Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

1A) Anti-Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2003
S. 746. A bill to prevent and respond to terrorism and crime at or through ports; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

   Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Anti-Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2003, comprehensive legislation aimed at preventing and punishing a terrorist attack at or through one of our nation's 361 seaports. I would like to thank Senator KYL for joining me in sponsoring this bill.

   Currently, our seaports are the gaping hole in our nation's defense against terrorism. According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, about 13 million containers, twenty-foot equivalent units, came into United States ports in 2002.

   However, the U.S. government inspected only about two or three percent of these containers--they rest were simply waved through. In addition, in almost every case, these inspections occurred after the containers arrive in the United States.

   The problem is that a single container could contain 60,000 pounds of explosives--10 to 15 times the amount in the Ryder truck used to blow up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City--and a single container ship can carry as many as 8,000 containers at one time.

   Containers could easily be exploited to detonate a bomb that would destroy a bridge, seaport, or other critical infrastructure, causing mass destruction and killing thousands.

   Worse, a suitcase-sized nuclear device or radiological ``dirty bomb'' could also be installed in a container and shipped to the United States. The odds are that the container would never be inspected.

   And, even if the container was inspected, it would be too late. The weapon would already be in the United States--most likely near a major population center.

   In addition, any attack on or through a seaport could have devastating economic consequences.

   Excluding trade with Mexico and Canada, America's ports handle 95 percent of U.S. trade. Every year U.S. ports handle over 800 million tons of cargo valued at approximately $600 billion.

   The West Coast labor disruption last year cost the U.S. economy somewhere $1-2 billion a day--a total of $10-20 billion. A terrorist attack would have an ever graver impact.

   The U.S. would likely shut down all major U.S. ports, bringing thousands of factories to a standstill and leaving retailers with bare shelves within days. And this shut down will have a ripple effect around the globe, raising the cost exponentially.

   In its December 2002 report, the Hart-Rudman Terrorism Task Force discussed the implications of a possible terrorist attack at a seaport. Here is what they said:

   If an explosive device were loaded in a container and set off in a port, it would almost automatically raise concern about the integrity of the 21,000 containers that arrive in U.S. ports each day and the many thousands more that arrive by truck and rail across U.S. land borders. A three-to-four-week closure of U.S. ports would bring the global container industry to its knees. Megaports such as Rotterdam and Singapore would have to close their gates to prevent boxes from piling up on their limited pier space. Trucks, trains, and barges would be stranded outside the terminals with no way to unload their boxes. Boxes bound for the United States would have to be unloaded from their outbound ships. Service contracts would need to be renegotiated. As the system became gridlocked, so would much of global commerce.

   I am particularly concerned about such an attack because such an enormous proportion of U.S. foreign trade passes through my home state of California.

   Last year, 6.2 million imported containers--48 percent--passed through California, 5.7 million just through two ports alone: the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach.

   That means that, if terrorists succeeded in putting a weapon of mass destruction into a container undetected, there is about a one in two chance that this weapon would arrive and/or be detonated in Southern California.

   And the problem is not just with containers.

   Nearly one-quarter of all of California's imported crude oil is offloaded in one area. A suicide attack on a tanker at an offloading facility in this area could leave Southern California without refined fuels within a few days.

   There is no doubt in my mind that terrorists are seeking to exploit vulnerabilities at our seaports right now.

   Indeed, the Al Qaeda training manual specifically mentions seaports as a point of vulnerability in our security.

   In addition, we know that Al Qaeda has already tried to attack American interests at and through seaports in the past. Let me mention some examples.

   In October 2001, Italian authorities found an Egyptian man suspected of

[Page: S4571]

   In October 2000, Al Qaeda operatives successfully carried out a deadly bombing attack

   against the U.S.S. Cole in the port of Yemen.

   In 1998, Al Qaeda bombed the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Evidence suggests that the explosives the terrorists used were shipped to them by sea. And the investigation of the embassy bombings concluded that Bin Laden has close financial ties to various shipping companies.

   We cannot afford to be complacent. Terrorists can be very patient. We cannot forget the successful attack on the World Trade Center on September 11 took place eight years after a relatively unsuccessful attack on the same target.

   I introduced legislation in the last Congress to offer a comprehensive solution to the problem of seaport vulnerability. I am pleased that some of its provisions we adopted in some form by recent regulatory changes as well as the Maritime transportation Security Act of 2002 and Trade Act of 2002.

   For example, one provision in my bill required shippers to provide manifest information to Customs at least 24 hours before departure from a foreign port. Soon after the bill was introduced, Customs published a draft regulation with the same requirement.

   This requirement is now being enforced. However, Customs is still not getting all relevant information from every important party involved in the shipping process.

   In addition, I am pleased that, especially in the last six months, Customs has aggressively promoted its Container Security Initiative (CSI). One of the core elements of this initiative involves placing U.S. Customs inspectors at major foreign seaports to pre-screen cargo containers before they were shipped to America.

   Most of the biggest ports in the world are now participating in CSI. However, Customs has posted relatively few inspectors overseas and I believe that CSI can and should be expanded further.

   The Maritime Transportation Safety Act of 2002 and Trade Act of 2002 also included a number of security measures.

   However, in my view, many of these measures do not go nearly far enough, particularly in the areas of criminal penalties, pushing back the border, minimum port and security standards, employee identification cards, research and development, and so on. And even the strongest provisions in these bills are, in some cases, years away from implementation.

   The bottom line is that, while we have made some modest improvements in seaport security in the last year, much more remains to be done. And, crucially, much remains to be done right now.

   In fact, I believe that our seaports remain almost as vulnerable today as they were before September 11. That is why I am introducing the Anti-Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2003.

   This legislation builds on improvements made to our laws in the last year but goes much further than those changes to ensure the security of our seaports.

   The Anti-Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2003 does three main things:

   First, the bill ensure that our criminal laws apply to deter and punish terrorists who choose to strike against our seaports. The bill closes a number of loopholes in our criminal laws to ensure that terrorists are held accountable for any attacks. Let me provide a couple of examples.

   If a person blows up an airplane, he commits a crime. However, if he blows up a oil tanker, he does not commit a crime--unless he is doing it to injure the person.

   If a person distributes explosives to a non-U.S. national, he commits a crime. But if the same person sows mines in the San Francisco harbor, he does not commit a crime.

   Specifically, the bill would: Make it a crime for terrorists to attack a port or a cruise ship or deploy a weapon of mass destruction at or through a seaport. Make it a crime to put devices in U.S. waters that can destroy a ship or cargo or interfere with safe navigation or maritime commerce. Update our federal criminal piracy and privateering laws and increase penalties. Make it a crime to use a dangerous weapon or explosive to try to kill someone on board a passenger vessel. Make it a crime to fail to heave to (that is, to slow or stop) a vessel at the direction of a Coast Guard or other authorized federal law enforcement official seeking to board that vessel or to interfere with boarding by such an officer. Make it a crime to destroy an aid to maritime navigation, such as a buoy or shoal/breakwater light, maintained by the Coast Guard if this would endanger the safe navigation of a vessel. Make it a crime for terrorists or criminals to try to attack U.S. citizens or U.S. marine live by putting poisons in the water off shore. Require the Attorney General to issue regulations making it easier to determine the extent of crime and terrorism at seaports and improve communication between different law

   enforcement agencies involved at ports.

   Second, the bill would help improve physical security at seaports by beefing up standards and ensuring greater coordination. Specific provisions would: Designate the Captain-of-the-Port as the primary authority for seaport security at each port. This would enable all parties involved in business at a port to understand who has final say on all security matters. Require minimum federal security standards for ports. These standards include restrictions on private vehicle access, a prohibition on unauthorized guns and explosives, and unauthorized physical access to terminal areas. They would also mandate that terminal areas at ports have a secure perimeter, monitored or locked access points, sufficient lighting, and son on. Mandate that all Customs inspectors have personal radiation detection pagers. Require all port employees and contractors to have biometric smart identification cards. Require Captains-of-the-Port to keep sensitive information on the port secure and protected. Such information would include, but not be limited to maps, blueprints, and information on the Internet.

   Third, the bill would ensure that we devote our limited cargo inspection resources in the most efficient and effective manner. The bill would improve our shipment profiling system by requiring additional information from more relevant parties to the shipping process, and it would substantially improve container security. Specifically, it would establish a comprehensive risk profiling plan for the Customs Service to focus their limited inspection capabilities on high-risk cargo and containers. Under this plan, all relevant parties in the shipment process would provide electronically relevant and timely information to enable Customs to determine which shipments to inspect. Impose steep monetary sanctions for failure to comply with information filing requirements, including filing incorrect information (the current penalty is only up to a few thousand dollars). The Seaport Commission found that about 1/2 of the information on ship manifests was inaccurate. Push U.S. security scrutiny beyond our nation's borders and improve our ability to monitor and inspect cargo and containers before they arrive near America's shores. If a weapon of mass destruction arrives in a U.S. port, it is too late. Require the use of high security seals on all containers coming into the U.S. Require that each container to be transported through U.S. ports receive a universal transaction number that could be used to track container movement from origin to destination. Require all empty containers destined for U.S. ports to be secured. Authorize pilot programs to develop high-tech seals and sensors, including those that would provide real-time evidence of container tampering to a monitor at a terminal. Require ports to provide space to Customs so that the agency is able to use non-intrusive inspection technology. In many cases, Customs has to keep this technology outside the port and bring it in every day, which prevents some of the best inspection technology (which is not portable) from being used. Require the Department of Homeland Security to take the relative number of imported containers received at each port into account in exercising its discretion in determining the allocation of funds appropriated for seaport security grants.

   I believe that the Anti-Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2003 would make a

[Page: S4572]

   I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   S. 746

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

   SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    (a) SHORT TITLE.--This Act may be cited as the ``Anti-Terrorism and Port Security Act of 2003''.

    (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.--The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

   Sec..1..Short title; table of contents.

   TITLE I--DETERRING AND PUNISHING TERRORISM AND CRIME AT UNITED STATES PORTS

   Sec..101..Destruction or interference with vessels or maritime facilities.

   Sec..102..Criminal sanctions for placement of destructive devices or substances in United States jurisdictional waters.

   Sec..103..Piracy and privateering.

   Sec..104..Use of a dangerous weapon or explosive on a passenger vessel.

   Sec..105..Sanctions for failure to heave to and for obstruction of boarding and providing false information.

   Sec..106..Criminal sanctions for violence against maritime navigation.

   Sec..107..Criminal sanctions for malicious dumping.

   Sec..108..Attorney general to coordinate port-related crime data collection.

   TITLE II--PROTECTING UNITED STATES PORTS AGAINST TERRORISM AND CRIME

   Subtitle A--General Provision

   Sec..201..Definitions.

   Subtitle B--Security Authority

   Sec..211..Designated security authority.

   Subtitle C--Securing the Supply Chain

   Sec..221..Manifest requirements.

   Sec..222..Penalties for inaccurate manifest.

   Sec..223..Shipment profiling plan.

   Sec..224..Inspection of merchandise at foreign facilities.

   Subtitle D--Security of Seaports and Containers

   Sec..231..Seaport security requirements.

   Sec..232..Seaport security cards.

   Sec..233..Securing sensitive information.

   Sec..234..Container security.

   Sec..235..Office and inspection facilities.

   Sec..236..Security grants to seaports.

   TITLE III--AUTHORIZATION

   Sec..301..Authorization of appropriations.

   SEC. 101. DESTRUCTION OR INTERFERENCE WITH VESSELS OR MARITIME FACILITIES.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 65 the following:

   ``Sec.

   ``1371. Jurisdiction and scope.

   ``1372. Destruction of vessel or maritime facility.

   ``1373. Imparting or conveying false information.``§1371 Jurisdiction and scope

    ``(a) IN GENERAL.--There is jurisdiction under section 3231 over an offense under this chapter if--

    ``(1) the prohibited activity takes place within the United States, or in waters or submerged lands thereunder subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; or

    ``(2) the prohibited activity takes place outside the United States, and--

    ``(A) an offender or a victim of the prohibited activity is a citizen of the United States;

    ``(B) a citizen of the United States was on board a vessel to which this chapter applies; or

    ``(C) the prohibited activity involves a vessel of the United States.

    ``(b) APPLICABILITY.--Nothing in this chapter shall apply to otherwise lawful activities carried out by, or at the direction of, the United States Government.``§1372. Destruction of vessel or maritime facility

    ``(a) OFFENSES.--It shall be unlawful for any person--

    ``(1) to willfully--

    ``(A) set fire to, damage, destroy, disable, or wreck any vessel; or

    ``(B) place or cause to be placed a destructive device or destructive substance in, upon, or in proximity to, or otherwise make or cause to be made an unworkable or unusable or hazardous to work or use, any vessel (as defined in section 3 of title 1), or any part or other materials used or intended to be used in connection with the operation of a vessel; or

    ``(C) set fire to, damage, destroy, disable, or displace a destructive device or destructive substance in, upon, or in proximity to, any maritime facility, including any aid to navigation, lock, canal, or vessel traffic service facility or equipment, or interfere by force or violence with the operation of such maritime facility, if such action is likely to endanger the safety of any vessel in navigation;

    ``(D) set fire to, damage, destroy, disable, or place a destructive device or destructive substance in, upon, or in proximity to any appliance, structure, property, machine, apparatus, or any facility or other material used or intended to be used in connection with the operation, maintenance, loading, unloading, or storage of any vessel or any passenger or cargo carried on, or intended to be carried on, any vessel;

    ``(E) perform an act of violence against or incapacitate an individual on a vessel, if such act of violence or incapacitation is likely to endanger the safety of the vessel or those on board;

    ``(F) perform an act of violence against a person that causes or is likely to cause serious bodily injury in, upon, or in proximity to any appliance, structure, property, machine, apparatus, or any facility or other material used or intended to be used in connection with the operation, maintenance, loading, unloading, or storage of any vessel or any passenger or cargo carried or intended to be carried on any vessel; or

    ``(G) communicate information, knowing the information to be false and under circumstances in which such information may reasonably be believed, thereby endangering the safety of any vessel in navigation; or

    ``(2) to attempt or conspire to do anything prohibited under paragraph (1).

    ``(b) PENALTY.--Any person who--

    ``(1) violates subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1) shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned for a maximum life imprisonment term, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to the death penalty; and

    ``(2) violates subsection (a)(2) or subparagraph (C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of subsection (a)(1) shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    ``(c) ADDITIONAL PENALTIES.--Any person who is fined or imprisoned in accordance with subsection (b) for an offense that involved a vessel that, at the time the violation occurred, carried high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned for not less than 30 years, or for life.

    ``(d) THREATENED OFFENSE.--Any person who willfully imparts or conveys any threat to do an act which would violate this chapter, with an apparent determination and will to carry out the threat, shall be--

    ``(1) fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; and

    ``(2) liable for all costs incurred as a result of such threat.

    ``(e) DEFINITIONS.--For purposes of this section--

    ``(1) the term `destructive device' has the meaning as such term in section 921(a)(4);

    ``(2) the term `destructive substance' has the meaning as such term in section 31;

    ``(3) the term `high-level radioactive waste' has the meaning as such term in section 2(12) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(12));

    ``(4) the term `serious bodily injury' has the meaning as such term in section 1365(g); and

    ``(5) the term `spent nuclear fuel' has the meaning as such term in section 2(23) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(23)).``§1373. Imparting or conveying false information

    ``(a) IN GENERAL.--Any person who imparts or conveys, or causes to be imparted or conveyed, false information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or to be made, to do any act that is an offense under this chapter or chapters 2, 97, or 111, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000, which shall be recoverable in a civil action brought in the name of the United States.

    ``(b) INCREASED PENALTY.--Any person who willfully and maliciously, or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life, imparts or conveys, or causes to be imparted or conveyed, false information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made by or to be made, to do any act that is an offense under this chapter or chapters 2, 97, or 111, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.''.

    (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The table of chapters at the beginning of title 18, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 65 the following:

   ``66. Maritime Vessels

   1371''.

   SEC. 102. CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES OR SUBSTANCES IN UNITED STATES JURISDICTIONAL WATERS.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 111 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2280 the following:``§2280A. Devices or substances in waters of the United States likely to destroy or damage ships

    ``(a) IN GENERAL.--Any person who knowingly places or causes to be placed in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by any means, a device or substance that is likely to destroy or cause damage to a ship or its cargo, or cause interference with the safe navigation of vessels or interference with maritime commerce, such as by

[Page: S4573]

    ``(1) shall be fined in accordance with this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life; and

    ``(2) if the death of any person results from conduct prohibited under this section, may be punished by death.

    ``(b) APPLICABILITY.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to otherwise lawfully authorized and conducted activities of the United States Government.''.

    (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The table of sections for chapter 111 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2280 the following:

   ``2280A. Devices or substances in waters of the United States likely to destroy or damage ships.''.

   SEC. 103. PIRACY AND PRIVATEERING.

    Chapter 81 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

   ``Sec.

   ``1651. Piracy.

   ``1652. Crimes against United States persons or property on board a ship or maritime structure.

   ``1653. Crimes against persons on board a ship or maritime structure within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

   ``1654. Crimes by United States citizens or resident aliens.

   ``1655. Privateering.

   ``1656. Theft or conversion of vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects.

   ``1657. Intentional wrecking or plunder of a vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects.

   ``1658. Knowing receipt of an illegally acquired vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects.

   ``1659. Attempts.

   ``1660. Accessories.

   ``1661. Inapplicability to United States Government activities.``§1651. Piracy

    ``Any person who commits the crime of piracy and is afterwards brought into, or found in, the United States shall be imprisoned for life. ``§1652. Crimes against United States persons or property on board a ship or maritime structure

    ``Any person who commits any illegal act of violence, detention, or depredation against the United States, including any vessel of the United States, citizen of the United States, any commercial structure owned in whole or in part by a United States citizen or resident alien, or any United States citizen or resident alien, or the property of that citizen or resident alien, on board a ship or maritime structure and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. ``§1653. Crimes against persons on board a ship or maritime structure within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

    ``Any person who commits any illegal act of violence, detention, or depredation against an individual on board a ship or maritime structure, or the property of that individual, in waters or submerged lands thereunder, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. ``§1654. Crimes by United States citizens or resident aliens

    ``Any person, being a United States citizen or resident alien, or purporting to act under the authority of the United States, who commits any illegal act of violence, detention, or depredation against an individual on board a ship or maritime structure, or the property of that individual, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. ``§1655. Privateering

    ``(a) OFFENSE.--It shall be unlawful for any person to furnish, fit out, arm, or serve in a privateer or private vessel used to commit any illegal act of violence, detention, or depredation against an individual, or the property of that individual, or any vessel or maritime structure without the express authority of the United States Government when--

    ``(1) the perpetrator of the act is a United States citizen or resident alien, or purports to act under authority of the United States;

    ``(2) the individual against whom the act is committed is a United States citizen or resident alien or the property, vessel, or maritime structure involved is owned, in whole or in part, by a United States citizen or resident alien; or

    ``(3) some element of the illegal act of violence, detention, or depredation is committed in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    ``(b) PENALTY.--Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.``§1656. Theft or conversion of vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects

    ``(a) OFFENSE.--It shall be unlawful for any person who is a captain, officer, crewman, or passenger of a vessel or maritime structure to assist in the theft or conversion of such vessel or maritime structure, or its cargo or effects when--

    ``(1) the perpetrator is a United States citizen or resident alien, or purports to act under the authority of the United States;

    ``(2) the vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects is owned in whole or in part by a United States citizen or resident alien; or

    ``(3) some element of the theft or conversion is committed in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    ``(b) PENALTY.--Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.``§1657. Intentional wrecking or plunder of a vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects

    ``(a) OFFENSE.--It shall be unlawful for any person to--

    ``(1) intentionally cause the wrecking of a vessel or maritime structure by act or omission, either directly such as by intentional grounding, or indirectly by modification or destruction of any navigational marker or safety device;

    ``(2) intentionally plunder, steal, or destroy a vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects when such vessel or maritime structure is in distress, wrecked, lost, stranded, or cast away; or

    ``(3) intentionally obstruct or interfere with the rescue of a person on board a vessel or maritime structure in distress, wrecked, lost, stranded, or cast away, or the legal salvage of such a vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects, when--

    ``(A) the perpetrator is a United States citizen or resident alien, or purports to act under authority of the United States;

    ``(B) the vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects is owned in whole or in part by a United States citizen or resident alien; or

    ``(C) some element of the theft or conversion is committed in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    ``(b) PENALTY.--Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.``§1658. Knowing receipt of an illegally acquired vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects

    ``Any person who knowingly receives or acquires a vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects converted or obtained by action falling under any section of this chapter shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. ``§1659. Attempts

    Any person who attempts any act which, if committed, would constitute an offense under this chapter shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. ``§1660. Accessories

    ``(a) COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE.--Any person who knowingly assists any person in the commission of an act that constitutes an offense under this chapter shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    ``(b) AVOIDANCE OF CONSEQUENCES.--Any person who knowingly assists any person in avoiding the consequences of an act that constitutes an offense under this chapter shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.``§1661. Inapplicability to United States Government activities

    ``Nothing in this chapter shall apply to otherwise lawful activities--

    ``(1) carried out by, or at the direction of, the United States Government; or

    ``(2) undertaken under a letter or marque and reprisal issued by the United States Government.''.

   SEC. 104. USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON OR EXPLOSIVE ON A PASSENGER VESSEL.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 39 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 831 the following:``§832. Use of a dangerous weapon or explosive on a passenger vessel

    ``(a) OFFENSE.--It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully--

    ``(1) commit an act, including the use of a dangerous weapon, explosive, or incendiary device, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury to a crew member or passenger of a passenger vessel or any other person while on board a passenger vessel; or

    ``(2) attempt, threaten, or conspire to do any act referred to in paragraph (1).

    ``(b) PENALTY.--An person who violates subsection (a) shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    ``(c) AGGRAVATED OFFENSE.--Any person who commits an offense described in subsection (a) in a circumstance in which--

    ``(1) the vessel was carrying a passenger at the time of the offense; or

    ``(2) the offense has resulted in the death of any person;

   shall be guilty of an aggravated offense and shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

    ``(d) APPLICABILITY.--This section shall apply to vessels that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and vessels carrying passengers who are United States citizens or resident aliens, wherever located.

    ``(e) DEFINITIONS.--For purposes of this section--

    ``(1) the term `dangerous weapon' has the meaning given such term in section 930(g);

    ``(2) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232(5);

[Page: S4574]

    ``(3) the term `passenger' has the same meaning given such term in section 2101(21) of title 46;

    ``(4) the term `passenger vessel' has the same meaning given such term in section 2101(22) of title 46; and

    ``(5) the term `serious bodily injury' has the meaning given such term in section 1365(g).''.

    (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The table of sections for chapter 39 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 831 the following:

   ``832. Use of a dangerous weapon or explosive on a passenger vessel.''.

   SEC. 105. SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO HEAVE TO AND FOR OBSTRUCTION OF BOARDING AND PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 109 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:``§2237. Sanctions for failure to heave to; sanctions for obstruction of boarding or providing false information

    ``(a) FAILURE TO HEAVE TO.--It shall be unlawful for the master, operator, or person in charge of a vessel of the United States, or a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, to knowingly fail to obey an order to heave to on being ordered to do so by an authorized Federal law enforcement officer.

    ``(b) OBSTRUCTION OF BOARDING AND PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION.--It shall be unlawful for any person on board a vessel of the United States or a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to--

    ``(1) forcibly assault, resist, oppose, prevent, impede, intimidate, or interfere with a boarding or other law enforcement action authorized by any Federal law, or to resist a lawful arrest; or

    ``(2) provide information to a Federal law enforcement officer during a boarding of a vessel regarding the vessel's destination, origin, ownership, registration, nationality, cargo, or crew that the person knows is false.

    ``(c) LIMITATIONS.--This section shall not limit the authority of--

    ``(1) an officer under section 581 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1581) or any other provision of law enforced or administered by the Secretary of the Treasury or the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security of the Department of Homeland Security; or

    ``(2) a Federal law enforcement officer under any law of the United States to order a vessel to stop or heave to.

    ``(d) CONSENT OR OBJECTION TO ENFORCEMENT.--A foreign nation may consent or waive objection to the enforcement of United States law by the United States under this section by radio, telephone, or similar oral or electronic means, which consent or waiver may be proven by certification of the Secretary of State or the Secretary's designee.

    ``(e) PENALTY.--Any person who intentionally violates this section shall be fined in accordance with this title and imprisoned not more than 1 year.

    ``(f) DEFINITIONS.--For purposes of this section--

    ``(1) the terms `vessel of the United States' and `vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' have the same meanings as such terms in section 3 of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1903);

    ``(2) the term `heave to' means to cause a vessel to slow, come to a stop, or adjust its course or speed to account for the weather conditions and sea state to facilitate a law enforcement boarding; and

    ``(3) the term `Federal law enforcement officer' has the same meaning as such term in section 115.''.

    (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The table of sections for chapter 109 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

   ``2237. Sanctions for failure to heave to; sanctions for obstruction of boarding or providing false information.''.

   SEC. 106. CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST MARITIME NAVIGATION.

    Section 2280(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

    (1) in paragraph (1)--

    (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (F), (G), and (H) as (G), (H), and (I), respectively;

    (B) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:

    ``(F) destroys, damages, alters, moves, or tampers with any aid to maritime navigation maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation under the authority of section 4 of the Act of May 13, 1954, (33 U.S.C. 984) or the Coast Guard pursuant to section 81 of title 14, or lawfully maintained by the Coast Guard pursuant to section 83 of title 14, if such act endangers or is likely to endanger the safe navigation of a ship;''; and

    (C) in subparagraph (I), as so redesignated, by striking ``through (G)'' and inserting ``through (H)''; and

    (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(C) or (E)'' and inserting ``(C), (E), or (F)''.

   SEC. 107. CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR MALICIOUS DUMPING.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 111 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:``§2282. Knowing discharge or release

    ``(a) ENDANGERMENT OF HUMAN LIFE.--Any person who knowingly discharges or releases oil, a hazardous material, a noxious liquid substance, or any other substance into the navigable waters of the United States or the adjoining shoreline with the intent to endanger human life, health, or welfare--

    ``(1) shall be fined in accordance with this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life; and

    ``(2) if the death of any person results from conduct prohibited under this section, may be punished by death.

    ``(b) ENDANGERMENT OF MARINE ENVIRONMENT.--Any person who knowingly discharges or releases oil, a hazardous material, a noxious liquid substance, or any other substance into the navigable waters of the United States or the adjacent shoreline with the intent to endanger the marine environment shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

    ``(c) DEFINITIONS.--For purposes of this section--

    ``(1) the term `discharge' means any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or dumping;

    ``(2) the term `hazardous material' has the same meaning given such term in section 2101(14) of title 46;

    ``(3) the term `marine environment' has the same meaning given such term in section 2101(15) of title 46;

    ``(4) the term `navigable waters' has the same meaning given such term in section 502(7) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362(7)), and also includes the territorial sea of the United States as described in Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988; and

    ``(5) the term `noxious liquid substance' has the same meaning given such term in the MARPOL Protocol as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901(a)(3)).''.

    (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The table of sections for chapter 111 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

   ``2282. Knowing discharge or release.''.

   SEC. 108. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO COORDINATE PORT-RELATED CRIME DATA COLLECTION.

    (a) REGULATIONS.--The Attorney General shall issue regulations to--

    (1) require the reporting by a carrier that is the victim of a cargo theft offense to the Attorney General of information on the cargo theft offense (including offenses occurring outside ports of entry and ports of shipment origination) that identifies the port of entry, the port where the shipment originated, where the theft occurred, and any other information specified by the Attorney General;

    (2) create a database to contain the reports described in paragraph (1) and integrate those reports, to the extent feasible, with other noncriminal justice and intelligence data, such as insurer bill of lading, cargo contents and value, point of origin, and lien holder filings; and

    (3) prescribe procedures for access to the database created in accordance with paragraph (2) by appropriate Federal, State, and local governmental agencies and private companies or organizations, while limiting access to privacy of the information in accordance with other applicable Federal laws.

