Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Authorizing the use of military force is not a decision for any Congress or any individual Member to take lightly. I approach the issue recognizing that American service men and women may well sacrifice their lives as a result. I also recognize that American use of force may have strategic repercussions that extend far into the future and into all areas of the globe. Making this decision may well be the most somber responsibility that any Member of Congress has. Just because a decision is difficult, however, does not mean that we should try to avoid it or that we should automatically look for some option that makes us all feel more comfortable. There are those who seem to think that we should just continue along, waiting for an international consensus or deferring to the United Nations, and thus avoiding having to make hard choices. But wishful thinking and further delay will not lessen the dangers we face, but actually will increase them. History is replete with instances where failure to face up to a difficult circumstance in a timely manner ultimately resulted in a far greater price being exacted. However difficult the choices, however uncertain the future, however alone we feel, we must do our best with the facts before us. And there are certain facts that are beyond dispute. One is that Saddam Hussein heads an evil, aggressive regime which has brought immeasurable misery upon the Iraqi people and their neighbors. We know Hussein is a merciless killer who does not hesitate to massacre innocent civilians and has an intense hatred of the United States. Another fact beyond dispute is that Saddam Hussein will stop at nothing to obtain the most deadly, terrifying weapons possible. As one of his former scientists has said, Iraq has been turned into ``one giant WMD factory.'' We know he now has relatively advanced dangerous chemical and biological weapons. We know he is willing to use them, because he has used them before. We know for certain he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we should not forget how badly we underestimated how close he was to actually building a nuclear device at the time of the Persian Gulf war. So we know the character of the man and the regime, we know the kinds of weapons he has and is trying to acquire, and we know he is perfectly willing to use them. The only relevant facts we do not know are when Saddam Hussein will act and exactly what his tactics will be. But those are details that do not really affect the essential choice before us. That choice is quite simple. On one hand, we can continue the approach of the past 10 years, hoping that Iraq can be contained and that Hussein will not use the weapons he has hungered for and that he has sacrificed so much to acquire. We can hope that one day he will choke on a chicken bone and be replaced by somebody who will voluntarily dismantle Iraqi weapons and weapon-making capability. With that option, we stake our future and our security upon wishful thinking. The other option is to act. We can act with as many other nations as will responsibly join us to rid the world of the menace that Iraqi's weapons of mass destruction present. And we can act to better prepare our homeland for the kinds of dangers Hussein and those like him present. There is no doubt that the United States is Hussein's primary target. Acting to eliminate this threat is acting to defend the country and the lives of our citizens. But given the unique position we occupy in the world, acting to eliminate this threat also fulfills a special responsibility America has, a responsibility to lead, to be a force for good. Some argue Hussein will not use his weapons, that he wants to possess them only for prestige in the region. They do not believe that he would ever assist terrorist networks like al Qaeda from acquiring and using such weapons against us, in spite of the fact he has a history of relations with these terrorists. Mr. Speaker, I cannot risk the lives of my constituents or my children on guesses about what course this tyrant might take. I believe there are no limits to what Hussein will do if he, in his perverted world view, believes something is in his best interests, and that includes assisting other terrorists in attacking us. With all of the uncertainties and risks, with less international support so far than we would like, the responsibility to deal with this evil still rests with us. I believe we should authorize the President to use military force to address this threat, and that we should fully support the President and the troops carrying out his commands as they strive to make this a safer, more just world.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year a bipartisan group of House and Senate Members, a bipartisan group of Members from both bodies, introduced identical bills, and basically we said that this issue of collective bargaining ought to be the same. That, in my view, is the same as it is now. That, in my view, is what the Shays amendment was. It was unimaginable to us then and it is unimaginable to me now that we would reduce the ability of the President to act in a national security situation. That is why I believe this amendment should be rejected.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because I believe that this amendment will significantly damage the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to be effective. Now, let me make a couple of points clear from the beginning. Whistleblowers are protected in the legislation now. That is one of the specific protections we were talking about earlier in the various management flexibility amendments which were offered. Whistleblowers are protected now. Now, under current law, various companies and industries have to disclose certain information. Nothing changes under this bill. They still have to disclose that information, and we add no loopholes. There are no new requirements, and they cannot hide. They still have to meet the current requirements. But our hope is that under the new law, the Department of Homeland Security will receive additional information voluntarily from industries. They will tell us their vulnerabilities. They will tell us what they are worried about in their computer networks. They will tell us what they are worried about in their infrastructure. We want them to tell the Federal Government that information voluntarily, so that we can help protect that infrastructure. They will not disclose that information if you just turn right around and make it public. It could be trade secrets, it could be information that you are giving to the terrorists. You certainly do not want to help them. So, to go as far as the amendment does in requiring this additional information, which is voluntarily disclosed to the government, to turn around and make all that public means that companies simply will not disclose it, we will not know their vulnerabilities, and this Department will not be able to do its job to protect infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest the better course would be to reject this amendment. There are essential protections already in the bill. We do not need more.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the majority leader for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, since the end of the Cold War, there have been some disturbing trends. One is that chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons are spreading to more and more nations and more and more groups. In addition to that, more and more nations and more and more groups are hostile to the United States and will seem to stop at nothing to attack us. Study after study recognized our vulnerability and urged us to act, and yet it has taken September 11 to give that impetus, to force us to act, and tonight we are acting in important ways. It is true that organizational reform does not solve all of our problems. We still have to have the best people, we still have to have resources, we have to give the right authorities. But as the Deutsch Commission found, a cardinal truth of government is that policy without proper organization is effectively no policy at all. That is why this organization is important. It does not guarantee success; but without it, we can guarantee failure. What we found when we tried to protect our people is dozens of different agencies scattered across Departments all around the government. So the idea was if we can bring some of those key Departments and agencies together under one umbrella, with one chain of command, they will work better