C. Cox

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I include in the Congressional Record copies of the exchange of correspondence between our two committees on this topic. U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC, June 25, 2003. Hon. Christopher Cox, Chairman, Select Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter is to memorialize our understanding that the provisions of H.R. 2417 (the ``provisions'') amending the Homeland Security Act (the ``Act'') fall within the jurisdiction of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and that their inclusion in H.R. 2417 does not create a basis for the assertion of jurisdiction over the Act by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. We have agreed upon a revision of the provisions that is acceptable to both of our Ranking Members, a copy of which is attached, and we agree to work for a mutually agreeable resolution of this provision with your Committee and the Committee on the Judiciary, for substitution in the conference negotiations between the House and the Senate. To that end, I have agreed to support the request of the Select Committee on Homeland Security for the appointment of two conferees on H.R. 2417. Sincerely, Porter J. Goss, Chairman.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I want to return the favor and thank both the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), ranking member, for all of the work that went into making this language acceptable, the language that we had agreed upon. I am sorry it cannot be included procedurally, but our understanding to do it at the next step is certainly satisfactory to me; and I just want to say that I could not agree more with the sentiments of both the chairman and the ranking member about the importance of sharing information. That is what the mission of Homeland Security is all about, and we do have between us and among us ample opportunity to amend whatever laws it takes to get this job done; and I would point out that the Speaker has made it possible for all three of us to work together on the Select Committee on Homeland Security. So we are doing our version of fusion here in the House, and I am confident we will succeed. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following exchange of letters relating to yesterday's debate on H.R. 1416, the Homeland Security Technical Corrections Act of 2003. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, May 14, 2003. Hon. Chris Cox, Chairman, Select Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Cox: In recognition of the desire to expedite floor consideration of H.R. 1416, the ``Homeland Security Technical Corrections Act of 2003,'' the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the bill. Section 11 of H.R. 1416 creates new Sec. 5 in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296). New Sec. 5 mandates that any report or notification required by the Homeland Security Act be submitted to the Select Committee on Homeland Security as well as to any other Committees named in the Act. Section 225 of the Homeland Security Act incorporated the Cyber Security Enhancement Act which, among many other things, requires the Attorney General to report to the Judiciary Committee regarding the use of electronic surveillance in emergency situations and requires the U.S. Sentencing Commission to submit a report in response to the Cyber Security Enhancement Act. To the extent that Sec. 11 of H.R. 1416 affects these reports required by Sec. 225 of the Homeland Security Act, these provisions fall within the Committee on the Judiciary's Rule X jurisdiction. However, given the need to expedite this legislation, I will not seek a sequential referral based on their inclusion. The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over these provisions is in no way diminished or altered. I would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 1416 on the House floor. Sincerely, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking minority member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and the rest of the committee members for devoting their time and energy to the important work of this committee. I rise today in support of H.R. 1416, which amends the Homeland Security Act. Mr. Speaker, the broad bipartisan support given to this bill exemplifies the collaborative nature of our committee. This committee is united in its mission to provide aggressive oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and to ensure the full implementation of the Homeland Security Act. When President Bush called on Congress to create the Department of Homeland Security last year, the goal was to create a more secure America. By putting one department in charge of scores of agencies and programs, we can better protect our country, we can protect our critical infrastructure, and, most importantly, we can protect the American people. Congress proved it was up to the challenge. In a display of bipartisan cooperation, in only 5 months Congress delivered to the President's desk for signature the 187-page Homeland Security Act of 2002. This law authorized the most comprehensive reorganization of the Federal executive branch since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. The act clearly laid out goals of the Department of Homeland Security: The prevention of another terrorist attack, the protection of our critical national infrastructure, and preparedness in the event we cannot prevent attacks on our domestic territory. Key to this is our ability to collect, analyze and use timely and accurate intelligence information. This lies at the heart of the primary mission of preventing another terrorist attack. What we do not know empowers our enemies, but what we do know will help defeat them. By properly understanding the threats that confront us, we can better allocate our resources, and we can focus our security efforts where they are most needed, where the risks and potential consequences of attacks are greatest. The Department of Homeland Security must analyze information quickly and reliably so that it can martial its own resources as needed and, more importantly, it must also transmit that information to those on the front lines, our State and local law enforcement