Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would adopt the recommendation of the Congressional Budget Office to restructure our missile defense programs, specifically, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System. The amendment would instruct the Secretary of Defense not to deploy any Ground-based Midcourse Defense System beyond the authorized systems that are now at Fort Greeley, Alaska and, the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California or any space-based interceptors of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

It would reduce funding for the research, development, test and evaluation for the defense agencies by $4,747,000,000.

Under the Congressional Budget Office's ``evolutionary alternative,'' the Department of Defense would fund the capabilities planned for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System through 2007.

Money would continue to be provided to pursue upgrades to the elements of the ground-based missile defense initial defense capability, would continue testing its components and would explore other missile defense concepts.

But the savings on the midcourse missile defense under the Congressional Budget Office alternative would total $29 billion on a Department of Defense-wide basis through 2007.

I commend to my colleagues no less than seven reports released in the last 2 months critical of various aspects of the ballistic missile system, and I will introduce copies for the Record. Two of them are from the General Accountability Office, two from the Department of Defense's own Inspector General's Office, one from the Congressional Research Office, one from the Congressional Budget Office and one from the Pentagon's own Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.

All of them raise doubts about the feasibility of missile defense. And as a group they offer a damning indictment of the missile defense system that supposedly, but not actually offers the United States an initial defense capability.

The Center for Defense Information states in its analysis, changes are imperative. If the Missile Defense Agency continues in the same vein it has been, the United States will see itself saddled with a missile defense system that costs tens of billions, possibly hundreds of billions of dollars, yet provides no actual defense.

What is more, by diverting that money to an unfeasible system, the United States will miss out on the protection it could be getting from weapons systems that actually work.

Mr. Chairman, the moneys are important, of course, but having a false sense of security is dangerous. And not investing these moneys in needed security systems, systems to protect our space and domestic assets and for homeland security risk is criminally negligent.

The General Accountability reports note that if the Pentagon does not move away from its spiral development or acquisition policy where a system's progress is never held to any sort of accountability, has no defined parameters, the Department of Defense will continue to start more programs for more money and create the next set of case studies for future defense reform reviews.

Fielding systems that still are in early developmental cycles, rushing them into the field where they have very serious problems with every component, that is a recipe for disaster. Immature technologies are not perfected, integration of the systems is not happening, testing in real-life scenarios is lacking, information assurance controls that were built to the network are sadly out of date.

This report shows poor quality control, unreasonable, in fact outrageous, cost growth, and schedule slips and inferior performance.

An ``F'' for Missile Defense: How Seven Government Reports in Two

Months Illustrate the Need for Missile Defense To Change Its Ways

(By Victoria Samson, CDI Research Analyst)

A certain amount of optimism is required to successfully

guide a weapon system through its development to completion.

However, at a certain point, reality needs to poke through so

that program and service officials can make relatively

objective assessments. Is it working? Is it going to work? Is

it staying on budget and schedule? If not, can it get back on

track? And finally, the most difficult question to ask of a

program: Should it continue?

The multi-faceted missile defense program, currently the

Pentagon's golden child, has effectively avoided any and all

tough questions. Over $92 billion has been spent on missile

defense systems since the Ronald Reagan administration, to

little avail. While the architecture still has not been

finalized, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) envisions a

system of systems, where there are ground-, sea-, and air-

based interceptors supported by a yet-to-be-built satellite

system, new X-band radars that are still being put in place,

and a command and control system that is not secure to

outside interference.

President George W. Bush announced in December 2002 that,

within two years, the United States would have deployed an

initial missile defense system that could defend the United

States against a limited ICBM attack. With that pressure from

above, MDA focused its efforts on the fielding interceptors

in Alaska and California the Ground-based Midcourse Defense

(GMD) system. As of writing, 13 interceptors have been

emplaced in missile silos. As well, MDA is working on a sea-

based interceptor that is carried on the Aegis ship, a sea-

based X-band radar that is slowly floating to its home port

in Alaska, a giant command and control module based out of

Colorado, a satellite network that could track enemy missiles

as they approach the U.S. homeland, and systems that are

geared toward providing defense against shorter-range

ballistic missiles (Theater High Altitude Area Defense

system, or THAAD, and the Patriot Advanced Capability PAC-3

system). In the long run, MDA is building a modified Boeing

747 airplane that would carry lasers in its nose and kinetic

kill vehicles which theoretically could obliterate multiple

targets.

MDA has been entrusted with a great deal of responsibility.

It has not lived up to its tasks. In the past two months, no

less than seven reports have been released that were critical

of various aspects of the Ballistic Missile Defense System

(BMDS). For clarity's sake, this analysis will focus largely

on MDA's flagship program, the GMD system, whose existence is

used to falsely claim that the United States has an initial

defensive capability against ICBMs. And to head off

allegations of bias, it must be noted that these reports were

written by non-partisan government agencies. Two reports by

the Government Accountability Office (GAO), two from the

Defense Department (DOD)'s own Inspector General's office,

and reports by the Congressional Research Service (CRS),

Congressional Budgetary Office ``(CBO), and the Pentagon's

Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) all raise

doubts about the feasibility of missile defense. As a group,

they offer a damning indictment of the missile defense system

that supposedly offers the United States an initial defensive

capability.

overshooting cost goals, falling short of planned achievements

Missile defense programs have featured prominently in two

recent reports by the GAO. The first, ``Assessment of

Selected Major Weapons Programs,'' examines the cost growth

of many Pentagon weapon systems. It notes, ``DOD often

exceeds development cost estimates by approximately 30 to 40

percent and experiences cuts in planned quantities, missed

deadlines, and performance shortfalls.'' The GAO points out,

``Programs consistently move forward with unrealistic cost

and schedule estimates, use immature technologies in

launching product development, and fail to solidify design

and manufacturing processes at appropriate points in

development.'' The missile defense system prides itself on

its ``spiral development'' or acquisition policy that is

constantly evolving, under which a system's progress is never

held to strictly defined parameters.