together and we will be safer. Under this legislation, one piece relates to information, so all the cyberterrorism offices scattered around the government will be brought together and will work together. There is a science and technology section where several of the offices around the government will be brought together to identify, develop, and then field technologies that will keep us safer. The third element is transportation and infrastructure. Ninety percent of the people in the new Department will be devoted to border and transportation security. If somebody thinks that this new Department is bloated, they are going to have to get rid of some of the people on our borders; and I do not think many of us will want to do that. This brings together Border Patrol, Customs, Coast Guard and Agriculture inspectors, so they actually have the same chain of command. They can actually use the same equipment under the same regulations and working together have better border security. A fourth element is emergency preparedness and response. Building upon the strengths of FEMA with its regional offices all around the country, this will be the key conduit of communication and training and planning and grants for local responders, and they all support this reorganization. Mr. Chairman, the world has changed a lot in the last 10 years, and our government institutions must evolve and change in order to meet this new challenge. But this new Department also has to have the tools to meet that challenge, and that is why some of the amendments that we are going to consider, giving them the tools, the management flexibility, for example, to hire computer experts away from Silicon Valley, are so important. This bill is not perfect, but it makes us safer and it should be supported. Mr. Speaker, over the past several days, I have distributed to our colleagues a series of questions and answers about creating a Department of Homeland Security. I am including copies of them in the Record at this point because they reflect a number of the issues which have been raised about this proposal and some of the reasons we should support it. Establishing a Department of Homeland Security Question 1: Where Did this Idea Come From? It has been said that the idea of consolidating a number of government agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security was hatched in secret in the middle of the night-- and now we're being asked to vote on it less than 2 months after it was first proposed. Not true. Here are the facts. As far as I know, the idea to create a new Department of Homeland Security from some of the dozens of different offices and agencies scattered around the Government springs from the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st century, popularly known as the Hart-Rudman Commission. This bipartisan Commission was established by Congress in 1997 and was charged with undertaking a broad, in-depth study of America's national security challenges over the next 25 years. The quality and experience of those serving on the Commission was extraordinary. The Commission also had a top rate staff. The Commission issued three reports--one on the threats we face, one on an overall strategy, and finally one with specific recommendations about what should be done. Overall, they spent 3 years carefully looking at the world and our role in it and concluded that ``security of the American homeland from the threats of the new century should be the primary national security mission of the U.S. Government.'' (Just to show you the breadth of the study, their second recommendation dealt with the adequacy of our math and science education.) The Commission unanimously recommended the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security to consolidate border security agencies, cyber terrorism offices, and emergency response organizations, such as FEMA. Their final report was issued publicly on February 15, 2001. (In fairness, a number of other commissions in recent years, such as the Marsh Commission (1997), the Deutsch Commission (1999), the Bremer Commission (2000), and the Gilmore Commission (2001), reached similar conclusions about the importance of reorganizing the Government for homeland security. Many of the principles and suggestions from them were also in the Hart-Rudman report or have been incorporated into the various proposals.) On March 21, 2001, 1 introduced H.R. 1158, to implement the Hart-Rudman recommendation and create the new Department. The Government Reform Committee, as well as other committees, held hearings on this issue. After September 11, a number of other proposals were introduced in Congress, and, of course, President Bush appointed Governor Ridge to head a Homeland Security Office in the White House. Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of House and Senate Members introduced a revised proposal, H.R. 4660, to create a Department of Homeland Security. This bill was introduced by Ms. Harman, Ms. Tauscher, Mr. Gibbons, and me, and was cosponsored by 40 Members. In the Senate, it was S. 2452 by Senators Lieberman, Specter, and Graham. A number of additional hearings were held on these and other proposals. The Senate bill was reported out of the Government Reform Committee on May 22, 2002. The President announced his proposal on June 6, 2002. In sum, several years of study and work--inside the Congress and out--have gone into this idea. I recommend that you or your staff take a look at the Hart-Rudman report, which set forth the problems and some solutions well before September 11. A complete copy of the report can be found at http://www.nssg.gov. Question 2: Now Does Creating a New Department Make Us Safer? [Part 1] Now that you know where the idea came from (see Question 1), let's get right to the heart of the matter: How does this proposal help make us safer? After all, that is what really matters. One way a Department of Homeland Security can make us safer is by bringing together under one umbrella and one chain of command many of the government agencies responsible for homeland security. The Hart-Rudman Commission found more than 40 government entities with some responsibility for homeland security. After September 11, the Administration said that it is more like 100. There is no way that many organizations spread all around the Federal Government can effectively work together. Their efforts are, at best, fragmented and duplicative, or, at worst, they are at cross-purposes. The new Department of Homeland Security would bring together those various entities that deal with border security, cyber terrorism, emergency response, and countermeasures for chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons. Only by bringing them together under one chain of command can they be as effective as we need them to be. Let's take border security as one example. Currently, at our borders we have the Border Patrol, part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which is in the Department of Justice. We also have the Customs Service, which is a part of the Department of the Treasury. We also have the Coast Guard, an entity within the Department of Transportation, along with the new Transportation Security Administration (international airports are like borders). We also have inspectors from the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service stationed at the border to keep out plant and livestock diseases. All of those entities have different bosses, different equipment, and even different regulations that govern them. No one person or entity, is in charge, As a side note, over 90 percent of the personnel who will be in the new Department of Homeland Security will be from existing agencies charged with border and transportation security. As Leon Panetta has said, without ``direct line authority over the policies and funding of the agencies involved, it will be very difficult to control and coordinate their efforts.'' One chain of command, with direct control over budgets, is required to make sure that all of the communications equipment is compatible; to make sure that the dozen or so databases these agencies have can be shared; to have clear; consistent regulations and procedures for border inspections, and to have clear, reliable communications with other government agencies. Control over our borders is essential to protecting our homeland. We must have those organizations and individuals responsible for border security be as effective as possible. That means they must operate as one integrated, seamless unit. They must have one coach, one playbook, and