and first responders, who protect us and our critical infrastructure. The Homeland Security Committee has been overseeing the Department's early efforts to achieve this critical intelligence capability mandated by the Homeland Security Act and we will continue to do so. This committee and the Department of Homeland Security are also working together to ensure that a comprehensive security plan is in place to make the best use of intelligence. Critical elements of this security plan include a layered defense, effective border security, thorough passenger and baggage screening at America's airports, and a rigorous inspection process to keep would-be terrorists and their weapons out of the country. Our first responders must also have the best information about pending threats as well as the training and the tools to respond to any disasters if they were to occur. The Homeland Security Act laid out a vision of a more secure America, which is now being realized through the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security working in concert with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, private industry, charitable organizations, community centers, and private citizens. Secretary Ridge and his staff are working diligently to coordinate these efforts and to complete this mission, a mission that is as difficult as it is important. I thank Secretary Ridge for his leadership and for being willing to work very closely with the Homeland Security Committee in the House during the act's implementation. The legislation we are considering today is in itself an important aspect of the act's implementation. Congress' desire to expedite the creation of this important department meant that minor errors were made and certain details were omitted from the Homeland Security Act. As a result, my fellow Members and I felt that one of the first orders of business of the Homeland Security Committee in the current Congress should be to honor the original intentions of the drafters by making certain corrections to the act so that it can be properly implemented. Today's legislation successfully fills in the cracks created by the speedy construction of the Homeland Security Act and strengthens the legislation which is already helping the United States win the war on terror. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Borders and Infrastructure.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1416) to make technical corrections to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), the vice chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the chairman of the select committee's Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Science, and Research and Development.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism. (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, on July 6, 2003, the Laguna Beach Police Department will say farewell to retiring Sergeant Doris Higgins. Sergeant Higgins began her career with the Laguna Beach Police Department on June 29, 1970, as a police dispatcher. Seven years later, she became a full-time officer assigned to the field services division of the department, where she worked until 5 years ago, when she was assigned to the traffic division. What makes Sergeant Doris Higgins stand apart from other officers is the fact that she began serving her community as a police officer when women were just beginning to make inroads in the profession. She has been a role model for women looking to break into the profession. She has guided many employees as they have begun and ended their law enforcement career. She has been a noticeable strength of the local law enforcement community. Now, the Laguna Beach Police Department must say goodbye after 33 years. Today, I ask my colleagues to join with me in congratulating Sergeant Higgins on her retirement and thanking her for years of dedication to the citizens of Laguna Beach.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process under the Committee on Rules.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. I want to return the thanks and congratulations to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking member, for his leadership and work on this important legislation. The bill that we are bringing before the House today represents the extraordinary scope of responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security. Although this is a technical corrections bill, it amends portions of the Homeland Security Act concerning the breadth of the responsibilities of the department, including critical infrastructure protection, visa issuance, first responders, the military activities of the Coast Guard, information security, training for first responders to enforce border controls within the country, war risk insurance, arming flight deck crew on commercial airliners, and enforcing the Privacy Act. Each of these subjects is touched upon in the bill, H.R. 1416, that is now before us. This committee is going to continue its aggressive oversight. We are going to continue legislating and improving the Homeland Security Act itself, and we are going to continue authorizing ever more resources, both financial and information, as we fight the war against terrorism. Between last year and the current appropriations cycle, the Congress has authorized and enacted over $17 billion in funding for homeland security. We have increased funding for first responders over 1,400 percent. Just this year, a few months ago, we added $3.5 billion additional in a supplemental spending bill for first responders, and later today on the floor we will make appropriations for the next year with an additional $4.4 billion for first responders. Beyond money we need to provide information, as the ranking member and I have both stressed here on the floor, we need to share that intelligence information between the Intelligence Community and law enforcement in Washington, and we need to share between Washington and our State and local law enforcers. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we can win the war on terrorism. I know we are in this for the long haul, but the preparations that this Congress is making today will stand this country in good stead for years to come. I urge support for H.R. 1416.

