Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith); and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans); the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons); and all the members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, including John Bradley of the staff, for their assistance and support with this measure. I also want to thank all my Texas colleagues. Each of them is a cosponsor of this bill, as is the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), to whom I am also grateful. I want to acknowledge my staff members who have worked on this issue, especially Sylvia Nugent and Bryan Whitworth. I also want to recognize Larry Milam, Selden Hale, Pat Cunningham, Marvin Graham, and the other veterans of the Texas panhandle region who initiated this effort, as well as the veterans organizations which have lent their enthusiastic support, including the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and AMVETS. I want to acknowledge as well the excellent work in exploring Thomas Creek's story done by the Amarillo Globe News and High Plains Public Radio. And, finally, I want to thank the Creek family for their patience and understanding and dignity with which they have approached this matter. Mr. Speaker, in the late 1960s, Thomas E. Creek was in many ways a typical young man from the Texas panhandle. He had worked in a variety of jobs since he was 11 or 12 years old. He was a fan of Elvis Presley. He enjoyed being with his friends, and one remembered that he liked being in the middle of things. His brother, Ross, has been quoted as saying that ``he didn't think Tom was afraid of anything. That's what gets me,'' he said to the Amarillo Globe News. ``If he was afraid of anything, he kept it inside.'' Tom Creek left school early and joined the Marine Corps. On the 4th of July, 1968, he stepped foot in Vietnam. In letters home, he called it hell. But on February 13, 1969, Marine Lance Corporal Thomas E. Creek was a rifleman with Company I, 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines, 3rd Marine Division. His unit was part of a resupply convoy that was ambushed by enemy forces using mortars, mines, fragmentation grenades, and small arms. According to the documents recommending him for the Medal of Honor, the fierce combat found the men firing at point-blank range. Corporal Creek was struck in the neck by a bullet. Blood was seen flowing from the wound. But then he noticed a fragmentation grenade land between him and the rest of the squad. Though wounded, he threw his body on top of the grenade. One of the Marines with him recalled seeing him run towards the grenade and yell, ``I've got it, Mac.'' His body absorbed the full impact of the grenade, saving the lives of at least five Marines nearby. His act inspired the rest of the squad to defeat the enemy and complete its mission to resupply the forward combat base. Eleven others were wounded, but only Tom Creek was killed. Lance Corporal Thomas E. Creek was awarded the Medal of Honor, the highest honor our Nation can bestow. This bill, as the chairman mentioned, will rename the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Amarillo, Texas, the Thomas E. Creek Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Dr. Craig Barnes has said that as he read the book ``The Greatest Generation,'' he was struck by the fact that each of those described was a regular person. No one was born a hero. But when pushed, they found something heroic inside themselves. Heroes are ordinary people who refuse to be governed by fear when times are hard, he said. Tom Creek was a regular person. He was also a hero. He reached down within himself and made a decision in a split second, a decision to sacrifice his life in order to save the lives of others. It is the same kind of sacrifice which men and women have made throughout our history, from the Revolutionary War to the streets of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, sacrifice for others while serving and defending the Nation. I believe that naming this veterans medical center for this 18-year- old who sacrificed everything he had is a fitting tribute to his incredible heroism and sacrifice; that it will enhance the honor that rightfully belongs to those who have served our Nation and will be treated in this facility; and I hope that it will remind the rest of us that we too can refuse to be governed by fear and find something heroic inside ourselves as our duties demand.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, there are many ways to serve our country. We are most mindful of the men and women serving on the front lines of the war on terrorism, who risk or even lose their lives for our freedom and security. But as Ken Towery, a remarkable man who has been a POW in World War II, a Pulitzer Prize winner and Presidential appointee reminds us, ``Not all men are called upon to respond to battlefield conditions. But all men and women will face many, many situations where courage and duty and responsibility are required and where the true measure of their worth is how well they respond to those challenges.'' One way to serve our Nation is by working on the staff of a Member of Congress. It is the Members themselves who receive most of the attention, positive and negative. It is our names on the ballot and in the newspapers. We are the ones who cast the votes on legislation and are ultimately responsible for all that is done in our name or on our behalf. But as each Member knows, everything we do is assisted by and made possible by the men and women who serve on our staffs. I am extremely fortunate, for I have had and have today a group of exceptional individuals who have worked with me as I have tried to represent the people of the 13th Congressional District of Texas. At the center of