one quarterback. No team can be effective without a clear chain of command and clear direction. Another important consideration is that first responders need one federal contact rather than five or 40. Local officials have repeatedly expressed frustration at not knowing which federal agency has the lead and at not knowing who to call in an emergency. This plan would give them one phone number, rather than a phone book. Now, of course, organizational reform is no silver bullet. We still need more top quality people to manage our borders. We still need the best technology we can field quickly. We still need to review our immigration and other laws. But all of those resources and efforts will not be as effective as they could be without the right organizational structure to get the most out of them. The Deutsch Commission report said that ``a cardinal truth of government is that policy without proper organization is effectively no policy at all.'' President Eisenhower believed that ``the right system does not guarantee success, but the wrong system guarantees failure. A defective system will suck the leadership into its cracks and fissures, wasting their time as they seek to manage dysfunction rather than making critical decisions.'' Homeland Security is too important to have anyone ``manage dysfunction.'' We need the best odds we can get in order to protect our people. Question 3: How Does Creating a New Department Make Us Safer (Part 21) Consolidating existing agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security can help make us safer by integrating the work of those agencies into one seamless unit. But it can help make us safer in other ways, too. One way is by making homeland security a higher priority in the day-to-day operations of the federal government. Today, no federal department has homeland security as its primary mission. Rather than dozens of different agencies with some homeland security duties, we should have: One department whose primary mission is to protect the homeland; One department to secure borders, ports, modes of transportation and critical infrastructure; One department to coordinate communications with state and local governments, private industry, and the American people; One department to help train and equip first responders; One department to focus research and development and swift fielding of technology; One department with a seat at the Cabinet table and considerable bureaucratic weight in the inevitable battles over turf and money. Many of the agencies with responsibility for homeland security are in departments that have other, very different missions. To continue with the example of border security, the Customs Service is in the Department of the Treasury, whose primary mission is managing the financial affairs of the country. Indeed, the primary mission of the Customs Service for much of our history was to enforce trade laws and collect tax revenue to help run the government. And it still needs to do that. But even more important to the country today is the Custom Service's responsibility to keep chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons out of the country. In light of this new, higher priority which we must all give to homeland security, the Customs Service should be moved into a Department whose primary mission is consistent with that responsibility. We could go through similar reasoning with the other agencies charged with border and transportation security. Some of them have other important missions besides homeland security which they must perform--the Coast Guard, for example--but if we look at the overall needs and priorities of the country, homeland security must have a greater emphasis. The consequences of not putting homeland security at the top of the list of priorities could certainly be catastrophic. Another way that the new Department can make us safer is by helping set priorities within the homeland security mission. We could spend the whole federal budget on homeland security and still not be 100 percent safe. We have to look at our vulnerabilities and set priorities, placing more resources and attention in one area and less in another. That becomes very hard to do when the agencies charged with setting priorities and taking steps to reduce them are scattered around the government. For border security, what is more important: more people or more technology? What if the Border Patrol decides to emphasize one but Customs decides to emphasize the other? Naturally, Congress plays a key role in sorting out what is more important and what is less, but the Executive Branch must have one coherent, integrated decision process in order to be effective. In sum, creating a Department of Homeland Security makes us safer by helping make homeland security a higher national priority and by making our homeland security efforts more effective. It is no magic answer, but given all that is at stake, every added measure of security counts. Question 4: How goes This Reorganization Affect Emergency Responders? If anyone needed a reminder that local emergency responders are at the forefront of our homeland security efforts, September 11 taught us that lesson in ways we will never forget. Local police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel were first on the scene, and they will always be the first to respond to any terrorist attack. Local law enforcement are also essential to preventing terrorist attacks. When intelligence information is received about a threat to shopping malls, for instance, it is the local police that will be on higher alert and try to stop an attack. However we reorganize federal agencies, empowering first responders is tremendously important to making the country safer. Organizations representing them, such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the International Association of Fire Chiefs, support creation of a new Department of Homeland Security for very good reasons. It will provide a ``one-stop shop'' for state and local officials. I suspect we have all heard from frustrated local officials who need help in finding the appropriate federal office to deal with some problem. Rather than have a whole directory of phone numbers of federal agencies, local officials will have one number to call. In addition, the Department will build upon the strengths of FEMA, including its existing structure with ten regional offices across the country and its close working relationships with state and local officials. Building upon that foundation, the new Department will administer grants to help cities and counties acquire needed equipment. It will help provide and set the standards for needed training, consolidating several programs with similar missions. It will assist communities in planning for emergencies. Perhaps most importantly, it will provide the primary channel of communication between the federal government and state and local governments on homeland security--communication that will go both ways. For instance, if the Department receives information that shopping malls may be a target of attack, it will communicate with the appropriate state and local officials. On the other hand, if several local police departments notice a suspicious pattern of behavior, they could communicate their concerns to the Department, and the Department may take some action. Providing a regular channel of communication between state and local officials and the federal government will be one of the most important functions of the Department of Homeland Security. Helping coordinate and provide standards among local responders is another. We have learned that communication difficulties were a key problem on September 11. Helping to ensure that all of the emergency responders in a metropolitan area have compatible communication equipment, for example, will be an important benefit, not just for terrorist attacks, but for emergency response and law enforcement activities of all kinds. The Department of Homeland Security will empower these local heroes by helping them do their jobs and by being their champion in the federal government. All of our communities will be safer as a result. Question 5: How Do We Know if the Agencies Being Moved Will Still Perform Their Other Missions? Our federal government is big and complex, and a number of government agencies have multiple missions. We expect FEMA to respond to a disaster, whether it is caused by a hurricane or a terrorist. We expect the Coast Guard to perform search and rescue, protect our maritime resources, and guard our coastline. No cabinet department has perfectly