John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, during our committee hearings we also heard a lot of talk about the fact, whether or not this oil could be processed, that refineries were running at capacity and whatever. What we found out is that that was just more rhetoric, also. The refineries generally run at 95 percent, 96 percent, during the months just past. Then there is a retooling period, and in our favor, just at the end of this month, that will be over and they would be down to a capacity of 90 or 91 percent, which they can then kick back up to 95, 96 percent, to get out this home heating oil. That is a circumstance working in our favor. In fact, people within the industry are welcoming this. The Department of Energy has been talking with people within the industry. Oddly enough, they also understand that there is a situation out there that needs to be addressed and they are cooperating. So that is another reason to take it out of the political realm and leave it in the realm of people's security, safety, and health. Hopefully we will have that sort of discussion, and not the sort of rhetoric that has been going around.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), for yielding; and I come here just to add to some of the gentleman's comments when the gentleman was discussing the fact that this is, in fact, very bipartisan. I understand all the rhetoric during the campaign trails, and I understand that two people that are largely involved with the oil industry are trying to make this a political situation; but that, in fact, is not the case. I was one of those 114-plus Members that signed a letter to the President asking him to do a number of things that would improve the energy situation. I joined a number of my colleagues from the mid-Atlantic States, as well as from my home State of Massachusetts and New England in talking with the President and the Department of Energy as far back as last winter when these problems originated. We have consistently asked the President to take the kind of preemptive moves that we thought were necessary setting up a reserve for the Northeastern area, releasing fuel from the SPR, from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to cover that difference. Trying to make this into a case where people think that that release was to cover all of our needs is way off base. The fact of the matter is there is a gap between what is produced and what is consumed, and it is only that gap that we are trying to affect. We asked the OPEC countries to produce more oil, and they are trying to do that. We have asked the non-OPEC foreign producers to produce more oil, and they tell us they are trying to produce it. We now need to go to the domestic producers who have not been producing more. In fact, in a hearing with the Committee on Government Reform, at which I was present, one of the officials from the Exxon-Mobil company was questioned; and the answer was they, in fact, made 272 percent more profits in the second quarter of 2000 than in the second quarter of 1999, while simultaneously reducing their production budget by some 30 percent. Most of the domestic oil producers, the large companies, have, in fact, been making enormous profits in comparison to the previous year and have been cutting back. The President did a responsible thing that Democrats and Republicans have asked him to do. There were any number of Republicans from the mid-Atlantic States and the Northeastern States that joined in that letter to the President asking him to do something with the funds, asking him to set up a New England reserve and asking him to release some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Our colleagues on the Republican side from New York, one of them is running for the Senate, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), our colleagues from Maryland, our Republican colleagues from Connecticut, and so on, one of our colleagues from Maine is a Republican. The fact of the matter is, this is geographic in nature of where the hurt is going to be felt, and it is nonpartisan in terms of people trying to help their constituencies and getting the President to do the right thing. We should not politicize this. We should understand that we have to ask every oil producer, whether they are domestic or foreign in nature, to step up to the plate and produce some more oil. They can do that, and it is about time that they step forward and do that, but also understand that the Republican party has a responsibility here. It is that party that has been prohibiting the President from having the flexibility he needs because they have not reauthorized the strategic reserve clauses of the act that need to be dealt with. There is no excuse for that. They have let it lapse most recently in March, right in the middle of this oil situation, and that is just not responsible. They have still yet to put the authorization language in for the Northeast reserve. We have made the appropriations on that. A responsible government would make sure that we have the authority in the President to release the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as and when needed in small amounts. That would be far more responsible than what was done by the Republican majority in 1996 and 1997. At that point in time they did not swap what was in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, they sold it, about $227 million dollars in 1996 for the sense of bringing down part of the deficit, and about $227 million in 1997 to pay for some other appropriations that they wanted to pay for. They sold it, they did not swap it. In fact, last year when we on the Democratic side wanted to have the President get authority to buy 10 million more barrels, that was shot down by our friends on the Republican side. So we could have been increasing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at an interim at a low price when it was down to $10 or $12 a barrel, and that was rejected. This is the same