everything I have tried to do for my constituents and for our Nation has been my chief of staff, Sylvia Nugent. Sylvia comes from a heritage of service to the country. Her father, Vernon Herrington, is a retired FBI agent, having served in the Bureau for more than 25 years. Sylvia grew up learning a sense of patriotic duty as her family moved around the country in her father's various stations. Sylvia has been married to Dr. Rod Nugent for more than 36 years. And first, she raised her family and volunteered in her community, contributing much. As her children matured, however, she became more involved in politics, becoming active in several campaigns in Texas. In 1994, to my good fortune, she became the campaign manager for my first race for Congress. Then she served as chief of staff for my office until August 31, 2004. Sylvia is now a grandmother, and she and Dr. Nugent are preparing for the next phase of their lives. In some ways, Sylvia has not been a typical congressional chief of staff. She was a bit older than most when they entered government service. She has been based in the district; whereas, most chiefs of staff work out of Washington. Yet, the exceptional qualities of patriotism and commitment to service which she exemplifies do represent the best of the people and the work which goes on in the legislative branch of government. Sylvia is exceptionally gifted. Her intelligence and knowledge help her to get to the root of a problem quickly. Her emotional intelligence and perceptiveness, her people skills, are even more impressive. She is someone to whom a person on an airplane flight will pour out their problems and leave rejuvenated after hearing her counsel. Underlying all of her talents and abilities is a caring heart that wants to help and serve. She made sure that, in all of the work which my staff and I undertook, we remembered that we work for the people of the 13th Congressional District of Texas, that our efforts are funded by the taxpayers, and that our mission is to help people and serve our Nation. Whether it was locating a lost Social Security check or obtaining military medals earned by a veteran 60 years ago, she was committed to helping the people of the 13th Congressional District. Whether it was cosponsoring a rural health care bill or passing the bill to create the Department of Homeland Security, she was committed to doing what was right for the country. As she supervised all of the constituent service, communication and legislative work in my office, she also helped advise and guide staff members and interns on their careers and lives, leaving her mark for years to come. Having raised four outstanding children of her own, she brought those nurturing abilities to all with whom she came in contact. Most importantly, everything she did was motivated by a love of country and a desire to serve and improve. Sylvia has responded to challenges and to opportunities with courage and duty and a sense of responsibility beyond what was required. In a way, her commitment and dedication have been extraordinary, but in another sense, it is the same kind of commitment and dedication that has made America great and continues to ensure that Americans do their duty in whatever circumstances they are placed. Mr. Speaker, I know that I have been tremendously blessed. And my family and I will continue to be blessed to count Sylvia and Rod Nugent among our dearest friends. But the Congress, Texas, and the Nation have also been fortunate to have had the service of this extraordinary lady.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to inform the House that our former colleague, Robert D. ``Bob'' Price, passed away August 24, 2004. Congressman Bob Price's life was a shining example of a true American experience. Throughout his 76 years, Bob Price compiled an admirable record of service to his community, his state, and his country. Bob Price was born September 7, 1927 in Reading, Kansas. He received a bachelor's degree in animal husbandry from Oklahoma State University in 1951, the same year he married his wife, Martha, or ``Marty'', in Oklahoma City. Also in 1951, Mr. Price began a four-year stint in the United States Air Force. During the Korean Conflict, Mr. Price served as a fighter pilot, flying 27 combat missions and earning the Air Medal. After leaving the Air Force, Mr. Price owned and operated a ranch with his wife in Pampa, Texas for 50 years. He was first elected to the U.S. House in 1966 and served here for eight years. Mr. Price served on the Armed Services Committee, the Agriculture Committee, and the Science and Astronautics Committee. During his time in Congress, Mr. Price was known as the only member who had flown Mach-3 in the SR-71 Blackbird, the F111-A and the F-4E Phantom. After leaving the U.S. House in 1975, he later served in the Texas State Senate from 1978 through 1980. Mr. Price was also an active member of his community as a member of the First Baptist Church, the Pampa Masonic Lodge Number 966 AF & AM, the Pampa Shrine Club and the Downtown Kiwanis Club. He was also a member of the El Paso Scottish Rite Consistory and the Khiva Shrine Temple of Amarillo. Bob Price is survived by his wife, Marty; a son, Carl Price, his wife, Kelly, and their children, Courtney, Grayson, Bridget, and Daniella, all of Houston; a daughter, Janice Johnson, her husband, Marc, and their children, Nicholas, Miles, and Elise, all of Indianapolis, Indiana; and a brother, Ben Price Jr. of Reading, Kansas. Mr. Price was preceded in death by his infant son, David Wayne Price, and another son, Robert Grant Price, who died in 1987. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in extending condolences to the family and friends of former Congressman Bob Price of Texas and in honoring his service and many contributions to our great Nation.