``Programs consistently move forward with unrealistic cost

and schedule estimates, use immature technologies in

launching product development, and fail to solidify design

and manufacturing processes at appropriate points in

development.''

The GAO takes this type of acquisition policy to task. In

fact, David Walker, comptroller-general of the United States,

warns that if the Pentagon doesn't move away from it, DOD

``will continue to start more programs than it can finish,

produce less capability for more money, and create the next

set of case studies for future defense reform reviews.''

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has argued that the

missile defense program needs the flexibility of spiral

development to allow it to mold itself to future threats and

to incorporate lessons learned while testing. Why other

Pentagon programs somehow manage to hold themselves

accountable and still meet evolving threats is never

discussed by MDA officials. Instead, MDA promotes the idea

that all possible missile defense candidate technologies will

be put through their paces, and eventually testing will prove

the winners and losers. Again, MDA has never stated at which

point it will definitively decide to drop a flagging program.

The closest it has come is in giving one of its programs

(Airborne Laser) what it calls ``knowledge parameters,'' in

an attempt to prove to critics that, despite outward

appearances, there is indeed progress toward development.

Another key part of spiral development is that weapon

systems will be fielded when they are still early in their

development cycles. The intent is that they can continue to

grow and presumably advance while providing some sort of

military utility. What ends up happening is that systems--

the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system most

noticeably--are rushed out into the field even when there

are very serious problems with their components... or

indeed, are crucial elements to their architecture still

lacking. For example, the GMD interceptor suffered a

flight test failure in February 2005 due to poor quality

control by its contractor for the arm that holds the

missile up in its silo. In testimony to the Senate Armed

Services Committee on April 4, 2006, Obering acknowledged

this problem and stated that this component would be

replaced on the interceptors that have already been

fielded. Nonetheless, the $40 million missile as

originally designed continues to be built at a rate of one

every two months or so.

The GAO notes that weapon systems development programs

progress much better and keep costs lower if technology is

allowed to mature before being brought into a developmental

or initial operating system. GAO observes that program

acquisition unit costs for programs with mature technologies

increase by less than one percent over original cost

estimates, while the program acquisition unit costs for

programs with immature technologies increase by 27 percent

over the first full estimate.

The report goes on to review various weapon systems to

assess their level of technological maturity and cost growth.

The GMD system's ``concurrent testing and fielding efforts

may lead to additional design changes,'' warns the GAO, and

the program's ``prime contract could overrun its target cost

by as much as $1.5 billion. Boeing, GMD's prime contractor,

has already overrun its budget by $600 million as a result of

quality control issues. As what seems to be the standard for

missile defense, program officials differ from outsiders

about the program: while program officials rate GMD's needed

10 technologies as mature, the GAO differs, stating that

``four have not been demonstrated in an operational

environment and we believe that they cannot be considered

fully mature.'' And since the GAO's last assessment of GMD,

the program's planned budget through fiscal year 2009 (FY 09)

has risen by $2.9 billion, or 11.2 percent.

GMD's cost growth is bad enough, but as it turns out, the

United States is paying more and getting less than

anticipated. In another GAO report, the title says it all:

``Missile Defense Agency Fields Initial Capability but Falls

Short of Original Goals.'' MDA's accelerated development of

the GMD program in order to reach an initial capability by

the end of 2004 caused the agency to run over that portion of

its budget by $1 billion. For FY 05, GMD contractors had

exceeded anticipated costs by 25 percent. The GAO also took

to task the forced reliance by MDA upon spiral development

``[I]t allowed the GMD program to concurrently mature

technology, complete design activities, and produce and field

assets before end-to-end testing of the system--all at the

expense of cost, quantity, and performance goals.''

In addition, for the initial defensive capability stated as

the goal of the rapid fielding of the overall missile defense

network, MDA fell quite short of what it had hoped to have

accomplished. ``Compared to its original goals set in 2003,

MDA fielded 10 fewer GMD interceptors than planned, two fewer

radars, 11 fewer Aegis BMD missiles, and six fewer Aegis

ships,'' lists the GAO report. The United States has

officially fielded elements of the ballistic missile defense

system architecture, but these are really token efforts. Even

if the systems had proved themselves during testing and

development--which they have not--and even if they had all

their needed components at the ready--which they do not--this

system would be a feeble shadow of what planners had hoped

for.

Spiral development ``allowed the GMD program to

concurrently mature technology, complete design activities,

and produce and field assets before end-to-end testing of the

system--all at the expense of cost, quantity, and performance

goals.''

Another result of rushing the missile defense elements out

into the field is that workmanship has been shoddy, at best.

Poor quality control has been listed time and again as an

explanation for cost growth, schedule slips, and inferior

performance. The GAO report explains, ``According to MDA's

own audits, the interceptor's design requirements were

unclear and sometimes incomplete, design changes were poorly

controlled, and the interceptor's design resulted in

uncertain reliability and service life.'' The GMD interceptor

was not tested to ensure its parts could withstand the harsh

environment in space--which could result in catastrophic

failures after launch as the interceptors are supposed to

impact their targets outside the Earth's atmosphere. Further,

the failures of two recent flight tests--1FT-10 and 1FT-14--

were due to poor quality control procedures. The development

of some parts for the GMD interceptor has been so careless

that, according to the GAO, the parts in question would

have to be replaced and thus ``the interceptors will be

removed from their silos.'' Neither GAO nor MDA, has yet to

explain at what cost such repairs will have to be made.

Unfortunately, cost growth, schedule slips, and faulty

parts are not specific to missile defense programs. One can

see that easily in every branch of the Pentagon. Where the

missile defense program differs is in the extent of autonomy

and decision-making freedom given to MDA officials managing

the various pieces of the program. Given the pressure they

were under from President George W. Bush's December 2002

announcement that an initial capability would be in place by

the end of 2004, managers decided that the development and

fielding process required a speedier schedule to meet that

deadline. As a result, the GAO recounts, ``MDA officials told

us that because the agency was directed to field a capability

earlier than planned, it accepted additional risks.''

