But I also want to end with a caution that the ability of our enemies in the years ahead to develop, alter, and modify biological pathogens will be at a level unknown to us today. I urge all of us to commit ourselves to the task of developing the agility and the responsiveness that we need to address those threats that we inevitably will face in the future.

The Washington Post today spoke in an editorial entitled ``New Bugs'' that it is important for us to shorten the time frame from the identification of a dangerous pathogen to the development of a drug or antidote. The shortening of this time span will require a tremendous commitment on the part of the American people and our government, and I hope this step that we take today will be but a first step in ensuring that we can adequately meet the biological threat that this Nation will face in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

If the gentleman will yield, first of all, as we said on this side, the Blue Dog budget did put us back on a course toward a balanced budget and would have balanced much quicker than the budget that the Republican majority adopted. And when you look at spending, I think what we have to acknowledge in terms of the Federal fiscal condition, the tax cuts and spending both increased the national debt.

If you look at the results since January of 2001, when President Bush came into office, 58 percent of the deterioration in the national debt, the increase in the national debt is attributable to tax cuts; 28 percent is attributable to increase in defense spending; and 22 percent attributable to the war against terror and Iraq. That is from the Congressional Budget Office. So what we believe is that it is dangerous for this country to continue down the road of increasing the national debt.

I want to read to you from an article by one of your own in the ``New Yorker,'' June 8 of this year, an article written by Peter Peterson. Mr. Peterson is the chairman and cofounder of the Blackstone Group, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, a former Secretary of Commerce under President Nixon; and here is what he had to say about your borrow-and-spend policies:

He said, ``Since 2001, the fiscal strategizing of the Republican Party has ascended to a new level of fiscal irresponsibility. For the first time ever, a Republican leadership in complete control of our national government is advocating a huge and virtually endless policy of debt creation. The numbers are simply breathtaking. When President Bush entered office, the 10-year budget balance was officially projected to be a surplus of $5.6 trillion, a vast boon to future generations that Republican leaders firmly promised would be committed to their benefit by, for example, pre-financing the future costs of Social Security. Those promises were quickly forgotten.''

He goes on to say: ``In just 2 years, there has been a $10 trillion swing in the deficit outlook. We are now looking at almost a $5 trillion projected debt. Coming into power,'' he says, ``the Republican leaders faced a choice between tax cuts and providing genuine financing for the future of Social Security. What a landmark reform that would have been. They chose tax cuts. After September 11, they faced a choice between tax cuts and getting serious about the extensive measures needed to protect this Nation against terrorist attacks. They chose tax cuts. After war broke out in the Middle East, they faced a choice between tax cuts and galvanizing a Nation behind a policy of future- oriented burden sharing. Again and again, they chose tax cuts. The recent $10 trillion deficit swing is the largest in American history other than during years of total war.''

This is one of your own. This is a Republican speaking here, speaking the truth.

I think what this all really comes down to is whether you believe that it is important for the future of this country to try to have a balanced budget. Every State in the Union has it, every city council, every school board, and every family certainly tries to. And if you incur debt, you figure out how to pay it back within a reasonable period of time. Your budget does not do that. In fact, the chart to my right shows the Republican budget in action. It shows it in fiscal year 2004 we will be paying in the red $338 billion in interest.

Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

But as the charts shows, under your budget in 2013, the interest on debt we will be paying, the most wasteful government spending, is $656 billion in 2013. That is more than we will be spending under our budget on all of national defense, which is shown in the blue, which is $529 billion in fiscal year 2013.

So the reality is that those of us on the Blue Dog side tonight believe that deficits do matter, and that it is wrong to pass on this kind of debt burden and this kind of interest payment to the next generations. And as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) said, it is important for us to work together. But to work together we have got to have an agreement that there are two ways that this debt continues to rise, and that is by spending or by continual pursuit of tax cuts that we cannot pay for. And I am one who believes it is wrong to ask those young men and women to go over there and fight for us in Iraq and tell them when they come home and get in their good years of earnings that they are going to have to pay the costs of that war because we charged it.

So I really think that we have got a philosophical difference here with your side of the aisle saying that I have never seen a tax cut that I do not like, and we will cut taxes no matter how much we can afford to cut them.

