[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 10983-10984]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4200, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN F. TIERNEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 20, 2004

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Republican 
Majority's proposed rule that would limit debate on a matter as 
important as the Department of Defense Authorization bill, which 
purports to provide spending in excess of $400 billion for Fiscal Year 
2005. At a time when Members of the United States House of 
Representatives claim to be supporting the extension of democracy in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, it is unconscionable for the leadership to limit 
debate in the House.
  There were times in the not too distant past, where a bill of this 
magnitude would have been debated for at least two weeks. Members would 
have had the opportunity to voice their position on hundreds of 
amendments important to their constituents and the nation. It appears 
that keeping with the Republican Majority's fear that reasonable 
Republicans will join Democrats in actually improving the underlying 
bill, the Rules Committee has acceded to the Majority Leadership's 
pressure and only allowed 28 of 127 amendments for debate and vote. 
This institution--the People's House--deserves better, and the American 
people deserve better. Had the Rules Committee and the Leadership 
followed a practice from a time before the current Majority was in 
power, most if not all of the proposed amendments would have been made 
in order, including two amendments which I proposed and which, I firmly 
believe are in our common interest.
  We should be able to agree that American defense workers are 100 
percent committed to our armed forces and to ensuring that America has 
the best trained, best equipped, best led forces in the world. 
Unfortunately, these workers have seen their jobs vanish at an alarming 
rate without explanation or justification. Over the past 15 years, 
defense-related employment is said to have fallen by some 67 percent. 
This translates into over a million lost jobs. We need to do more to 
reverse this disturbing trend.
  The Amendment I sought would place us standing firmly in solidarity 
with these workers. First, we would find out where the jobs have gone, 
and second, fight to keep them in this country.
  We made a similar fight last year. We were partially successful. The 
House-passed version of the Defense Department Authorization bill 
established a ``Defense Industrial Base Assessment Program'' to collect 
new information about where defense contracts are being performed; to 
determine what percentage of the contract is being completed overseas; 
and to learn the business rationale for why contractors are sending 
contract work out of the United States. The bill then called for the 
Secretary of Defense to recommend a plan for getting back as much of 
the off-shored work as possible in future years. Unfortunately, that 
program was significantly weakened when the Senate version of last 
year's authorization bill failed to include the language, and the 
conference report only required the Department to use existing data to 
study the problem and eliminated the mandate to look at where and why 
these contracts are leaving this country. Some suggested that the mere 
existence of that program would allow us to get a better understanding 
of the strength and capacity of our defense base; such is not the case. 
A program that relies exclusively on existing data and only asks 
rudimentary questions will not provide the most complete assessment of 
our industrial base.
  The Department of Defense is required by the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 1997 to submit, on an annual basis, a report to 
Congress on the amount of purchases from foreign entities for the 
previous fiscal year.
  That, however, was inadequate, as shown when the most recent report 
submitted to the Armed Services Committee exposed the shortcomings with 
relying on `existing data' to monitor prime contracts. The report 
stated, ``In some instances, the exact information required by Section 
827 is not available, and the Department of Defense had made 
assumptions to complete the report.'' It goes on to say that some of 
the other information needed to complete the report was, ``not readily 
available in the Department of Defense database.''
  If we know the Pentagon's use of existing data does not fully capture 
our country's purchases from foreign entities, why should we have any 
greater confidence that it will accurately assess our country's defense 
industrial base? We must put the teeth back into this much-needed 
program--new data must be collected and the right questions must be 
asked.
  Still, knowing what happened to this work is only the first step. We 
must do more than close the barn doors after the horses have left. 
Strategies must be implemented that restore and revitalize the defense-
manufacturing base and they must be implemented right now.
  My amendment also required that the Secretary, as a condition of 
procurement, mandate that the contractor perform substantially all, and 
in no event less than 65 percent, of the primary and secondary 
manufacturing contracts in the United States. The Secretary would be 
allowed to waive this requirement only in cases where products and 
services were not available in this country or where concerns of 
national security necessitated a waiver. Even when waived, the 
Secretary would have to notify Congress, citing the business rationale 
or relevant threat information for the determination. The amendment 
also would have required, on an annual basis, that the General 
Accounting Office study the number of waivers and submit a report to 
Congress offering recommendations on how the United States can increase 
capacity and further strengthen our industrial base.
  It is long past time that we move beyond rhetoric about appropriately 
prioritizing the work to be completed in the United States and require 
the Secretary of Defense to work toward that goal.
  Just as we in Congress continue to fulfill our patriotic promise to 
our men and women in uniform, we must also demonstrate an equal 
commitment to those men and women who build, repair, and operate the 
machines that sustain and strengthen our security here at home. Mr. 
Speaker, while I am disappointed that Congressional Republicans denied 
my colleagues the opportunity to vote on my important Build America 
amendment, I would like to commend the dedicated advocates who work 
tirelessly everyday to ensure American defense jobs do not go overseas. 
I would like to commend Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter and 
Senior Democrat Ike Skelton for inserting provisions into this bill 
that are intended to address the systemic problem of defense offsets. 
U.S. defense exports with offset agreements in excess of 100 percent 
are now happening regularly and it is long past time we level the 
playing field and ensure that our defense workers are no longer in 
jeopardy of losing their jobs because of their companies' offset 
arrangements.
  The Hunter-Skelton provision is a good first step, and while it 
doesn't go as far as my Build America amendment does, it should, at the 
very least, be included within the final version of the Defense 
Authorization bill.


