Military Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that my colleague would remain in the Chamber for the next hour while we talk a little bit about exactly what the Committee on Veterans Affairs has done and the discussion of the cuts that are being made to the veterans budget. We will get into that a little bit later. But tonight I want to talk about something called SBP, and we will discuss it in great length. But I want to introduce you to somebody first. Her name is Dottie Welch.

Dottie's story goes something like this: When Lt. Colonel Roger Welch of the United States Army retired and signed up for the military survivor benefit plan, better known now as SBP, years ago, he was told that in the event of his death, SBP would pay his wife, Dottie, 55 percent of his retirement pay for the rest of her life.

When he signed an irrevocable agreement to pay annually-increasing SBP premiums for the rest of his life, he did not know that his wife's future SBP benefit actually would be one-third less than what they were led to believe.

When Roger died in June of 2002, Dottie was dismayed to learn that there would be an offset, an offset based on her husband's Social Security-covered military earnings, that would reduce her benefits. With Social Security survivor benefits and the reduced SBP annuity, her total income is $384 a month less than she and Roger thought she would have to live on.

Dottie thinks the Social Security offset is just plain wrong. No one will tell her why it is there and why it is so large. Her husband, Roger, only had 5 years of military service covered by Social Security.

Dottie Welch's case highlights one significant inequity of the military SBP and the reason why so many retirees and survivors are upset about its current situation.

Unfortunately, this is only the first of several ways that Uniform Service Survivor Benefits relative to premiums being paid fall far short of what retirees and survivors were promised and what is afforded survivors of other Federal retirees.

There are three major SBP inequities. But before I go into those inequities tonight, I would like to pause for a moment and recognize my good friend from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), who has been a stalwart supporter of the veterans of this country.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), for his comments and his support of veterans' issues. I also wish to add my congratulations and best wishes to him as he very soon becomes one of those retirees after serving many years in the Army Guard in his home State.

Mr. Speaker, there are three major SBP inequities. One is that thousands of people who bought SBP coverage were not briefed that most survivors' SBP annuities would be reduced substantially after age 62; two, the 40 percent government subsidy envisioned by Congress and touted by the services to encourage retirees' participation has plunged to 17 percent; three, the government provides Federal civilian survivors a substantially higher share of retired pay for life with no benefit reduction at any age.

The impact of these inequities is, as Members can imagine, devastating to many survivors, because SBP is not exactly a king's ransom at 55 percent of retired pay. At 35 percent, SBP provides only a poverty level or lower annuity for most survivors, even those of relatively senior officers.

So I am here tonight to provide more specifics on how the military SBP program is not providing, is not providing the level of protection military survivors need and deserve and were expecting; and why my bill, H.R. 548, the Military Survivors Benefit Improvement Act of 2003, is what is needed now to fix the current problem.

The first issue that we need to discuss tonight is something that I call the benefit reduction shock. It is incredulous to many that such an important feature of SBP, the reduced age 62 annuity that applies to the vast majority of military survivors, was never explained to retirees being asked to sign up for the program in the seventies and in the early eighties, but it is true.

I have in my hand a copy of the actual SBP Election Form 5002 signed by a retired member in 1982 in two different places. It specifies that SBP will

pay the survivor 55 percent of the member's retired pay. Nowhere, even in the fine print, does it mention any lower figure. We can only speculate about how or why this key fact was omitted, but it hardly matters now to those who were misled by the forms and by the briefings.

Certainly, the offset was extremely complicated for retirement counselors to explain, and it was almost impossible to tell any particular retiree at that point what SBP amount his or her survivor would actually receive after attaining the age of 62.

For members who attained retirement eligibility before 1985, the offset represented the amount of the survivors' Social Security benefit that was attributable to the Member's Social Security-covered military earnings, because the military only came under the Social Security system in 1957, and that amount varied widely for different retirees, and the rules for the calculation of Social Security benefits due to military versus civilian employment are arcane at best.

When they first learned of the age 62 benefit reduction, years, sometimes decades, after they purchased SBP, many older retirees and survivors expressed outrage in the mistaken belief that Congress had changed the law on them after the fact.

Not so. The age 62 reduction was part of the initial SBP law enacted in 1972, but this critical piece of information did not find its way into most military retirement briefings and SBP election forms until many years later after complaints, years after complaints started to roll in.

Large numbers of retirees and survivors feel betrayed by what they perceive as a bait-and-switch under which they were asked to sign irrevocable contracts to pay lifetime SBP premiums without being told what the annuity level they were actually buying was.

Dottie Welch is far from the only spouse who is very much aware of the impact of the Social Security offset. One survivor's husband was a Navy hard-hat diver during World War II, then an electronics technician on a nuclear submarine until his retirement in 1966. When he died in May of 2002, his widow had no idea she would be hit by the offset. ``I was shocked. I almost fell out of the chair, and wondered why God hadn't taken me too,'' she says today.

In the grief that followed her husband's death, this 78-year-old widow also faced numerous family bills and health problems. When her SBP annuity started, she was stunned to find out that it was one-third, one-third less than what she had expected. Now faced with $21,000 in bills, she was advised to declare bankruptcy, and feared she would lose her home trying to pay her debts. Her financial struggles eventually led her to the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society for a grant to help her get back on her feet financially.

Not one member of our greatest American generation should find themselves under this kind of stress while getting over the death of their spouse and trying to do something with the large bills that were facing them.

In an attempt to reduce this kind of confusion, in 1985 Congress established a two-tier system, not linked to Social Security, that actually provides an SBP survivor 55 percent of retired pay until age 62, and 35 percent after that age. But making the age 62 reduction clear for the post-1985 retirees did not make it any fairer, and it did not change the fact that thousands upon thousands of earlier participants had not been told of the age 62 annuity reduction.

