John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

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

Mr. TIERNEY

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

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would adopt the recommendation of the Congressional Budget Office to restructure our missile defense programs, specifically, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System. The amendment would instruct the Secretary of Defense not to deploy any Ground-based Midcourse Defense System beyond the authorized systems that are now at Fort Greeley, Alaska and, the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California or any space-based interceptors of intercontinental ballistic missiles. It would reduce funding for the research, development, test and evaluation for the defense agencies by $4,747,000,000. Under the Congressional Budget Office's ``evolutionary alternative,'' the Department of Defense would fund the capabilities planned for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System through 2007. Money would continue to be provided to pursue upgrades to the elements of the ground-based missile defense initial defense capability, would continue testing its components and would explore other missile defense concepts. But the savings on the midcourse missile defense under the Congressional Budget Office alternative would total $29 billion on a Department of Defense-wide basis through 2007. I commend to my colleagues no less than seven reports released in the last 2 months critical of various aspects of the ballistic missile system, and I will introduce copies for the Record. Two of them are from the General Accountability Office, two from the Department of Defense's own Inspector General's Office, one from the Congressional Research Office, one from the Congressional Budget Office and one from the Pentagon's own Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. All of them raise doubts about the feasibility of missile defense. And as a group they offer a damning indictment of the missile defense system that supposedly, but not actually offers the United States an initial defense capability. The Center for Defense Information states in its analysis, changes are imperative. If the Missile Defense Agency continues in the same vein it has been, the United States will see itself saddled with a missile defense system that costs tens of billions, possibly hundreds of billions of dollars, yet provides no actual defense. What is more, by diverting that money to an unfeasible system, the United States will miss out on the protection it could be getting from weapons systems that actually work. Mr. Chairman, the moneys are important, of course, but having a false sense of security is dangerous. And not investing these moneys in needed security systems, systems to protect our space and domestic assets and for homeland security risk is criminally negligent. The General Accountability reports note that if the Pentagon does not move away from its spiral development or acquisition policy where a system's progress is never held to any sort of accountability, has no defined parameters, the Department of Defense will continue to start more programs for more money and create the next set of case studies for future defense reform reviews. Fielding systems that still are in early developmental cycles, rushing them into the field where they have very serious problems with every component, that is a recipe for disaster. Immature technologies are not perfected, integration of the systems is not happening, testing in real-life scenarios is lacking, information assurance controls that were built to the network are sadly out of date. This report shows poor quality control, unreasonable, in fact outrageous, cost growth, and schedule slips and inferior performance. An ``F'' for Missile Defense: How Seven Government Reports in Two Months Illustrate the Need for Missile Defense To Change Its Ways (By Victoria Samson, CDI Research Analyst) A certain amount of optimism is required to successfully guide a weapon system through its development to completion. However, at a certain point, reality needs to poke through so that program and service officials can make relatively objective assessments. Is it working? Is it going to work? Is it staying on budget and schedule? If not, can it get back on track? And finally, the most difficult question to ask of a program: Should it continue? The multi-faceted missile defense program, currently the Pentagon's golden child, has effectively avoided any and all tough questions. Over $92 billion has been spent on missile defense systems since the Ronald Reagan administration, to little avail. While the architecture still has not been finalized, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) envisions a system of systems, where there are ground-, sea-, and air- based interceptors supported by a yet-to-be-built satellite system, new X-band radars that are still being put in place, and a command and control system that is not secure to outside interference. President George W. Bush announced in December 2002 that, within two years, the United States would have deployed an initial missile defense system that could defend the United States against a limited ICBM attack. With that pressure from above, MDA focused its efforts on the fielding interceptors in Alaska and California the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. As of writing, 13 interceptors have been emplaced in missile silos. As well, MDA is working on a sea- based interceptor that is carried on the Aegis ship, a sea- based X-band radar that is slowly floating to its home port in Alaska, a giant command and control module based out of Colorado, a satellite network that could track enemy missiles as they approach the U.S. homeland, and systems that are geared toward