                         ground missile defense

  Mr. Speaker, the second amendment that I proposed, and which should 
have been considered today, deals with the need for operational testing 
and evaluation for a realistic ballistic missile defense system. The 
common-sense amendment would allow Members of Congress to be on record 
in support of operational testing before the ground-based system is 
hastily deployed.
  As we all know, this country has already spend in excess of $130 
billion chasing the ``Star Wars'' scheme from the Nixon Administration 
to the current Administration. We have disagreements about the level of 
funding for ballistic missile defense; about the number of interceptors 
that should be deployed if the system is ever proven to work; and about 
how this matter should be prioritized as opposed to other critical 
threat related defense programs. But Mr. Speaker, no system should be 
hastily built and recklessly deployed prior to adequate testing.
  This is a matter where there should be unanimous agreement. It simply 
defies common sense that we would stand idle and allow the most 
expensive item in the Defense Department's $400 billion plus budget 
before it has been rigorously scrutinized and evaluated. The people of 
this country have a right to know what they are getting. So far, what 
they are going to get is a system that has not been consistently or 
realistically tested in a way that demonstrates it can handle even some 
of the simplest threats it may encounter.
  My colleagues do not have to just take my word on this matter. Allow 
me to cite just a few of the most recent voices that have weighed in on 
this matter and arrived at a similar opinion.
  In March, the GAO issued a report revealing that the tests that have 
been completed to date occurred under repetitive and scripted 
scenarios, fully repeating the same technical and atmospheric 
conditions over and over again. Critical parts of the system have yet 
to be flight-tested together.
  That report goes on to say that, ``only two flight tests under 
improved test conditions . . .

[[Page 10984]]

