Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, for some time, I have believed that it is essential to transform our military so that the United States is better able to deal with the enormous security challenges of the 21st century. Since my first term in Congress, I have worked to develop a more flexible, adaptable military with a ``culture of innovation'' that will ensure that our security is protected as the threats against us, our allies, and our values grow in number and complexity. But at the same time, I recognize that American national security does not rest solely on the shoulders of the U.S. military.

Based on my work in defense transformation, I became convinced that homeland security was a vital area requiring not just more money, but a major reorganization of the government agencies charged with protecting the American homeland. I introduced the first bill creating a new organization to better protect the homeland on March 21, 2001, and that new Department is now up and running.

I also believe that a transformation is needed at the Department of State so that it is better able to formulate and implement American foreign policy in the coming years. On September 18, 1998, I introduced H.R. 4065 in the 105th Congress to require that an independent, non- partisan panel review all the facets and functions of the Department of State and to provide Congress with its findings and with a plan for reorganizing the Department. The bill was reintroduced as H.R. 106 in the 106th Congress and as H.R. 304 in the 107th Congress.

I believe that the events of the past two years only add a greater degree of urgency to the need for such a transformation. It is time for Congress to take action.

The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Snyder, has also been working on these issues for some time. He has suggested a number of improvements in my previous proposals, and today we are introducing the revised version of the bill. It does not prescribe in legislative language exactly how the Department of State should be reorganized despite the many studies and reports which have recommended various actions. It does establish the framework for a serious study of all of the recommendations and requires that a proposal be submitted to Congress. We would then have to act upon the legislation in the normal order.

There have been a number of outside studies which recommend reform in very strong terms. For example, in January 2001, a study cosponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies and chaired by former Secretary of Defense and career foreign service officer, Frank Carlucci, issued ``a scathing report,'' warning that ``the United States will soon face serious dangers and enormous costs because its foreign policy establishment has not come to terms with global changes a full decade after the Cold War ended.'' (Los Angeles Times, January 30, 2001). ``No government bureaucracy is in greater need of reform than the Department of State,'' the report found.

In March 2001, the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, better known as the Hart-Rudman Commission, found that ``The Department of State is a crippled institution that is starved for resources by Congress because of its inadequacies and is thereby weakened further. The department suffers in particular from an ineffective organizational structure in which regional and functional goals compete, and in which sound management, accountability, and leadership are lacking (p. 47).'' Other studies and reports have reached similar conclusions.

This bill requires a serious study of the organization of the Department of State and our diplomatic structure. The Commission created by the bill will examine all levels of the Department, from the organization chart of bureaus and offices to staffing at embassies around the world. It will also look at issues such as public diplomacy--whether we are organized to wage the battle over ideas, which is so critical to the ultimate success of the war on terrorism-- and use of foreign assistance--whether we are prepared to use effectively innovative new programs, such as the Millennium Challenge Account.

There may be a variety of opinions on what the Department of State should be doing and on exactly what organizational and process changes should be made, but we should all be able to agree that how decisions are made, and especially how they are implemented, needs drastic improvement.

Mr. Speaker, change is always difficult, and we should not impose change without a good reason for doing so. We also have an obligation, I think, to seek better, more effective ways to advance American interests, and no Department should be exempt from penetrating examination in pursuit of those larger interests.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Chairman Hyde and Mr. Lantos to implement the Millennium Challenge Account. MCA can truly provide the revolution in foreign assistance so desperately desired by the American taxpayers and by the people in the countries we are trying to help.

I am particularly interested in the language related to property rights. The amendment includes property rights as one of the primary objectives and metrics to be used in assessing progress in recipient countries. The work of Peruvian economist Hernando do Soto provides real, empirical evidence that property rights is the key to economic progress. All too often, our attempts to help other peoples has ignored this fundamental building block.

Economic success of any people or nation requires that individuals are motivated to work and accumulate wealth. That ``wealth'' might look like a shack to us, but if one can begin to accumulate something of value and have that wealth protected by the government, one will be more likely to work to build more. If that wealth can then be passed along to one's children, one is motivated to work even harder and has a stake in the future of that system. Hope for the future is absolutely critical for future economic success and for success in the war on terrorism. Respect for the rule of law and a legal system that protects the fruits of one's labors must be established. No amount of money for economic development will be successful without them.

This amendment is a hopeful start toward much needed reform. I support it and hope we can build on it in order to achieve a better future for all of us.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of this subcommittee for his leadership on this issue and trying to get a little common sense back into what has become a very difficult issue.

Mr. Chairman, this provision was added into the farm bill without a single hearing. Nobody actually in the business came and talked about how you do this and exactly what you do. It sounds good, that we all ought to have a label that says where our meat comes from. The problem is when you start working through how you implement it, it gets very complicated.

Let me just mention a couple of ways it gets complicated.

Number one, the underlying law exempts about 75 percent of the meat that is consumed in this country. If you eat it in a restaurant, it does not count. It is not labeled. If it is hamburger or other sort of processed meats, it does not count. It is not labeled. If it is chicken, if it is turkey, you do not get a label.

We have heard over and over that the consumers have a right to know. If the consumers have a right to know where their meat comes from, they have a right to know where 100 percent of their meat comes from rather than 25 percent of their meat; and so the effect of this is that we are adding a regulatory burden on 25 percent of the meat. That leaves 75 percent of the meat which is at a competitive advantage because of a government regulation. That is not right. It is time to step back and figure out how to do this thing right.