providing defense against shorter-range ballistic missiles (Theater High Altitude Area Defense system, or THAAD, and the Patriot Advanced Capability PAC-3 system). In the long run, MDA is building a modified Boeing 747 airplane that would carry lasers in its nose and kinetic kill vehicles which theoretically could obliterate multiple targets. MDA has been entrusted with a great deal of responsibility. It has not lived up to its tasks. In the past two months, no less than seven reports have been released that were critical of various aspects of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). For clarity's sake, this analysis will focus largely on MDA's flagship program, the GMD system, whose existence is used to falsely claim that the United States has an initial defensive capability against ICBMs. And to head off allegations of bias, it must be noted that these reports were written by non-partisan government agencies. Two reports by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), two from the Defense Department (DOD)'s own Inspector General's office, and reports by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Congressional Budgetary Office ``(CBO), and the Pentagon's Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) all raise doubts about the feasibility of missile defense. As a group, they offer a damning indictment of the missile defense system that supposedly offers the United States an initial defensive capability. overshooting cost goals, falling short of planned achievements Missile defense programs have featured prominently in two recent reports by the GAO. The first, ``Assessment of Selected Major Weapons Programs,'' examines the cost growth of many Pentagon weapon systems. It notes, ``DOD often exceeds development cost estimates by approximately 30 to 40 percent and experiences cuts in planned quantities, missed deadlines, and performance shortfalls.'' The GAO points out, ``Programs consistently move forward with unrealistic cost and schedule estimates, use immature technologies in launching product development, and fail to solidify design and manufacturing processes at appropriate points in development.'' The missile defense system prides itself on its ``spiral development'' or acquisition policy that is constantly evolving, under which a system's progress is never held to strictly defined parameters. ``Programs consistently move forward with unrealistic cost and schedule estimates, use immature technologies in launching product development, and fail to solidify design and manufacturing processes at appropriate points in development.'' The GAO takes this type of acquisition policy to task. In fact, David Walker, comptroller-general of the United States, warns that if the Pentagon doesn't move away from it, DOD ``will continue to start more programs than it can finish, produce less capability for more money, and create the next set of case studies for future defense reform reviews.'' The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has argued that the missile defense program needs the flexibility of spiral development to allow it to mold itself to future threats and to incorporate lessons learned while testing. Why other Pentagon programs somehow manage to hold themselves accountable and still meet evolving threats is never discussed by MDA officials. Instead, MDA promotes the idea that all possible missile defense candidate technologies will be put through their paces, and eventually testing will prove the winners and losers. Again, MDA has never stated at which point it will definitively decide to drop a flagging program. The closest it has come is in giving one of its programs (Airborne Laser) what it calls ``knowledge parameters,'' in an attempt to prove to critics that, despite outward appearances, there is indeed progress toward development. Another key part of spiral development is that weapon systems will be fielded when they are still early in their development cycles. The intent is that they can continue to grow and presumably advance while providing some sort of military utility. What ends up happening is that systems-- the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system most noticeably--are rushed out into the field even when there are very serious problems with their components... or indeed, are crucial elements to their architecture still lacking. For example, the GMD interceptor suffered a flight test failure in February 2005 due to poor quality control by its contractor for the arm that holds the missile up in its silo. In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 4, 2006, Obering acknowledged this problem and stated that this component would be replaced on the interceptors that have already been fielded. Nonetheless, the $40 million missile as originally designed continues to be built at a rate of one every two months or so. The GAO notes that weapon systems development programs progress much better and keep costs lower if technology is allowed to mature before being brought into a developmental or initial operating system. GAO observes that program acquisition unit costs for programs with mature technologies increase by less than one percent over original cost estimates, while the program acquisition unit costs for programs with immature technologies increase by 27 percent over the first full estimate. The report goes on to review various weapon systems to assess their level of technological maturity and cost growth. The GMD system's ``concurrent testing and fielding efforts may lead to additional design changes,'' warns the GAO, and the program's ``prime contract could overrun its target cost by as much as $1.5 billion. Boeing, GMD's prime contractor, has already overrun its budget by $600 million as a result of quality control issues. As what seems to be the standard for missile defense, program officials differ from