To enhance intelligence oversight authority.

Mr. Chairman, as a proud member of the Progressive and the Out of Iraq Caucuses, I rise in support of H.R. 3222, the ``Defense Appropriations Act of 2008.'' I commend the leadership of Chairman Obey and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Murtha for his patient and careful crafting of this bill, which relieves our troops and helps our military families. The committee carefully separated the funding from the Iraq War funding.

Speaking of Chairman Murtha, let me say also that historians will record that it was he who awakened and educated the Nation regarding the failure and folly of the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq when he courageously spoke this truth to power: The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

The principled stand of the gentleman from Pennsylvania changed the course of America history by signaling the beginning of the end of the Iraq War. More importantly, Chairman Murtha's actions have and will result in the saving of countless thousands of lives of brave young servicemen and women that would otherwise be lost trying to salvage the Administration's ill-conceived and terribly mismanaged war in Iraq. I cannot thank you enough for all you have done for our county.

In supporting this legislation, I stand in strong support of our troops who have performed magnificently in battle with a grace under pressure that is distinctively American. I stand with the American people, who have placed their trust in the President, the Vice- President, and the former Secretary of Defense, each of whom abused the public trust and patience.

I stand with the American taxpayers who have paid more than $400 billion to finance the misadventure in Iraq. I stand with the 3,664 fallen heroes who stand even taller in death because they gave the last full measure of devotion to their country. For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I stand fully, strongly, and unabashedly in support of H.R. 3222.

Mr. Chairman, I voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution. I am proud of that vote. And I have consistently voted against the Administration's practice of submitting a request for war funding through an emergency supplemental rather than the regular appropriations process which would subject the funding request to more rigorous scrutiny and require it to be balanced against other pressing national priorities.

But I strongly believe that when a nation sends its sons and daughters into harms way, it has an obligation to ensure that they have everything they need to wage the battle, emerge victorious, and return home safely to their loved ones and to a grateful nation. That is why I proudly support this legislation. H.R. 3222 provides for the security of our nation and addresses that responsibility squarely, fully funding our troops so that they are prepared for whatever emergencies may arise, providing them with first class weapons and equipment, and ensuring that they and their families are cared for properly.

At the same time, H.R. 3222 recognizes our obligation to meet the recent dependence on the use of contractors with increased support for their management and oversight. It likewise makes a commitment to fiscal responsibility. In this regard, I note that the amount appropriated in this bill, $459.6 billion, represents an increase of nearly $40 billion over the previous year but is $4 billion less than the amount requested by the Administration.

Mr. Chairman let me briefly address some of the important components of this legislation. I think it important that all Americans know that H.R. 3222 achieves the following .critical objectives: (1) keeps our commitments to our troops and their families; (2) prepares our forces to meet future needs; (3) imposes fiscal discipline on the Pentagon; and (4) prohibits permanent military bases in Iraq and the use of torture by American forces everywhere.

Specifically, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3222 addresses equipment shortfalls in the Guard and Reserve by providing $925 million, $635 million above 2007, specifically to address equipment shortfalls in order to help forces meet the demands of overseas deployments and respond to natural disasters here at home. This amount meets the requirements identified by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau in the ``Essential 10 Equipment Requirements for the Global War on Terror.''

The legislation supports military families by providing $2.9 billion, $558.4 million above the President's request, for programs including childcare centers, education programs and the family advocacy program which provides support to military families affected by the demands of war and episodes of child or spouse abuse.

In the important area of medical treatment and healthcare, the bill provides $22.957 billion, $1.7 billion above 2007 and $416 million above the President's request. The bill rightly rejects the President's proposal to inflict $1.9 billion in TRICARE fee and premium increases on our troops and makes much needed investments in improving the Defense Department's electronic medical records systems and fostering better coordination between the Defense Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I particularly commend Chairman Murtha for his successful efforts to secure more than $400 million in funding to conduct research and treat the increasing incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, among American servicemen and women. And I especially appreciate his commitment to work with me to establish a PTSD facility at Riverside General Hospital, located in the 18th Congressional District of Texas, to treat PTSD in veterans, whether on active duty, discharged, or on leave in the metropolitan Houston area, including Harris and surrounding counties. There are nearly 200,000 military veterans in Harris County alone and Riverside General Hospital has proven itself capable of providing psychiatric, medical, emergency medical, inpatient, and outpatient services to crisis populations.

Riverside General Hospital, by the way, was formerly known as the Houston Negro Hospital and was founded in 1926 in memory of Lt. John Halm Cullinan, 344th FA, 90th Division of the American Expeditionary Forces. Lt. Cullinan was one of the thousands of African Americans who risked life and limb to defend America and its allies at a time when those of his race did not enjoy the legal rights they fought so hard to secure for others.

Mr. Chairman, there is an unmet need for more medical facilities specializing in post-traumatic stress disorder located in underserved urban areas. Access to post-traumatic stress disorder treatment is especially important since veterans living in such areas are less likely to be diagnosed and treated for post-traumatic stress disorder. Riverside General Hospital is uniquely positioned to this need and I look forward to working with this Defense Appropriation Sub-Committee to bring this historic project to fruition.

I also strongly approve of the allocation of $1.252 billion above the President's request to

repair barracks, improve child care facilities, and improve community services, to address the strain put on facilities by changes in force structure, base closures, and a global repositioning of forces all while meeting the demands of war. Similarly, the appropriation of $268.1 million, $141.9 million above the President's request, for perimeter security force protection and related security improvements, to protect bases, schools, hospitals, base housing, churches and childcare centers from terrorist attacks makes sense in light of the recent failed terrorist plot at Fort Dix in New Jersey. As does the $15 billion, $1.6 billion above 2007, set aside to ensure there are no out- of-pocket expenses for service personnel and support the privatization of housing for military families.

Mr. Chairman, American troops are the best in the world because they are the best equipped and the best trained. H.R. 3222 ensures that will remain the case by providing $7.548 billion, a 13 percent increase for all home-stationing training, so that our troops are well prepared for any eventual deployment.

The legislation also takes into account the fact that the size of our Army and Marine Corps must be increased if we are to reduce the pressure to extend troop deployments. The bill provides funds to covers the costs of adding 7,000 new soldiers and 5,000 new marines.

Finally, H.R. 3222 provides $76.229 billion, $1.112 billion above the President's request and $508 million above 2007, for research, development, testing, and evaluation of weapons systems, and military medical research.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before represents responsible, visionary, and competent policy making. Our vote today will put the House on record squarely against the Bush Administration's policy of looking the other way while the Iraqi government fails to govern a country worthy of a free people with as much commitment and dedication to the security and happiness of its citizens as has been shown by the heroic American servicemen and women who risked their lives and, in the case of over 3,600 fallen heroes, lost their lives to win for the Iraqi people the chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections, establish their own government, and build a future of peace and prosperity for themselves and their posterity.

Mr. Chairman, nearly every decision reached by a legislative body is a product of compromise. The bill before us is no different. If it was left solely to us, any of us could no doubt add or subtract provisions which we think would improve the quality of life for our brave men and women in uniform. Indeed, during this first session of the 110th Congress, I have offered several amendments to do just that.

For example, I offered an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, H.R. 1591, that would have led to the redeployment and return of American troops. It would achieve this objective by terminating the authority granted by Congress to the President in the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq because the objectives for which the authorization was granted have all been achieved. Specifically, Congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following objectives: to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the security of the United States and international peace in the Persian Gulf region; to change the Iraqi regime so that Saddam Hussein and his Baathist party no longer posed a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors; to bring to justice any members of al Qaeda known or found to be in Iraq bearing responsibility for the attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001; to ensure that the regime of Saddam Hussein would not provide weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists, including al Qaeda; and to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Thanks to the skill and valor of the Armed Forces of the United States we now know for certain that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction. Thanks to the tenacity and heroism of American troops, Saddam Hussein was deposed, captured, and dealt with by the Iraqi people in such a way that neither he nor his Baathist Party will ever again pose a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors in the region. Nor will the regime ever acquire and provide weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists. Also, the American military has caught or killed virtually every member of al Qaeda in Iraq remotely responsible for the 911 attack on our country. Last, all relevant U.N. resolutions relating to Iraq have been enforced.