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, today, I have the privilege, along with the entire Texas delegation in the House and Mr. Moran from Kansas, to introduce a bill to rename the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Amarillo, Texas, the ``Thomas E. Creek Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.'' Lance Corporal Thomas E. Creek, USMC, of Amarillo, Texas, was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously by President Nixon. He was a true American hero, deserving of this recognition and honor. On February 13, 1969, Lance Corporal Creek was an 18 year old Marine with Company I, 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines, 3rd Marine Division in Vietnam. He was part of a resupply convoy that was ambushed by enemy forces using mortars, mines, fragmentation grenades, and small arms. According to the documents recommending him for the Medal of Honor, ``[t]he fierce combat found the men firing at point blank range.'' Lance Corporal Creek was wounded by a bullet in the neck, but then saw a fragmentation grenade land between him and the rest of the squad. He then, though wounded, deliberately rolled on top of the grenade, taking the full impact of the explosion, and saving the lives of 5 Marines nearby. His act inspired the rest of the squad to defeat the enemy and complete its mission to resupply the forward combat base. Mr. Speaker, we cannot help but be moved by such acts of self- sacrifice and bravery. They exemplify the highest standards of the Marine Corps, our military, and our Nation. The veterans community in the Amarillo area suggested this way of honoring Corporal Creek. It is supported by the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and AMVETS. I also want to acknowledge and to thank all those who have helped in this effort to recognize Lance Corporal Creek, especially Corporal Creek's family, Selden Hale, and Larry Milam, who were instrumental in this endeavor. In some ways, 1969 seems like a long time ago, yet acts of bravery like Corporal Creek's are timeless. They provide an example for us all. Corporal Creek's name will further magnify the honor attached to those who have served our nation and receive health care at this veterans' facility. I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I feel a real and personal sense of loss with the death of President Ronald Reagan. He was a great man and a great President, ranking in the top tier of all of our chief executives. He will be remembered as a pivotal historical figure; but, at the same time, many Americans feel as though they have lost a member of their family. Such was the unique character and legacy of Ronald Reagan, the President and the man. My wife, Sally, and I each had the honor of serving as political appointees during the second term of the Reagan administration. We were down in the bowels of the bureaucracy, but proud to be working for and certainly inspired by President Reagan. With his optimism and his confidence in America, he inspired at least a generation of conservatives to be involved in public life and to advance the ideals for which he stood. As important as his accomplishments domestically and internationally were, perhaps his most important success was to help the American people believe in themselves again. After the tumult of assassinations, Vietnam, Watergate, and malaise, Ronald Reagan came to remind us of the core values of the Founding Fathers and the special place that the United States has in the history of the world, that ``shining city on a hill.'' President Reagan was called The Great Communicator, but he said that what was truly great were the ideas he communicated. Those ideas were fundamental in the creation of the United States. As he noted in his farewell address, he communicated ``great things that came from the heart of a nation, from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for 2 centuries.'' Ronald Reagan brought out the best in us because he knew the best of us. Our Nation was blessed to have been given Ronald Reagan, the President and the man. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the accomplishments which cause Ronald Reagan to stand among our greatest Presidents can be traced to a set of fundamental beliefs to which he adhered throughout his political career. One of them was strong, steadfast confidence in the American people. President Reagan knew that government must be limited so that the unlimited potential of individual Americans could be unleashed. He knew that when families were able to keep more of the money they earned, not just the family but the whole country would benefit. The result of his tax relief and restraint of government was the longest period of economic growth in the nation's history. President Reagan also believed, with the signers of the Declaration of Independence, that freedom is a gift of God, intended for all peoples. In his speech to the British Parliament in 1982, which he viewed as among his most important, he said: We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. President Reagan was often underestimated. But, his clear words required clear thoughts, and those clear thoughts came from a clear vision and clear values, the articulation of which was refined over a lifetime of work. The amount of work and thought Ronald Reagan put into developing and expressing his views are only now becoming known, with the publication of some of the thousands of articles and letters written with his own hand. He clearly believed that one must not be afraid to speak the truth, sometimes to the discomfort of his advisors. In the well-known speech in which he called the Soviet Union the ``focus of evil in the modern world'' he went on to urge his listeners and the country to [S]peak out