We Blue Dogs love tax cuts, and we want every tax cut we can afford. And back when we had a projected $5 trillion surplus, I voted with you for that tax cut. But it is different now. We are projecting a $5 trillion deficit over the decade.

So I say to you that deficits do matter. They are morally wrong because it is charging the cost of government to our children, and it, according to the economists, will result in higher interest rates in the years ahead. And for the average family who is trying to borrow money to buy a home, borrow money to buy a car, borrow money to send their kids to college, just a 1 percent increase in interest over the next decade can literally means thousands of dollars in costs to that family. So we just ask you to work with us and try our best to end up reducing our debt.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

We thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1416, the Homeland Security Technical Corrections Act, and I first want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), for

his leadership of our new Select Committee on Homeland Security.

The legislation before us is a product of the bipartisan cooperation that we have on that committee. It has been a pleasure to work with the chairman. I know that all of our members who serve on that important select committee feel the same dedication that the chairman and I do to accomplishing the task of protecting America and to do it in a way that moves us forward in a more rapid and stronger way.

The select committee, of course, has been in business for just a few months, and no business is more important than the work of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security. We have quickly discovered that when it comes to doing all we can to protect America, our needs are indeed very great.

Mr. Speaker, we are, as we all know, involved in a great struggle: The war against international terrorism. It is not a war we sought, it is not a war we started, but it is a war that we must and we will finish. Mr. Speaker, we must move faster in some very critical areas. We must do a better job in determining how to meet the threat posed by international terrorism.

The testimony before our committee from some high officials in the Department of Homeland Security revealed to us that there are only 21 analysts matching intelligence on threats with our vulnerabilities and then recommending protective action. This critical area of the Department of Homeland Security, the responsibility which is housed within the Office of Information Analysis, has been the subject of scrutiny by our select committee, and both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about the lack of full functioning of that particular entity, which in many ways is the nerve center of the Department of Homeland Security.

It is perhaps the most important new addition that this Congress provided in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, to place within that department the responsibility for gathering the threat information and matching it against our vulnerabilities, and then using that information to direct the entire activities of the 22 agencies that were merged into that new department, and to further take that information, of matching threat against vulnerability, and providing it to our States and our local entities so that they will know how to protect their communities against the threat of terrorism.

We also learned in our committee, during a hearing on Project BioShield, that this very same Office of Information Analysis has to date only one, only one person dedicated to responding to the bioterrorist threat. Our committee, in a bipartisan hearing, shared our mutual concern for the failure to get that particular activity within that Office of Information Analysis functioning in a way that it must function in order to carry out the purpose and intent of the Project BioShield legislation that we will be considering on this floor in just a few days.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is clear that all of us understand that we must move faster to ensure that this critical function of this Department is in place, up and running as soon as possible. It has become very clear that we as a Nation need to make the same commitment to the protection of our homeland as we made to securing victory in Afghanistan and Iraq. This Congress made sure that our 220,000 troops that fought in Operation Iraqi Freedom were supported by the best equipment and training in the world; and the cost of that battle, according to the appropriations made by this body, will approach $65 billion.

Today, to secure America from the threat of terrorism, the Coast Guard has plans to review security for 4,400 port facilities and over 10,000 ships that enter our waters, and yet this Congress has yet to make the commitment to make sure that the funds are there to get the threat assessments done that are required to carry out that important responsibility. We must move faster.

Today we have only one person on guard for every 16 miles on our northern border. The PATRIOT Act called for the tripling of our forces on our northern border to close the gaps on our northern frontier. The resources have not yet been committed to deploy the 1,800 border personnel needed to enhance our security. We must do better, and we must move faster.

Today, we know that half of the firefighters' shifts across our Nation that will be the first called upon to respond to a terrorist attack lack the necessary communications equipment to deploy in the field so as to be able to talk to one another and to the other agencies that would be responding in the event of a terrorist attack. We must do better, and we must move faster.