    (b) MODIFICATION OF DATABASES.--

    (1) IN GENERAL.--United States Government agencies with significant regulatory or law enforcement responsibilities at United States ports shall, to the extent feasible, modify their information databases to ensure the collection and retrievability of data relating to crime, terrorism, and related activities at, or affecting, United States ports.

    (2) DESIGNATION OF AGENCIES.--The Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall designate the agencies referred to in paragraph (1).

    (c) OUTREACH PROGRAM.--The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee established under section 70112 of title 46, United States Code, and the appropriate Federal and State agencies, shall establish an outreach program--

    (1) to work with State and local law enforcement officials to harmonize the reporting of data on cargo theft among States and localities with the United States Government's reports; and

    (2) to work with local port security committees to disseminate cargo theft information to appropriate law enforcement officials.

    (d) ANNUAL REPORT.--The Attorney General shall report annually to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the implementation of this section.

    (e) INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN SHIPMENTS BY CARRIER; STATE PROSECUTIONS.--

    (1) STATE PROSECUTIONS.--Section 659 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

    (A) in the first undesignated paragraph--

    (i) by striking ``Whoever embezzles'' and inserting the following:

    ``(a) OFFENSE; PENALTY.--Whoever--

    ``(1) embezzles'';

    (ii) by striking ``from any pipeline system'' and all that follows through ``with intent to convert to his own use''; and

    (iii) by striking ``or'' at the end;

    (B) in the second undesignated paragraph--

    (i) by striking ``Whoever buys'' and inserting the following:

    ``(2) buys''; and

    (ii) by striking ``or'' at the end;

    (C) in the third undesignated paragraph--

    (i) by striking ``Whoever embezzles'' and inserting the following''

[Page: S4575]

    ``(3) embezzles''; and

    (ii) by striking ``with intent to convert to his own use'';

    (D) in the fourth undesignated paragraph, by striking ``Whoever embezzles'' and inserting the following:

    ``(4) embezzles'';

    (E) in the fifth undesignated paragraph, by striking ``Shall in each case'' and inserting the following:

   ``shall in each case'';

    (F) in the sixth undesignated paragraph, by striking ``The'' and inserting the following:

    ``(b) LOCATION OF OFFENSE.--The'';

    (G) in the seventh undesignated paragraph, by striking ``The'' and inserting the following''

    ``(c) SEPARATE OFFENSE.--The'';

    (H) in the eighth undesignated paragraph, by striking ``To'' and inserting the following:

    ``(d) PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE.--To'';

    (I) in the ninth undesignated paragraph, by striking ``A'' and inserting the following:

    ``(e) PROSECUTION.--A''; and

    (J) by adding at the end the following:

    ``(f) CIVIL PENALTY.--

    ``(1) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and in addition to any penalties that may be available under any other provision of law, a person who is found by the Secretary of Homeland Security, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, to have violated this section or a regulation issued under this section shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 for each violation.

    ``(2) SEPARATE VIOLATIONS.--Each day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation.

    ``(3) AMOUNT OF PENALTY.--

    ``(A) IN GENERAL.--The amount of a civil penalty for a violation of this section or a regulation issued under this section shall be assessed by the Attorney General, or the designee of the Attorney General, by written notice.

    ``(B) CONSIDERATIONS.--In determining the amount of a civil penalty under this paragraph, the Attorney General shall take into account--

    ``(i) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the prohibited act committed; and

    ``(ii) with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.

    ``(4) MODIFICATION OF PENALTY.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any civil penalty that is subject to imposition or which has been imposed under this section.

    ``(5) FAILURE TO PAY.--If a person fails to pay an assessment of a civil penalty after it has become final, the Secretary of Homeland Security may refer the matter to the Attorney General for collection in an appropriate district court of the United States.

    ``(g) DEFINITION.--For purposes of this section, the term `goods or chattels' means to be moving as an interstate or foreign shipment at all points between the point of origin and the final destination (as evidenced by the waybill or other shipping document of the shipment) regardless of any temporary stop while awaiting transshipment or otherwise.''.

    (2) FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES.--Pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall review the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to determine whether sentencing enhancement is appropriate for any offense under section 659 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this subsection.

    (3) ANNUAL REPORT.--The Attorney General shall annually submit to Congress a report that shall include an evaluation of law enforcement activities relating to the investigation and prosecution of offenses under section 659 of title 18, United States Code.

   SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

    In this title:

    (1) AIRCRAFT.--The term ``aircraft'' has the meaning given that term in section 40102 of title 49, United States Code.

    (2) CAPTAIN-OF-THE-PORT.--The term ``Captain-of-the-Port'', with respect to a United States seaport, means the individual designated by the Commandant of the Coast Guard as the Captain-of-the-Port at that seaport.

    (3) COMMON CARRIER.--The term ``common carrier'' means any person that holds itself out to the general public as a provider for hire of a transportation by water, land, or air of merchandise, whether or not the person actually operates the vessel, vehicle, or aircraft by which the transportation is provided, between a port or place and a port or place in the United States.

    (4) CONTAINER.--The term ``container'' means a container that is used or designed for use for the international transportation of merchandise by vessel, vehicle, or aircraft.

    (5) DIRECTORATE.--The term ``Directorate'' means the Border and Transportation Security Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security.

    (6) MANUFACTURER.--The term ``manufacturer'' means a person who fabricates or assembles merchandise for sale in commerce.

    (7) MERCHANDISE.--The term ``merchandise'' has the meaning given that term in section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401).

    (8) OCEAN TRANSPORTATION INTERMEDIARY.--The term ``ocean transportation intermediary'' has the meaning given that term in section 515.2 of title 46, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on January 1, 2003).

    (9) SHIPMENT.--The term ``shipment'' means cargo traveling in international commerce under a bill of lading.

    (10) SHIPPER.--The term ``shipper'' means--

    (A) a cargo owner;

    (B) the person for whose account ocean transportation is provided;

    (C) the person to whom delivery of merchandise is to be made; or

    (D) a common carrier that accepts responsibility for payment of all charges applicable under a tariff or service contract.

    (11) UNITED STATES SEAPORT.--The term ``United States seaport'' means a place in the United States on a waterway with shoreside facilities for the intermodal transfer of cargo containers that are used in international trade.

    (12) VEHICLE.--The term ``vehicle'' has the meaning given that term in section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401).

    (13) VESSEL.--The term ``vessel'' has the meaning given that term in section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401).

   SEC. 211. DESIGNATED SECURITY AUTHORITY.

    The Captain-of-the-Port of each United States seaport shall be the primary authority responsible for security at the United States seaport and shall--

    (1) coordinate security at such seaport; and

    (2) be the point of contact on seaport security issues for civilian and commercial port entities at such seaport.

   SEC. 221. MANIFEST REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 431(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1431(b)) is amended--

    (1) by striking ``Any manifest'' and inserting the following:

    ``(1) IN GENERAL.--Any manifest''; and

    (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

    ``(2) REQUIRED INFORMATION.--

    ``(A) REQUIREMENT.--In addition to any other requirement under this section, the pilot, master, operator, or owner (or the authorized agent of such operator or owner) of every vessel required to make entry or obtain clearance under the laws of the United States shall transmit electronically the cargo manifest information described in subparagraph (B) in such manner and form as the Secretary shall prescribe. The Secretary shall ensure the electronic information is maintained securely, and is available only to individuals with Federal Government security responsibilities.

    ``(B) CONTENT.--The cargo manifest required by subparagraph (A) shall consist of the following information:

    ``(i) The port of arrival and departure.

    ``(ii) The carrier code assigned to the shipper.

    ``(iii) The flight, voyage, or trip number.

    ``(iv) The dates of scheduled arrival and departure.

    ``(v) A request for a permit to proceed to the destination, if such permit is required.

    ``(vi) The numbers and quantities from the carrier's master airway bill, bills of lading, or ocean bills of lading.

    ``(vii) The first port of lading of the cargo and the city in which the carrier took receipt of the cargo.

    ``(viii) A description and weight of the cargo (including the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States number under which the cargo is classified) or, for a sealed container, the shipper's declared description and weight of the cargo.

    ``(ix) The shipper's name and address, or an identification number, from all airway bills and bills of lading.

    ``(x) The consignee's name and address, or an identification number, from all airway bills and bills of lading.

    ``(xi) Notice of any discrepancy between actual boarded quantities and airway bill or bill of lading quantities, except that a carrier is not required by this clause to verify boarded quantities of cargo in sealed containers.

    ``(xii) Transfer or transit information for the cargo while it has been under the control of the carrier.

    ``(xiii) The location of the warehouse or other facility where the cargo was stored while under the control of the carrier.

    ``(xiv) The name and address, or identification number of the carrier's customer including the forwarder, nonvessel operating common carrier, and consolidator.

    ``(xv) The conveyance name, national flag, and tail number, vessel number, or train number.

    ``(xvi) The country of origin and ultimate destination.

    ``(xvii) The carrier's reference number, including the booking or bill number.

    ``(xviii) The shipper's commercial invoice number and purchase order number.

    ``(xix) Information regarding any hazardous material contained in the cargo.

    ``(xx) License information including the license code, license number, or exemption code.

    ``(xxi) The container number for containerized shipments.

    ``(xxii) Certification of the empty condition of any empty containers.

    ``(xxiii) Any additional information that the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, by regulation determines is reasonably necessary to ensure

[Page: S4576]

   SEC. 222. PENALTIES FOR INACCURATE MANIFEST.

    (a) FALSITY OR LACK OF MANIFEST.--Section 584 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1584) is amended--

    (1) in subsection (a)(1)--

    (A) by striking ``$1,000'' each place it appears and inserting ``$50,000''; and

    (B) by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$50,000''; and

    (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

    ``(c) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.--Any person who ships or prepares for shipment any merchandise bound for the United States who intentionally provides inaccurate or false information, whether inside or outside the United States, with respect to such merchandise for the purpose of introducing such merchandise into the United States in violation of the laws of the United States, shall be liable, upon conviction of a violation of this subsection, for a fine of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment for 1 year, or both; except that if the importation of such merchandise into the United States is prohibited, such person shall be liable for an additional fine of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.''.

    (b) PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ARRIVAL, REPORTING, ENTRY, AND CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS.--Subsections (b) and (c) of section 436 of Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1436) are amended to read as follows:

    ``(b) CIVIL PENALTY.--Any master, person in charge of a vessel, vehicle, or aircraft pilot who commits any violation listed in subsection (a) shall be liable for a civil penalty of $25,000 for the first violation, and $50,000 for each subsequent violation, and any conveyance used in connection with any such violation is subject to seizure and forfeiture.

    ``(c) CRIMINAL PENALTY.--In addition to being liable for a civil penalty under subsection (b), any master, person in charge of a vessel, vehicle, or aircraft pilot who intentionally commits or causes another to commit any violation listed in subsection (a) shall be liable, upon conviction, for a fine of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment for 1 year, or both; except that if the conveyance has, or is discovered to have had, on board any merchandise (other than sea stores or the equivalent for conveyances other than vessels) the importation of which into the United States is prohibited, such individual shall be liable for an additional fine of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.''.

   SEC. 223. SHIPMENT PROFILING PLAN.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop a shipment profiling plan to track containers and shipments of merchandise to be imported into the United States. The tracking system shall be designed to identify any shipment that is a threat to the security of the United States before such shipment enters the United States.

    (b) INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS.--

    (1) CONTENT.--The shipment profiling plan required by subsection (a) shall at a minimum--

    (A) require common carriers, shippers, and ocean transportation intermediaries to provide appropriate information regarding each shipment of merchandise, including the information required under section 431(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1431(b)) to the Secretary of Homeland Security; and

    (B) require shippers to use a standard international bill of lading for each shipment that includes--

    (i) the weight of the cargo;

    (ii) the value of the cargo;

    (iii) the vessel name;

    (iv) the voyage number;

    (v) a description of each container;

    (vi) a description of the nature, type, and contents of the shipment;

    (vii) the code number from the Harmonized Tariff Schedule;

    (viii) the port of destination;

    (ix) the final destination of the cargo;

    (x) the means of conveyance of the cargo;

    (xi) the origin of the cargo;

    (xii) the name of the precarriage deliverer or agent;

    (xiii) the port at which the cargo was loaded;

    (xiv) the name of the formatting agent;

    (xv) the bill of lading number;

    (xvi) the name of the shipper;

    (xvii) the name of the consignee;

    (xviii) the universal transaction number or carrier code assigned to the shipper by the Secretary;

    (xix) the information contained in the continuous synopsis record for the vessel transporting the shipment; and

    (xx) any additional information that the Secretary by regulation determines is reasonably necessary to ensure seaport safety.

    (2) CONTINUOUS SYNOPSIS RECORD DEFINED.--In this subsection, the term ``continuous synopsis record'' means the continuous synopsis record required by regulation 5 of chapter XI-1 of the Annex to the International Convention of the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974.

    (3) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The requirement imposed under clause (xix) of paragraph (1)(B) shall take effect on July 1, 2004.

    (c) CREATION OF PROFILE.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall combine the information described in subsection (b) with other law enforcement and national security information that the Secretary determines useful to assist in locating containers and shipments that could pose a threat to the security of the United States and to create a profile of every container and every shipment within the container that will enter the United States.

    (d) CARGO SCREENING.--

    (1) IN GENERAL.--Officers of the Directorate shall review the profile of a shipment that a shipper desires to transport into the United States to determine whether the shipment or the container in which it is carried should be subjected to additional inspection by the Directorate. In making such a determination, an officer shall consider, in addition to any other relevant factors--

    (A) whether the shipper has regularly shipped cargo to the United States in the past; and

    (B) the specificity of the description of the shipment's contents.

    (2) NOTIFICATION.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall transmit to the shipper and the person in charge of the vessel, aircraft, or vehicle on which a shipment is located a notification of whether the shipment is to be subjected to additional inspection as described in paragraph (1).

    (e) CONSISTENCY WITH THE NATIONAL CUSTOMS AUTOMATION PROGRAM.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall ensure that the National Customs Automation Program established pursuant to section 411 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1411) is compatible with the shipment profile plan developed under this section.

   SEC. 224. INSPECTION OF MERCHANDISE AT FOREIGN FACILITIES.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to Congress a plan to--

    (1) station inspectors from the Directorate, other Federal agencies, or the private sector at the foreign facilities of manufacturers or common carriers to profile and inspect merchandise and the containers or other means by which such merchandise is transported as they are prepared for shipment on a vessel that will arrive at any port or place in the United States;

    (2) develop procedures to ensure the security of merchandise inspected as described in paragraph (1) until it reaches the United States; and

    (3) permit merchandise inspected as described in paragraph (1) to receive expedited inspection upon arrival in the United States.

   SEC. 231. SEAPORT SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) REQUIREMENT.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue final regulations setting forth minimum security requirements, including security performance standards for United States seaports. The regulations shall--

    (1) limit private vehicle access to the terminal area of a United States seaport to vehicles that are registered at such seaport and display a seaport registration pass;

    (2) prohibit individuals, other than law enforcement officers, from carrying firearms or explosives inside a United States seaport without written authorization from the Captain-of-the-Port;

    (3) prohibit individuals from physically accessing the terminal area of a United States seaport without a seaport specific access pass;

    (4) require that officers of the Directorate, and other appropriate law enforcement officers, at United States seaports be provided with, and utilize, personal radiation detection pagers to increase the ability of such officers to accurately detect radioactive materials that could be used to commit terrorist acts in the United States;

    (5) require that the terminal area of each United States seaport be equipped with--

    (A) a secure perimeter;

    (B) monitored or locked access points; and

    (C) sufficient lighting; and

    (6) include any additional security requirement that the Secretary determines is reasonably necessary to ensure seaport security.

    (b) LIMITATION.--Except as provided in subsection (c), any United States seaport that does not meet the minimum security requirements described in subsection (a) is prohibited from--

    (1) handling, storing, stowing, loading, discharging, or transporting dangerous cargo; and

    (2) transferring passengers to or from a passenger vessel that--

    (A) weighs more than 100 gross tons;

    (B) carries more than 12 passengers for hire; and

    (C) has a planned voyage of more than 24 hours, part of which is on the high seas.

    (c) EXCEPTION.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive 1 or more of the minimum requirements described in subsection (a) for a United States seaport if the Secretary determines that it is not appropriate for such seaport to implement the requirement.

   SEC. 232. SEAPORT SECURITY CARDS.

    Section 70105 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--

    (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:

[Page: S4577]

    ``(a) PROHIBITION.--(1) Unless the requirements of paragraph (2) are met, the Secretary shall prescribe regulations to prohibit--

    ``(A) an individual from entering an area of a vessel or facility that is designated as a secure area by the Secretary for purposes of a security plan for the vessel or facility that is approved by the Secretary under section 70103 of this title; and

    ``(B) an individual who is regularly employed at a United States seaport or who is employed by a common carrier that transports merchandise to or from a United States seaport from entering a United States seaport.

    ``(2) The prohibition imposed under paragraph (1) may not apply to--

    ``(A) an individual who--

    ``(i) holds a transportation security card issued under this section; and

    ``(ii) is authorized to be in area in accordance with the plan if the individual is attempting to enter an area of a vessel or facility that is designated as a secure area by the Secretary for purposes of a security plan for the vessel or facility approved by the Secretary under section 70103 of this title; or

    ``(B) an individual who is accompanied by another individual who may access the secure area or United States seaport in accordance with this section.

    ``(3) A person may not admit an individual into a United States seaport or a secure area unless the individual is in compliance with this subsection.'';

    (2) in paragraph (2) of subsection (b)--

    (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'';

    (B) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G); and

    (C) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new subparagraph:

    ``(F) an individual who is regularly employed at a United States seaport or who is employed by a common carrier that transports merchandise to or from a United States seaport; and'';

    (3) in paragraph (1) of subsection (c)--

    (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'';

    (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon and ``or''; and

    (C) at the end, by inserting the following new subparagraph:

    ``(E) has not provided sufficient information to allow the Secretary to make the determinations described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D).'';

    (4) by striking subsection (f); and

    (5) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new subsections:

    ``(f) DATA ON CARDS.--A transportation security card issued under this section shall--

    ``(1) be tamper resistant; and

    ``(2) contain--

    ``(A) the number of the individual's commercial driver's license issued under chapter 313 of title 49, if any;

    ``(B) the State-issued vehicle registration number of any vehicle that the individual desires to bring into the United States seaport, if any;

    ``(C) the work permit number issued to the individual, if any;

    ``(D) a unique biometric identifier to identify the license holder; and

    ``(E) a safety rating assigned to the individual by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

    ``(g) DEFINITIONS.--In this section:

    ``(1) ALIEN.--The term `alien' has the meaning given the term in section 101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3)).

    ``(2) UNITED STATES SEAPORT.--The term `United States seaport' means a place in the United States on a waterway with shoreside facilities for the intermodal transfer of cargo containers that are used in international trade.''.

   SEC. 233. SECURING SENSITIVE INFORMATION.

    (a) REQUIREMENT.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Captain-of-the-Port of each United States seaport shall secure and protect all sensitive information, including information that is currently available to the public, related to the seaport.

    (b) SENSITIVE INFORMATION.--In this section, the term ``sensitive information'' means--

    (1) maps of the seaport;

    (2) blueprints of structures located within the seaport; and

    (3) any other information related to the security of the seaport that the Captain-of-the-Port determines is appropriate to secure and protect.

   SEC. 234. CONTAINER SECURITY.

    (a) CONTAINER SEALS.--

    (1) APPROVAL.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall approve minimum standards for high security container seals that--

    (A) meet or exceed the American Society for Testing Materials Level D seals;

    (B) permit each seal to have a unique identification number; and

    (C) contain an electronic tag that can be read electronically at a seaport.

    (2) REQUIREMENT FOR USE.--Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall deny entry of a vessel into the United States if the containers carried by the vessel are not sealed with a high security container seal approved under paragraph (1).

    (b) IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.--

    (1) REQUIREMENT.--A shipment that is shipped to or from the United States either directly or via a foreign port shall have a designated universal transaction number.

    (2) TRACKING.--The person responsible for the security of a container shall record the universal transaction number assigned to the shipment under paragraph (1), as well as any seal identification number on the container, at every port of entry and point at which the container is transferred from one conveyance to another conveyance.

    (c) PILOT PROGRAM.--

    (1) GRANTS.--The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to award grants to eligible entities to develop an improved seal for cargo containers that--

    (A) permit the immediate detection of tampering with the seal;

    (B) permit the immediate detection of tampering with the walls, ceiling, or floor of a container that indicates a person is attempting to improperly access the container; and

    (C) transmit information regarding tampering with the seal, walls, ceiling, or floor of the container in real time to the appropriate authorities at a remote location.

    (2) APPLICATION.--Each eligible entity seeking a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may reasonably require.

    (3) ELIGIBLE ENTITY.--In this subsection, the term ``eligible entity'' means any national laboratory, nonprofit private organization, institution of higher education, or other entity that the Secretary determines is eligible to receive a grant authorized by paragraph (1).

    (d) EMPTY CONTAINERS.--

    (1) CERTIFICATION.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall prescribe in regulations requirements for certification of empty containers that are to be shipped to or from the United States either directly or via a foreign port. Such regulations shall require that an empty container--

    (A) be inspected and certified as empty prior to being loaded onto a vessel for transportation to a United States seaport; and

    (B) be sealed with a high security container seal approved under subsection (a)(1) to enhance the security of United States seaports.

   SEC. 235. OFFICE AND INSPECTION FACILITIES.

    (a) OPERATIONAL SPACE IN SEAPORTS.--Each entity that owns or operates a United States seaport that receives cargo from a foreign country, whether governmental, quasi-governmental, or private, shall provide to the Directorate permanent office and inspection space within the seaport that is sufficient for the Directorate officers at the seaport to carry out their responsibilities. Such office and inspection space--

    (1) shall be provided at no cost to the Directorate; and

    (2) may be located outside the terminal area of the seaport.

    (b) INSPECTION TECHNOLOGY.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall maintain permanent inspection facilities that utilize available inspection technology in the space provided at each seaport pursuant to subsection (a).

   SEC. 236. SECURITY GRANTS TO SEAPORTS.

    (a) CRITERIA FOR AWARDING GRANTS.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall use the proportion of the containerized imports that are received at a United States seaport as a factor to be considered when determining whether to select that seaport for award of a competitive grant for security.

    (b) DEFINITIONS.--In this section:

    (1) CONTAINERIZED IMPORTS.--The term ``containerized imports'' means the number of twenty-foot equivalent units of containerized imports that enter the United States annually through a United States seaport as estimated by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics of the Department of Transportation.

    (2) COMPETITIVE GRANT FOR SECURITY.--The term ``competitive grant for security'' means a grant of Federal financial assistance that the Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to award to a United States seaport for the purpose of enhancing security at the seaport, including a grant of funds appropriated under the heading ``Maritime and Land Security'' in title I of division I of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108-7).

   SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act. Sums authorized to be appropriated under this section are authorized to remain available until expended.

1B) Supplemental Appropriations for Nuclear Security
SA 440. Mr. REID (for himself, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. LIEBERMAN, and Ms. STABENOW) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 762, making supplemental appropriations to support Department of Defense operations in Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, and Related Efforts for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes; as follows:

   On page 18, line 8, strike all that follows through page 20, line 10 and insert the following:

   For an additional amount for homeland security expenses, for ``Operations and Maintenance, General'', $29,000,000, to remain available until expended.

   BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

   WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

   For an additional amount for homeland security expenses, for ``Water and Related Resources'', $25,000,000, to remain available until expended.

   ENERGY PROGRAMS

   SCIENCE

   For an additional amount for ``Science'' for emergency expenses necessary to support safeguard and security activities, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended.

   NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

   WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

   For an additional amount for ``Weapons Activities'' for emergency expenses necessary to safeguard nuclear weapons and nuclear material $70,000,000 to remain available until expended: Provided, That $30,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available for secure transportation asset activities: Provided further, That $40,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available to meet increased safeguards and security needs throughout the nuclear weapons complex, including at least $15,000,000 for cyber security.

   NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

   For an additional amount for ``Nuclear Nonproliferation'' for emergency expenses necessary to safeguard fissile nuclear material, $300,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That $135,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available for the development of nuclear detectors at mega seaports, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection: Provided further, That $40,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available for detection and deterrence of radiological dispersal devices: Provided further, That $20,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available for nonproliferation assistance to nations other than the Former Soviet Union: Provided further, That $20,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available for nonproliferation forensics and attribution: Provided further, That $15,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available for nuclear nonproliferation verification program, including $2,500,000 for the Caucasus Seismic Network: Provided further, That $12,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available for nonproliferation assistance to Russian strategic rocket forces: Provided further, That $10,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available for the packaging and disposition of any nuclear material found in Iraq: Provided further, That $10,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available for nuclear material detection materials and devices: Provided further, That $10,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available for lower yield nuclear detection: Provided further, That $10,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available for nuclear material characterization: Provided further, That $5,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available for a radionuclide deployable analysis system: Provided further, That $5,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available for U.S. export control nuclear security: Provided further, That $5,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available for international export control cooperation activities: Provided further, That $2,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available for support of proliferation analyses in post-war Iraq: Provided further, That $1,000,000 of the funds provided shall be available for vulnerability assessments of spent nuclear fuel casks.

   ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

   DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

   For an additional amount for ``Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management'', or emergency expenses necessary to support safeguards and security activities at nuclear and other facilities, $15,000,000, to remain available until expended.

   DEFENSE FACILITY CLOSURE PROJECTS

   For an additional amount for ``Defense Facility Closure Projects'' for emergency expenses necessary to support safeguard and security activities at nuclear and other facilities, $5,000,000, to remain available until expended.

   OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

   For an additional amount for ``Other Defense Activities'', $18,000,000, to remain available until expended, for increased safeguard and security of Department of Energy facilities and personnel, including intelligence and counterintelligence activities: Provided, That this amount shall be available for transfer to other accounts within the Department of Energy for other expenses necessary to support elevated security conditions 15 days after notification to the Congress of the proposed transfers.

1C) Port Security
AMENDMENT NO. 445

   Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, port security is much like the weather: Everybody talks about it, but we haven't done anything about it. The fact is, we are in a crisis, in an emergency. If anything would respond to an emergency supplemental, port security would.

   I just had a word with the distinguished chairman. The chairman believes there are pots of money. I wanted to make sure I wasn't duplicating everything. I have in my hand the particular reported emergency supplemental. On page 20, what we find is the Department of Homeland Security; you have the various items, as you can see, listed beginning at that second paragraph, where they get $1.135 billion. I said: Well, we have $1.135 billion we can get for port security.

   Then I looked at the breakdown. The $580 million for the Coast Guard has been spent. The Coast Guard has been waiting on this money. They are deployed in the Gulf. The distinguished Commander in Chief only 2 days ago, in Philadelphia, emphasized what a magnificent job the Coast Guard was doing in the gulf, around the clock, doubling up their effort. So this is for reimbursement of that $580 million.

   We have the rest of the year to deal with, and we have an authorization bill trying to deal with it. But that is not the appropriation. I do not think we can wait for an authorization appropriation and then go through the rest of the spring and summer with the Coast Guard unfunded. So that $580 million is not for the Coast Guard for the rest of the year but that is to reimburse it.

   Otherwise, the $215 million you see under the $1.135 billion is for terrorism; the $120 million goes to the Transportation Security Administration. That is for aviation, that is the overtime for screeners and everything else of that kind; $65 million of that is for overtime of the Customs and Border Patrol; $10 million is for the Secret Service; $10 million for the vulnerability assessment; and $15 million for emergency support teams. That is just a little over a billion some-odd million, which takes up the amount on page 20 of the Department of Homeland Security.