In other words, every objective for which the use of force in Iraq was authorized by the 2002 resolution has been achieved, most with spectacular success thanks to the professionalism and superior skill of our service men and women. The point of my amendment was to recognize, acknowledge, and honor this fact.

Another amendment, this one to the Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 1585, required the Secretary of Defense to study and report back to Congress the financial and emotional impact of multiple deployments on the families of those soldiers who serve multiple tours overseas.

Words cannot explain the pain and the sense of pride that some families feel when they say good-bye to a loved one. Behind those brave smiles, hugs, and kisses is an undying and unnerving uncertainty about what can happen to a spouse, child, father, or mother. Depending on the extent of that soldier's injury a family can suffer serious economic consequences as a result, not to mention the emotional impact of seeing a loved one in that state. Even under the best of circumstances, where a soldier serves multiple terms and returns with no major injuries, valuable time is lost between a parent and child and between spouses that can never be returned.

One in five soldiers suffers from depression, anxiety or stress. Likewise 20 percent face marital problems including divorce or legal separation from their spouse. Military families need greater psychological, emotional, and organizational assistance according to the results of a new survey released March 28 of this year by the National Military Family Association, NMFA. The study, ``Cycles of Deployment Report,'' which focused on the needs of military families, shows service members and military families are experiencing increased levels of anxiety, fatigue, and stress. In response, NMFA outlined recommendations for meeting these challenges amid multiple and extended deployments, increased rates at which service members are called upon for service, and the heavy reliance on National Guard and Reserve forces.

Military families have also expressed concern that when entering a second or third deployment, their loved ones carry unresolved anxieties and expectations from the last deployment(s). While they may have gained knowledge of resources available to them, service members who have been deployed multiple times report being more fatigued and increasingly concerned about their family relationships.

Mr. Chairman, at bottom, H.R. 3222 ensures that U.S. forces in the field have all of the resources they require. Second, it improves healthcare for returning service members and veterans. Third, it imposes fiscal restraint upon the Administration and Pentagon.

Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, I want to take a few minutes to discuss why the American people believe so strongly that the time has come to an end the policy of not placing any demands or conditions on American military assistance to the Government of Iraq.

As Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution, and a former senior member of the NSC, brilliantly describes in his essay, ``The Seven Deadly Sins Of Failure In Iraq: A Retrospective Analysis Of The Reconstruction,'' in ``Middle East Review of International Affairs'' (December 2006), our trust and patience has been repaid by a record of incompetence unmatched in the annals of American foreign policy.

The Bush Administration disregarded the advice of experts on Iraq, on nation-building, and on military operations. It staged both the invasion and the reconstruction on the cheap. It did not learn from its mistakes and did not commit the resources necessary to accomplish its original lofty goals or later pedestrian objectives. It ignored intelligence that contradicted its own views.

It is clear now that the Administration simply never believed in the necessity of a major reconstruction in Iraq. To exacerbate matters the Office of the Secretary of Defense, OSD, and the White House Office of the Vice President, OVP, worked together to ensure that the State Department was excluded from any meaningful involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq.

The Administration's chief Iraq hawks shared a deeply naive view that the fall of Saddam and his top henchmen would have relatively little impact on the overall Iraqi governmental structure. They assumed that Iraq's bureaucracy would remain intact and would therefore be capable of running the country and providing Iraqis with basic services. They likewise assumed that the Iraqi armed forces would largely remain cohesive and would surrender whole to U.S. forces. The result of all this was a fundamental lack of attention to realistic planning for the postwar environment.

As it was assumed that the Iraqis would be delighted to be liberated little thought was given to security requirements after Saddam's fall. The dearth of planning for the provision of security and basic services stemmed from the mistaken belief that Iraqi political institutions would remain largely intact and therefore able to handle those responsibilities.

But there were too few Coalition troops, which meant that long supply lines were vulnerable to attack by Iraqi irregulars, and the

need to mask entire cities at times took so much combat power that it brought the entire offensive to a halt.

It was not long before these naive assumptions and inadequate planning conjoined to sow the seeds of the chaos we have witnessed in Iraq.

The lack of sufficient troops to secure the country led to the immediate outbreak of lawlessness resulting in massive looting and destruction dealt a stunning psychological blow to Iraqi confidence in the United States, from which the country has yet to recover. We removed Saddam Hussein's regime but we did not move to fill the military, political, and economic vacuum. The unintended consequence was the birth of a failing state, which provided the opportunity for the insurgency to flourish and prevented the development of governmental institutions capable of providing Iraqis with the most basic services such as clean water, sanitation, electricity, and a minimally functioning economy capable of generating basic employment.

Making matters worse, the Administration arrogantly denied the United Nations overall authority for the reconstruction even though the U.N. had far more expertise and experience in nation building.

The looting and anarchy, the persistent insurgent attacks, the lack of real progress in restoring basic services, and the failure to find the promised weapons of mass destruction undercut the Administration's claim that things were going well in Iraq and led it to make the next set of serious blunders, which was the disbanding of the Iraqi military and security services.

Mr. Chairman, counterinsurgency experts will tell you that to pacify an occupied country it is essential to disarm, demobilize, and retrain, DDR, the local army. The idea behind a DDR program is to entice, cajole, or even coerce soldiers back to their own barracks or to other facilities where they can be fed, clothed, watched, retrained, and prevented from joining an insurgency movement, organized crime, or an outlaw militia.

By disbanding the military and security services without a DDR program, as many as one million Iraqi men were set at large with no money, no means to support their families, and no skills other than how to use a gun. Not surprisingly, many of these humiliated Sunni officers went home and joined the burgeoning Sunni insurgency.

The next major mistake made in the summer of 2003 was the decision to create an Iraqi Governing Council, IGC, which laid the foundation for many of Iraq's current political woes. Many of the IGC leaders were horribly corrupt, and they stole from the public treasury and encouraged their subordinates to do the same. The IGC set the tone for later Iraqi governments, particularly the transitional governments of Ayad Allawi and Ibrahim Jaafari that followed.

Finally, by insisting that all of the problems of the country were caused by the insurgency rather than recognizing the problems of the country were helping to fuel the insurgency, the Bush administration set about concentrating its efforts in all the wrong places and on the wrong problems.

This explains why for nearly all of 2004 and 2005, our troops were disproportionately deployed in the Sunni triangle trying to catch and kill insurgents. Although our troops caught and killed insurgents by the hundreds and thousands, these missions were not significantly advancing our strategic objectives. Indeed, they had little long-term impact because insurgents are always willing to flee temporarily rather than fight a leviathan. Second, because so many coalition forces were playing ``whack-a-mole'' with insurgents in the sparsely populated areas of western Iraq, the rest of the country was left vulnerable to take over by militias.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, a cruel irony is that because the Iraqi Government brought exiles and militia leaders into the government and gave them positions of power, it is now virtually impossible to get them out, and even more difficult to convince them to make compromises because the militia leaders have learned they can use their government positions to maintain and expand their personal power, at the expense both of their rivals who are not in the government and of the central government itself.