Mr. Speaker, we have many challenges ahead of us, but I am confident that this legislation is but a first step in moving us forward as a Nation to be sure that we do everything necessary to be sure that every American can know that they will be safe and secure in their communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Borders and Critical Infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

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

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

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

Let me thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) for his leadership on this bill and his continued effort to try to mold our committee into one that will accomplish the goal that we all have of building a secure America. I know that when we look at where we are now there are many deficiencies, and we must recognize that the oversight responsibility of our committee is perhaps the most challenging of any committee in the Congress. The reorganization of 22 agencies molded into one Department of Homeland Security is a landmark change designed to be sure that the focus of those agencies is on protecting America, and so I am pleased that the chairman and I and members of our committee have worked closely together to take on the responsibility of oversight which is so critical, ensuring that we mutually achieve the goal that we have in mind.

We all know that we must set the priorities. The priorities for homeland security can never be set unless the Department of Homeland Security carries out that vital function of determining the threats and matching them against the vulnerabilities, and I am pleased that the chairman has provided the leadership that we need to move forward in that area.

There is much to be done, Mr. Speaker, and we must move faster and we must be stronger than we are today if we are going to ensure a secure America. This legislation is but a small step in that direction, and I am pleased to join with my colleagues in support of H.R. 1416.

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

Mr. Chairman, we consider today, of course, for the first time the appropriations for the new Department of Homeland Security. Just as the new Department is taking its first steps to make America safer, we are also embarking on an effort to try to secure the resources that we need for the longer term to ensure victory in the war against terrorism. This bill is a good start, and I support dedicating resources above the President's request to prepare our communities by training and equipping first responders and securing our ports and our transportation systems.

However, as we have been finding in the hearings before the Select Committee on Homeland Security, serious deficiencies remain in the Department's ability to carry out its mission of protecting all Americans from those harms that could come our way through terrorism. Testimony before our Select Committee on Homeland Security revealed that there is one, precisely one, person in the Department of Homeland Security assessing the bioterror threat to America and determining how to match that threat against our vulnerabilities and then make plans to protect America from bioterrorism.

It is clear we must move faster and we must be stronger to protect America. We have learned that, while over 4,000 port facilities and 10,000 ships that enter our ports are required to undergo security reviews, there is no funding to fulfill that mission. We must move faster and be stronger. We have learned that there are serious gaps in coverage on our northern border. There is on average only one person guarding every 16 miles of our Canadian border. The PATRIOT Act called for tripling the forces to protect our northern border, and the 2002 Border Security Act goes even further, but gaps still remain. We must move faster, and our forces must be stronger.

Mr. Chairman, just a few months ago this Congress voted to spend $65 billion to prosecute the war in Iraq. We spent those funds to make sure that our forces had the best training and the best equipment possible. We need to make the same commitment to those who fight on behalf of homeland security today.

Mr. Speaker, I think that what we on our side of the aisle want tonight is just a little honesty. And we believe that instead of saying you are giving the American people something, you need to be honest with them and let them know that whatever you are giving them, you are borrowing the money from them in the future that they have got to pay back. If you are going to be honest, you ought to come down here and sign this credit application, because you really need a pretty big loan to grant this tax cut. And I am not sure there are too many bankers in this country that would give this loan, because if you look at our credit history, we owe $6.4 trillion; we know we are going to owe, by your budget, $12 trillion in 10 years. That means, if you can imagine, we are going to pay $650 billion in interest 10 years from now just to service that debt that you are creating. And do you know what? That is more money than we are going to be spending on the entire Department of Defense. Your budget says we are going to spend about $500 billion on defense 10 years from now, but we are going to spend $650 billion in interest on the debt.

The truth of the matter is you need to come down here and put your name on the line and see if you can get this loan; and when you walk out of this building tonight, look at that big hole out there just at the bottom of the steps because that is the deficit hole that you are digging deeper tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am proud to join my Blue Dog colleagues tonight to address an issue that we feel very strongly about and that is the ever-increasing Federal debt that we are accumulating by continuing down this path of continual deficit spending.

A lot of folks today have heard the President call for tax cuts. The President says tax cuts mean jobs. The Blue Dogs have proposed a tax cut plan that will generate more jobs than the President's plan in the short term, but it is a bill that postpones some of the future tax cuts that are already in the law in order to be sure that our tax cut does not generate a larger Federal debt.

Now, why do we believe that is important? Common sense tells us and every household in America knows that when you go along spending more than you take in, sooner or later it is going to catch up with you.

Frankly, the Federal Government today is going down a path recklessly abandoning the fiscal discipline that was established just a few short years ago when we had the first balanced budget in 29 years. That was 2 years ago. How far we have drifted from that path today, when we project somewhere between a $400 billion to $500 billion deficit in the current fiscal year.