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

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) have done an extraordinary job in bringing to the floor a bill that has as its object the most important function of the Federal Government, protecting these United States from attack. Nothing that we do is more important. The $29 billion in this legislation for the coming year is nearly 4 percent more than the President requested. It is $250 for every single taxpayer in America. It is an extraordinary amount of money to meet the new challenges of the post-September 11 world. The $4.4 billion in this bill for first responders is nearly $1 billion more than the President requested. We have in fact in this Congress increased funding for first responders by more than 1,000 percent since September 11. The Select Committee on Homeland Security, of which the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) are valued members, have had hearings and field investigations of the problems of getting these monies to our first responders on the front lines. The pipeline is the problem. That money is not getting to where it belongs. That is why, in addition to the work that we can do in this bill as we go forward in conference, the Select Committee on Homeland Security will also be bringing to this floor legislation to unclog the pipeline and better distribute these monies on a threat basis, the way we have always done it for national security. We will streamline the grant process and base it on the principle of threat analysis. I commend the chairman for the resources and direction provided in this legislation to ensure an intelligence analytical capacity within the Department of Homeland Security to meet not only the biothreat, but all of the threats to our homeland security that we face. This is an enormous amount of money. We now face the task of making sure that it is wisely spent. In the exercise of our oversight function, we will do just that. Our Nation's freedoms and our way of life depend upon it.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, for the past 28 years, the Orange County community has given out its ``Irrelevant Week'' award to the last player selected in the National Football League draft--an award premised on the ``simple act of doing something nice for someone for no reason.'' This year's award, Irrelevant Week XXVIII, honors Ryan Hoag, a wide receiver from Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, MI, who was selected 262nd in the NFL draft by the Oakland Raiders. Ryan, who checks in at 6 feet 2 inches tall and 200 pounds, caught 56 passes in the 2002 season, racking up 808 yards and 10 touchdowns. This rock- solid performance earned Ryan his second straight first-team selection to the all-Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference team--and apparently also caught the eye of scouts for the Oakland Raiders, who hope that he can make a significant contribution to their team's future success. In addition to his football skills, Ryan is clearly a tremendous all-around athlete: he was a soccer and tennis star in high school, and he also competes on his college track team, where he recently placed third in the NCAA Division III national championships for the 100-meter race, with a cheetah-fast 10.51-second dash. And when his football playing days are over, Ryan says that he hopes to follow his true passion, teaching, by becoming a kindergarten teacher. While Ryan will surely have a lot of hard work ahead of him if he is to earn his way onto the Oakland Raiders roster, long odds do not dampen the enthusiasm of Orange County community leaders like Paul Salata, who puts Irrelevant Week together. That is because we recognize that fame is fleeting, that humility is a virtue, and that even the last round NFL draft pick is a significantly better athlete than any member of Congress. Today, I ask my colleagues to join with me in congratulating Ryan Hoag and everyone else who is involved in the Irrelevant Week celebration. In some ways, this celebration has outgrown its name, for I cannot think of anything more relevant to our spirit of community and our common humanity than doing nice things for other people. On behalf of the U.S. Congress and the people of Orange County whom it is my privilege to represent, congratulations to everyone associated with Irrelevant Week XXVIII, for being more relevant than you care to admit.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I will just make a few observations about the death tax. First, notwithstanding much of what is in the air here, it does not raise any material amount of money for the Federal Government. Nominally, about 1 percent. But, in fact, when we take into account the 65 cents on the dollar in compliance costs and the nearly $10 billion a year that is sucked out of the economy paid to lawyers and accountants and life insurance experts for compliance, it is a wash. Some estimates say it actually costs more than it raises. Second, it is not an income tax. You do not have to have any income to pay it, even though it is part of the Income Tax Code, 88 pages of it. Instead, it is a property tax and is meant to be confiscatory. These are confiscatory rates, well over half, and the purpose is to break up large concentrations of wealth. But the tax does not do that, either. In fact, it concentrates wealth because family farms, ranches and small businesses that are liquidated to pay the tax