against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority. . . . I urge you to beware the temptation of pride--the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil. Throughout his career of public service, Ronald Reagan did not remove himself from the struggle between right and wrong, good and evil. He engaged in that struggle, and he changed the course of history. Before the British Parliament, President Reagan repeated the question asked by Winston Churchill in one of his wartime speeches: ``What kind of people do they think we are?'' President Reagan answered, ``Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not only to remain so but to help others gain their freedom as well.'' Being a ``free people, worthy of freedom'' and help[ing] others gain their freedom as well'' remains America's challenge. My hope is that we pursue those aims with the determination and spirit that Ronald Reagan displayed throughout his career. A President whose basic political philosophy about the role of government continues to occupy center stage in our domestic debates more than a decade after he left office; a President who changed the course of world history and helped free millions of people from totalitarian bondage; a man who restored a nation's confidence in itself and continues to inspire defenders of freedom everywhere-- Quite a record. Quite a life. Again, our Nation was blessed to have been given Ronald Reagan.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, on this Memorial Day, let us remember Air Force Captain Eric Das. He was a young man from my district who loved our country, and who lost his life fighting for its ideals in Iraq. Captain Eric Das, 30, of Amarillo, Texas, was an Air Force pilot for the 333rd Fighter Squadron of the 4th Fighter Wing at North Carolina's Seymour Air Force Base. He was pronounced killed in action on April 18, 2003. Eric was on a bombing mission, flying an F-15E Strike Eagle jet over Iraq, when his plane was shot down on April 6, 2003. Eric has been awarded the Purple Heart, the Meritorious Service Award, and the Distinguished Flying Cross. He has also been installed in the Amarillo High School Hall of Fame. He will be remembered for his strong, sure faith in God. Eric leaves behind his wife, 1st Lieutenant Nikki Das; parents, Bruce and Rosie Das of Amarillo; two sisters, Melody Neumann and Elisa Das, both of Amarillo; and his grandmother, Jessie Renne of Minnesota. Eric was not only a soldier, but a friend to many, a committed husband, and he will be remembered for the lasting impact he had on those who knew him. Those who wish for the liberty of all people will forever owe a debt to Captain Das. This young man from the Texas Panhandle became a hero when he refused to be governed by fear and sacrificed his life for us and our safety. Captain Eric Das has joined an unbroken line of patriots who dared to die so that freedom might live and grow and increase its blessings. May God continue to bless our Nation with such heroes.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, on this Memorial Day, let us remember Marine Lance Corporal Aaron Austin. He was a young man from my district who loved our country and who lost his life fighting for its ideals in Iraq. Lance Corporal Aaron Austin was a 21-year old from Sunray, Texas. He was part of the 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, and 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, California. Aaron died April 26, 2004 near Fallujah on his second tour of duty in Iraq. His family and friends described him as a warrior who was not afraid of anything. After joining the Marines, Aaron quickly became a leader of his machine gun team. He was the product of a small town and enjoyed the outdoors, sports and hanging out with his friends. Survivors of Corporal Austin are parents, Doug Austin of Amarillo and De'on Miller of Lovington, New Mexico; two brothers, Eric Austin of Amarillo and Mike Austin of Las Vegas, Nevada; his maternal grandparents, Harvey Grigsby and Virgie Thomas of Lovington; his paternal grandmother, Juanita Austin of Yorba Linda, California; and many aunts and uncles. Aaron had planned to wed his fiancee, Tiffany Frank of Phoenix, Arizona on December 11, 2004. Aaron was loved by many and will be remembered as a courageous Marine. Those who wish for the liberty of all people will forever owe a debt to Corporal Austin. This young man from the Texas Panhandle became a hero when he refused to be governed by fear and sacrificed his life for us and our safety. Lance Corporal Aaron Austin has joined an unbroken line of patriots who dared to die so that freedom might live and grow and increase its blessings. May God continue to bless our Nation with such heroes.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, Members come to this Congress with a policy agenda or a political agenda. We spend our time and effort trying to make some change we think is good for the country. Yet there is something bigger and more enduring than any one of us or any one of our issues. That something is the institution of the House of Representatives. I believe that every elected Member has a responsibility to that institution, but it is the professionals who serve as the officers and staff of the House that make sure it is preserved and protected. They serve the House and the Nation day and night through heated debates and even through long, dull special orders. Nobody has served this House more faithfully and more nobly than our Parliamentarian, Charles Johnson. He is smart and insightful as his job required, but he also has the integrity to be trusted by both sides of the aisle during heated debate and controversial rulings. He has a sense of history and, I think, a sense of responsibility for this institution going back 217 years to the Constitutional Convention on through today and on through generations to come. The House has been in good hands during Charlie Johnson's tenure, and part of his legacy, part of his lasting influence, will be felt through his successor. I join in expressing sadness at his leaving, but also admiration and gratitude for his service.