The agency was able to accelerate fielding because MDA

officials have been given unprecedented liberties with

acquisition planning and scheduling. They are further allowed

to shift around funding from one program element to another

as they see fit, under special rules set up by DOD. According

to the GAO, ``Compared with other DOD programs, MDA has

greater latitude to make changes to the BMDS [Ballistic

Missile Defense Program] program without seeking the approval

of high-level acquisition executives outside the

program.'' Because of this flexibility, while MDA does

inform Congress and DOD of funding rearrangements,

accountability is practically nil; instead, its version of

it has ``thus become broadly applied as to mean delivering

some capability within funding allocations.''

MDA is also free of requirements that all other major DOD

acquisition programs must undertake in regards to

establishing baseline estimates of cost, performance and

schedule. If other programs slip in meeting those

predetermined requirements, Pentagon and/or service managers

must alert Congress. If any program sees cost growth up to a

certain amount in one quarter, it is considered to have

suffered a so-called Nunn-McCurdy breach, which means DOD

must alert Congress of the problem. If the cost growth is

over 25 percent in a single quarter, DOD then must overhaul

and justify the offending program. The Ballistic Missile

Defense System, however, is exempt from these requirements.

MDA officials have much more flexible baselines for their

programs. MDA can avoid having to report programs' quarterly

cost growth simply by changing cost goals and estimates.

Also, MDA has the responsibility of deciding when it will

alert Congress to schedule slips or cost growths, since

``there are no criteria to identify which variations are

significant enough to report. Instead, MDA's Director, by

statute, has the discretion to determine which variations

will be reported.''

MDA officials do not have to hold themselves accountable to

any particular standard or report if certain achievements

have not been met. And Congress has, up to now, refrained

from complaining about its lack of oversight over the $10

billion dollar a year MDA budget.

Up to now, the only ``achievements'' reported by MDA have

been the flight test failures. The MDA has even stopped

announcing when it has emplaced new interceptors at missile

silos in Alaska and California. Ostensibly, this is because

of operational security needs, but in actuality, it is more

likely a move designed to avoid bad press as testing and

deployment goes forward.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 293 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 293.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

Madam Speaker, the rule is a structured rule providing for 1 hour of debate equally divided and waives all points of order against the rule. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read and waives all points of order against the amendment. It makes in order only those amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules and provides that amendments shall be considered only in the order specified in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, and shall not be subject to amendment. Additionally, it allows the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services to offer an en bloc amendment consisting of amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 1815 and the underlying bill. This bill will enhance our security, increase the capabilities of our military, and improve the lives of the brave men and women who defend our country. Since September 11, 2001, our military has proven its mettle and validated its doctrine, plans, and programs during the ongoing war on terror.

Madam Speaker, I genuinely believe that the Committee on Armed Services has presented us with an outstanding bill that addresses many of the challenges our troops face on a daily basis. However, it is important to remember that this yearly authorization is at root an ongoing transformative process that occurs on an annual basis. This year we have taken important steps in the improvement and transformation of our existing forces during an era that is dangerous, demanding, and filled with challenges that our country neither anticipated nor prepared for during the 1990s.

To fully appreciate the significance of H.R. 1815, one must understand the four long-term challenges we seek to address in this legislation. The first long-term challenge stems from the procurement holiday that our government voluntarily took during the 1990s. In those years, neither the President nor the Congress funded the procurement needs of our Armed Forces. As one example, during the 1990s the ammunition accounts of our military were woefully underfunded. As a result, even after radically increasing the productivity of our ammunition plants in the last few years, we are still struggling to keep pace with our current and projected needs.

The same is true of equipment, which was neither acquired nor replaced in sufficient quantities during the years between the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the onset of the war on terror. As a result, our military is still dealing with the shortages of equipment and munitions that were created in the 1990s and that have yet to be fully resolved. This bill helps address these shortages.

Madam Speaker, the second long-term challenge we must address on a continual basis is related to the transformation of our military forces. With the passage of the Goldwater-Nickles reforms of 1986, our military began putting an increased emphasis on jointness. Over the years, increased jointness has generated different requirements for our forces. Those requirements demand procedural, bureaucratic, and technological changes within our Armed Forces. The principle of transformation has affected everything that our military does, from how we fight to how we deliver services to those who serve in our Armed Forces. Properly used, joint planning, procurement, and operations are an effective combat multiplier that creates the critical edge that our forces need to defeat our adversaries. However, transformation comes with a substantial cost. This is an issue we must address on an ongoing basis. H.R. 1815 does just that.

Madam Speaker, the third long-term challenge we face is the need to expand the size of our military. Over the past few years, it has become clear that we went much too far in downsizing our military forces after the end of the Cold War. To begin to address our manpower shortage, the Committee on Armed Services increased end strength by 10,000 soldiers for the Army and 1,000 Marines for the Marine Corps. This is on top of increases made in the last 2 years. It is also in addition to reforms allowing us to use a greater percentage of our military personnel in a combat capacity.

Unfortunately, even these steps are not enough for our long-term needs, but they are at least a start and responsive to the heavy demands we are placing on our military forces. Over the next several years, we will be forced to look more carefully at manpower needs and come up with a more realistic assessment of what is actually required. Still, H.R. 1815 is a good next step and one which we should support and build upon in the coming years.

The fourth long-term challenge faced by the military results from the global war on terror. This is not a conventional war. It is a generational war which will take decades to win. We need to remember this when approaching the needs of the military in the authorization and the appropriations process. Hence, I believe we took a wise and important step in this direction when we added $49 billion to the defense bill to offset a portion of the costs of this conflict next year. It is something that indicates our understanding of the long-term nature of the challenge we face.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1815 is not a perfect bill; but it is a very, very good piece of legislation. We must remember that the National Defense Authorization Act moves us in the direction we need to go. For that, all of us should be grateful. Ultimately, this bill is not about programs, weapons, or research and development. It is about our soldiers and their ability to defend the United States.