group that on occasion has voted to get rid of the Department of Energy, and along with it any Strategic Petroleum Reserve at all, and now for political reasons they are saying, gee, it is a national security issue that we are going to swap some. Unlike them, the President was not going to sell it, he was going to swap it. As a consequence of that, we are actually going to get 1\1/2\ million more barrels back a year from now than it was actually swapped out in the interim period, so we are going to have an increase in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that our friends on the other side of the aisle wanted to eliminate altogether. So if they really want to talk about security, let us do the sensible thing here and support the President's action. Let us make sure people in the mid-Atlantic States and Northeast and elsewhere that might be really jeopardized by the severe cold winter, make sure that the supply is there, make sure we are doing everything we can do; and most notably, for those that have low incomes, make sure the LIHEAP monies get out to people, just as the President has done, so they can fill their tanks while it is lower and make sure they have the best possible opportunity to weather this winter. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, for taking the time and giving me the time to address this sure. The record must be set straight: This is not about politics, this is about people's health and safety, as well as our Nation's security.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield before he runs out of his time, when I hear people start to politicize this and say that it is a national security issue to swap oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, one thing we have to remind people is that it is a swap, and the oil will come back with additional oil. Secondly, the very people who are making that acquisition now are the people who in 1995 filed a bill that was known as H.R. 1649, the Department of Energy Abolishment Act. As part of that act, it would ask to eliminate the reserve totally and sell off 571 million barrels of oil. Now, there are 35 people on the other side of the aisle that signed onto that, including three of the very highest members of their leadership, who are the same people now who have the audacity to go on the floor or elsewhere and start to say that a swap is somehow affecting national security. So not only is it totally wrong and it is not affecting national security in any adverse way, and it is what our allies and what other foreign countries think is a good thing to do, as well as business and others, but it is absolutely contradictory to their past behavior and their past comments. I think the public can pretty much get in line as to whether people are acting as statesmen or politicians when they make assertions like that. I am going to let it go at that message and defer back to you, but I think it is important for people to know that this was a good move. People in the Northeast and New England, and Massachusetts in particular, are very pleased that the LIHEAP money has gotten relieved. Our people and low-income seniors will have that relief. We are pleased there is a Northeast reserve being set up so the gap can be addressed, and hopefully keep the supply up and the prices somewhere within the stratosphere. We are very pleased that the President indicated he was going to release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and already we have seen the prices drop on that, except for a slight rebound when Members on the other side of the aisle indicated they would try to block it. The psychological effect, already a month before it hits the market, has shown it is bringing prices down. That is going to help our seniors, people in our districts generally, and our small businesses, who cannot stand the kind of high prices that are going on and still be productive and get their business done in a way to support their families. Again, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to address this on the floor. I think it is important to get this information out.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues who have yet to do so to join almost 80 of my colleagues and myself in sending a bipartisan letter to the appropriators. That letter would support the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program. As my colleagues have probably seen, news accounts have highlighted funding shortfalls in the National Health Service Corps. The Corps recruits health care professionals to work in medically underserved communities. Regardless of one's particular disposition concerning how to improve health care, it is widely accepted that this important program provides underserved Americans with vital health care. We should not allow the current disagreement on health care matters to prevent us from properly funding this program and ensuring that not only the current participants can continue to provide this care but that we can attract enough clinicians to meet all the needs of these communities. The $49 million required to cover existing shortfalls is a fair price to pay to help our doctors and nurses help our neediest constituents. Let us take this opportunity to address this urgent need. If my colleagues have not already done so, I urge them to join us in this important effort.