Number two, we hear over and over again how this is really going to be good for producers, that this is a market tool and they ought to be just loving having this opportunity. I would say that if producers see an opportunity to make money, they are going to take advantage of it. There are efforts in the beef industry today, the certified Angus program and other things have been very successful, but that is different than a government mandate that tells you what you must do.

It is not the big grocery stores that are going to pay this burden, it is not the big packers that are going to pay this burden and, in some ways, it is not even the largest cattle feeding operations. The people that are going to feel this burden are the cow-calf producers who have got to figure out some way to understand this regulation and then go comply with it before anybody will buy their calves, and then the stocker guys who take the calves and try to fatten them up before they go to the feed lot, those people on the low end of the production scale. So when we talk about big guys versus little guys, we ought to understand that this is a mandate that is going to be paid for by the little guys in the operation.

We have heard it over and over again that this is not a safety issue, this is a marketing tool, and we are going to make you do it whether you like it or not. That does not make sense. What makes a lot more sense is to take a time-out as the underlying bill does, give the Committee on Agriculture a chance to go and talk to producers as well as grocery stores and packers and consumers, people up and down the chain, and see how you can make something that works and actually makes sense.

This underlying law is not it, and I would say that anyone who wants to justify the underlying law has a very steep hill to climb.

Mr. Speaker, health care is an important but complex issue for Congress and for America's seniors. Two facts, however, seem clear:

One fact is that Medicare is currently headed toward financial collapse. The last report of the Medicare trustees shows that in nine years the income of the Medicare trust fund will not be enough to cover its expenses. After that, the problem gets much worse with the retirement of the baby boom generation.

A second clear fact is that Medicare was enacted in 1965 and has been largely unchanged since then. It does not reflect modern

medical practices, including our reliance upon prescription drugs. If we were designing a new federal health care program for seniors today-- rather than in 1965 when Medicare was created--we would unquestionably include some form of prescription drug coverage.

Our objective then should be to update and strengthen Medicare so that it does a better job of providing health care for seniors and at the same time put Medicare on a sound financial footing so that it can be sustained through the baby boom generation retirement.

This bill takes some steps in that direction. It contains some reforms that improve Medicare and give beneficiaries more control over their health care. It also adds prescription drug coverage, and there are too many seniors in my district who are not able to afford the prescription medicines they need, forcing them either to do without and become sick or to sacrifice other necessities of life.

I am gravely concerned, however, that the reforms take too long to implement and that the new drug benefit will cost far more than expected. Without changes, this bill may add a major new benefit to Medicare but, at the same time, hasten the day of its financial collapse.

At the same time if we do nothing, we are guaranteeing that Medicare will not survive for long. The alternative proposals are far more expensive and are fiscally irresponsible.

I have other concerns with this bill, such as the reductions in payments for cancer treatments. Today, however, I will vote to send the House bill to conference with the Senate. I strongly urge that improvements be made to ensure Medicare solvency and to improve the quality of health care for America's seniors. We can do better. If improvements are not made, I will not be able to support the final conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this technical corrections bill. I also want to acknowledge that there is a lot of work left to be done. We will not make our country as secure as it needs to be in just a few short weeks, months or possibly even years. It is tempting for us in the Congress to think that if we can just pass a bill or we can spend more money, then we will have solved the problem. That is probably not true with most problems. It is particularly not true here. In fact, I have said that if we spend the whole Federal budget on something called homeland security, we will still not have eliminated the terrorist threat to the United States.

Instead, we have to do it the harder way. We have to really understand the problems, we have to set priorities, and we have to have the sense of urgency that is required coupled with a thoughtfulness that indicates that we are really doing the right thing. There is a tension there that I think a lot of us on both sides of the aisle feel.

In our Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Science, and Research and Development, we are focusing partly on technologies, so that we can identify technologies that have been developed and encourage them to be fielded quickly so that we can be safer quickly. And then in addition, we can research those areas where technologies have not yet been developed where there is a need. We will focus on the cyber threat. We are having a hearing, for example, this week to try to understand the nature of the threat, also our vulnerabilities and the appropriate role of the Federal Government. We are interested in the information technology of the Department itself, because whether we are focused on the borders or in many other aspects of guarding our homeland, having good information technology, where the databases communicate with each other, that are user friendly but also secure is a key part of the challenge that faces this Department.

Mr. Speaker, to be successful there has to be partnerships involved, partnerships across the aisle, partnerships with the administration, partnerships with the private sector. I look forward to working with all my colleagues to develop those partnerships and to be successful.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by making two points as completely clear as I can:

Number one, it is not a choice between attacking hardened targets with a conventional or a nuclear capability. There is nearly $300 million in this bill to explore conventional capabilities. The question is, should we explore other options as well? So it is false to say there is a choice.

Secondly, this bill does not authorize any kind of new nuclear weapon. That has to be for future Congresses and future administrations to consider. What this bill does is try to remove firewalls which prevent us from even exploring whether a different kind of nuclear weapon can help make us safer. Those who advance this amendment say we do not even want to think about it, do not even consider the possibilities.

It seems to me that if anyone is going to rush to judgment, as the gentlewoman from California said, it would be those who support this amendment, that say under no circumstances are we ever going to have any kind of nuclear deterrent, other than what we had during the Cold War.

The challenge, Mr. Chairman, is that all we have now are nuclear weapons that were specifically designed to deal with Soviet Union targets, and there is a real question about whether a number of folks in the world would take that kind of nuclear deterrent seriously, whether we would ever use the kind of weapons the gentleman from Massachusetts was discussing on a much more limited, smaller kind of target.