outsiders about the program: while program officials rate GMD's needed 10 technologies as mature, the GAO differs, stating that ``four have not been demonstrated in an operational environment and we believe that they cannot be considered fully mature.'' And since the GAO's last assessment of GMD, the program's planned budget through fiscal year 2009 (FY 09) has risen by $2.9 billion, or 11.2 percent. GMD's cost growth is bad enough, but as it turns out, the United States is paying more and getting less than anticipated. In another GAO report, the title says it all: ``Missile Defense Agency Fields Initial Capability but Falls Short of Original Goals.'' MDA's accelerated development of the GMD program in order to reach an initial capability by the end of 2004 caused the agency to run over that portion of its budget by $1 billion. For FY 05, GMD contractors had exceeded anticipated costs by 25 percent. The GAO also took to task the forced reliance by MDA upon spiral development ``[I]t allowed the GMD program to concurrently mature technology, complete design activities, and produce and field assets before end-to-end testing of the system--all at the expense of cost, quantity, and performance goals.'' In addition, for the initial defensive capability stated as the goal of the rapid fielding of the overall missile defense network, MDA fell quite short of what it had hoped to have accomplished. ``Compared to its original goals set in 2003, MDA fielded 10 fewer GMD interceptors than planned, two fewer radars, 11 fewer Aegis BMD missiles, and six fewer Aegis ships,'' lists the GAO report. The United States has officially fielded elements of the ballistic missile defense system architecture, but these are really token efforts. Even if the systems had proved themselves during testing and development--which they have not--and even if they had all their needed components at the ready--which they do not--this system would be a feeble shadow of what planners had hoped for. Spiral development ``allowed the GMD program to concurrently mature technology, complete design activities, and produce and field assets before end-to-end testing of the system--all at the expense of cost, quantity, and performance goals.'' Another result of rushing the missile defense elements out into the field is that workmanship has been shoddy, at best. Poor quality control has been listed time and again as an explanation for cost growth, schedule slips, and inferior performance. The GAO report explains, ``According to MDA's own audits, the interceptor's design requirements were unclear and sometimes incomplete, design changes were poorly controlled, and the interceptor's design resulted in uncertain reliability and service life.'' The GMD interceptor was not tested to ensure its parts could withstand the harsh environment in space--which could result in catastrophic failures after launch as the interceptors are supposed to impact their targets outside the Earth's atmosphere. Further, the failures of two recent flight tests--1FT-10 and 1FT-14-- were due to poor quality control procedures. The development of some parts for the GMD interceptor has been so careless that, according to the GAO, the parts in question would have to be replaced and thus ``the interceptors will be removed from their silos.'' Neither GAO nor MDA, has yet to explain at what cost such repairs will have to be made. Unfortunately, cost growth, schedule slips, and faulty parts are not specific to missile defense programs. One can see that easily in every branch of the Pentagon. Where the missile defense program differs is in the extent of autonomy and decision-making freedom given to MDA officials managing the various pieces of the program. Given the pressure they were under from President George W. Bush's December 2002 announcement that an initial capability would be in place by the end of 2004, managers decided that the development and fielding process required a speedier schedule to meet that deadline. As a result, the GAO recounts, ``MDA officials told us that because the agency was directed to field a capability earlier than planned, it accepted additional risks.'' The agency was able to accelerate fielding because MDA officials have been given unprecedented liberties with acquisition planning and scheduling. They are further allowed to shift around funding from one program element to another as they see fit, under special rules set up by DOD. According to the GAO, ``Compared with other DOD programs, MDA has greater latitude to make changes to the BMDS [Ballistic Missile Defense Program] program without seeking the approval of high-level acquisition executives outside the program.'' Because of this flexibility, while MDA does inform Congress and DOD of funding rearrangements, accountability is practically nil; instead, its version of it has ``thus become broadly applied as to mean delivering some capability within funding allocations.'' MDA is also free of requirements that all other major DOD acquisition programs must undertake in regards to establishing baseline estimates of cost, performance and schedule. If other programs slip in meeting those predetermined requirements, Pentagon and/or service managers must alert Congress. If any program sees cost growth up to a certain amount in one quarter, it is considered to have suffered a so-called Nunn-McCurdy breach, which means DOD must alert Congress of the problem. If the cost growth is over 25 percent in a single quarter, DOD then must overhaul and justify the offending program. The Ballistic Missile Defense System, however, is exempt from these requirements. MDA officials have much more flexible baselines for their programs. MDA can avoid having to report programs' quarterly cost growth simply by changing cost goals and estimates. Also, MDA has the responsibility of deciding when it will alert Congress to schedule slips