   There are not any pots of money that we can take from. That has been a concern of the Senator from South Carolina. In the past, we spoke with one voice. This is not a partisan amendment whatsoever; 100 Senators, all Republicans and all Democrats, voted for port security. This is only $1 billion of the $2.8 billion that we authorized. We have only had, of that authorized and appropriated, some $93 million that has been released. They are now trying to complete this and compete for $105 million, but then they will run out of money.

   Right to the point, we have to join forces together and take care of one of the finest entities you have ever seen.

   Let me divert for a second and talk about the ports of America. There are some 365 ports; 55 of those are major ports. We didn't want to rush in last year and just start throwing money at the problem. They have to get a concerted plan for each of the ports, particularly those that have been designated major ports and are subject to serious terrorist action.

   We have put the money up. They have completed five ports. They will only complete some six or seven additional, so it will be about nine by the end of the fiscal year under the present circumstance.

   That is totally unacceptable. We can't be running around waiting to get through by 2009, planning for port security with al-Qaida, with the terrorists, with the most vulnerable target you could possibly imagine.

   Let's go to Philadelphia. Osama bin Laden has 10 vessels, according to Lloyd's of London, and he controls 10 more. He easily knows terrorists who can crew those vessels. It was his ship that went into Mombasa, the port in Kenya, and blew up the embassy at Nairobi and the one at Dar es Salaam in Tanzania. So he knows about ship operations. He is intimate with it. He could easily put his crew in. He could get a shift on a particular ship of Exxon, let's say, going up the Delaware River to the port in Philadelphia, and just before they get there, they can take the crew and captain, throw them overboard, kill them, or whatever, just as they did in New York and at the Pentagon. Then they can blow that ship up at that tank farm in Philadelphia.

   We have studied this. The eastern seaboard would close down. I have seen port security war games--there has been a lot of work done on this. This is not just an amendment of the moment. On the contrary, we find out from Booz Allen Hamilton in their particular study--it is too voluminous to have printed in the RECORD at this point--that the eastern seaboard could close down. And what would happen if they would have to close down the stock market and everything else? There would be total chaos just from one particular incident of that kind.

   So we know the jeopardy that we experience here. We have to take care of these ports. We also have to take care of the waterway systems such as the Golden Gate Bridge and those other things.

   We tried to get $2 billion for 2 years and in the supplemental and budget we just passed, we passed unanimously, $1 billion. This is just what we voted on a week before last, $1 billion.

   I know my distinguished chairman is going to say we don't have any money. We have money, come on. Here we are already $232 billion in the red that we borrowed, and that stopped the first week in March. So for the month we have just been saying it is $232 billion public debt to the penny that the Secretary of Treasury puts out. That will go up, up, and away. We will get a kicker here in 14 days with the April 15 tax returns, but then just as we had in 2001, we were in the black on June 1, we passed a tax cut on June 8, and on June 28 we were $50 billion in the red.

   And by September 10, 2001, it was $99 billion in the red.

   Everyone says: Well, 9/11 caused the deficit. No. It is the fact that we have been having voodoo tax cuts that caused the deficit to balloon. The distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate knows what voodoo is because that is what Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush called President Reagan's tax cuts that were supposed to grow and grow the economy.

   You only have to turn to this morning's paper and look at the cartoon to see that with so-called growth, the only thing growing are these deficits. And they are going up, up, and away.

   So let's not start getting frugal and careful. Let's do get responsible and vote for the money that gives our ports

[Page: S4679]

   We are trying to coordinate them all under the particular plan. It has to be approved by the Transportation Security Administration before any money is disbursed. This is not just sending back grants and that kind of thing--unless and until we can get this money here to help out these local folks.

   When I talk about security at the port, let me talk about the actual practice before 9/11. Operators of ports were not concerned with security. It was about No. 10 or 20 on their list of concerns. As a result, the FBI has found that between $12 and $24 billion in theft is going through the ports of America every year. They just added that into the cost of doing business.

   The name of the game in port operation is swiftness, speed, expedition; get the cargo in, get it out, don't let it stay on the dock. It costs those ships at the dock $15,000 to $20,000 a day. So they try to compete with each other on speed, and it is a healthy competition.

   But now they have to change their attitude--and I don't have any lobbyists looking out for port security. I wish they would hire the airline lobbyists. We gave out $1 billion--just gave the money--$1 billion for airlines. We gave them another $1 billion just for the cost of security. But $1 billion was just because they did not know how to run the airlines.

   And now we are going to talk about $1 billion for all the ports of America. I hope I can get the help of the distinguished Senator from Texas. She has a very dangerous situation in Houston. You can come 50 miles up that river, and those gas plants on either side--propane plants and otherwise--you could blow it. And according to these studies by Booz Allen, it blows down the economy for a year. We are playing around with the airlines not having enough business so we give them $1 billion. And we give them another $1 billion for the security.

   This particular amendment--which should be bipartisan because this is what we all voted for last year--is just exactly what is needed.

   Go to the expenditure of that $1 billion, and it calls for $93 million to remain available until December 31 for the Coast Guard. That is $50 million for port vulnerability. That is the boarding equipment and everything else of that kind with respect to those assessments.

   There is $7 million for the purchase of radiation detection equipment. And there is some $36 million for the maritime safety and security teams.

   We know every plane that approaches the United States of America. We have alerts, and they respond. But we do not know with respect to the ships themselves.

   So we need not only a transponder arrangement, but we have to have at least, at the 12 major ports, the equipment to receive the message. We don't have that. Even if they all had transponders like the aircraft in America, we don't have the equipment within the Coast Guard to identify them.

   So this $57 million is for radar coverage of two-thirds of the United States with positioning systems to pick up that broadcast. A third, of course, goes into the internal river system, such as the Mississippi River and everything else for which the Coast Guard is responsible. That is exactly what is needed in the Coast Guard.

   I felt bad two days ago when I was watching the President on TV, and the nearest thing we have to port security at the Port of Philadelphia was his Coast Guard jacket. He had all the Coasties standing behind him, but they didn't have any money in their pockets. They were dead broke, I can tell you that right now. If you don't believe it, just read the headline in this morning's Washington Post: ``Traditional Coast Guard Duties Suffer, Study Says.''

   [Admiral] Collins said President Bush's $6.8 billion budget request for the Coast Guard represents a $1.6 billion increase over the agency's initial fiscal 2002 budget. He said that by fiscal 2004, the Coast Guard will have increased its workforce by 4,100 people since Sept. 11, 2001. .....

   But he said:

   I assure you that nothing is more important to the United States Coast Guard than to be ready to perform all of these missions with distinction and with excellence.

   I quote from the this particular article:

   After questioning from lawmakers, [Admiral] Collins conceded the 42,000-person Coast Guard has more challenges than resources to meet them. He said some equipment and personnel will have to be diverted from more traditional roles to homeland security efforts, although partnerships with the Navy and foreign governments could help take up the slack.

   And they are working on those.

   We have had hearings with Admiral Loy, and now with Admiral Collins, and with Commissioner Bonner of the Customs Service. We have gone overseas to try to streamline this issue so that we can actually inspect the cargo and facilitate it when it comes to port here in the United States. And he has worked that out with some 17 ports; that is, Commissioner Bonner. You have to give him credit. We have all been working. We have not just sat around pouting and sucking our thumbs waiting for the money. But here it says:

   Do we have more business than we have resources?

   The answer is:

   Yes, Collins said. We are challenged like never before to do all that America wants us to do.

   The GAO cataloged a 60 percent decline in Coast Guard hours spent on drug interdiction. ..... [They got] a 38 percent decline in fisheries enforcement. .....

   And I could go on. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the entire article printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Traditional Coast Guard Duties Suffer, Study Says

   Coast Guard efforts to capture drug traffickers and patrol commercial fisheries have suffered as it has turned its focus to homeland security since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to a study released yesterday.

   The declines uncovered by the General Accounting Office, the congressional watchdog agency, stoked concerns among some lawmakers that the Coast Guard might neglect its old missions as it trains its energy on securing the nation's ports, waterways and coastal areas.

   At a hearing yesterday on the Coast Guard's transition to the Department of Homeland Security, which it joined March 1, Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), chairman of a House subcommittee on Coast Guard and maritime transportation, called the GAO report ``thorough and eye-opening.''

   ``The Coast Guard's traditional missions such as search and rescue, drug and migrant interdiction, pollution prevention, boater safety and fisheries law enforcement must be preserved.'' LoBiondo said.

   Adm. Thomas H. Collins, head of the Coast Guard, tried to assure lawmakers that his agency could meet all of its old obligations while ramping up its counterterrorism efforts, such as conducting vulnerability assessments at all of the nation's ports and, more recently, supporting military operations in the Middle East.

   ``I assure you that nothing is more important to the United States Coast Guard than to be ready to perform all of these missions with distinction and with excellence,'' he testified yesterday.

   Collins said President Bush's $6.8 billion budget request for the Coast Guard represents a $1.6 billion increase over the agency's initial fiscal 2002 budget. He said that by fiscal 2004, the Coast Guard will have increased its workforce by 4,100 people since Sept. 11, 2001, and mobilized thousands of reservists. He said Bush has asked for an additional $580 million for the agency in his 2003 supplemental funding request.

   After questioning from lawmakers, Collins conceded the 42,000-person Coast Guard has more challenges than resources to meet them. He said some equipment and personnel will have to be diverted from more traditional roles to homeland security efforts, although partnerships with the Navy and foreign governments could help take up the slack.

   He also conceded that the Coast Guard is behind schedule in completing its vulnerability assessments of 55 ports.

   ``Do we have more business than we have resources? Yes, ``Collins said. ``We are challenged like never before to do all that America wants us to do.''

   The GAO catalogued a 60 percent decline in Coast Guard hours spent on drug interdiction in the past three months of 2002, compared with the same period in 1998. It also found a 38 percent decline in fisheries enforcement--protecting fishing grounds from foreign encroachment and enforcing domestic fishing laws.

   At the same time, the Coast Guard dramatically shifted resources to protect the nation's ports and waterways, including redeployments of search-and-rescue boats for harbor patrols. The Coast Guard devoted 91,000 ``resource hours''--a measurement of

[Page: S4680]

   Other areas, such as search-and-rescue efforts and maintaining navigation aids, remained at more or less the same levels as before Sept. 11, 2001, the GAO said.

   JayEtta Z. Hecker, the GAO analyst who presented the report, told lawmakers the Coast Guard ``cannot be all things to all people.''

   ``Even if you give them more money,'' she said, ``the challenge of absorbing more money is such that you cannot naturally solve this.''

   Collins agreed with the GAO figures, but said they account for only resource allocation, not results. He noted, for instance that the Coast Guard seized 72.2 tons of cocaine in fiscal 2002, its third-highest yearly total.

   ``We're getting outcomes and high productivity,'' he said. ``That's efficiency.''

   Committee members told Collins they recognized that Congress has heaped new responsibilities on the Coast Guard.

   ``We're yelling about security and we're saying, `Keep your traditional roles' at the same time,'' said Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.). ``We've put you in a very difficult position.''

   Mr. HOLLINGS. So, Madam President, we are not just for ports, and are going to come and get a lot of money, and ride in on an emergency supplemental. We begin with this fact: this is an emergency. We have these folks working around the clock.

   And let me continue, before I yield, to make sure that we have outlined exactly what we need the amount for.

   Now, there is an additional amount for customs and border protection of $160 million. That is broken down with $110 million for the deployment and installation of port screening equipment. We have $110 million for the radiation detection equipment at U.S. ports. Already, the railroads at the tunnels have that particular radiation equipment. So when it goes into the tunnel, they know, bam, that train has to stop, there is radiation there. We do not have that equipment at ports.

   And we get the poor Coast Guard captains at the port, or these young lieutenants in their twenties, with all of this responsibility. If something went awry in one of the ports of America this afternoon, the captain of the port, some 20-year-old lieutenant, would be in charge and be the responsible one. And he has not been given the resources.

   Congress has outlined his responsibility in law, but by way of appropriation, they have not given him the help. And he is trying to get the Customs and the DEA, the Ports Authority, the Immigration Service, the sheriff's department, the FBI--he is trying to get them all together.

   We have done that, for example. I can show where it has been done in our own backyard. I won't include the entire report in the RECORD, but you can see the particular work involved and the deliberateness now. It is not just to put money in. It is detailed. That is $50 million of the $160 million for the evaluation, implementation, and coordination by the Transportation Security Administration to secure the systems of transportation such as the container security initiative. That container security initiative is exactly what I was talking about. The Commissioner of Customs is already overseas and making arrangements with 17 different ports so far. But then you have for the cargo and employees, the standards, the good conduct, the inspection equipment, the computers and everything else. That fleshes out that particular $160 million. What I just referred to was under the Customs and border protection.

   Now to the Transportation Security Administration. For an additional amount of salaries and expenses, it is $680 million, but that is one half of what we authorized. The $600 million will be available for port security grants. It is just like during the Walter Mondale campaign, when he asked, Where is the beef? Well, where is the beef in your port security measure, Senator? I say this is the beef. This is the one thing the ports are really interested in so they can finance the different endeavors going on.

   The weekend before last we raised the alert to orange. At that particular time, we had everybody fighting over the same personnel. Secretary Rumsfeld wanted them in Iraq, and my National Guard and my Reserves are gone. My Reserves are in the C-17 field in my own backyard. They have been going since September 12, 2001, around the clock, 8-hour shifts. There are three teams. I have been there to the hangar and visited with them. They have been doing a magnificent job. But they are concerned because some of them are mechanics, security officers, that kind of thing. So the Governor of South Carolina, on this orange alert the week before last, had to get patrol officers to place around the port of Charleston. I saw it myself. That is the kind of strain and stress from the emergency we are in.

   But $30 million is for the worker identification card. That was a tough one for us. We worked with the unions on the background checks, and they are ready to move quickly. Now the unions said, you put that in law. You know how it is when they recommend somebody for a judge, then sit another 3 months before the FBI gets around to them. That is the situation here with all of these security personnel. Anybody who enters that secure area has to have a criminal background check. That is the money that is needed there. It is not in the emergency bill.

   Otherwise, there is $50 million for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to flesh out their Operation Safe Commerce which is the Coast Guard assessment in the Register. The Coast Guard submitted into the Federal Register exactly what it would cost to get these assessments and things going. I ask unanimous consent to print that in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Based on this analysis, the first year cost would be approximately $1.4 billion, with costs of approximately Present Value (PV) $6.0 billion over the next 10 years (2003-2012, 7 percent discount rate). The preliminary cost analysis in Appendix C presents the costs in three sections: vessel security, facility security, and port security. The following is a summary of the preliminary cost analysis.

   Vessel Security. The first-year cost of purchasing equipment, hiring security officers, and preparing paperwork is approximately $188 million. Following initial implementation, the annual cost is approximately $144 million. Over the next 10 years, the cost would be PV $1.1 billion approximately. The paperwork burden associated with planning would be approximately 140,000 hours in the first year and 7,000 hours in subsequent years.

   Facility Security. The first-year cost of purchasing equipment, hiring security officers, and preparing paperwork is an estimated $963 million. Following initial implementation, the annual cost is approximately $535 million. Over the next 10 years, the cost would be PV $4.4 billion approximately. The paperwork burden associated with planning would be approximately 465,000 hours in the first year and 17,000 hours in subsequent years.

   Port Security. The first-year cost of establishing Port Security Committees and creating Port Security Plans for all port areas is an estimated $120 million. The second-year cost is approximately $106 million. In subsequent years, the annual cost is approximately $46 million. Over the next 10 years, the cost would be PV $477 million approximately. The paperwork burden associated with planning would be approximately 1,090,000 hours in 2003, 1,278,000 hours in 2004, and 827,000 hours in subsequent years.

   Mr. HOLLINGS. You can see this is not going to solve the problem, but it shows an awareness of the Congress of what they have mandated in law. We have required these local communities to do lots of things, and they haven't done anything about it. And we need this money. It is an emergency.

   The Senate and the House last year said it would cost $2.8 billion. The Senate just the week before last in the budget resolution said $1 billion at least for this year. And we are trying our best to do that with this particular amendment, just put the money to where the mouth is.

   I yield to our distinguished chairman.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to send his amendment to the desk.

   Mr. HOLLINGS. I thought the amendment was called up by Senator Reid.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.

   The legislative clerk read as follows:

   The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. HOLLINGS] proposes an amendment numbered 445.

   Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[Page: S4681]

   The amendment is as follows:

   At the appropriate place insert the following:

   United States Coast Guard

   OPERATING EXPENSES

   For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses'', $93,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003, of which not less than $50,000,000 shall be for port vulnerability assessments and the port vulnerability assessment program, and not less than $7,000,000 shall be for the purchase of radiation detection equipment, and not less then $36,000,000 shall be for the establishment of Maritime Safety and Security Teams.

   ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS

   For an additional amount for ``Acquisition, Construction and Improvements'', $57,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003, to implement the Automated Identification System and other tracking systems designed to actively track and monitor vessels operating in United States waters.

   Border and Transportation Security

   CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

   For an additional amount for ``Customs and Border Protection'', $160,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003, of which not less than $110,000,000 shall be for the deployment and installation of portal screening equipment at our Nation's seaports, and of which not less than $50,000,000 shall be for the evaluation and implementation, in coordination with the Transportation Security Administration, to secure systems of transportation such as the Container Security Initiative and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism.

   Transportation Security Administration

   For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', $680,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2003, of which not less than $600,000,000 shall be available for port security grants for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, not less than $30,000,000 shall be for continued development and implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification Card as well as for background checks of transportation workers who work in secure areas or who work with sensitive cargo or information, and not less than $50,000,000 shall be for the evaluation and implementation, in coordination with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, of secure system of transportation such as Operations Safe Commerce.

   Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

   SALARIES AND EXPENSES

   For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', $10,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2004, for the development of seaport security training programs, and for equipment and personnel to provide training to Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies and, notwithstanding any provision of law, private security personnel performing seaport security functions.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate addresses what many experts view as the largest vulnerability in the Nation's defenses here at home. This amendment would direct critical funds to the Nation's seaports.

   During the Senate Appropriations Committee's homeland security hearings last year, one witness, Stephen Flynn, noted that the Nation's seaports ``are the only part of an international boundary that the Federal Government invests no money in terms of security. . . . Most ports, the best you get is a chain link fence with maybe some barbed wire.''

   Is that comforting?

   Consider that U.S. ports receive 16,000 cargo containers per day and 6 million containers per year that U.S. ports are home to oil refineries and chemical plants that process noxious, volatile chemicals; that there are 68 nuclear power plants located along U.S. waterways; that the average shipping container measures 8 feet by 40 feet and can hold 60,000 pounds; and that a ship or tanker transporting cargo can hold more explosives and dangerous materials than could ever be smuggled in an airplane or a truck crossing a land border.

   Yet, despite the clear danger, the best port protection the American people have is a chain link fence? It is unfathomable why we have not insisted that this amendment be signed into law months ago.

   Last November, the President signed the Maritime Transportation Safety Act. This amendment provides $1 billion to begin addressing these Federal requirements.

   Specifically, this amendment provides $600 million in port security grants to begin to assist our seaports in hardening their physical security to comply with the Federal law. Additionally, the authorizing legislation requires that all vessels operating in U.S. waters carry equipment which will allow the Coast Guard to actively track and monitor their movements. This amendment provides $57 million so the Coast Guard can establish a system to track these vessels.

   The amendment also addresses other critical port security needs such as providing additional cargo screening equipment for our seaports and funds to expedite the port security assessment program. Funds are also included to establish three additional Coast Guard Maritime Safety and Security Teams for domestic port security needs.

   Funding is providing to improve secure systems of cargo transport from the port of departure overseas to the port of arrival in the United States.

   The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, each in California, account for 35 percent of the international trade moving into and out of the United States. Port officials estimate that they need $10 million to build a container inspection facility where suspicious packages and freight can be opened and inspected. Similar realities face ports up and down the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards. Last December, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a report stating that the first year cost to implement port security authorizing legislation that the President signed in November would total $1.3 billion and that total costs for the next decade would be $6 billion. But despite the clear danger, and despite the overwhelming vote of approval by Congress to authorize security improvements at our seaports, the dollars have not been forthcoming.

   International authorities have linked 20 merchant vessels to Osama bin Laden. Some of the vessels are thought to be owned outright by bin Laden business interests, while others are on long-term charter. The Times of London reported in October 2001 that bin Laden used his ships to import into Kenya the explosives used to destroy the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

   This amendment would make sure that more than a chain link fence is protecting the nation's ports. Children learn to hop a fence at an early age. How hard would it be for a terrorist?

   I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

   Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor the port security amendment offered by Senator Hollings.

   In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, ports are struggling with an entirely new set of challenges to protect ports, citizens and the economy from the possible threat of terrorism. This is a huge task.

   I was fortunate to be named as a conferee on the port security bill last year. The bill that became law was a good bill.

   It will greatly improve security at our Nation's port in light of the challenge following September 11. But only if we provide the money. And so far, we have failed to do so.

   I feared this would happen. Many potential funding options were suggested during the conference. But, all of them were rejected by the other body. So, we had no funding source. We had to rely on appropriations. And, we are not providing enough funding for our local ports.

   Let me explain why this law is so crucial and why we must fund it with this amendment.

   The law creates national and regional maritime transportation/port security plans to be approved by the Coast Guard, including better coordination of Federal, State, local, and private enforcement agencies.

   The law mandates the development of regulations to determine secure areas in ports and to limit access to these areas through background checks that will result in a transportation security identification card.

   The bill also establishes a grant program for local ports, waterfront facilities operators, and State and local agencies to provide security infrastructure improvements.

   But again, there's no money.

   Port Security must be a priority.

   The Hart-Rudman report was released last October. Their report, ``America Still Unprepared--America Still in Danger,'' discusses the shortcomings in port security. This report

[Page: S4682]

   According to the report, 43 percent of all maritime containers that arrived in the United States in 2001 came through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

   The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach requested $70 million in post-September 11 security grants. To date, they have received only $6.175 million.

   That's just one port. The American Association of Port Authorities estimates the costs of adequate physical security at the Nation's commercial seaports to be $2 billion. Only $92.3 million in Federal grants have been authorized and approved.

   We know that last year with the closing of the West Coast ports because of a lockout, the cost to the economy was $1 billion per day for the first five days. Then, the costs increased exponentially. This shows how vital it is for our economy to keep the ports operating.

   If there was an incident at any port in the country, all the ports would be closed. This would cost billions and billions per day.

   The Hart-Rudman report also says we need to be proactive. We have identified the threat, but we haven't done enough to protect our ports.

   This amendment provides $1 billion for port security, including $600 million in grants for local ports.

   We cannot leave our homeland unprotected against terrorism. This is why I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to add more funding for port security.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

   Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am grateful to my friend from South Carolina for the way he has put this amendment. Unfortunately, it is part of a large stream of amendments. If this were the only amendment offered for Coast Guard expenses and to homeland security in addition to this bill, as manager of the bill, I would have no difficulty in dealing with it. But we expect a whole series of amendments during this period.

   I want to point out this bill came to us as a defense supplemental for the purpose of meeting the needs of the conduct of three separate war operations. We have a war on terrorism, a war in Afghanistan, and a war going on in Iraq. Of the total that we have coming out on the committee bill, we have $78.7 plus billion. It is really $78,736,600,000. Even Everett Dirksen thought that was a lot of money. But when you look at this, what was asked for, for the total for homeland defense, $4,676,000,000, that is on top of what has already been appropriated for the Department of Homeland Security in the omnibus bill we just passed and what will be appropriated in the fiscal year 2004 that is coming.

   I know many people, including myself, believe there should be more money allocated to homeland security. But what should we do? If I were to say I would accept the Senator's amendment, but behind it there is a total of $6.5 billion that I have been told so far dealing with homeland security amendments, another $6.5 billion will lead this bill to being assaulted in the House and severely questioned by the President. We don't have the emergency procedure available. We don't have a budget. So this can't be dubbed an emergency under the Budget Act and just sent downtown and ignored by the President, which is something we have done in the past. This either has to be in the bill or it is not going to be in the bill.

   I want the Senator to know, as I have said, we believe there is money here. Requests are going to come at us for purchasing of community-oriented policing policies, interoperable equipment problems, the problem of firefighters and emergency medical service teams in terms of their equipment that is currently not interoperable. We have money I certainly think is needed in terms of the screening equipment and new technology screening at ports. That is another $110 million.

   Once you start down this line, you have to ask yourself, why aren't these being raised in the 2004 bill. None of them are going to be spent this year. This isn't money for the immediate emergency. This is money that should be addressed in the 2004 bills. They are still pending out there. We will have this same debate on the 2004 bills. These same amendments will be offered then.

   Why don't we wait until then? That is my advice to the Senate. Let's wait. We know these are pending requests. We know many of them are very important, and some of them I shall join in urging we try to get money. But right now we are trying to get money for the President so he can handle these wars. This is not port security. It is not interoperability of equipment. It is not money for Guard and Reserve equipment. It is not money that is going to be spent next year.

   (Mr. CORNYN assumed the chair.)

   Mr. STEVENS. This is money for this year--not only this year, but within the next 8 weeks it has to be to the armed services. I say to my friend, very respectfully, when the time comes, I am going to have to move to table this amendment, although I hate to do it because I agree with it in many ways. But it is not the only thing coming at us. Every one of these, like another straw on the camel's back, will take more time to deal with in conference with the House and with the President, and meanwhile we don't get the money out there for the troops.

   I hope the Senate will stay with us. Let's restrict this bill to the emergencies related to the war effort, and the homeland security money in here is related to the war effort. It is nuclear security, it is a transfer of treasury for homeland security. One of the items is a smallpox amendment which is already in the bill. Those moneys can and will be spent before September 30 of this year. They must be. We don't have an extension on them. They are all money to be spent this year.

   This money the Senator seeks is money that could be spent over the next 2, 3 years. Who knows how long it will be before we identify the tracking systems that can track and monitor vessels in U.S. waters that are better equipment than we have now. We have some, but it is not good. We know that. It is not up to date. In particular, I seek to join in trying to check the backgrounds of transportation workers. I would very much like to be involved in finding ways to finance the screening equipment that deals with containers coming into our ports. But this isn't the place to do it.

   I told the Senate before this morning--I have asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the individual service chiefs when this money is needed. They started in early May and continued through June, so this money has to be there. It cannot be there if we get items to continue this bill and carry us into a period beyond the recess we intend to take for Easter. I say respectfully to my friend, it is just not something we can handle.

   The administration takes the position that the 2003 bill and 2003 supplemental and the 2004--those are all fiscal years--appropriations bills have started the process of providing money for port security, customs, transportation, law enforcement, domestic preparedness, and other items.

   The bill we have in place--the 2003 Appropriations Act--contains the largest increase for Coast Guard in the history of the United States, over $1 billion more than 2002. The Senator from South Carolina and I were partially responsible in that. We joined together in that fight on the omnibus bill. At 2004, the discretionary funding of the Coast Guard will be increased by another billion and a half, another 36 percent over 2002. That will add to the Coast Guard in excess of $2.5 billion for the period of 2004.

   Now, we are moving toward these things, but we cannot do them all in this bill, which is designed to be a supplemental for 2003.

   By the way, I am very concerned about the container security initiative. The Senator from New York and I have worked on that. We are continuing to try to push and push and push to identify the type of technology that could give us the ability to increase the surveillance on containers as they are placed on ships destined for the U.S. We want to reach out and put them on the foreign ports. We don't have to wait until they are in our ports before we discover things dangerous to us.