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment tries to eliminate a research program designed to explore whether or not we can threaten deeply buried targets with an existing nuclear warhead. As the chairman of the subcommittee just said, to build an actual weapon requires Congress's approval. That is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is about whether we want to know what our options may be. And to stick our head in the sand and pretend that we are somehow safer if we do not know or to pretend we are somehow safer if we limit our options seems to me not only foolish but actually dangerous. I agree with the gentleman from Washington, it is about deterrence. But we do not deter anybody if they know we are not going to use a weapon. They have to have a realistic expectation that we might in order to discourage them to do something. Clearly, there is a trend toward burying things. It may be a leadership bunker. It may be a weapon-production facility. It may be weapons themselves. And today we are very limited in our ability to threaten things which are buried. The more limited we are, and especially the more we limit ourselves, the more it encourages potential adversaries to go underground. We have heard all these conclusions giving reasons why we should not use such a weapon. The problem is these are conclusions not based on scientific study and scientific fact, and they come with a political agenda. We ought to step back from political agendas and objectively study what the pros and cons of this approach are and then collectively make a judgment call on whether it is a good idea or not. But we are not anywhere close to that at this point. I am for putting all the money we need into research into conventional weapons that can accomplish the same goal; and if more money is needed to effectively and productively take advantage of those programs this year, then I am all for it. But this is so important that to limit our options at this time, to not even explore what the options are and what may be available to us, I think, is extremely shortsighted. Therefore, I urge Members to again this year, as we did last year, reject this amendment and vote ``no.''

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and commend him on his patience and persistence that was required to have this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. In my view, the first job of the Federal government is to defend the country, and there is certainly no greater priority in this budget than protecting America. When it comes to helping make the country strong, we in Congress have an important role to play. Part of our role involves the other major bill we are working on this week, the defense authorization bill. But I believe that passing this budget today also puts in place an essential building block that helps make sure we do our job in keeping and improving on a strong America. This budget fully funds the President's request for military and homeland security. It allocates $420 billion for the national security function. Included in that is $402 billion for the military, and on top of that is $50 billion that the chairman just talked about for the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once that allocation is translated into the various programs, we will have increased basic pay for soldiers in the military, 21 percent over the past 3 years. We will have increased personnel funding 59 percent since 2001. Operation and maintenance will have increased 55 percent; procurement up 43 percent; R&D funding up 76 percent over the past 3 years. In short, Mr. Speaker, we will have provided everything the Pentagon has asked for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and then some. On homeland security, this budget allocates $33.4 billion, including $31 billion for the Department of Homeland Security. This is nearly double what those agencies were receiving in 2001, nearly double. The budget carves out $2.5 billion in advance funding for Bioshield, the effort to deal with that threat which many people view as the most dangerous to us, biological warfare. But as I said when the House first considered this budget, we could slap a homeland security label on the whole Federal budget and still not be perfectly safe; but passing this budget today allows the other committees to do their work on the detailed programs and make sure that in Congress we stand up and do our job on homeland security and defense, supporting the men and women who are on the front lines every day protecting our lives and our freedom. It deserves our support.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, generally I think we can be faulted on this floor for saying the same thing over and over again in our debates; but in this case, I think it is important to say over and over again so it is heard clearly and definitively that the conduct here, including the taking and distribution of photographs, is abhorrent to our Nation and to our values; and also to say that we are proud of and grateful to the thousands and thousands of men and women who do represent and exemplify our values every day in Iraq, for every day there are countless acts of kindness and generosity and respect shown to Iraqis by American soldiers, risking their own lives. Part of the tragedy of this episode is it gets so much attention while all of those acts get so little attention. Yet it is important for us to continue to do the right thing, to hold those involved accountable for their actions or their neglect, and to not let up in our efforts to overcome the malicious forces of oppression, working with the Iraqi people for a free and secure and stable Iraq.