All of this was avoidable and the blame for the lack of foresight falls squarely on the White House and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. Chairman, the American people spoke loudly and clearly last November when they tossed out the Rubber-Stamp Republican Congress. They voted for a New Direction in Iraq and for change in America. They voted to disentangle American troops from the carnage, chaos, and civil war in Iraq. They voted for accountability and oversight, which we Democrats have begun to deliver on; already the new majority has held more than 100 congressional hearings related to the Iraq War, investigating everything from the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse of Iraq reconstruction funding to troop readiness to the Iraq Study Group Report to the shameful mistreatment of wounded soldiers recuperating at Walter Reed Medical Center.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is not asking us to expand or extend the war in Iraq. I would not and will not do that. On the contrary, this bill puts us on the glide path to the day when our troops come home where we can ``care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow and orphan.'' This bill helps to repair the damage to America's international reputation and prestige. This bill brings long overdue oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and reconstruction contracting and procurement.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3222, the ``Defense Appropriations Act of 2008.''

Mr. Chairman, the President requested $463.1 billion in total FY 2008 new budget authority for the Department of Defense and intelligence community programs that fall under the purview of the Defense Subcommittee. This is an increase of about $43.3 billion over last year's enacted level--a 10.3 percent increase in nominal terms. The lion's share of the increase over FY 2007, some 80 percent, was allocated to operation and maintenance and procurement programs. DoD's research and development program request is the same as last year's level, a decrease in real terms due to several major programs having completed their R&D phase and moved into full-fledged production.

The Committee's reported bill meets its budget authority allocation of $459.6 billion for FY 2008. This figure is a little more than $3.5 billion below the President's budget request. Nonetheless, the Committee bill provides an increase for Defense of $39.7 billion over the FY 2007 enacted level, or about 9.5 percent in nominal growth. With respect to outlays, the Committee bill is roughly $2.9 billion below the allocation.

In general, meeting the budget authority allocation required shifting funding for certain programs between the FY 2008 base budget bill and the FY 2008 war supplemental, to be considered in September. This largely affected appropriations for the Department's operation and maintenance activities. The bill recommends an overall reduction to the operation and maintenance accounts of some $5.7 billion below the request. Nonetheless, the bill fully funds home-station training, equipment maintenance, and other key military readiness programs covered in these accounts. Finally, notwithstanding a slight reduction to the military personnel pay accounts, all other major program activities, such as weapons procurement and R&D, are funded at or above the President's request.

Meeting the allocation also required deferring consideration of several high profile programs until the FY 2008 war supplemental is taken up. These include:

The Basic Allowance for Housing shortfall.

The ground forces' strategic reserve readiness and equipment rehabilitation and recapitalization.

The purchase of at least ten C-l7 cargo aircraft, $2.5 billion, and MRAP vehicles, $4 billion or more.

The purchase of additional Blackhawk MEDEVAC helicopters.

The Department's Global Train and Equip program.

The Defense Health Program ``efficiency wedge'' shortfall.

Funding Strategy

For some time now, the Committee has expressed considerable concern over the erosion of DoD's fiscal discipline. That erosion is reflected primarily in the Department's use of supplemental funding to cover what were once considered to be base budget costs, particularly weapons modernization and force structure costs. As such, the Committee endeavored to begin restoring traditional funding criteria to the FY 2008 Defense base bill, and will do so when considering the upcoming war supplemental. Thus, recommendations for the base bill sustain non- war-related activities and prepare for future threats by funding enduring personnel benefits, force structure initiatives, such as Army modularity and ``Grow-the- Force'' programs, infrastructure improvements, home-station training, and weapons modernization programs. Conversely, recommendations for the FY 2008 supplemental will be tailored to funding those programs and incremental costs that are arguably related to the war.

Highlights

The Committee's recommendations achieve a balance between preparing units for near-term deployments, supporting our military members and their families, and modernizing our forces to meet future threats. Highlights of the Committee's recommendations are:

Supporting Our Troops and Their Families: First and foremost, the Committee recommends robust funding for programs important to the health, well-being, and readiness of our forces. In addition, the Committee proposes several initiatives that address issues raised by troops, their families, and Department of Defense officials in testimony before the Committee and visits to military bases in the United States and overseas.

Funding of about $2.2 billion is recommended to cover the full cost of a 3.5 percent military pay raise, as approved in the House's version of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization bill.

Under their ``grow-the-force'' initiatives, the Army and Marine Corps propose to add 7,000 and 5,000 new troops, respectively. The personnel costs of these increases are fully covered in the bill, as are the associated equipping and outfitting costs. For the Army the equipping costs for these new troops amount to more than $4 billion; for the Marines the costs exceed $2 billion.

Home-stationing training, optempo, and flying-hour costs are funded at robust levels. All told, the Committee's recommendations provide for a 13 percent increase in funding for these activities over last year's level.

The military services' force structure and basing infrastructure are in a state of transition. The Army, in particular, has been forced to manage significant changes in force structure, known as Army Modularity, base closures, and a global repositioning of forces, all while meeting the demands of war. Based on detailed information provided by the Army, the Committee recommends an important new initiative to assist the service in meeting this challenge. The Committee proposes adding $1.3 billion to the Army's facilities sustainment and restoration budget request to offset the growing infrastructure costs associated with the global repositioning of its forces. These funds will be used to fix barracks, improve child care facilities, and enhance community services at Army bases throughout the United States, Europe, and Korea. Funding for each project is itemized in the Committee report, consistent with the information provided by the Army. This funding, however, will only partially cover the Army's needs. As such, the Committee will address additional infrastructure cost requirements--particularly military construction costs--during consideration of the fiscal year 2008 emergency supplemental request. Further, the Committee intends to work with all the military services to better understand and respond to their basing and infrastructure needs during this time of upheaval.

Another initiative proposed by the Committee directly responds to the needs of our military families. Total funding of $2.9 billion is recommended for the military's family advocacy programs, childcare centers, and dependent's education programs. This amount is an increase of $558 million over the Administration's request, with most of the increase allocated to DoD's family advocacy programs. This program provides counseling, education, and support to military families affected by the demands of war, and episodes of child or spouse abuse.

The Committee's recommendations continue its long tradition of supporting the Department's health programs. The Committee proposes several initiatives and additional funding

to address health care issues raised over the past year, including improving the Department's electronic medical records and fostering better coordination between DoD and the Department of Veterans Affairs, enhancing preventative medicine programs, and advancing military medical research. Also, the Committee bill fully covers the $1.9 billion shortfall in health funding created by the disapproval of DoD's proposed fee and premium increases by the House Armed Services Committee in its bill.

Protecting our forces abroad must be matched with a commitment to protect our forces and their families here at home. Thus, the Committee proposes a new initiative to enhance the security of military bases in the United States. Funding of $268 million is allocated for perimeter security force protection and related facility security improvements, an increase of $142 million over the President's budget request. These funds will be used to erect better perimeter fencing, provide more secure entry and exit controls, and improve situational awareness and response capabilities at military bases and hospitals.

Preparing for the Future: In 1796, President George Washington counseled the Nation to be, ``Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture.'' The Committee's recommendations abide by that counsel, providing robust funding for weapons systems purchases and research programs designed to meet future threats.

The Committee supports full funding, as requested, for key weapons procurements, including the F-22 and F-35 tactical fighter aircraft programs.

Increases above the President's request are allocated for development programs that address so-called ``asymmetric'' threats from weapons of mass destruction and cruise missiles. Additional funding of $15 million is provided to pursue cruise missile defense, $25 million for chemical and biological defense research programs, $26 million to improve fissile material detection systems, and $50 million for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction account to counter weapons proliferation and chemical/biological agents.

To support the Army's evolution to a larger, more lethal, and more rapidly deployable force, the Committee recommends adding funding of $1.1 billion to outfit a new, eighth Stryker brigade.