Today, some may want to discuss issues that, however important, are superfluous to the war on terrorism and the long-term military challenges that we face. We owe it to the sons and daughters of America who are on a global battlefield in the war on terror

to address the real issues and challenges our military will confront today and tomorrow. This legislation is a step in a continuing process of enhancing our military capabilities in a dangerous world.

I would ask Members to support these prudent steps taken in this thoughtful and comprehensive piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, to that end, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, to my good friends on the other side, I would simply point out that most of the speakers are actually members of the authorizing committee and passed out this bill 61 to 1, had opportunities to offer those amendments at the committee level, presumably did so, and if they did so, were not successful, and still felt the bill was worthy of being sent on to the floor for further consideration.

In addition, the Rules Committee actually considered and has allowed 29 amendments, a majority of which are Democratic amendments. There is always going to be a judgment debate as to what should or should not be considered and how much time should be devoted in a process to any particular piece of legislation. So I respect the gentlewoman from California's opinion, but obviously we have a difference on this.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

That is correct.

I am aware of that.

Reclaiming my time, I am also aware that the item the gentleman mentioned was actually stricken on the parliamentary question.

I would like to submit for the Record the chairman of the committee's letter to that effect and also the statement from CBO upholding that decision.

Committee on Armed Services,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.

Dear Armed Services Committee Colleague: This morning the

Congressional Budget Office informed me via letter (copy

attached), that the amendment agreed to during the

committee's mark-up of H.R. 1815, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, extending TRICARE

coverage to all reservists will result in additional direct

(or mandatory) spending. As a result, the inclusion of this

provision would cause the bill to exceed the mandatory

spending allocation provided under the Concurrent Resolution

on the Budget. Exceeding the mandatory allocation will cause

H.R. 1815 to violate the Congressional Budget Act and subject

the bill to a point of order against its consideration on the

House floor.

I have consulted the Chairman of the House Budget Committee

on this matter and he informs me that if the bill is brought

forward to the floor in violation of the Budget Act, he will

exercise his prerogative to raise the applicable point of

order and thus prevent its consideration on the floor.

Accordingly, after informing Mr. Skelton and the sponsor of

the amendment, I am exercising the authority granted to me by

the committee to remove this section in order to bring the

bill back into compliance with the Budget Act and eliminate

this impediment to its floor consideration. In summary, if

this action is not taken, a point of order will be raised and

sustained against the bill and its consideration will be

blocked.

Sincerely,

Duncan Hunter,

Chairman.

Attachment.

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.

Hon. Duncan Hunter,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of

Representatives, Washington DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: As requested by your staff, we are

sending you this letter containing our preliminary estimate

of a provision in H.R. 1815, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, as ordered reported

by the committee on May 19, 2005. The provision would provide

access to TRlCARE health insurance benefits for reserve

component personnel. Implementing that provision would have

significant effects on both spending subject to appropriation

and direct spending.

The provision would affect direct spending by increasing

mandatory expenditures in the Federal Employees Health

Benefits (FEHB) program. On a preliminary basis, CBO

estimates that enacting this provision would increase direct

spending for the government's share of FEHB premiums for

retirees by $5 million in 2006, $94 million over the 2006-

2010 period, and $269 million over the 2006-2015 period.

Under the provision, all reservists in the Selected Reserve

would be eligible to enroll in TRlCARE, the health insurance

system for the Department of Defense (DoD). Based on

information from DoD, CBO estimates that about 120,000

reservists work for the federal government. CBO expects that

some of these reservists who are currently enrolled in the

FEHB program would leave that program and enroll in the new

TRlCARE for Reservists program because the premiums would be

lower than for FEHB and the coverage would be more generous.

Generally, TRICARE premiums are lower because medical costs

are highly correlated with age--the average reservist is age

34 while the average for enrollees in the FEHB program

(including retirees) is closer to age 60.

Because the estimated health care costs for reservists

switching to TRICARE are likely to be lower than the average

per capita costs for all other enrollees in the FEHB program,

average costs for the FEHB program would rise, even though

its total costs would decline. Thus, CBO expects premiums for

the remaining enrollees in the FEHB program would rise to

cover the higher average cost. The government's share of

premiums for annuitants (about 72 percent) is direct

spending.

In addition to the direct spending effects, this provision

would affect spending subject to appropriation. CBO estimates

that implementing this provision would increase spending by

DoD for this new benefit by about $230 million in 2006, and

$4.6 billion over the 2006-

2010 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts.

In addition, we estimate that spending for reservists in the

Coast Guard would increase by $2 million in 2006 and $46

million over the 2006-2010 period, assuming appropriation of

the estimated amounts. Finally, under this provision,

spending by the federal government for active workers in the

FEHB program would decline by an estimated $340 million over

the 2006-2010 period.

If you have any questions, the CBO staff contact is Sam

Papenfuss, who can be reached at 226-2840.

Sincerely,

Douglas Holtz-Eakin,

Director.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

Mr. Speaker, today, in closing, I again want to draw the attention of the Members to the strengths of H.R. 1815. It takes many steps forward in reforming the procurement and acquisition systems, increasing end strength, and provides $49.1 billion in supplemental funds for the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to respond just briefly to some of the concerns expressed on the other side of the aisle. First, about the process by which the Committee on Rules operated.

I remind my good friends that this bill was again reported out of the House Committee on Armed Services by a vote that was nearly unanimous, only one dissent; that 29 amendments have been made in order; that the majority of those amendments are Democratic amendments; and that we will, obviously, have an additional opportunity to debate the full merits of the bill as we move forward. I think there is more than ample time for discussion and debate.

Second, on the Reservist health care issue. This is a difficult issue, to say the least. It is an emotional issue and an important issue. I would like to point out that under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the Committee on Armed Services has made important progress in this particular area. It has extended the amount of time that members that are going to be deployed are eligible for TRICARE. It has extended the amount of time that those who are leaving service are able to enjoy the benefits of TRICARE. It has allowed additional time granted for time served in deployment and combat situations. So I think the Committee on Armed Services has expressed a continuous desire to keep looking at these issues.