We have an ever-increasing burden of debt. You do not hear too many folks in the White House or on the talk shows talking about our debt, but it is a debt that is a very significant burden and will be an increasing burden on the taxpayers of this country.

This year alone, our debt runs in the neighborhood of $6.4 trillion. Now, that is a lot of money, and it is hard to understand how much $6 trillion is. I will tell you that it means that we pay $1 billion every day just to cover the interest on that national debt. We spent close to $332 billion last year on interest on the national debt.

The Blue Dog Democrats believe that is too much interest to be paying on our debt and that the only way to get it down is to reduce our debt. That is why the Blue Dogs proposed a balanced budget plan for this decade to ensure that we got back to reducing our debt, rather than seeing it go up and up and up.

Under the President's proposal and under the budget that the Republican Congress passed just a few weeks ago, our national debt is projected to increase from $6.4 trillion today to $12 trillion. That means 10 years from now we will be paying somewhere between 600 and $700 billion in interest every year.

Contrast that, if you will, with the projections shared with us for spending on national defense in the recently adopted budget of this Congress. That budget projects that the Department of Defense will spend $500 billion a year 10 years from now. That is a significant increase from the present. But it also is noteworthy that we will be spending more on interest, $600 billion to $700 billion 10 years from now, more money, than we will be spending on national defense.

Today when we pay our taxes and file our individual tax returns, 25 cents out of every dollar we pay goes to pay interest on our national debt. What a waste. That interest is going to double in the next 10 years. In other words, we could be paying 50 cents of every dollar we pay in personal income taxes just to cover the interest on the national debt.

Mr. Speaker, we are going into debt at exactly the wrong time. We are going into debt as we approach the retirement of the baby boom generation. That generation, when they retire, will place great stress, fiscal stress, upon the Medicare system, the Social Security System, when all of those retirees will be eligible for those government benefits. The unfunded liability of the Social Security trust fund is estimated to be $25 trillion. It is wrong to be cutting taxes today and borrowing the money to pay for the tax cut. It simply means that this generation is going to pass the debt of a tax cut on to our children and our grandchildren. That is morally wrong, it is fiscally irresponsible, and it is heading this Nation down a path that will create grave crises for us in the future.

For us it is about our future prosperity; it is about our future national and homeland security. How can this Nation maintain its status as the strongest military power in the world when its debt is continuing to accumulate and we will have a more and more difficult time every year paying the bills that we need to pay to ensure a strong defense, a strong homeland security, and a strong economy?

The American people can remember the days when Ross Perot was running for President, when he had his charts and he said we had to look under the hood of that automobile and get under there and get our hands dirty and get it fixed. That same message needs to be heard today, because we are heading for a fiscal crisis unlike any ever seen in the history of this country.

The projections of $12 trillion in debt 10 years from now are not based upon estimates of the economy maintaining its current status of sluggishness. The presumption is the economy will recover, and we still project a $12 trillion debt and $600 billion to $700 billion every year in wasted interest payments on that debt.

The Blue Dog Democrats say wake up America. Remember that we must pay our bills. Remember that to maintain a strong economy and low interest rates, the government does not need to become the biggest borrower on the planet, because as government consumes a larger and larger share of the available credit, the laws of supply and demand indicate very clearly that interest rates for all of us will go up. So the tax cut we grant today may mean the higher interest payments on home loans, car loans, student loans tomorrow.

There is no free lunch, and those who promise today the free lunch of tax cuts are also handing you a debt that must be paid by our children, a burden of debt that will result in higher interest rates tomorrow and a less prosperous America.

The Blue Dog Democrats believe that fiscal responsibility in Washington, just as fiscal responsibility around the kitchen table, is a message that should be heard by every American; and we call on this Congress tonight, on the verge of raising the debt ceiling, without a vote in this House, by almost $1 trillion, to retake the high ground, to recognize that we have been through a war, when every American wants to do their part and pay the bills for that war, instead of charging the costs of that war to the very men and women who fought that war; Americans who believe that our bills should be paid, our books should be balanced, and we should have a strong economy today and tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, we hope this message will be heeded by our colleagues in this Congress tonight.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding me time this evening.