Also in 1985, Congress shocked the survivor community by repealing the 1984 legislation that would have barred any SBP Social Security offset for survivors who earned their Social Security benefits from their own work history rather than the military retiree's, as assumed under the original offset law. This only further highlighted the unfairness of the offset to thousands of widows who had pursued their own military or civilian careers.

Now, the second issue, another broken promise. When SBP was enacted in 1972, Congress set the premium formula in law with the intent that retirees' monthly premium payments would cover 60 percent, 60 percent of the long-term costs of the survivor benefits, with the government paying the remaining 40 percent. The formula was based on the program cost assumptions prepared by the Department of Defense actuaries concerning future inflation rates, pay raises, longevity of retirees, and survivors' longevity, et cetera.

But actual experience in later years proved the actuaries' original estimates had been far too conservative, as inflation was lower than predicted and retirees lived and paid premiums longer than anticipated. Because retiree premiums were locked into law and covered a greater portion of the program costs than had been projected, the government reaped an economic windfall, and found its share of the cost for the SBP program was much lower than anticipated. By 1988, retiree premiums covered 77 percent of the SBP costs, and DOD's share had dropped to 23 percent.

To its credit, Congress acted in 1990 to restore the intended 60/40 balance by reducing retiree premiums to 6.5 percent of retired pay, but the overconservative actuarial assumptions have continued to work against, work against retirees for the last decade, with the result that the Federal subsidy for SBP has continued to decline. As of 2003, the government's share has dropped from 40 percent to 17 percent, leaving retirees once more paying a higher-than-intended share of the benefit.

The only fair way to restore the proper cost balance between the retirees and the government is to reduce the premium, or increase the SBP benefit. The former benefits primarily retirees, while the latter benefits the survivors. Since retiree premiums were reduced to restore the 60/40 balance in 1990, Congress should restore the government's intended 40 percent cost share by raising the benefit for survivors. My bill does exactly that.

Now, the third issue. It is the military-civilian inequity. No less compelling than the misleading of enrollees and the decline of the intended subsidy is the stunning disparity that exists between benefits and subsidy levels the government offers military versus Federal civilian survivors.

In contrast to the military SBP subsidy of, remember, 17 percent, currently, the SBP for Federal civilian employees under the post-1984 Federal Employee Retirement System provides a 33 percent subsidy. For those under the pre-1984 Civil Service Retirement System the subsidy is 48 percent, and at 48 percent, it is nearly three times as high as the military's.

Even more important, the Federal Employment Retirement System survivors receive 50 percent of retired pay, and the other survivors under the old Civil Service Retirement System receive 55 percent for life, with no benefit reduction, no benefit reduction, at age 62.

Although Federal civilian premiums are higher, military retirees pay SBP premiums for a far longer period of time than do most civilians because they are required to retire at a younger age. Because their mortality rates are not much different, this means that Federal civilian retirees have a far more advantageous benefit-to-premium ratio, as indicated on these charts.

Now, military retirees particularly pay SBP premiums about twice as long, twice as long as Federal civilians because they retire at younger ages, but their spouses' longevity is about the same. So military SBP enrollees see a lower return and a much lower government subsidy.

Remember Dottie? My bill is the needed fix for the three major inequities of the Survivor Benefit Plan. We must keep faith with the older retirees and with the survivors. We must restore the intended 40 percent Federal subsidy, and we must put SBP on an equal footing with its Federal civilian equivalent.

The Military Survivors Benefit Improvement Act of 2003, my bill, accomplishes these three things. For these reasons, the 33 military and veterans associations of the military coalition have endorsed my bill and have made its passage one of their top priorities in the 108th Congress.

H.R. 548 will balance equity and will balance cost considerations by phasing out the SBP age 62 benefit reduction over the next 5 years. And upon enactment, the age 62 benefit increase phase-in will begin at 40 percent on October 1 of 2004 and continually annually each year after through the year of 2007

until the benefits are restored to a full 55 percent as was the desire of Congress.

In order to offset part of the costs of the benefit increase, H.R. 548 authorizes an open season provision in the legislation that would allow more retirees to participate, generating SBP program savings, and significantly reducing the outlays.

Now, Congress has already acknowledged the need for this particular piece of legislation. The fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Act included a provision asserting the sense of Congress that there should be enacted legislation to reduce and eventually eliminate the different levels of SBP annuity for surviving spouses who are under age 62 and those who are 62 and older. But we have failed to follow through on that commitment for the last 2 years. It is time for us to fix this problem. Military widows and widowers have waited long enough in their fight for fairness. Now is the time for Congress to step up and enact relief for the aging survivors of our greatest generation. World War II and Korean War retirees, and the following generations of retirees and survivors, deserve no less than the SBP deal they were promised and the one the government already provides for other Federal survivors.

Now, a quick time line of H.R. 548. It was introduced on February 5 of 2003. And upon introduction, we had 118 bipartisan co-sponsors. That is 27 percent of the entire House of Representatives. On that day it was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On February 28 of 2003, it was referred to the Total Force subcommittee, and on the same date executive comment was requested from DOD. Now, over 3 months later I urged DOD to act on this request.

On March 7 of 2003, a letter was sent to the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and the ranking member, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), of the House Committee on the Budget urging support to include budget authority in fiscal year 2004 in our budget resolution. On the letter there were 36 bipartisan co-signers, including numerous members of the Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Veterans Affairs. Today this bill has 268 bipartisan co-sponsors. That equates to 62 percent of this House.

All Americans should urge their Representatives to co-sponsor H.R. 548 and their Senators to co-sponsor Senate bill 451, introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine.

Again, who supports H.R. 548? The number one legislative priority of the Military Officers Association of America and the 108th Congress. Additionally, the bill is strongly endorsed by the Military Coalition, a consortium of 33 nationally prominent military and veterans organizations representing more than 5.5 million members of uniformed services, active, reserved, retired, survivors, veterans and their families; and there are many, many others that have sent letters of support for this bill.