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman of the Committee on the Budget for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the first priority of the Federal Government is to defend the country, and there is no greater priority in this budget than protecting America. I think all of us realize that the world in which we live and the world in which our children will live is, in many ways, a more dangerous place than the world of our parents and our grandparents. It is certainly more difficult to predict. It certainly changes more rapidly. And the number and diversity of threats to our citizens has never been higher. Yet the fundamental fact remains that our freedom and our individual safety depends upon our strength. This budget allocates the resources needed to fight the global war on terrorism; secondly, to prepare for future security challenges; and, third, to protect our homeland. In national defense, this budget provides $419.6 billion. As the chairman noted, over the past few years, we have had to address both a defense deficit and a homeland security deficit. After the Cold War, defense spending declined, eventually reaching the lowest percentage of GDP since World War II. Infrastructure was deteriorating. We were not taking good care of our people. We had what some people described as a hollow force, as we had to cannibalize airplanes and other systems just to keep others operating. But we have provided significant increases in defense over the last few years. Personnel funding is up 59 percent, operations and maintenance is up 55 percent, procurement is up 43 percent, and R&D is up 76 percent. This budget provides an additional 7 percent increase for fiscal year 2005 to meet the security challenges of our time and to be better prepared for the security challenges that the future may hold. And may I clarify, Mr. Chairman, that this budget funds dollar for dollar exactly what the President requested for the Department of Defense. Any change in the defense function is for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and some others that are under that old 5-0 function, but it fully funds the Department of Defense. The other thing, I think, that needs to be clarified in response partly to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri is that a budget cannot do all of the things that he advertises that it can do. That is up to the committee he and I serve on, the Committee on Armed Services, as well as up to the Committee on Appropriations to determine how much we are going to fund individual personnel programs or how much we are going to fund housing and other vital needs for our military. What the budget can do is set an overall target for Federal spending. And this budget does a good job of fully meeting what the President has told us and what most of our Members believe our security needs are. But the chairman's mark also stands for the proposition that no part of the Federal budget, even those agencies assigned to the first priority, is beyond scrutiny, to ensure that each dollar that the Federal Government takes out of some taxpayer's pocket is used as efficiently and productively as possible. The military has made some tough decisions recently. It canceled a major weapons system, it is restructuring the Army, and it has more tough decisions ahead even with this increase. But we want to be clear in this budget that we will do whatever it takes to defend America. Our Nation will not just sit back and let the terrorists hit us again. We have taken the fight to them in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in this budget we allocated $50 billion for those ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. We assume that they are going to continue, and we put money in there to make sure that they will be provided for. We are also committed to defending America here at home. Earlier this month we marked the 1 year anniversary of the Department of Homeland Security, the result of the biggest reorganization of the Federal Government in more than 50 years. Now, we have heard arguments and I am sure we will hear other arguments about whether the glass is half full or half empty with regard to homeland security. And both can be true at the same time. There are those who think we are spending too much, others who think we are not spending enough; and I suspect both are right, and we will find out exactly where the next time that there is an attack. But, again, if you look at where we have been over the last 3 years, you see tremendous increases for homeland security, appropriately so. This budget allocates $34 billion for homeland security, which is up from last year's $29.5 billion. The President has suggested significantly more funding for biological surveillance programs, as well as continuing to push ahead on things like port security, infrastructure protection, emergency preparedness and response. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that we could spend the whole Federal budget on things that have the label of homeland security and still we would not be perfectly safe. So the challenge before us in the Committee on the Budget, as well as the other committees, is to move ahead in a common-sense way that makes the country safer. That is what this budget tries to do, and I think it does a good job.