Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report for the Perkins vocational education program.

I am pleased to see that Tech Prep was maintained as a separate authorization from the state grants program.

Tech Prep is a program of study which begins in high school, continues at a postsecondary institution and culminates in an associate degree, two-year certificate, apprenticeship, or further postsecondary study in a career and technical field.

Tech Prep in my home state of Massachusetts serves 12,865 secondary school students and 3,450 post-secondary students. One hundred and forty secondary schools, 45 post-secondary institutions and 180 business and industry members partner together to help provide a smooth transition from secondary school to post-secondary education.

These are not idle statistics but real students who may transition into high-skill, high-wage technical fields for which there is an escalating labor market demand. These academically and technically prepared graduates of Tech Prep programs are critical to the economic growth, productivity and internal competitiveness of the United States.

Regrettably, the House bill eliminated the separate funding stream for Tech Prep programs and merged the funding into the Basic State Grant. Such a move could have led to a loss of federal funding for--and reduction of congressional focus on--this important program.

My democratic colleague Ron Kind and I sought to restore and retain the integrity of Tech Prep because we--and a number of concerned education groups--feared that the language in the House version would have led to a loss of funds for Perkins overall and could have impacted existing Tech Prep partnerships and innovation in career and technical education.

I am pleased that the conference report rejects the House bill's position and maintains Tech Prep as a separate title in the law.

I am also pleased that the Congress has stood up to the Administration and soundly rejected the President's proposal to eliminate vocational education.

I would like to thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Miller, as well as Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy for their cooperative work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill before us today. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I think that there are some provisions in this bill that merit our hesitation before we proceed forward on it here tonight. This will be the second bill that we have passed in this House on the same subject, and both of them have missed opportunities.

This bill misses an opportunity to encourage companies to keep offering traditional pensions to their employees. As my colleague Mr. Neal from Massachusetts said earlier, it could be the demise of the defined contribution plan, defined benefit plan for employees, a plan that many, many people rely on and the best type of pension/retirement plan that people could have. This in the face of a majority of this body and a White House that are already intent on attacking and privatizing Social Security.

This bill misses an opportunity to protect taxpayers from footing the bill for the bailout of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The PBGC estimates that this bill will increase its deficit by $2 billion over the next 10 years.

This bill misses an opportunity to prevent companies from using bankruptcy to dump workers' pension plans, and we have seen that happen too often in a number of instances very recently. We had every opportunity to put provisions in this bill that would force companies to try alternative means and other financing and ways to stop from having to dump their plan into bankruptcy and therefore hurt their retirees. We fail to do it in this bill.

The bill misses an opportunity to save pension benefits for older workers by allowing conversion to cash balance plans without protecting those that are 45 years or older, and estimates are that they stand to lose up to half of the accumulated value in their pension plans.

And the bill misses an opportunity to stop companies from awarding lavish retirement compensation packages to executives at the same time they cut

workers' benefits. The fact of the matter is that the executives that are responsible for driving these plans into the ground ought to have their fate and their retirement hooked onto the fate of their employees so that they will make sure that these plans succeed every possible time.

And the bill misses an opportunity to protect workers' pension assets. The investment advice exemptions in the bill don't adequately protect against conflicted investment advice.

Mr. Speaker, they miss opportunity after opportunity. We can do better. Let it go back to conference, let's correct it, and let's come out with a good pension plan to protect America's workers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight also to add my voice to this important issue of the need to raise the minimum wage. The fact that the Federal minimum wage remains $5.15 an hour is a disgrace.

I think it was stated earlier by Mr. Owens that someone who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year at minimum wage, they will still be $2,000 below the poverty level for a family of two and $5,000 below the poverty level for a family of three. There are several million Americans who fall into that category working full time year around and living in poverty. We should be able to do better in America. It is a matter of fairness. The American people do not want this kind of situation to continue.

We can pass legislation to raise minimum wage any time we wish, except that the Republican majority does not wish to bring forward the bill that could do just that. It has been 9 years since we last raised the minimum

wage. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the real value of minimum wage is lower today than at any time since 1968. To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage would have to be increased to $7.54 an hour. If it were just to equal 50 percent of the average wage, as it did in the 1950s and 1960s, it would need to be increased to $8.20 an hour.