There are others that are tracking similar legislation in this body. I would note tonight that H.R. 1726, the Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act, sponsored by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), repeals the offset from surviving spouse annuities under the military Survivor Benefit Plan for amounts paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affair as dependency and indemnity compensation, or DIC. It provides for the recoupment of certain amounts previously paid SBP recipients in the form of retired pay refund. It was filed on April 10 of 2003. It has been referred to the Committee on Armed Services. It has 24 co- sponsors. And I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), for his efforts to restore equity to this aspect of SBP; and I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation.

H.R. 1653, sponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), would change the effective date for the paid-up coverage under the military Survivor Benefit Plan from October 1 of 2008 to October 1 of 2003. It has 25 co-sponsors, and I am an original co-sponsor of this particular bill. It was filed on April 7, and it too has been referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

A third piece of legislation, H.R. 1592, the Military Survivors Equity Act. It has been sponsored by my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), and it would repeal the two-tier annuity computation system applicable to annuities under the SBP plan for retired members of the Armed Forces so that there would be no reduction in such an annuity when the beneficiary becomes 62 years of age. It was filed on April 3 of this year, referred to the Committee on Armed Services; and it has 5 co-sponsors as this time. Both the Filner bill and my bill fulfill the 2001 sense of Congress resolution to reduce and eventually eliminate this SBP reduction. Again, both these bills go a long way to fulfilling the sense of Congress and that resolution to reduce and eventually eliminate this SBP reduction.

Let me talk a little bit about the VA budget for 2004. Our service men and women who continue to fight for our freedom and security around the world must know that Americans are united in their support for them and for their safe return. We in Congress, along with President Bush, support not only the troops in the field but also the scores of veterans who have already given so much to this country.

Unfortunately, there have been false reports, false reports circulating that Congress is actually cutting veterans benefits. Here are the facts of the congressional budget for fiscal year 2004 relating to veterans spending. This budget will allow us to fully meet our commitments to more than 2.6 million disabled veterans and widows who rely on VA benefit checks every month. It calls for $33.8 billion in mandatory spending. This is the highest spending ever in this area. It also calls for $30 billion, a 12.9 percent increase in discretionary spending. Nearly 90 percent of this funding is for veterans' medical care. These are the indisputable facts of this year's Federal budget for veterans.

House Members, particularly the Republicans, along with President Bush, are committed to ensuring that those who have served their country with pride, with valor and dignity receive the best of America's appreciation. Any suggestion otherwise is simply untrue, is not supported by the facts.

During January, I had the opportunity to visit with some of our men and women in uniform stationed in Germany, Italy, and France. And I was struck by their professionalism and commitment to their assigned duties. They were proud to serve. It is just as simple as that.

Two weeks ago, I visited North Korea where freedom is nowhere to be found and democratic thought is oppressed. We are truly blessed to live in a world of freedom and democracy and where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are abundant and, I would submit, many times taken for granted.

Defense of the principles and values that we hold so dearly as a Nation leads our men and women into conflicts around the globe. Many return home after giving the ultimate sacrifice in defense of such values. But to those who do return, we can never say thanks enough.

Today, as we continue to rely on our Armed Forces in the war against terrorism, we look to our veterans for their example of courage and sacrifice. It is their selfless service that has made our Nation strong and our world a better place. America's veterans deserve our respect, our deepest respect, and enduring appreciation, as do their spouses who choose to marry members of our armed services and to share with them all the joys and sacrifices of their active duty careers.

The Survivor Benefit Plan is not to military spouses what Congress had intended or what enrollees were promised. The program is not providing the level of protection military survivors need and deserve.

Retirees and survivors deserve no less in the SBP deal than they were promised. This Congress needs to step up and deliver what the aging survivors of our greatest generation retirees were promised. And we need to provide at the proper level the protection necessary for future generations of retirees. Congress must act to fix this problem now.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that was put together with the bipartisan work of all members of the House Committee on Armed Services, the defense bill for the United States. It was engaged in with a great deal of detail by Republicans and Democrats to try to do the very best we could for the people that wear the uniform of the United States.

Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, we have had enormous publicity the last number of days about the mess at Abu Ghraib. I estimated we have probably devoted as much media attention to that mess involving now, as identified, some seven personnel, as we did to the Normandy invasion, and that is an imbalance. It is time to refocus.

The subjects of the refocus should be the 135,000 great personnel doing their job in Iraq and the tens of thousands doing their job in Afghanistan and around the world in this war against terrorism. So I just thought I might start out, Mr. Chairman, by reminding my colleagues that while that much-publicized mess was taking place with just a few people at Abu Ghraib Prison, Master Sergeant Tony Prior was taking on an enemy position in Afghanistan and was single-handedly taking out four insurgents, the last one in hand-to-hand combat to win the Silver Star.

Jeffrey Bohr, Gunnery Sergeant Jeffrey Bohr was over in Iraq laying down a field of fire to protect his wounded Marines who otherwise would have been killed, and he laid down that field of fire until he himself was killed.

I have dozens of such citations, Mr. Chairman, on the leadership desk, and I would hope that Members walk down. And if their heads are filled with all of the publicity about a few bad apples at Abu Ghraib Prison, I want them to pick up those citations and read about the good apples, the great Americans who fill out this 2.5-million-person force that wear the uniform of the United States, active, Guard and Reserve.

This bill is a big bill, and my great partner, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, have worked on it along with all of the members of the committee. Almost all of our members have gone to Iraq now. A lot of them have also gone to Afghanistan, some of them multiple times. We have visited troops, held extensive hearings, and we put together a bill that we think supplies the wherewithal, the equipment for our troops to get the job done.

Let me go over a couple of those things, and then I want to listen to my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle who have been such great partners in this endeavor.

First, we have tried to focus on this theater in Iraq because our people need equipment, they need to have the very best equipment. They are over there in the heat and in enemy fire with oppressive living conditions. We have devoted and focused our dollars on that theater, so we pulled some money out of some areas that are not right now relevant, closely relevant, to that warfighting theater, more long-range things, things that are peripheral.