   I commend the Senator from New York and the Senator from South Carolina for working on this, but we don't need more money now. We need some results, as far as the basic investments in technology. The President's

[Page: S4683]

   This Senator still represents more than half of the coastline in the United States. Everything we eat and consume and put on our backs comes to us from outside of our State. We are the one State totally dependent upon transportation, particularly marine transportation. I will work night and day with my friend to see we can get there when we develop the technology that we can approve. But we cannot put the money out in front of the technology. I think we have to have more money for assessments, portal monitors, maritime safety, and response teams--I support those--automated identification system, long-term security programs, transportation worker IDs. But these are not wartime-related costs.

   We are in three wars at one time. Please, let me ask the Senate to remember that. That is what my job is--to try to get the bill passed as quickly as possible to address wartime-related costs at the request of the President of the United States. That is what I intend to do.

   This amendment should not be included in wartime supplemental funding. I regret that when the time comes I shall move to table my friend's amendment. I don't know whether he wants to respond or not. I don't know whether we want to vote at this time or not. A lot of things are going on in the building. I will rely on the leadership. I ask my friend if he wishes me to allow him to respond.

   Mr. HOLLINGS. I want to respond.

   Right to the point, the distinguished chairman says that, yes, he generally agrees, and he talks knowingly of the importance of the ports and the need for security. He knows because Alaska has coastlines. We have ANWR that we have all been debating. I wish they would read the book on John D. Rockefeller. Rockefeller made his money not on oil, but on the delivery of oil. This is the delivery of ANWR and oil out of Alaska at the Port of Valdez, which has no security whatever. It is a typical port, just like in my hometown, that wasn't interested in port security. But after 9/11 things changed, and we are just bringing them in now and getting those plans promulgated.

   Let me emphasize that this was done totally in conjunction with Secretary Mineta and the Transportation Security Administration. Specifically, Admiral Loy was then head of the Coast Guard when he found those needs out. He reaffirms those needs as the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration.

   Now, my distinguished friend talks about things ``wartime related.'' Oh, yes, Iraq is a war, Afghanistan is a war, but here at home is terrorism not a war? What is he talking about? We are responsible for the security and we ran around and did just that--we passed the port security measure 100 to 0 through here, but we didn't put the money behind it. So they haven't had but $93 million distributed out of $29.8 billion that we authorized.

   I have served on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense for over 30 years. I know about wartime-related expenses. We would not deny in a second the troops in uniform, but the troops out on the line at the ports, at the airports, and different other places in America, we say, well, that is pork, or there just wasn't money back home.

   I told you about our Governor. He had to put parole officers around the Port of Charleston last week. That is the way it continues with all these particular ports over America.

   This is not a measure to be tabled and say we have other amendments coming. I cannot defend or talk for or against the other amendments coming. I know this particular need. I can tell you here and now, it has been justified by the administration and by Senators, both Republican and Democrat.

   We did not say we have all these amendments for the airlines. We just gave them a billion dollars because they did not know how to run an airline. Their troubles were long before 9/11. Many have gone into bankruptcy.

   Then we gave them another billion dollars for security, and then we gave them $1.5 billion more to make sure they had $3.5 billion all together, but we will not give money for port security.

   Yes, this is going to be spent not in 8 weeks, but in 5 1/2 months. We have the rest of April, May, June, July, August, and September--5 1/2 months. It is not just that the money is not going to be spent. The ports have been waiting for the money. They have been holding on endeavors. This is not just the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, this is the amendment that should be supported by all for ports in America, but the ports have not learned what the airlines have learned. I am going to try to get them on the line and see if they can't hire the airline lobbyists where they get $3.5 billion for not knowing how to run an airline, and yet when I come forward with this amendment, the Senator says: We have some other amendments coming and, therefore, I do not want to approve this amendment. He says he is going to have to table this one. In other words, we are on a course to table all amendments.

   The Senator says this bill is for wartime-related items. The war started on 9/11, the terrorism war, and that is just as serious a war as anything going on in Afghanistan or in Iraq. We just do not have uniforms, and we have taken those frontline troops and have sent them to Iraq. The policemen, the firemen, the Reserve officers, the National Guard--we have drained them all for Iraq, and then all of a sudden act like there is not a terrorism war.

   The Senator says this is a wartime-related Defense supplemental. That is what I am talking about: Money to be expended on defense, on home security defense, that we are all worried about, and we act like it is not important at all; that it is just some domestic program we can get to later on. I wish I had a ship. I would run it up some river and blow it up and wake this crowd up, and then the money would come. But right now we have a system where the chairman--I can't even get anybody on the floor, the chairman has told them to stay off the floor--but this chairman is going to table all these amendments.

   Since I have the floor, let me talk about paying for these expenses. In January, I offered an amendment to pay for the war. I did not think back in April we were going to be debating and appropriating some $75 billion for the war. We are not paying for the war. We are going to borrow for the war. The distinguished chairman is saying, I am just not going to borrow anymore, like there is some restriction against borrowing in America.

   What we have is not a stimulus, and I am going to bring it in to focus. Everybody runs around here cutting taxes. Why? To get reelected. That is Carl Rove's tax cut. That is all it is. It is a Carl Rove tax cut to get reelected. He told the President: To get reelected next year, you have to have a tax cut.

   That is outrageous nonsense. We do not have any taxes to

   cut. We ran a $428 billion last year. We have under the President's budget a $554 billion deficit this year. I say to the distinguished Presiding Officer that does not include the cost of Iraq, which the President says is $75 billion, just for 6 months. God knows what it is for a year. Next year, the deficit will be $569 billion without the cost of the war and the occupation, by that time, I take it, of Baghdad.

   What we will have is a $600 billion to $700 billion deficit in the election next year. Tell Carl Rove that. The interest cost, instead of $350 billion, is going to be $400 billion to $500 billion. We are in a meltdown because there is no responsibility.

   I resent the idea of my distinguished friend from Alaska acting like ``I am not going to spend the money; I am just trying to get money that could not be spent in the next few months and is not needed'' when we vetted this issue, Republicans and Democrats. We need this money. We need this kind of security, but, oh, no, they will pass $3.5 billion for the airlines, and they will pass nothing for port security. They will pass a tax cut to get reelected next year.

   We have a country that will be worse than we inherited. This will be the first time in history that one generation is going to leave the country worse off for the next generation. We always received a better country.

   We have to go through these gymnastics up here of playing games for

[Page: S4684]

   We aren't going to table right now because I have the floor. We are going to talk some more about paying for the war.

   I think it is a disgrace that we would send our GIs to Iraq and say: We hope you don't get killed, and the reason we hope you don't get killed is because we want you to hurry back so we can give you the bill. We aren't going to pay for it. We have to have a tax cut so we can get reelected.

   We look out for No. 1, not for the fellow on the battlefield. Oh, yes, we have the Flag in the lapel. We recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. We have a moment of silence before we meet in subcommittee and other hearings. We stand up. We are very reverent. There are millions and millions for tribute, but not one red cent for defense. This is homeland defense. That is what it is.

   I am sure the distinguished chairman of the party of Lincoln remembers well that Lincoln, to pay for the Civil War, put a tax on dividends; to pay for the Civil War, he put a tax on estates.

   Now this party of Lincoln wants to take the tax off dividends and off estates and lecture about the port security that somehow the money is not needed; that we could not spend it; that we have other measures coming along the line and we are going to move to table all the amendments; we have already met in caucus, so we are going to table all the amendments and say: We got this money for the war effort; we did not get it for the terrorism war. That is what the Senator from South Carolina is talking about. We do not have any idea what is happening on the floor of the Senate. It is all politics. It is all applesauce, as Will Rogers said, and we are not paying attention to the real needs.

   Here we have a real need, and we have to get the security around the ports of America.

   As I said, there are some 55 important ports that terrorists could blow up and close down the economy for 1 year to 2 years. We all know that, but we pass it over because we have a system: We are going to leave this weekend, and we want to make sure we get rid of this bill before the weekend; what he wants to do is move to table these kinds of amendments.

   Let me speak about this port security. I ask unanimous consent to print the details of my port security amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Hollings' Port Security Amendment to the Appropriations Supplemental

   Sen. Hollings amendment to the ``Iraqi Freedom/Liberty Shield'' supplemental appropriations bill would add $1 billion for seaport security needs through the Department of Homeland Security. Sen. Hollings recommends that the money be spent consistent with the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, as follows:

   THE BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY DIRECTORATE ($840 MILLION)

   $110 million to Customs for the installation of screening equipment, and to be used to help develop new technologies to help develop and prototype screening and detection equipment at US ports.

   $100 million to TSA and Customs; $50 million each, to evaluate and implement cargo security programs.

   $30 million for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to develop and implement the Transportation Worker ID Card, and to conduct criminal background checks of transportation workers who work in secure areas or who work with sensitive cargo or information.

   $600 million for grants to states, local municipalities, ports and waterfront facilities for port security contingency response and to help ensure compliance with federally approved security plans.

   COAST GUARD ($150 MILLION)

   $50 million for port security assessments.

   $57 million to help implement the Automated Identification System (AIS) and other tracking systems designed to actively track and monitor vessels operating in US waters.

   $36 million for Maritime Safety and Security Teams (MSST's) to increase the number of teams and provide capital equipment.

   $7 million for radiation equipment development and implementation at cargo portals.

   FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER ($10 MILLION)

   $10 million to develop a seaport security training curriculum, in conjunction with the Maritime Administration, for the certification of federal and state law enforcement officers and private security personnel working at seaports.

1D) Supplemental Approps for Port Security and First Responders

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

   Mr. Chairman, today H.R. 1559 is before the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union to pay for the war in Iraq, the liberation of the people of Iraq, the destruction of a regime that threatens its own people, that persecutes its own people, that threatens its neighbors with weapons of mass destruction, that is a vicious, violent regime. We are at war today, and I want to say that American people can be, and I am sure they are, tremendously proud of the members of our Armed Forces.

[Time: 11:45]

   I was paying tribute to the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces for their tremendous dedication and their courage and their commitment and their valor and the tremendous way in which they are carrying out their mission. All Americans are proud of what these young Americans are doing.

   The Committee on Appropriations reported the bill with a recorded vote and every Member in the Committee voted yes: number one, to bring the bill to the floor; number two, to show our complete support of our American Armed Forces. And I am very proud of that. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I wanted to thank the members of both parties, on both sides of the political aisle on the Committee on Appropriations who worked together to produce this product that is very similar, Mr. Chairman, to what the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, asked us to do. The major part of the appropriations provided in this bill are for the Department of Defense, and the military services, to pay for much of the activities that have already taken place and to provide additional funding to complete this effort to rid the world of a regime as the one we have seen for the last 20 years headed by Saddam Hussein.

   Mr. Chairman, I am going to reserve the balance of my time at this point. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

   Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. We all recognize the need to provide this emergency funding. It is the right thing to do for our troops, particularly those who are now in harm's way. No Member of Congress would send America's sons and daughters to war without providing for them the adequate resources, and we will pay any price to protect our troops and the American people. As the distinguished ranking member of the committee has said, there are no Democrats, there are no Republicans, there are only Americans who are involved in this debate.

   However, I do remain concerned that the supplemental package falls short in funding pressing needs like homeland security. It is not a small venture; it is critical to our local communities. To date, our cities and towns have spent nearly $3 billion to protect their communities from the threat of terrorism. They cannot rely on State governments which are in the midst of the worst fiscal crisis since World War II. So at a time when towns like West Haven, Connecticut are spending more than $4,000 per week to meet these needs, we have a responsibility to offer them a helping hand. They cannot afford to do this alone.

   While $4.2 billion for homeland security is an improvement over the initial proposal, there remains approximately $10 billion in unmet needs to adequately secure our ports, our airports, the police, fire, emergency medical personnel on the front lines who need this funding for training and for new equipment. We cannot afford to ignore those funding gaps.

   Congress owes it to our troops overseas, who are sacrificing so much to protect the American people, to pass a bill that not only gives our fighting men and women the resources to carry out their mission, but one that also complements those efforts by securing our greatest vulnerabilities here at home.

   Let us ensure those fighting men and women a safe homeland to return to.

   Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

   I do so to say that on September 11, 2001, America's world changed. As we entered the 21st century, everything changed. Our citizens came under attack from cowardly terrorists who killed thousands of innocent, and I repeat, innocent civilians. That war against terrorism has been ongoing very effectively.

   Early this year, I recommended to the Committee on Appropriations a reorganizational structure that would create a subcommittee which would have the responsibility of dealing specifically with the security of our homeland. I asked the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) if he would chair that subcommittee. He is one of the outstanding leaders of our Committee on Appropriations, and he agreed to do that. They are well under way with their work.

   Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of that very important Subcommittee on Homeland Security.

   Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations who just spoke, for having the foresight and vision and leadership to have taken on this very difficult chore of reorganizing the House to deal with homeland security. It was his leadership that created this new subcommittee that brought together authorities from other subcommittees into one place, and it is the right thing to do and he took the leadership to make it happen; and the other body then followed suit, followed the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. We are fortunate to have him in the position that he is in.

   Now, Mr. Chairman, this bill has plenty of money for homeland security. Could we spend more money? Yes, of course, we could. Are there fire departments and police departments and EMT departments out there that could use more money? Absolutely. Is there a role for the Federal Government in helping them meet their expenses? Yes. What is that role? Our role is to assist them to train and to have equipment and the like to help protect the Nation from threats. But of course, their main responsibility is to protect their hometown and their home State and, of course, we cannot and should not pay their entire budget.

   Yet some would have us do that. Some would have us turn the homeland security funding mechanisms into another revenue sharing, so that States and localities could get huge sums of money without any real policy connection to a Federal role, and we must guard against that.

   But in this bill, Mr. Chairman, there is plenty of money for homeland security. There is plenty of money backed

[Page: H2727]

   There is also $1.5 billion for the Secretary to use on the Federal level for such things as cargo and portal radiation monitors. These are in our Nation's seaports and our land ports to protect us from cargo containers that might contain nuclear materials or biological or chemical weapons. There is $193 million for just that. There is $100 million for additional staffing along the northern border with our neighbors in Canada. There is $35 million more for container security initiatives so that we can keep track of, find and keep track of container cargo that might be damaging. There is $235 million in this bill to help our local airports modify their premises to accommodate these huge x-ray machines that are checking our baggage. There is $85 million to help reimburse our local law enforcement and State law enforcement officers and National Guardsmen who have been providing increased security at the airports and other critical transportation sites. Most of this money is going to our localities, as it should. There is $40 million for the Transportation Security Administration's port security efforts, and there is $30 million for nonaviation surface transportation security initiatives. There is $185 million for the Immigration Service for overtime, and air and marine interdiction and detention and removal of people who should not be here.

   Now, do the States and localities need more? Well, of course their budgets are tight. But I would point out to my colleagues that we still have $291 million of 2002 monies still available. There is $291 million yet unspent that we provided in fiscal year 02 that the States and localities have not even applied for. There is $566 million that we provided for State and local grants in the 03 omnibus bill. All of those monies are yet unspent. In the current supplemental, there is $2.2 billion that is destined for our localities, and in the 04 fiscal year that we are holding hearings on right now, and that bill will be passed sometime hopefully this summer, there is another several hundreds of millions of dollars.

   All told, that is a combined total of $19 billion-plus over the 02-04 period, monies that are destined for localities, most of which has not even been applied for. So there is plenty of money in the pipeline for our States and localities. Sure, we would like to have more money perhaps one of these days, but for the moment we have plenty of money for our States and localities to apply for if they wish.

[Time: 12:15]

   Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

   Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct the impression left by the previous speaker. The previous speaker said in committee earlier this week, and he has touched on it again today, he said that we had almost $19 billion in so-called ``unspent'' homeland security funds. The fact is, that is a fictional number. I want to show the Members why.

   First, 34 percent of that number is found in a bill which we have not yet even enacted. We cannot expect localities to spend money we have not yet provided them.

   Second, 10 percent of that so-called $19 billion in unspent money represents money in this supplemental which we have not yet passed. We cannot count money that we have not yet passed as part of the money localities have not yet spent.

   Then, in the omnibus appropriation bill which we just passed in February, and we were supposed to pass it before October 1 but we did not get around to it until February, 30 percent of that so-called $19 billion in unspent money is in that omnibus bill.

   It was only 2 weeks ago that the agency invited localities to apply for that money. The application time is not even closed yet. When we get down to the real, hard facts, only 26 percent of that $19 billion represents previously enacted money before February of this year. Of that 26 percent, only 4 percent is unobligated, and 22 percent of that is obligated.

   Mr. Chairman, so much for the idea that there is ``enough in the pipeline.'' There is not nearly enough in the pipeline. Ask the mayors, ask the firemen, ask the police chiefs, ask the Coast Guard, ask the Department of Defense. They know there is not enough money in the pipeline.

   Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

   Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the defense part of this bill is the Congress' version of shock and awe.

   The President the other day complained after only giving this to us 9 days ago, the largest supplemental in history, or in my 30 years; maybe it was larger in World War II, but the largest supplemental I have ever known.

   We have had hearings, we have discussed it with the agencies, and we did our part in accountability. We want to make sure that these agencies are accountable to us, to the people that are elected to represent the people in this country.

   It is a bipartisan bill. We sat down and we looked at what was done in 1991, we looked at how we handled things in the past, and we have tried to make sure that the public is protected and that this money is protected and they have accountability.

   I compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in the work that he did; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young); and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). This is an accountable bill, but the defense portion takes care of the troops. That is what it is all about. We take care of the money that was spent already, and we take care of getting the troops back home. We hope they will be there as short a period as they could possibly be.

   But we have to keep in mind, here we have a bill, $70-some billion in supplemental, which is bigger than almost every other bill that we have passed. In just a little over a week we have it on the floor, and within 2 weeks we will have it passed. So all the grumbling that goes on from some of the folks outside the legislature have to realize that we have a responsibility, and we have accepted that responsibility. We have made darned sure that this bill was something we can be proud of.

   Obviously, I believe that in the end we are going to have to pass another supplemental, because of just the way things have gone. I am pleased that the troops are doing so well. Unfortunately, we will have casualties in any kind of a war like this. But one thing for sure, we have done everything we could do humanly possible in the legislative process to make sure that they had everything that they could possibly have and could get to the field. I am proud of this.

   I would hope we would have large, bipartisan support for this supplemental, and it will pass overwhelmingly in as short a time as possible.

3A) Excerpted NBC Provisions in FY 2004 Budget
SEC. 217. RESERVE FUND FOR PROJECT BIOSHIELD. If the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is submitted, that will facilitate procurement for inclusion by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Strategic National Stockpile of countermeasures necessary to protect the public health from current and emerging threats of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise committee allocations for that committee and other appropriate budgetary aggregates and allocations of new budget authority (and the outlays resulting therefrom) in this resolution by the amount provided by that measure for that purpose, but not to exceed $890,000,000 in new budget authority and $575,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004, and $5,593,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,593,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.

3B) Smallpox Vaccine Bill Opposed by First Responders
SMALLPOX VACCINE BILL OPPOSED BY FIRST RESPONDERS -- (House of Representatives - March 31, 2003)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.

   Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today we will vote on H.R. 1463, legislation to establish a smallpox vaccination compensation program. Today's vote should not be partisan. This bill is supposed to respond to concerns raised by nurses, firefighters, police officers, EMTs and other first responders; but nurses, firefighters, and other first responders oppose this bill. The bill is supposed to increase the number of first responders who voluntarily receive a smallpox vaccine.

   The bioterrorism experts who helped put together the smallpox vaccine program say H.R. 1463 simply will not work. It will not improve participation rates. So the choice that both Republicans and Democratic Members of Congress face is whether to dismiss the concerns of first responders, ignore the advice of bioterrorism experts and vote for this bill anyway because the Republican leadership wants us to. In other words, do as we are told, don't do what is right.

   There have been no hearings on this legislation and no opportunities for Members on either side to offer amendments intended to improve the legislation. This bill was introduced on Friday and it is on the floor today. Only a handful of Members had a say on this bill. No one else. No firefighters, no police officers, no teachers, no EMTs, no nurses. We are being told to take it or leave it.

   The fundamental question is, have Members of Congress become so far removed from the people we represent that we would pass a bill opposed by the very men and women it is supposed to protect? Do we in Congress think we know better than bioterrorism experts when it comes to bioterrorism preparedness?

   Protecting first responders and their families in the event of a vaccine injury and increasing vaccine participation rates are important objectives. They are time-sensitive objectives. The national smallpox vaccination program is already underway and participation is lagging far, far behind the goal set by the administration. Twenty-five thousand people have been vaccinated, less than 5 percent of the March 1 benchmark. The experts tell us the bill will not jump-start the smallpox vaccine program, so it will not enhance our bioterrorism preparedness.

   Congress should not be wasting valuable time enacting the wrong bill, particularly when our Nation's ability to respond to bioterrorism is at stake. Nor should Members of either side of the aisle support legislation that is unapologetically dismissive of the very people it is intended to protect: the nurses, the firefighters, the police officers, people who voluntarily place themselves at personal risk. Public health experts and first responders tell us this bill falls short in fundamental ways.

   Funding for the program is not guaranteed. A linchpin in any compensation program is guaranteed funding. Without it, the program itself is suspect. The incidence, to be sure, of smallpox vaccine injury is rare. However, in the event a serious injury occurs, volunteers may be out of work for an extended period of time or, in some tragic cases, permanently. We are asking first responders to volunteer for the smallpox vaccine on our behalf as citizens. We have a compelling obligation to protect these volunteers and their families in the rare event of a vaccine injury. It is indefensible to shortchange those police officers, nurses and firefighter volunteers, those who have volunteered for the smallpox vaccine.

   The compensation is neither flexible nor adequate. H.R. 1463 invokes a one-size-fits-all cap that would provide, at maximum, a few years' worth of wages, even for a permanent disabling injury. For the compensation program to work, covered injuries must be defined. To meet the goals of efficiency, timeliness, fairness, and program integrity, the compensation program must be backed by an injury table. This bill is not.

   Finally, responsible administration of any vaccine program requires education, prescreening, as we found out tragically in four cases, and surveillance. H.R. 1463 ignores these costs, jeopardizing the future of the program and, more importantly, jeopardizing the future health of many of these volunteers, these nurses, these firefighters, these EMTs, these police officers.

   Bioterrorism preparedness is either a priority or it is not. H.R. 1463 is a token response, and barely that. Our nurses, our firefighters, our police officers, our EMTs and our other first responders deserve better. That is why they oppose this bill. They want Congress to sit down with all the first responders at the table, all of us, discuss this bill and write legislation that will make the smallpox vaccine program work.

3C) Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003

[Page: H2478]
---

   Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1463) to provide benefits for certain individuals with injuries resulting from administration of a smallpox vaccine, and for other purposes.

   The Clerk read as follows:

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

   SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003''.

    SEC. 2. SMALLPOX EMERGENCY PERSONNEL PROTECTION.

    Title II of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 202 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following part:

   ``Part C--Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection

   ``SEC. 261. DEFINITIONS.

    ``For purposes of this part:

    ``(1) VACCINE.--The term `vaccine' or `smallpox vaccine' means vaccinia (smallpox) vaccines, including the Dryvax vaccine.

    ``(2) COVERED INDIVIDUAL.--The term `covered individual' means an individual--

    ``(A) who is a health care worker, law enforcement officer, firefighter, security personnel, emergency medical personnel, other public safety personnel, or support personnel for such occupational specialities;

    ``(B) who is or will be functioning in a role identified in a State, local, or Department of Health and Human Services smallpox emergency response plan approved by the Secretary; and

    ``(C) to whom a vaccine is administered pursuant to such approved plan--

    ``(i) during the effective period of the Declaration (including the portion of such period before the enactment of this part); and

    ``(ii) not later than the latest of--

    ``(I) 180 days after the effective date of the initial interim final regulations implementing this part;

    ``(II) 120 days after becoming an individual in an occupation described in subparagraph (A); or

    ``(III) 120 days after becoming an individual identified as a member of a smallpox emergency response plan described in subparagraph (B).

    ``(3) COVERED INJURY.--The term `covered injury' means an injury, disability, illness, condition, or death (other than a minor injury such as minor scarring or minor local reaction) determined, pursuant to the procedures established under section 262, to have been sustained by an individual as the direct result of--

    ``(A) administration to the individual of a vaccine during the effective period of the Declaration; or

    ``(B) accidental vaccinia inoculation of the individual in circumstances in which--

    ``(i) the vaccinia is contracted during the effective period of the Declaration or within 30 days after the end of such period;

    ``(ii) smallpox vaccine has not been administered to the individual; and

    ``(iii) the individual has resided with, or has been in contact with, an individual who is (or who was accidentally inoculated by) a covered individual.

    ``(4) DECLARATION.--The term `Declaration' means the Declaration Regarding Administration of Smallpox Countermeasures issued by the Secretary on January 24, 2003, and published in the Federal Register on January 28, 2003.

    ``(5) EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE DECLARATION.--The term `effective period of the Declaration' means the effective period specified in the Declaration, unless extended by the Secretary.

    ``(6) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.--The term `eligible individual' means an individual who is (as determined in accordance with section 262)--

    ``(A) a covered individual who sustains a covered injury in the manner described in paragraph (3)(A); or

    ``(B) an individual who sustains a covered injury in the manner described in paragraph (3)(B).

    ``(7) SMALLPOX EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN.--The term `smallpox emergency response plan' or `plan' means a response plan detailing actions to be taken in preparation for a possible smallpox-related emergency during the period prior to the identification of an active case of smallpox either within or outside the United States.

   ``SEC. 262. DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY AND BENEFITS.

    ``(a) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall establish procedures for determining, as applicable with respect to an individual--

    ``(1) whether the individual is an eligible individual;

    ``(2) whether an eligible individual has sustained a covered injury or injuries for which medical benefits or compensation may be available under sections 264 and 265, and the amount of such benefits or compensation;

    ``(3) whether the covered injury or injuries of an eligible individual constitute a compensable disability, or caused the individual's death, for purposes of benefits under section 266.

    ``(b) COVERED INDIVIDUALS.--The Secretary may accept a certification, by a Federal, State, or local government entity or private health care entity participating in the administration of covered countermeasures under the Declaration, that an individual is a covered individual.

    ``(c) CRITERIA FOR REIMBURSEMENT.--

    ``(1) INJURIES SPECIFIED IN INJURY TABLE.--In any case where an injury or other adverse effect specified in the injury table established under section 263 as a known effect of a vaccine manifests in an individual within the time period specified in such table, such injury or other effect shall be presumed to have resulted from administration of such vaccine.

    ``(2) OTHER DETERMINATIONS.--In making determinations other than those described in paragraph (1) as to the causation or severity of an injury, the Secretary shall employ a preponderance of the evidence standard and take into consideration all relevant medical and scientific evidence presented for consideration, and may obtain and consider the views of qualified medical experts.

    ``(d) DEADLINE FOR FILING REQUEST.--The Secretary shall not consider any request for a benefit under this part with respect to an individual, unless--

    ``(1) in the case of a request based on the administration of the vaccine to the individual, the individual provides notice to the Secretary of an adverse effect of the vaccination not later than one year after the date of administration of the vaccine; or

    ``(2) in the case of a request based on accidental vaccinia inoculation, the individual provides notice to the Secretary of an adverse effect of such vaccination not later than two years after the date of the first symptom or manifestation of onset of the adverse effect.

    ``(e) REVIEW OF DETERMINATION.--

    ``(1) SECRETARY'S REVIEW AUTHORITY.--The Secretary may review a determination under this section at any time on the Secretary's own motion or on application, and may affirm, vacate, or modify such determination in any manner the Secretary deems appropriate.

    ``(2) JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.--No court of the United States, or of any State, District, territory or possession thereof, shall have subject matter jurisdiction to review, whether by mandamus or otherwise, any action by the Secretary under this section. No officer or employee of the United States shall review any action by the Secretary under this section (unless the President specifically directs otherwise).