If the minimum wage had grown at the same rate as chief executive officers' pay since 1990, the lowest paid worker in the United States would be earning $25 an hour. But since 1997, Congress has failed to raise that amount, relegating millions of hard-working Americans to poverty by freezing that rate at $5.15.

Even The Economist, a notably conservative publication, is concerned about the fact that the gap in rich and poor exists. They are not concerned so much that the gap exists, but they are concerned that the way of bridging that gap is disappearing, and people no longer feel there are the rungs up on the ladder to get from one status in life to another.

We should take notice that in States that have raised the minimum wage above the Federal level, jobs have been created faster than in States that have not raised that level. A case in point is Oregon. In 1998, when its raised its minimum wage above the Federal level, wages and job opportunities increased. We should get the message.

I would like to hear what Mr. Miller has to say, but please add my voice to the fact that we need to act immediately to raise the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, regretfully this debate on America's role in this debate on Iraq has been converted into a debate on the war on terror.

The Republican leadership has mimicked this divisive White House and sought a political squabble instead of a policy debate. The majority leader's memorandum that was circulated directing his Members to politicize and name call and obfuscate the issue is a disservice to this House and to the country as a whole.

Nothing was gained when the administration first inflated the issue of Osama bin Laden and terrorism with Iraq, and nothing is gained here today by this bald attempt to avoid discussion of Iraq policy and again try to conflate the issue of international terror with Iraq's insurgency.

Our country's democratic system requires the active involvement of Congress on key policy questions, particularly the issue of war. Its Members have a patriotic duty to hold the executive branch accountable, especially during a time of war. Troops as well as our citizens at home deserve and expect no less.

Back in 2001 this entire Congress went into Afghanistan against al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and essentially every Member, Republican, Democrat or Independent, went with the international community, rallying to the side of Americans, rallying to our aid. Our intelligence personnel, special ops forces, military and our allies were there.

But it was not in the case in Iraq where this President, President Bush, prematurely diverted troops and resources out of Afghanistan, before that mission was completed, before Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and Taliban leaders were captured, and before Afghanistan was stabilized.

President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld chose to start the Iraqi conflict on selective and incomplete intelligence when there was no imminent threat to the United States, without letting the international inspections run their course, without building international support, without a plan to stabilize and rebuild the country and bring our troops home, and ignoring the advice of leading generals about troop strength and strategy.

As a result of those failed judgments made over and over again, our troops have suffered in the field, not having adequate body armor and vehicle armor. They have been deployed an unreasonable number of times, and they are under unbelievable stress and danger. Our veterans have received inadequate care, some $3 billion short of what they should be having, and we have experienced a harmful lack of oversight and accountability.

The Iraqi people, more than half of them, are without clean water, 85 percent lack electricity, oil production less than what it was before the war started, and unemployment of over 40 percent and billions of dollars of American taxpayer money being spent without getting it where it is supposed to go, our troops not getting the safety equipment, Iraqis not getting the reconstruction done, and the American taxpayer $360 billion out of pocket. The policy of the Bush administration has done more to harm our military strength and more to harm and misdirect resources away from terror.

United States troops have done their jobs. They got rid of Saddam Hussein, they allowed for the constitution to be drawn and elections to be held, and they trained Iraqi security. The time has come for Iraqis to have the incentive to take control and responsibility for their own security. This idea of an open-ended commitment to stay the course just impedes this goal.

The true presence of our country impedes and fuels the insurgency. Nine out of 10 Iraqis want a timeline for withdrawal. Seventy percent, including the Prime Minister, set a timeline for withdrawal. It appears that the Bush-Rumsfeld group wants to be more Iraqi than the Iraqis.