The point is not, hopefully, that we would ever use them. The question is people know we would never use these big weapons, and, therefore, they do not take our credibility seriously. That makes the world more dangerous.

It is an interesting line of argument to say that we make the world safer when we tie our hands behind our back, that the problem is with the United States, and that if we would just set a good example, the Saddam Husseins and the Kim Jong Ils and even the Putins would fall right in line, that the United States is the problem.

We have heard that line of argument before, and I would suggest that history has proven it wrong time and time again. The problem is not American strength. The problem is not the United States having additional options. We are not the problem. Peace comes when America is strong and when America has additional options. This bill gives us the ability to at least start to explore those options, and this amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman, for taking this time to pay tribute to our departing Member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest).

Mr. Speaker, my connections with Larry go back some distance. We were raised in towns about 30 miles apart in the Texas panhandle and our families knew each other, but I really got to know him when I went to work for him as his administrative assistant in 1985, shortly after he was first elected to Congress.

Of course, Larry was not just any freshman Congressman. He had worked for Senator John Tower and came to Congress with that background, experience, and network all working for him. Needless to say, I learned a lot and benefited tremendously from my time as part of the Combest team.

For the last 8\1/2\ years, Larry and I have represented adjoining districts, and even shared in the representation of several cities and counties. I have continued to learn from him and to benefit from our work together.

Mr. Speaker, Larry Combest's public record of accomplishment is well known in Washington and in Texas. From leadership positions, such as chairman of the select Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and then chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, he has made a bright mark on the public policy agenda of the last decade.

The farm bill, which he shepherded through the 107th Congress, was landmark legislation, important not just to agriculture but to the country's economy and to the health and standard of living of all Americans.

But along the way, as he was leaving his mark on public policy for the Nation, he was providing outstanding representation to the people of the 19th Congressional District of Texas. Every day he was their advocate. Every day he was their voice. Every day he was their biggest fan.

Of course, none of us do this job alone. Other than the handicap of a certain AA in the middle of the 1980s, Larry has been fortunate to have an outstanding group of dedicated public servants assisting him. And I think it is important to mention those that have been with Larry nearly 20 years: Lynn Cowart, Patti Murphy, Jenny Welch, Mary Whistler, Jay Ibarra, Jimmy Clark.

Any Member of the House or Senate would be fortunate indeed to have such dedicated, loyal, capable staff members.

In addition, Larry has been fortunate to have outstanding help on the political side. Jane Anne Stinnett has been the director of Larry's team since the beginning of his political career. I have never met anyone who works harder or cares more in such a selfless way. She is a remarkable lady, and it is a combination of Larry's good fortune and good judgment that led to Jane Anne playing a key role in Larry's political and public life for 20 years.

Lisa Nowlin has also played an important part in Larry's political world, as has Ken Towery. Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for me to catalog the career and contributions of Ken Towery, from Pulitzer Prize winner to chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Among other things, he has helped guide the tremendously successful political career of Larry Combest, among others.

It is said that first-rate people hire first-rate people, while second-rate people hire third-rate people. If that is true, Larry Combest ranks at the top because he has truly had first-rate people working with him throughout his career.

Finally, one cannot speak about Larry Combest without acknowledging the central role played by his wife, Sharon. Their partnership made all of Larry's other accomplishments possible.

Mr. Speaker, Larry Combest has been a caring mentor, an outstanding representative, a thoughtful leader and a good friend. Like so many other Members and friends, I will miss having him around Washington, but I will also know that his impact on the lives of so many people in Texas and throughout the Nation will last for many years to come. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, on the legislative day of Thursday, March 20, 2003, I missed rollcall votes 78-83. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Roll no. 78, on agreeing to the Hill amendment to H. Con. Res. 95, ``no''; roll no. 79, on agreeing to the Toomey amendment to H. Con. Res. 95, ``aye''; roll no. 80, on agreeing to the Cummings amendment to H. Con. Res. 95, ``no''; roll no. 81, on agreeing to the Spratt amendment to H. Con. Res. 95, ``no''; roll no. 82, on agreeing to H. Con. Res. 95, ``aye''; roll no. 83, on agreeing to H. Con. Res. 104, ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and commend him for the amazing job he is doing in a difficult situation.

Mr. Chairman, today, of course, our thoughts and our prayers and our admiration are with those young men and women who are in the Middle East, risking their lives to help make us and the rest of the world more secure. We have absolutely the finest military in the world, and I have no doubt that they will make the most of the tools that we help provide them to do their job.

Part of our job today is to begin to work to support them for the fiscal year 2004. Now, that is not an easy thing to do, because obviously, there is a lot going on in the world. We continue to fight the war on terrorism on several different fronts; and of course, we have the military activity in Iraq today.

So for us to predict ahead exactly what the military situation is going to be or what the homeland security situation is going to be in 2004 is not an easy thing to do. But what this budget does is to fully support, completely support the request of the President for defense and homeland security.

Now, it may be that extra funding is required for homeland security or defense when we get there. We have heard folks on the other side talk a lot about supplementals for 2003, but what we are focused on now is what is the appropriate amount in this budget to help keep America secure for 2004, given what we know now.

This budget supports the President. It is important to say that no amount of money can guarantee absolute safety. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that there is sometimes a tendency for us in Congress to spread money around liberally.