clean lines. Yet, the way we organize ourselves does say something about what we think is important. And given the changes in the world and in technology, we have to put greater focus on protecting Americans here at home. But what about all of those other jobs? Sometimes it is relatively easy to split an organization. For example, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has a section which helps provide border security. Other sections are devoted to tasks inside the United States. It is possible, and preferable, to move that portion of APHIS which helps protect our border to the new Department of Homeland Security while leaving the rest of it at the Department of Agriculture. Other agencies are not so easily split. In fact, the commandant of the Coast Guard has said that dividing it would threaten its ability to do any job properly. The Hart-Rudman Commission called the Coast Guard a ``model homeland security agency given its unique blend of law enforcement, regulatory, and military authorities that allow it to operate within, across, and beyond the U.S. border.'' In fact, if you think about it, the Coast Guard already has a number of varied missions that have little to do with the primary focus of the Department of Transportation. There is no reason it will not continue to perform its many jobs, but its critical role in protecting the United States and its citizens will be enhanced. (Note that the Coast Guard would be moved in the new Department as a separate entity; it would not be merged with other border security organizations.) A number of the agencies moving into the Department of Homeland Security will be in an even better position to perform their other duties. In order to fulfill its responsibilities for homeland security, the Coast Guard will need new ships and equipment. Those same ships and aircraft are involved in all of the Coast Guard's tasks and will make the entire organization stronger. It is also more likely to get the additional resources it needs as a part of the Department of Homeland Security. As part of the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA will be the critical link between the federal government and state and local governments. It will provide grants, conduct training, and be the pipeline for communications up and down the line. Those capabilities and those relationships, which will develop as a part of its homeland security mission, will also enable FEMA to deal even more effectively with natural disasters. Another reason I feel confident that the various components of the Department of Homeland Security will perform their other important missions is us--the Congress. We provide their funds, and through oversight and direction we can ensure that the important needs of the country are met. Question 6: How Much Will This New Department Cost? With any significant proposal before Congress, we face the issue of cost. In this case, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the President's plan for a Department of Homeland Security will cost about $3 billion over five years. Some have misinterpreted this amount as the cost of the reorganization. It is not. In fact, the CBO report states that two-thirds of their $3 billion estimate is for new programs suggested by the President, such as the National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis Center, the new intelligence analysis function, and other newly authorized activities. We may agree with the President's recommendation to create these new programs, but they are for new capabilities, not reorganizing existing ones. According to the CBO estimate, the cost of consolidating agencies and providing centralized leadership, coordination, and support services in the new department is approximately $1 billion over five years. That figure is an estimate based on the cost of administering other, existing departments, such as the Department of Justice. It does not consider any cost savings from things like consolidating overhead and support services. The President proposed a dramatic increase in homeland security spending in his budget for fiscal year 2003. He believes that whatever start-up or transition costs there may be can be accommodated within these new, higher levels of spending. We also have to look at the bigger picture, however. Homeland security should not be used as an excuse to justify new, unnecessary spending. There is no doubt we will be spending significantly more money on real homeland security, as we should. But, we should also do everything we can to make sure that the money is spent wisely and efficiently. That is a primary purpose of the new Department of Homeland Security and should please even the most rigid budget hawk. Question 7: how Big Should the New Department Be? When the President first submitted his proposal for a Department of Homeland Security, some complained that it was not big enough because some essential agencies were not included. Others have argued that it has too many people and too many agencies, that it needs to be ``leaner and meaner.'' What size is just right? The short answer is that the new Department should be whatever size it takes to do the job. Obviously, we cannot put every function related to homeland security in one cabinet department. We have to choose what job we need the Department to do and then give the Department the agencies and tools it needs to do it. If we want the Department to be responsible for border security, as most everyone does, then it must have all of the border security agencies. Border and transportation security will, in fact, be the largest component of the new Department. About 90 percent of the employees of the Department of Homeland Security will be in that section. To significantly reduce the size of the Department, you have to either leave one of the border agencies out or you have to have fewer people on the border. Neither of those options makes us safer. Most agree that the new Department should take the lead on cyber security. If so, it needs to have the entities in the federal government which deal with that issue. We all know that state and local emergency responders are on the front lines of homeland security and that we need to assist them in doing their jobs. The new Department not only can provide grants and training; it can also help ensure good communication among different levels of government and even among various emergency responders. But, it needs to build upon the existing FEMA structure and relationships to ``hit the ground running.'' It is important to remember that this reorganization does not make government bigger. All of the people working for the Border Patrol, Coast Guard, etc., will be federal employees-- with or without this new Department. The issue is not the size of the federal workforce; it is how we can best organize that workforce to protect our Nation. Congressional oversight will be needed to make sure that the bureaucracy inside the new Department is truly ``lean and mean'' and that resources go where they count the most--on the ground at the front lines. It boils down to this: we should look at those areas important to homeland security where the federal effort is fragmented, bring them together under one chain of command, and give them the tools they need to protect the country-- whatever size it takes to do the job. Question 8: Why has the President asked for Management Flexibility in the new Department? The President's request for ``management flexibility'' has been interpreted to mean a number of things and raised many fears, some unnecessarily. Here is where we find ourselves: Terrorists are always probing for weakness. They are seeking out our vulnerabilities. They are watching what we do and adjusting their plans accordingly. We have to be flexible and adaptable in order to be successful. Unfortunately, those characteristics are generally not found in government organizations. If we receive information that leads us to believe that we should acquire a particular vaccine in a hurry, we need to have a Department that can do that, within limits, without waiting on a bill from Congress or on approval of a reprogramming request. Some funding flexibility will be especially important during the transition phase of the new Department. We face even bigger challenges with people. It takes far too long to hire qualified personnel. It is very difficult today to reward a federal employee who does an outstanding job and wants to continue in the same position. It is very difficult today to dismiss a federal employee who does not do a satisfactory job. Most managers