Brian Baird

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to close as well by reiterating my thanks to Chairman Boehlert, Chairwoman Morella, Ranking Member Hall, as well as the committee staff. Chairman Boehlert has stated it perfectly well: the American public often takes for granted our information infrastructure; but a coordinated attack on, for example, air traffic control, electrical power systems, or other major vital links in our information infrastructure, particularly if timed with a more conventional or even a more unconventional attack, could wreak havoc on our society and would clearly cost lives. The importance of this bill cannot be overstated, and I commend the Chair and the ranking member for their leadership and appreciate the opportunity to work with them. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to begin by commending and thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for their leadership on this matter. I am tremendously honored that they have chosen to include my computer security bill, which establishes a research and development program on computer and network security grants to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in today's bill. The chairman's legislation will address long-term needs in securing the Nation's information infrastructure as well as securing or strengthening the security of the nonclassified computer systems of Federal agencies. Because of September 11, focus and attention has been focused in an unprecedented way on increasing our security against terrorism. Today, security has to mean more than locking doors and installing metal detectors. In addition to physical security, virtual systems that are vital to the Nation's economy must be protected. Telecommunications and computer technologies are vulnerable to attack from far away by enemies who can remain anonymous, hidden in the vast maze of the Internet. Examples of systems that rely on computer networks include the electric power grid, rail networks, and financial transaction networks. I should commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), particularly, and former chair of the committee, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), for their foresight in this because prior to September 11 they had both had the foresight to conduct numerous hearings on the issue of computer security. It is that kind of forward thinking that we need and now in the post-September 11 time have the opportunity to implement some of these measures that came forward in those hearings. The vulnerability of the Internet computer viruses, denial of service attacks and defaced Web sites is well-known to the general public. Such widely reported and indeed widely experienced events have increased in frequency over time. These attacks disrupt business and government activities, sometimes resulting in significant recovery costs. We have yet to face a catastrophic cyberattack thus far; but Richard Clarke, the President's new terrorism czar, has said that the government must make cybersecurity a priority or we face the possibility of what he termed a ``digital Pearl Harbor.'' Potentially vulnerable computer systems are largely owned and operated by the private sector, but the government has an important role in supporting the research and development activities that will provide the tools for protecting information systems. An essential component for ensuring improved information security is a vigorous and creative basic research effort focused on the security of networked information systems. Witnesses at our Committee on Science hearings last year noted the anemic level of funding for research on computer and network security. Such lack of funding has resulted in the lack of a critical mass of researchers in the field and has severely limited the focus of research. The witnesses at the hearings advocated increased and sustained research funding from the Federal Government to support both expanded training and research on a long-term basis. The chairman's bill will provide the resources necessary to ensure the security of business networks and the safety of America's computer infrastructure. I would like to thank the staff of the Committee on Science for their good work on this, as well as my own staff member, Brooke Jamison. I would urge all Members to support this important measure. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to begin by complimenting the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). He has shown his commitment to our Nation's security and to a bipartisan manner of governing this committee. He has held hearings on a number of issues pertaining to terrorism, and the bill we are considering today, the water security bill. Chairman Boehlert has always lead our committee in a bipartisan manner, and I think it is a credit to his leadership that this bill has been so well crafted and brought to the floor in such a timely manner. In the aftermath of September 11, our citizens have been more cognizant and more diligent than ever in trying to protect themselves and their neighbors against terrorist attack. I believe it is a fundamental responsibility of our government to make sure we help those citizens in that effort. The bill we will vote on today will provide the means necessary to ensure the water we drink is safe from terrorist threats. It will also benefit the public by providing much-needed research on the various aspects of the water protection, such as endocrine disrupters and arsenic standards. After September 11, we realized how much more we should have done to bolster airport security. Fortunately, with the legislation we are considering now, we are given a chance to protect our water supply before it is seriously threatened. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member; the staff of the Committee on Science for their hard work on making this bill a reality, especially Ben Grumbles, who has worked tirelessly in making this a technically sound bill; Mark Harkins for his support and advice; and my own staff member, Brooke Jamison, for her hours of service to the people of my district. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation, and I commend the chairman for his leadership.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today and pay tribute to one of Washington State's leading citizens, Dr. Lee Hartwell. I join my colleagues in honoring Dr. Hartwell for winning the Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine. This award, as we all know, is recognized as one of the world's most distinguished honors for those involved in basic medicine and clinical research. During his more than 30 years involved in groundbreaking research studying cell division and its relation to cancer, Dr. Hartwell has won numerous awards, including the Massry Prize, the American Cancer Society's Medal of Honor Basic Research Award, the General Motors Sloan Award, the Albert Lasker Basic Medical Research Prize, the Leopold Griffuel Prize, and the Gardiner Foundation International Award for Achievements in Science, and now the Nobel Prize. Much of Dr. Hartwell's pioneering research has been conducted at the University of Washington. He began his service with the university in 1968 and has been Professor of Genetics since 1973. Twenty-three years later, Dr. Hartwell joined the faculty of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, and in 1997 became its president and director. Since it opened its doors in 1975, the research undertaken by the Hutchinson Center has given hope and extended life to thousands of people. My cousin is among one of those whose life was so extended, and I am deeply grateful, and I join my colleagues in honoring Dr. Hartwell for his life's work and becoming the recipient of the Nobel Prize.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I rise in strong support of his amendment. In the aftermath of September 11, our whole Nation has learned to be more watchful. The Federal Government has increased its efforts as well, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has developed an amendment which would plug many remaining holes in our security system, and I believe we should pass it. I would like to address one particular part of that amendment which would have been especially important because it deals with one of the most basic elements of our daily lives, the safety of our water systems. Our drinking and waste water systems are now extremely vulnerable to terrorist attack. Early this month in the Committee on Science, I helped put together a bill which passed that committee unanimously and would authorize $60 million for research and development of methods to monitor and protect our facilities and our water. The amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would have taken this idea one step further by providing $190 million for vulnerability and security assessments, and, importantly, for the implementation of protections. The amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would have provided $156 million more than the administration request, and $80 million more than the majority package which did not call for waste water facilities to be protected at all. This amendment would have provided the means necessary to keep the system which all Americans depend on safe from attack. Without it, I believe we leave gaping holes in our security network. I support the ideals of the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, we all realize how much more should have been done to bolster airport security prior to September 11. We are now given a chance to protect our water supply and other infrastructure before they are subject to attack. I believe the gentleman's amendment does that and I rise in strong support.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, over the last twenty years the influx of 401k plans has changed the pension landscape. When the ERISA laws were written back in 1974, we had no idea how popular 401k plans would become. And as the popularity grows for these plans, the need for quality investment advice becomes ever more vital to the retirement plans of pension holders. Although there are many avenues to obtain information about stocks and bonds, many people lack the knowledge to filter out the good information from the bad. Most people do not have the time necessary to investigate the nuances of the market to make informed decisions about market purchases. This is why we need to turn to professionals. Our pensions are too important to American workers and families these days to let this problem go unresolved. That is why I strongly support the Investment Advice Act that is before this body today. I recognize there is some contention about the conflict of interest between the adviser's and the interest of their clients. However, this legislation specifically requires that a ``fiduciary adviser'' be personally liable for any failure to act solely in the interest of the worker. Furthermore, investment advisers will be subject to the highest form of fiduciary duty under the law, including civil and criminal enforcement by the Labor Department. I believe these safeguards protect our employees and mandate professional advisors to work in the best interest of their clients. Mr. Speaker, in the end, it is my belief that the Investment Advice Act will increase the value of pensions for working Americans. I believe this act will lead Americans into a healthier and happier retirement. And lastly, I believe that Americans want and need access to professional financial advice.