are planned to be conducted before September 2004.'' It remains 
unclear, however, if the Missile Defense Agency will even go ahead with 
these flight tests, or if they will be cancelled or replaced with 
simulations.
  Later in the month of March, 49 generals and admirals, including 
former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral William Crowe, Retired 
United States Air Force General Alfred G. Hansen, and Retired United 
States Marine Corps General Joseph P. Hoar, wrote to the President that 
he ``postpone operational deployment of the expensive and untested 
ground based missile defense system and transfer the associated funding 
to accelerated programs to secure the multitude of facilities 
containing nuclear weapons and materials to protect our ports and 
borders against terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons of mass 
destruction into the United States.''
  In plain English, these respected military authorities state some 
basic facts of life: (1) the system that is now proposed is not only 
expensive but is largely untested; (2) money being spent on building 
such an untested system would be better spent accelerating programs 
that would secure the many nuclear weapons facilities and materials 
around the world as well as protecting our ports and borders against 
terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into 
the United States; and (3) essentially every threat assessment 
performed for us by intelligence agencies indicate that the latter 
threat is far more pertinent to the United States than is an attack by 
a continental ballistic missile.
  In April, a General Accounting Office report warned that the system 
due to be fielded later this year would be ``largely unproven'' because 
of a lack of realistic testing.
  On May 7th, 31 former government officials wrote a letter to 
President Bush. These officials served under Presidents Eisenhower, 
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton. 
They had worked in the Pentagon, the Department of State, National 
Security Council, Office of Management and Budget, and the Arms Control 
and Disarmament Agencies. Their letter stated clearly that ``the 
initial defense capability being advertised by the Missile Defense 
agency is a sham'' and they recommended that the President ``drop the 
2004 deployment and commit instead to a sensible research and 
development schedule.''
  Last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a comprehensive 
report that found, ``no basis for believing that the system will have 
any capability to defend against a real attack.''
  Fielding a system at this time will do little more than foster a 
false sense of security among the American people misleading our 
constituents to believe they will be appropriately protected from a 
ballistic missile attack when the reality is they may not be.
  The amendment, quite simply, enforces a 1983 statue, which the 
Missile Defense Agency has seemingly decided to openly ignore. Without 
holding the Missile Defense Agency to some standards of independent, 
realistic operational testing, Congress would not be fulfilling its 
proper oversight duties.
  Mr. Speaker, because the Republican Majority chose to close down 
debate on this important bill, Members of Congress are missing their 
opportunity to represent the people of this country in demanding that 
the Director of the Missile Defense Agency may not proceed with the 
initial deployment, or any phase thereof, of a ballistic missile 
defense system until: (1) the Director of Operational Testing and 
Evaluation of the Department of Defense approves, in writing, the plans 
for the operational testing to be conducted; (2) the operational 
testing is completed; (3) the Director analyzes the results of that 
testing; and (4) the Director submits a report on the results of that 
testing to the Secretary of Defense and to the Congressional Defense 
Committees.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, Congress is once again abdicating its 
responsibilities of oversight of this Administration and marching lock-
step with the Administration, wasting billions of dollars (some $10 
billion in this budget alone) on a system that military and scientific 
experts agree is untested, unproven and a sham.
  I have to add, Mr. Speaker, that upon my request the General 
Accounting Office requested a review of some 50 deficiencies in the 
testing of this ground-based missile defense system that were 
identified by the former Director of Operational Testing and 
Evaluation, Mr. Philip Coyle. I had asked the General Accounting Office 
to determine whether any or which of those issues had been addressed, 
their current status, their status as anticipated in September 2004 
(when the President indicated he intends to start wastefully building 
this untested project), and the degree of confidence that we might have 
in such a system if deployed at that time. After incredible resistance 
in cooperation from the Department of Defense, the report was done some 
18 months later. Unfortunately, in keeping with its reputation as the 
most secretive Administration in history, the Administration--
apparently so displeased with the results and conclusions--classified 
the report. At my further insistence, and again after much resistance, 
the General Accounting Office was able to produce an unclassified 
version of the report. That unclassified report, Mr. Speaker, was 
entirely uncomplimentary of the program and clearly indicated that the 
program is not ready to be deployed as a working system in which this 
country could have confidence. The classified version, which went into 
much greater detail with regards to specifics, should be de-classified. 
All of the information in it has essentially been known for some time 
and been the subject of open hearings in this Congress. The information 
has appeared on numerous web sites at various agency and entity 
locations. However, the Administration, seemingly so fearful that the 
actual assessment of this system's sorry state would be known to the 
public, has actually classified the 50 items pointed out by Mr. Coyle.
  Mr. Speaker, given recent history, if the classified report had been 
at all complimentary we can assume that the Administration would have 
de-classified it in a nanosecond. As it has not, we might assume the 
reasons are clear. It is not right that billions of dollars will be 
misspent at a time when this nation's needs are so great. It is not 
right that the American people will be presented with false confidence 
at a time when security concerns are so high. It is not right that so 
much time, money, and resources will be concentrated on an unproven, 
unworkable, sham of a system that does not even address what all of our 
intelligence sources tell us is the primary threat that faces this 
nation.
  Mr. Speaker, from No Child Left Behind to the Sarbanes-Oxley bill 
concerning accounting reforms, this Congress has not been shy about 
requiring testing and ensuring accountability. However, it seems when 
it comes to spending over $10 billion, one of the most expensive items 
in this year's defense budget, there will be no accountability and 
testing.
  As quoted above, ``the initial defense capability being advertised by 
the Missile Defense Agency is a sham'' and the President should ``drop 
the 2004 deployment and commit instead to a sensible research and 
development schedule.''
  This Congress should live up to its responsibilities and insist on 
that.

                          ____________________