It is time to shift the focus to political and diplomatic solutions. It is time we disavow any intention to permanently remain or to keep them on bases. It is time to revitalize our military, refocus on Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, and

secure our own country by fulfilling the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to spur a rational process for the siting of liquefied natural gas facilities in the northeast region. That region does need additional energy sources. That is not in dispute. But our homes and businesses depend on an adequate supply.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that the point of order was raised. As I was mentioning, the purpose is for spurring a rational process for siting liquid natural gas facilities in the northeast region.

That the region needs additional energy resources is not in dispute. Our homes and our businesses depend on adequate supplies to maintain our quality of life, but our quality of life also depends on having a rational process for determining how many facilities are reasonably needed in the region and where any new facilities will locate.

Current policy only calls for evaluation and approval of new liquid natural gas facilities as they are proposed, independent of all other applications and without any regulation concern for overcapacity or overbuilding in any particular area.

Important fishing, shipping, security and conservation interests are impacted by the sitings, particularly by multiple sitings. Yet the current law does not account for this. Already there are two proposals in one area known as block 125 off the Massachusetts coast.

There are a total of 16 proposals that could be built along the northeast area. Those are all pending.

Some people just say that the marketplace will sort it out, but in fact it is the responsibility of public policy officials to provide for a much more rational approach.

Past energy construction situations that operated on the premises that the market would sort it out, for instance, that some applicants would eventually

blink and not continue with their building, have proved out not to be true. Overcapacity and the attendant problems resulted from that.

We can prevent an arbitrary intrusion into some of our Nation's most productive fishing grounds if we can prevent the unnecessary degradation of valuable ocean treasures. We can present the potential navigational problems and the possible excessive security costs if we plan, if we get it right, if we forego this ad hoc approach. In the end if we follow a rational and regional siting process, it will expedite the introduction of new energy in the area. Public support will be much more likely. Litigation will be less likely. And legislative intervention or administrative interruption may be obviated.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, there are significant security concerns and risks that are associated with liquid natural gas offshore sites. The Coast Guard has informed us that no comprehensive assessment of security costs for LNG deep-water ports has been conducted. So what will it cost to protect one? What will it cost to protect 16? What will it cost to protect the related ships and crews, and who is going to pay or reimburse the taxpayers for all of this protection on the for-profit enterprise?

Companies indicate that they have not ever been approached about this, nor have they broached the subject. It is our duty as policymakers to address these issues to ensure that the right facilities are built as they are needed, that precious resources are reasonably protected, and that the cost of security be known and properly assessed.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the point of order is not sustained so we can have these proper assessments of New England's energy needs and siting demands; and that we can also evaluate and apportion the cost of securing LNG facilities that are operating.

Point of Order

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure it will take me 3 minutes to talk about a very basic value that I think we can all agree on, and that is fairness.

The majority's pension bill is unfair, frankly, to, workers. When a pension plan is underfunded, workers get penalized, but the corporate chief executive officers and the executives, the people that are actually at fault for the underfunding, they get a walk on this situation. They get a free ride. That is unfair. It is unfair that the companies treat their executives so well when rank-and-file members are suffering.

There is no way that Federal policy ought to sense that kind of activity or inequitable treatment. Our pension laws have to treat workers fairly.

Under the House bill, when funding levels fall on a tax-qualified pension below 80 percent, then workers can't get the benefit increases, can't get a cost-of-living adjustment, can't get a lump sum pension payment. But under the House bill, executives can continue to lavish themselves with benefits under the non-qualified plans with no restrictions.

Executives don't feel the pinch until funding levels drop below 60 percent. At that point, executives are prohibited from transferring corporate assets to executive compensation.

The Senate bill provides for more equitable treatment of executives and workers. Under that bill, workers do not lose their cost of living adjustments or their lump sum payment options at 80 percent. CEO pensions are restricted if pension plans fall to less than 80 percent of funding and the company is a credit risk.

Congress is the people's House. It ought to be about ensuring fairness, in the pension process as well as in other areas. It ought to be about leveling the playing field and making sure that workers and executives are subject to the same pension rules.