However, part of our responsibility, particularly with homeland security, is to make sure that money can be used well and effectively and really makes us safer; not just replacing one dollar with another dollar, but really makes us safer. So that is what this budget tries to do. It tries to advance three important goals with national security: to win the war on terrorism, to protect America's homeland, and to help prepare for future challenges.

First, of course, the war on terrorism is on the forefront of our minds with the operations in Iraq and the continuing efforts to deal with terrorists all around the world. This budget makes a clear commitment supporting the President to make sure that we provide our Nation with the best-trained, best-equipped, most effective military force anywhere in the world.

It allocates $380 billion for the Department of Defense. That is an increase of $15 billion over this year. It includes a substantial pay raise for our military. It includes substantial increases for operation and maintenance. It includes substantial increases for the weapons systems we buy. As a matter of fact, it is the highest procurement budget ever in the history of the country. It includes nearly $10 billion to help us develop and deploy defenses against ballistic missiles.

We have already seen in the Iraq conflict missiles of various ranges, and the threat that that can pose. Of course, there are other places in the world where that is important.

As pointed out, this budget does not include the direct operational costs of military engagement in Iraq because this is the 2004 budget. We will probably have a supplemental to deal with the 2003 costs here, but this is giving us the baseline for 2004.

A second goal is to help protect America's homeland. There is more than $40 billion here to help do that. It includes things like programs to buy vaccines for smallpox and anthrax and other sorts of biological warfare.

It includes $1.7 billion to help improve our border safety, which is absolutely critical to homeland security. It continues to put money into the Transportation Security Administration for air travel and other things, to make sure that our air travel and other transportation systems are safe.

It includes $3.5 billion in first responder training and equipment. There are other programs not included in the $3.5 billion, for example, in the Department of Justice, in the Centers for Disease Control, that also help local folks be ready to make our country safer. Again, this budget supports the President's request to try to use money smartly to make sure that we are really safer.

Thirdly, it helps to prepare for future challenges. With all that is going on in

the world, we have to remember that there are other challenges ahead. We cannot see them clearly, but we know we have to do the research and development and training and testing and joint exercises for the military that help us prepare for that future day. So there is $61.8 billion for military research and development.

Overall, Mr. Chairman, for today and tomorrow, this budget helps make America safer.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important challenges facing our Nation is to transform the most successful military in the world so that it is better able to meet the security needs to the years ahead. I would like to submit for the record and commend to my colleagues an outstanding speech entitled, ``Transforming the Defense Establishment,'' by Dr. Stephen A. Cambone, Department of Defense Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation, which was delivered before Bear Stearns and Company on January 27, 2003. In my view, Dr. Cambone's emphasis on changing the culture of organizations is particularly important.

As we consider the President's 2004 defense budget request, we should give careful attention to the excellent insights offered by Dr. Cambone.

In his September 1999 speech at the Citadel, then-candidate

George Bush declared that, if elected, he would seize on an

opportunity created by what he called a ``revolution in the

technology of war.'' As a result of that revolution, he said,

power ``is increasingly defined not by mass or size but by

mobility and swiftness. Influence is measured in information,

safety is gained in stealth, and force is projected on the

long arc of precision-guided weapons. This revolution

perfectly matches the strength of our country, the skill of

our people, and the superiority of our technology. The best

way to keep the peace,'' he said, ``is to redefine war on our

terms.''

The President went on to sketch his vision of the armed

forces. He said, ``Our forces in the next century must be

agile, lethal, readily deployable, and require a minimum of

logistical support. We must be able to project our power over

long distances, in days and weeks, rather than months. Our

military must be able to identify targets by a variety of

means, from a Marine patrol on the ground to a satellite in

space, and then it must be able to destroy those targets

almost instantly with an array of weapons from the submarine-

launched cruise missile to mobile long-range artillery.''

``Our land forces,'' he said, ``must be lighter, our light

forces must be more lethal, and all must be easier to deploy.

And, these forces must be organized in smaller, more agile

formations, than cumbersome divisions.'' ``On the seas, we

need to pursue promising ideas . . . to destroy targets from

great distances.'' ``In the air, we must be able to strike

from across the world with pinpoint accuracy with long-range

aircraft and perhaps with unmanned systems.'' ``In space, we

must be able to protect our network of satellites essential

to our flow of commerce and defense of our country.''

As a way of underscoring his determination to bring about

the transformation of the military forces of the United

States, the President reminded the audience of another time

of what he called ``rapid change and momentous choices.''

``In the late 1930s, as Britain refused to adapt to the new

realities of war, Winston Churchill observed, `The era of

procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling

expedience, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we

are entering a period of consequences.' ''

Well, that period of consequences arrived here in this city

just two years later, on September 11, 2001. The remainder of

this talk will focus on how we have answered the call laid

down by the President during his candidacy. Let me sum them

up: He asked us to do three things. He asked us to assure the

well-being of the men and women in uniform and the civilians

who work for the Department. He asked us to provide the means

to them to defeat today's threats. He asked us to take on the

transformation of the defense establishment to meet the

challenges of the future. Before I take on each in turn, that

is to say, what we've done for our people, how we've met

today's challenges, and what we are doing for the future, let

me take a moment to tell you what we think transformation is,

and what it is not.

What it is, we think, is a continuing effort over time. It

is not a static objective in time. So, if you are looking to

judge this transformational process or the progress that we

have made, and you try to pin it to a certain place in a

certain time and use a static measure, you will be

disappointed and probably mislead yourself and others.