simply try to shove them out of the way. To hire people with the background and experience we need to fight cyber attacks, the federal government must compete with industry. The traditional civil service system hinders our ability to do so. New incentives, flexibility in hiring and firing, and greater flexibility in hours and benefits will all help us get and keep the top quality people we need. The new Department needs other kinds of flexibility as well. Creating a new Department in a time of war, merging various cultures and organizations, and significantly increasing the people and resources involved will be a tremendous management challenge. The new Secretary should have some ability to reorganize inside the new Department as developments warrant. He or she should also have greater procurement and contracting authority to help identify, develop, and then field technology as rapidly as possible. The President has been clear that he is not trying to overturn federal employee protections in this bill. He is simply trying to give the new Department every chance to work--and so should we. question 9: If not this, what? Creating a new cabinet department, realigning existing agencies, creating new capabilities to fight terrorism--it seems like a lot in one bill. Understandably, some Members are concerned that it is too much too fast. Well, what are our alternatives? Of course, the easiest option is to leave things as they are. We could reject the President's proposal and assume that the best we can do to keep our Nation secure is keep the current system with dozens of different agencies--each having some homeland security responsibility. Another option is to leave the various agencies in their current departments but look to a White House office to coordinate their activities, using the Drug Czar as a model. There is certainly a place for a White House coordinator to help set govemment-wide policies, in part because a number of agencies involved with homeland security will not be in the new Department. But, as Tom Ridge has learned, a White House coordinator is no substitute for a direct chain of command with day-to-day operational control over--and responsibility for--key functions. A coordinator and 100 people in the White House cannot ensure that communications equipment is compatible, that data bases are interoperable, or that every guard at each border crossing follows the proper procedures. A third option is to move incrementally--combine just two or three agencies, see how that works, and leave the door open to adding a few more down the road. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of time before we act. We need safer borders today, and the governmental entity charged with responsibility for our borders must have all of the pieces of border security under one chain of command. We need to strengthen federal support for emergency responders today, and we need better cyber security today. We cannot wait. We must avoid setting up the new Department to fail. If we assign it the job of border security but do not give it direct control over all of the people and resources at the border, it simply cannot be effective. Going half-way is not fair to the employees in the new agency or to the American people. Just as when we looked at our welfare system a few years ago, no one can credibly argue that the present system is as good as we can do. We must also resist the temptation to tamper around the edges in ways that may score political points but not count for much in dealing with future attacks. We must do what is right. question 10: How Should I Vote on Creating the New Department of Homeland Security? Over the past few days, I have tried to answer some of the key questions and concerns about the new Department of Homeland Security. If there is any additional information I can provide, please let me or my office know. As we discuss and debate all of the details involved in realigning so many government agencies, we should also remember the bigger picture and what is at stake. Our country was suddenly and savagely attacked on September 11. Yet, we all recognize that the horrible tragedy of that day may be only a taste of much greater tragedy to come. I hope not. But I also know that chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons are spreading to more and more nations and groups. I also know that many of those nations and groups are hostile to the United States and have little regard for innocent human life. As the Gilmore Commission has said: ``The tragic attacks of September 11, 2001, the subsequent anthrax attacks, and persistent threats clearly demonstrate the importance of continuing to prepare our nation to counter more effectively the threats of terrorism. These attacks underscore the urgency by which we must act to implement fully a comprehensive national approach to preparedness.'' September 11 must serve as our wake-up call. We must act, and we should not be timid about it. We will all be judged by the adequacy of our response. Unfortunately, it is always easier to attack and criticize than it is to formulate specific proposals and take responsible action. Some of the criticisms of creating the new Department are genuine; others may be excuses to prevent reform. We cannot let turf protection trump real security. Of course, there are uncertainties with any new endeavor. Even with perfect legislation, the management of this new Department will be an enormous challenge. And even if it is managed perfectly, there are no guarantees that future attacks will not be successful. But, we must do everything we can to be ready. This reorganization will help us to be ready and to be safer. But our work will not end there. Everyone of us will have a continuing duty, through our committees and individually, to pursue a host of issues related to homeland security. We are at war. Many lives and our vital freedoms are at stake. Those trying to hurt us are always probing for vulnerabilities and will stop at nothing, using any method of attack they can get their hands on. We have no silver bullets in this war. But it seems to me that we owe the people we represent, those who came before, and those who will come after us our very best efforts to preserve and secure this great country and its people. Creating a Department of Homeland Security will make us safer--not perfectly safe, but safer. Please vote ``yes'' on

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment for two reasons. The first reason is the comments that we have already heard: That there were extensive negotiations with the White House and others about how to best deal with the Customs Service. I understand the gentleman's point that this does not reverse those negotiations, but yet part of those negotiations were that the nontrade part of the Customs Service would be merged into one border security entity. This amendment would change that, so it does upset the negotiations which have gone on. Secondly, part of the key purpose of the border and transportation security of this entity would be to have one seamless team at the border. Now since the Coast Guard is on the water, they are easier to differentiate, and we can have them as a distinct entity, as one of the compromises in this bill does, but it is much more difficult to have a separate entity, different uniforms, for the people who are watching the people come over the border versus the employees who are watching the goods or the objects to make sure that bombs are not coming over the border. In other words, that is a much harder thing to separate. So that 75 percent that used to be the Customs Service is going to be weaved into this one team with the border patrol and with the APHIS inspectors and one border security entity, not separate entities that are on their station at the border, but one entity with the same bosses, the same regulations, the same uniforms, the same databases and the same radios. To the extent that this amendment keeps the Customs Service out separate, it makes it harder to have one team at the border so we can be secure. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment should be rejected.