Mr. Miller's motion directs the pension conferees to apply the same benefit restrictions to workers and CEOs. This motion to instruct is about fairness, it is about the very thing that this, the people's House, ought to be about. I think the people are going to be looking at this vote, and, just as Mr. Kucinich said, they are going to be wondering, whose side are we on? We ought to be on the side of fairness, on the side of equity and on the side of the workers in this matter in treating everybody fairly and equitably.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this restrictive rule and in opposition to H.R. 609.

First, I would like to state my support for specific provisions in the Manager's Amendment to H.R. 609 that eliminated the funding formula change to campus-based aid.

As introduced, H.R. 609 changed the formula for campus-based aid programs, including Work Study, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants and low-interest Perkins Loans. This would have resulted in substantial losses of this aid to schools across the country with a history of participation in the program. Students at schools in my state of Massachusetts would have lost $9.4 million in work study and other programs.

During Subcommittee and full Committee mark-ups, Mr. Kind and I offered amendments to ensure that students were not unfairly punished by the changes to the campus-based aid funding formula in H.R. 609. Our amendments gained support from both sides of the aisle and the votes were tied in both mark-ups. We were also joined by more than 80 of our colleagues in sending a letter to the Chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee asking for these funding formula changes to be taken out of the bill before floor consideration. I would like to express my thanks to the outgoing and incoming Chairmen for heeding our call. They realized that changing the distribution formula would harm thousands of students because it would have simply taken funds from one group of needy students and shifted those funds to another group of needy students. Unless we increased the appropriations for campus-based aid, Mr. Kind and I felt strongly that we could not in good faith change the funding distribution formula.

While I am extremely pleased that the Manager's Amendment eliminates the campus-based aid cuts, I must turn now to the Rule before us today.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, that this restrictive rule does not make in order the amendments I brought before the Rules Committee on Tuesday afternoon.

My amendments would have helped make college more affordable for low- and middle-income students and families across the country. After all, what is the point of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act if we aren't going to make college more affordable?

Ms. McCollum and I attempted to offer several amendments, including an amendment based on our bill, the College Affordability and Accountability Act. Quite simply, the amendments would make college more affordable by:

Renewing states' commitment to affordable college education by ensuring that they maintain their own level of college financing, so states will no longer be able to push higher tuition taxes onto students and families;

Providing incentives to make tuition affordable;

Engaging schools in cost containment strategies; and

Putting students and families in control by giving them access to accurate information about the cost of college and steps individual schools are taking to offer affordable rates of tuition.

We also offered an amendment to commission a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on college costs and the impact of state support for higher education on college costs. In my home state of Massachusetts and in other states around the country, state support for higher education has plummeted, pushing more of the burden of college on students and families.

I also sought to offer an amendment to commission a study by the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance to review current student aid programs and recommend the steps that Congress must take in order to ensure that every qualified eligible student receives a sufficient comprehensive financial aid package. This financial aid package should come from a variety of sources, including the federal government, state governments, institutions of higher education and private sources, and it should cover at least the equivalent of a four- year public higher education.

All qualified high school graduates should be able to afford at least the equivalent of a four-year public higher education. Today, that is not the case. Many students are foregoing college, dropping out or incurring unmanageable levels of student loan debt.

Young people in their 20s and 30s are not only leaving college with much more personal debt--students graduate with an average of almost $20,000 of student loan debt--but also are burdened by rapidly increasing health care, energy and housing costs. To make matters worse, according to recent studies, young people are working longer hours and still earning less money. We must do more for young people in America today. We must restore the American dream so that young people can achieve financial prosperity through hard work and determination.

The amendments I offered to the Rules Committee would have helped us make college affordable and accessible for students and their families.

Mr. Speaker, we had a real opportunity to help make college affordable today, but instead students and families will be left to struggle with sky-rocketing tuition costs and mounting debt on their own. H.R. 609 will not make college more affordable. I urge Members to oppose the restrictive rule and oppose final passage of H.R. 609.

Mr. Chairman, the intelligence authorization bill before us today is a bit of a mixed bag. It does, on the positive side, direct the Director of National Intelligence to better conform to the committee's intent that the Director of National Intelligence be a coordinator of intelligence, that it not create an additional layer of bureaucracy, and that it strengthen the community's capability to penetrate hard targets.