We focused that money on things like force protection, up-armored Humvees, steel for the trucks, the 5-ton trucks for the Army, 7-ton trucks for the Marine Corps, replenishment of ammunition, surveillance capability so we can see the bad guys and engage them before they can get in tight to our troops. All of the leverage we can give them with high technology, we give them in this bill.

We also look to their families. We have this 3.5 percent pay raise across the board, we have an expansion of the amount of money that our troops now get for hazardous duty and for separation from their family. We have also put in a survivor benefit for the widows of our military people and for the widowers of our military people so they will not have this offset against Social Security.

We have tried to do a lot of things on the people's side. We have a great bill with our military housing, our MILCON projects. We have privatization, the cap removed from 2006 on, and we are going to work to make sure there is no seam between 2005 and 2006.

Beyond that, the ranking member and I and a number of other folks have been working and looking at force levels. We now have 10 Army divisions; we used to have 18 in 1991. We have a relatively small Marine Corps, roughly 177,000. We realize we are going to need more people.

And for families who say, How come Joe is not here again for Christmas, whether he is Guard, Reserve, or active, one answer is, we have such a small force that the people have to go more often. And so we have increased in strength by some 10,000 this year, 10,000 next year and 10,000 the next year, and that coincides with Chief of Staff of the Army Schumacher's plan to increase the fighting strength of the U.S. Army by three brigades this year, three brigades next year, and four brigades the year after to add 10 new fighting brigades to the Army for a total of 43. We have also increased the U.S. Marines Corps by 3,000 personnel per year for the next 3 years.

To do that and to do a lot of the other things that we are flowing to the troops, we have also bolted onto this package a supplemental for $25 billion. That supplemental will handle the closing months of this year to make sure that our troops do not run thin on supplies or replenishment or new capabilities in the last few months of this year. It also helps General Schumacher to stand up this new modular force that he is putting into effect and reshaping the Army.

So we have that $25 billion bolted on, and that has lots of good stuff for the troops. It helps to sustain us through any tough things that we may see in the last several months of this year.

Now, we are going to need a new supplemental. We all know that. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) talked about that and put a $50 billion wedge in the budget, acknowledging that fact; and we are going to have to come around at some point and have a new supplemental to get through 2005. It all depends on how far we can reasonably project. We think this $25 billion bolt-on that we are doing will do the right things for the troops.

We have gone right down through the unfunded requirements list, things that our Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and our Air Force sent to us, things that they said we need, Congress, we do not have the money for them. And we went in and paid for those things so we can pull them out and deliver them to the troops in this supplemental we have bolted on.

So this is a great bill. I want to commend the ranking member and all of the great members of the Armed Services Committee. We have great subcommittee chairmen who have worked some very tough issues; their ranking members have worked them hard, and we have brought this bill, in what is a

contentious political season, we brought this bill out on a 60-0 vote. It was a 60-0 vote because we have common ground, and that common ground is the Armed Forces of the United States and their well-being.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, the subcommittee which oversees the biggest increment of the defense budget, all operations, maintenance and military construction.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Texas for their great work.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), who chairs the Subcommittee on Terrorism which oversees all of our special operators and who has spent a ton of his time this last year going to some very inconvenient places to make sure that our troops get what they need.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), who has great expertise in the area of defense.

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

I want to thank the gentleman for his hard work and the fact that he has been in Iraq and Afghanistan more than any other member, which is very important to this committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the very thoughtful chairman of the Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Strategic Forces which oversees our nuclear component, space assets, and many critical aspects of national security.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), a very distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman who just spoke for his hard work on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) for his hard work on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a gentleman with a real heart for our soldiers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), the gentleman who is the author, the father of this great benefit package for military survivors that was embedded in this bill and is good news for hundreds of thousands of families.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Let me just say in response to my colleague who has just spoken that we did something that was unprecedented in this bill, which was look into the future, into the last several months of this year, and decide that, even though we all agreed and the budget chairman announced on the floor and to the world that we were going to need supplementals of $50 billion this next year, we decided that we did not want to have any strain on the troops in the closing months of this year before Congress, after the election, could put together another supplemental.

So we provided this bridge, which even the gentleman will admit carries us well into the next year, into the next calendar year; and we did fully provide for the additional forces that we have in the field, the 1st Armored Division, which is going to be an additional $750,000. For all of the armor upgrades, we have got roughly $1 billion for armor upgrades in Humvees and trucks, for all of the modernization that the chief of staff of the Army needs for modularity, that is, building this new brigade centric force for the U.S. Army.

The reason we do not go off into the new year and say, okay, should it be $50 billion, should it be $75 billion is very simple. We cannot see the future. We do not know how much weight this new Iraqi military is going to be able to take on their shoulders, how fast we are going to be able to make this handoff; and all of those things drive the costs of operation. But this takes good care of the troops for a long period of time during this bridge period; and that is the reason we did it, to give the troops confidence.

It is above and beyond the $422 billion bill that we have. I think, Mr. Chairman, it does a good job in looking out for the troops.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, whose subcommittee oversees the most massive part of modernization and our biggest programs for aircraft and land systems, who has done a great job working this issue.

(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who chairs the Subcommittee on Total Force, which oversees the 2.5 million Americans in uniform.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his hard work and his urging that we try to retrieve an additional 10 B-1 bombers. We now have 67.

The Air Force was going to cut that down to 60. We moved it back up where we retrieved seven of the bombers that were going basically into the bone yard, and the gentleman worked hard with myself and other members of the committee to make sure we retrieved an additional 10 bombers. So we are taking the B-1 up to 77 bombers.

That B-1 has been a great asset for the projection of power for the United States. It has got great speed, it can hold a tremendous payload, and it can literally put a precision munition right through a goalpost. In fact, we went after Saddam Hussein early on in the war in Iraq with the B-1 bomber.