man are absorbed by larger conglomerates. We have seen farmland turned into condos all over America for this reason. The rich do not pay it. They hire expensive lawyers and accountants to design trusts and foundations to avoid the tax so that only small business, family farms and people without cash who have to liquidate assets to pay the tax man pay it. Lastly, if you work in a small business, this is all about you, because the biggest burden of this tax is borne by those who are laid off. The tax rate on you, the guy who sweeps up the floor after your small business contracts when the founder dies, is 100 percent. When you lose your job, that is the toughest tax that you can pay. That is why making this death tax repeal permanent is so important for everyone in this country. It is time for the death tax to die, and today we are going to drive a stake through its heart.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. I want to thank the Speaker, thank the chairman, and thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). Mr. Speaker, when in May 2002 the Speaker asked us, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and me, to cochair this working group, there was not a Department of Homeland Security, there was not a House committee to oversee the Department of Homeland Security; but now that I have assumed that responsibility, I can say that I feel there is no issue more integral to homeland security than the preservation and proper functioning of our democratic institutions in time of national emergency. I am very pleased that the next step that this body, and indeed the other body, is taking this process is to institutionalize through a bicameral group that will be chaired on this side by the leaders of our Committee on Rules to take a further look at these seemingly, in some cases, intractable problems and to solve them. We have in our working group accomplished a great deal and with the leadership of the Committee on Rules placed before this House at the beginning of this Congress three changes to our rules that address continuity issues that were solved in the working group. In addition, the gentleman from Texas and I yesterday introduced legislation to deal with the problems in the Presidential succession law created by these catastrophic circumstances that we are now forced to imagine. When we go back to those horrible images of September 11 which are hard to purge from our memory, those video images we have all seen countless times of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, imagine this Capitol if the same images were seen here. Imagine what would be the result, what would be the effect. Not only would Members have been killed if Flight 93, which we now believe was headed for the Capitol, had succeeded in its mission but Members would have been maimed and disabled. The problems that arise under our rules and our laws are not just those of how do you fill a vacancy after someone dies, but what happens when that person has not died but is incapable of coming to this Chamber and being part of a quorum? What happens when that occurs 100 times over? These are the kinds of problems that lack any immediate solution and that therefore must be handed off to this more permanent body that we are establishing by this resolution. I want quickly to commend the other members of the working group for their yearlong effort. They include, of course, cochairman Martin Frost; chairman of the House Committee on Rules, David Dreier, who is leading us on the floor today and will lead this effort henceforth; chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Steve Chabot; ranking member on the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Jerrold Nadler; chairman of the Committee on House Administration, Bob Ney; chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, Steny Hoyer; chairman of the House Republican Policy Subcommittee on Redesigning Government, David Vitter; Representative Brian Baird from whom we have just heard; Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee; Representative James Langevin, who is also with us here today on the floor. Ex officio members of the working group who were enormously important to our efforts included the House Parliamentarian, Charles Johnson; the Deputy House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan; former Clerk of the House, Donn Anderson; House legislative counsel Pope Barrow; House general counsel Michael Stern; and Congressional Research Service senior specialist Walter Olesczek. From May to October of 2002, the working group held eight very long meetings, hearing testimony from law professors, constitutional scholars, members of the academic community, think tank scholars and other experts. The working group considered, in order, changes to the House rules, because they are the least intrusive, most efficient means of solving these problems; next, statutory solutions; and only lastly constitutional amendments. I want to say with respect to this question of a constitutional amendment because already during this debate we have heard concerns raised about willy-nilly amending the Constitution or about overstating the problems when Congress is, for example, out of town during the August recess with regularity, it was unfortunately necessary for us in this working group to imagine some circumstances that we hope never arise when not only the whole House but the President and the Vice President