   ``SEC. 263. SMALLPOX VACCINE INJURY TABLE.

    ``(a) SMALLPOX VACCINE INJURY TABLE.--

    ``(1) ESTABLISHMENT REQUIRED.--The Secretary shall establish by interim final regulation a table identifying adverse effects (including injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths) that shall be presumed to

[Page: H2479]

    ``(2) AMENDMENTS.--The Secretary may amend by regulation the table established under paragraph (1). Amendments shall apply retroactively to claims pending at the time of promulgation of final amending regulations and to claims filed subsequently. If the effect of such amendment is to permit an individual who was not, before such amendment, eligible for compensation under this part, such individual may file a request for compensation or file an amended request for such compensation not later than one year after the effective date of such amendment in the case of an individual to whom the vaccine was administered and two years in the case of a request for compensation based on accidental vaccinia inoculation.

   ``SEC. 264. MEDICAL BENEFITS.

    ``(a) IN GENERAL.--Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, the Secretary shall make payment or reimbursement for medical items and services as reasonable and necessary to treat a covered injury of an eligible individual. The Secretary may consider the Federal Employees Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. 8103) and its implementing regulations in determining the amount of such payment and the circumstances under which such payments are reasonable and appropriate.

    ``(b) BENEFITS SECONDARY TO OTHER COVERAGE.--Payment or reimbursement for services or benefits under subsection (a) shall be secondary to any obligation of the United States or any third party (including any State or local governmental entity, private insurance carrier, or employer) under any other provision of law or contractual agreement, to pay for or provide such services or benefits. The Secretary shall have the discretion to establish mechanisms and procedures for providing the secondary benefits under this section.

   ``SEC. 265. COMPENSATION FOR LOST EMPLOYMENT INCOME.

    ``(a) IN GENERAL.--Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, the Secretary shall provide compensation to an eligible individual for loss of employment income incurred as a result of a covered injury, at the rate specified in subsection (b).

    ``(b) AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION.--

    ``(1) IN GENERAL.--Compensation under this section shall be at the rate of 66 2/3 percent of monthly employment income, except that such percentage shall be 75 percent in the case of an individual who has one or more dependents. The Secretary may consider the Federal Employees Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. 8114 and 8115) and its implementing regulations in determining the amount of such payment and the circumstances under which such payments are reasonable and appropriate.

    ``(2) TREATMENT OF SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME.--For purposes of this section, the term `employment income' includes income from self-employment.

    ``(c) LIMITATIONS.--

    ``(1) BENEFITS SECONDARY TO OTHER COVERAGE.--Any compensation under subsection (a) shall be secondary to the obligation of the United States or any third party (including any State or local governmental entity, private insurance carrier, or employer), under any other law or contractual agreement, to pay compensation for loss of employment income and shall not be made to the extent that compensation for loss of employment income has been made under such other obligations in an amount that equals or exceeds the rate specified in subsection (b)(1).

    ``(2) NO BENEFITS FOR DEATH OR PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY.--No payment shall be made under this section in compensation for loss of employment income subsequent to the receipt by an eligible individual (or his survivor or survivors) of benefits under section 266 for death or permanent and total disability.

    ``(3) LIMIT ON TOTAL BENEFITS.--Total benefits paid to an individual under this section shall not exceed $50,000 for any year, and the lifetime total of such benefits for the individual may not exceed an amount equal to the amount authorized to be paid under section 266.

    ``(4) WAITING PERIOD.--An eligible individual shall not be provided compensation under this section for the first 5 work days of disability.

   ``SEC. 266. PAYMENT FOR DEATH AND PERMANENT, TOTAL DISABILITY.

    ``(a) BENEFIT FOR PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY.--The Secretary shall pay to an eligible individual who is determined to have a covered injury or injuries meeting the definition of disability in section 216(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 416(i)) an amount determined under subsection (c), in the same manner as disability benefits are paid pursuant to the PSOB program in section 1201(b) of the OCCSSA with respect to an eligible public safety officer (except that payment shall be made to the parent or legal guardian, in the case of an eligible individual who is a minor or is subject to legal guardianship).

    ``(b) DEATH BENEFIT.--The Secretary shall pay, in the case of an eligible individual whose death is determined to have resulted from a covered injury or injuries, a death benefit in the amount determined under subsection (c) to the survivor or survivors in the same manner as death benefits are paid pursuant to PSOB program in section 1201 of the OCCSSA with respect to an eligible deceased (except that in the case of an eligible individual who is a minor with no living parent, the legal guardian shall be considered the survivor in the place of the parent).

    ``(c) BENEFIT AMOUNT.--

    ``(1) IN GENERAL.--The amount of the disability or death benefit under subsection (a) or (b) in a fiscal year shall equal the amount of the comparable benefit calculated under the PSOB in such fiscal year, without regard to any reduction attributable to a limitation on appropriations, but subject to paragraph (2).

    ``(2) REDUCTION FOR PAYMENTS FOR LOST EMPLOYMENT INCOME.--The amount of the benefit as determined under paragraph (1) shall be reduced by the total amount of any benefits paid under section 265 with respect to lost employment income.

    ``(d) BENEFIT IN ADDITION TO MEDICAL BENEFITS.--A benefit under this section shall be in addition to any amounts received by an eligible individual under section 264.

    ``(e) LIMITATIONS.--

    ``(1) DISABILITY BENEFITS.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), no benefit is payable under subsection (a) with respect to the disability of an eligible individual if--

    ``(A) a disability benefit is paid or payable with respect to such individual under the PSOB; or

    ``(B) a death benefit is paid or payable with respect to such individual under subsection (b) or the PSOB.

    ``(2) DEATH BENEFITS.--No benefit is payable under subsection (b) with respect to the death of an eligible individual if--

    ``(A) a disability benefit is paid with respect to such individual under subsection (a) or the PSOB; or

    ``(B) a death benefit is paid or payable with respect to such individual under the PSOB.

    ``(3) EXCEPTION IN THE CASE OF A LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS UNDER PSOB.--In the event that disability benefits available to an eligible individual under the PSOB program are reduced because of a limitation on appropriations, and such reduction would affect the amount that would be payable under paragraph (1) or (2) without regard to this paragraph, benefits shall be available under subsection (a) or (b) to the extent necessary to ensure that such individual (or his survivor or survivors) receives a total amount equal to the amount described in subsection (c).

    ``(f) REFERENCES.--References in this section--

    ``(1) to the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program or PSOB are references to the program under part L, subpart 1 of title I of the OCCSSA; and

    ``(2) to the OCCSSA are to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.).

   ``SEC. 267. ADMINISTRATION.

    ``(a) ADMINISTRATION BY AGREEMENT WITH OTHER AGENCY OR AGENCIES.--The Secretary may administer any or all of the provisions of this part through Memorandum of Agreement with the head of any appropriate Federal agency.

    ``(b) REGULATIONS.--The head of the agency administering this part or provisions thereof (including any agency head administering such Act or provisions through a Memorandum of Agreement under subsection (a)) may promulgate such implementing regulations as may be found necessary and appropriate. Initial implementing regulations may be interim final regulations.

   ``SEC. 268. PARTICIPANT EDUCATION REGARDING SMALLPOX EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS.

    ``In reviewing State, local, or Department of Health and Human Services smallpox emergency response plans described in section 261, the Secretary shall ensure that such plans are consistent with guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect to the education of individual participants (including information as to the voluntary nature of the program and the availability of potential benefits under this part), and the adequate screening of individuals for vaccine contraindications.

   ``SEC. 269. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    ``For the purpose of carrying out this part, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2007, to remain available until expended, including administrative costs and costs of provision and payment of benefits. The Secretary's payment of any benefit under section 264, 265, or 266 shall be subject to the availability of appropriations under this section.

   ``SEC. 270. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.

    ``Except as explicitly provided herein, nothing in this part shall be construed to override or limit any rights an individual may have to seek compensation, benefits, or redress under any other provision of Federal or State law.''.

   SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO PROVISION REGARDING TORT LIABILITY FOR ADMINISTRATION OF SMALLPOX COUNTERMEASURES.

    (a) AMENDMENT TO ACCIDENTAL VACCINIA INOCULATION PROVISION.--Section 224(p)(2)(C)(ii)(II) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 233(p)(2)(C)(ii)(II)) is amended by striking ``resides or has resided with'' and inserting ``has resided with, or has had contact with,''.

    (b) DEEMING ACTS AND OMISSIONS TO BE WITHIN SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT.--Section 224(p)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 233(p)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

[Page: H2480]

    ``(D) ACTS AND OMISSIONS DEEMED TO BE WITHIN SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT.--

    ``(i) IN GENERAL.--In the case of a claim arising out of alleged transmission of vaccinia from an individual described in clause (ii), acts or omissions by such individual shall be deemed to have been taken within the scope of such individual's office or employment for purposes of--

    ``(I) subsection (a); and

    ``(II) section 1346(b) and chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.

    ``(ii) INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM DEEMING APPLIES.--An individual is described by this clause if--

    ``(I) vaccinia vaccine was administered to such individual as provided by subparagraph (B); and

    ``(II) such individual was within a category of individuals covered by a declaration under subparagraph (A)(i).''.

    (c) EXHAUSTION; EXCLUSIVITY; OFFSET.--Section 224(p)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 233(p)(3)) is amended to read as follows:

    ``(3) EXHAUSTION; EXCLUSIVITY; OFFSET.--

    ``(A) EXHAUSTION.--

    ``(i) IN GENERAL.--A person may not bring a claim under this subsection unless such person has received a determination about remedies available under section 262.

    ``(ii) TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.--The time limit for filing a claim under this subsection, or for filing an action based on such claim, shall be tolled during the pendency of a determination by the Secretary under section 262.

    ``(iii) CONSTRUCTION.--This subsection shall not be construed as superseding or otherwise affecting the application of a requirement, under chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, to exhaust administrative remedies.

    ``(B) EXCLUSIVITY.--The remedy provided by subsection (a) shall be exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding for any claim or suit this subsection encompasses, except for a proceeding under part C of this title.

    ``(C) OFFSET.--The value of all compensation and benefits provided under part C of this title for an incident or series of incidents shall be offset against the amount of an award, compromise, or settlement of money damages in a claim or suit under this subsection based on the same incident or series of incidents.''.

    (d) REQUIREMENT TO COOPERATE WITH UNITED STATES.--Section 224(p)(5) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 233(p)(5)) is amended in the caption by striking ``DEFENDANT'' and inserting ``COVERED PERSON''.

    (e) AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF COVERED COUNTERMEASURE.--Section 224(p)(7)(A)(i)(II) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 233(p)(7)(A)(i)(II)) is amended to read as follows:

    ``(II) used to control or treat the adverse effects of vaccinia inoculation or of administration of another covered countermeasure; and''.

    (f) AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF COVERED PERSON.--Section 224(p)(7)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 233(p)(7)(B)) is amended--

    (1) by striking ``includes any person'' and inserting ``means a person'';

    (2) in clause (ii)--

    (A) by striking ``auspices'' and inserting ``auspices--'';

    (B) by redesignating ``such countermeasure'' and all that follows as clause (I) and indenting accordingly; and

    (C) by adding at the end the following:

    ``(II) a determination was made as to whether, or under what circumstances, an individual should receive a covered countermeasure;

    ``(III) the immediate site of administration on the body of a covered countermeasure was monitored, managed, or cared for; or

    ``(IV) an evaluation was made of whether the administration of a countermeasure was effective;'';

    (3) in clause (iii) by striking ``or'';

    (4) by striking clause (iv) and inserting the following:

    ``(iv) a State, a political subdivision of a State, or an agency or official of a State or of such a political subdivision, if such State, subdivision, agency, or official has established requirements, provided policy guidance, supplied technical or scientific advice or assistance, or otherwise supervised or administered a program with respect to administration of such countermeasures;

    ``(v) in the case of a claim arising out of alleged transmission of vaccinia from an individual--

    ``(I) the individual who allegedly transmitted the vaccinia, if vaccinia vaccine was administered to such individual as provided by paragraph (2)(B) and such individual was within a category of individuals covered by a declaration under paragraph (2)(A)(i); or

    ``(II) an entity that employs an individual described by clause (I) or where such individual has privileges or is otherwise authorized to provide health care;

    ``(vi) an official, agent, or employee of a person described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv);

    ``(vii) a contractor of, or a volunteer working for, a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iv), if the contractor or volunteer performs a function for which a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iv) is a covered person; or

    ``(viii) an individual who has privileges or is otherwise authorized to provide health care under the auspices of an entity described in clause (ii) or (v)(II).''.

    (g) AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED PERSON.--Section 224(p)(7)(C) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 233(p)(7)(C)) is amended--

    (1) by designating ``is authorized to'' and all that follows as clause (i) and indenting accordingly;

    (2) by striking ``individual who'' and inserting ``individual who--''; and

    (3) by striking the period and inserting ``; or

    ``(ii) is otherwise authorized by the Secretary to administer such countermeasure.''.

    (h) DEFINITION OF ``ARISING OUT OF ADMINISTRATION OF A COVERED COUNTERMEASURE''.--Section 224(p)(7) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 233(p)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

    ``(D) ARISING OUT OF ADMINISTRATION OF A COVERED COUNTERMEASURE.--The term `arising out of administration of a covered countermeasure', when used with respect to a claim or liability, includes a claim or liability arising out of--

    ``(i) determining whether, or under what conditions, an individual should receive a covered countermeasure;

    ``(ii) obtaining informed consent of an individual to the administration of a covered countermeasure;

    ``(iii) monitoring, management, or care of an immediate site of administration on the body of a covered countermeasure, or evaluation of whether the administration of the countermeasure has been effective; or

    ``(iv) transmission of vaccinia virus by an individual to whom vaccinia vaccine was administered as provided by paragraph (2)(B).''.

    (i) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.--Section 224(p)(2)(A)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 233(p)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking ``paragraph (8)(A)'' and inserting ``paragraph (7)(A)''.

    (j) EFFECTIVE DATE.--This section shall take effect as of November 25, 2002.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) each will control 20 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

   GENERAL LEAVE

   Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1463.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?

   There was no objection.

   Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge all Members to support H.R. 1463, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003, a critical bill introduced by the vice chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

   In January of this year, our HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson called on health personnel and emergency responders from across the Nation to join smallpox emergency response teams in order to ensure that our country was better prepared to deal with any outbreak of this deadly disease caused by terrorists or rogue regimes such as Iraq. These patriots have been asked to volunteer to get the smallpox vaccine now so that they can administer the vaccine to the public should the need arise. Since then, roughly 25,000 American volunteers have indeed volunteered for this vaccine.

   These health personnel and emergency responders are indeed to be saluted for their service to the country. However, we do not need tens of thousands of Americans to respond, we need hundreds of thousands, if not millions; and we need these many, many Americans, health personnel, and emergency first responders to heed the Secretary's call.

   The legislation before us today, which was requested by the administration, provides incentive for such individuals to roll up their sleeves and get a shot. The bill does a number of important things:

   First, it provides for a total disability and death benefit equal to the amount payable under the Public Safety Officers Benefit, the PSOB, the existing Federal program that currently pays $262,000 in a lump sum, indexed for inflation, to public safety officers who are killed or totally disabled in the line of duty.

   Given the sacrifice that we are asking from these smallpox volunteers, a small number of whom may indeed suffer severe adverse reactions which could include death, it makes sense to provide these similar benefits.

   But this bill goes further than the PSOB. It also provides coverage for all reasonable and necessary medical expenses that are incurred by individuals who are vaccinated and suffer adverse

[Page: H2481]

   It is important to emphasize that the death and total disability benefits are additive to any other death or disability benefit the individual is already entitled to under Social Security, under State and local government, under employers, or under private insurance plans. And the lost wage income under this program, while secondary to other similar benefits the person may have, supplements those benefits to the extent the Federal program is more generous. For example, many States and employers have much lower annual and lifetime caps on workers' compensation benefits, which means the higher Federal figures in our bill would supplement those other benefits.

   And finally, the legislation provides most sensible and noncontroversial technical amendments to last year's Homeland Security Bill to provide better liability protections to the hospitals, doctors, nurses, and public health officials at the State and local levels who we are asking to participate in this most important program.

   I must say I am disappointed, however, that despite the good faith efforts on both sides of the aisle, and they have been good faith efforts, we are not able to reach a bipartisan agreement on the package. I strongly disagree that there should be any doubt as to the commitment of the administration or the commitment of the Congress to pay these benefits to injured volunteers as these bills become due.

   I also disagree with the notion that the $262,000 caps for disability and lost wages do not in fact provide a sufficient compensation package. If these caps are good enough for our public police officers and our firefighters who die in the line of duty, then I submit to you that indeed they are good enough for this program as well.

   A few people have in fact died after taking the vaccine, although we do not know they died as a result of vaccine. But either way, we should not delay in establishing a compensation program that would help with these people, simply because we cannot agree right now on whether a $262,000 figure is sufficient or not. We still need to provide, we need to move forward with this incentive to make sure people are adequately vaccinated to meet this threat.

   Now, let us get the help to the people who need it now. If we find out down the road that the program is inadequate or certain respects need to be changed, we can always fix it later. This is an emergency. This will make sure that we have the people available, ready to vaccinate all of America if, God forbid, the worst should happen and we suffer a smallpox attack.

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

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

   Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue, important to the health and safety of our Nation.

   Recent tragedies in the health care community have underscored the need for us to address it and pass a robust compensation package for victims. The President has called for America's nurses, firefighters, and other first responders to be vaccinated against smallpox. Ensuring our frontline health care responders are resistent to smallpox would enhance our ability to respond to an attack resulting from this kind of an outbreak. But this initiative is failing, and to make the program work we need to guarantee our first responders that they and their families will be compensated if they are harmed or killed by the vaccine.

   If the administration insists that these people be vaccinated against the disease, then now more than ever it is critical that we provide the peace of mind that these frontline people deserve and need. They do not want handouts. They just want to know that if something happens to them, they and their families will be taken care of. It is not too much to ask. But I can tell you that the bill before us, as it is currently drafted, will not provide that level of assurance.

   Before I came to Congress I worked as a public health nurse for many years. These are my colleagues that we are speaking of. And I know what it is like to be on the front line. If you will not take my word for it, listen to the American Nurses Association. They represent the interests of 2.7 million nurses across this country, and they have heard from their members. They oppose this bill because it is insufficient to make the program work.

   First, the bill before us does not guarantee that this compensation program will be funded, and without a guarantee of funding, nurses and other first responders who serve their country and become harmed by the vaccine will have no assurance that the bill's promises will be kept.

[Time: 14:15]

   Second, this bill puts unfair caps on the wage compensation an injured nurse or other first responder can receive. These caps would unfairly penalize those families who lose their main source of income.

   We should reject this bill; and instead, we should pass legislation such as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I have crafted with our colleagues and with input with direct guidance from these first responders. Our legislation would ensure that medical benefits and the compensation in this bill are funded for years to come. It would recognize and compensate the longer-term loss of wages that could result from such an adverse effect, and it would allow families who lose their main source of income because of the vaccine that they be fully compensated for their loss.

   This bill would tell nurses that if they take this risk and serve their country that their families will not be left without resources or hope. Ultimately, the risk of adverse effects is low. Perhaps 200 people out of the 10 million that we want to vaccinate could be affected, but it is so important that we provide the assurance that if a person is one of those 200 people they will be compensated adequately.

   Congress now has before it the opportunity to instill, first, confidence in our first responders and truly prepare us for the possible nightmare of a smallpox outbreak. The administration has been disappointed thus far in the turnout for the vaccine. If the wrong kind of legislation is passed, the turnout runs the risk of remaining small, thus, not meeting the goal of the administration.

   If this bill before us is not effective, this is our opportunity to fix it. Let us take the time to get it right so that we can create this shield against a bioterrorist attack in the form of smallpox.

   I urge my colleagues to support their first responders, to protect America from the threat of smallpox. Defeat this bill. Let us take the time to get this right.

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

   Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

   Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding me the time.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this important legislation to establish a compensation program for our Nation's emergency personnel in the event they suffer complications from smallpox vaccinations. As our United States troops fight the battle for freedom in Iraq, I am pleased that Congress can contribute this important piece of legislation which has been crafted to aid in our war effort and to enhance the safety of our Nation.

   The face of war is changing. While past efforts may have focused solely on the armed aggression, the new face of war includes new threats in the form of biological or chemical warfare. Our Nation's armed services are not the only ones on the front lines of this conflict, because the threat of terrorism is here in the United States. Our emergency personnel, health care workers, and first responders are also on those front lines.

   Health care workers, law enforcement officers, firefighters and others across the country are currently being vaccinated for smallpox. With this vaccine, as my colleagues have heard,

[Page: H2482]

   This legislation provides an important backstop to ensure that workers and their families will be protected if they suffer complications from the smallpox vaccine. Workers injured in the line of duty will be compensated first by their employers and second by the United States Government. For those who may not have access to workers compensation and other employer-sponsored health care, the Federal Government will provide appropriate compensation. Even those workers who have access to employer-sponsored benefits may receive additional compensation from the smallpox fund; and as such, the bill sets a Federal floor and ensures that each worker will be adequately compensated.

   Under the bill, workers who might suffer a totally disabling injury or death as a result of the vaccine will receive cash benefits consistent with the amounts of benefits paid under the Public Safety Officers Benefits Program. For workers who suffer a less serious injury, the bill provides compensation for medical expenses and the loss of employment at a rate of 66 2/3 percent of monthly pay, and workers who have dependents will be compensated at a rate of 75 percent monthly pay; and if a worker is eligible for less compensation than the federally established level, the fund will compensate the individual at the higher Federal level.

   As chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am pleased to assist in helping my colleagues at the Committee on Energy and Commerce draft this legislation, which I believe will ensure the safety of health care workers and first responders. I am also particularly pleased because my committee has primary jurisdiction over the employer-sponsored health care and workers compensation disability programs, which would include the Federal Employee Compensation Act, which will be the primary payers of the compensation. This measure will not only help our emergency personnel and first responders but enhance the safety of our Nation as well.

   I want to urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

   (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

   Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I insert for the RECORD letters from the following groups which I have before me. These letters are written by the American Public Health Association; the International Union of Police Associations; the American Nurses Association; the International Association of Firefighters; the American Federation of Teachers; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the Service Employers National Union; and the Infectious Disease Society of America.

   AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION,

   March 28, 2003.

   DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: On behalf of the American Nurses Association (ANA), I urge you to oppose the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act (H.R. 1463). This bill does not provide adequate education, prescreening, surveillance, and compensation--therefore it will not result in an increase in the number of nurses volunteering for vaccinations. As this bill will be considered under the suspension of the rules, you will be denied the opportunity to vote in favor of the Capps/Waxman substitute that ANA supports.

   The ANA is the only full-service association representing the nation's RNs through our 54 state and territorial constituent member organizations. Our members are well represented in the Administration's plan to vaccinate 10.5 million health care workers and first responders.

   ANA supports efforts to ensure that our nation is prepared for a possible terrorist attack. ANA has, since November 2002, been trying to work with the Administration to formulate a strong smallpox vaccination program that will encourage nurses to volunteer to be immunized. Since the Administration's plan was first announced, ANA has repeatedly raised questions about the health and safety of nurses who are vaccinated, as well as their patients and families. ANA's concerns have been echoed by many in the public health community and reinforced by an expert panel from the Institute of Medicine. Unfortunately, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act (H.R. 1463), fails to address these questions.

   The smallpox vaccine is a live virus. It has the worst record of negative side effects of any vaccine in the world. It is imperative, as a matter of public health, that those being vaccinated understand the risks of the vaccine to themselves and their loved ones, and be prescreened for conditions that require them to refuse the vaccine. The smallpox inoculation site can shed the live virus for up to three weeks. In the 1960s, more than 20% of the adverse vaccination events occurred in secondary contacts. Therefore, the vaccination program poses a risk not only to nurses, but also to their patients and families.

   Members of the armed services have received personalized education, and free and confidential prescreening prior to the administration of the vaccine. This process properly screened out one-third of the potential recipients. The Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act fails to require a similar program. In addition, H.R. 1463 fails to require sufficient funding needed to ensure that state and local public health officials can actually implement the crucial education, prescreening, and surveillance programs. The recent death of a Maryland nurse, a Florida nurse aide, and a National Guardsman only underscore the need for this robust education, prescreening, and surveillance effort. Nurses and other first responders will continue to feel uncomfortable about the vaccine until they receive the reliable information needed to make an informed decision.

   Furthermore, H.R. 1463 contains an insufficient, unfunded compensation program. The Administration is basically asking healthy nurses to place themselves (as well as their patients and families) at risk for the common good. The vaccination has no tangible benefits for nurses; it is sought in the name of homeland security. ANA does not believe that nurses should be made to bear this public risk without the guarantee of a real compensation program. H.R. 1463 contains an unacceptable lifetime cap on wage replacement and fails to ensure that funds will be available for the compensation fund.

   ANA urges you to vote against H.R. 1463. Your no vote does not mean that you oppose a smallpox compensation program. In fact, the solid disapproval of this bill will demonstrate needed support for a real smallpox vaccination program, such as the Capps/Waxman substitute. Please feel free to call Erin McKeon (202) 651-7095 or Christopher Donnellan (202) 651-7088 on my staff with any questions regarding this letter.

   Sincerely,

   Rose Gonzalez, MPS, RN,
Director, Government Affairs.

--

   INFECTIOUS DISEASES SOCIETY

   OF AMERICA,

   March 28, 2003.
Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT,
Speaker,
House of Representatives.

   DEAR SPEAKER HASTERT: I am writing on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the 7,000 infectious diseases physicians and scientists we represent to thank you and other House leaders on both sides of the aisle for pursuing a plan to compensate individuals who may be injured during the implementation of the National Smallpox Immunization Plan (NSIP).

   Over the past year, IDSA and its members--including those who were on the frontline of smallpox eradication efforts--have provided essential information to the federal and state governments as they have prepared responses to a potential smallpox event. ID physicians will be integrally involved should a bioterrorism event occur; an ID specialist discovered the first anthrax case that occurred in Florida. Presently, many of our members are working with state and local public health officials to oversee NSIP's implementation.

   IDSA's leaders believe strongly, as you do, that the creation of a compensation plan is essential to NSIP's success. As the House moves forward next week to consider legislation to establish such a program, we would like to take this final opportunity to stress to you the expert opinion of our leaders on this subject. IDSA closely reviewed the Administration's proposal, which Congressman Richard Burr introduced this week, H.R. 1463, as well as H.R. 865, sponsored by Congressman Henry Waxman. Certain aspects of the Administration's proposal appear promising. However, IDSA is concerned that the Administration's proposal does not include all of the elements necessary to ensure NSIP's success. Below, we have highlighted the elements that our leaders believe are critical and ask that House leaders include them in whatever legislation the House passes.

   One element that IDSA believes to be of primary significance to the success of NSIP is universal eligibility. That is, all individuals injured as a consequence of NSIP's implementation should be compensated for their injuries. Eligibility should not be promised upon whether injured individuals volunteered to participate in the program or were injured as a result of a secondary transmission. Moreover, such eligibility should extend to individuals who present symptoms that are obviously associated with contact vaccinia, regardless of whether they can establish a link back to a specific vaccinee. Finally, an individual's eligibility should not

[Page: H2483]

   The second essential element IDSA's leaders support is fair and adequate compensation for all individuals who are injured as a consequence of NSIP's implementation. It is just and right that individuals be made whole for the injuries they suffer as the result of a program being carried out under the auspices of national security. Under H.R. 1463, compensation for medical expenses, disability, lost wages and death is modeled after the Public Safety Officers Benefit program (PSOB). The PSOB program is designed to work in conjunction with other benefit programs, such as workers' compensation and health insurance and is designed primarily to deal with death and total, permanent disability. In the case of smallpox, there are no guarantees that a person injured by the smallpox vaccine will be covered by workers' compensation or will be adequately insured. As a result, those injured as a result of NSIP may receive far less compensation than those PSOB currently covers. Therefore, IDSA strongly urges Horse leaders to supplement the PSOB model found in H.R. 1463 to include the following criteria relating to medical expenses, disability, lost wages and/or death:

   Guaranteed immediate medical care for all injured;

   A significantly more generous compensation package for death than what is found in the H.R. 1463;

   Permanent disability benefit of unreimbursed actual wages and unreimbursed medical costs not subject to any limitations;

   Payment of non-economic damages up to $250,000;

   Compensation for temporary disability, including unreimbursed medical costs and unreimbursed actual wages starting at day one.