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment for two reasons. Number one, FEMA is central to the success of a Department of Homeland Security because it is the critical link to emergency responders. Secondly, I oppose this amendment because FEMA will be stronger and in a better position to help natural disasters as a part of the Department of Homeland Security rather than out on its own as some independent agency. Now, emergency responders are the central element of homeland security, not just in responding after something happens, but in preventing things from happening. Through this FEMA structure and its 10 regional offices already established across the country, with its relationships it already has with State and local folks, information that comes into the Federal Government can be disseminated quickly to the folks on the ground who need to know it and, therefore, they can help, better help prevent terrorism. And, at the same time, if they have information that they think we need to know in Washington, they have that channel of communication that they can use to come back up the other way. FEMA is going to be the way we provide grants and training and information and planning to emergency responders. That is why it must be in this Department and it is central to our efforts to be successful. But as we prepare to be better equipped to deal with terrorism, we are also better equipped to deal with tornadoes and hurricanes and floods and the things that FEMA has grown to do very well. If we go to the site of a disaster after it happens, it is pretty hard to tell the difference between whether it is a terrorist event or a flood. FEMA can do both well, as it is strengthened with the resources and with the relationships and as that critical channel of communication in the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This amendment will weaken the Department and weaken our security.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time and for her considerable contributions as a member of the select committee, as a member of leadership and as a member of the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. We will have a number of issues to go through, a number of amendments. I hope my colleagues can remember that what we are trying to do is create an integrated Department of Homeland Security to make us safer. This is no place for political agendas. This is no place for conspiracy theories. This is no place to be pointing fingers of blame. This is a place to work on a bipartisan basis to make this country safer. That is the only reason to create this Department and that must be its goal. Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual procedure. It seems to be coming rapidly; but in fact, a lot of work has gone into getting this proposal together, and I want to take just a second to acknowledge some of the people who have made this possible, starting with the bipartisan Hart- Rudman Commission, co-chaired by Senators Hart and Rudman, including our former colleagues Speaker Gingrich and Lee Hamilton, who took 3 years to look over the next 25 years at the security threats we face and said number one is homeland security and what we ought to do is create a new Department of Homeland Security. We are doing that. Secondly, I want to thank my staff who has spent many, many hours on this, particularly Kim Kotlar, who has spent probably more hours working on this issue than any other person inside or outside Congress. I also want to thank the sponsors of the proposal, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), and the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), who worked on a nonpartisan basis and a bicameral basis, along with Senator Lieberman and his colleagues, to get this proposal here; and it is an example of where we have come together, many of us in the Congress, to make us safer. Other colleagues have worked on this: the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), and of course, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) in a variety of capacities has been invaluable. I think we all ought to thank the Select Committee on Homeland Security under the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Armey) leadership for the work that they have done; but, Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the President of the United States because he could have tinkered around the edges and just offered a few token changes, but he took on a tough job. He said we want to do this right and that is leadership. That is the kind of leadership we expect from a President, and it is the kind of leadership we are going to have from this House over the next 2 days if we are going to develop this Department with the tools it needs to keep us safer. I think we can do it, but I think it is going to be a challenge, and I hope that as a body we are up to it. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. A number of amendments will be made in order as the Speaker promised. As we go through them one-by-one, it will be important for us to remember that we must have a coherent, integrated department that works. I urge our colleagues to keep the bigger objectives foremost in our minds and considerations. At the beginning of the debate on this bill, however, I think that it is important for me to acknowledge some of the people who brought us to this day--who, in addition to the Rules Committee, have helped prepare this proposal before us. My colleagues have been very generous about me introducing a bill to create a Department of Homeland Security in March 2001. But, of course, I simply borrowed the idea from the Commission on National Security/ 21st Century, more commonly known as the Hart-Rudman Commission. Under the leadership of its chairmen, Senators Hart and Rudman, and with the diligent work of an outstanding group of preeminent Americans as commissioners, including our former colleagues Lee Hamilton and Speaker Gingrich, who initially created the Commission, this Commission took three years to study American's national security challenges of the next 25 years. Aided by a first-rate staff that was directed by General Chuck Boyd, they concluded that our most important challenge has homeland security and unanimously recommended that Congress create a new department out of the dozens of existing agencies with some homeland security mission. It was their vision, courage, and persistence in pushing the idea which earns them the first accolades. Going somewhat in chronological order, I want to thank my staff and especially Kim Kotlar. I suspect they thought that I was ``tilting at windmills'' when I told them a year and a half ago that I wanted to introduce a bill to create a new Department of Homeland Security. But, they swallowed their doubts and in the subsequent months have put many hours into brining that idea to reality. Ms. Kotlar, a retired Naval intelligence officer, has probably done more work on this proposal than any other person. This Congress and our entire Nation join me in owing her an enormous debt of gratitude. Next, I want to thank the primary sponsors of the proposal in the House, Ms. Harman, Ms. Tauscher and Mr. Gibbons. My already considerable respect for each of them has only grown during the past several months that we have worked together on this measure. I am especially grateful to my two colleagues from California that during all of the hours they refused to succumb to the temptations of partisanship. This has truly been a non-partisan cause. They have kept true to that higher calling of serving our Nation. And to them and to all of the cosponsors of H.R. 1185 and H.R. 4660, I am grateful. I must point out that a number of our other colleagues have worked on organizational reform to fight the war on terror and have made invaluable contributions to this effort, among them are Mr. Shays, Mr. Watts, and Mr. Chambliss. And, of course, this effort has not only been non-partisan, it has been bicameral. I want to acknowledge and thank Senator Lieberman, who has also worked on this idea for months, and his colleagues, Senators Specter and Graham. We should all thank and commend the Speaker for recognizing the daunting challenge before us and establishing the unique procedures to consider this bill. We should also thank Leader Gephardt for helping give us the sense of urgency with which we must act. The Select Committee, under Leader Armey's direction, has done an outstanding job, improving the President's proposal and my original proposal in a number of important ways. I want to especially thank Mr. Armey and Mr. Portman for their outstanding efforts to do this right and to do it fairly with a chance for all to have input. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and commend the President of the United States and Governor Tom Ridge. They recognized the problems we face with dozens of different agencies having homeland security responsibility. They did not try to tinker around the edges or take a poll to see what was politically possible to do. Their approach was to try to do it right--that's leadership. And now it is up to the House to follow the President's example of leadership. I trust that we will not be found wanting.