Secondly, it is a change in culture. A change in culture

that is reflected in what we do, how we do it, and the means

we choose to accomplish our objectives. I can't stress enough

the importance of the change in culture that comes with the

transformation. Those of you who have watched various

companies merge and come apart over the last decade or so

will understand just how important changes in culture are to

a transformational effort.

It's also about balancing risk. We have identified risk in

four categories. The first area of risk has to do, not

surprisingly, with our people. Are we keeping them in proper

trim, as it were? Do they have the means to do their

training; are they able to see their families; do they live

in decent housing? Second, are we able to conduct operations

today at a minimum of risk not, mind you, without risk, but

at a minimum of risk, by assuring that our people are well

positioned, well led, and have the proper means to conduct

operations? Third, have we made the investments that are

necessary to prepare for the future? and lastly, our business

practices; have we gone any way toward reforming them? It is

our belief that those four categories of risk need to be

properly balanced. We cannot over-invest in any one and

expect to succeed in all.

Now, let me say a word about what we think transformation

is not. It is not change for its own sake. Nor is it measured

as a success or a failure on the basis of programs that have

been cancelled, programs that have been completed, or

programs that have begun. It is easy to keep score that way,

and we will, in a few minutes, talk about some of the

programs that we have cancelled and programs that we have

begun. But, again, that is not a very good scorecard of

the progress of this transformational effort.

I call you back again to what transformation is. It's about

culture, about what we do, how we do it, and the means we

choose to accomplish those objectives. If you were going to

develop a checklist to measure transformation, I offer you

the following set of points. There are seven, and I'll give

them to you in fairly quick order.

The first would be to look at the guidance that we have

given both to our civilian and military personnel. Some of

that guidance is available to you, for example, in the form

of the National Security Strategy that has been published by

the White House and the Quadrennial Defense Review that was

published by the Department of Defense. Others are not

available to you--except when they're leaked to the

newspapers--for example:

The Nuclear Posture Review, which reconfigured our nuclear

forces, and allowed the President to take the steps to reduce

the size of our nuclear offensive arsenal and to incorporate

into our future strategic force conventional weapons as well

as nuclear weapons. The Contingency Planning Guidance, which

is given to our combatant commanders and signed out by the

President, and which directs combatant commanders to prepare

plans for contingencies now and into the future that reflect

the tenets of the strategy that was laid down in the National

Security Strategy and the Quadrennial Defense Review. But

guidance is fine going back to my point about culture,

however: Are we changing the culture? It is often changed by

changes in organizations. And I have to tell you, we have

changed organizations quite extensively within the

Department. We have done so with the aim of enabling what we

call joint operations, i.e., the ability of our land, sea,

air, and space forces to be combined under the control of a

single combatant commander and used in ways that are most

appropriate to achieving the objectives of the campaign that

he has laid out.

We have changed the structure of our commands: We have

added a combatant command for the United States called

Northern Command. It ``stood up'' just recently. We have

merged our Space Command and the old Strategic Command into a

new command designed to make use of the new instruments of

strategic power. We have changed the mission of our Special

Operations Command. We have undertaken changes to our

organization in the office of the Secretary of Defense. The

Army, the Navy, the Air Force--each of them has restructured

their staffs and their functions.

Third, I said we were interested in joint operations. Well,

it turns out the Department

of Defense does not have a joint concept to guide the conduct

of joint operations. What we have are concepts that have been

generated by each of the services about how they would prefer

to fight. We have, however, no overarching concept for the

employment of the joint force. So we have, indeed, set about

that task. I would expect by springtime, probably early

summer, that we will, indeed, have a joint operational

concept that will begin to frame for our services how they

ought to go about the task they have under Title X--to man,

train, and equip the armed forces of the United States.

But the services--the fourth point of the seven--have not

been lagging behind. If, for example, you look at what the

Navy is proposing, what the Army is proposing, what the Air

Force and the Marines are proposing, you will see their

effort to begin transforming their own service and to make it

friendly to the joint operational environment. But it's not

enough to say we want to fight joint, we have to train joint,

so we have taken steps to put in place a substantial amount

of funding to enable joint training, and we will do it for

the most part in a virtual environment, but this will be an

enormous step in the direction toward joint operations.

What about our investments? Investment is made up of a

combination of RDT&E--research, development, test and

evaluation--coupled to what we procure. We will talk in a few

minutes about that investment, but I do believe that, if you

look at it, you will begin to notice that it is favoring the

enabling of joint warfare. So, as we look through our choices

during the course of our just-completed program review, we

constantly came back to the same question: What will this

investment do for joint warfighting?

Lastly, processes and practices within the Department of

Defense. Under Secretary Wynne and Dr. Zakheim, both of whom

have spoken to you, and others are working very hard to alter

the manner in which we do our business. This will be the most

transforming thing the Department of Defense can do. We can

spend a great deal of time on any of these seven points, but

let me ask you to bear in mind a summary point that arises

out of them: Because we do not know who our adversaries may

be either in the near term or the long term; or how they may

choose to fight; but because we do know that modern

technology is available to our adversaries or potential

adversaries, as readily as it is available to us; and because

we know that as a democratic society we are vulnerable to

attack: We decided to pursue our strategy for transformation

in a way that would provide our combatant commanders with

what we are calling a portfolio of capabilities. We have

tried to avoid the point solution to any particular

problem. We are looking to equip them with a portfolio of

capabilities with which that combatant commander can

conduct joint operations. The reason I mention this to you

is that, as you begin to review the budget programs and

think your way through what that means, you've got to keep

coming back to the question: Has the Department chosen the

right set of capabilities to support joint operations?