also were lost. In that circumstance, there are significant questions of legitimacy of both the institutions of the executive and the legislative, but also even more trenchant concerns about the withdrawal of the checks and balances that undergird our system and protect our civil liberties. If we imagine what America would be like after such a horrible attack that killed the President, killed the Vice President, killed the Speaker of the House, killed hundreds of Members of this Congress, first we would have as President, this much would be certain, someone who was unelected, someone who perhaps no one had ever heard of before, and someone who might or might not be fit for the job. That person would be vested with the immediate responsibility of presumably determining whether to declare war, responsibility under article 1 of this body which would not be able to function. That person also would be asked to seek emergency appropriations to deal with this problem. Yet there would be no Congress. And that person might want to suspend habeas corpus and other civil liberties because of the emergency, and there might be no legislative check against it. These are the counterweight to the arguments that we should not rush into amending the Constitution. These are the problems that the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is properly taking up with the other body, and I hope they are soon solved.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased that we are here commending America's businesses and, more specifically, American business men and women for what they have done in their places of work to help support our war effort in the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the war against terror, because, frankly, the war against terror has placed an enormous burden on our economy. According to the United States Chamber of Commerce, fear of terrorism since September 11, fear of the war in Iraq and now a mysterious respiratory disease called SARS have disrupted both business and leisure travel to the extent that half of all jobs lost since September 11 have been in the travel and tourism industry. One out of every seven people in the U.S. private sector workforce--or 18 million people--are employed directly or indirectly in travel and tourism jobs. This industry is a big industry. It is a $100 billion industry, not in revenue, not in assets, but in taxes paid to Federal, State and local governments. Losing so many jobs in this industry is obviously a victory for the terrorists, but it is a victory that will be short-lived. Obviously, when people stop flying, when they stop traveling, they obviously stop staying in hotels, stop going to restaurants, visiting museums or theme parks, renting cars or shopping. This economic toll is precisely what the terrorists had in mind. If the damage on September 11 had been limited to the thousands of lives lost and the property damage suffered, as horrible as that would have been, we would not be experiencing these downstream victories for the war waged by terrorists against the United States. I do not think we can make any mistake about this. Beyond murdering Americans, the terrorists wish to destroy America's economy. The way for America to fight back is for working men and women, for small business owners, for entrepreneurs, for businesses of all sizes to go about their business, to show up for work early, to do a little more, to take the family vacation, to do those things that make us Americans and to keep our life normal because it is the disruption of normalcy that the terrorists seek to accomplish. As chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security in the Congress, I can tell Members that 50 of our colleagues, including eight chairmen of standing committees in this House of Representatives, are working diligently with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure Americans' safety. We are engaged in oversight to ensure that Secretary Ridge and his new department succeed. Secretary Ridge testified before the Select Committee on Homeland Security at a recent hearing on what we have accomplished in a few short months. We have orchestrated and launched Operation Liberty Shield, the first comprehensive, national plan to increase protection of America's citizens and infrastructure. We have deployed new technologies and tools at land, air and sea borders. We have established the Homeland Security Command Center, a national 24/7 watch operation. We have initiated a comprehensive reorganization of the border agencies, as well as other administrative measures to enhance departmental services and capabilities. We have completed the transition of 21 out of 22 component agencies of the Department of Homeland Security, none of which were previously focused primarily on preventing domestic terrorism. We have conducted hearings, and the department itself has conducted on-site visits at strategic ports throughout the United States and begun the development of security measures and plans for vessels, facilities and ports that we put in place in the Maritime Security Act of 2002. And, of course, the department has completed TOPOFF II, the largest terrorist response exercise in our Nation's history. Mr. Speaker, American workers and consumers are safer today than we were before September 11, but we are still threatened by terrorists who seek to destroy American lives and our economy, the very basis of American power. We must work together as consumers, as workers, as business proprietors to make sure that the terrorists do not succeed. Keeping America at work is job one in that effort. I thank American business for what they have done in these wars.