It does, at the Democrats' insistence, provide full funding for counterterrorism programs instead of going along with the President's 22 percent cut. It does contain report language requiring that the Department of Defense inspector general audit the controversial activities of the Department of Defense Counterintelligence Field Activities, or CIFA.

But there are concerns that remain unanswered, and among these concerns are the continued insistence of this administration to limit access to information about the President's domestic surveillance program. After weeks of debate, the program remains limited to only a select group of the already select Intelligence Committee. We should not expect members charged with the oversight to write a blank check to the President to conduct intelligence activities under a shroud of secrecy from the very group that was established on behalf of this Congress to do oversight. Members of this full House look to the members of the Select Committee on Intelligence for advice, and in this case the President has limited that committee in full from being able to get the information necessary to be able to advise and lead on these issues.

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 established the Director of National Intelligence with strong statutory budget authorities to enable that office to reach across the whole community and to reallocate resources and personnel to respond to emerging threats. The administration appears to be on a path to dismantle this critical budgetary authority, piece by piece.

The 2007 budget request of the President moves significant resources and personnel permanently out of the management and control of the Director of National Intelligence. Most of those transfers move intelligence assets to the control of the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General.

We should keep in mind over the last 2 years the military intelligence program has grown by 25 percent while the national intelligence program has actually shrunk by almost 1 percent. Both press reports and the Quadrennial Defense Review evidence the Pentagon's intention to expand special operations activities worldwide to engage in operations traditionally reserved for the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department.

In the committee I proposed an amendment that would protect the authorities of the Director of National Intelligence, at least pending a Federal review and some answers from the administration with respect to its intentions in this regard. That failed, but I understand that the Senate is believed to have this issue in its sights, under consideration, and I should hope it is for the purposes of being in line with my amendment.

Allowing the Department of Defense to creep into the intelligence areas, especially when the result would be to avoid oversight, is problematical in the least. I have strong reservations about this bill, and I ask Members to consider these before they vote on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my words in agreement with the gentleman from Minnesota, that this is not a partisan motion in any sense of the word. This is something that Members of Congress, I think, can get behind and clearly feel comfortable that they are just serving the interests of their constituencies.

This particular motion does take the language from Senator Grassley, on the other side of the House, that puts it into the bill that it would prohibit the wearing away, the practice by which

some employers have discriminated against older workers when they offset the benefits that were already earned against their ability to earn new benefits under these new cash benefit plans. They can result in no new benefits being added, actually, for workers' pensions for up to 10 years.

And they provide for a fair transition for rules to protect workers' pensions when they do convert the traditional pensions to those so called cash balance pension plans.

We critically need this. You only need to talk to the people in your districts, my colleagues, and you will find a growing sense of insecurity in this country as corporations back off their responsibilities for health insurance, back off their responsibilities for retirement plans, and now come up with a cash balance plan which is supposed to be a plan melding two different types of retirement programs and ends up hurting some.

One of my constituents talked about having worked for AT&T for 30 years. After 30 years of loyal work, the conversion of her pension to a cash balance plan reduced her benefits by 46 percent. It is not fair. It is not right, and it shouldn't be acceptable to Members of this Congress.

The Government Accountability Office released a major report on cash balance plans last November. They found that workers of all ages experience significant cuts to their retirement benefits when their employers switch from the traditional pension plan to the so-called cash balance plans without first protecting employees rights.

Over 85 percent of 30-year-olds, 90 percent of 40-year-olds and half of the 50-year-olds experience deep cuts in their retirement benefits if they are shifted from a traditional pension plan into a cash balance plan without protections for retirement benefits.

The GAO study did not find a single case, not a single case in which the cash balance plan provided the same level of retirement benefits that a typical defined benefit plan provided.

Without transition protection, almost all workers, including younger workers, will lose up to 50 percent of their expected pension benefits. And, Mr. Speaker, we can't allow that to happen.

I ask my colleagues to join with Mr. Miller in this attempt to make sure that we do protect this group of pensioners.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make mention, without repeating what the gentlewoman has said, this Government Reform Committee, the full committee in the House, has only had four hearings on Iraq contracting during this entire process.