Next, let me outline what those capabilities and joint

operations are intended to provide. Let me tick off a list of

six points for you that we think are the appropriate

characteristics by which to measure these capabilities.

First, does it permit the force to rapidly transition from

its steady state peacetime garrison its training its presence

mission does it allow it to transition rapidly into combat

operations? Second, do we have a set of capabilities that

will provide timely and wide-ranging effects applied to

targets throughout the full depth--the full depth--of an

adversary's battle space? Third, can we apply those effects

to both fixed and mobile targets? Fixed targets are a

delight; they sort of stay right where you always thought

they were. It's the ones that move around that vex us all,

and it's very, very difficult trying to track and attack

those targets. Fourth, does it provide us the kind of

persistent surveillance we're going to need especially for

the purposes of tracking mobile targets.

Let me digress here for a moment. The difficulties we see

in the efforts to gain intelligence is a function of how hard

it is to gain that intelligence. If one has only a periodic

view of events, it is difficult to collect and stitch that

information together. To the extent that we are able to

provide a persistent level of surveillance for our combatant

commanders, they will be able to make their plans with a

great deal more knowledge and information than they have

today. We must continue to dominate the air, we need to learn

how to operate from sea bases, and we need to improve our

ground maneuverability. Fifth, the above capabilities need to

allow us, as well, to hold at risk an adversary's command and

control network as well as his weapons of mass destruction.

Sixth and last, but not least by any means, they are

capabilities that we must have in order to be able to force

any fight in which we find ourselves to a rapid conclusion.

That concludes the top-level chapeau of what we're trying

to do and why. Let me turn to our program proposals. I'll

begin with the most important resource that we have, which is

our people. We have, since 2001, made a substantial effort to

increase the pay and benefits of our troops. We have, in

fact, gone farther than others might have thought. We have

gone to a targeted pay raise for our senior enlisted and mid-

career officers to ensure that we keep the talent that we

need and develop the skill sets that a military 10 and 15

years from now is going to require. We have also managed to

reduce to near-elimination within two years the kinds of out-

of-pocket expenses that our personnel have to pay for their

housing when they live on the economy. In terms of housing on

bases, we will have eliminated most of (the substandard)

housing by 2007, and we will have privatized a lot of that

housing, particularly with respect to the Navy and Army. And,

as I said, we have gone a long way toward providing the kind

of joint, national training that we think our people are

going to need in the years to come.

In addition to our people, we need a firm foundation, a

solid foundation, in what we call our operations and support

activities and in the infrastructure that is part of the

Defense establishment. Toward that end, we have included in

the proposal that we sent to the President, and that he will

send on to Capitol Hill, a great deal of additional monies

over this program period designed to support our operations

and maintenance budgets. We did this for a very good and

sound reason. Over the years, what has happened is that funds

for operations and maintenance, the daily upkeep of the

force, has been systematically underfunded. The consequence

of systematically underfunding it has been that, in the

event, in any given year, when those bills begin to mount,

the services went looking for dollars. Where that money came

from traditionally has been out of the investment account,

that is, out of procurement and out of RDT&E. What we are

looking to do is to stabilize the investment programs by

funding the O&M accounts. That is a principled approach to

what we are trying to do. So, the hope is that over time,

those investments will be more stable than they have been in

the past.

Investments. With respect to the investments, as I said, we

have both RDT&E and procurement in the account.That account

is up substantially, on average, over what was in the plan

that we found when we arrived at the beginning of 2001. What

is interesting about it is that, proportionally, we have

increased the RDT&E accounts a bit more than we have the

procurement accounts. There's a reason for that. One is that

it signifies a certain leaning by the Department toward

reducing the risks of having inappropriate forces and

equipment in future years.

It also reflects an approach toward funding some of our

near-term efforts, particularly with respect to the Navy,

which will fund the first ship of four new classes of ships

that it intends to begin during the course of this program.

It will fund that first ship of each class out of its

RDT&E accounts because in fact those ships are, indeed,

experimental, from the point of view of the Navy. The

services, in trying to meet the demands of transformation,

have made some important decisions about shifting their

resources. You will discover, for example, when looking at

the Army's accounts, that: It will have moved roughly $20

billion out of programs it might have funded in its '02

program into different accounts. It has, since 2002,

terminated 24 systems, and it has reduced or restructured

another 24. It has done so for two reasons: first, in

order to be able to fund its highest priority for

modernization.

Second, at the same time, the Army, over this coming

program period, will shift something on the order of $13-14

billion into the development of its Future Combat System.

That is, indeed, its transformational system. The Navy, from

the period of 2002 until the end of this program period: will

have retired 36 ships. Some of those ships could have been

modernized. Service life extension programs could have been

conducted for those ships. The Navy decided to retire them,

take the savings, and invest those savings into a number of

new classes of ships. Those ship classes include a new

littoral combat ship, a new cruiser, a new destroyer, a new

helicopter-deck ship, and a new prepositioning ship, and it

includes resources shifted to a new design for the next

generation of aircraft carrier. The Air Force, for its part,

has moved something on the order of $20 billion in its

budget. It has retired a number of older aircraft, it has

done some internal consolidations of its squadrons. It has

funded its highest priorities which are its readiness and

people and, importantly, it has made commitments to a number

of programs which I will discuss in a moment.