So the gentleman has been a champion of the B-1. I want to thank him for that, and I hope he is here with me when we roll out those additional 10 that we are bringing back from retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to thank the gentlewoman who just spoke, my seatmate in California, to say something about contractors.

God bless our contractors. The last figure I saw was that the contractors for Halliburton, who have to run Ambush Alley, bringing our convoys, bringing food to the troops up through the heart of the insurgency country in Iraq, have now lost 34 of their personnel, killed in action supplying American troops.

We have always had lots of contractors for the very simple reason that for every troop you have out there with a rifle, you need roughly 10 people to support him down the supply line; and a lot of those people have always been contractors. We have had them in all theaters of the war in this last century and, obviously, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The four individuals who were killed in Fallujah were American heroes, and they were trying to advance the American cause with every bit as pure a heart and sense of honor, in fact, as mostly former military personnel, as any of our people in the United States Marine Corps or Army in that area of operation.

So I think that we should appreciate our contractors perhaps more than has been noted on the House floor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a very good member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), who has worked so hard on the chem-bio protection issues.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman, no, I am not familiar with that situation.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman that I will be happy to work with the gentleman from Missouri on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of that very important committee, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

The gentleman is correct. The size and location of the demonstration project have been left to the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. I will add, however, the whole point of doing a demonstration project is to test whether a legislative idea will produce the results that its proponents intend. The Secretary should conduct a thorough and complete demonstration program.

I would just say to my good friend that he and his colleagues from New Jersey and others can certainly count on my support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), who has done so much great work on this committee.

Mr. Chairman, first, let me just say that this is a program that shares support on our committee among Democrats and Republicans. This aircraft capability is something that is very important to our country. We just did a briefing on the emerging aerospace industrial base in China, their new high-performance aircraft, which at some point may threaten American interests. This aircraft is vital, it is needed, and it is an important follow-on. We will keep working on it. I thank the gentleman for his hard work on it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a very distinguished American from San Diego, the Navy Top Gun who was nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor for actions over the skies of North Vietnam and who has a real heart for the servicemen.

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

Having heard the eloquence of my great colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and preceded by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), my old compadre, I do not think I can add anything to what they said.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to once more state the strong position of this House against the abuses at Abu Ghraib. I have noticed that the first conviction under the court-martial system has taken place today.

This is also an attempt to say good things about the hundreds of thousands of men and women who are serving in uniform, the 141,000 or so in Iraq who are serving honorably, and to put us solidly on record in support of the prosecution of wrongdoers and the continuing strong support, Mr. Chairman, of our forces who are locked in combat in the Iraq theater, in the Afghanistan theater, and let them know we do not support them any less because of the publicity of the last several weeks.

I think it is pretty consistent with what my great friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I have said over and over in the full committee hearings that we have had on this issue and the briefings that we had, and I would hope that all Members could support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman for his important work in this area, and also mention that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and I worked up a provision that is in the base bill also, that I think, after reading the Taguba report, very much follows the Taguba report in terms of clarifying policy.

Let me go over a couple of things that we require to be done.

Ensuring that commanders of detention facilities and commanders of interrogation facilities provide all assigned personnel, including contractor

personnel, with training, and documented acknowledgment of receiving training, regarding the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners; and establish SOPs, standard operating procedures, for the treatment of detainees.

We also provide that periodic unannounced and announced inspections be made by officers, something that was sadly lacking in the research and investigation that we have done and the review of the Taguba report. Also prohibiting contact between male guards and female detainees and between female guards and male detainees, except in exigent circumstances.

Clearly, there are many dimensions of a prison that are akin, in ways, to locker rooms, and it makes no sense to have substantial contact between male guards and female detainees or female guards and male detainees. So we have spelled that out.

So we have put in, working this in a bipartisan way, we have put in a number of new clarifications, which, while they are manifested into standard operating procedure, represent the emphasis that we would like to place on them in light of the Taguba report and the hearings and briefings that we have received in this matter.

Having said that, I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri and the gentleman from Massachusetts for working on this language also, and all the Members that worked on it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support this national defense authorization bill. I will leave aside my disappointment on the rule. We are past that, and we are now discussing the bill in general debate.

This bill is a good bill. It is a solid bill, and I wish first to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for his work, for his collegial markup, and for his leadership on the bill, as it was in the committee and reported to the House. We thank the gentleman for that.

This bill is an important one because it funds the military for a year, which is good news for the United States military. For those in uniform at the individual level, it makes a number of improvements on how our soldiers live. Most significantly, it raises the cap on family housing construction. Military service can weigh heavy on a family, and I believe it is much easier for a deployed soldier to know that the family back home is living in decent conditions.

The 3.5 percent larger paycheck, of course, helps. The bill also increases the end strength, that is, the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps. Since 1995, I have been urging this and as a result in the supplemental part, the $25 billion part of this bill, which is something which should have been done and is done, we are increasing the Army in strength by 10,000, 30,000 over 3 years; and the Marine Corps by 3,000, 9,000 over 3 years.

More broadly, the bill provides funding for the next few months of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was disappointed to receive a budget request that pretended we could not foresee at least some of the level of military activity. I recently wrote that, based on historical precedent, U.S. forces may be in Iraq for the next 50 years.

Whether that is true or not, we can be sure they will be there for more than 3 months.

We are in a war. Neither the country nor this Congress was united in initiating the conflict, but we stand now as one with the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines fighting it. I expect that much of the debate over the next 2 days will concern Iraq, and rightly so. Let me mention two points, if I may.

First, events of recent weeks, from open questions relating to the transition of sovereignty, to real questions about the role of private military contractors providing security services, to the disturbing events at Abu Ghraib prison highlight the Congress's need to get better information and to take our oversight role more seriously. These are issues critical to our country's security and to our role in the world. This bill makes some steps in those directions.