I have personally visited with the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who is the subcommittee chairman responsible for this particular area; and he has assured me he wants to continue the progress that has been made over the last several years.

Again, I remind my good friends there were many opportunities when they were in the majority to address these type of issues. While we have been in the majority, we have addressed concurrent receipt in a step-by-step process that is moving us in the right direction. We have addressed survivor benefits in a step-by-step process moving us in the right direction. And now we are addressing the critical issue of health care as well. So I think important progress is being made on all these fronts, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, I would like to note that this legislation would not have been possible without much hard work on the part of the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter); the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the committee; and the other subcommittee chairmen, and finally the members of the Committee on Armed Services themselves. As evidenced by their hard work, this is a bipartisan bill that the vast majority of the House should be able to agree is a good product. H.R. 1815 passed in the committee, again by a vote of 61 to 1. It deserves the same strong bipartisan support on the floor, as does its underlying rule.

Mr. Speaker, many today have complained about what they consider to be critical shortcomings in this legislation. No legislation is ever perfect; and as I said in my opening statement, the defense authorization specifically is more of an ongoing process than a final product. However frustrated some may be with particular aspects of H.R. 1815, it undoubtedly moves our military in the direction it needs to evolve and enhances the security of our country and the well-being of our men and women in uniform.

I would urge the Members on the other side of the aisle to consider carefully what a ``no'' vote would mean and say to our servicemen and - women in the field. Therefore, I once again urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Baca's amendment requires the Department of Defense to study the scope of perchlorate contamination at formerly utilized defense sites.

Mr. Castle's amendment implements GAO's recommendations to cut down and award an incentive fee spending waste by requiring the Department to develop a strategy for linking incentives to specific outcomes such as meeting costs, schedule and capability goals. It also establishes guidance for improving the effectiveness of award and incentive fees, and ensures that appropriate approving officials are overseeing these decisions. The Department would be required to report to Congress on the status and effectiveness of these new standards.

The amendment offered by Mr. Davis is the defense access road amendment; and this program, which is known as the DAR program, currently allows DOD to pay for road projects made necessary by DOD actions, and this amendment would allow DOD to consider transit projects as part of DAR as well.

Mr. Schiff's amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a series of regular reports on the threat to American personnel posed by IEDs, improvised explosive devices, as well as action being taken to interdict IEDs and to develop more effective active and passive countermeasures. The first report would be due 30 days after enactment, the subsequent reports every 90 days thereafter. Reports would be unclassified, with a classified annex if necessary.

Mr. Chairman, the committee supports these amendments, and let me just say with respect to the last amendment, that the committee works every day on the IED issue, and we communicate with DOD every day on operations and on the development of the countermeasure systems that we are currently undertaking to rush to the battlefield. So I very much appreciate the gentleman's concern. I think that IEDs, and I am sure he shares this concern, are an instrument of choice now by terrorists, and this is probably the most compelling challenge facing us in the warfighting theaters and in the global war against terror right now.

We work this issue every single day. We have got a new package of equipment that we are moving out, and we have added $109 million to this countermeasure fund this year. We are going to try to move that up, even if we have to move money out of the various services, and we are going to work this problem every day. So I invite the gentleman to work with us and work with our staff, and I think these reports will be value added to the process. I thank the gentleman from California for his work.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for his contribution, and let me just lay out some of things that we are doing because I think this area is so important for us. Included in the base bill, the gentleman from Missouri and myself and our great members of the committee on both sides of the aisle worked out, we added $109.7 million for jammers. Jammers are very important in this IED business because these improvised explosive devices are largely detonated remotely.

As the gentleman knows, few of them, some of them, are detonated by wires that are connected to detonators, and you may have an insurgent hiding 20, 30, 40, 50 yards from the roadside or from the dismounted U.S. military unit and he detonates it with a clacker or a detonation device in the style that has been utilized by militaries up to the last several years ago.

The other detonation device, and one that is now the device of choice, is a remote detonation, and that detonation

allows a person, the insurgent, to be many yards away, far away from the particular avenue that he is ambushing. In many cases, he does not even need to have a weapon. He may be lost in a crowd, and he waits for a convoy to line up on a particular lamp post or other object, and he blows this device, which may be a 152-millimeter artillery round by using this remote detonation capability. Without getting into the classified areas, there are a number of remote detonation capabilities, and what we are trying to do is to direct our countermeasures to be able to jam those detonations.

So we have put a lot of extra money in. The administration has a lot of money in, but we have put in more. We have been working on equipment packages with them, and the key is to move this stuff through the training ranges here, the testing ranges, quickly into the field; and I can assure the gentleman we are really going to be working on this. So I thank him so much for his focus on this important area, and we will work together.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my colleague from California that he has brought an excellent amendment to the floor here, and this is certainly something that does require action, justifies action by the Federal Government, and we totally support his amendment on this side.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me offer the description of the amendments.

Mr. Chabot's amendment expresses a sense of Congress that the spouses of armed services members who have died between October 7, 2001, and November 23, 2003, should be permitted to have the option of assigning their SBP payments, their survivor payments, to their children.

Mr. Davis' amendment is another defense access road amendment. This amendment would allow DOD to consider transit projects, as well, as part of the DAR, the Defense Access Road program.

Mr. Ryan of Ohio's amendment authorizes $5 million for the High Altitude Airship program. The HAA is designed to be an uninhabited, long-endurance, platform for carrying forward-based sensors and a wide range of other BMD payloads that will enable continuous over-horizon communication. It would also provide wide-area surveillance and protection without interruption or the risk associated with manned aircraft. The offsets are $5 million from the Space Based Space Surveillance program, and this is another tool for sensor and surveillance capability.

The amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter requires the Department of Defense to include the number of disciplinary actions as part of the annual report on sexual assault in the military.