In the other body, despite Senator Lautenberg's repeated requests, the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs over there has not held a single hearing on this issue.

In the House Armed Services Committee, they have conducted oversight hearings on some issues related to military operations and protecting our troops, but they have not explored the issue of contracting since it was touched upon in June of 2004. That is quite a contrast with the original Truman Committee, which held 432 public hearings, 300 executive sessions, had 1,800 witnesses testify and issued 51 reports, all the while saving the taxpayer $15 billion and saving countless lives in the process.

The Truman Committee was unanimously respected for its focus on fact- finding and its refusal to succumb to partisan consideration, and that is what this commission would do as well. It is needed, because last week a Federal jury found two employees of Custer Battles had cheated the government on a contract to provide Iraq with new currency, and some $10 million in damages.

In December the Boston Globe reported that the Congressional Research Service put out a publication stating the Pentagon has not provided an overall reckoning of these funds by mission or by military operation. It went on to say that Congress has yet to receive a transparent accounting of money that is allocated so far for the war.

Kellogg, Brown & Root's employees last summer pleaded guilty of $100,000 in kick-backs, and it recently was reported that KBR did not do its job under the contract with purification of water for our troops, leaving them in a dangerous situation over there.

The General Accountability Office has purported to have found that the Department of Defense officials and Interior officials charged with overseeing the contract to provide interrogators at Abu Ghraib did not fully carry out their roles. And in March of 2005, we learned that the Pentagon auditors found that $212 million was paid to Kuwaiti and Turkish subcontractors for fuel and that overcharging was charged back by Halliburton.

We need this commission. It is the right thing to protect our troops and the storm victims. The American public deserves open and transparent government.

I thank the gentlewoman, and I just share with my friend from Oklahoma, too bad we couldn't have had the debate you are now having at the beginning of the Iraq situation instead of going in on false information and on false pretenses. I think it would have been a much more enlightened debate, and I am sure you could have held your own at that point in time as you are doing here.

The shame of it is, of course, that the country was not told we were going into Iraq for anything to do with Saddam Hussein, other than weapons of mass destruction that were never found, connections with al Qaeda that were never found, and on that basis. That is why many in this country feel they have been misrepresented in this situation and that it has been badly prosecuted since then with tremendous incompetency.

The tremendous incompetency continues in a number of different ways, one of which is the contracting that has been going on and the loss of money, the mismanagement of money, the inability to track where money has gone for the American taxpayer in there, which is why Congressman Jim Leach of Iowa and I have filed over the last several years a bill to set up the Truman Commission, based on the commission that happened during World War II when Senator Truman had a commission investigate the contracting, and in a Democrat administration, and they did two things: one was it made sure that the materials got to the troops that they needed at that time. And it saved lives. It was for their protection, to make sure the money wasn't wasted and that it went for the things the troops needed. And the other, of course, was to make sure the taxpayers' money was being spent as it should.

There are two things that Congress does: one is legislate and the other is oversight, to make sure the taxpayers' money is being spent properly and that the policy is being carried out in the way that it should. This Congress has been incredibly lacking in the oversight area. We have not done our job, particularly with regard to what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is why I am going to vote against the motion here for the rule. Because we ought to have waivers for the motions that Mr. Leach and I brought to make sure that we investigate, have a separate commission set up to investigate.

Yes, this is an open rule, but it very pointedly leaves out that type of oversight, both in the Afghan and Iraq situation, and in the Katrina situation, where we are seeing the same kind of incompetence and waste and questionable action that might lead to fraud. In both instances, people will be hurt there if supplies are not gotten to them immediately, and the taxpayer will be hurt if the money isn't spent efficiently. So we ought to do that.

And with respect to the gentleman's argument that we are in such a rush

and this is an emergency, the brief period of time it would take to make those corrections and put those waivers in are not going to bring us beyond the period of time for which money already exists that is protecting our troops and dealing with the people in the gulf area.