Second, though, it is important that we not let a focus on the current conflict blind us to the needs of the future. This bill says fiscal year 2005; but the force structures, platforms and policies addressed in it will shape the military for 40 years or more. We have to be prepared for the full range of threats to our Nation and its interests.

We have learned lessons from the past. We have learned some real-life lessons from attempting to rapidly acquire equipment to protect our forces in Iraq. Those lessons have been incorporated into this bill where there is streamlining acquisition language to help protect those who are in harm's way.

I am disappointed in the bill's approach to nuclear weapons development and not going further to fund the foreseeable costs of our current operations. I was disappointed, too, that the amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda Sanchez) to conform the Uniform Code of Military Justice was not allowed to be on this floor.

But, Mr. Chairman, we are at war. A few moments ago, we paid tribute to those who have served and do serve in uniform on a resolution involving the poppy, which we all wear. But the best thing we can do for those currently serving is to pass this bill to make sure they have the wherewithal to continue fighting and keeping the peace and stability in those far corners of the world. It is one way to say thank you, we support you, not just in words but by our votes today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Readiness.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New

York (Mr. Israel), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget and also a distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Total Force.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), a member of our Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining, please.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

If the gentleman will yield, I am familiar with the article and I have asked my staff to make official inquiry with the Reserve component of the United States Army to answer this.

I think coercion is certainly absolutely wrong. I would say to the gentleman that we would do everything we could to correct the mistake. I am certainly positive that the military would stand behind a mistake that they made.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

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

May I respond to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), my friend. I am most appreciative of his kind words.

This is a very important bill, Mr. Chairman. We are at war. Needless to say, a lot of legislative work went into this bill, and of course there are some disappointments that go along with it. But the bottom line is, it is going to be very helpful in both the anti-guerrilla effort in Iraq and the antiterrorism effort in Afghanistan as well as supporting the troops all over the globe.

Cicero once said that gratitude is the greatest of all virtues, and through this legislation, in our own way, Mr. Chairman, we are expressing our gratitude to the young men and young women who wear the uniform of our country. We thank them for doing their duty, for understanding what their duty is, for being professionals at what they are, and bottom line, being patriotic.

So we thank them in so many ways, in the amendments and in the paragraphs and the figures, as well as in the speeches in this Chamber, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), my friend, our chairman, and Members on both sides of the aisle.

So, Mr. Chairman, I fully support the bill. And at the end of this debate, I say thank you to the troops and I thank the majority, especially our chairman, for the cooperation that we have had.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, all one has to do is listen to the debate that we have had on this floor today. We are short of troops in the United States Army. We help correct that in this bill by authorizing, through the supplemental, 10,000 additional Army troops, 3,000 additional Marine troops; and, hopefully, this will continue for the next 3 years.

We are short of troops. Go anywhere you can and talk to our soldiers, whether it be here within the continental United States, Fort Leonard Wood, or wherever, Fort Jackson, you pick it, or go somewhere overseas; go to Iraq, Afghanistan, and talk to those young folks in uniform. They are stretched, and they are strained. As a matter of fact, we brought it up on the floor earlier today; 4,000 Army soldiers are being transferred out of South Korea, a brigade, into Iraq.

This is exhibit A. It is not a good idea to do this. This is for Border Patrol and police work.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time.

I will support the amendment, but I claim the time to speak.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I do support the amendment; however, if I may, I wish to point out a couple of things.

The Hunter-Meehan language that is in the base bill takes a major step towards this whole matter of the Abu Ghraib Prison situation, which of course is deplorable, and I think it is a good provision that is already in the bill.

I wish, however, that four Democratic amendments had been made in order on the prisoner abuse situation: one by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) that specifically lists prohibited interrogation techniques, which makes them very clear; one by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) that requires very detailed reporting on the role of contractors as interrogators; one by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) that would close loopholes in existing law on how contractors who commit crimes can be prosecuted; and one by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), which would make a database of detainee names available to families and create an international commission to monitor detainee treatment.

Each one of those, individually and collectively, I think, would have made this bill all the better.

But I must express my position in support of this amendment, because we do know that there are major steps to be taken, and we further know that there are so many young men and young women doing positive work in Iraq and Afghanistan; and we hope that the terrible and deplorable situation in that prison that has dominated the news now for a good number of days does not detract from their excellent work.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4200, ``The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005''.

I would like to start off by commending Chairman Duncan Hunter and the entire Committee on Armed Services for all of the hard work on this legislation. A bill of this magnitude requires an enormous bi-partisan effort. The result here is legislation that will provide the resources necessary for U.S. military forces to protect and defend this country both at home and abroad.

I am concerned, however, with several provisions in this bill affecting the acquisition system. The first provisions interfere with the Department of Defense's competitive sourcing program. The second group of provisions represent an ill-considered attempt to protect domestic jobs. We can all agree that the Federal government should do as much as it can to support jobs in America. However, tacking on onerous provisions to the acquisition system to protect a handful of jobs is not the right approach. It costs money--taxpayers' money. The acquisition system's purpose is to procure the best value goods and services with taxpayers' dollars, not to protect jobs. Most important, we have learned time and time again that provisions restricting our ability to tap the resources of the global market in the name of saving jobs result in retaliation from our trading partners, costing us more jobs in the long run.

First, we have the provisions of the Langevin amendment included in the Committee mark. These provisions, if enacted, would require sweeping changes to the Administration's critical competitive sourcing program and hamstring the Defense Department's ability to manage its programs and workforce.