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, last weekend, I had the great privilege of visiting the Pendleton Woolen Mills in Washougal, Washington. I met with many of the hundreds of employees who work there, many of whom have been there for 20 or 30 years. Their whole life has been spent working in one of America's finest textile industries. The challenge we face today is that we are presented with legislation that possibly will cost these people their jobs, with very, very little time to discuss this, with little time to debate it, and with little time to explore the ways we can improve it and minimize the impact on the people who might be displaced. I have supported trade, proudly supported trade in this body: trade in the Caribbean, trade with Africa, and trade with China, and elsewhere in the world. But to bring a piece of legislation to this body with so little time, when it could affect so many of our American workers, is not the kind of procedure we should follow. It does a disservice to those workers, and frankly, it does a disservice to the principles of trade itself. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation and ``no'' on the rule until we get this right. We need time, we owe the time to the people whose jobs could be lost, to do this right. I am a supporter of trade, but we need to return to a more deliberative, conceptual, thoughtful process here in this body; we are not doing it, and it is a darn shame. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Computer Security Enhancement and Research Act of 2001. This legislation will address long-term needs in securing the nation's information infrastructure as well as strengthening the security of the non-classified computer systems of federal agencies. The bill establishes a research and development program on computer and network security at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. It also strengthens the Institute's existing responsibilities in developing best computer security practices and standards and in assisting federal agencies to implement effective computer and network security. Because of September 11th, attention is focused in an unprecedented way on increasing our security against terrorism. Our concerns include protecting critical national infrastructures. Today, security has to mean more than locking doors or guarding buildings and installing metal detectors. In addition to physical security, virtual systems that are vital to the Nation's economy must be protected. Telecommunications and computer technologies are vulnerable to attack from far away by enemies who can remain anonymous, hidden in the vast maze of the Internet. Examples of systems that rely on computer networks include the electric power grid, rail networks, and financial transaction networks. Just as enemies are achieving a sophistication to use the most complex weapons against us, our vital computer networks have become more interconnected and more accessible via the Internet. The vulnerability of the Internet to computer viruses, denial of service attacks, and defaced web sites is well known. These widely reported events have increased in frequency over time. These attacks disrupt business and government activities sometimes resulting in significant recovery costs. While no catastrophic cyber attack has occurred thus far, Richard Clarke, the President's new cyber-terrorism czar, has said that the government must make cybersecurity a priority or face the possibility of a ``digital Pearl Harbor''. While potentially vulnerable computer systems are largely owned and operated by the private sector, the government has an important role in supporting the research and development activities that will provide the tools for protecting information systems. An essential component for ensuring improved information security is a vigorous and creative basic research effort focused on the security of networked information systems. Unfortunately, witnesses at a recent Science Committee hearing indicated that current R&D efforts fall far short of what's required. Witnesses at the hearing noted the anemic level of funding for research on computer and network security. This lack of funding has resulted in the lack of a critical mass of researchers in this field and a focus on safe, incremental research projects. The witnesses advocated increased and sustained research funding from a federal agency assigned the role to support such research on a long-term basis. To date, Federal support for computer security research has been directed as defense and intelligence needs. While this work on encryption and defense systems security protocols is absolutely vital, very little has been done on the civilian side of communications security. The bill I'm introducing explicitly addresses this gap in Federal support for computer security. My bill charges the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) with implementing a substantial program of research support based at institutions of higher education designed to improve the security of networked information systems. This research program is authorized for a 10-year period, growing from $25 million in the 1st year to $85 million by the 5th year. Although awards are to universities, the research projects may involve collaborations with for-profit companies that develop information security products. The bill establishes a flexible management approach for the research program. It is based upon a management style that has been used effectively by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to