Testimony before the Committee revealed that our National Guard and Reserve forces continue to suffer from equipment shortfalls. To address this need, the Committee recommends providing an additional $925 million to purchase Guard and Reserve equipment. These additional funds will enhance these forces' ability to meet overseas deployment demands, and respond to natural disasters here at home.

Economic Stability: Fostering economic stability in DoD's weapons modernization programs has been a consistent theme of the Committee. Analyses completed in recent years about DoD's acquisition program all conclude that, without improving stability in these programs, it's quite likely that the military will not be able to achieve the numbers of weapons systems required to equip current force structure at the estimated costs. As such, the Committee is proposing a series of recommendations that would help stabilize certain programs by adding funds and/or adjusting procurement or development schedules.

The Navy's shipbuilding program has been beset by planning and resource instability for many years, resulting in ever-increasing costs to the American taxpayer. Clearly, at current production rates and price levels, the Navy will be unable to meet its force structure requirements in the future. The Committee has responded by providing funds for an additional 5 ships. To purchase these ships, the Committee recommends adding a total of $3.7 billion above the Navy's request for shipbuilding and sealift.

The success of the Department's Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) program is critical to our Nation's ability to field a modern, capable fighter aircraft fleet for decades to come. To maintain stability in this program--and limit the potential for cost increases over time--the Committee recommends an increase of $200 million for F-35 production enhancements. These funds are to be used to outfit facilities with the latest in production line equipment and workflow technology. In addition, the Committee recommends adding $480 million to continue development of an alternative engine for this aircraft, thereby ensuring a competitive base for engine production.

Accountability: The Committee's fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer requires holding accountable organizations, officials, and programs that have performed poorly. Moreover, wasted resources and procedural abuses ultimately come at the expense of our military men and women. The Committee focused attention on the following issues:

Fiscal discipline: For some time, the Committee has raised concerns about the challenges facing the Department's financial managers. Some argue that fiscal discipline within the Department has eroded over time, severely constraining the Department's senior officials and the Congress' program and financial oversight. Regarding this matter, the Committee proposes several important initiatives to improve DoD's fiscal discipline and Congressional oversight. These are described in an appendix to this memorandum.

Contracting Out: The Committee also has registered concern about the Department's unabated appetite for contracting out services and functions once performed by military members or DoD civilians. Though clearly necessary to offset reductions in military and civilian personnel levels that occurred over time, the Committee believes that the Department has failed to adequately manage and oversee the growth in and cost-effectiveness of contracting out. It is also clear that the majority of DoD's service contractors has performed and will continue to perform well. Yet, abuses by some organizations, coupled with DoD's lack of an effective contractor management and oversight regime, has cast a pall over the service contractor community writ large. This must be reversed. The Committee recommends strong steps to do so. These are described in an appendix to this memo.

Trouble procurement programs: Several of the Department's major weapons acquisition programs have experienced considerable cost growth and/or poor execution. For each of these programs--including the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship, the Air Force's combat search and rescue helicopter, and several unclassified and classified satellite purchases--the Committee recommends significant adjustments to the Pentagon's request.

Basic research: In testimony received by the Committee, and through information provided by the Department and third-party groups, the Committee learned that the percent of basic research funding allocated to Department and research organizations' overhead costs has grown to unwarranted levels. To reverse this trend and ensure that the Department's basic research dollars are being used for the purposes intended by Congress, the Committee recommends a general provision limiting the percentage of overhead costs that can be covered in basic research contracts.

Summary of Recommendations by Title

Military personnel

Military personnel pay and benefits accounts are allocated a total of $105 billion, a slight decrease of $0.4 billion to the President's FY 2008 request, but an increase of $5.2 billion or 5.2 percent over the FY 2007 level.

The military personnel pay raise funded is 3.5 percent, at a cost of $2.2 billion. This rate is 0.5 percent greater than the President requested. Also, the President requests some $2.4 billion for retention bonuses and recruiting incentives. These incentives are fully funded.

The Basic Allowance for Housing, BAH, increases 4.2 percent to $15 billion, which is $1.6 billion over the projected FY 2007 enacted level. This continues to ensure no out-of-pocket expenses for service personnel and supports the privatization of housing units for military families. Any BAH shortfall anticipated at the time the Committee marks up the FY 2008 war supplemental will be covered in that bill.

Army end-strength is increased by 7,000 in the base FY 2008 budget, to a total of 489,400, or $5.7 billion over the FY 2007 enacted budget amount. The FY 2007 and 2008 supplemental requests include funding for an additional 36,000 soldiers. By the end of FY 2008, the Army projects that its total troop strength will be 525,400.

The Marine Corps end-strength is projected to grow by 5,000. This troop increase is fully funded in the base bill.

The Navy and Air Force, on the other hand, will continue to reduce their manpower levels. Navy plans to cut 12,300 in 2007; Air Force intends to reduce their force by about 5,600.

The Special Operations Command will grow to a level of about 54,250 personnel, up about 6,400 over FY 2007 levels. By FY 2013, the Command projects its end-strength to grow to about 59,000.

Operation and maintenance

The operation and maintenance accounts are funded at a total of $137.1 billion, a decrease of $5.7 billion from the request, but an increase of $9.8 billion or 7.7 percent over the FY 2007 baseline O&M enacted level.

O&M continues to be one of the fastest growing accounts. The growth in O&M can be attributed to a number of factors, to include: outsourcing, increasing age of equipment, high OPTEMPO, and diminished Pentagon budget oversight. Note that these increasing costs are in addition to costs of our military deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Significant reductions are made to the military services' O&M accounts, particularly the Army and Air Force, for the following reasons:

Unjustified growth over FY 2007 funding levels, beyond amounts necessary to fully fund

all training, optempo, and maintenance activities.

Excessive buildups of spare parts inventories.

Excess cash in working capital funds, beyond levels necessary to ensure cash flow.

A 5 percent ``efficiency'' reduction to the requested amounts for contracted services.

The Committee bill fully funds a 3 percent civilian pay raise, which is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2008.

Procurement and R&D

Procurement is funded at $99.6 billion, roughly the same amount as requested and an increase of $18.7 billion over last year's level. This is an increase of 23 percent, the largest percentage increase of all the major accounts in the DoD budget. R&D is funded at a total of $76.2 billion, about $1.1 billion more than requested. Of note, funding for shipbuilding totals $17.8 billion, an increase of $3.1 billion over the President's request. The increase is a function of the Committee's recommendation to add 5 ships to the 2008 request. The total number of ships to be purchased in FY 2008 is now 10.

Funding of $3.9 billion is provided to fund the purchase of 20 F-22 aircraft, as requested. Additionally, the Committee recommends $2.7 billion for the procurement of 12 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and $2.0 billion for the procurement of 24 F/A-18E/F aircraft.

Funding for the Missile Defense Agency decreases to $8.5 billion from last year's level of $9.4 billion.

Defense health program

The Defense Health Program is funded at $23 billion, an increase of $0.4 billion above the President's request.

Major increases for this activity include: $66 million for the Wounded Warrior Assistance program; $127.5 million for peer-reviewed breast cancer research; $80 million for prostate cancer research; and, $10 million for ovarian cancer research.

HIV/AIDS research and prevention programs receive a total increase of $20 million in the Committee's recommendations.

Notable General Provisions

A provision is included allowing the Department of Defense general transfer authority of $3.2 billion. The Department requested transfer authority of $5 billion.

A new provision is included permitting a competitive expansion of domestic VIM/VAR steel production capacity.

A provision is retained from previous Defense Appropriations acts which prohibits the sale of F-22 fighters to foreign countries.

A provision is included appropriating $15 million for Fisher Houses.

Funds are appropriated to the joint U.S.-Israeli Arrow missile defense system in Section 8077 of the bill. Also, funds are added for a study of future Israeli missile defense requirements.

