Jim Turner

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, do I close or does the chairman close?

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me say the language regarding the establishment of the forum is very clear in the Republican bill as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) pointed out. It says the suit should be filed where the defendant has its principal place of business. Now, the distinguished chairman says, well, the law has established that you can sue where somebody is registered to do business and all these foreign corporations have to register to do business. That is not what the language offered in the Republican bill says. It does not say you can sue a foreign corporation in States where it is registered to do business. It says where its principal place of business is located, and many foreign corporations have no principal place. I would suggest to the gentleman who offered up the quote of Senator Edwards, we agree with Senator Edwards. We should ban frivolous lawsuits, and the bill that we have offered does it more forcefully and effectively than the Republican bill does. At the end of the third strike under the Republican bill you can be barred in practicing law in that court. You are suspended. Under our bill, the third strike, you are referred to your State bar association for disciplinary proceedings, to include possible disbarment. Now, under your bill a lawyer from New York can come down to east Texas and file a lawsuit and if it is frivolous then he gets barred from ever practicing law in the Eastern District of Texas again. What good is that going to do for a New York lawyer who may never come back to east Texas anyway? What good will it do to say you cannot come to east Texas? Even if he has to come back he can send a law partner and let him file the frivolous lawsuit again. If you want to get a lawyer's attention, you refer them to the State disciplinary board that governs their right to practice law in that State. I practiced law for many years, and anytime a lawyer gets referred to the State bar association for disciplinary action, it is a serious thing. If a lawyer continues to file frivolous lawsuits, they should be disbarred; and then we would not have to worry about them running to another court to file another frivolous lawsuit where they had not already filed one before. They would not be practicing law. So I would suggest, if my colleagues really want to get tough on frivolous lawsuits, they will support the Democratic substitute, and if they want to be sure that an American citizen who is injured in America has the right to sue a foreign corporation that was the perpetrator of a tortious act, they better vote against the Republican bill and vote for the substitute. I know the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) did not intend for that to be the effect, but that is the effect of the language that he has offered up today; and I would suggest that any Member on either side of the aisle would be well advised to vote against his bill to ensure that that does not occur to an American citizen who would be denied the right to file a lawsuit against a foreign corporation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on June 19, 2004, the City of Lufkin and the state of Texas lost a friend with the passing of ``Bubba'' Shands, Jr. Bubba was an invaluable member of the community in Lufkin for many years, and he will be sorely missed. The Lufkin Daily News recently called Bubba a ``a Lufkin icon'' and ``East Texas' favorite son.'' I think those are two fitting names for Bubba, but I also think there are many more that we could add to that list: husband, father, grandfather, brother, athlete, patriot, leader, believer, and always, great friend to all. Hilliard Judge ``Bubba'' Shands was born on November 18, 1926 in Lufkin, Texas. He grew up as a highly accomplished student-athlete, first at Lufkin High School and then at the University of Texas. Bubba began working in the banking industry in 1958, and continued working in that industry until 1991. He was a bank executive for First Bank & Trust (formerly Republic Bank) for many years, and he also served on the boards of several other financial institutions, such as First Bank of Conroe, Angelina Savings Bank, and Balcones Resources in Austin. Bubba always realized the importance of community service and was involved with many volunteer and civic organizations throughout his life. He worked diligently towards the creation of Angelina County Airport and the Salvation Army's Adult Day Center in Lufkin, and he was also deeply active in the movement to fund and create Angelina College. He served on the board of the United Way of Angelina County, the Angelina College Board of Trustees, the Lufkin Rotary Club, and he was an active member of the First United Methodist Church in Lufkin. We pray for God's comforting spirit to be with his wife, Ann; his sister, Mary; his daughter Becky; his son, Jay; and his five grandchildren, Matt, Hill, Rob, Richie, Annie and Hunter. Today, we honor the memory of a great East Texan, Hilliard Judge ``Bubba'' Shands, and we ask that we may all celebrate and enjoy life the same way Bubba did for each of his 77 years on this Earth.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, is this the legislation that authorizes funding for the Customs and Border Protection Agency and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency within the Department of Homeland Security?