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished subcommittee chairman yielding me time. He truly is the leader in Congress in our relationship with Russia and I believe that here, working with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who is one of the most knowledgeable Members in Congress on these nuclear and strategic issues, they have come up with a very good product. As the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) mentioned, this includes an ambitious list of items to be on the agenda between the United States and Russia, including joint and reciprocal programs that deal with everything from nonproliferation all the way to disposal of waste. It is something that gives all of our contacts with Russia an agenda to go by and to encourage them to remove more of the distrust that still remains after years of Cold War and to work together in ways that are to our mutual benefit, but also to the benefit of the world. So as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) mentioned, this amendment recognizes the need for a credible deterrent in the post-Cold War world, removing some restrictions that have made it uncomfortable for some of the folks in our laboratories to even be thinking about the kind of things we need for the future. So I want to commend both leaders on this issue. I think this is an important step that gives us a lot to work with in the future, and I hope Members will support it.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I have always found it rather odd that some of our most difficult battles in the area of national security are preventing our own people by limiting our options and tying our hands behind our back. There are some military capabilities that we may decide are not worth the time to pursue, and there are some capabilities that in the priority of things we may want to leave behind. But I find it very troubling that some people do not even want us to explore options which could be critical for our future national security. Frankly, I am skeptical that any Member of this body can know for certain all of the circumstances that any President in the future will face in a world full of chemical and biological and radiological and nuclear weapons, and we want to say we are not even going to consider those options to deal with all of those things. I think that would be a mistake. To have a credible deterrent, that means political adversaries, and even friends have to believe in that deterrent. If we say up front, if you burrow down in the ground we cannot touch you because our conventional capabilities have obvious limitations, and so if we say we are not even going to consider going after buried targets in any other way, then we are simply saying, ``Go to it. We'll leave you alone.'' We are encouraging people to bury their communication, their factories, their silos, and we will not be able to do anything about it. Mr. Chairman, we know Russia has buried targets deep. We have seen what al Qaeda has done in Afghanistan. We know Iraq is burying things. So to take an option off the table, to say we are not even going to explore it, that we are going to tie our own hands behind our backs, even in a world with all of these difficult, complex situations I think would be a tragic mistake. We should reject the amendment.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time and for his years of service and leadership to our country in national security. Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate the work of all Members on the Department of Energy Panel and, particularly, the partnership of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher). For 57 years nuclear weapons have played a central role in maintaining our freedom and in preventing the kind of world wars which plagued the early part of the 20th century. There can be no doubt that nuclear weapons will continue to be central to our security as long as any of us are around. Nuclear weapons exist. We cannot uninvent them. We cannot wipe them off the memory banks of human knowledge, and we should not try to stick our heads in the sand and wish them away. The facts, Mr. Chairman, are that 12 countries now have nuclear weapon programs, 13 countries have biological weapons programs, 16 countries have chemical weapons programs, according to the administration, and that does not count other groups, like al Qaeda, who are trying to acquire them. The United States does not have chemical and biological, so we must have a strong nuclear deterrent to deter use of those weapons of mass destruction, and our deterrent must be credible against a broader array of threats. Not only must we consider the Russian weapons, but we must consider various other kinds of weapons and threats and our deterrent must be credible, even against rogue states, even against terrorists, even against underground targets. They must even be credible to the kind of people we face in this war against terrorism whose aim is to kill as many Americans as possible. Now, as our nuclear weapons are aging beyond their intended design life, it is going to be a very difficult job to keep them safe and reliable and credible, to keep the people, the infrastructure, the scientific knowledge we have to have to make sure that that deterrent is credible and does work. This bill takes important steps in that direction and it ought to be supported.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I think it may be appropriate at this stage to say a few words about the context in which we are considering this defense authorization bill this year, for it is truly different than the context, the environment, the international situation in which we have considered it in previous years. The United States is currently engaged in a war. We have troops in the field. And for probably the first time in our history, every American community is a potential target for our enemy. And I think it is important that as the urgency we all felt from September 11 begins to fade away and we have a drift, perhaps, back towards complacency, that we remember that our enemy in this situation is very dangerous, indeed. Their aim is to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. Mr. Speaker, the President gave an important speech I believe at the Citadel last December when he said, ``The great threat to civilization is that a few evil men will multiply their murder and gaining the means to kill on a scale equal to their hatred.'' Mr. Speaker, I think that has profound implications for us. We have faced evil in the world before. We have faced an evil system with the means to destroy us before during the Cold War. But never before have we faced a situation where a few evil men could gain the means to kill on a scale equal to their hatred. And I think that as a backdrop to everything that we are considering, whether it is pay and benefits, whether it is certain particular weapons systems we ought to buy, whether it is a defense policy regarding some issues or other issue or other, we ought to keep this context in mind and the dangers that we face. In addition to the war on terrorism, we have very serious tension in the Middle East. We have continuing tension between India and Pakistan, two nuclear powers. We continue to have difficulties and issues with North Korea. Of course, China and Russia are of concern. And that is the international situation in which we find ourselves. This bill, I believe, will help make us stronger. It takes some important steps towards defining the Department of Defense's role in protecting our homeland security. It takes some important steps towards transforming our military so that we are ready to face the challenges of the future, not refight the wars of the past. Things like joint training and experimentation are talked about here. But, Mr. Speaker, I think more important than any of these particulars is the necessity for this House to take this with all the seriousness which the international situation demands.