So those are brief definitions or descriptions of these amendments.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention. There are no more important citizens than those who defend our freedom and carry our flag; and right there with them are their family members.

I think this is an excellent amendment, and the committee supports it fully.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is especially appropriate to be able to follow the gentleman from El Paso, Mr. Reyes, who was in my estimation the greatest Border Patrol chief in the history of our country. He did a tremendous job under very challenging odds.

I remember working with him long before he became a Representative in the most southern areas of Texas and then ultimately up in the El Paso area. One thing that challenged him and challenged us in San Diego in more recent times was tunneling. Of course, detection of tunnels is something that the military engages in every now and

then, and that is a good example of candidate technologies for sharing of technology between DOD and the Department of Homeland Security.

Likewise, surveillance sensors, it has always been a pleasure to go down with the gentleman from El Paso, go down to his district with Joint Task Force 6 and look at that interaction. And I really appreciate Mr. Dent coming up with this amendment that will move to mesh these technologies and make sure that when the American taxpayers pay for the development of something that will accrue to the benefit of our security, that it gets shared and gets moved across what is sometimes kind of a bright line between the military and the Department of Homeland Security.

You have done a great job and thank you for bringing this amendment to our attention. We support it fully.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I have a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave). I would yield to the gentlewoman for purposes of the colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns. First, I strongly believe that DOD should make every effort to acquire property through fair-market value purchases from willing sellers. The use of eminent domain or unfriendly condemnation should only be used as a measure of last resort in cases of compelling national security requirements.

So I would be very pleased to work with the gentlewoman as a representative of the farmers and ranchers surrounding Pinon Canyon to ensure that the Army does not use eminent domain before exhausting all other options.

Secondly, I would note that the defense bill before us today contains a provision that makes sure that Congress has oversight of DOD plans to use eminent domain, as its application is a matter of great concern to all of us.

Finally, I would be happy to work with the Colorado delegation to talk to the Army and ensure that they are very forthcoming in discussing plans for the expansion of Pinon Canyon. Having a good relationship with our communities is an important obligation of the armed services, and they should certainly sit down with their elected representatives and discuss their plans and any issues that will concern the community.

I will be happy to help the gentlewoman on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman and the gentlewoman for their contribution here, and just assure them we are very interested in making sure that this equipment, some of which has been wearing out pretty quickly in the desert sand in the warfighting theaters, is maintained in excellent condition, both with our great in- house resources and our depots and with the private sector, so we use all of our resources in the U.S. to make sure we have got good, sound platforms.

The committee has no objection to the amendment. We thank you for adding it to the base bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the Schakowsky amendment, the gentlewoman from Illinois provides for additional oversight and accountability of Department of Defense contractors deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would make retroactive DOD regulations for contractors issued in October 2005 on previously issued contracts upon any extension brought about by an option.

It would implement a policy for conducting comprehensive background checks on foreign nationals hired by contractors operating outside of the U.S. and would also require a DOD Inspector General report on contractor overcharges and require that there are sufficient contracting officers assigned to oversee and monitor contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The amendment offered by Mr. Jindal would require the Secretary of Defense in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and State governments to develop detailed operational plans regarding the use of the Armed Forces to support activities of civil authorities known as Defense Support to Civil Authorities Missions.

The amendment that is offered by Mr. Lewis of Kentucky would provide that no more than 20 percent of a uniformed servicemember's paycheck can be garnished in a single pay period to recover overpayments that have occurred through no fault of the servicemember. That was always my contention.

It would also provide a 90-day grace period before overpayment recovery can begin from servicemembers who are wounded or injured or who incur an illness in a combat operation or combat zone.

Finally, the Mica amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should provide compensation to American veterans who are captured while in service to the United States Armed Forces on the peninsula of Bataan or the island of Corregidor, survived the Bataan Death March during World War II and have not received previous compensation provided to other prisoners of war.

I might just say about that amendment, Mr. Chairman, these great Americans came back and met with many of us over the last several years, these great survivors of the Bataan Death March. And many of them, according to their testimony, were taken by ship after the death march in which many of them were killed, bayoneted, decapitated, otherwise killed; they were taken to Japan and in many cases were turned over to Japanese industry, including companies that are corporate giants today like Matsui and Mitsubishi. And these Japanese corporations took the Americans as slaves from the Japanese Government. They turned them over to them as POWs. And they put them in slave labor operations, in many cases involving mines, for example, that were considered to be unsafe for Japanese workers. They would push the Americans into those mines.

I can recall some of the Americans testifying when they came back and met with us on the Hill about the brutality that took place. The time one of our great survivors of the Bataan Death March from California had a rock fall on him in a cave-in in this unsafe mine that they were working in as slaves to these corporations, and his leg was crushed by a rock. And an American doctor who was also a POW operated on that Bataan Death March survivor with a single rusty razor blade and the anesthetic was to have the biggest guy in the POW camp knock him out before they did the operation, and then they used maggots to clean the wound. And that great American was back here testifying a couple of years ago to the U.S. Congress.

Those POWs sought redress from the corporations which had used them as slaves in their operations saying we want to be paid for this work that we performed as slave labor. The corporations resisted this mightily in a series of lawsuits. And I thought it was sad that the U.S. Government intervened on the opposite side, on the other side from the American POWs, claiming that the treaty that was signed after the war essentially eliminated any rights on behalf of the POWs other than the one dollar a day that they received as compensation for their POW status.

So those great Americans did not win. They ultimately faced summary judgments in American courts and received no compensation from these massive corporations. In fact, some of the biggest corporations in the world which when they enslaved these Americans were not nationalized by the Japanese Government, but in fact remain private corporations and developed a lot of their operations or carried on a lot of their operations using American slave labor.

So the lawsuits were quashed and these Americans, those that still survive, never got any redress. So I would just say that Mr. Mica's amendment particularly struck a cord with this member of the Armed Services Committee, and I would recommend that all these amendments be supported.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will be brief.