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, was this bill referred to the Select Committee on Homeland Security?

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think we all understand that to win the war on terror we have to be much more aggressive about going after the terrorists wherever they are. Breaking up international terrorist cells is project number one for the national defense of this country. We also know that we have to strengthen our homeland defenses and protect our vulnerabilities and protect our population from threats posed by challenges as the one addressed in this bill today, bioterrorism. Finally, I hope we will soon learn that in order to win the war on terror we have to start addressing the policies that we need to pursue to prevent the rise of future terrorists so that someday we can stand on this floor and announce, as we did at the end of the Cold War, that we have won, that we have prevailed. To win this war on terror, we must address the threat that is addressed by Project Bioshield, the threat of mass destruction through the use of bioweapons. Perhaps the most devastating weapon is a bioweapon of mass destruction. The anthrax attacks of 2001 woke this Nation up to the very real threat of bioterrorism. We know that al Qaeda intends to engage in bioterrorism, and we know that Osama bin Laden has called for the use of weapons of mass destruction against the American public. In fact, he has called it a religious duty. In spite of this dire and clear warning, our biodefenses are no better than they were in September of 2001. No new medical treatments, vaccines, or lifesaving drugs have been approved for use. There is no antitoxin for ricin poisoning, no vaccine to protect against the plague, and no treatments of any kind against the deadly ebola virus. Mr. Speaker, we must regain the sense of urgency that we all felt in this Chamber in the aftermath of September 11, and I hope that the passage of this bill will mark a renewed sense of urgency regarding the bioterror threat. Because this bill marks but the beginning, not the end, of a long road we must travel, I hope that the passage of this legislation will renew our urgency about the threat of bioterrorism. I support the Bioshield legislation because it is a good first step to addressing the challenge. From the beginning of this process, I and many of my colleagues on the Democratic side have been concerned that this legislation is not enough to address the threats that we face. Whether Bioshield will be a success is yet to be determined. Bioshield is, in fact, an experiment. We do not know if the incentives in this bill will drive our pharmaceutical industry to develop medicines for biodefense when we all know they can make much more money developing and putting on the market other types of products. Many experts in the field believe that the best we can hope for is that in 10 years we may have a few new countermeasures that will plug some of the holes in our biodefenses. The longer it takes for companies to step forward to fill these gaps, the longer we will remain vulnerable. Our terrorist enemies will not wait while we experiment and our national security is at stake. We must protect our population. That is our responsibility. If the private sector does not step up to address and accept the challenge presented in this bill, then our government needs to have the authority to do the job itself directly. One example of a capability that we clearly need and that Project Bioshield does not address is the ability to respond rapidly to a previously unknown or engineered pathogen. Terrorists may soon be able to genetically manipulate biological agents so they are resistant to our current stockpile of countermeasures and perhaps to those we develop in the future. That is why I, along with 35 of my Democratic colleagues, introduced H.R. 4258, the Rapid Cures Act. This legislation recognizes the fact that the growing power of biotechnology can render a pathogen like anthrax or smallpox immune to the vaccines and drugs we may develop through Project Bioshield. We need to develop the mechanism to go from bug to drug, that is from the identification of a pathogen to the development of a countermeasure to combat it in a matter of a few months or even weeks. Today the average development period for a vaccine is 8 years. That is too long to address the threat that our terrorist enemies of the future may present us. Personally, I cannot think of another research goal that would bring more benefits to the security and the health of this Nation than shortening the period of drug and vaccine development. It is that kind of capability that we need legislation to bring about today. Finally, it is incumbent on this Congress to exercise vigorous oversight in the implementation of this law and to ensure that the investment in resources which could be as much as $6 billion over 10 years produces the results that we intend. We have had biodefense failures before. The national smallpox vaccine program which was announced by the President with much fanfare at the end of 2002 has fallen far short of its goal of vaccinating 500,000 health