So, there is a great deal of work going on inside the

Department in terms of reallocating resources. It's not

simply a matter of having been afforded more money by

Congress, but rather, we have taken steps to move dollars

inside the accounts in the Department. Now, when we're done,

what we think, is that that capabilities package that I

talked about will enable us to better perform what we think

are six of the most important operational goals for our

force. Let me give them to you: First, we have to defend what

we call our bases of operation, that is to say, the United

States, our people, our forces abroad, and our allies. We

have to protect them not only against the kinds of attacks

that occurred two years ago in New York and at the Pentagon,

but also against missile strikes and other forms of offensive

operations. We have to be able to project and sustain our

forces abroad. Recalling the President's words, we need to be

able to move quickly in order to bring the fight to a quick

conclusion. Third, we need to be able to deny sanctuary to

our adversary. This is where the issue of persistent

surveillance, for example, comes into play. If we're trying

to find terrorists hiding in remote places, we have to have

the ability to essentially sit on top of them and their

activities and watch them and follow them as they go about

their business. But having done that, we have to be able to

attack an adversary no matter where they are and no matter

how deep inside the land mass they may be or where they might

be on the oceans or in the air. Fourth; we have got to

enhance our space capabilities. We are highly dependent upon

space for both commercial and defense needs, and we will have

made a substantial investment in enhancing those

capabilities. Fifth, we need to do what is necessary to

leverage our information advantage Last, we need to ensure

that the information on the network is secure.

So, in making our investment set, let me tick off for you

some of those which have probably gotten your attention for a

variety of reasons. The first is missile defense. The

President committed to bringing about a missile defense for

the United States. We have invested quite heavily in the

RDT&E program for missile defense. The President has decided

that, beginning in 2004, we will begin to deploy a small

number of interceptors inside a test bed arrangement that we

have developed for the testing of our land-based missile

defense capabilities. Those interceptors will give us a

modest capability against a small number of long-range

ballistic missile warheads launched at the United States.

That test bed is located on land, so the President has asked

us as well to see if we couldn't put some missile defense

interceptors aboard ship by about the 2004 time frame as

well, and we have committed to doing so.

We have made a very large investment in transformational

communications. What do I mean by that? It has three parts.

We are committed to the development of a laser-based

communications satellite, which will allow us to communicate

by light via space. Today, we do it by radio-frequency waves,

both from ground to satellite and from satellite to

satellite. What we hope to be able to do is to do that by

light. Essentially, we hope to move fiber optics into space.

We have, as well, made a very large investment in expanding

what we call our global information grid which is, itself, a

fiber-optic net, which will be expanded substantially. We

have made major investments in command, control,

communications, and computing systems. We have made a similar

investment in assuring the information net will work within

that transformational communications system.

In order to gain the persistence that I have talked about,

we have made investments in systems like Global Hawk, which

is an unmanned drone aircraft that is loaded with sensors.

You have read, I'm sure, of the exploits of Predator, a much

smaller drone that has been used extensively in Afghanistan.

But we have also invested in a space-based system, which is a

radar. The idea is that, if we are able, around 2012, to

put up a constellation of satellites, these radar

satellites would enable us to have the kind of persistent

surveillance that I talked about a few moments ago. If you

take the information that is available on the space-based

radar and other surveillance assets and imagine moving

them through a system that I described that is essentially

a fiber-optics system, you can understand how fast we can

move that information, how much information we can move,

and the fact that we can move it and deliver it in formats

that are useful to the receivers. If we can do that, and

we believe we can, we will be able to see, bear, talk,

act, and assess much more rapidly than any adversary we

could encounter. If we can do that, in near-real time, we

will have achieved what many might want to call

information superiority.

Shipbuilding. Let me take a moment there. We have committed

to about seven ships a year if we can do it. That will enable

us to stabilize the shipbuilding base over the course of the

FYDP, but we also have made a major decision with respect to

the Navy's follow-on aircraft carrier, called CVN-21. The

Navy has taken many of the improvements that would have been

included in a ship that they had believed would begin

building in FY2011 and has moved many of those technologies

and changes in the organization and internal structure of the

ship and its equipment sets back to the carrier that is

slated to begin construction in FY2007. With respect to

combat air forces, we have studiously gone about the business

of attempting to create competition for the missions in this

area. As you know, we have the F-22, the F/A-18. They are the

main aircraft in production. The Joint Strike Fighter is

intended to follow on toward the end of this decade, but in

addition, we have made investments to improve our

capabilities with respect to unmanned combat aerial vehicles

(UCAVs), unmanned aerial vehicles like Global Hawk and

Predator, and their successors. We have made an investment in

a national aerospace initiative which will stress hypersonic

missile technology which will allow us to move at very rapid

speed. As the principal proponent of that program likes to

say, ``Speed kills.'' You can imagine that hitting a target

at 7 or 8 Mach will do real damage to that target. Lastly, we

have tried to look at whether or not we can revive a

conventional ballistic missile capability which would, as the

President said, allow us to strike around the world at a

moment's notice with pinpoint accuracy.