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank the chairman, as well, for working with me on the language of this amendment which I became concerned with first as chairman of a different select committee on U.S. national security and military commercial concerns with the People's Republic of China. As a result of extensive expert testimony during hearings before that committee, I became convinced that the MTOPS standard is not an acceptable metric for the purposes that we are seeking to achieve with our export control regime, and I support modernizing and updating the approach that we are taking to high-end computer export controls. I have suggested, and there is included in this amendment, a 120-day period during which these regulations can be implemented by the Bush administration, and I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) changing the text of the amendment so that the repeal of the current regime is not immediately effective. I am concerned that while we are repealing the provisions concerning MTOPS, we are also repealing the notification requirements in the statute. I would hope that as we go to conference we might correct what I believe is an oversight in that respect because I believe that any new regime of regulations would include such notification requirements in all events. But I think it is important that we modernize our regime in this respect, and I support the amendment. I will vote in support of it.

Mr. COX

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.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, everyone in this body knows why pregnant mothers cannot find doctors to deliver their babies, why emergency room and trama centers are closing and why physicians are leaving their practices. The health care liability crisis has been worsening every year since 1993, when I first introduced this legislation that we are considering today. The national median malpractice awards has been increasing 43 percent a year. It is unsustainable. Today the average physician faces a new lawsuit every year. The opponents of this legislation are convinced that the best place to make split second medical decisions is in the courtroom. But this bill is about getting better health care in America for doctors and patients and all of the people who rely upon this system. It is high time for medical justice and high time to enact this legislation.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. We are here today because patients are losing, many have lost, access to care. People are dying as a result of not being able to see doctors in emergency rooms. Doctors who have never been sued are quitting the practice of medicine, and talented young men and women are not seeking careers in medicine because of what is happening. Today there are billionaire lawyers. There is no such thing as a billionaire doctor. All of these billionaire lawyers have made their money in health care lawsuits. The opponents of this legislation would have us believe that the phenomenon of billionaire lawyers is a reflection of social justice, but it is not. This money is coming out of our health care system. It is taking doctors out of emergency rooms. It is preventing women who are trying to deliver babies from having OB/GYNs available. There are not enough neurosurgeons to provide emergency care. In Florida, the Orlando Regional Medical Center, which serves 33 counties, is planning to close its Level 1 trauma unit this month. Patients with serious head and neck injuries will have to be diverted to other hospitals. But in Florida those other hospitals in Tampa and Jacksonville, those trauma units are already overcrowded. The reason patients, particularly poor patients in Medicaid and in emergency rooms, cannot get care is the liability crisis caused by runaway lawsuits. Doctors and hospitals now spend more on liability insurance than on medical equipment. The Chicago Tribune reports that in Illinois liability insurance premiums are rising 100 percent or more for high risk specialties. Our intention is that no more patients are denied the care that they need because the doctors who wish to serve them cannot afford liability insurance. The solution, H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act, which I have introduced in this Congress since 1993 and am now coauthoring with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), is based on California's law, written by a Democratic legislature and signed by Jerry Brown, a Democratic Governor. We have these reforms in our State, and they work. California's medical liability insurance premiums in constant dollars have fallen by more than 40 percent, while the rest of the country is in crisis. Injured patients in my State of California receive compensation more quickly than in the U.S. as a whole. Injured patients receive a greater share of the recoveries in lawsuits. California no longer suffers from the flight of doctors and needed services that we have seen in so many other parts of the country. By passing this legislation, we will bring these California reforms nationwide, making health care more accessible for patients who are today denied care. I urge this House to pass the HEALTH Act, H.R. 5.