or cost growths, since ``there are no criteria to identify which variations are significant enough to report. Instead, MDA's Director, by statute, has the discretion to determine which variations will be reported.'' MDA officials do not have to hold themselves accountable to any particular standard or report if certain achievements have not been met. And Congress has, up to now, refrained from complaining about its lack of oversight over the $10 billion dollar a year MDA budget. Up to now, the only ``achievements'' reported by MDA have been the flight test failures. The MDA has even stopped announcing when it has emplaced new interceptors at missile silos in Alaska and California. Ostensibly, this is because of operational security needs, but in actuality, it is more likely a move designed to avoid bad press as testing and deployment goes forward. NETWORK SECURITY AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING: FIGMENTS OF MDA'S IMAGINATION The Pentagon Inspector General's (IG) office came out with two reports this winter that illustrate how every aspect of the Ballistic Missile Defense System has seen sloppy work indicative of low standards of oversight. The first report reveals that the communications network linking the various radars, infrastructure, and elements of the GMD system, is extremely limited. The IG's office noted that the security documents in place for the system ``did not properly reflect current operations;'' furthermore, MDA officials ``had not fully implemented information assurance controls required to protect the integrity, availability, and confidentiality of the information in the [GMD] communications network.'' Because of this, ``MDA officials may not be able to reduce the risk and extent of harm resulting from misuse or unauthorized access to or modification of information of the GCN [GMD Communications Network] and ensure the continuity of the system in the event of a disruption.'' That is to say, network security is lacking. So now, in addition to worrying about whether the rudimentary system now deployed would launch and target threatening missiles effectively in the event of an emergency, planners have to head off the possibility that some bored teenager could hack into the system and disrupt it at a key moment. A draft version of this report recommended, ``MDA and contractor officials should immediately cease operation of the system.'' The security procedures for the GMD Communications Network were completely bungled, as the IG report indicates. For one, ``[C]ontingency plans and system rules of behavior had not been prepared to assist users.'' Group passwords were used to access the unencrypted communications system, even though individual passwords were required. Documentation for the unencrypted system had the encrypted system's security concept (defined in the document as ``a description of the GCN security requirements and the resources needed to meet those requirements''), while the encrypted system's documentation didn't contain any security concepts. Explains the IG's office, ``This oversight occurred because the encrypted equipment and the unencrypted equipment were developed by two separate contractors [respectively, Boeing and Northrop Grumman], who were not following a common set of procedures for preparing documentation.'' The few information assurance controls that were built for the network were sadly out of date. The network was created by program officials to conform to ``Department of Defense Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria,'' a document that is dated Dec. 26, 1985. This old set of criteria was used instead of a more recent set of required criteria, found in: ``Missile Assurance Categories (MAC) Levels for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Systems and Networks,'' dated Aug. 20, 2004. It would appear that network security was a low priority for MDA, as the Communication Network's first information assurance officer wasn't brought on board until June 2005, long after the system had been in development--indeed, after GMD had been declared to have reached an initial defensive capability. No one was in charge of making sure the contractors working on system had appropriate levels of security clearance or were fully aware of their responsibilities regarding network security. The IG's office was so alarmed at the absence of network security practices that a draft version of its report recommended that until fixes were in place, ``MDA and contractor officials should immediately cease operation of the system.'' While this recommendation did not make it into the final draft, it signifies the gravity of MDA's lack of planning. An interesting coda to this report was how the Pentagon reacted once news of it hit the press. Federal Computer Weekly ran a story on it March 16, 2006. By the following Monday, the IG's office had taken the relevant report off of its website, with only this as explanation: ``The Missile Defense Agency requested that we remove this report from our web site pending a security review.'' The report is now marked ``For Official Use Only.'' Another report by the Pentagon's IG office raised concerns about another aspect of how the overall BMDS system's various components would function together. According to it, ``The Missile Defense Agency had not completed a systems engineering plan or planned fully for system sustainment. Therefore, the Missile Defense Agency is at risk of not successfully developing an integrated ballistic missile defense system.'' Systems engineering, the process of making sure a developing weapon system meets the capabilities required of it and ensuring it becomes operational, is a key in making certain that ideas on the drawing board end up in the final product. In a complicated architecture such as missile defense that has interceptors and control stations on the