Our economy is based on a free market system where competition is essential to maintaining vibrancy and productivity. Who can argue with the idea that a little competition is needed to spur efficiency in Government? The problem is that, despite having considerable input into the revised OMB Circular A-76 that provides the procedural framework for the competitive sourcing program, its opponents have mounted an attack on competitive sourcing. They equate ``competitive sourcing'' with ``outsourcing'' or ``privatization,'' or at least they say they do. But words matter, and competitive sourcing is simply not the same as outsourcing or privatization. Outsourcing assumes up front that the private sector can perform activities better, cheaper, and/or faster

than a government organization. Competitive sourcing does not assume the private sector is the preferred provider. Its purpose is not to downsize the government workforce. It uses competition to decide. Opponents argue that competitive sourcing takes jobs away from Federal employees. This is simply untrue. In most cases, the Federal employees involved in the competition either retain their jobs if the agency team wins or are rehired if the private sector wins. In fact, according to agency data from a recent GAO report, in-house teams win most of the competitions, retaining almost 76 percent of the positions competed. The key point is, public-private competitions result in substantial savings in the activity competed, regardless of who wins the competition.

The Langevin language would cripple the competitive sourcing program at the Department of Defense. It would, for example, prevent the Department from making reasoned management decisions for the benefit of our Armed Forces and the American taxpayer by prohibiting the Defense Department from making any reorganization of a function so that it would be performed by 10 or fewer employees unless it conducts a public/private competition. Think about this: under this provision, the Secretary of Defense is prohibited from paring his office staff from 12 people to 9.

Further, the Langevin amendment unfairly tilts public-private competitions toward the Federal employees and introduces into private businesses' right to offer their employees a total compensation package by prohibiting the A-76 cost comparison from including any savings that could be attributable to a businesses' use of a worker health plan that is different than that provided to Federal government employees. This would establish a Federal mandate to private industry and cripple the ability of small businesses to participate in this program. That, Mr. Chairman, is not good government.

The Langevin provision also would require the Department of Defense to establish a pilot program to conduct an arbitrary number of public/ private competitions for new work and work currently performed by contractors. This would mandate that the Department expend resources so that Federal workers can compete with the private sector to perform new commercial work. Don't our Federal workers have enough to do in fulfilling their current responsibilities? Interestingly, the requirements would not extend to any work to be performed by a contractor whose workers are represented by a private-sector labor union.

Finally, the Langevin amendment imposes a mass of reporting and tracking requirements, which in a number of cases duplicate requirements that are currently in chapter 146 of title 10. The only point of these is to gum up the competitive sourcing program. A number of these mandates would apply whenever a service contract is awarded by the agency, whether or not as the result of a competitive sourcing study. So not only are the Langevin supporters interested in hamstringing the competitive sourcing program but also in reversing the recently passed reforms in service contracting.

Secondly, section 811 of the bill, titled Defense Trade Reciprocity, would prohibit DoD from purchasing any defense article or service from any company in a country (including our NATO allies, our coalition partners, and Israel) that within one year does not have an offset policy toward U.S. companies that is comparable to U.S. offset policy. This provision is ill advised, would severly limit the ability of the Department of Defense to cooperate with our allies and operate overseas, and would undercut the ability of our defense industry to compete in selling to our allies.

Last fall, the Congress passed two provisions dealing with offsets. In the extension of the Defense Production Act, we asked the Commerce Department to complete a study by this August on the impact of offsets on the supplier base and required the Administration to discuss with our trading partners ways to reduce the ``adverse'' impacts of offsets. Congress is to receive periodic reports on how such discussions are progressing.

In last year's Defense Appropriations Act, we required the Department of Defense to prepare a report by March 1 on the impact of offsets on the defense industrial base and make any appropriate recommendations. We ought to at least wait for the results of the actions we demanded of the Executive Branch only a few months ago before taking premature actions on offsets.

In fact, while offsets distort international defense trade, concern about the impact of offsets is overblown. The annual Commerce Department review of offsets that is required by a provision of the Defense Production Act consistently concludes that defense sales that have associated offset provisions produce approximately 30,000 U.S. jobs, and the offsets reduce that figure by about 9,000 jobs, for a net gain to the U.S. of 21,000 jobs. Any actions that jeopardized those sales could result in a net loss of jobs and an erosion of the U.S. defense industrial base.

The U.S. currently enjoys a trade balance in defense exports of 6-1 in its favor with respect to Europe and around 12-1 with respect to the world. In a time when we worry about ballooning trade deficits, the U.S. aerospace industry delivers the largest export surplus of any sector in the economy with over a $25 billion trade surplus in 2003. Policies that restrict the ability of U.S. companies to continue making such sales will hinder interoperability with our allies, reduce U.S. jobs, and undercut the supplier base.

The simple fact is that restrictive provisions such as this are self- defeating, Cold War anachronisms that cripple our participation in the Global Market and jeopardize defense exports--one of the major sectors of our economy.

Finally, the Manzullo amendment, to be considered on the floor, would add the creation of jobs in the U.S. as one of the instances that the Secretary of Defense could use in a determination under 10 U.S.C. 2304(b)(1) to exclude a source to establish or maintain alternative sources of supply. The 10 U.S.C. 2304(b)(1) is seldom used and it is discretionary, but it could be used to justify a sole-source contract award under the guise that it created jobs.

Moreover, the amendment would add ``the creation of jobs'' to the list of required evaluation factors for all negotiated acquisitions under 10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(A). This would mandate that the creation of jobs be a factor in the selection of the winning offeror in a competitive acquisition. The problem here is that we would be requiring the consideration of a factor that has nothing whatever to do with the merits or cost of the proposal. Again we are burdening our acquisition system with a requirement that is not related to the acquisition of best value goods and services for the government.

Additionally, I am concerned with Chairman Hunter's amendment that adds money for the Patriot missile and uses a $48 million cut to the KEI program as one of the offsets. The KEI program will play a crucial role in our Nation's security by providing enemy ballistic missile defense. Any cut in funding will hinder this program's advances in the area of anti-ballistic missiles.

I also want to offer my support to the Wamp amendment, which makes improvements to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act. The amendment addresses statutory problems that have created significant bottlenecks for thousands of claims being made under this important DOE program.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to again commend Chairman Hunter for this bill in its entirety, despite my opposition to some of its specifics.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time, and I thank our chairman for always working together in a very strong bipartisan manner on this very important committee as it involves the national security of our country.