But I just want to say about Sonny Montgomery, I miss Sonny Montgomery. I can still see him in the House Chamber, and I can see him in the Armed Services Committee where he sat with us, and I can see him walking into the prayer breakfast.

I am not a regular, but I happened to be there that morning, and he walked in when Floyd Spence was having a double lung operation. Sonny would read the casualty roll, just like a soldier, and he said I have got news about Floyd and a hush fell over the breakfast. There were about 30 Members there, Democrat and Republicans, and we thought he would tell us that Floyd Spence had passed away.

Sonny did kind of a double-take at his notes, and he said Floyd just got married. Apparently, he had gotten married coming out of this double lung transplant operation a few minutes afterwards, and lived many happy years after that.

But Sonny Montgomery was a spark of life in this Chamber. He was a great representative for the tradition of the military, Mr. National Guard. There is no question in the world you could posit to Sonny Montgomery and no statement you could make as a witness before the Armed Services Committee that it would not evoke from Sonny Montgomery, what would this mean for the National Guard? I do not care what the issue was, he managed to turn it into a Guard question.

What a great, great American. He served in World War II and had that great feeling for our military, and he is in tough shape right now.

But I have seen the gentleman's amendment to make this the Sonny Montgomery bill. How fitting and appropriate that we do that. Sonny is

still alive, and I know that we usually do this for Members that have passed on; but Sonny is still alive and I say, good, and let us do this. And I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for bringing this up.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, we find ourselves here today debating the rule for next year's Defense authorization bill. But while we should be discussing ways to better support our hardworking men and women in uniform, we find ourselves revisiting a debate I had assumed we settled years ago. Buried within H.R. 1815 is section 574, a provision that would severely limit the participation of women in our military. To say that I am disappointed would be an understatement of enormous proportions.

Some will say that section 574 merely codifies existing military policy; but if this provision is passed, we will be sending an entirely different message, not just to the brave women currently serving our Nation throughout the world but to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, those who have been wounded or even killed. We will be telling them and indeed their families, We have seen you at work defending freedom and liberty here at home and abroad and you aren't good enough. I cannot think of a more disgusting message to be sending our troops, especially in a time of war.

This year, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel has not held hearings, commissioned studies, or released reports on this important issue. In fact, we have not seen a shred of evidence that a problem even exists with the integration of women in the Armed Forces. Yet the religious right wing in this country, against the advice of our military leaders, has once again decided to bend the process of government to their political will and force this issue upon America without research, without fact, without debate, and without the benefit of the democratic process.

We are in the middle of a war, in Iraq and on terror. Now is not the time to be telling more than 20,000 women that we do not value their service, especially when you consider that we are having serious problems meeting our recruitment goals. What woman is going to join a military that treats them as if they are second-class citizens not worthy of respect and dignity? Last night in the Rules Committee we watched as the coalition of members who stand rightly beside our women in uniform were slapped down on a party-line vote by the majority in their attempts to approve the Skelton-Snyder amendment which would remove this ill-conceived provision from the bill. The Secretary of the Army and the Army Vice Chief of Staff wrote the Armed Services Committee voicing their strong opposition to this provision.

Likewise, we can have no real discussion on the future of America's defense without talking about the base realignment and closure process. I share the concern of many experts and many of my colleagues across the political spectrum when I say that we are a Nation at war. Now is not the time to be closing America's military bases.

Many experts are also concerned that we are overconsolidating our resources in too few locations, especially when the greatest threat to our security comes not from a massive invasion but from a sneak attack by a terrorist organization on a target of opportunity. Did we not learn after Pearl Harbor not to put everything in one place? Does it not make more sense to have our resources strategically placed across the country? Moreover, as record numbers of Guard and Reserve troops are dying in combat defending this country, the Defense Secretary's proposed BRAC list would ground a third of the Nation's Air National Guard and Reserve units and shutter hundreds of other armories and readiness centers across the country.

Many local leaders and homeland security specialists, including the National Guard Association of the United States, has said that the consolidation would hamper State responses to local emergencies and domestic terrorist threats.

Unfortunately, the DOD did not adequately take into account a military installation's value to homeland security when developing their criteria. For example, the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station has been recommended for closure despite the fact that it is the closest base to three major United States cities and the two largest cities in Canada. The Guard and Reserves who train there assist the Department of Homeland Security in interrogating suspicious individuals detained at the northern border. Yet the Air Force proposes to reduce the Air Mobility Command by 54 percent in the Northeast, incapacitating homeland defense in a region which comprises 20 percent of the entire United States population. I understand this is also a problem for other major cities and population centers around the country.

That is why I offered an amendment last night that would have required the commission to evaluate bases for their homeland security value, but unfortunately it was voted down.

All of us know that recruitment is another major issue that we are facing today. We have a recruitment crisis in America and an Armed Forces already stretched way too thin. But the DOD wants to close bases that regularly exceed their recruitment goals for the Guard and military reserves, like Niagara Falls. We do not know what will happen to the large Guard and Reserve units who serve at bases recommended for closure. We know exactly where their equipment is headed, but even the Pentagon admits it does not know what is going to happen to our most valuable assets, and those are the people stationed at the bases.

But perhaps what is most troubling about the BRAC list that was submitted to the commission is that according to an Air Force BRAC spokesman, the extensive criteria used to evaluate the strategic military value of each base was not even adhered to by the Pentagon when compiling their closure list.

Instead, they used a collective judgment. I do not even know what ``collective judgment'' is supposed to mean, but I know that in Niagara, thousands of people are losing their jobs and are at risk at a base that is highly ranked in performing its duties, and one that has always been evaluated highly that is on the chopping block. This is unacceptable to me, and it should be unacceptable to this body.

This BRAC constitutes a complete reorganization of our military resources during a time of war with very little thought, doing untold damage to the National Guard and military Reserves, and does not consider the homeland security role.