A new provision is included which prohibits the Department from initiating new programs through reprogramming requests.

Another new provision is included which establishes a separate ``major force program'' budget and program designation for DoD's space programs. This will improve the Committee's oversight of these activities.

Provisions restricting the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq and prohibiting torture a carried in the Committee bill. These are consistent with ones included in previous supplemental and base bill funding appropriations acts.

The bill includes two provisions regarding contracting out: (1) A provision restricting the payment of any award fees to contractors who fail to meet contractual requirements; and (2) a provision which fences 10 percent of all O&M funds appropriated in the bill until the Pentagon submits a report on contracting out required in the FY 2007 Iraq supplemental.

A provision was approved in full committee mark-up to identify up to $30 million for the Impact Aid program.

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Under what authority are we considering this resolution, Madam Speaker?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker. Did the order of the House which is allowing for consideration of this resolution specify a specific resolution by number in that order?

Further parliamentary inquiry. Are there other resolutions

that have been introduced with the title ``To enhance intelligence oversight authority''?

I am sorry?

Well, further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker. I, with authority, can say that there in fact is a resolution that has been introduced, House Resolution 38, that has the exact same title, which is, ``to enhance intelligence oversight authority.''

And my question that I would propound to the Chair is whether or not the Chair would have been able to recognize me if I had, in fact, based on the structure of this order of the House, H. Res. 6, I had called up House Resolution 38.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The only thing that I would say, if I could just engage in a further parliamentary inquiry, is would there in fact have been an opportunity for those of us in the minority had we been recognized by the Chair to call up the resolution other than the one that is called up.

And I know we are going through a transition period, and I want to do everything I possibly can to help the majority to pursue their goals here and try to move this legislation.

I would just like to let those members of the majority know that.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Let me begin by saying that I really am somewhat surprised at the remarks of my very good friend. First of all, if you look at the fact that we focused very enthusiastically on the recommendations of the 9/ 11 Commission and implemented 39 of the 41, we had a challenge in dealing with the issue of jurisdiction. And I have got to say, Madam Speaker, that if you look at the question of jurisdiction and making very important changes in jurisdiction, it is one of the single most difficult things that is to be done.

And I will tell you, I see my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) here, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations; 13 years ago, he and I had the opportunity to serve on what was known as the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. And we had a tough time looking at the issue of jurisdiction.

And you know what, Madam Speaker? After the work of that commission, and unfortunately, when the new majority was in power back then, none of the recommendations of that commission were put into place. None of the brilliant ideas that Mr. Obey propounded were put into place at that time.

But when we came to majority in 1994, Madam Speaker, I still have scars on my back to show how difficult it was to bring about major jurisdictional reform. And I have to say that it is a very, very difficult thing to do, but essential. At that time, we consolidated, basically eliminated three standing committees. I had Members on both sides of the aisle at that time come to me and say that the future of the Republic was jeopardized if we did not keep the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, the District of Columbia Committee, and the Merchant Marine and Fisheries committee. My God, if we didn't keep that in the place, we as a Nation were going right down the tubes.

But guess what? We eliminated those committee. We reduced by 20 percent the number of subcommittees, and it was very tough. We were going through a transition, as we had Members who

were looking forward to taking on the gavels.

And then something that was equally difficult was dealing with the post-9/11 situation, the Department of Homeland Security. We had to put into place a committee structure here that allowed us to establish this committee on Homeland Security that we have today, taking jurisdiction from other committees.

Similarly, we had a very tough time when it came to the Energy and Commerce Committee and what was then called the Banking Committee, trying to bring that together. It is very tough work. And it saddens me that this great opportunity that is here, like the one we faced in 1994, is slipping away with the measure that we are considering right here.

For that reason, Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 35, this resolution that provides for simply a new oversight committee for national intelligence.

Madam Speaker, as we all know, the five most important words in the middle of the preamble of U.S. Constitution are ``provide for the common defense.'' Part and parcel of that responsibility is effective oversight of the Intelligence community, both to ensure its success and to protect our liberties.

Now, the 9/11 Commission correctly identified significant deficiencies in our national intelligence apparatus and, yes, our oversight of those agencies. The 9/11 Commission, as I said, made 41 separate recommendations. Through enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act, the 9/11 Recommendation Implementation Act, and I was proud to serve as a conferee in that effort, our majority took affirmative steps to implement nearly all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Is there more that remains to be done? Of course there is. We all acknowledge that. As long as America has enemies, Madam Speaker, we will need to re-evaluate and improve our Nation's defenses.

Does the resolution before us do that? Absolutely not. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

The 9/11 Commission recommended two options for intelligence oversight. First, a joint committee based on the model of the old Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and second, a single committee in each House of Congress combining authorizing and appropriating authorities. The proposal in front of us today does neither of those things that were recommended by the 9/11 Commission. In fact, it goes in completely the opposite direction, Madam Speaker. Rather than consolidating oversight authority into a single committee that has both authorizing and appropriating authority, it just creates a new committee that has neither, doesn't have either of those powers. So while the 9/11 Commission recommended one committee, we will have three committees dealing with this very important issue.

Further, I am unsure as to what authority this committee actually will have. Having been in the midst of jurisdictional struggles, as I said, for the last decade and a half, I know what it means. As far as I can tell the only authority that this committee has is to write a report to the same people who serve on the committee. They could write a report and give it to themselves.

And the 9/11 Commission was very specific about who should serve on the committee. And I quote from the 9/11 Commission report, Madam Speaker, they said, ``Four of the Members appointed to this committee or committees should be a Member who also serves on each of the following additional committees, the Armed Services Committee, the Judiciary Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.''

Now, Madam Speaker, where are the members of the Armed Services Committee, Judiciary Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee?

Apparently, those aspects of our intelligence activities weren't important enough for the promised improved oversight.

Now, did the Republicans enact, as I said, every 9/11 Commission recommendation exactly as they wrote it? No, we didn't. But, we didn't promise to, and I quote from Speaker Pelosi, ``to make our Nation safer by implementing all of the recommendations of the independent bipartisan 9/11 Commission.''

Now, Madam Speaker, Republicans made sure that there was good communication between the administration, our authorizing committees and Appropriations Committee on intelligence matters. That has made a difference over the last few years. We all know that very, very well. The fact that we haven't had an attack on our soil is, to me, evidence of the success of this administration and the role that this Congress played.

I don't believe that creating committees with both authorizing and appropriating authority, and we have the distinguished former chairman, my always chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my good friend from California (Mr. Lewis), here, and I know he would share my concern about this merger. But it is something that is worth considering.

Frankly, that notion concentrates a lot of power and erodes some of the very important checks and balances that exist in the committee system. But, frankly, it is very important to note that this resolution does away with even the pretense of bipartisanship.

I applauded enthusiastically when Speaker Pelosi talked about her quest for civility and bipartisanship. And it has been said time and time again, unlike our resolution in the 109th Congress establishing the bipartisan Katrina panel, I remember very well when we put that together, established it, and it did great work. Unfortunately, this resolution, the resolution on Katrina gave the minority the right to appoint its members. This resolution authorizes the Speaker, the Democratic Speaker, to appoint the Republican members of the committee, without any consultation with the Republicans at all.

The tradition in this House is that each party caucus is responsible for its own appointments. And this resolution, for the first time ever, does away with that precedent.

Now, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I never got a chance to make those arguments where I should have made those arguments, with my very good friend from Fort Lauderdale (Mr. Hastings) where? Right upstairs in the Rules Committee.

As I argued here at the end of last week when we had this measure before us, we had, for the first time in the history of this institution, the first time ever, five closed rules brought up in the opening day rules package of the House. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee has been thrown completely out the window when it comes to this.