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, like most bills brought before us, this bill is a mixture of provisional I support and provisions I oppose. Unlike most bills brought before us, it affects every American and will have significant, long-term consequences for our Nation. I believe that providing access to quality health care is one of the most formidable challenges facing our Nation now and in the decades to come. The retirement of the baby boom generation, which begins in less than 8 years, will make that challenge enormously difficult. When the House considered its version of this bill in June of this year, I said that our objective 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 conference report does begin to update Medicare by adding prescription drug coverage. It does little to put Medicare on a sound financial footing. Making prescription drug coverage available to all seniors is very important. Not only will that benefit keep seniors from having to choose between buying medicines and other necessities of life, it will help them stay healthier. As they stay healthier longer, hospital and other medical expenses should be less. This bill includes reforms of the system which are also important. Allowing all Americans to choose Health Savings Accounts gives everyone a new option to pay for health care and could help stem the tide of rising insurance rates and rising health care costs. Beginning to consider income in calculating Part B premiums is a significant change in the law. Other provisions related to provider reimbursements and reducing the discrimination against rural health care providers are worthy of support. I am concerned that the total cost of this bill is vastly underestimated, as has happened before in Medicare. There are payments or tax credits for virtually every group interested in health care, yet of all of the groups affected by this bill, I worry that the interests of those paying the bills, especially future taxpayers, are given the least consideration. So, we are left weighing the benefit of modernizing Medicare and some reforms versus the danger that this bill will hasten the day of Medicare' collapse. It is not an easy judgment to make. It is clear that if we do nothing, millions of seniors will go without the prescriptions they need and that none of the reforms essential to Medicare's survival will occur. We must begin somewhere. Reluctantly, I have concluded that this most imperfect bill is at least a place to start. If we are honest, we have to admit that this bill is something of a gamble. We are betting that the limited reforms begun here will flourish and work to strengthen Medicare for the 21st century. If we are wrong, the added benefits and payments may sink the entire program. Tonight, I choose to vote with my hopes rather than my fears, prayerfully mindful of both my parents and my children.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. 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. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. 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. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. 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. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. 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. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. 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. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. 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. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. 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. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. 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. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. 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. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. 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. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. 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.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me time, and I thank him for his work on this measure. It may well be his most important contribution to the safety and security of his grandchildren. I also want to appreciate the staff who have worked so long and hard to make this possible. Mr. Speaker, having worked on this issue for close to 2 years, I have had many doubts that it would ever come to this point; but now I believe it will happen. This is not a perfect bill, and it is relatively easy for me and others to find fault, ways that we wish it would be different. But all of those individual differences we may have with provisions are no competition in my mind to the fact that time is slipping by. If we do not do it this week, we are at least 3 months further along, 3 months during which our enemies are plotting and planning against us, more time during which we are not as prepared as we could and should be, more months where we are not making preparations to protect ourselves. Time is a critical factor. Just yesterday we had another threat, and whether it is bin Laden's voice or not, it is clear it is someone who intends to kill more Americans. He is very explicit in the threat. We cannot sit by and have differences over this provision or that provision keep us from acting. Mr. Speaker, organizational reform is no panacea. It does not solve all of the problems with the FBI or the CIA. It does not do everything, but what it can do is take 22 agencies, existing agencies that are scattered around the government, bring them together under one chain of command so we can actually work together as a team and make things happen. That does not mean it solves all of our problems, but it is an important step. It does not create more bureaucracy, it tries to get a handle on the bureaucracy we have and make it work more effectively. It is an important step for us to take tonight. Hopefully the other body will follow suit and the President can sign it into law so we can begin to make this country safer.