   Finally, IDSA believes it to be essential that this program be authorized through mandatory funding mechanisms and not be paid for through discretionary funding sources.

   IDSA leaders are available to work with you and other Congressional leaders to achieve quick passage and enactment of a smallpox compensation plan that makes whole all individuals injured during the implementation of President Bush's NSIP. Thank you again for the leadership you have shown in moving this important legislation forward. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Robert J. Guidos, JD, IDSA's director of public policy at 703-299-0200.

   Sincerely,

   W. MICHAEL SCHELD,
President.

--

   INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

   OF FIRE FIGHTERS,

   Washington, DC. March 28, 2003.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, DC.

   DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: On behalf of the nation's more 260,000 professional fire fighters and emergency medical personnel, I reluctantly must urge you to vote against H.R. 1463, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act, under suspension of the rules.

   While we strongly endorse the need for a comprehensive smallpox vaccination program, H.R. 1463 contains a number of significant deficiencies. Considering this legislation under suspension of the rules will prohibit amendments from being offered to address these concerns.

   As currently drafted, H.R. 1463 fails to adequately provide for education and screening of the workers who are being asked to receive this vaccine. As the recent death of two nurses demonstrates, the vaccine should not be administered to certain people. While H.R. 1463 addresses compensation for people who die from the vaccine, it does not contain adequate safeguards to prevent those deaths from happening in the first place.

   In addition, we have concerns about the compensation package contained in H.R. 1463. The legislation appears to have been crafted to serve as a supplement to workers compensation, but it is far from clear that workers compensation would cover injuries stemming from the vaccine. Because the smallpox vaccination program is a voluntary program, state workers comp systems may deny benefits.

   For these and other reasons, we believe the House should consider improvements to H.R. 1463. We therefore urge you to vote against H.R. 1463 under suspension, so that the House may have the opportunity to debate and consider amendments to the proposal.

   Sincerely,

   Barry Kasinitz,
Director, Governmental Affairs.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform, with a long history of concern and investigation into the vaccine policy of this Nation.

   Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for yielding me time to speak on this issue, and I do so with a great deal of regret because on the House floor today we should be backing a bill on a bipartisan basis without any dissent because, whether one is a Democrat or a Republican, all of us want to encourage people in the health care and first responder community to get the vaccination for smallpox so they can be of service to all of us should, God forbid, there be a smallpox attack.

   I am forced now to rise in opposition to this bill, and I want to point out that the bill is on the suspension of the rules, which is ordinarily reserved for noncontroversial matters. As a matter of fact, this bill is very controversial. It should have been debated and considered under the rules of the House. That would have given Members an opportunity to put forward alternatives so that the Members of the House of Representatives could listen to a debate and make choices on policies.

   Instead, what we have is a suspension calendar being used to close off any opportunity for amendments, to prevent alternatives from being put forward so our colleagues who have been duly elected in 435 districts in this country, could have the right to choose what they thought was the best policy. This suspension of the rules procedure is nothing more than a gag to prevent Members, Democrats and Republicans, from being able to make choices, which is what they were elected to do.

   The reason I oppose this bill is substantive. This bill will not adequately compensate nurses, firefighters, police officers, and other first responders who are injured by the smallpox vaccine, a vaccine that they take voluntarily in order to make sure that the country is prepared for a bioterrorist attack.

   We have tried to work with the Republicans to craft legislation that all of these groups can support. However, the Republicans were unwilling to agree to a meaningful compensation program and have put forward H.R. 1463, a bill that is opposed by every one of these groups.

   The issue of how to compensate people for smallpox vaccine injuries is only hard if someone decides to make it hard, and that seems to be what the House Republican leadership and the Bush administration have done. The science is not hard. For every million people who are immunized against smallpox, one of two will die and 10 to 20 will become severely ill or disabled.

   The policy is not hard. If people get injured in the line of public duty, the public should compensate them, and the administration has asked nurses and firefighters and other first responders to take smallpox shots, not for their own good, but to protect all Americans in case of a bioterrorist attack.

   The substance is not hard. A compensation program should be clear about what it covers. It should provide decent benefits if someone is disabled or killed, and it should have guaranteed funding.

   The law is not hard. We have a successful program of no-fault compensation for children who are injured by vaccines. We have programs for Federal workers and even Federal volunteers who are disabled or killed. We even have a program for compensation of people hurt or killed on September 11, 2001.

   The budgeting is not hard. If every nurse or firefighter got the average award from the September 11 fund, which they will not, we would only be committing $18 to $33 million per million vaccinations. At most, that is 400ths of 1 percent of what the administration has requested for the war.

   The process is not hard. If there is honest disagreement about legislation, which there is, then the House should be allowed to debate amendments and make choices. This should be an easy one, but the House leadership and the administration are making it very hard.

   H.R. 1463 includes a lifetime cap on wage assistance for injured first responders and their families. This means that the families of nurses or other first responders may have to fend for themselves without a bread winner after just a few years of compensation. The lump-sum payment offered by H.R. 1463 is clearly inadequate for death or permanent disability for a nurse who has a family to support.

   A second problem is that H.R. 1463 requires that funding for the compensation program be subject to the uncertainties of the appropriations process. A guaranteed funding stream is a linchpin of a successful and meaningful

[Page: H2484]

   A third problem with this legislation is that it limits eligibility for compensation for those people who are vaccinated within a short time period after the implementation of the program. This provision is not only vigorously opposed by all of the groups being asked to take the vaccine but also by the State and local officials running the vaccination program.

   I genuinely do not understand why the House leadership and the administration have decided to draw this line. The smallpox immunization program is not working. Everyone agrees that one of the reasons that there is not a compensation program in place to reassure nurses and firefighters and other first responders, that if they are injured by the vaccine, they and their families will be provided for, and the representatives of those organizations agree that the Republican bill is not enough to reassure their members.

   Those same representatives agree that the proposals made by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and some of the others of us who were working with her will succeed. It is very disappointing that the legislative process has been cut short and that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) has been denied the chance, even the chance, to offer her amendment.

   Why are the leadership and the administration making this so hard? I do not have an answer to that question, but I do know what we need to do next. Let us defeat this bill, negotiate a reasonable one, and then move on to the genuinely tough problems facing our country.

   I would like to respond to the comparisons of H.R. 1463 with the Public Safety Officers Benefit program. This was alluded to by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). This is a false comparison. The Public Safety Officers Benefit program is meant to supplement what police officers and others receive when injured in the line of duty. There are many other State and local programs that also provide compensation.

   In contrast, H.R. 1463 is the sole source of compensation for many health care workers and their contacts who may be injured.

[Time: 14:30]

   And let me emphasize that point. It is not just the first responders who may be injured, but the family members who may be injured as well, by the vaccine taken by the nurse or firefighter or police officer, because they can be subject to injury by exposure to the person who has been immunized.

   A true comparison would compare H.R. 1463 with other compensation programs. By a true comparison, H.R. 1463 is clearly not adequate. This bill provides far less than benefits provided to Americans injured by childhood vaccines in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. H.R. 1463 provides far less than what Federal employees receive, civilian or military, if injured under the Federal Employee Compensation Act. And H.R. 1463 also provides far less than what Members of Congress can get if injured or disabled.

   If it is good enough for Members of this body, we should not hesitate to provide it to those Americans on the front lines of any bioterrorist attack who are protecting all Americans. We are subject to compensation without caps. We ought to do the same for those who are standing up for all Americans should there be a terrorist attack of smallpox.

   People have told us they need to have a program that will counsel them and educate them, because some people should not be immunized at all. But there is no such provision for that kind of screening mechanism, an educational effort in the Republican bill, even though it would save money because people would not be immunized if they knew they might be at a high risk. And people have told us that if they are going to be asked to be at risk, we ought to stand behind them. The Republican bill does not stand behind these first responders.

   This should be negotiated on a bipartisan basis, or at least let the House work its will. I urge our colleagues to vote against this H.R. 1463, defeat it on the suspension calendar and insist that we go back and work on legislation that will accomplish the purpose that all of us have in mind in providing legislation for such a Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act.

   Mr. Speaker, I wish to provide for the RECORD two letters, one from the Service Employees International Union and one from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, which I think further elaborates on this issue.

   American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO,

   Washington, DC, March 28, 2003.

   DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: On behalf of the 1.3 million members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), including over 360,000 health care workers and first responders, we are writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 1463, introduced by Representative Richard Burr and scheduled on the suspension calendar for Monday, March 31.

   H.R. 1463 would establish a deeply flawed smallpox compensation program for health care workers and first responders injured by the smallpox vaccination. However, this legislation fails to safeguard the health and safety of workers asked to volunteer for the smallpox vaccination program. Moreover, the bill fails to address the concerns of workers who fear that a serious injury or death from the smallpox vaccine would lead to economic catastrophe for themselves and their families.

   While the Administration had hoped to vaccinate up to 10.5 million workers, only about 21,000 workers have been vaccinated thus far. Clearly, there has been a great reluctance among health care workers and first responders to risk the loss of health and income without an adequate safety net for themselves and their families. While the legislation is premised on the assumption that workers will be eligible for workers' compensation in the event of an injury, the reality is that, in most states, workers cannot depend on this. In fact, there are only 14 states where it appears at all certain that claims for benefits will be honored by the state workers' compensation system.

   Therefore, workers in most states who are permanently and totally disabled will be eligible only for this bill's maximum lump sum payment of $262,100. This represents about five years' wages for the average nurse--not enough to sustain an individual or family over a lifetime. For a worker who suffers partial or temporary disability, the benefit is also capped at $262,100 over a lifetime. Health care workers and first responders who suffer injuries that limit their ability to earn a living must be compensated at a level that reflects their reduced earnings capability for the duration of their injury. If the aim of the legislation is to encourage workers to be vaccinated, H.R. 1463 will not do the job. Workers will continue to be reluctant to be vaccinated in the absence of assurances that they will not face economic ruin should they become injured.

   While the bill provides medical benefits for the treatment of injuries or illnesses, it does not provide medical benefits for rehabilitation, palliative care or long term care that may be needed. This is a significant gap in health coverage for workers asked to risk their health.

   Another significant flaw in the bill is that funding for compensation and medical benefits are not mandatory. Workers who have lost their health and livelihood should not have to wage a fight for compensation each year during the appropriations process.

   The legislation fails to ensure that the smallpox program will be carried out safely, in stark contrast to the program in place for military personnel. The bill does not require that health departments make medical tests, such as pregnancy tests, available to workers in order to screen out those who ought not to be vaccinated. The legislation also fails to include requirements for monitoring those who are vaccinated to catch adverse reactions before they develop into life threatening complications, similar to the military plan. There is also no funding for state and local public health departments to carry out this expensive program safely.

   The legislation also fails to include a table of injuries that ensure that workers will be awarded compensation quickly. After years of experience with the smallpox vaccine, there are injuries, that occur within specific time periods, that are known to be caused by the vaccine. This schedule of injuries must be included to ensure that compensation will be quick and certain. Otherwise, workers cannot be certain before receiving the vaccine that the most likely serious injuries will qualify for compensation.

   We also object to the bill's requirement that workers receive the vaccination within 180 days of the date regulations are issued. Any worker that is vaccinated under the Secretary's declaration must be eligible for federal compensation. It is punitive to deny compensation to a worker who opts to participate at a later date.

   H.R. 1463 is deeply flawed. We strongly urge you to oppose this bill.

   Sincerely,

   Charles M. Loveless,
Director of Legislation.

--

   March 28, 2003.

   DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: On behalf of the 1.5 million members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), including over

[Page: H2485]

   Since the Administration first announced the civilian voluntary smallpox vaccination program, SEIU has worked to protect health care workers, first responders, their patients and the public through aggressive education, medical screening, and surveillance, and to ensure they would have access to a good compensation program. Now that three people have died and others have experienced cardiac-related problems in the days after their inoculations this only reinforces the critical need for a comprehensive program--which this legislation does not provide.

   We understand the urgency of the program, especially in this time of war. But at the same time, frontline workers who respond to the call to protect other citizens in a time of national crisis deserve the same protections being provided to our military. To address the serious gaps in this plan, it is incumbent upon Congress to develop bipartisan legislation that encompasses the following issues:

   Aggressive medical screening, monitoring and treatment--The legislation must provide for a program to screen out workers with any and all contraindicaions. Additionally, medical surveillance is essential to assess the program's effectiveness and ensure that any adverse reactions are treated before they become life threatening, as evidenced by the recent reports of heart related problems.

   Adequate compensation--Already, there has been a great reluctance among health care workers to risk injury and loss of income without an adequate safety net for themselves and their families. Any compensation package must be retroactive and cover anyone who suffers a serious reaction as a result of the vaccine, as well as those injured through close contact with a vaccine recipient.

   Ful accountability--Thorough investigation of, and full disclosure of adverse events under both the military and civilian plan must be reported immediately, and organizations representing potential vaccine recipients deserve notification along with the news media.

   Guaranteed funding--There must be mandatory funding for the compensation program to ensure money is available to compensate those who have been injured or died as a result of the vaccine. As was recently recommended by the Institute of Medicine, there must be a clear commitment that adequate funding shall be provided to the states to implement education, screening, and medical surveillance through the emergency supplemental for Homeland Security needs.

   It is absolutely critical that this nation's vaccination plan does not pose increased risks to the American people. We believe the program should be suspended until there is good legislation that ensures these safeguards are in place. Please vote against H.R. 1463, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act, and take immediate action to support stronger legislation that will truly protect health care workers, patients, and the public.

   Sincerely,

   Andrew L. Stern,
International President.

   Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to briefly set the record straight.

   There has been extraordinary negotiations with the minority on this bill, over 2 weeks of it. The administration brought this bill to us as an emergency. It called upon us immediately to give authority to provide these benefits to people who would volunteer to vaccinate American citizens in the event of an attack of smallpox in this country, which could come at any time, as we know, particularly as hostilities are engaged in the Middle East and Iraq.

   It brought it to us as an emergency and we took over 2 weeks to negotiate. And we negotiated over a dozen changes, I am told. The most important change we made was to bring up that disability cap from $50,000 a year, that out-of-work cap, to the same level we provide for policemen and firemen in this country. And, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) that this is a supplemental program, just as that program is. It is on top of. It is full secondary coverage of medical benefits with no deductibles. That is a lot better than most plans. It is primary lump sum disability and death benefit that, under the Federal Public Safety Officers and Employees is equal to $262,000. It is secondary coverage for temporary and partial disability from $50,000 a year, again we raised it from the administration provision, all the way up to the $262,000 level. It is on top of disability benefits under Social Security; on top of the benefits available in the State Employee or Private Disability Benefits, and we still preserve the right to sue in Federal torts claim court.

   Doggone right we are behind those volunteers. Doggone right this is an emergency. But we took 2 weeks, and I took it with a great deal of pain on my conscience because I thought every night, when we were negotiating this thing with our colleagues over here, I thought every night, what happens if tomorrow we get hit and we have not passed this bill yet and we do not have enough volunteers out there to vaccinate all of America. What happens if every day I take negotiating with the other side is a day we put our country at risk. And I suffered every night with that thought for 2 weeks. We have negotiated this bill to a point that it ought to get passed today.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

   Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and today I rise in support of H.R. 1463, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Act of 2003.

   I will just add, in light of the comments made by the chairman, that I come to this body as a physician and I likely, myself, will take this vaccination to become a first responder.

   Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1463 is a meaningful first step toward ensuring the broadest acceptance of the President's call for voluntary vaccinations by public safety personnel. In my home State of Texas, to date, only 1,700 first responders have been vaccinated for smallpox. Of this number, Texas health officials report that there have been no adverse reactions to date.

   A number of factors can be attributed to the slow roll-out of this vaccination campaign, but one of the major factors involved is first responders are hesitant to take a vaccine with potential side effects. We must be very clear about the current vaccination campaign. Different people react to different medications differently. A great majority of those who will receive this smallpox vaccination will have no reaction at all. A handful, however, could face complications. Some of these may be as minor as a rash. A small percentage of that number could face more serious health complications, such as postvaccinial encephalitis or endocarditis.

   H.R. 1463 will ensure that a broad safety net is available for those very few individuals that may suffer from an adverse reaction to the smallpox vaccine. Under this bill, first responders are provided with death and disability benefits comparable to the benefits police officers and firefighters already have access to under the Public Safety Officers Benefit Program. First responders who have an adverse reaction could also qualify for lost employment income benefits, coverage for medical expenses, and certain liability protections. H.R. 1463 will give first responders peace of mind to do something that will protect all Americans.

   First responders are on the front lines of our war against terrorism and play a vital role in the instance of a terrorist attack. Our enemies have shown us that they will go to any length to kill innocent men, women and children. If they ever obtain a weapon as horrifying and as devastating as smallpox, let there be no mistake, there will be no hesitancy that they would use it. However, if they were able to employ such a weapon, American first responders will have a greater ability to protect all of us if they have already been inoculated from this debilitating and life-threatening disease.

   Americans are counting on our health care professionals to be vaccinated against smallpox. By vaccinating these important first responders, we will be able to contain a potential outbreak and save thousands of lives. Americans are looking to the House of Representatives for leadership on this issue. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to protect first responders and give them the peace of mind to protect all of us.

   Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire what time remains?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) has 14 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 6 1/2 minutes remaining.

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

[Page: H2486]

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for a response.

   Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me.

   The administration has asked people to take this immunization in the health care area and first responders have not been doing it. One of the reasons, according to the Institute of Medicine, is because they do not feel that they are going to be backed up by the government when they take the risk of some adverse event.

   Now, I want to point out to my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, the chairman of the committee, that he should not personalize this whole matter and have it on his conscience that we cannot pass this bill today. Of course, this could have come under the rules and we could have had opportunity for amendments to consider. But I want to point out that we asked for smallpox compensation as part of the bioterrorism bill in 2001, we asked for smallpox compensation as part of the homeland security bill in 2002, we formally requested an administration proposal in December 2002, and we proposed our own bill in February of this year. Only in March, 2 weeks ago, did the majority respond. And now, of course, it is take it or leave it. Take it or leave it. That is what we are being told.

   This is a bad policy and a bad process by which to protect the public health. We had negotiations by staff. It might have helped for Members to sit down and talk this through. And if Members and staff cannot agree, then we have committees and subcommittees to consider the details of legislation. And if it is too urgent for committees and subcommittees to act after all this time, at least let the House consider a bill and consider various alternatives.

   I think we are now engaged in a very bad process, and I think that we are being asked to take very bad policy that is going to be self-defeating. Because if many of the nurses do not want it, and the firefighters do not want it, and the police members do not want it, and other first responders do not feel it is adequate and they are not going to be compensated, then we are not accomplishing the goal that we should for all of us.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair wishes to inform the House that he misspoke in response to the inquiry of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). There was 4 1/2 minutes remaining, not 14 1/2 minutes. I apologize to the gentlewoman.

   Mrs. CAPPS. Could I beg of the Chair to consider then, because I was generous in yielding to my colleague, that we be given more time, because we have several people who still wish to speak?

   Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, and I hope the gentleman on the other side will appreciate this since we were misinformed on the time, that we be given an additional 5 minutes on each side.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

   Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, why do we not take such time as the gentleman consumed. I think the gentlewoman yielded the gentleman 2 minutes. And what time did the gentleman just use, Mr. Speaker?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Two minutes.

   Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, instead, that we add an additional 2 minutes to each side, in fairness.

   So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that each side be granted 2 additional minutes to make up for the inaccurate call of the Chair.

   Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. TAUZIN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. WAXMAN. That may well work, but again we have another example of trying to say no more than a certain amount. And it may be adequate, but let us be generous to our colleagues and let us be generous to the first responders.

   Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will be happy to just object and not have any extension, if the gentleman wants to argue about a couple of minutes.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

   Mr. TAUZIN. Otherwise, I ask unanimous consent that each side be accorded 2 additional minutes to make up for the error of the Chair.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?

   There was no objection.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Each side will have an additional 2 minutes.

   Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, could I now inquire how much time is remaining?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) has 4 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 8 1/2 minutes.

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

   Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

[Time: 14:45]

   Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, we are here in extraordinary circumstances, rushing this legislation to the floor as we must, because we are facing an emergency. We have got to provide compensation to those workers who may be injured or killed by the smallpox vaccine. The Committee on Energy and Commerce, of which I am proud to be a member, has done very, very important work to bring this bill to the floor in these emergency circumstances. The Committee on Homeland Security, of which I am also the chairman, has an abiding interest in making sure that our first responders are capable of dealing with crises such as this. If smallpox is used against American citizens as a weapon, we have got to be prepared and we have to be sure that the first responders do not themselves become weapons, because even though they are not manifesting the symptoms they are spreading the disease.

   Smallpox spreads so fast that it is estimated it will kill at least 30 percent of its unvaccinated victims. Immunity is suspected to have waned among people who were vaccinated before smallpox was thought to have been eradicated in the 1970s. Like many of the Members of this Chamber, I am such a person who has had such a vaccination. Yet I am probably not protected.

   Once contracted, smallpox incubates for 10 to 12 days, causing fever and nausea. As the symptoms abate, the victim becomes infectious but does not develop the tell-tale rash for another 2 to 4 days. That is why it is so important that these first responders be protected.

   As we speak, there is no cure for smallpox. The vaccine we have works well before exposure, but evidence of post-exposure efficacy is only anecdotal. That anecdotal evidence points to the vaccine only working if the victim is inoculated within 4 days of contact with smallpox.

   Our strategy to counter a smallpox attack depends on our first responders having already been vaccinated. It is going to be hard enough for public health officials to react within the necessary window of time. Administering the vaccine after the detection of a smallpox outbreak to a mobile American public with little or no immunity will cause immense problems. Doing so when first responders are not already themselves protected against smallpox could prove impossible. So far, only 20,000 nonmilitary personnel have been vaccinated. That is not nearly enough.

   Taking the vaccine means taking a risk. Therefore, we must reassure our health care workers and our first responders that we understand this risk and we will stand by them. That is why I support the gentleman from North Carolina's vaccination compensation legislation, that is why I support putting this legislation on the floor in this emergency circumstance as we have, and that is why I support the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana in bringing this to a quick and hopefully positive vote.

   Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), a member of the Subcommittee on Health.

   Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I am truly puzzled at the leadership on the other side. We are told that the administration sent this bill over here as an emergency. Yet I think they know that this bill is likely to be defeated because of the way it is being dealt with. If it is an emergency, ought we not to work together so that we can pass a bill? What is happening here today will result in the delay of this bill being passed.

   The chairman of our committee says, of course, we are for the volunteers and I believe he is sincere. But if we are for the volunteers, why do we not listen to the volunteers? In the first 2 months of the administration's smallpox vaccine program, only about 25,000 of a planned 450,000 health workers have received the vaccine. Last week, three people died from heart attacks after receiving the vaccine, two health workers and a 55-year-old National Guard member. All three people had risk factors for heart disease, although it is not currently known whether the vaccine caused the heart attacks.

   As a result of these challenges, a compensation program is needed, but these health care workers, these first responders are worried that the bill before us will not adequately provide for education and screening of the workers who are being asked to take the vaccine. If we screen the people who are at risk, we may save their lives and we can save money.

   I am disappointed. I think we all know this bill is likely to go down to defeat, and unnecessarily so. Let us work together in this House. If not on this bill, what bill can we ever work together on?

   Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD three letters, one from the International Union of Police Associations, one from the American Public Health Association and the other from the American Federation of Teachers in opposition to the administration's plan.

   INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE

   ASSOCIATIONS AFL-CIO,

   Alexandria, VA, March 27, 2003.
Hon. TED KENNEDY,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

   DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: On behalf of the International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO, representing law enforcement professionals from more than 500 agencies across the country and in Puerto Rico, I am writing to voice our concern regarding the Smallpox Compensation Program currently being debated in the House.

   We urge you to work to ensure that this legislation will provide the security demanded and deserved by our first responders who elect to take the smallpox vaccine in order to better serve a nation at war. We hope this would include crucial screening and education for both the emergency personnel and their immediate families.

   A mandatory funding provision is also needed to ensure that the varying states' workers' compensation laws will not withhold compensation based on the fact that the vaccination is voluntary.

   We also believe that these should be no five-day waiting period for compensation benefits. Furthermore, we hope to see some protection for those who elect not to take it.

   We are asking more and more of those health care and public safety workers on the front lines of our nation's homeland security efforts. Providing them with ample security should they become disabled in their duties is critical, necessary, and is clearly and simply the right thing to do. I applaud your efforts to correct the deficiencies in this proposed legislation and will be privileged to assist you and your staff in these efforts.

   Respectfully,
Dennis Slocumb,
International Executive Vice President.

--

   AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION,

   Washington, DC, March 30, 2003.

   DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: On behalf of the American Public Health Association (APHA), representing more than 50,000 members from over 50 public health occupations, I urge you to oppose the H.R. 1463 in its current form and work to strengthen this legislation before it is brought to the house floor for a vote.

   APHA strongly supports legislation to address current impediments to the national smallpox preparedness effort, including lack of compensation for those who become injured, ill, disabled or die; protections from liability for volunteer vaccinators and health systems; and adequate federal resources to enable public health systems to implement a smallpox vaccination program safely and effectively.

   We are concerned that the current proposal before the House of Representatives fails to include a number of essential elements of a workable compensation program that will adequately protect volunteers and help to assure a successful program.

   We respectfully suggest that the proposed legislation be strengthened in the following ways:

   1. The compensation program should be financed by a mandatory funding source. It is important that volunteers who are injured, ill, disabled or die are assured that the protection they expect from a compensation program will be realized. We learned a clear lesson from the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) Trust Fund when earlier this decade appropriations to the fund were not sufficient to pay claims and hundreds ill from Cold War-era exposure to radiation were left with IOUs. We have also learned in recent weeks that we have more to learn about the effects of the smallpox vaccine. Reports of heart inflammation and failure in possibly connection with the vaccine warn us that we must not have all the information at present to make an appropriate judgment about the amount of appropriation it will take to ensure that compensation can be guaranteed. Those first responders who volunteer to be vaccinated deserve to be assured that adequate compensation will be available for them.

   2. Payment for illness, injury, disability, or death should include compensation for all lost wages, taking into account an individual's projected future earnings. Volunteers and their families should be confident that should they become unable to work due to disability they will not have to lose their income for future years, jeopardizing the income security for themselves and their families. In the rare case of death, family members, including children, should not be left uncompensated because of a loved one's sacrifice to protect others. Death and disability benefits should not be reduced by wages replaced before death or disability occurs. Compensation should be 100%, begin without delay, and should not be subject to a cap.

   3. Volunteers should be compensated for adverse events regardless of the date on which they received the vaccine. Imposing an artifical time period in which one must volunteer is contrary to the goal of the vaccination program. Success should not be measured on the numbers vaccinated a specific period of time but rather, on whether at any given time we have a sufficient cadre of vaccinated first responders across the country. Speed should not be our measure--safety should. As we have seen from the start of the program, any number of barriers may result in extending the time in which we expect vaccinations to occur, including unexpected new possible complications from the vaccine. Establishing a set time frame for vaccination eliminates adjustments needed for unanticipated events.