And last week, when we debated this, we had a total of 5 minutes to debate the opening day rules package and five closed rules, without bills being introduced, without committee hearings, without the process whatsoever and without even giving us, the struggling minority, upstairs in the Rules Committee the opportunity to have our amendments denied. We didn't even have the chance to have our amendments denied upstairs in the Rules Committee.

All I am saying, listen, I am loving my role here in the minority, Madam Speaker. It is really a great opportunity to be able to represent the people of California here. But I will tell you, Democrats and Republicans alike all across this country have been treated very poorly in an unprecedented way.

Now, I believe that many of the Commission's recommendations were right. That is why we implemented so many of them. But this resolution that we have before us is wrong when it comes to this opportunity that we unfortunately are allowing to slip through our fingers. We are not being given the chance to put into place the very, very important jurisdictional reforms that are needed to deal with this issue.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield on that point? At least it was not when I was upstairs in the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member, our former chairman and future chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my friend from Highland, California (Mr. Lewis).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished and hardworking former chairman of the committee from Holland, Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Every single argument that I heard from Mr. Obey, Madam Speaker, was, in fact, in support of the argument from the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud at this time to yield 3 minutes to a hardworking member of the Committee on Intelligence, the gentlewoman from Albuquerque, New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

I never said that.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say in response to my good friends, Mr. Hastings and Mr. Reyes, that I never in my prepared remarks at the outset said that I was supportive of this notion of merging the authorizing and the appropriating process. I simply said that that was the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, and I stated that I was concerned about that prospect.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Savannah, Georgia, a hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Kingston.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our very hardworking colleague from Wilmington, Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Peoria, Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

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

Let me at the outset say to my good friend from Fort Lauderdale (Mr. Hastings), one of my staff members encouraged me to have his words taken down when he accused me just a few minutes ago of being disingenuous when it came to the introduction of House Resolution 38. That resolution, as the gentleman knows from the parliamentary inquiry that I engaged in, was designed to simply point to the flaws and the way this measure was crafted. Now, that resolution in no way called for the merging of the authorizing and the appropriating process. I simply said at that point that that was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.

I would be happy to yield to my friend if he can, in fact, point to me where in the resolution I introduced, House Resolution 38, it states that there should be a merging of both the authorizing and the appropriating process. And I am very happy to yield to my good friend from Fort Lauderdale.

I introduced the H. Resolution 38, and I support it much more so than I do the resolution that we have here. The reason being that I believe very much that there should, in fact, be consultation in a bipartisan way rather than having unilateral decisions made by the Speaker of the House over the minority in this Chamber, as Mr. LaHood said so well, an unprecedented action that has been taken. And my point is, there is nothing in the resolution that I introduced that does what led the gentleman to call me disingenuous. I, in the spirit of comity as set forth by Speaker Pelosi in her opening remarks, am not going to have the words of my friend taken down. I do not engage in name calling on the floor of this House, and even if people want to continue that towards me, I refuse to respond.

Madam Speaker, let me close by making a couple of remarks about what it is that is before us here. About 6 months ago in July, my very distinguished colleague, the new chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of Appropriations, and he also will be serving as the chairman of the very important House Democracy Assistance Commission, and I am looking forward to serving now as the co-chairman, the ranking Republican on that committee; last July we went on our mission to help build democracies, build the parliaments in these fledgling democracies around the world. And I am very proud, Madam Speaker, that we have been able to do this in 12 countries. Last July, we were in Nairobi, Kenya, meeting with members of the parliament. When we were there, we had an opportunity to go and visit the site of one of the greatest tragedies to take place in our Nation's history, and that was before September 11, 2001. In 1998, our colleagues will recall that the embassies of both Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, were brutally attacked by al Qaeda. We all know that that happened, and we know there was a response at that time. We finally got the news last night that we have been able to see, with regional support, support of the Ethiopians, support of the Kenyans, who very courageously have stepped up to the plate; we launched an air strike in southern Somalia against al Qaeda that was successful, successful in making sure that we make another blow against those who inflicted the worst attack in modern history against the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I argue that that kind of success was not an accident. That kind of success in launching that strike against those who attacked the United States of America, both here on our soil and on our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, was done because of our effective leadership in the United States of America in prosecuting this Global War on Terror.

Now, I believe that as we look at what it is that we are doing here, it is very admirable. We know, as Mrs. Wilson said earlier, a promise was made to implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We are very proud of the fact that 39 of the 41 recommendations that were made by that commission have been put into place.

What we have before us is something that is very ill founded, and it is an attempt to respond to that promise.

But one of the things that I have learned, Madam Speaker, when you do something simply for the sake of doing something, it is probably the wrong thing. Madam Speaker, I do believe very fervently this is the wrong thing.

Now, I have here a copy of the rules of the House, and as I look through the structure that put into place the committee on which Mr. LaHood has served so proudly, the Intelligence Committee, it calls for membership from the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on the Judiciary, and it makes the Speaker and the minority leader ex- officio members. And it in fact does call for the Speaker to make the appointments. It traditionally is done in with consultation with Members of the minority.

Madam Speaker, it is important to note that is what the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is all about. We have virtually the identical structure being put into place for little more than a feel- good measure. That is really what it is. It is to be able to say, yes, we have this committee.

I am going to say, as I did when I opened this debate, Madam Speaker, Mr. Obey and I worked on that joint committee on the organization of Congress back in 1993. We had 37 hearings, and 243 witnesses during that 2-year period came before us. Those numbers have stuck with me because that was a great opportunity I had to serve, along with our colleague, Lee Hamilton, interestingly enough, who was the co-chair of the commission on the House side, and Pete Domenici and David Boren, the father of our colleague, Dan Boren, co-chaired the committee on the other side.

We looked at a wide range of changes, many of which I am proud to say we implemented. We talked about the issue of jurisdiction, but we didn't come up with firm recommendations. But when we took over, before a single Republican Member got their hands on the gavel, we saw them put into place recommendations.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I urge a vote for my motion to recommit that I will be offering forthwith.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend yielding. I will simply state once again that there is absolutely nothing in either Mr. Obey's resolution or the resolution that I introduced that calls for the 9/11 Commission's recommendation of merging the authorization and the appropriations process. That is why it is very clear that it has not called for the merging.

If the gentleman would yield, that is what I was accused of having said. I never said anything of the kind.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Madam 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, September 11 was a very important day in Boston history. Mohammed Atta and nine other terrorists hijacked two planes with hundreds of people on them 2 miles from my house and flew them into the World Trade Center, killing not only the people in the World Trade Center, but all of the people on those two planes from Logan airport.

For the last 5 years, we've had a fight over whether or not we should screen

the cargo which goes on passenger planes in our country. Yes, each of us has to take off our shoes, our bags have to go through, we have to take off our wristwatches, children's baby carriages have to be inspected. But, believe it or not, then the cargo is placed right under our feet, and it's not screened. Billions of pounds of cargo not screened.

And so this cargo loophole has been fought by the cargo industry, opposed by the Bush administration, but now it is in this legislation. And henceforth, all of the cargo which goes onto passenger planes in our country, placed next to the bags of passengers, placed under the feet of passengers on planes, will also be screened. And so now cargo will have this on it. Screened, safe to place upon those planes. It is a huge moment in security. This bill is historic.

And secondly, although the Bush administration has opposed it, this legislation also includes my language which is going to require the screening of cargo on ships coming into ports in the United States.

Right now cargo with a nuclear bomb in it, which we know is al Qaeda's top goal, to obtain a nuclear weapon from someplace in the former Soviet Union, move it to a port in the world and move that ship with the cargo into New York, into Long Beach, into Boston, and then detonate the nuclear bomb before it is taken out of the cargo hold of that ship, destroying that American city. Because of the language in this bill, that cargo will now be screened in the port overseas before it ever leaves for our country. It will be screened for a nuclear bomb overseas, thwarting the highest objective which al Qaeda has, which is to detonate a nuclear bomb.