spur advances in high technology fields. Specifically, management of the research program will rely on program managers who are both knowledgeable about computer security issues and needs and familiar with the research community. These program managers will be responsible for identifying and nurturing talented researchers and for generating innovative research proposals. Although program managers will have considerable freedom in managing their individual research portfolios, each will be reviewed periodically by NIST senior managers and by outside computer security experts. To ensure its relevance and continued need, the overall research program will be reviewed in its 5th year for scientific merit and relevance by the National Academy of Sciences. An expanded university-based research program will train new graduate students and post-doctoral research assistants, as well as attracting seasoned researchers to the field. The result will be a larger and more vibrant basic research enterprise in computer-related security fields. A separate set of awards will be available to support post-doctoral research fellowships and senior research fellowships both at universities and at NIST. The bill also increases support for on-going, in-house computer security research at NIST. The Computer Security Enhancement and Research Act of 2001 builds on the long experience of NIST in developing computer security standards and practices by placing new responsibilities on the agency for building up the nation's basic research enterprise in information security. By enlarging and strengthening the research enterprise we can generate the ideas and approaches needed to provide for future cyber security in an insecure world.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Computer Security Enhancement and Research Act of 2001. This legislation will address the long-term needs in securing our Nation's information infrastructure and will strengthen the security of the nonclassified computer systems of Federal agencies. The bill establishes a research and development program on computer and network security at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. It also strengthens the institute's existing responsibilities in developing best computer security practices and standards in assisting Federal agencies to implement effective computer and network security. Because of the September 11 tragedy, attention is now focused in an unprecedented way on increasing our security against terrorism. Our concerns include protecting critical national infrastructures. Today, security has to mean more than locking doors or guarding buildings and installing metal detectors. In addition to physical security, virtual systems that are vital to our Nation's economy must be protected. Telecommunications and computer technologies are vulnerable to attack from far away by enemies who can remain anonymous, hidden in the vast maze of the Internet. Examples of systems that rely on computer networks include the electric power grid, rail networks, and financial transaction networks. Just as enemies are achieving a sophistication to use the most complex weapons against us, our vital computer networks have become more interconnected and more accessible and, therefore, more vulnerable via the Internet. The vulnerability of the Internet to computer viruses, denial-of- service attacks, and defaced Web sites is well known. These widely reported events have increased in frequency over time. These attacks disrupt business and government activities sometimes resulting in significant economic recovery costs. While no catastrophic cyberattack has occurred thus far, Richard Clarke, the President's new cyberterrorism czar, has said that the Government must make cybersecurity a priority or face, in his words, the possibility of a digital Pearl Harbor. While potentially vulnerable computer systems are largely owned and operated by the private sector, the Government has an important role in supporting the research and development activities that will provide the tools for protecting information systems. An essential component for ensuring improved information security is a vigorous and creative research program focused on the security of networked information systems. Unfortunately, witnesses at a recent Committee on Science and Technology hearing indicated that current R&D efforts fall far short of what is required. Witnesses at that hearing noted the anemic level of funding for research on computer and network security. This lack of funding has resulted in the lack of critical mass of researchers in the field and a lack of focus on safe, incremental research projects. The witnesses advocated increased and sustained research funding from a Federal agency assigned the role to support such research on a long-term basis. To date, Federal support for computer security research has been directed at defense and intelligence needs. While this work on encryption and defense systems security protocols are absolutely vital, very little has been done on the civilian side of communications security. The bill I am introducing explicitly addresses this gap in Federal support for computer security. My bill charges the National Institute of Standards and Technology with implementing a substantial program of research support based at institutions of higher education designed to improve the security of networked information systems. The research program is authorized for a 10-year period, growing from $25 million in the first year to $85 million in the fifth year. This may sound like a substantial amount of money, but the billions of dollars that are lost in successful computer attacks makes this paltry by