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for yielding time to me, and I want to say that today this is supposedly an effort on the part of the United States to comply with the ruling by the WTO in an effort to expedite this action is actually an effort that purports to repeal the corporate tax subsidy called the Foreign Sales Corporation. Unfortunately, what happens when we turn around we are going to actually increase this subsidy. There has been little dispute and far- ranging agreement that existing FSCs have long been a tax windfall to companies like Boeing, General Motors, Big Tobacco, many in the pharmaceutical industry and other corporate giants. As they export, those companies need only set up offshore paper companies and subsidiaries, and they receive the benefit. And that has been a pretty substantial benefit, the single loophole that cost taxpayers more than $10 billion, with $8 billion of that flowing to the very largest corporations all for simply funneling it through an offshore office. Adding insult to injury, the publication Inside U.S. Trade recently reported that supporters of this bill have admitted that companies could qualify for the tax preference now even if little or no physical production actually occurs outside the United States. For example, a bluejean company could relocate its operations and American jobs abroad, produce an entirely foreign-manufactured product and still receive this subsidy financed by American taxes simply by slapping its American brand name on the tag. Since this tax break was originally written with the expressed purpose of keeping jobs here in the United States, such an expansion of the provision would appear to be the product of corporation pandering at its very worst. Congress is proposing to expand it by another $1.5 billion over the next 5 years, on top of the $15.6 billion the loophole has already cost taxpayers. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my colleague, pointed out, this bill amounts to a $100 million subsidy to the tobacco industry to market their products to children around the world, a practice that they are rightfully forbidden from doing here in the United States. And as the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), my colleague, argues correctly, this bill actually subsidizes pharmaceutical companies to charge less for prescription drugs. With all due respect, this is not an argument about us against them, it is an argument about the workers in this country and setting things straight and not pandering to corporate interests.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, in recent years the passage of the Workforce Investment Act and the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act have meant a great deal to individuals with disabilities who are working to gain greater social and economic independence. In Massachusetts the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission, Mr. Elmer C. Bartels, has carried this message across the Commonwealth. In order to bring his message of employment opportunity for people with disabilities to our national constituency, I submit his editorial, which was printed in the June 4, 2000 edition of the Cape Cod Times, for insertion into the Congressional Record. Employers With Labor Shortages Should Look to Vocational Rehabilitation (By Elmer C. Bartels) It is a fact that today more individuals with disabilities are in the workplace earning real wages than ever before. Certainly the booming economy has a lot to do with it, but there is much more to the story than just that. The unsung hero in the struggle to enhance employment opportunities for people with disabilities is the Federal/ State Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program, authorized and funded under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For nearly 80 years, and against great odds and prejudices, the State Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program has helped people with disabilities prepare to enter the workplace. Every state has a vocational rehabilitation agency whose sole purpose is to assist people with disabilities obtain the skills, training and confidence necessary to enable them to take their rightful place in the economy. However, until the passage of Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in 1975 and later the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, opportunities in the workplace were limited and often resulted in placement in sheltered workshops. mainstream opportunities However, with advances in technology and the shortage of qualified workers, new mainstream work opportunities are becoming more available for persons with disabilities. When the Work Incentives Improvement Act (WIIA) was signed into law on Dec. 17, another impediment was removed in addressing the nation's efforts to encourage people with severe disabilities to go to work. Nationally, there are, according to the General Accounting Office, about 2.5 million people with disabilities receiving Social Security benefits under both Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) who could possibly benefit from WIIA. (This population represents about 27 percent of the total number of individuals who are eligible to access the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program.) WIIA's assurance of the continued availability of health insurance, under both Medicaid and Medicare, for SSI and SSDI recipients, will remove a formidable barrier to their employment. Public vocational rehabilitation counselors assess the skills and interests of people with disabilities, help them develop individualized plans for employment, and purchase or arrange for the services or training they need to become qualified for jobs. 225,000 people helped This program can provide any reasonable and necessary services to help individuals with disabilities get ready for real work. Last year, the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program helped 225,000 people with disabilities across America enter the work force. In Massachusetts, the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program, through the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission, helped 4,800 individuals with disabilities go to work in 1999. Federal funding for vocational rehabilitation was $2.4 billion in 1999. The states matched those federal funds with $600 million of their own, resulting in a $3 billion national Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program. The distribution formula of federal funds to the states is based upon the population and per capita income of each state. The $3 