So I think it is important that we do our job. It is about time this Congress stood up. Not one dollar more. Because every dollar that is wasted is a dollar that isn't being spent on body armor and roadside jammers for bombs, and up-armor for Humvees. Every dollar wasted is not getting housing and other services to people in Louisiana and Mississippi and that region.

It is time we put the waivers in place and we went forward with these investigatory commissions so that as things are transpiring, we can know that we are doing our job of oversight and the troops in one area, and the victims of the storms in the other area are getting the materials and the things that they need, and that the American taxpayers' money is being protected.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Thank you.

Well, first of all, I was here when we voted on the Iraq thing, and believe me, there was plenty of information for people that wanted to look at it to know which way things were going. And certainly our White House should have known which way things were going, and they made representations that turned out not to be accurate. So people can be responsible for their acts.

Secondly, the mass graves you are talking about are mass graves of the late 1980s, early 1990s, when members of our present administration were over there being friendly with the Iraqis and with Saddam Hussein.

It is never not germane for this body to do its oversight duty. It is always germane.

I want to clarify that in 1991, the first Mr. Bush was President, when you were encouraging the uprising to go into that, and that is a period of time when there were many mass graves in that situation.

And, secondly, I just want to drive home the point that there is never a time when oversight for this group is not germane to the function that we do. We legislate, we have oversight, and there has been no effective oversight of either the Katrina situation or what is going on with contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, not from any committee in this body, and the record is clear on that and it speaks for itself.

Mr. Speaker, this is yet another example of the government under this majority in the House, and the Senate and the Republican White House of failing to live up to its role to protect the American people from circumstances beyond their control.

We have troops over in Afghanistan and Iraq that are not protected in the manner in which they should be protected. We have people down in Louisiana and Mississippi and other areas affected by the storm, Katrina, who are not getting the attention and the protection that they deserve and their situation warrants.

Here we have a failure of the government to step forward and to protect the American working family, who has paid into pension funds, expected them to be protected, expected something to be there after 20, 25 or 30 years of work and contributing to these funds, only to find out that management people, CEOs, walk into bankruptcy court and somehow wipe out the workers' interest while they end up with golden parachutes and protection for benefits once they come out of bankruptcy.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Miller and I and others have been fighting this issue for the working people for some time. In committee we offered an amendment that would allow the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, that corporation, an entity which would protect workers. We wanted that to intervene earlier to be able to work with companies to make sure that they first exhausted all of their possible remedies by permitting them to terminate plans and go into bankruptcy only after they had done that.

We presented a substitute for this bill, but we weren't allowed to have a vote on it. Our colleagues in the majority, I think, speculate or were afraid that Members of their party would have joined in this motion, because it would have improved the bill. Companies should first have to exhaust every possible remedy to create financing and be creative in order to save and restore pensions before they are allowed to go into bankruptcy court and wipe them out while enhancing the position of the CEOs and other management people.

We are fighting here, Mr. Speaker, to protect the retirement security of American families. We are protecting benefits of airline employees and seeking to encourage retirement savings.

Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation say that H.R. 2830 would actually add to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's deficit. They say the bill would actually chase companies out of the defined benefit system, that traditional benefit system that people have come to rely on, and it would leave workers with fewer choices actually than the plans for retirement that they have now.

This motion to instruct conferees would at least address some of those issues, Mr. Speaker. It would protect the pension benefits of airline employees by asking to support the Senate provision, to keep American and Continental and Delta and Northwest from terminating their plans at the expense of employees and taxpayers, giving them additional time to actually work on their plans.

It would support the Senate provision to provide full Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation retirement protections for pilots that are forced to retire at age 60. As Mr. Miller says, they are getting a double- whammy now, and they should not have to face that situation.

The motion would also make permanent the Saver Tax Credit, urging conferees to accept the House provision for the credit that provides a matching contribution for low- and moderate-income workers, and make sure that that provision, which is used now by 5.3 million people both in 2002 and 2003, to continue on, and support the House provisions to split the tax refund for automatic forwarding to a retirement account and to provide for the protection of traditional plans, dropping new funding provisions in either the House or Senate bill that would encourage companies to terminate or freeze.