comparison. Although the award would go to universities, the research projects may involve collaboration with for-profit companies that develop information security products. The bill establishes a flexible management approach for the research program. It is based upon management style that has been used effectively by DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, to spur advances in high technology fields. Specifically, management of the research program will rely on program managers who are both knowledgeable about computer security issues and needs and familiar with the research community. These program managers will be responsible for identifying and nurturing talented researchers and for generating innovative research proposals. Although program managers will have considerable freedom in managing their individual research portfolios, each will be reviewed periodically by NIST senior managers and by outside computer security experts. To ensure its relevance and continued need of this program, it will be reviewed in its fifth year for scientific merit and relevance by the National Academy of Sciences. An expanded university-based research program will train new graduate students as well as postdoctoral research assistants, as well as attracting seasoned researchers to the field. The result will be a larger and more vibrant basic research enterprise in computer-related security fields. A separate set of awards will be available to support postdoctoral research fellowships and senior research fellowships both at universities and at NIST. The bill also increases support for ongoing, in-house computer security at NIST. The Computer Security Enhancement and Research Act of 2001 builds on the long experience of NIST in developing computer security standards and practices by placing new responsibilities on the agency for building up the Nation's basic research enterprise in information security. By enlarging and strengthening the research enterprise, we can generate the ideas, approaches, and technologies needed to provide for future cybersecurity in an insecure world. Mr. Speaker, I thank the staff of the Committee on Science and Technology for their assistance in drafting this legislation, as well as the strong and hard efforts of Ms. Brooke Davidson on my staff, who has worked on this issue very diligently.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) and I look forward to working with him on this.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, on September 11 our Nation was forced to begin to think of the unthinkable. As we watched the World Trade Center collapse and the attack on the Pentagon, our world was changed. It is not a pleasant thing to begin to ponder such consequences and situations, but ponder them I am afraid we must. Had the fourth airplane succeeded in striking this great building while we were in session or were a terrorist organization to detonate a nuclear weapon during a joint session of the Congress, I am concerned that we could precipitate not only great loss of life but a constitutional crisis. Under the United States Constitution which we are all sworn to uphold and defend, House Members can only be replaced by direct election. In the event of a national crisis, we would be faced with a situation where our government would lack the counsel and wisdom of this, of this very body until we could be replaced by direct and special elections which could take weeks and possibly even months. Mr. Speaker, this is not a condition we want to exist under. Though it is difficult to contemplate that scenario, we must contemplate it, which is why I am proposing and will introduce this week an amendment, an amendment to the Constitution which provides for the following scenario: in the event that one quarter or more of the Members of this body should be unable to fulfill their duties due to death or disability or disappearance and presumed death, under that circumstance the Governors of the States from which the Members were absent would be empowered to appoint replacements within 7 days of the loss of the initial Member and to serve until such time as a special election within 90 days will provide for replacement under direct election conducted by the States. It is important that we do this. It is important that we do this so our own citizenry has confidence that even if we were to perish as individuals and even if this building were to be lost, our government and our Constitution would be preserved. It is important that we do this so our adversaries know that even if they succeed in taking all our lives, the torch of liberty that we hold so dear, the Constitution that we are sworn to defend and uphold will persevere. This is not a mere thing to contemplate, but I consider it comparable to an unlocked door on the cabinet of the Constitution. We cannot continue to leave that door unlocked. I urge this body, difficult though it may be, complex though it may be, to act with the greatest prudence and expedition in this regard. Every day that we go without closing this potential gap is a day of vulnerability to our Constitution and to our form of government. I encourage this body to consider my amendment, to join together in reviewing the issues it raises, and to pass as expeditiously as possible some form, be it my amendment or some alternative, that will correct this problem. Further, I urge this body to address potential ambiguities in the 25th amendment which addresses the line of succession for the line of Presidency and, furthermore, to address questions relating to where the Congress would convene and how it would convene in the events that catastrophic circumstances were to take the lives of our membership. Finally, I hope State legislatures will contemplate a similar potential scenario within their own structures and implement measures to rapidly replace the governors should that be necessary and to reconstruct their own State legislatures. I will vigorously pursue this as I think frankly it is one of the single most important things this body can occupy itself with in the coming weeks. I want to thank the Office of the Parliamentarian of the House of Representatives who have provided outstanding counsel on this issue, along with representatives from the Congressional Research Service, from the Committee on the Judiciary, and my own staff member, Ryan Hedgepath.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for an explanation of the resolution.