billion spent nationally on vocational rehabilitation services produces $2.6 billion in employee earnings and $850 million in state and federal revenues during a single year of employment alone. This is an incredible return-on-investment in light of the fact that those earnings continue for years without the expenditure of additional vocational rehabilitation dollars. a 5-to-1 return on the dollar The Social Security Administration reports that each dollar spent for the vocational rehabilitation of SSA recipients results in $5 in savings to the Trust Fund and treasury. The 225,000 individuals with disabilities employed last year will continue to earn real wages and pay state and federal taxes far in excess of the investment made in their employment future by the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program. Despite the extraordinary success of the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program, half of the states restrict the number of people with disabilities served due to a lack of funds. It is estimated that an additional $600 million in federal monies, plus the state match of $120 million, would eliminate waiting lists in every state and help another 54,000 people with disabilities go to work. Additional public vocational rehabilitation services and the guarantee of medical coverage under the WIIA would significantly reduce the unacceptably high rate of unemployment among people with disabilities. According to statistics compiled by the GAO, it is estimated that between 15 million and 20 million Americans have health-related work limitations. Each year the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program serves 1.2 million people with disabilities who want to work. High unemployment rate A recent Harris survey indicates that 71 percent of working-age Americans with disabilities are unemployed and of that number, 72 percent want to work. However, 42 percent of working-age Americans with disabilities believe that they are too disabled to work. The highly qualified, professional vocational rehabilitation counselors of the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program work with individuals with significant disabilities to help them recognize that it is possible for even the most significantly disabled individuals to increase their economic and personal independence through work. The passage of WIIA and the guarantee of continued health insurance coverage for Social Security recipients makes work a realistic goal for many more people with significant disabilities. A recently completed seven-year study by the Research Triangle Institute, confirmed once again the success of the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program by showing that it is highly effective in placing people with disabilities into productive jobs. No other federal or state program has received this type of scrutiny and measured up to such a high level of successful outcomes. Independent lives It proved once again that the federal/state effort to improve the lives of persons with disabilities by allowing them to live independent and productive lives is on the right track. In particular, the study shows that: Graduates of Public VR worked an average of 35 hours per week and earned an average of $7.35 per hour; 37.5 percent of the graduates earned more than $7 per hour; 78.4 percent of graduates work in professional, managerial, technical, clerical, sales or service jobs; 85 percent of graduates were working in the same or other job one year after graduation; 67.6 percent of graduates were satisfied or very satisfied with their jobs; 67.1 percent of graduates were satisfied or very satisfied the opportunity for advancement with their jobs; 61.5 percent of graduates were satisfied with fringe benefits with their jobs. The number of hours worked by consumers, the wages they earned, and their satisfaction with jobs and working conditions are all strong endorsements of the efficacy of the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program. Clearly, the Rehabilitation Act, and the ADA have helped to create a societal expectation that people with disabilities can and should have the opportunity to work. Now, WIIA provides for the health care supports essential to individuals with disabilities who want to work. Adequate funding of the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program will help thousands more people with disabilities obtain good jobs. The administration and Congress will demonstrate fiscal responsibility and a wise investment in the human resources of our national by adequately funding Public Vocational Rehabilitation in the federal year 2001. The American economy needs workers, people with disabilities need work opportunities, and the federal treasury needs more taxpayers. The Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program pays for itself many times over in taxes and human potential realized.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in commemoration of the 26th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. As a member of the Congressional Hellenic Caucus, I look forward to a day when peace comes to the region and we no longer have to come to the floor each year and remind the world that this occupation continues. 26 years ago, nearly 200,000 Greek Cypriots were forced from their homes during the Turkish invasion. This act of aggression resulted in the capture of over forty percent of the island, and the death of five Americans among scores of Cypriots. Since that time, more than 1,400 Greek Cypriots have gone missing and are unaccounted for. The invasion took a toll not only on the people of Cyprus, but also on the island's rich religious and architectural history as churches and other places of worship have been destroyed. ver the years, Turkey has continuously upgraded its military presence on the island. In contrast, Greek Cypriots have been willing to compromise. The international community has also sought a decrease in tension. As we watch the ongoing talks between the Israelis and Palestinians at Camp David, we are reminded that peace is possible--indeed it is the only option. Since the time of the invasion, the United Nations has sought to reach a just peace agreement for Cyprus. I am pleased that the recent round of talks in Geneva have been encouraging. I look forward to July 2001 when, I hope, we will be celebrating the peace in Cyprus, and remembering the futility of aggression.