The Army, for its part, is deep into its transformational

effort in keeping with the President's words about being more

lethal and quicker to move and not taking so long to build

up. The Army is attempting to do so with its objective force

and its so-called ``Future Combat System.'' They are hopeful

to come in this Spring with their proposals on how they

intend to proceed with this program, and as I said a moment

ago, they have invested near to $14 billion over the FYDP for

that program. Those are some of the highlights of the

investment strategy, and let me just tick off for you some of

those changes. When we started in 2001 on this process of

transforming our capabilities, we didn't have a missile

defense capability; by 2004, we hope to have a limited

capability. We were using conventional radio-frequency waves

for our satellite communications; we hope to move to laser-

based communications. We didn't have a space-based radar

program; we do now, and we hope we can deploy it by 2012. We

had no submarines that could launch large numbers of

conventional cruise missiles. Well, we've taken four

submarines out of the strategic force, took the nuclear

weapons off them, and we intend to put conventional cruise

missiles on them and use them as strike platforms well into

the next decades. I've already mentioned the carriers. We

will have a CVN-21 beginning in FY-07. The surface fleet was

aging. It will shrink a bit in the coming years, only to

begin to increase its numbers as we go into the 2006-7-8 time

frame. We will have four new ship classes. We merged the

tactical air programs of the Navy and the Air Force. I've

mentioned the family of UAVs and the UCAVS, and I've

mentioned the housing and the facilities improvements. So,

let me conclude. We are a nation at war; we do not know how

long it will last, but it is unlikely to be short. We cannot

know where all of its battles will be fought.There are

multiple fronts in this war, and there is no single theater

of operations. We do know that we are all at risk, at home

and abroad, civilians and military alike. We do know that

battles and campaigns will be both conventional and

unconventional in their conduct. Some of those battles and

campaigns will be fought in the open, and others will be

fought in secret, where our victories will be known to only a

few. For the Department of Defense, it means that we now plan

and fight today's battles even as we prepare for that longer

campaign. In light of this, let me remind you of how the

President assesses his 1999 speech at the Citadel. Two years

later, in December of 2001, he returned to the Citadel and

said the following: ``The need for military transformation

was clear before the conflict in Afghanistan and before

September 11. At the Citadel in 1999, I spoke of keeping the

peace by redefining war on our terms. We have,'' he said, ``a

sense of urgency about this task, the need to build this

future force while fighting the present war is an urgent

need.'' And then he said, ``It's like overhauling an engine

when you're going 80 miles an hour, but we have no other

choice.'' So, mindful of the urgency to transform, as the

President expressed in his Citadel speech a year ago, I can

say that we will press this war to its conclusion. But even

as we do, we will plan and prepare for the future when that

war is won, and the world itself has been transformed. Thank

you very much.

Mr. Speaker, the seven astronauts who perished last Saturday on the space shuttle Columbia are heroes who gave their lives serving our Nation and mankind. Their loss has been felt deeply not only across America, but in Israel, India, and elsewhere around the world.

The Panhandle and South Plains of Texas have been particularly hard hit by this tragedy because two of the astronauts came from our part of the State. Columbia Commander Rick Husband was born and raised in Amarillo. He grew up wanting to be an astronaut and earned his pilot's license at the age of 17. He attended Amarillo High School and graduated from Texas Tech University. Rick and his wife Evelyn were married in Amarillo.

Columbia pilot Willie McCool graduated from Coronado High School just down the road in Lubbock. There he earned the nickname ``Cool Willie'' and made his mark in the classroom. He also made his mark as a member of the track and cross country teams and as an area runner. In 1978, he won a road race in the Lubbock area. Among those competing that day was a local resident by the name of George W. Bush.

The Panhandle and South Plains of Texas join the Nation and the world in mourning the loss of the seven astronauts of Columbia. We pray for their families. We honor their courage, their enthusiasm for the mission, and their determination to advance the frontiers of knowledge. And of course, we will always be proud of Rich Husband and Willie McCool. They are not only heroes for the ages, they are also--and forever will be--heroes of our own.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to formally submit for the record an editorial from the Amarillo Globe News, which explains in greater depth how our area feels at this time.

[From the Amarillo Globe News, Feb. 4, 2003]

Editorial: Husband's Roots a Source of Pride

Amarillo should honor its own

Rick Husband never forgot where he came from.

In many ways, he was the perfect example of Amarillo--

humble, friendly, dedicated, faithful and committed to

achieving his dreams.

These qualities are found in abundance in Amarillo and the

Panhandle, an area known for its wide expanses and

breathtaking sky but also cherished for the people that truly

make the Golden Spread golden.

Col. Husband epitomized these characteristics.

Even those who didn't know him personally felt as if they

had a connection.

He was raised here, went to school here and worshiped here.

And though his aspirations took Rick Husband far away, even

to the far reaches of space, he remained, indeed, one of us.

This is what made Saturday's tragedy so horrific, so

painful and so unbelievable.

When the space shuttle Columbia came crashing down in

pieces, it seemed as if Amarillo lost a piece of itself.

As the plans to memorialize one of Amarillo's greatest sons

begin, this is what needs to be remembered about Col.

Husband, not only out of respect and remembrance, but also

for the benefit of future generations.

The community has a difficult task in trying to capture the

legacy of Rick Husband.

While there are many possibilities, Rick Husband was first

and foremost an individual willing to assume the sacrifice

and risk of his dream to become an astronaut.

It seems only fitting that a statute of Rick Husband,

proudly clad in the uniform he earned, be a strong

consideration. In turn, this statute should be prominently

displayed, perhaps near City Hall.

Col. Husband was proud of his hometown, and a state highway

road sign signifying Amarillo as the home of Rick Husband,

Columbia commander, also should be a possibility.

There are many ways Amarillo can honor Col. Husband's

memory.

What should be remembered is that no matter how far he

went, even to places where few have gone before, Rick Husband

stayed true to the values and beliefs of home.

Amarillo should be proud.