   4. Adequate Funds are needed to ensure that state and local health systems are prepared. Any proposal should recognize the need for additional funds to state and local health departments and health systems to implement the smallpox program. Current funds for bioterrorism preparedness efforts have been largely spent and obligated. States and localities and health systems are preparing for a broad array of potential threats in a time of great budgetary strain and increased demand for services. The recent outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) is but one example of how public health is required to serve a dual role, protecting Americans from the latest emerging infectious diseases, the leading causes of death such as chronic diseases, and preparing for intentional acts of biological terrorism or war.

   Resources are needed to ensure that the important smallpox preparedness program can proceed without shifting resources from other bioterrorism preparedness requirements and which maintaining our important programs to protect Americans from everyday health threats.

   Again, we commend you for recognizing the importance of this legislation, we urge you to do it thoughtfully, and we remain ready to implement the smallpox preparedness program safely, efficiently and effectively.

   Sincerely,

   Georges Benjamin, MD. FACP,
Executive Director.

--

   AMERICAN FEDERATION OF

   TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

   Washington, DC, March 28, 2003.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.

   DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: On behalf of the more than 1 million members of the American Federation of Teachers, including more than 65,000 healthcare professionals, I urge you to vote against considering H.R. 1413, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act, under suspension of the rules. This procedure will prevent the House from consideration of the Capps-Waxman substitute, which is vastly superior to the Administration's proposal, H.R. 1413. Capps-Waxman provides increased education and screening, as well as a realistic compensation package for those who suffer a serious adverse reaction.

   As you know, most workers have refused to participate in the smallpox inoculation program. Most believe there has not been sufficient information about the need for immediate vaccination. Further, there are serious doubts about the efficacy of existing education and screening programs, as well as the lack of a federal compensation program for healthcare volunteers and innocent victims who may suffer adverse reactions.

[Page: H2488]

   Since last fall, healthcare unions and other organizations have been working to develop a bipartisan program that would address these issues. Our proposal is based on the existing Department of Defense smallpox program, as is the Capps-Waxman substitute. The Administration's proposal that is being rushed to the House floor does not provide the same protections that are offered in the Capps-Waxman substitute.

   EDUCATION AND SCREENING

   The need to increase the education and screening of volunteers is clear. This requires additional funding. The Department of Defense's comprehensive education and screening program, for example, screened out 30 percent of those who were to be inoculated. The recent death of two nurses and the serious adverse reactions of others demonstrate the limitations of the existing program, which continues unchanged under H.R. 1413. Screening out those who are counter-indicated is essential to prevent adverse reactions and to protect healthcare workers who volunteer. The Capps-Waxman substitute addresses this critical need by providing additional funding for our public health agencies that are responsible for this program to assure complete education and screening. The Administration proposal does not.

   COMPENSATION

   Since the smallpox program is a voluntary federal program, injured individuals should be compensated by the federal government for the cost of both medical treatment and lost wages. The Administration's proposal seems to assume that there is adequate wage compensation through the workers' compensation system. Unfortunately, we have found only 14 states that can assure workers that they will be covered under workers' compensation. The remainder of the states are not sure that this program is ``work related'' since it is voluntary. Further, innocent third parties who suffer adverse reactions are not covered by workers' compensation. Also, many workers or innocent third parties are not covered by health insurance or may be subject to health insurance exclusions; therefore, full federal health insurance coverage for medical treatment is essential. While the Administration bill does cover health insurance, its restrictive definitions on disability and caps on financial benefits do not assure necessary wage replacement. The Capps-Waxman substitute includes necessary federally financed healthcare and provides the victims lost wages for the duration of the disability caused by an adverse reaction.

   The bottom line is that a reasonable compensation program for adverse smallpox reactions should provide federal compensation for full medical coverage and adequate wage replacement. There should be no exclusions from this coverage, such as the five-day waiting period in the Administration program. This five-day exclusion is a major concern of many of our members. Further, restrictions in the Administration's proposals, such as capping benefit payments and using the 180-day rule forcing workers to choose to get the vaccination or forgo compensation, are unacceptable. The Capps-Waxman substitute satisfactorily addresses these issues.

   Finally, this new program must be mandatorily funded and include a table of injuries in the statute to ensure workers get compensation, a provision in Capps-Waxman and not the Administration legislation.

   Unfortunately, under the suspension of the rules procedure, the House will be precluded from addressing these issues. Our nurses, other health care workers, and first responders are dedicated professionals and will not shirk their duties to help the public. However, they deserve the best screening, education, and compensation program for volunteering to receive this potentially dangerous vaccine. They deserve a vote on the Capps-Waxman substitute.

   On behalf of the American Federation of Teachers, I urge you to oppose consideration of H.R. 1413 under suspension of the rules and demand a vote on the Capps-Waxman substitute.

   Sincerely,
Charlotte Fraas,
Director, Department of Legislation.

   Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 Ðminutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

   Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, who opposes this bill? The nurses, the police, the fire, the Public Health Association of the United States. They all oppose it. These are the health care heroes in our country. The reason that legislation is so important is that these people are going to be asked to put their lives on the line. They are the first responders. How busy are we that we can give them 20 minutes of debate, each side having 20 minutes to debate their fate? How hard would it be for us to have worked all day Friday to allow amendments to have been made that represents what the teachers, what the nurses, what the doctors, what the police and what the fire want for protections? How hard would it have been for us to have worked all day today if there is an emergency? Do we not as Members of Congress owe to these heroes working on a Friday and a Monday so we can debate what their needs are?

   Then why is it important? It is important because the adverse reactions from the smallpox vaccine are a real concern. This bill coerces volunteers to be vaccinated within 180 days after the regulations are issued or they lose their rights to lost wages and to disability payments and even to death payments. They lose them. A pregnant nurse has only 180 days to be vaccinated after her baby is born.

   This is wrong. Vote ``no'' on this bill. Let us have a full debate on the House floor with amendments.

   Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

   I stand here with my colleagues in opposition to this bill, drafted by the leadership with a kind of arrogance that presumes to know what is best for our first responders than they themselves know. With their testimony, with their letters, with their anguish, they implore us to give them the confidence that they need if they are going to be asked to take a risk to become a part of the shield to protect this Nation against terrorist attack.

   We need to defeat this legislation for them so that they can have confidence in this House that we can do what is right, not just for them but for our Nation in this time of peril. And so I will close by using some of the language of my colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) who says in his written statement, ``Right after we defeat this bill, I hope that we can set about the task of creating bipartisan legislation that all Members of the House can support. The very people this bill purports to help, nurses, EMTs, police officers, firefighters, find this hastily crafted legislation lacking. Why? Because it fails to address their very significant concerns.''

   Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

   Let me address the two principal objections to this bill. The first is that some of the first responders would like more coverage. They would like more coverage than we currently provide for police officers and firefighters who take the chances to go out and fight fires and sacrifice their lives, to go out and fight the criminal elements on the street and take the bullets and sometimes die and sometimes end up disabled and have a lifetime of lost wages. They would like to have more benefits than those individuals. But this is not a management-labor union discussion. This is an emergency. When the other side asked for time, for 2 weeks to work with us in a bipartisan fashion to up the benefits comparable to what police and firemen have, we did that. It is now in the bill.

   The other objection they raise is that, well, this is not due process. We have taken this bill to the floor under suspension. We are not taking it through all the committees of jurisdiction. How many committees claim jurisdiction on this bill, Mr. Speaker? Let us start with the Committee on Education and the Workforce. We heard from the chairman who instead worked with us cooperatively to get this bill to the floor. Judiciary could have a claim on this bill. Judiciary worked with us cooperatively to get this bill to the floor. Appropriations could certainly have a claim on this bill, but they have worked with us to get this bill to the floor.

   Why have all the committees worked with us to get this bill to the floor without all the markups and all the committees that might have jurisdiction on it? Because they know the emergency. They understand how important it is to get this bill done and signed by the President immediately. We have all been briefed. We have all been briefed about the danger of smallpox terrorism. We have all been briefed about how easy it would be for a country like Iraq, which we know probably has smallpox virus, to slip it into this country, to expose someone and then begin exposing our general population. They know that in 2 weeks, everyone once exposed becomes a carrier and exposes more people and that second- and third- and fourth-generation exposure occurs and we lose 30 percent of the population of America potentially. They know the danger. They know the emergency. Every committee has cooperated with us.

   For 2 weeks we negotiated with the other side, a fair negotiation to get this bill in a way that you could accept

[Page: H2489]

   But that is not enough. Enough is never enough. But we do not have time to quibble about what is enough here. Do not come to this floor saying that no one supports this bill in the health care community. Let me read to my colleagues the supporters: The American Hospital Association, people who will be on the front line taking care of all these people infected with smallpox if we are not careful; the American Medical Association, the doctors who have to deliver the care; the American College of Emergency Physicians who are going to meet every sick person coming in with smallpox to an emergency room; the Alliance of Specialty Medicines, representing 160,000 physicians, among many others who support this bill.

   This is an emergency. The administration, the Homeland Security Office, have told us we need to give this benefit to those people who will volunteer to take this vaccine to protect themselves and then to protect us. No one is coerced to do this. This bill does not mandate a single person take the vaccine. It simply gives the same rich mix of benefits to those who will volunteer to take this vaccine and protect the rest of us, to be ready to go into action to prevent the second- and third- and fourth-generation exposures that could wipe out so many in this country. It simply says to them, if you volunteer, we give you this coverage. If you volunteer, if you want to be one of those who serve this country in this special way, you get the benefits of this bill.

   This bill needs to get passed now. It is an emergency. That is why it is on suspension. We ought to have the courage to pass it. If it does not pass today, it is only because somebody on the other side thinks enough is never enough and you want to quibble about numbers when the country is at stake.

   Mr. Speaker, this bill ought to get passed. It needs to get passed now.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, as thousands fled over lower Manhattan during the terrorist strikes, many ran towards the burning buildings.

   These brave men and women were first responders--the police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel who risk their lives every day to protect their fellow citizens.

   It would seem like the least we could do for them would be to not only applaud their efforts, but also provide them with support they need so they can do their jobs even better.

   Unfortunately, this Congress has found it appropriate not to support, but to shortchange these everyday heroes.

   A month and a half ago, we finally managed to pass the FY03 spending bill. Many of us here in this body sought to add vital funding for first responders, but we were denied. Our first responders were denied.

   Today, apparently, this body is poised to again deny our first responders--in this case, the men and women who will first respond to the unthinkable: a smallpox attack.

   The need for the president's smallpox vaccination program is questionable, but now that the program exists, there is no doubt that we need to address compensation for those who volunteer for and are injured by the vaccine. In terms of negative side effects, this vaccine--essentially the same as the original developed in 1796--is perhaps the most dangerous one we currently have. In this most initial wave of vaccinations, we have already seen several serious injuries and even a few deaths possibly attributable to the vaccine.

   That is why adequate compensation for vaccine injury is so crucial. Our first responders want to know that if they take the brave step of volunteering for the vaccination and get sick or die, they and their family will be taken care of.

   The absence of a good compensation program has doubtless contributed to the snail's pace that the president's vaccination program has taken. Only 25,000 of the 500,000 in the ``initial wave'' of healthcare workers have actually been vaccinated.

   The bill before us will not assure these workers that they will be adequately compensated. The lifetime cap of $262,100 is small change for someone who is permanently disabled.

   This bill also only covers workers vaccinated during a specific short time period after implementation. What kind of an incentive is this for new healthcare providers to get vaccinated in the future?

   As the American Nurses Association has written, ``the bill does not provide adequate education, prescreening, surveillance, and compensation.''

   Mr. Speaker, I have been working in this Congress to show my strong support for our first responders. Today I will continue to show this support by voting ``no.''

• [End Insert]

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support H.R. 1463, the Smallpox Vaccination Compensation Act. Our nation's first responders and health care workers take risks every day in order to serve the public good. Our firefighters face the risk to their lives every time they are called to duty. Health care workers come into contact with deadly germs on a regular basis. Even now, with the threat of bioterriorist attacks upon them, they are not flinching. They are there at work, serving the public good and putting themselves in harm's way.

   And now that it seems that on top of the physical risks they are taking, the Republican leadership has decided that they and their families should also shoulder the financial risk of the fight against terrorism. We are asking that they serve as a kind of barrier, protecting the American public against the horrors of smallpox. If the virus were somehow leaked into the U.S., of course we would expect our first responders to be there at the sight of the emergency, and infected individuals would end up at our hospitals. We are trying to encourage those who work on the front lines to come in and get vaccinated, so that they do not get infected and pass the virus on to their families and the public.

   But the vaccination program has been an utter failure so far, because the smallpox vaccination itself also carries with it moderate danger. As scientists have been telling us, the vaccination can make some people sick, or can even lead to death in rare circumstances. Whereas the death rate can be reduced or eliminated by good education and screening of people who might be at risk for complications, some of those who are vaccinated will become ill. They may have to be quarantined; they will miss work, perhaps for a long time. In today's economy--with medical costs what they are--this could be devastating, especially for someone with a family to support. Too many of our first responders and health workers have decided they cannot take that risk, and are asking that the Federal Government that is in charge of protecting the homeland--assume that risk for them. That seems fair enough.

   The author of the bill before us today recognized the problem, and gave the bill the right name, but just didn't do a good job of matching resources with the needs out there. The problem with that is that if we don't give adequate assurances to people that they will be covered for any unfortunate episodes--they will not get vaccinated. Then in 6 months, or a year, we will find ourselves in this same situation--totally vulnerable to a smallpox attack. We cannot afford to take that risk. We must get it right the first time.

   We are hearing from group after group of experts and people effected by this, saying, ``Do not support this bill. It is not enough.'' The American Nurses Association, the Association of Firefighters, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees--and the list goes on. These are not the money-grubbing types; they are humble civil servants who deserve our support. They are saying that this compensation package may not be enough to entice them to join the voluntary smallpox vaccination program. If they do not sign up, they will be vulnerable, and so will the American people.

   The Democratic Capps-Waxman substitute would have gotten the job done. The Republican bill does not ensure adequate funding is available to compensate health care workers and other first responders injured by the smallpox vaccine. The Capps-Waxman substitute provides for mandatory funding for this program.

   The Republican bill would pay only 66.6.% of an injured worker's lost wages with a lifetime cap of $50,000. The Capps-Waxman amendment would pay 66.6% of lost wages up to $75,000 per year for as long as the worker is disabled. Workers with dependents would receive 75% of lost wages up to $75,000 per year for as long as the worker was disabled.

   The Republican bill would not compensate health care workers and other first responders for lost wages for the first five days they are injured. The

[Page: H2490]

   The Republican bill provides that a health care worker or other first responder who is killed by the smallpox vaccine receives only a flat death benefit. The Capps-Waxman substitute would pay a death benefit as well as any lost wages for workers who have dependents when they die.

   Finally, the Capps-Waxman substitute has a specific authorization for funding for States to educate and screen potential vaccinees. The Republican bill does not. This is a critical component. There have been several deaths recently that occurred within a week or so after vaccinations. We must at the very least provide adequate education to people we want to get vaccinated to see if they are at risk for vaccine-related disease. They deserve that.

   I will vote against H.R. 1463, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, since September 11, we have begun to prepare for a number of events that once seemed unthinkable. One of them is an epidemic of smallpox, a deadly disease that we thought we had erased from the earth. The best way for us to protect ourselves against that is to vaccinate our first responders--the nurses, policemen, and firefighters that we would depend on to recognize a smallpox outbreak and quickly act to protect all of us against a disease that spreads rapidly and kills a third of its victims.

   But in the three and a half months since President Bush announced plans to vaccinate 500,000 first responders, fewer than 25,000 have volunteered. In Michigan, where we had a goal of vaccinating 5,000 people, fewer than five hundred people have been vaccinated.

   The smallpox vaccine has the worst record of negative side effects, including death, of any vaccine in our history. Experts estimate that one in a million people vaccinated will die, and many more will become ill, some seriously. Sadly, three people who volunteered to be vaccinated have already died.

   These are sobering statistics, but it is not the personal danger that is keeping first responders from volunteering. Every day, our police, firefighters, and health care workers risk injury and death to help others. But giving them the smallpox vaccine without proper education, pre-screening, and surveillance doesn't just endanger them--it endangers all of us. When smallpox vaccination was still widespread, nearly 20 percent of infections from the vaccine came from secondary contact. And asking first responders to be vaccinated without a safety net if they become ill, are disabled, or die endangers their families and those who depend on them for support.

   The Republican leadership says we don't have time to have a discussion with nurses, policemen, firefighters, and other first responders about what kind of program they need to feel safe because preparing for bioterrorism is an emergency. But if we don't have that discussion, we will have done nothing to address the emergency.

   Receiving the smallpox vaccine is voluntary for first responders. First responders don't think the current program is safe, so they are declining the vaccine. That's why our current program isn't working and why after months of saying a vaccine injury compensation system wasn't necessary, House Republicans are willing to bring up a bill. But if the bill we pass doesn't make first responders feel safe, they still won't volunteer to be vaccinated, and we'll be right back where we started, except we'll have wasted a lot of time on a program we already know will be ineffective.

   Wouldn't it make more sense to get it right the first time? By voting against this bill, which the International Union of Firefighters, the American Nurses Association, and the International Union of Police Associations say does not address the concerns that have prevented them from being vaccinated, I hope to give the House an opportunity to sit down with first responders and craft a workable solution. It is precisely because this is an emergency that we don't have time to pass unworkable legislation, wait for it to fail, and start again.

   I regret that we did not have the opportunity to vote on a real solution tonight. I hope we can move immediately to pass a real solution, without wasting any more time on political gamesmanship.

   Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1463. The House should be considering a bill today that responds to two basic questions: how do we encourage first responders--nurses, emergency room doctors, police, and firefighters--to volunteer for smallpox vaccinations; and second, how do we compensate them for any injury, disability or fatality they suffer in the event of an adverse reaction. Instead, the bill we are voting on--with no opportunity to amend or offer a substitute--accomplishes neither.

   Last week, a 57-year-old nurse from my own state of Maryland died within 5 days of receiving the smallpox vaccine. The CDC is still investigating the nexus between the vaccine and her death. But to date, 12 health care workers who received the vaccine have experienced severe heart problems within day of inoculation, and 3 have died. These deaths and complications are sending waves of panic through the health care community.

   On January 24, the President and HHS Secretary Thompson called for 450,000 first responders to be inoculated against smallpox. Today, as we come to the floor to consider this bill, the Administration has reached only 5 percent of its goal. The response has been dismal not because these workers lack dedication to public health and safety, but because they have justifiable doubts that this vaccine is safe and that if they are injured or die, they and their survivors will be compensated fairly.

   Initial risk assessments by HHS did not come close to estimating the percentage of workers who would be at risk of illness or death from the smallpox vaccine. Many individuals are well on their way to heart disease, even though they have no symptoms and feel fine. Many Americans who have high blood pressure and diabetes are completely unaware of their condition.

   Both high blood pressure and diabetes increase the risk for heart disease. Unfortunately, these serious problems usually don't cause symptoms until they've already done their damage. They silently harm many organs, including the heart and kidneys. Often people are not diagnosed with these problems until it is too late to prevent damage. By the time symptoms are present, the condition may be critical.

   Scientific studies have indicated that for every 100,000 who are immunized against smallpox, 2 or 3 will die. But the U.S. has only immunized 29,000 persons so far, and three deaths have already occurred. Why the decrepancy? HHS's initial risk assessments were based on immunization of much younger subjects, who are at far lower risk of heart disease. But the three workers who died were all in their fifties, and the average age of nurses in our workforce is 45. Those who would be immunized under the president's plan are at much higher peril of adverse reactions.

   The CDC had already announced a temporary medical deferral for persons diagnosed with heart disease, and late last week it expanded that category to include individuals with three of more ``major risk factors'' for heart disease, including smoking, diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. Small wonder that the participation rate among our health care workers is so low. It is likely to remain low until workers gain confidence that government has a better understanding of risk factors.

   Our nation's first responders should be protected against smallpox. But a vaccination program can only succeed to the extent that government succeeds in assuring workers that potential side effects will be minimized, and that they will be treated fairly and compensated adequately in the event of illness, disability, or death.

   The underlying bill fails these tests. It limits payments for lost income to any annual maximum of $50,000. There is no wage replacement for those who suffer permanently disability or death. Why would nurses, who earn an average salary of $40,000, risk their families' future for so little?

   The Burr bill won't begin replacing lost wages until 5 days have passed. A national program ought to provide first dollar compensation, not last-resort coverage. The Burr bill also imposes a deadline of 180 days for workers to qualify for compensation. Those vaccinated after that time would not qualify. How can we know how long it take our States and localities to vaccinate a sufficient number of volunteers?

   In addition, the bill provides no funding for education, screening, or surveillance. The National Association of County and City Health Officials has estimated that to provide pre-vaccination education and screening, and surveillance for adverse reactions would cost between $154 and $284 per person. If the Administration plans to vaccinate 500,000 workers in Phase I and another 10 million in Phase II, we are taking about a $2 billion unfunded mandate to our localities.

   Mr. Speaker, our towns' and cities' budgets are already strained as they conduct other bioterrorism preparedness activities. Our localities do not have sufficient funds to prepare for chemical, biological and radiological terrorism, and more than half of our local governments have reported that smallpox and other bioterrorism planning has negatively affected other local public health services. They are delaying programs, turning down community requests, and reducing the frequency of client visits.

   Mr. Speaker, we have asked America's first responders to put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us. The compensation we offer

[Page: H2491]

   Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act (H.R. 1463) is being rushed to the House floor today for a vote under suspension, denying us the opportunity to amend this bill to ensure that the compensation we offer our first responders is both adequate and meaningful. I have serious concerns both about the deficiencies in H.R. 1463 and the process by which it was brought to the floor. This is an ill-considered bull that fails to provide adequate compensation for persons volunteering for the smallpox inoculation and, therefore, will undermine the very goal of encouraging first responders to participate in the vaccine program. Three recently immunized military personnel and civilian health care workers have died of fatal heart attacks and Federal health experts are investigating at least 15 more cases of possible cardiac reactions to the immunization. Given recent events such as these, the limitations of H.R. 1463 will likely result in even more refusals by first responders to volunteer for the smallpox vaccine.

   H.R. 1463 fails to offer meaningful compensation, does not have guaranteed funding, and attempts to coerce first responders into getting inoculated. It will not work. That is why it is opposed by many organizations representing first responders, including the American Nurses Association, International Union of Police Associations, International Association of Firefighters, American Federation of Teachers, American Public Health Association, Infectious Diseases Society of America, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the Service Employees International Union.

   H.R. 1463 is based on the false assumption that nurses, firefighters and other first responders will be compensated by other benefit programs, such as workers' compensation and health insurance. In the case of smallpox, however, there are no guarantees that a person injured by the smallpox vaccine will be covered by workers' compensation or will be adequately insured. In fact, there are only 14 States where it appears at all certain that claims for benefits will be honored by the State workers' compensation program, based on a recent survey by the AFL-CIO. As a result, those injured by the smallpox vaccine may receive far less total compensation than other first responders currently covered by their Public Safety Officers Benefit program.

   If, for example, under H.R. 1463, a 30-year-old nurse were permanently injured or killed as a result of the vaccine, she or her survivors would be eligible for a one-time lump sum payment of $262,100. This amount is equivalent to 5 years' pay for the average nurse. This is not adequate compensation for a nurse unable to work, her family or her survivors. Partial and temporary disabilities as a result of the smallpox vaccine are also arbitrarily capped with a lifetime payout at $262,100. Compensation should be provided to workers for the duration of disability or to survivors' families until the spouse remarries or the children are no longer minors. If workers are worried about their economic security, and that of their families, they for good reason will continue to be reluctant about getting the vaccination.

   Although the compensation offered through H.R. 1423 is scant at best, our first responders cannot even rely on benefits offered because there is no guaranteed funding. H.R. 1423 is funded by discretionary spending and would be subject to the annual appropriations process. Funding for compensation and medical care should be mandatory spending, similar to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for injuries due to childhood vaccines. Workers should not have to worry each year about whether there will be an adequate appropriation to provide promised benefits and medical care.

   As if lack of compensation and funding did not make this bill already untenable, H.R. 1423 attempts to coerce workers into getting the vaccine. Current workers must receive the vaccination within 180 days following the issuance of interim final regulations in order to be eligible for compensation. New hires must be vaccinated within 120 days of hire to be eligible. There is no exception in the event that the public health department is unable to meet the deadline or a worker has a temporary condition that prevents immediate vaccination, such as pregnancy or the presence of an infant at home. Smallpox vaccination should be voluntary. When legislation only allows first responders to be eligible for compensation if they are vaccinated within months of the bill's passage, we know that people on the front line are being manipulated into getting the vaccine and getting it quickly.

   Our first responders deserve better. They deserve a full and fair smallpox compensation package. Unfortunately, we do not have the opportunity to correct the deficiencies in H.R. 1463 because we are denied the opportunity to consider amendments. I oppose H.R. 1463 and look forward to voting on an effective alternative when the bill is brought under a rule that allows for a full and fair opportunity for amendment.

   Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot support this bill.

   When President Bush called for the voluntary vaccination against smallpox of 500,000 health care workers and other first responders last December, many criticized the plan for being incomplete. Not only did it not include a federal compensation fund to help those injured by the vaccine or their survivors, but the plan did not provide adequate education, prescreening, or surveillance. The relatively few numbers of health care workers and first responders who have received the vaccine--only about 21,700 to date--indicate that there are real concerns about the plan's shortcomings.

   After all, the smallpox vaccine uses a live strain of the virus. The vaccine has the worst record of negative side effects of any vaccine in the world. So it is critical that those being vaccinated understand the risks involved and be prescreened for conditions that require them to avoid the vaccine. The recent deaths of a nurse, a nurses aide, and a National Guardsman after their vaccinations only underscore this point.

   Like the President's plan, this bill has serious shortcomings. In particular, I'm concerned that the compensation program is not comprehensive enough and that it does not provide adequate education and safeguards. I believe that the House must consider improvements to this bill. But the Democrats are being denied the opportunity to offer amendments to do that.

   For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this legislation in its present form.

   Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1463, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act.

   This Republican legislation has a lot more to do with public relations than protecting our first responders so that they can do their job to protect the rest of us. No one doubts that the possibility of a terrorist attack is very real. Yet, Republicans are asking Congress today to short change those Americans on the front lines here at home--our doctors, nurses, police officers, fire fighters and others willing to risk both serious physical harm and financial ruin.

   Congress has a great responsibility to provide security to these brave and selfless Americans. The smallpox vaccine is the most dangerous vaccine in current use. Thus, the decision to become inoculated is not one to be taken lightly. Those who are willing to step forward and receive inoculation to assure that they'll be there to protect others if the need arises, do so at a risk to their lives and, by secondary transmission, to the lives of loved ones. At a minimum, we need to assure these people that they and their families have affordable access to healthcare and won't confront financial hardship if they have an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

   We are not talking about a small number of people at risk. Experts estimate that out of the 10 million healthcare and first responders who the Administration is requesting to volunteer for this smallpox inoculation program, approximately 10,000 will experience serious, though not life-threatening reactions, upwards of 520 will experience potentially life-threatening reactions and it is anticipated that 5 to 10 people will die. These estimates do not include those individuals who may be secondarily exposed to the live virus by being in contact with an inoculated individual. Furthermore, just in the last week we've discovered something previously unknown about the smallpox vaccine; it may cause heart attacks in people with particular cardiac conditions.