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. In fact, I quoted from it in my report; and it also talks about the need to make sure that our regulatory system is, in fact, adequate to give confidence to these foods that are coming out and to make sure that the public has confidence. All this does is say that the National Academy of Sciences would help us by reviewing what would lift that level of confidence, what types of studies would be adequate, who should do the studies and how should they be conducted and what type of regulatory system should we have, because whether we like it or not there is a large part of our population out there and a great part of our market who do not have confidence in the current regulatory scheme. It either needs to be reaffirmed, or it needs to have some proposal out there that will allow everybody, not just the scientists, not just us and everybody else, but to have confidence in the system.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, just on that point of order. I recognize and appreciate the point of order that is made and just say this was not about scare tactics, this was just the opposite about that; that is, trying to alleviate the concern that is out there and provide a mechanism by which that could be done so that everybody could have confidence in the process and eventually confidence that we all hope will be something that we can all benefit from.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks a National Academy of Sciences study to examine three things: if the tests being performed on genetically engineered foods to ensure their safety is adequate and relevant; what type of monitoring system is needed to assess future health consequences from genetically engineered foods; and what type of regulatory structure should be in place to approve GE foods for human consumption. The reason for this amendment is simple. The growing public awareness of genetically engineered food has led to questions about their long- term health and safety. We have seen in Europe an example of what happens when the public loses confidence in the safety of food products. In Great Britain there has been a massive backlash which has effectively eliminated the use of GE ingredients in foods sold in grocery stores and restaurants there. There are significant differences, of course, between the situations in the United States and Great Britain. Due to past outbreaks of food- borne illnesses, consumers there lack faith in the regulatory abilities of their government when it comes to food safety. In the United States, we have maintained public confidence in our food regulatory system because we have been able to avoid and prevent such disasters from occurring. However, GE ingredients can be found in many of the foods that we commonly eat, including potato chips, oils, corn, soda and baby food. The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 70 percent of the grocery store food may have been made with biotechnology crops. We cannot afford to coast on the past success of our regulatory system. We need to feel confident about the safety of GE products. The current system of testing GE products for their health and safety is overseen by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA does not conduct its own testing of GE products. Instead, the FDA provides guidelines and then relies heavily on the companies that produce GE products to test their safety. Until last month, that was a voluntary compliance where the company shared the results with the Food and Drug Administration. Under new rules proposed in May by the administration, companies will now have to give 120 days notice to the FDA before introducing a new GE product into the market. Even with these new rules, it remains the responsibility of the companies that create the market for those products to be tested for safety. To make a compelling argument for the safety of GE foods, we need to be sure that the tests required of new products are adequate and appropriate. To assure the public that these foods are safe to eat, this is the least that we should be doing. In addition to ensuring that our testing methods are adequate, we need to ensure that our regulatory system is also adequate. The current system is based on the 1986 coordinated framework for the regulation of biotechnology under which the United States Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration share oversight of GE products. The National Academy of Sciences in a recently released report on genetically modified pest-protected plants said simply, a solid regulatory system and scientific base are important for acceptance and safe adoption of agricultural biotechnology, as well as for protecting the environment and the public health. We need to ensure that the current framework is still the best regulatory system to ensure the safety of GE products. Mr. Chairman, we are already seeing the effects of a lack of confidence in GE foods in the United States. Gerber and Heinz have announced that they will not be using GE products in their baby foods. McDonald's has even requested that suppliers not use GE potatoes, and Frito-Lay will not be using GE ingredients in its corn chips. This reasonable amendment seeks nothing more, Mr. Chairman, than a study to ensure that we are properly examining GE products, in terms of testing and in terms of regulatory oversight. We do that in order that we can adequately address the concerns of the public and the concerns of the food producers about these genetically engineered foods.