Mr. Chairman, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee has jurisdiction over some of the most contentious and controversial issues considered by the overall committee, including ballistic missile defense and nuclear weapon development programs. While we did not reach complete bipartisan accord on these two issues, the subcommittee and the committee generally had substantive and cordial debates on all of these matters.

I am somewhat disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that even though the bill contains $10 billion for various ballistic missile defense programs, no amendment was made in order to allow for legitimate debate and a vote on important policy issues related to those programs.

I am, however, pleased that we will have an opportunity to debate the wisdom of developing new nuclear weapons. The mark contains the President's budget request for both the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and an initiative to study new nuclear weapons designs called Advanced Concepts. I will encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the Tauscher amendment which would transfer these funds to a more realistic and conventional alternative to ``bunker busting.''

Our committee reached bipartisan agreement on the space programs within this mark. We reduced funding for the Transformational Satellite Communications program by $100 million and prevent the Air Force from downselecting a prime contractor on space-based radar until they provide a report to Congress. Members on both sides of the aisle are concerned about the affordability and the technological readiness of these programs.

Overall, the mark of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee is one that I support. I am especially pleased that we were able to reach a bipartisan agreement to add funding for THAAD, which is critical and important to better protecting our troops in the field of theater-range ballistic missiles. I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), my partner and my chairman, for his leadership on this issue and our subcommittee in general. Even on those areas where we disagree, he has always been a straightforward and fair individual, and it has been a pleasure to work with him.

I also want to state today my concern about the number of troops in our armed services. I am pleased that the

bill increases the end-strength levels for the Army and Marine Corps over the next 3 years, but I remain concerned that this surely is not enough. Simply put, we do not have enough troops to sustain our commitments around the world, facing the current challenge. We are starting to crack around the end-strength issue, and this may be an indicator that we may have to reevaluate and reprioritize the various theaters.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a fellow Texan.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

I am opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), my good friend and colleague. In fact, we came to Congress together, and as my colleague knows, I spent more than 26 years in Federal law enforcement on the border between the United States and Mexico.

I was on the front lines of our Nation's war on drugs and against terrorism. I know how difficult it is to patrol and to secure our Nation's borders. And I know the need for additional resources and I surely understand the realities of the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Goode) concerns.

As a combat veteran and as a member of the Committee on Armed Services and as an experienced Border Patrol agent, I understand and I appreciate the concerns of the gentleman from Virginia. However, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it is simply the wrong solution to our current problems along the border.

This amendment will send our military personnel to our borders at a time when they are already stretched thin in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Kosovo, Bosnia, and over 100 other countries around the world. We cannot and we should not ask our military personnel to patrol our borders.

If this Congress wants to secure our borders, then let us deploy additional law enforcement officers to the border, but let us do it the right way. Let us make a commitment to hire and train 20,000 Border Patrol agents or 1,000 agents a year to be deployed along our borders until we fully staff our ports of entry and in between our ports of entry with Border Patrol agents and Customs personnel.

We should not use military personnel for these kinds of jobs. We need our military to be at their best. Patrolling our borders against illegal immigration and against drug trafficking has very minimal military value and detracts from the training with our warfighting equipment for our warfighting missions. It will also lead to decreased military training, which reduces unit readiness and overall combat effectiveness of our armed services.

We in Congress are very concerned about protecting our men and women in uniform from threats such as the improvised explosive devices. I submit that this amendment is an improvised explosive device except that instead of an IED, it is ill-advised, expensive, and detrimental to border communities in particular.

The Department of Defense, as we all know, is opposed to this amendment, has been opposed to this amendment year after year, every time it comes on this floor. Currently, requests for DOD support can be made to the Secretary of Defense either directly by a Cabinet member or through the President. The Department of Defense already plays a significant role in supporting the defense of our border, if not through armed personnel, then through activities in technology.

UAVs supporting border security are based at Fort Wachuka, Arizona. Other support comes from essential units such as the Joint Task Force 6 headquarters based in my district. It provides critical training to law enforcement personnel along the border, including engineering, barrier fencing, and lighting.

And while today, Mr. Chairman, I may not agree with the gentleman from Virginia, I do know that what he wants to do is the right thing for our country. I would, therefore, ask him now to join with me and find a way to place additional professional law enforcement personnel on the border and not military personnel that are already stretched so thin throughout the world.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our distinguished ranking member from the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who knows and understands the issues that border communities have to face.

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

It appears to me, Mr. Chairman, we are talking on one level, and my colleagues are talking on another level. We are saying that we do not have the military resources and do not have the

luxury of doing exactly what my colleague from Colorado just talked about.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), a former sheriff who knows and understands and lives in a border community.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say to my colleague, the argument is made here that the effort in Iraq is part of homeland security and extending protection of our homeland there. Now we are hearing comments that this proposal retracts that to the homeland security border. We cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has made repeated trips to the border and knows and understands what these issues mean to border communities.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this bill before us provides for cooperation between our Armed Forces and Federal law enforcement agencies to combat terrorism, drug trafficking, and illegal immigration.

Recent history shows us that there is no impediment to cooperation between the Department of Defense, that is opposed to this amendment, and our border law enforcement agencies.

It is also worth remembering and reiterating that in the event of a crisis, the President already has the authority. Let me repeat, the President today already has the authority to place our military assets or whatever assets he deems necessary and move them to protect the homeland. It is for these reasons that the Department of Defense has always opposed this amendment whenever it has been presented here on the House floor.

Essentially, the amendment grants the Secretary of Defense any authority that he already has under title 10 of the U.S. Code.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we understand that we cannot continue to debate an issue that further stresses and further puts military personnel in a situation that compounds and exacerbates the already evident pressure of our armed services. It is important that our colleagues understand that a vote for this amendment is a vote that may feel good, that may seem right, that may be politically expedient, but it is not the right thing to do.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote against the Goode amendment.