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a member of the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, the other side has said repeatedly in committee and on the floor that they support the President and his efforts to prosecute the war and to defend the homeland. But the fact is, without the specific budget alterative to compare, we do not know what trade-offs they would make. We do not know how they would achieve it. So what we are left with some verbal assurances without any numbers to back them up. Mr. Chairman, I think we all understand the political frustration which bubbles up to the fore, particularly when you are facing a very popular President prosecuting a war which touches every American and has the support of the American people. But I would suggest that that frustration is no excuse to fall back on the old tactics of trying to scare people on Social Security. It is no excuse to fail to put forth a budget and only try to take pot shots at the President and this committee's budget. I would suggest that this is a good budget. It supports the President 100 percent in his efforts to prosecute the war and defend the homeland. And it does it with more than just verbal assurances. It puts hard dollars, hard numbers behind those promises. I think we can all safely support it, and I suggest that Members vote for the budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget, who has also been a leader on the issue of concurrent receipt.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, every year during the debate on the budget, someone says it is about more than just numbers, it is about priorities. Certainly since September 11, the priorities of the country have changed. National security is not just something that happens in a military base or in some far-off country. It touches every household, every workplace, every school and hospital in the country. National security is the first priority of the country, and it is the first priority of this budget. The first paragraph of the President's budget submission says that the war against terrorism is a war unlike any other in American history. We did not choose this war, but we will not shrink from it; and we will mobilize all the necessary resources of our society to fight and to win. That is what this budget does. It mobilizes the resources necessary to fight and win the war against terrorism. The budget provides $46 billion, or a 13 percent increase, in defense. Some people think that is too much. Other people do not think it is enough. The committee decided to go with what the President recommended, giving him all of the resources he has asked for to fight this war. We also support the President in focusing on the troops with a 4.1 percent pay hike for the troops as well as an additional 2 percent for some specially targeted mid-career personnel. This budget will help give the troops the tools they need to do their job, with $69 billion in procurement and $54 billion for research and development. It includes the largest operating and maintenance budget ever at $140 billion; but it also keeps faith with those people who have already served our country, fully funding for the first time in a number of years military health care, expanding concurrent receipt for those who are most severely disabled, and also significantly increasing VA health care by about 12 percent. In addition to those categories, Mr. Chairman, the budget follows the President's lead in nearly doubling the spending for homeland security. There are some important initiatives here, such as significantly increasing the money for border security. So for the INS, Customs, Coast Guard, which may all be put together soon, there are significant increases in their funding. It improves funding to prepare for bioterrorism with money for hospitals, research for vaccines, strengthening our ability to detect attacks. Most significantly, it has a new program to assist the local policemen, local firefighters and emergency responders with $3.5 billion administered by FEMA so that those local first responders can have money to train, equip and get the things that they need to do. Mr. Chairman, it is fair to disagree about the spending on any particular program, but the overriding fact of this budget and the overriding fact of our time is that this country is at war against terrorism. It is a different kind of war. Sometimes we will be in a fierce military battle such as we have seen in recent days in Afghanistan. At other times there will be lull in the military operations. Sometimes the memory of the attacks against innocent Americans are going to be fresh in our minds. At other times those memories will seem to fade, and we face the danger of drifting back into business as usual. But the truth is it is not going to be business as usual again for a very long time. We are at war. This budget supports the President in fighting and winning that war, it supports the soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, it supports the people guarding our borders and the other people trying to protect our public health, it supports local policemen and firefighters; and I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, it deserves our support as well. This is the time to put our money where our mouth is. It is not the time for vague statements and assurances. We put our money where our mouth is with our votes. I suggest we vote for this resolution.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, who has been a leader on the issue of concurrent receipt. (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), a member of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the ordering of the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2175, to the end that the Chair put the question on the motion de novo.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chairman, like other Members, I rise in appreciation and admiration for the leadership shown by our chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) in moving this bill, particularly at this difficult time. I also appreciate the participation of all the members in the special panel dealing with the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons program. At this time, as it has been for the past few years, security of our nuclear weapons and the complex which produces them has been a very high matter of concern. I can report to the House that General Gordon, who is the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, has done a good job, in my view, in making sure that our nuclear weapons facilities are secure, and particularly in this difficult time. Along with the very distinguished ranking member of the panel, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), we have worked side by side over the past year in overseeing the reorganization which Congress passed a few years ago. Included in this bill are some minor adjustments to the reorganization which I think are good and prudent and requested by General Gordon. But the bigger bill also provides more funding for our nuclear weapons projects, including some set-aside money for our facilities, which have been very badly underfunded in recent years, and I think helps give the necessary emphasis on these critical elements of our defense posture now, just as much as 2 weeks ago. Madam Chairman, in the broader sense, I believe this bill takes important steps forward in making sure that we are prepared for the challenges of the future. One thing that the events of last week reminds us is that the United States can be attacked by more actors using more different methods than ever before, so we have to have a military that is more flexible and more adaptable. This committee has been pushing to make sure that we have expanded capabilities that can deal with this greater variety of threats. Among the things that are included in this bill are a suggestion that the Secretary of Defense establish a transformation office within his office, to have an advocate in the highest reaches of the Pentagon to make sure that we are preparing for the wars and challenges of the future, not refighting the wars of the past. Included in this bill are important provisions dealing with space, because while a lot of our focus now is on these particular acts of terrorism, this country can also be subject to economic terrorism, if for example satellites were disabled, and it would also of course cripple our military. Having control of space and giving space the proper attention it needs is a critical thing. We support the Army's efforts to transform itself to have smaller units that are more mobile and more lethal, and obviously the events of recent days point out the importance of that. This bill also moves ahead with the conversion of the Trident Submarines into SSGNs. It is an important step that gives us additional capability. So this bill helps move us forward and will make us better prepared to deal with the challenges ahead.