Mr. Speaker, all those things are necessary to improve this bill, and I ask for support for the Miller amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud member of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, to honor the 100th anniversary of the Saint Vasilios Greek Orthodox Church in Peabody, Massachusetts. The local Greek population, with St. Vasilios as one of its bedrock institutions, has been and continues to be a vital part of the Peabody community.

The first Greek immigrants arrived in Peabody at the turn of the last century. As their numbers increased, they pooled their resources to buy their first property, a simple wooden building on Walnut Street which they modeled into a house of worship. On February 26, 1906, they were incorporated and chartered by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, naming their parish ``St. Vasilios.''

By 1912, the parish relocated to a larger property on what is now called Paleologos Street. There they built a new church, and soon after built a school for teaching their children Greek culture and language. This was only the sixth such school in the United States, and it has operated without interruption ever since. The Byzantine style church which was completed on the site and dedicated in 1917 remains a house of worship to this day.

This week in my district, thousands of Hellenic American families will commemorate the 100th anniversary of St. Vasilios Greek Orthodox Church with religious services and festivities. I congratulate the clergy and the congregation of St. Vasilios for reaching this noteworthy milestone. The church continues to be a vibrant part of the Greek community in Peabody, serving as a house of worship and a gathering place. The church provides a vital link to the past and to the Greek homeland, its culture and religion. Through its school and the celebration of the rich heritage and language of Greece, the people of St. Vasilios are ensuring that the values and traditions upon which the church was founded will live on for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today to oppose H.R. 2830, the so-called Pension Protection Act, not because the system certainly does not need to be reformed, but because I think this particular vehicle, the way it was constructed, actually does damage to what used to be our three-legged stool of retirement security.

We used to rely on pensions; personal savings; and, of course, Social Security. We spent a great deal of this past year fighting any efforts to privatize Social Security and making sure that we had that leg in place. This bill does nothing to enhance personal savings, something this Congress ought to be taking up and making sure we do enhance.

With respect to pensions, we are in need of serious reform, but this moves us in the wrong direction. We have millions of Americans who have worked and tried to put their houses in order, tried to make sure when they retired they had a dignified and comfortable living, but this situation shows us over and over again that companies are now finding it better for themselves financially to go into bankruptcy, capsize their pension responsibilities, and then sometimes coming out more profitable for the shareholders and for some of the CEOs but not for the rank-and-file workers. This is not fair, it is not right, and it certainly is not sound policy for this country.

In too many instances, these companies are defaulting without first having made every possible effort to finance these pension plans and making them work. Workers on the other hand have had decades of working for companies, providing loyal service, the bargain for which was that in the end they would have a guaranteed pension. Many of them had forgone wages during the course of their 20, 25, 30 years of service. CEOs, however, are still getting golden parachutes. They are getting the chance to steer their businesses into court to dump the pension plans and come out and still get taken care of handsomely; yet workers do not.

The Congressional Budget Office and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation both say that this bill will actually add to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's deficit; that the bill could actually chase companies out of the defined benefit system and leave workers with fewer choices and plans for retirement than they have now.

This bill does not seem to do anything to discourage the pension plan terminations that threaten workers' retirement security, and it does not stop companies from dumping plans in bankruptcy.

In committee, we offered an amendment that would allow the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to intervene earlier, to work with companies in making sure they first exhausted all their options for making sure the plans survived before permitting them to terminate the plans and go into bankruptcy. A substitute for this bill would have allowed us to present that notion again.

Unfortunately, our colleagues on the Republican majority saw fit not to allow a substitute amendment so that we could not debate this proposal. And I suspect we do not see it here today because it would have carried. We would have gotten a majority of people in this Chamber to understand that everything should be done that is possible to prevent a plan from going into bankruptcy before the plan is actually terminated.

Companies should first have to exhaust every single avenue of creative financing in order to save and restore pensions before they allow bankruptcy filings. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation does have expertise it can lend to companies before it gets to that situation.

For those reasons and many others, Mr. Speaker, I urge we vote against this bill and hope we get a better vehicle in the future.