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the point that this is not overregulation. This is simply asking the National Academy of Sciences to determine what the best process would be. I do not think there is any doubt that there is a lot of skepticism out there in the American public and that we need confidence in these GE foods if we are really going to have them, have all the advantages that the gentleman speaks to.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIERNEY. What this does is to say that the Academy of Sciences would do a study. This is for a study for three things, whether or not the tests are being performed.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her kind remarks and for her interest, as well as the committee's interest, in this matter, the subcommittee also. I think the problem I am trying to get at here is that there are a large number of people, and some producers and end users, who are not sure that the method by which we are testing right now, allowing the companies to test and having that then reviewed by the governmental agencies, is enough to give them a level of confidence. I think if NAS did a study to determine that that, in fact, was the best way to proceed, it might lift the level of confidence. If it decided that it was not the best way to proceed and set up a different type of regulatory structure, decided what was going to be the monitoring system that was used to assess the health ramifications, people would have a higher comfort level on that. I note that what the report really said about it was that there was a priority that should be given to the development of improved methods for identifying potential allergens and pest-protected plants, specifically the development of tests with human immune systems end points and of more reliable animal models. So the NAS really does think that there has to be some improvement of the methods. I think this kind of review would be healthy. I think this particular motion does not take it as a friend or an enemy of the system, but says, look, let this group that I think most people will trust come in and determine what we should do on a regulatory matter, either confirm what is going on or where they have raised questions, go after it and set up a structure that people have confidence in.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. It gets awfully tiresome on this side of the aisle to listen to the fact that we may have constraints in the budget when, in fact, the architects of the budgets are the ones who have tied themselves in knots and now are leaving us without the proper amount of money to fund both the quality of our teachers as well as the size of our classrooms. I was one of the people who worked in a bipartisan manner with the chairman on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and understand full well that the best, the optimum situation is to have a qualified teacher teaching a class of proper proportion so that the job gets done. By underfunding both aspects of that, we are not getting it done. Making it conditional on the passage of the Teacher Empowerment Act, particularly in light of the Senate's action leaving out part of that equation, is the wrong way to do. We need to make sure we can fund both the teacher quality aspects of this and the size aspect of it. There are 533 new teachers in Massachusetts because of the classroom size initiative that the President put in place with the help of this Congress. To jeopardize that is unfair to those children and those parents as well as the teachers and the principals and superintendents. That is the direction to go. Fund this. Stop giving us this stuff about how we are constrained by the budget when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are, in fact, the architects of a bad piece of work.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman for his comments, and I thank the gentleman for all time that we spent discussing this and expressing his views. The concern I have, obviously, is the fact that we seem once again when it comes to a military procurement to be spending the money to start building something before all of the appropriate testing is done and before we know that we are realistically going to be able to perform the act. I think too often we have had insufficient and unrealistic testing, and as the GAO has said, along with overstated performance claims and understated cost reports. And I think this procurement since it is not anticipated as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) said to be really spent this fiscal year or at least not until the very end of it, why not take this opportunity to not start down this path where we are putting the cart before the horse, put the money where it is really needed in the TRICARE, where we know that is an expense we are going to have, and allow the research and development to get us to that point, if it ever does, where we can say that now both ends, both the idea of getting the missile up to work without deception and one that works with deception in place, that would be the time to move forward. Otherwise, I think we are recreating a scenario that we saw with Star Wars since 1984, it was mentioned, all this time later, $50 billion- plus later, we find ourselves still without anything tangible for it.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIERNEY. He said that it would be sometime in the 2004 time frame before all elements of the missile defense system could be tested together and then we can make a decision on whether to fully put it on full alert. He said that we are going to be working on simulations and hypothetical data. So when do we begin to learn? As Ernest Fitzgerald, Air Force financial analyst used to tell us, there are only two phases of a weapons program: too early to tell and too late to stop. Mr. Chairman, this is the time for us to stop on the procurement and proceed with the R&D. We have other needs. One of those is the TRICARE senior pharmacy program while the R&D continues.