Mr. BAIRD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Maryland for introducing this legislation. And, parenthetically, I would like to thank them both for their support of recent efforts to counsel the staff and other Members of this body to help them deal with the events surrounding the tragedy of Tuesday. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, two great symbols of the United States were attacked along with thousands of our countrymen. When the symbols of the World Trade Center fell, that collapse took with it the lives of thousands of innocent men, women, young children, and senior citizens. We have grieved since that time; and in our grief other symbols have risen up to demonstrate our solidarity with the victims, and those symbols are those familiar stars and stripes of the American flag. As those symbols have risen, they have lifted the human spirits of our population. It is one of the tragedies of events like this that the fire and the degree of destruction will tragically not leave remains even for the loved ones who are left behind. They will be left with memories. They will be left with horrifying images, with photographs; but they will not have even the bodies, in many cases, of their loved ones to cherish. But this body today has an opportunity to give at least something to the survivors and the families, and that something is something very precious. It is an American flag. It is a flag that will have been flown over this Capitol, a Capitol that stands for the entire world as a symbol itself, a symbol of freedom. As we look up each day in the weeks to come and we see the flags symbolizing that freedom over this building, we can know, and the families of the victims can know, that those flags stand for them, they stand for future generations, and they stand for the best this country has to offer. With this resolution, the Congress is authorizing the giving of those flags to the survivors' families from this terrible accident; and it is our hope, however small the gesture may seem, that in some small way those flags can lift the spirits of the families as they have lifted the spirits of the Nation for many years past and for years to come. I commend the authors of this legislation. I encourage all Americans to fly their own flags over their homes and businesses, and I hope that in some small way this bill and the flags that will be given to the families will help carry them through this difficult time, just as the flags have helped carry our Nation through many past challenges and crises.

Mr. BAIRD. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. I thank those who have spoken so eloquently tonight on this matter. Mr. Speaker, in the immediate aftermath of the collision of those jets with the World Trade Center, the President of the United States addressed the people of this great country and he said, America is being tested, and he assured us that we would pass the test. We will pass that test. But we will pass it only if we pass it with compassion and unity and strength of all our diverse peoples, from all faiths, all national origins, all ethnicities, all united as one united people in this great United States of America. These agents of aggression, of hatred against Arab Americans, are precisely the opposite of what makes this country great and what makes this country worth defending. We must stand united. We must unite to reject these acts of hatred, because we can only conquer terrorism with unity, and ultimately with love for our fellow human beings. I rise in profound support, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his initiative and for all of those who have spoken on this resolution.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the time. My friends, yesterday the story was about terrorism, horrible acts, despicable acts conducted by a few crazed individuals who gave their lives to take the lives of others. But let the story tonight and tomorrow and the days to come be not about terrorism but about heroism, the heroism of hundreds who gave their lives to save the lives of others. The firefighters who raced into that burning building knowing full well that it would likely collapse on them and take their lives. The police and rescue squads who raced to the scene in the hopes of saving people who were killed in the rubble. Passengers on that jet, who by their heroic acts may have saved the lives of the people in this building this evening and yesterday. The volunteers who raced to the scene to see if they could help in some way. The heroism of our Armed Forces, on alert even as we speak. The heroism of our staffs who came to work today knowing full well that they too are targets. We are speaking tonight for those who lost their lives and cannot speak. We are also speaking for the hundreds of thousands of constituents we represent, but more than that, we are speaking for the oldest constitutional democratic republic on the history of this Earth; and we say to those who would attack this great Nation, who would attack our freedom, you will never succeed. You will never succeed. Even if you had managed to destroy this majestic building and even if you had killed each and every one of us, others would rise in our place, others would lift our torch of liberty and defend our people and our freedoms. This Nation will persevere and the light of liberty will continue to burn brightly forever. Let each American today and in the weeks to come fly the American flag proudly from their homes and their businesses and their cars and wherever else. Let us show the world America is united, that freedom will persevere, and that terrorism will never succeed.