ground, in the air, and on the sea, involves numerous radar and satellite networks, and dips in and out of various Pentagon services and commands, systems engineering would be imperative to guarantee that the various elements would smoothly work together as planned. Its failure to provide a systems engineering plan is partially due to the fact that MDA didn't follow instructions. But, as seems to be often the case, the problem also can be traced to the order speeding up initial deployment. According to the IG office's report, ``Another cause was that MDA was tasked with designing a single integrated system from a group of preexisting acquisition programs and fielding a missile defense capability quickly. As a result, the BMDS ability to develop and integrate the elements into a system that meets U.S. requirements is at risk.'' Furthermore, ``because MDA was rushing to field an initial BMDS capability, it had not fully planned for system sustainment.'' System sustainment is described in the document as ``a support program that meets operational support performance requirements and sustains the system in the most cost-effective manner.'' This conclusion is not surprising, as ``cost-effective'' and ``missile defense'' are rarely used in the same sentence. ``Missile Defense Agency is at risk of not successfully developing an integrated ballistic missile defense system.'' MDA also ducked creating a comprehensive Logistics Support Plan, as it should have and was legally obligated to do. According to the IG office's report, instead, ``each element is responsible for planning the following eight logistics- support-related areas: supply; equipment; packing, handling, storing, and transportation; facilities; computer resources; technical data; maintenance planning; and manpower and personnel. Sounds like a recipe for overlaps, gaps, and confusion.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure it will take me 3 minutes to talk about a very basic value that I think we can all agree on, and that is fairness. The majority's pension bill is unfair, frankly, to, workers. When a pension plan is underfunded, workers get penalized, but the corporate chief executive officers and the executives, the people that are actually at fault for the underfunding, they get a walk on this situation. They get a free ride. That is unfair. It is unfair that the companies treat their executives so well when rank-and-file members are suffering. There is no way that Federal policy ought to sense that kind of activity or inequitable treatment. Our pension laws have to treat workers fairly. Under the House bill, when funding levels fall on a tax-qualified pension below 80 percent, then workers can't get the benefit increases, can't get a cost-of-living adjustment, can't get a lump sum pension payment. But under the House bill, executives can continue to lavish themselves with benefits under the non-qualified plans with no restrictions. Executives don't feel the pinch until funding levels drop below 60 percent. At that point, executives are prohibited from transferring corporate assets to executive compensation. The Senate bill provides for more equitable treatment of executives and workers. Under that bill, workers do not lose their cost of living adjustments or their lump sum payment options at 80 percent. CEO pensions are restricted if pension plans fall to less than 80 percent of funding and the company is a credit risk. Congress is the people's House. It ought to be about ensuring fairness, in the pension process as well as in other areas. It ought to be about leveling the playing field and making sure that workers and executives are subject to the same pension rules. Mr. Miller's motion directs the pension conferees to apply the same benefit restrictions to workers and CEOs. This motion to instruct is about fairness, it is about the very thing that this, the people's House, ought to be about. I think the people are going to be looking at this vote, and, just as Mr. Kucinich said, they are going to be wondering, whose side are we on? We ought to be on the side of fairness, on the side of equity and on the side of the workers in this matter in treating everybody fairly and equitably.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this restrictive rule and in opposition to H.R. 609. First, I would like to state my support for specific provisions in the Manager's Amendment to H.R. 609 that eliminated the funding formula change to campus-based aid. As introduced, H.R. 609 changed the formula for campus-based aid programs, including Work Study, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants and low-interest Perkins Loans. This would have resulted in substantial losses of this aid to schools across the country with a history of participation in the program. Students at schools in my state of Massachusetts would have lost $9.4 million in work study and other programs. During Subcommittee and full Committee mark-ups, Mr. Kind and I offered amendments to ensure that students were not unfairly punished by the changes to the campus-based aid funding formula in H.R. 609. Our amendments gained support from both sides of the aisle and the votes were tied in both mark-ups. We were also joined by more than 80 of our colleagues in sending a letter to the Chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee asking for these funding formula changes to be taken out of the bill before floor consideration. I would like to express my thanks to the outgoing and incoming Chairmen for heeding our call. They realized that changing the distribution formula would harm thousands of students because it would have simply taken funds from one group of needy students and shifted those funds to another group of needy students. Unless we increased the appropriations for campus-based aid, Mr. Kind and I felt strongly that we could not in good faith change the funding distribution formula. While I am extremely pleased that the Manager's Amendment eliminates the campus-based aid cuts, I must turn now to the Rule before us today. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that this restrictive rule does not make in order the amendments I brought before the Rules Committee on Tuesday afternoon. My amendments would have helped make college more affordable for low- and middle-income students and families across the country. After all, what is the point of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act if we aren't going to make college more affordable? Ms. McCollum and I attempted to offer several amendments, including an amendment based on our bill, the College Affordability and Accountability Act. Quite simply, the amendments would make college more affordable by: Renewing states' commitment to affordable college education by ensuring that they maintain their own level of college financing, so states will no longer be able to push higher tuition taxes onto students and families; Providing incentives to make tuition affordable; Engaging schools in cost containment strategies; and Putting students and families in control by giving them access to accurate information about the cost of college and steps individual schools are taking to offer affordable rates of tuition. We also offered an amendment to commission a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on college costs and the impact of state support for higher education on college costs. In my home state of Massachusetts and in other states around the country, state support for higher education has plummeted, pushing more of the burden of college on students and families. I also sought to offer an amendment to commission a study by the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance to review current student aid programs and recommend the steps that Congress must take in order to ensure that every qualified eligible student receives a sufficient comprehensive financial aid package. This financial aid package should come from a variety of sources, including the federal government, state governments, institutions of higher education and private sources, and it should cover at least the equivalent of a four- year public higher education. All qualified high school graduates should be able to afford at least the equivalent of a four-year public higher education. Today, that is not the case. Many students are foregoing college, dropping out or incurring unmanageable levels of student loan debt. Young people in their 20s and 30s are not only leaving college with much more personal debt--students graduate with an average of almost $20,000 of student loan debt--but also are burdened by rapidly increasing health care, energy and housing costs. To make matters worse, according to recent studies, young people are working longer hours and still earning less money. We must do more for young people in America today. We must restore the American dream so that young people can achieve financial prosperity through hard work and determination. The amendments I offered to the Rules Committee would have helped us make college affordable and accessible for students and their families. Mr. Speaker, we had a real opportunity to help make college affordable today, but instead students and families will be left to struggle with sky-rocketing tuition costs and mounting debt on their own. H.R. 609 will not make college more affordable. I urge Members to oppose the restrictive rule and oppose final passage of H.R. 609.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, the intelligence authorization bill before us today is a bit of a mixed bag. It does, on the positive side, direct the Director of National Intelligence to better conform to the committee's intent that the Director of National Intelligence be a coordinator of intelligence, that it not create an additional layer of bureaucracy, and that it strengthen the community's capability to penetrate hard targets. It does, at the Democrats' insistence, provide full funding for counterterrorism programs instead of going along with the President's 22 percent cut. It does contain report language requiring that the Department of Defense inspector general audit the controversial activities of the Department of Defense Counterintelligence Field Activities, or CIFA. But there are concerns that remain unanswered, and among these concerns are the continued insistence of this administration to limit access to information about the President's domestic surveillance program. After weeks of debate, the program remains limited to only a select group of the already select Intelligence Committee. We should not expect members charged with the oversight to write a blank check to the President to conduct intelligence activities under a shroud of secrecy from the very group that was established on behalf of this Congress to do oversight. Members of this full House look to the members of the Select Committee on Intelligence for advice, and in this case the President has limited that committee in full from being able to get the information necessary to be able to advise and lead on these issues. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 established the Director of National Intelligence with strong statutory budget authorities to enable that office to reach across the whole community and to reallocate resources and personnel to respond to emerging threats. The administration appears to be on a path to dismantle this critical budgetary authority, piece by piece. The 2007 budget request of the President moves significant resources and personnel permanently out of the management and control of the Director of National Intelligence. Most of those transfers move intelligence assets to the control of the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General. We should keep in mind over the last 2 years the military intelligence program has grown by 25 percent while the national intelligence program has actually shrunk by almost 1 percent. Both press reports and the Quadrennial Defense Review evidence the Pentagon's intention to expand special operations activities worldwide to engage in operations traditionally reserved for the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department. In the committee I proposed an amendment that would protect the authorities of the Director of National Intelligence, at least pending a Federal review and some answers from the administration with respect to its intentions in this regard. That failed, but I understand that the Senate is believed to have this issue in its sights, under consideration, and I should hope it is for the purposes of being in line with my amendment. Allowing the Department of Defense to creep into the intelligence areas, especially when the result would be to avoid oversight, is problematical in the least. I have strong reservations about this bill, and I ask Members to consider these before they vote on this measure.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my words in agreement with the gentleman from Minnesota, that this is not a partisan motion in any sense of the word. This is something that Members of Congress, I think, can get behind and clearly feel comfortable that they are just serving the interests of their constituencies. This particular motion does take the language from Senator Grassley, on the other side of the House, that puts it into the bill that it would prohibit the wearing away, the practice by which some employers have discriminated against older workers when they offset the benefits that were already earned against their ability to earn new benefits under these new cash benefit plans. They can result in no new benefits being added, actually, for workers' pensions for up to 10 years. And they provide for a fair transition for rules to protect workers' pensions when they do convert the traditional pensions to those so called cash balance pension plans. We critically need this. You only need to talk to the people in your districts, my colleagues, and you will find a growing sense of insecurity in this country as corporations back off their responsibilities for health insurance, back off their responsibilities for retirement plans, and now come up with a cash balance plan which is supposed to be a plan melding two different types of retirement programs and ends up hurting some. One of my constituents talked about having worked for AT&T for 30 years. After 30 years of loyal work, the conversion of her pension to a cash balance plan reduced her benefits by 46 percent. It is not fair. It is not right, and it shouldn't be acceptable to Members of this Congress. The Government Accountability Office released a major report on cash balance plans last November. They found that workers of all ages experience significant cuts to their retirement benefits when their employers switch from the traditional pension plan to the so-called cash balance plans without first protecting employees rights. Over 85 percent of 30-year-olds, 90 percent of 40-year-olds and half of the 50-year-olds experience deep cuts in their retirement benefits if they are shifted from a traditional pension plan into a cash balance plan without protections for retirement benefits. The GAO study did not find a single case, not a single case in which the cash balance plan provided the same level of retirement benefits that a typical defined benefit plan provided. Without transition protection, almost all workers, including younger workers, will lose up to 50 percent of their expected pension benefits. And, Mr. Speaker, we can't allow that to happen. I ask my colleagues to join with Mr. Miller in this attempt to make sure that we do protect this group of pensioners.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make mention, without repeating what the gentlewoman has said, this Government Reform Committee, the full committee in the House, has only had four hearings on Iraq contracting during this entire process. In the other body, despite Senator Lautenberg's repeated requests, the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs over there has not held a single hearing on this issue. In the House Armed Services Committee, they have conducted oversight hearings on some issues related to military operations and protecting our troops, but they have not explored the issue of contracting since it was touched upon in June of 2004. That is quite a contrast with the original Truman Committee, which held 432 public hearings, 300 executive sessions, had 1,800 witnesses testify and issued 51 reports, all the while saving the taxpayer $15 billion and saving countless lives in the process. The Truman Committee was unanimously respected for its focus on fact- finding and its refusal to succumb to partisan consideration, and that is what this commission would do as well. It is needed, because last week a Federal jury found two employees of Custer Battles had cheated the government on a contract to provide Iraq with new currency, and some $10 million in damages. In December the Boston Globe reported that the Congressional Research Service put out a publication stating the Pentagon has not provided an overall reckoning of these funds by mission or by military operation. It went on to say that Congress has yet to receive a transparent accounting of money that is allocated so far for the war. Kellogg, Brown & Root's employees last summer pleaded guilty of $100,000 in kick-backs, and it recently was reported that KBR did not do its job under the contract with purification of water for our troops, leaving them in a dangerous situation over there. The General Accountability Office has purported to have found that the Department of Defense officials and Interior officials charged with overseeing the contract to provide interrogators at Abu Ghraib did not fully carry out their roles. And in March of 2005, we learned that the Pentagon auditors found that $212 million was paid to Kuwaiti and Turkish subcontractors for fuel and that overcharging was charged back by Halliburton. We need this commission. It is the right thing to protect our troops and the storm victims. The American public deserves open and transparent government.