care workers with, in fact, less than 10 percent of that number actually vaccinated today. Forty percent of our States report that they are unable to vaccinate their populations within 10 days, that critical period, 10 days of an outbreak of smallpox. As soon as next month, we are likely to hear of the award of the first-ever Bioshield contract for 75 million doses of new anthrax vaccine. We need to be asking now before the ink dries on this multimillion-dollar contract, what is the plan? How does this vaccine fit into our biodefenses? Given the failure of our smallpox vaccine program, do we really expect our citizens to be any more receptive to the anthrax vaccine than they were to the smallpox vaccine? And if the old anthrax vaccine, as some have told us, is now safe and effective for our troops, why in fact do we need a new one? And if as is the case and we already have a vaccine but we lack good treatments for an anthrax infection, perhaps we need to be investing in the treatment for those who may contract anthrax and need a drug to cure that dread condition. And if anthrax is not a contagious disease and we know it is not and if this vaccine will only work after three injections over 3 weeks, as I understand the proposed new anthrax vaccine requires, how will that protect us in the event of an actual anthrax attack? So before the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Health and Human Services decide to spend a billion dollars on a new vaccine, we in this Congress have a responsibility to get the answers to those questions. For this Nation, Project Bioshield is an important first step, but much more work remains to be done, and we must take even stronger steps as soon as possible to protect us and to secure us in the days ahead. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who has spent a great deal of time and energy working on this important issue. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has worked very hard in the area of trying to improve our bioterror defenses. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank all of the Members on both sides who have worked to bring us to this point in the passage of the legislation. I must say I have a great deal of agreement and sympathy for the remarks made by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) a few moments ago, because the urgency of this matter certainly dictates that we move much more quickly than we have been able to move on this legislation. The President proposed this project in his State of the Union address in 2003. The House passed the bill in July of 2003, the Senate passed the bill 2 months ago, and we are just now bringing this conference report to the floor. So there is no question that in these times of terrorist threat the stakes are very high. The risks that we face are very great, and failure to close the security gaps in the area of bioterrorism or in a host of other areas where we have serious threats is not an option for this country. We also know that in Project Bioshield and its implementation, we face great risk; and it is my hope that the three committees who worked so well together in crafting this bill will also each in their own way vigorously exercise the oversight that is necessary to ensure that Project Bioshield is successful. When we know that we may be hearing of a decision in the near future by Secretary Ridge and Secretary Thompson to begin to acquire a new anthrax vaccine, I think it is incumbent upon each of us in our committees, in our oversight responsibilities to ask the tough questions about whether or not we are moving in the right direction; for that first contract could be in the neighborhood of a $1 billion Federal contract. Failure in making that decision in the appropriate and proper way to ensure that it is successful is an essential oversight responsibility that each of us have. So it is my hope that the good work and the good cooperation that occurred between the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Government Reform will be carried forward as we provide the necessary oversight to ensure the success of this important piece of legislation. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill, and I urge every Member of the House to vote aye. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This amendment, creating a sunset process, has been successful in many of our States. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and I have had personal experience with it in our State, where we have been able to eliminate unnecessary agencies. We have been able to streamline the activities of agencies. I know that at the Federal level we all understand that it is very difficult job within our existing committee structures to really take a good, hard and complete look at the management and the functioning of our Federal agencies in the course of the appropriations process and the oversight responsibilities of our authorizing committees. So by creating a bipartisan commission of six Democrats and six Republicans, we do this with a long-term view to accomplish some goals that perhaps we are not as good at accomplishing in our usual process.