   The Administration's Smallpox Vaccine Compensations bill is inadequate in numerous ways. Among its inadequacies, it:

   Fails to provide adequate funding to ensure that state and local public health officials can implement needed pre-inoculation education and screening and post-inoculation surveillance programs;

   Ignores the need for work place protection standards for individuals who refuse to volunteer for the vaccine program;

   Provides no requirement that health insurance companies guarantee health insurance coverage for adverse medical events that occur from participating in this voluntary program;

   Fails to guarantee immediate access to medical care for volunteers who have no insurance or who are not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare;

   Provides a wholly inadequate death benefit and a benefit for permanent and total disability limited to $262,100. This in no way replaces

[Page: H2492]

   Fails to compensate individuals who become sick and miss work for 5 or fewer days;

   Doesn't guarantee that the compensation program is even funded. Rather than making it a mandatory appropriation which would assure that the program is fully funded, it is discretionary spending; subject to the vagaries of the annual appropriations process.

   These many inadequacies have lead every major organization representing nurses, fire fighters, and other frontline personnel to oppose the legislation. These organizations include the American Nursing Association (ANA), the American Public Health Association (APHA), the International Association of Fire Fighters, the Infectious Disease Society of America and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

   My colleagues, Representatives HENRY WAXMAN and LOIS CAPPS, have introduced legislation (H.R. 865) to create a smallpox inoculation compensation program that would meet the needs of these brave volunteers. Unfortunately, the Republican Leadership has forbidden that bill to be considered by the full House. For that reason, we are forced to vote NO today and try to get the Republican Leadership to recognize that providing true protection to our emergency personnel who have volunteered to become inoculated against smallpox is a priority for this Congress. We need to do the job right!

   I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1463 today and insist that a compensation bill that truly protects the interests of these volunteers for the smallpox inoculation program be returned to this Chamber for a vote and passage.

   Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1463. While it offers significant liability protections to those entities that are responsible for administering the vaccination program, it simply does not provide the protection required by frontline health workers who have been asked to volunteer for the national smallpox vaccination program. More to the point, we have had three recent deaths, which can be reasonably traced to the vaccinations, and several other workers and military personnel have experienced cardiac-related problems after being vaccinated.

   All the major unions--Service Employees International Union, American Federation of Teachers, American Nurses Association, International Association of Firefighters, International Union of Police Associations--who represent health workers and first responders, have declared that this legislation fails to provide an adequate compensation program. Thus far, only 14 states have been able to definitely assure workers that workers' compensation programs would cover them. Further, innocent third parties who suffer adverse reactions are not covered by workers' compensation. In the '60's, more than 20% of the adverse vaccination events occurred in secondary contacts. Therefore, the vaccination program poses a risk not only to first responders, but also to their patients and their families.

   Moreover, public health experts, like the Centers for Disease Control's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, now question whether anyone with three or more ``major risk factors'' for heart disease, including smoking, diabetes, high blood pressure and/or high cholesterol should receive the smallpox vaccine. Given the cost of screening for the above factors, it is particularly troubling that there is no guaranteed funding for medical screening, education or surveillance. Our armed services personnel received personalized education, and free and confidential prescreening prior to the administration of the vaccine. This process resulted in one-third of the potential recipients being screened out of the program. We should offer the same education and screening opportunities to our nurses and first responders.

   Finally, Mr. Speaker, even though this bill falls short on a compensation and education and screening program, I remain hopeful that the Emergency Supplemental will at least provide adequate funding for States and localities to administer this program when and if an adequate compensation program is put in place.

   Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today, H.R. 1463 contains several provisions that are within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on the Judiciary as provided in Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 108th Congress. The Committee on the Judiciary would normally proceed under regular order to examine legislation containing such provisions within our jurisdiction and take appropriate actions in Committee meetings.

   However, the Bush Administration has maintained that there is a pressing need for this legislation's swift passage in order to provide first responders and other emergency personnel with all due encouragement and assurances to participate in ongoing smallpox vaccinations. Because of the exigent circumstances, the Committee on the Judiciary, like the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Education and the Workforce, has elected not to hold a hearing or markup on this legislation and has allowed it to proceed for consideration by the full House. The Committee's deferral of action should not be interpreted as any lack of jurisdiction over or interest in H.R. 1463.

   The primary purpose of the bill is to establish a compensation program for emergency personnel directed to receive smallpox vaccines pursuant to authorities granted by the 107th Congress in legislation establishing a Department of Homeland Security. This new program is to be established under the Public Health Service Act and is to be under the direction and control of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The bulk of the provisions in Section 2 of H.R. 1463 dedicated to establishing the new compensation program are outside the scope of the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction.

   However, H.R. 1463 also contains provisions related to judicial review of determinations made by the Secretary of HHS under the Act and provisions modifying existing statutes concerning the liability of the United States and remedies available under the Federal Tort Claims Act (Chapter 171 and section 1346(b) of Title 28 United States Code) for covered persons suffering injury resulting from smallpox vaccinations. These provisions are clearly within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.

   For example, Section 2 of H.R. X adds new provisions titled ``(e) Review of Determination'' that affects the role of the courts and established review procedures mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act--both within the Committee's jurisdiction. Furthermore, Section 3 of H.R. 1463 amends 42 U.S.C. §233(p) to assume liability for the government relative to a new category of acts and omissions by those acting within the scope of their duties as part of the smallpox vaccination program. Section 3 of the bill also modifies the requirements for exhaustion of remedies, statute of limitations, offsets, and exclusivity of relief available for tort claims in federal district courts arising from smallpox vaccinations administered under a declaration by the Secretary of HHS. These provisions of H.R. 1463 are also clearly within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.

   If the Committee on the Judiciary had the luxury of unlimited time, we would certainly seek the normal referral of H.R. 1463 to examine these and other provisions further and consider any appropriate changes. However, as I stated earlier, the Administration has pleaded the need for swift passage and implementation of this new compensation program to encourage necessary smallpox vaccinations. The Administration and many of my colleagues believe that the importance of these vaccinations to the security of our homeland against biological attack outweighs considerations about the normal legislative process in this case. I do not dispute that assessment, and therefore as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary I have agreed that this bill should move forward in an expedited fashion without the normal review by our Committee.

   Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Small Pox Vaccination Compensation Fund Act.

   We should give pause about voting for a smallpox bill that does not safeguard the health, safety and livelihood of workers asked to volunteer for the smallpox vaccination. This bill is opposed is by a number of groups, including the International Association of Fire Fighters and the American Nurses Association.

   There has been a great reluctance among health care workers and first responders to risk the loss of health and income without an adequate safety net for themselves and their families. While the legislation is promised on the assumption that workers will be eligible for workers' compensation in the event of an injury, the reality is that, in most states, workers cannot depend on this. In fact, there are only 14 states where it appears certain that claims for benefits will be honored by the state workers' compensation system.

   Therefore, workers who are permanently and totally disabled will be eligible only for this bill's maximum benefit of $262,100. This represents about five years' wages for the average nurse. For a worker who becomes partially disabled either temporarily or for life, the maximum benefit payable is only $50,000. If the aim of the legislation is to encourage workers to be vaccinated, this bill will not do the job. Workers will continue to be reluctant to be vaccinated in the absence of assurances that the economic security of their families will not be jeopardized.

   I also object to the bill's requirement that workers receive the vaccination within 120 days of the date regulations are issued. Any worker who is vaccinated under the Secretary's declaration must be eligible for federal

[Page: H2493]

   The legislation fails to ensure that the smallpox program will be carried out safely, in stark contrast to the program in place for military personnel. The bill does not establish any standards for ensuring that workers are properly educated and medically screened prior to volunteering for the vaccination. A careful program to screen out workers with contraindications will not only save lives, it will reduce the amount of federal money needed for compensation. The legislation also fails to include requirements for monitoring those who are vaccinated to catch adverse reactions before they develop into life threatening complications. There is also no funding for state and local public health departments to carry out the program safely.

   Another significant flaw in the bill is that funding for the compensation program is not mandatory. Workers who have lost their health and livelihood should not have to wage a fight for compensation each year during the appropriations process.

   The legislation also fails to include a table of injuries that ensures that workers will be awarded compensation quickly. After years of experience with the smallpox vaccine, there are injuries, that occur within specific timeframes, that are known to be caused by the vaccine. This schedule of injuries must be included to ensure that compensation will be quick and certain. Otherwise, workers cannot be certain before receiving the vaccine that the most likely serious injuries will qualify for compensation.

   Unfortuantely, but not surprisingly, the House Rules Committee has denied an opportunity for an alternative measure to be on the floor. Had the Capps-Waxman substitute been allowed, I would have supported it. In contrast to the proposal designed by the Bush administration and introduced by Representative BURR, the Capps-Waxman substitute includes measures to safeguard the health and safety of workers asked to volunteer for the smallpox vaccination program. Moreover, the Capps-Waxman substitute better addresses the concerns of workers who fear that a serious injury or death from the smallpox vaccine would lead to economic catastrophe for themselves and their families. As a result, the Capps-Waxman substitute will provide for a safer and more effective smallpox vaccination program.

   The BURR legislation is deeply flawed and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

   Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, ``The Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act,'' is another positive step towards preparing our citizens for a bioterrorist attack.

   For more than 2 years, I have been working on legislation to strengthen and build our nation's public health system. The first bill was signed into law in 2000 and established grant programs to address core public health capacity needs. The second bill was last year's bioterrorism legislation. In part, that legislation built on the grant structure created in 2000 and sent a significant amount of money to our public health infrastructure. That money is currently funding basic needs such as computers and Internet access for public health departments and more specific needs such as decontamination chambers. Needs that are essential for providing public health care services and critical for bioterrorism preparedness.

   On January 24 of this year, Secretary Tommy Thompson asked hospital workers, police officers, firefighters, and other public officials, to volunteer to receive the smallpox vaccination. Understandably, the reception was lukewarm. Nurses and physicians were concerned about the side effects of the vaccine and wanted to be compensated for any medical care or lost employment they incurred as a result of their vaccination. Hospitals were worried about liability. And public health departments were worried about the cost.

   In response, we have H.R. 1413. This legislation addresses the concerns of all of those individuals. We will now compensate vaccinated individuals for lost wages and medical expenses. Additionally, if they suffer a permanent disability, or, in the very unfortunate and unlikely case, death, we will give them the same amount of money that police officers and firefighters receive if killed in the line of duty. The legislation clarifies that if a vaccinated individual infects other individuals--they too are eligible for those benefits. Finally, the legislation amends the Homeland Security Act to ensure that hospitals, pharmacists, public health departments and

   any other involved individuals will not be liable for properly vaccinating people who then suffer adverse reactions.

   One very important point about this legislation is that it continues to give the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, State and local health departments, and hospitals the flexibility they need to correctly vaccinate thousands of people. In light of the unfortunate situation in Maryland, concerns have been raised about vaccinating individuals with heart conditions. The CDC Director promptly responded by recommending that those individuals be screened out of the vaccination pool. We all want this program to be successful, and success depends on flexibility and Federal Government support when individuals suffer adverse reactions.

   Let me end by saying that I am extremely proud of North Carolina and its response to Secretary Thompson's request. Thus far 26 hospitals have vaccination plans, 875 individuals have been vaccinated, and many more have volunteered. I believe that this legislation will reassure all of the current and future vaccination recipients in North Carolina and around this country that the Federal Government wants this program to work and backs up our request through compensation benefits.

   Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to come to the Floor today with a bill I could recommend to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

   We had been working together, over the past few days, in serious negotiations over what would be required of a vaccine program in order for our nurses and first responders to feel secure enough to put their health, their lives, and their livelihoods on the line by taking a smallpox vaccination.

   There was progress on some features that are reflected in this bill. We are grateful for that.

   But unfortunately, those talks broke down last week and we find ourselves instead in a process that restricts our discussion of this issue and does not allow us to consider a Democratic alternative--proposed by colleagues LOIS CAPPS and HENRY WAXMAN--that is based on the recommendations of the nurses, the firefighters, the police, the emergency medical technicians, and other first responders.

   They are being asked to step forward and take a vaccination that has the potential for dangerous side effects--including the possibility of death.

   Make no mistake about it. The votes that count are not the votes that we will cast here in this body. The votes that count are the votes of those men and women who are nurses, medical workers, firefighters, EMTs, police officers, and others who will go to the state health department and roll up their sleeves and take a risk to help improve the nation's prepareness against terrorist attack.

   These are not people who avoid risk. They take risks almost every day. You know who they are. They are the caregivers who tend to the sick, rescue the victims, and walk the streets to make us safer.

   They are the night-duty emergency room nurses who crawled through the rubble of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City to try to find someone--anyone--who was still alive.

   They are the firefighters who ran up the stairs instead of down the stairs in the World Trade Center to help the last of the people trapped in that horrific nightmare to escape.

   They are the police officers who walk the beat every day and who risk their lives to keep us safe.

   They are also mothers and fathers, caregivers for elderly parents, and breadwinners for their families. And they have a very human and understandable desire to protect their families in case something goes wrong.

   It is an unfortunate fact that some of the people who will take the smallpox vaccine will suffer serious adverse effects that could cause them to be unable to continue their current job, see their pay reduced or--if they were to become totally and permanently disabled--lose the ability to work altogether.

   They could even lose their lives. We have all seen the news reports of the National Guardsman, the nurse's aide in Florida, and the nurse on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Each of them received the vaccine, but then later died of cardiac arrest.

   We don't know, yet, whether there is a direct link between the smallpox vaccine and these heart problems. The Centers for Disease Control have not been able to definitively rule a connection in or out.

   But the CDC has now recommended that anyone who has a known heart ailment not receive the smallpox vaccination.

   And New York State and Illinois--as well as a number of municipalities--have temporarily suspended any further vaccinations until there is a more thorough investigation.

   The bottom line is, whether any connection is proven between the smallpox vaccine and heart disease, there will ultimately be injuries and deaths from the vaccine. There is no question of that.

   The choice of whether to get vaccinated is up to the nurses and the other first responders themselves based, in part, on the adequacy of the vaccine program we provide for them.

   That is why we believe an adequate smallpox vaccine compensation package has to have a clear education component so that the health care workers and other first responders will know what the most likely side effects will be and what the effects could be on their families.

   Legislation of this kind should have the strongest possible pre-screening program based upon the most up-to-date information.

[Page: H2494]

   It should have an aggressive monitoring program so that health experts can follow up the vaccinations and look out for patterns of adverse reactions so we can adjust the pre-screening program.

   And it should provide a level of financial security so those who take the vaccination can be assured that their families will receive compensation if they become disabled or lose their lives protecting Americans from the horrific effects of a terrorist-sponsored smallpox attack.

   The Republican bill falls short on each of these counts.

   There is a better way. We can defeat this bill under the suspension of the rules. We can go back to the negotiating table or we can bring a new bill to the Floor with a substitute amendment that the nurses and first responders say will truly respond to their concerns.

   My colleagues, I urge you to defeat the Burr bill today. Let us have a vote on the Capps-Waxman proposal that will better protect our public servants--our heroes and our heroines--and better produce the desired effect of having more frontline workers inoculated against a smallpox attack.

   Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican bill.

   Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I join the millions of our Nation's first responders in opposition to H.R. 1463, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003.'' Right after we defeat this bill, I hope that we set about the task of crafting bipartisan legislation that all members of the House can support. The very people this bill purports to help--nurses, EMTs, police officers, firefighters--find this hastily crafted legislation lacking. Why? Because it fails to address their very significant concerns.

   Mr. Speaker, we are voting on smallpox vaccine injury legislation today because the Administration's current vaccine program is not working. Only a fraction of the number of first responders that the Administration has said are needed to protect us have volunteered to take the smallpox vaccine. The Administration has recommended that as many as ten million first responders be vaccinated for smallpox so that if we ever are attacked by the use of smallpox we will have a core capacity of health care and emergency personnel vaccinated and able to take appropriate action right away. The latest numbers from CDC indicate that less than 26,000 of them have been vaccinated. Why so few? Because the vaccination carries with it substantial risks, including adverse affects that could cause disability and, in some cases, death.

   Proponents of H.R. 1463 will make much of what they think that bill does. I ask you to focus on what it lacks. H.R. 1463 does not do enough to ensure adequate screening and education and otherwise prevent adverse events from happening in the first place. In the event that tragedy strikes and someone is injured or killed by the vaccine, H.R. 1463 does not make adequate provision for lost wages. And, what H.R. 1463 lacks is support from the people to whom it is intended to appeal. H.R. 1463 is opposed by the American Public Health Association, the International Union of Police Associations, the American Nurses Association, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union, and the Infectious Disease Society of America.

   Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of accounts of three deaths in the last week or so from cardiac arrest in persons who received the smallpox vaccine. Health care officials cannot positively rule out the smallpox vaccine as the cause or a contributing factor in these deaths. The CDC has taken swift action to revise its guidelines and has indicated that there may be further revisions. These uncertainties about the known, and I hasten to add the unknown, risks of the smallpox vaccine have greatly increased the fear factor among prospective vaccinees. We should be doing all we can to obtain and assess the relevant information on the vaccine and smallpox risks. That cannot be done by using the process by which this bill is before us today. We have had no hearings, no markups, and no opportunity to perfect this bill on the floor with amendments. All we have is the administration's proposal and a take it or leave it procedure.

   I recommend that we listen to our first responders, vote ``no'' on H.R. 1463, and get busy writing legislation we can all support.

   Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker. This isn't, or shouldn't be, a partisan debate. Democrats and Republican members of Congress are in the same boat. The question we have to answer for ourselves is: do we vote ``yes'' to a bad bill, or do we demand something better?

   The answer to that question is important. Critical protections for first responders and their families hang in the balance.

   H.R. 1463 is supposed to protect members of the police, the nation's nurses, our firefighters, and other first responders who voluntarily receive a smallpox vaccine, and sustain an injury from that vaccine.

   But the Nation's first responders oppose this bill. This bill is supposed to increase the number of first responders who voluntarily receive a smallpox vaccine.

   But the bioterrorism experts who helped put together the smallpox vaccine program say H.R. 1463 won't work. It won't improve participation rates.

   So the choice both Republican and Democrat members of Congress face is whether to dismiss the concerns of first responders, ignore the advice of bioterrorism experts, and vote for this bill anyway.

   Have members of Congress become so far removed from the people we represent that we would pass a bill opposed by the very men and women it is supposed to protect?

   Do we in Congress really think we know better than bioterrorism experts when it comes to bioterrorism preparedness?

   Protecting first responders and their families in the event of a vaccine injury and bolstering vaccine participation rates are important objectives.

   They are time-sensitive objectives. The National Smallpox Vaccination program is already underway, and participation is lagging far behind goal.

   About 25,000 people have been vaccinated, less than 5 percent of the March 1 benchmark. The experts tell us H.R. 1463 won't jumpstart the smallpox vaccine program, so it won't enhance bioterrorism preparedness.

   Congress must now waste valuable time enacting the wrong bill, particularly when our nation's ability to respond to bioterrorism is at stake.

   Nor should members of either side of the aisle support legislation that is unapologetically dismissive of the very people this bill alleges to protect ..... the nurses, firefighters, police, and others who voluntarily place themselves at risk on our behalf.

   Public health experts and first responders tell us that H.R. 1463 falls short in fundamental ways.

   To meet the goals of efficiency, timeliness, fairness, and program integrity, the compensation program must be backed by an injury table. H.R. 1463 lacks one.

   Responsible administration of any vaccination program requires education, pre-screening and surveillance. H.R. 1463 requires these activities, but doesn't fund them.

   A lynchpin in any compensation program is guaranteed funding. Without it, financial protection is a possibility, not a promise. There''s no security in that. And there is no guaranteed funding in H.R. 1463.

   The incidence of smallpox vaccine injury is rare. However, in the event a serious injury occurs, volunteers may be out of work for an extended period or permanently. First responder volunteers, and their families, must be assured adequate and continuing financial protection.

   H.R. 1463 would cap funding so that wage replacement would run out after about five years. For permanent disability or death. ``Inadequate'' doesn't begin to describe it. ``Insulting'' is closer to the mark.

   H.R. 1463 is not a legitimate financial safeguard. It's a placebo. Our nurses, firefighters, EMTs, and other first responders deserve better.

• [End Insert]

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

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1463.

   The question was taken.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of those present have voted in the affirmative.

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

   The yeas and nays were ordered.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 1463.

   The Clerk read the title of the bill.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1463, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.

   The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 184, nays 206, not voting 44, as follows:

   Aderholt

   Akin

   Bachus

   Ballenger

   Barrett (SC)

   Bartlett (MD)

   Barton (TX)

   Bass

   Beauprez

   Biggert

   Bilirakis

   Bishop (UT)

   Blackburn

   Blunt

   Boehner

   Bonilla

   Bonner

   Bono

   Boozman

   Bradley (NH)

   Brady (TX)

   Brown (SC)

   Brown-Waite, Ginny

   Burgess

   Burns

   Burton (IN)

   Calvert

   Cannon

   Cantor

   Carter

   Chabot

   Chocola

   Coble

   Cole

   Cox

   Crane

   Crenshaw

   Cubin

   Culberson

   Davis, Jo Ann

   Deal (GA)

   DeLay

   Diaz-Balart, L.

   Diaz-Balart, M.

   Doolittle

   Dreier

   Dunn

   Emerson

   Feeney

   Ferguson

   Forbes

   Fossella

   Franks (AZ)

   Frelinghuysen

   Garrett (NJ)

   Gerlach

   Gibbons

   Gilchrest

   Gingrey

   Goode

   Goodlatte

   Goss

[Page: H2505]  GPO's PDF

   Granger

   Graves

   Green (WI)

   Greenwood

   Gutknecht

   Harris

   Hart

   Hastings (WA)

   Hayes

   Hayworth

   Hefley

   Hensarling

   Hobson

   Hoekstra

   Hostettler

   Houghton

   Hunter

   Isakson

   Issa

   Janklow

   Jenkins

   Johnson (CT)

   Johnson, Sam

   Keller

   Kelly

   Kennedy (MN)

   King (IA)

   King (NY)

   Kirk

   Kline

   Knollenberg

   Kolbe

   LaHood

   Latham

   Leach

   Lewis (CA)

   Lewis (KY)

   Linder

   Lucas (OK)

   Manzullo

   McCotter

   McInnis

   McKeon

   Mica

   Miller (FL)

   Miller (MI)

   Miller, Gary

   Moran (KS)

   Murphy

   Musgrave

   Myrick

   Nethercutt

   Northup

   Norwood

   Nunes

   Nussle

   Osborne

   Ose

   Otter

   Oxley

   Pearce

   Pence

   Peterson (PA)

   Petri

   Pickering

   Platts

   Pombo

   Porter

   Pryce (OH)

   Putnam

   Quinn

   Radanovich

   Ramstad

   Regula

   Rehberg

   Renzi

   Reynolds

   Rogers (KY)

   Rogers (MI)

   Rohrabacher

   Ros-Lehtinen

   Royce

   Ryan (WI)

   Ryun (KS)

   Saxton

   Schrock

   Sensenbrenner

   Sessions

   Shadegg

   Shaw

   Shays

   Sherwood

   Shimkus

   Shuster

   Simmons

   Simpson

   Skelton

   Smith (MI)

   Smith (TX)

   Stearns

   Sullivan

   Sweeney

   Tancredo

   Tauzin

   Taylor (MS)

   Thomas

   Thornberry

   Tiahrt

   Tiberi

   Turner (OH)

   Upton

   Vitter

   Walsh

   Weldon (FL)

   Weller

   Whitfield

   Wicker

   Wilson (NM)

   Wilson (SC)

   Wolf

   Young (AK)

   Young (FL)

   Abercrombie

   Ackerman

   Alexander

   Allen

   Baca

   Baird

   Baldwin

   Ballance

   Becerra

   Bell

   Bereuter

   Berkley

   Berman

   Berry

   Bishop (GA)

   Bishop (NY)

   Blumenauer

   Boehlert

   Boswell

   Boucher

   Boyd

   Brown (OH)

   Capito

   Capps

   Capuano

   Cardin

   Cardoza

   Carson (IN)

   Carson (OK)

   Case

   Castle

   Clay

   Clyburn

   Cooper

   Costello

   Crowley

   Cummings

   Cunningham

   Davis (AL)

   Davis (CA)

   Davis (FL)

   Davis (IL)

   Davis (TN)

   DeFazio

   DeGette

   Delahunt

   DeLauro

   Deutsch

   Dicks

   Dingell

   Doggett

   Dooley (CA)

   Doyle

   Duncan

   Edwards

   Emanuel

   Engel

   English

   Eshoo

   Etheridge

   Evans

   Farr

   Fattah

   Filner

   Flake

   Foley

   Ford

   Frank (MA)

   Frost

   Gonzalez

   Gordon

   Green (TX)

   Grijalva

   Harman

   Hastings (FL)

   Hill

   Hinchey

   Hinojosa

   Hoeffel

   Holden

   Holt

   Honda

   Hooley (OR)

   Hoyer

   Inslee

   Israel

   Jackson (IL)

   Jackson-Lee (TX)

   Jefferson

   John

   Johnson (IL)

   Johnson, E. B.

   Jones (NC)

   Jones (OH)

   Kanjorski

   Kaptur

   Kennedy (RI)

   Kildee

   Kilpatrick

   Kind

   Kleczka

   Kucinich

   Lampson

   Langevin

   Lantos

   Larsen (WA)

   Larson (CT)

   LaTourette

   Lee

   Levin

   Lewis (GA)

   LoBiondo

   Lofgren

   Lowey

   Lucas (KY)

   Lynch

   Majette

   Maloney

   Markey

   Marshall

   Matheson

   Matsui

   McCarthy (NY)

   McCollum

   McDermott

   McGovern

   McHugh

   McIntyre

   McNulty

   Meehan

   Meek (FL)

   Meeks (NY)

   Menendez

   Michaud

   Millender-McDonald

   Miller (NC)

   Miller, George

   Mollohan

   Moore

   Moran (VA)

   Murtha

   Napolitano

   Ney

   Obey

   Olver

   Ortiz

   Owens

   Pallone

   Pastor

   Paul

   Payne

   Pelosi

   Peterson (MN)

   Pitts

   Pomeroy

   Price (NC)

   Rahall

   Rangel

   Reyes

   Rodriguez

   Ross

   Rothman

   Ruppersberger

   Ryan (OH)

   Sabo

   Sënchez, Linda T.

   Sanchez, Loretta

   Sandlin

   Schakowsky

   Schiff

   Scott (GA)

   Scott (VA)

   Serrano

   Sherman

   Slaughter

   Smith (NJ)

   Smith (WA)

   Snyder

   Solis

   Spratt

   Stark

   Stenholm

   Strickland

   Stupak

   Tanner

   Tauscher

   Terry

   Thompson (CA)

   Thompson (MS)

   Tierney

   Towns

   Turner (TX)

   Udall (CO)

   Udall (NM)

   Van Hollen

   Velëzquez

   Visclosky

   Wamp

   Watson

   Watt

   Waxman

   Weldon (PA)

   Wexler

   Woolsey

   Wu

   Wynn

   Andrews

   Baker

   Brady (PA)

   Brown, Corrine

   Burr

   Buyer

   Camp

   Collins

   Combest

   Conyers

   Cramer

   Davis, Tom

   DeMint

   Ehlers

   Everett

   Fletcher

   Gallegly

   Gephardt

   Gillmor

   Gutierrez

   Hall

   Herger

   Hulshof

   Hyde

   Istook

   Kingston

   Lipinski

   McCarthy (MO)

   McCrery

   Nadler

   Neal (MA)

   Oberstar

   Pascrell

   Portman

   Rogers (AL)

   Roybal-Allard

   Rush

   Sanders

   Souder

   Taylor (NC)

   Toomey

   Walden (OR)

   Waters

   Weiner

   ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flake) (during the vote). The Chair will remind Members there are 2 minutes left in this vote.

[Time: 18:51]

   Messrs. WYNN, STRICKLAND, WAMP, NEY and LoBIONDO changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

   Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania and Mrs. NORTHUP changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

   So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the motion was rejected.

   The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

   Stated for:

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 92, my plane was late arriving into Baltimore. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

• [End Insert]

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.