Now, I can understand the Bush administration's misgivings about it, and I understand that many of the Senators, Republican Senators will not sign this conference report because of this requirement. I think they're making a historic mistake. This is at the top of the terrorist target list. This is what they want to do to American cities, detonate a nuclear bomb on a ship already docked in a port in the United States before it's ever taken off that ship.

This legislation is historic. I congratulate Chairman Thompson. I congratulate the staff. I congratulate the bipartisan nature for the vast majority of this legislation. It is overdue. It is overdue.

We must put in place the defense, now, against al Qaeda returning to finish their plot against us here in the homeland.

Al Qaeda came to Boston to begin this attack. There's no reason to believe they can't return to those very same planes, to those very same docks where al Qaeda came in. They came in through the ports of Boston to, in fact, wreak this catastrophic event on our country.

Vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the principal author of the air cargo security provision in Section 1602 of the conference report--Screening of Cargo Carried Aboard Passenger Aircraft--I want to make several points clear.

While the House version of the bill used the term ``inspected'' and the Senate version used ``screened'', neither bill actually defined these terms. The language in the final version of the bill does define ``screening'', and it makes clear that screening does not mean what DHS currently considers screening--reviews of manifests, information about shippers (Known Shipper program), etc.

To make clear what is meant by screening, the final bill states that:

The system used to screen 100 percent of cargo carried on passenger planes must provide a level of security on par with the level of security for passengers' checked bags. Specifically, the language states that the system ``shall require, at a minimum, that equipment, technology, procedures, personnel or other methods approved by the Administrator of TSA are used to screen cargo carried on passenger planes to provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage.'' (emphasis added). A 3-year deadline is established to get to 100 percent, with an interim benchmark of 50 percent of cargo within 18 months of enactment.

Screening means an examination of the cargo's contents, not just information about the cargo, consistent with the mandate that the cargo screening must be on par with the security standard for screening of passengers' checked bags. The bill stipulates the cargo screening methods TSA is to use to meet this standard: ``Methods of screening include x-ray systems, explosive detection systems, explosive trace detection, explosive detection canine teams certified by the TSA, or a physical search together with manifest verification.'' These are methods currently used for checked bags.

While TSA may approve additional methods, they cannot be solely data checks, and must also utilize physical checks. As the final language makes clear: ``The Committee is also concerned about TSA using data checks of cargo or shippers . . . as a single factor in determining whether cargo poses a threat to transportation security. The Conference substitute, therefore, requires that if such data checks are used, they must be paired with additional physical or nonintrusive screening method approved by TSA that examines the cargo's contents.'' (emphasis added).

There has been some discussion in the media about Congress's intent in passing this provision. I want to address these points and make clear the intent of the provision.

One concern that was raised is that as much as 60 percent of air cargo could be exempt from a mandatory physical inspection at airports, under a new program to be called Certified Shipper.

As noted above, the language in the final version of the bill requires that the system for screening all cargo on passenger planes must ``provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage.'' All cargo on passenger planes must be physically examined before it is loaded onboard, a major departure from current practice. While TSA may be considering a so-called ``Certified Shipper'' program that would require physical examination of all cargo in a location off the airport grounds and then a sealing of the cargo containers with tamper-proof seals, this plan, and any such system developed by TSA, must provide a level of cargo security on par with the level of security for checked bags, which includes the requirement that the contents of all the cargo must be physically checked.

The final version of the bill mandates that the Department of Homeland Security issue a rule to implement a system consistent with the bill's 100 percent cargo screening requirement. Congress, along with stakeholders who have been working to require 100 percent screening of all cargo carried on passenger planes, will be watching TSA's plans closely to ensure that the implementation of the cargo screening mandate in the bill is performed in a manner that complies with the mandate in the final version of the bill. If TSA's system does not ``provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage'' as required in the bill, it will not be in compliance with the congressional mandate in the final version of the bill, and therefore will be in jeopardy of being halted or modified by Congress to bring it into compliance with the law.

Another concern that has been raised is that companies that participate in the Certified Shipper program would still have to follow security rules, including conducting their own package inspections and putting special tamperproof seals on containers, but packages handled by these companies, which will probably represent the bulk of the air cargo industry, would generally be exempt from mandated electronic, canine or other physical inspections at the airport.

Again, a so-called ``Certified Shipper'' program or any other program that TSA develops to implement the mandate to screen 100 percent of the cargo on passenger planes must meet the standard that it provides a level of security on par with the level of security for passenger checked bags. At this point, it is unclear whether a program that screens and then seals cargo outside the airport perimeter would meet this standard.

In an April 2007 report requested by Representative Markey and other Members, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted that the Department of Homeland Security is conducting pilot programs to test a number of currently employed technologies used in other areas of aviation and transportation security, as well as new technologies. These pilot programs include an air cargo security seals pilot, which is exploring the viability of potential security countermeasures, such as tamper-evident security seals. According to GAO, TSA anticipates completing its pilot tests by 2008. (GAO-07-660 Aviation Security). Before implementation of any TSA air cargo program relying on seals, a thorough, comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of such seals will have to be conducted. Again, if such a system does not ``provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage'' as required in the bill, it will not be in compliance with the congressional mandate in the final version of the bill, and therefore will be in jeopardy of being halted or modified by Congress to bring it into compliance with the law.

Another concern that has been raised is that a program similar to Certified Shipper that is

used by Customs and Border Patrol for ship cargo has frequently been criticized. Auditors have found that companies in this program are sometimes permitted to move their goods more quickly even though there is insufficient proof that they have a robust security system in place.

The program referred to above is called the Customs--Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). I have criticized C-TPAT for many of the same reasons cited above. In fact, in addition to the air cargo screening requirement, the final version of the bill also includes a requirement that 100 percent of maritime cargo must be screened and sealed overseas before it arrives in U.S. ports. Clearly, with the inclusion of this mandate in the final version of the bill, Congress rejected C-TPAT as a substitute for 100 percent scanning of maritime containers. It did not intend, nor would it permit, a program for screening 100 percent of air cargo that is based on the flawed C- TPAT program.

By establishing the standard that TSA's system for screening 100 percent of cargo on passenger planes must ``provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage'', the final version of the bill creates requirements much more stringent than the C-TPAT program. C-TPAT uses risk-based process, not mandatory, comprehensive screening. Specifically, C-TPAT security guidelines state that ``C-TPAT recognizes the complexity of international supply chains and endorses the application and implementation of security measures based upon risk analysis. Therefore, the program allows for flexibility and the customization of security plans based on the member's business model. As listed throughout this document appropriate security measures, based on risk, must be implemented and maintained throughout the Air Carrier's supply chains'' (emphasis added, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/commercial _enforcement/ctpat/security_guideline/ guideline_air_carrier.xml)

The air cargo provision requires 100 percent screening, not risk assessment. The air cargo provision mandates screening of all cargo carried on passenger planes within 3 years. Under the air cargo provision in the conference report, no risk calculation is permitted to determine whether or which cargo to screen; rather, all cargo is presumed to present a risk and must be screened, just as all of passengers' checked bags must be screened under the current policy.