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about an issue that is very important to some the citizens of my district. Over the August recess I met with a large group of Southeast Asian and Vietnamese Americans about issues of importance to them. The issue they expressed the greatest concern about had to do with human rights in Vietnam. They expressed to me their fear that an increase of trade with Vietnam may only serve to strengthen the hand of the Communist government that denies its citizens basic freedoms of association, religion and other human rights. I believe those fears are valid and important for us to consider. I do not believe we can discuss trade with Vietnam without addressing the human rights violations of the Vietnam Government. Therefore, I was very pleased that the legislation we passed earlier today addressed precisely these issues. Without adequately monitoring human rights situations and without real consequences for noncompliance, I would have had strong reservations about passing the Vietnam trade agreement we are debating now. But by considering these bills in conjunction, we will be able to send a message that the U.S. believes in engaging Vietnam and strengthening economic and political ties, but we still demonstrate our concern for the lack of rights afforded to the Vietnamese people. I think it is especially important to send to the Vietnamese Government the message that it remains unacceptable for them to continue to imprison religious leaders, including individuals such as Father Nguyen Van Ly, the Venerable Thich Tam An, Thich Khong Tanh, Thich Quang Hue, Ly Tong, and other religious and political prisoners. Madam Speaker, I will vote in favor of this legislation, but only because this body has assured us that we will continue to put pressure on this country to further human rights.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss something that threatens the economic and environmental health of my district and the entire western half of the United States. That something is the spread of zebra mussels from their current infestation area of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River to all of the rivers of the West. The infestation of the zebra mussels has already cost our nation $3.1 billion and if they are allowed to spread to the West, we will see the cost to American businesses and taxpayers expand even further. If zebra mussels invade the West Coast, they will foul thousands of miles of pipes and canals, water gates and intakes, clog fish screens, obstruct drinking water facilities, block cooling pipes at hydroelectric and nuclear power plants, damage water filter plants, agricultural irrigation systems and other water system components. Waters conducive to zebra mussel establishment are located along the entire West Coast from the ports of Alaska to the reservoirs of southern California, including the Columbia and Snake rivers, the California and south Bay Aqueducts, the Los Angeles Aqueduct, the Colorado River Aqueduct and many smaller rivers in between. Zebra mussels were inadvertently introduced into the Great Lakes in 1987 by ballast water exchanges from boats that had traveled from Eastern Europe. Since that time, they have spread through connected water bodies by various means including larval transport in ballast water and adult attachment to hulls of ships, barges and recreational crafts. The infestation of zebra mussels throughout the Great Lakes, Mississippi River drainages and the Missouri Rver has cost water users in the area millions of dollars every year, Stopping or slowing their arrival is therefore critical from an economic and biological standpoint. The bill I am introducing today will help prevent the westward spread of zebra mussels, as well as other invasive species that can be transferred through boat traffic. The bill, entitled the ``Stop Westward Aquatic Threats (SWAT)'' Act builds upon programs that already exist to educate, monitor and prevent the westward spread of aquatic invasive species, especially zebra mussels. On the federal level, the SWAT Act uses an existing, but underfunded, Fish and Wildlife program called the 100th Meridian Initiative that is designed to prevent the spread of zebra niussels and other aquatic nuisance species west of the 100th meridian. The SWAT Act fully funds education and monitoring programs at boat launches and along higlaways and requires the inspection of commercial boats that cross the 100th meridian. On the State level, the SWAT Act more than doubles the authorized funding, for State Invasive Species Management Plans to help States develop and coordinate their Invasive Species Management Plans. This may be one of the best investments Congress can make to save money in the long run. By spending a few million dollars today, we can save businesses and taxpayers billions later on.