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern, but I can assure him that in practice this has worked very well in Texas. We have never had the occurrence that the gentleman describes. In trying to alleviate some of the concerns that he has expressed, the gentleman from Texas and I put in this bill clear language that would say that the laws administered by these agencies do not sunset. There have been Members from time to time who have said, well, if an agency happened to sunset, then all the laws we passed that that agency administers would then go away and a lot of valuable programs disappear. We specifically have language here to ensure that the laws that administer various programs, and that are important to a lot of constituencies, do not disappear when the agency disappears. Having said that, in practical terms, when a sunset commission makes a recommendation to the Congress, if the Congress failed to be able to come to grips with the recommendations of the commission, what happens in most States, and it has certainly happened on a couple of occasions in Texas, is that the legislature, and I would hope the Congress, would simply extend the agency as it is and set a new sunset date to allow the process of review of that agency to continue. What we are trying to do here is create a bipartisan entity that has the credibility to make recommendations for change in operations of an agency, create new efficiencies, eliminate obsolete programs and obsolete offices, and to do it in a way that that commission and its recommendations have the same kind of weight that we all hope the 9/11 Commission will have, where once they have reported, there is some momentum behind what this bipartisan group has recommended to the Congress. So I think in terms of our efforts in the years ahead, to try to figure out how to make government more efficient, to be sure that we are eliminating unnecessary spending, that this is a very powerful tool that we should take advantage of. And I think the concern that the gentleman from South Carolina expressed is not one that is likely to occur.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this House is entitled to have an open debate and an open vote on raising the debt ceiling. Any family or any business or corporation that applies for debt or to be able to borrow money is going to have to apply for the credit and going to have to make the case. This Congress should do the same. The truth of the matter is our Republican colleagues do not want to have an open debate or an open vote on raising the debt ceiling because it points to the failed fiscal policies of this administration which has placed this country in the worst financial condition that we have been in our history. We are going to pass 13 appropriations bills to fund the government this year. We are going to borrow an amount equal to 60 percent of all of the appropriations that we vote on this year to run our government. We are in a ditch. We need to face up to it. We need to get honest. It is particularly objectionable to me to try to hide it in the defense appropriations bill because the truth of the matter is we have sent young men and women to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan; and we are telling them that someday when they come home, they will have to pay for the war that they have been sent to fight. That has never happened in the history of this country. We have always paid our bills in time of war. It is time to do the moral thing, the right thing by our troops and pay for this war with current dollars and not pass it on to the next generation.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roybal-Allard amendment to stop the privatization of immigration information officer positions. As the ranking member on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have serious concerns about the impact this privatization initiative will have on our Nation's security. Immigration information officers and contact representatives interview immigrants, they review their documents for fraudulent and illegal activities, and they perform criminal background checks. In order to do their jobs, these employees must acquire a large body of information and knowledge about our ever-changing and incredibly complicated immigration laws. To abandon the years of accumulated expertise of this group of Federal employees places our Nation at risk. In the war on terror, there is no room for error. At a time when we must be focusing on security at our borders, we should not create the turmoil that is inherent in competition for these security-related jobs. After September 11, this Congress determined that giving the critical task of securing passengers and their baggage at airports should not be awarded to the lowest bidder, and we federalized the TSA screening force. Why would we give an even more critical and complex task of reviewing whether a passenger may be a terrorist to the lowest bidder? I urge adoption of the amendment of the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Chairman pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I wanted to offer which is subject to a point of order would try to remedy a problem which I think we all understand exists, and that is we are continuing to be under the threat that some terrorist group will ship into the United States in a cargo container or by truck a nuclear device or a dirty bomb. I want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the committee for adding money to this item over and above what the President requested. The committee added $50 million to help purchase radiation portal monitors. But unfortunately, as the committee's own report states, the President's request includes 165 additional radiation portal monitors, and the committee is aware of the need for 1,000. What I was attempting to do by this amendment is to increase the funding for radiation portal devices so this next fiscal year we could fully deploy radiation portal monitors in all of our ports to be sure that we are prepared to defend against the possibility of a terrorist group putting in a container some nuclear device or dirty bomb. I recognize it is a significant increase, but I believe in light of the urgency that it is the right thing to do rather than continue on what would probably be a 2- to 3-year program to fully deploy. point of order