The C-TPAT program relies on data and manifest information, not physical checks. C-TPAT guidelines advise program participants in the procedural security measures they should use for the shipping and receiving of cargo. These procedures rely on data and manifest checks, not the physical screening of the cargo to determine and evaluate its contents. Specifically, the C-TPAT guidelines state that: ``Arriving cargo should be reconciled against information on the cargo manifest. The cargo should be accurately described, weighed, labeled, marked, counted and verified. Departing cargo should be checked against purchase or delivery orders.'' (emphasis added)

Whatever system TSA establishes to implement the 100 percent air cargo screening requirement in the bill will be subjected to close congressional scrutiny to ensure that it meets the standard established in the bill; namely, the system must provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage, as stipulated in the bill. Again, any TSA system that fails to meet this standard will not be in compliance with the congressional mandate in the final version of the bill, and therefore will be in jeopardy of being halted or modified by Congress to bring it into compliance with the law.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege, as the first Democratic chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, to rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill.

At the direction of the Speaker, I authored H.R. 1, legislation to complete the unfinished business of the 9/11 Commission. It had 200 original cosponsors.

H.R. 1 was the first bill of the 110th Congress. It passed the House by a vote of 299-128; 32 House conferees on a bipartisan basis, including Ranking Member King, signed the conference report. Late last night the Senate passed it by a vote of 85-8.

It would seem that 6 years after the 9/11 attacks and 3 years after the release of the 9/11 Commission report, Congress is finally embracing what the 9/11 families have been saying all along. It takes more than vigilance for our Nation to be more secure against the threat of terrorism. It takes a willingness to do things a different way.

The 9/11 Commission challenged the administration, Congress and the American people to think a different way and take concrete steps to deter and prevent future attacks. Over the past 3 years, some progress has been made, most notably, the reforms in the intelligence community. However, until today, many of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission remain unfulfilled.

The conference report on H.R. 1 ensures that most grant funding is allocated based on risk. It authorizes $1.6 billion for an interoperability grant program to improve communications for first responders. It provides over $4 billion in rail, mass transit and bus security grants to ensure that our at-risk communities have the security they deserve.

Additionally, the conference report on H.R. 1 puts in achievable benchmarks for ensuring that 100 percent cargo carried on passenger planes is screened. It also mandates the screening of all U.S.-bound ships in foreign ports for 5 years, but gives the Homeland Security Secretary flexibility to delay implementation in certain cases.

The conference report requires a new electronic travel authorization system to screen visitors from companies participating in the Visa Waiver Program. This bill also strengthens a board that oversees privacy and civil liberties issues.

It requires the President and Congress to publicly disclose total spending requested and approved for the intelligence community for 2 years. The bill provides civil immunity to those in good faith who report suspicious activities that threaten the safety and security of passengers on the transportation system, or that could be an act of terrorism.

Before I yield back, I want to say on the record that the provisions I authored to give TSA screeners collective bargaining rights and whistle-blower protections was not included in the final bill. Though not an explicit 9/11 Commission recommendation, I believe that giving voice to the eyes and ears in the airports will make America more secure. I will keep working to get them the protections they deserve.

That said, the bill that is being considered today will make America more secure.

I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, as well as the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1) to provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members would have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed historic, this conference report we have before us at this point.

Almost 3 years ago, 10 American patriots came forward and spoke with one unified bipartisan voice. What they said in their 567-page report fundamentally changed America's views of its security. Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission did its job and told us what must be done to deter and prevent future terrorist attacks on our Nation.

When Congress didn't do its job to implement their recommendation, the 9/11 Commission stayed vigilant and formed the 9/11 discourse project. They did so, as they explained, because the perils of inaction are far too high and the strategic value of the Commission's findings too important for the work of the 9/11 Commission not to continue.

Unfortunately, the project's December 2005 report card found little progress was being made on addressing known vulnerabilities and gaps in our Nation's security. Still, Mr. Speaker, the 109th Congress did not do its job.

On January 5, however, at the direction of Speaker Pelosi, I introduced H.R. 1, a bill to complete the unfinished business of the 9/ 11 Commission, with 200 of my fellow colleagues. Today, I'm privileged to present a bipartisan conference report that finally fulfills the recommendations.

This report passed the Senate just last night before midnight by a vote of 85-8. When H.R. 1 is law, Mr. Speaker, Homeland Security grants will finally be allocated based on risk. Targeted communities will get the Federal help they so richly deserve. First responders will have interoperable communications. When H.R. 1 is law, information necessary to uncover terrorist plots will be exchanged between Federal and local law enforcement. Would-be terrorists will not be able to exploit the Visa Waiver Program. Privacy and civil liberties will be central in how we approach homeland security. Our rail, mass transit and aviation systems will be more secure. When H.R. 1 is law, 100 percent of U.S.- bound cargo will be scanned in a commerce-friendly manner.

Though I'm disappointed that collective bargaining and whistle-blower rights for TSA screeners were not included in the final report, I applaud Senator Lieberman and the 42 other conferees who stood with us on this legislation. Their hard work, combined with the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, assured that this effort came to fruition.

Frederick Douglass once said, ``The life of a nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful and virtuous.'' Thank you to the 9/11 Commission for exemplifying these values. And thank you to the 9/ 11 families, and everyone else who would not let us forget what was at stake if we did not act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to Mr. King that it would have been nice to have four conferees, but it was a 900-page bill, so we had 60. It worked, and I'm happy to see the process go forward.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Intelligence Subcommittee on Homeland Security, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), one of the conferees, as well as the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the next speaker, who perhaps can answer some of the questions raised by the previous speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who has been a champion of inspection and screening ever since he has been here. As the Speaker indicated, his district was hit on 9/11.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who's also a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who is a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that there is substantial support for the bill as well as substantial support to get on the vote for the bill.

I would like to thank my colleague, Ranking Member King, for his support as well as his staff. They have been very good. I would like to recognize the Democratic staff: Jessica Flanigan, Rosaline Cohen, Michael Stroud, everybody. I have something to insert in the Record to recognize their value.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that this is a good bill. It is in the best interest of the country. It is completion of the 9/11 vulnerability report. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, while I commend the work on H.R. 1, I rise today to express my disappointment that the provision to afford our Transportation Security Officers, TSOs, the collective bargaining rights and whistleblower protections they deserve is excluded from the Conference Report. Mr. Speaker, our TSOs are not second class citizens and should not be treated as such.

In 2001, when the Transportation Safety Administration, TSA, was created, Congress vested power to set TSO compensation, leave, and other basic employment rights with the Secretary of Transportation. When TSA was moved to the Department of Homeland Security, this authority remained. While this authority was helpful in getting TSA up and running, the TSOs now need to be treated like all other TSA employees--fairly and equitably. This provision would have restored the labor rights of approximately 43,000 TSOs and provided them with veterans' preference, anti-discrimination protections, retirement, whistle-blowing, and collective bargaining rights.

Restoring basic employment rights is critical to recruiting and retaining TSOs. We do not need to look far to see what low morale can do to the health, recruitment, and retention of the Department of Homeland Security workforce. According to a GAO report released this month, TSOs account for approximately a third of the total workforce and their attrition rates are higher than the normal for the Federal Government. It is unfortunate that we are failing to provide the most basic labor protections to our front line workers who perform an important job and work to keep us all safe; rights that are afforded to thousands of workers in the Federal Government.

I commit to my colleagues today that as Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security I will continue work to ensure that our TSOs are afforded the rights and protections they deserve.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, let the record reflect that in addition to the staff that I recognized earlier, the following individuals did a service to our Nation in helping the Conference develop legislation to make America more secure.

Michael Stroud

Denise Krepp

Craig Sharman

Tom Finan

Veronique Pluviose-Fenton

Alison Rosso

Jacob Olcott

Chris Beck

Matt Washington

Jeff Greene

Erin Murphy

Michael Beland

Erin Daste

Tamla Scott

Tyrik McKeiver

Stephan Vina

Diane Bean

Brian Turbyfill

Angela Rye

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for affording me the opportunity to recognize the good work of Majority staff of the Committee on Homeland Security.

I yield back the balance of my time.