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I seek to amend the bill by removing funding for procurement of the National Missile Defense and increasing funding for the military's TRICARE senior pharmacy program, prescription drugs for senior retirees. The Department indicates the program is seriously underfunded despite Congress' expressed desire to fund it. This is not the time for us to be spending money on actual procurement. Already we have substantial appropriations for research and development of NMD. This amendment would not affect those funds. Research and development would continue. But to start down the path of spending on procurement is premature and inappropriate. Any decision to embark on such a plan should only come after serious, informed national debate about the effect of such a decision on a multiple of important national interests. Foremost should be a determination if we really desire to alter our historic reliance first on the theory of mutually assured destruction now, coupled with serious and somewhat successful efforts at nuclear nonproliferation. Are we fully prepared to face the likely consequences of that decision without first considering its wisdom? Here are some of the other considerations that should be fully deliberated, debated, and determined before we leave the R&D phase and start procurement: Are we overreacting to the threat that has been identified? Have we adequately considered that the costs and development together with the United States withdrawal from the ABM treaty might be more dangerous than any potential rogue state threat? Our largest nuclear arsenal threat is in Russia which fears that the National Missile Defense is a precursor to a larger system directed at them. Withdrawal from the ABM would essentially end the strategic arms reduction process which ought to be our real goal. Russia would feel forced to design its force to assure penetration of future National Missile Defense by retaining its MIRV land-based ICBMs, already banned under START II. China could be expected to accelerate its strategic modernization program, since even the first phase limited NMD could defend against Chinese missiles and survive a preemptive strike. If China accelerated, what would we expect India and then Pakistan to do? Acting so precipitously to violate the ABM or to lead to withdrawal from it would be a serious blow to United States credibility as the leader in efforts to control nuclear weapons and to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Our allies and our friends as well as our potential allies and friends see NMD as unnecessary and provocative. We should proceed only with caution. Have we fully analyzed and accepted the cost of building the National Missile Defense? The first phase is estimated to cost $20 to $30 billion. All three phases in the current plan will probably cost two times that much. History shows that far less demanding high technology systems have gone well beyond original predictions, so we can expect the numbers to double. Commencing procurement before we have a true demonstration of readiness will encourage and whet the appetite of the true NMD believers, and they will press for a more comprehensive system a la Star Wars, costing some $100 to $200 billion. Have we truly satisfied ourselves that the proposed system is sufficiently analyzed and demonstrated to be ready? Is it unworkable? Before turning the arms policy of this country inside out, this topic warrants a discussion about whether the system will actually work and whether or not it is now at a stage where there is reasonable assurance that it will, in fact, work. The development and testing of NMD are simply not mature enough for the United States to make a confident deployment decision this year. We should not be directing our resources for procurement until that level of confidence is obtained. The key problem will be to get the defense to work against an enemy who is trying to foil the system, and any attacker can do so with technology much simpler than that needed for the defense system itself. We have all seen the papers from experts clearly depicting at least three of the many countermeasures that could defeat any such system. The Pentagon has divided the missile problem into two parts, getting the system to work without realistic countermeasures and getting the system to work with realistic countermeasures. It is our job to insist that we not commit procurement funds year after year until we are technically ready to meet both parts of that equation. This summer's tests are not the answer. They lack realistic countermeasures. Starting to commit funds for procurement now is, as one expert says, like deciding to build a bridge to the Moon. Instead of assessing feasibility of the full project before moving forward, we are deciding instead to start building the on-ramps because that is the part we actually know how to do. Air Force Lieutenant General Ron Kadish, commander of the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization admits the lack of operational tests for the complex system of radars, interceptor missiles, and high- speed computers is anomalous for the Defense Department.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, the point just is there was a statement made earlier that passing of this amendment would kill the program. I think that is a bit of an exaggeration on that. I cannot imagine for a second that if this amendment passed, that next year we would not see these numbers back in here and another attempt to put it in. This amendment, according to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), this money may not be spent this fiscal year and likely will not be spent this year. So surely that is not going to kill it. Mr. Chairman, we ought to talk about what this is. It is an amendment to reduce the procurement money to keep the R&D. And clearly, the research shows that it cannot work.