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague Frank Lucas for joining me in offering this important amendment. The Methamphetamine/Drug Hot Spots Program provides funding for states to pay for the costs associated with fighting meth. This includes identifying and dismantling meth labs and training law enforcement to respond to labs. Last year, Clark County in my district received funding from this program to hire an additional meth detective for our local drug task force. As one of the founders of the Meth caucus, I am pleased to offer an amendment to increase the funding for this important program. Forty-two members of our caucus asked appropriators to increase funding for the Meth/Drug Hot Spots from $48.5 million (FYO1) to $60 million. The bill before us today funds this program at $48.3, $11.7 less than requested by our bipartisan caucus. Our amendment would increase the funding for this program to $60 million. We are proposing to accomplish this by reducing the increase given to the International Broadcasting Operations by $11.7 million, which received a $32 million increase in this bill. Our amendment would still provide for more than a 5% increase for International Broadcasting Operations. This is still more than President Bush's request for no more than a 4% increase in the growth of federal spending. I want to make clear that this amendment is in no way meant to take away from the important role that International Broadcasting Operations has in spreading the American ideals of freedom and democracy throughout the globe. The amendment is designed to help our law enforcement officials stop the scourge of methamphetamine abuse here at home. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for joining me in offering this amendment and I ask for your support.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BAIRD. I thank my distinguished colleague, the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we speak often in this body about the need to reduce waste, fraud and abuse, and unnecessary spending. Yet today's bill includes an example that is wasteful, that I believe is an abuse of funds, and that is clearly unnecessary spending. Included in this bill is a measure that would apparently provide up to 20 to $30 million to send a letter to the American people telling them something they already know for purposes which can only be described as blatantly political; 20 to $30 million to tell the American people that they are pleased to inform them that the United States Congress passed and President George Bush signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act which provides long- term tax relief. The American people know that. I can right here save the American people $29,999,999.75 by telling them take 25 cents, buy a newspaper, read about the tax bill, and you will know everything that you would receive in this letter. We should not be spending this kind of money on unnecessary political propaganda. It is the worst example of waste and abuse of government spending. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who I want to commend and I wish he did not have laryngitis because I would love to hear what he would have to say were he empowered to speak on this today, but he has correctly identified the problem and he has proposed a much, much better use of these funds. In my district in southwest Washington, we have got an explosion of methamphetamine labs, literally explosions of those labs, a doubling of meth busts every single year. People are being exposed to the dangerous drug methamphetamine, to black tar heroin, and the gentleman from Wisconsin has correctly recognized that there is a need for additional funding to expand the high intensity drug trafficking areas to help fight these scourges. Mr. Chairman, if you ask the American people, would you rather put $30 million towards battling the scourge of drug abuse, toward protecting our children and our families and our schools, or would you rather receive a letter telling you something you already know? I know exactly where the American people would stand. The American people would say, do not waste the $30 million of our taxpayers' money. Put it instead to something productive like high-intensity drug trafficking areas, as the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would call for. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed time to stop wasteful and unnecessary spending in government. We can begin today by passing the amendment from the ranking member and the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I do. Mr. Chairman, there are existing programs within the Department of Energy assistance to schools. While we believe this is somewhat different from the exact nature of those programs existing now, we believe it is within the same spirit. The premise here is this: the Department of Energy has within its purview the opportunity to provide money for local schools to help them meet energy costs. We see this more as an extension of that program rather than a new authorization. Let me reiterate, we have schools that are facing a million dollar shortfall in their energy budget, and that is unacceptable. This Congress has an opportunity to help those schools out. We believe we should do so. We believe the cuts that are offered within this amendment are reasonable and fair. While we respect the budget caps, we believe we should put our children first. If we really want to say, leave no child behind, we should also say leave no child in the dark or in the cold, and make sure that they have adequate teachers. This bill will help ensure that occurs. Mr. Chairman, should we not approve this amendment today, I would hope my colleagues would consider joining us if we need to seek further authorization in future legislation. I fully intend to introduce legislation to that effect.