But there are a lot of concerns about the Pentagon that we have that we will not talk about today because we did not get enough amendments approved.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

(Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow three very important amendments that were offered to the Committee on Rules last night and defeated on party-line votes.

The first amendment is by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and would provide members of the selected reserves access to the TRICARE military health care program on a permanent basis for the duration of their service. The second amendment, by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), would provide eligibility for payment of both retired pay and veterans disability compensation for certain additional military retirees with compensable service-connected disabilities. The last amendment is by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) and would repeal the dependency and indemnity compensation offset from survivor benefit plans' surviving spouse annuities.

Let me make it clear that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the authorization bill, but a ``yes'' vote will preclude the House from considering these three amendments critical to the debate of our national defense. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment as stated.

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

Mr. Chairman, as a veteran of 26\1/2\ years of working with the Border Patrol, I understand and appreciate the necessity of Mr. Dent's amendment that requires close cooperation between the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

More than ever today, post-9/11 and with the many different challenges that we face with the potential of another strike against our country, it is critical, it is imperative that we continue to urge both the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to do as much as possible to cooperate, share information, and provide a unified front and protection for our country.

This is a way of ensuring that we codify that cooperation by expressly putting it into the legislation that this cooperation take place. It is critical. It is vital; and based on my experience where there has been a tremendous amount of cooperation traditionally between the Department of Defense and agencies such as the Border Patrol, for Border Patrol operations on the border itself, I believe that this is a good amendment.

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

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

Building on the comments of my good friend and my chairman, I can attest to all of the cooperation, having spent 26\1/2\ years in the Border Patrol, to all of the cooperation since the creation of Joint Task Force 6, which was headquartered in my district, now Joint Task Force North. The number of projects and programs that the Department of Defense provides support to both State, local, and Federal agencies, and in specific consortium projects such as building roads, building infrastructure support such as strategic fencing in certain parts of the border area, that greatly acts as a barrier and as a force multiplier for our Border Patrol agents.

So there are many, many things that the Department of Defense is doing and has done that provide that kind of support to the Department of Homeland Security, formerly Border Patrol and INS.

I know in the next amendment we are going to be debating the issue of giving the Secretary the flexibility to send troops on the border, and I just want to state here in anticipation of leading the debate on that issue, as a Member that represents a border district, we do not need troops on the border. Sufficient support is already coming from the Department of Defense. The reality of this is there are other things that I will address at that time that we could be doing and that we should have done as a result of the law that we passed in 1986.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to support Mr. Dent in his amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goode amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that I rise in opposition to that I was talking about in the previous conversation. Every year we debate this issue, irrespective of the cooperation that is ongoing, has been ongoing for many, many years from the Department of Defense, that provides technical expertise, that provides construction support, that provides technical support, that provides, even on a limited basis, operational specialized support on that border.

The reality of this amendment is that it is very expensive. It provides authority to the Department of Defense that already exists with the President of the United States should an emergency come up or an emergency exist. It is a bad idea because we need trained, experienced professionals on that border. That border is way too dangerous for us to be sending troops that are trained primarily for combat into a law enforcement situation, understanding that that capability is in reserve, because the President of the United States has that authority.

So I would hope that we would stop bringing these kinds of amendments, because they really are not useful and are counterproductive to our enforcement presence on the border.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and former sheriff, who represents a border district, Congressman Ortiz.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Laredo, Congressman Cuellar, also representing a border district.

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear, every year we come to the floor and we talk tough about putting troops on the border. It is expensive. The Department of Defense already has that authority. The President can direct it at any time based on whatever situation he is made aware of.

One of the things that I would like to tell my colleagues is that we are often here talking about issues and about problems and providing solutions. One of the things, an observation that I will

make about us is that oftentimes we are very hypocritical about the things that we say versus the things that we do in the people's House.

In 1986, we passed employer sanctions to address the pull factor in the issue of illegal immigration and immigration reform. This Congress failed to fund employer sanctions, failed to fund the very vehicle that would have addressed the pull factor.

For the last 10 years that I have been in Congress, we have been debating troops on the border. I would say to my good friend from West Virginia, my good friend from Arizona, my good friend from California, if we are interested in controlling the border, if we are truly interested in doing a good job for the American people, then let's fund employer sanctions. And short of that, let's fund H.R. 98, which gives us a fraud-proof Social Security card and a system where employers would be accountable. You would eliminate the pull factor. We wouldn't need to have this useless debate on troops on the border.

Vote ``no'' on the Goode amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlemen for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment in support of the committee's efforts to obtain effective and fully tested missile defense capabilities aimed at defeating real threats.

Today is not a time to be cutting funds from this critical program. I am particularly concerned about the restrictions the amendment would impose on the Aegis and THAAD theatre defense systems, because just this morning a THAAD interceptor was successfully launched against a simulated target.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to slow down this important theater defense program. I urge my colleagues to support this committee's bipartisan approach and to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of the Committee's efforts to obtain effective, fully-tested missile defense capabilities aimed at defeating real threats.

H.R. 5122 redirects missile defense funding from longer range programs--such as the multiple kill vehicle--to near term needs, such as buying upgrades for the Patriot and Aegis interceptors that can protect our service members and allies today. It also places restrictions on developing improvements to the ground-based midcourse defense system until after it successfully intercepts two operationally realistic warheads, and it prevents any development of space-based interceptors.

While we might disagree about whether further adjustments or reductions are possible, I commend the subcommittee chairman for this good-faith effort to develop a bipartisan approach to missile defense.

The amendment before us today goes too far in radically restructuring missile defense programs. It would essentially freeze our missile defense capabilities at their current level and it would terminate numerous programs before we obtain useful information about whether they can improve our defenses against missiles launched by a rogue nation.

I am particularly concerned about the restrictions the amendment would impose on the Aegis and THAAD theatre defense systems. Just this morning a THAAD interceptor was successfully launched against a simulated target. We cannot afford to slow down this important theatre defense program.

I urge my colleagues to support the Committee's bipartisan approach and to defeat this amendment.