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentlewoman, and I just share with my friend from Oklahoma, too bad we couldn't have had the debate you are now having at the beginning of the Iraq situation instead of going in on false information and on false pretenses. I think it would have been a much more enlightened debate, and I am sure you could have held your own at that point in time as you are doing here. The shame of it is, of course, that the country was not told we were going into Iraq for anything to do with Saddam Hussein, other than weapons of mass destruction that were never found, connections with al Qaeda that were never found, and on that basis. That is why many in this country feel they have been misrepresented in this situation and that it has been badly prosecuted since then with tremendous incompetency. The tremendous incompetency continues in a number of different ways, one of which is the contracting that has been going on and the loss of money, the mismanagement of money, the inability to track where money has gone for the American taxpayer in there, which is why Congressman Jim Leach of Iowa and I have filed over the last several years a bill to set up the Truman Commission, based on the commission that happened during World War II when Senator Truman had a commission investigate the contracting, and in a Democrat administration, and they did two things: one was it made sure that the materials got to the troops that they needed at that time. And it saved lives. It was for their protection, to make sure the money wasn't wasted and that it went for the things the troops needed. And the other, of course, was to make sure the taxpayers' money was being spent as it should. There are two things that Congress does: one is legislate and the other is oversight, to make sure the taxpayers' money is being spent properly and that the policy is being carried out in the way that it should. This Congress has been incredibly lacking in the oversight area. We have not done our job, particularly with regard to what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is why I am going to vote against the motion here for the rule. Because we ought to have waivers for the motions that Mr. Leach and I brought to make sure that we investigate, have a separate commission set up to investigate. Yes, this is an open rule, but it very pointedly leaves out that type of oversight, both in the Afghan and Iraq situation, and in the Katrina situation, where we are seeing the same kind of incompetence and waste and questionable action that might lead to fraud. In both instances, people will be hurt there if supplies are not gotten to them immediately, and the taxpayer will be hurt if the money isn't spent efficiently. So we ought to do that. And with respect to the gentleman's argument that we are in such a rush and this is an emergency, the brief period of time it would take to make those corrections and put those waivers in are not going to bring us beyond the period of time for which money already exists that is protecting our troops and dealing with the people in the gulf area. So I think it is important that we do our job. It is about time this Congress stood up. Not one dollar more. Because every dollar that is wasted is a dollar that isn't being spent on body armor and roadside jammers for bombs, and up-armor for Humvees. Every dollar wasted is not getting housing and other services to people in Louisiana and Mississippi and that region. It is time we put the waivers in place and we went forward with these investigatory commissions so that as things are transpiring, we can know that we are doing our job of oversight and the troops in one area, and the victims of the storms in the other area are getting the materials and the things that they need, and that the American taxpayers' money is being protected.

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

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. Well, first of all, I was here when we voted on the Iraq thing, and believe me, there was plenty of information for people that wanted to look at it to know which way things were going. And certainly our White House should have known which way things were going, and they made representations that turned out not to be accurate. So people can be responsible for their acts. Secondly, the mass graves you are talking about are mass graves of the late 1980s, early 1990s, when members of our present administration were over there being friendly with the Iraqis and with Saddam Hussein. It is never not germane for this body to do its oversight duty. It is always germane.

Mr. TIERNEY. I want to clarify that in 1991, the first Mr. Bush was President, when you were encouraging the uprising to go into that, and that is a period of time when there were many mass graves in that situation. And, secondly, I just want to drive home the point that there is never a time when oversight for this group is not germane to the function that we do. We legislate, we have oversight, and there has been no effective oversight of either the Katrina situation or what is going on with contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, not from any committee in this body, and the record is clear on that and it speaks for itself.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, this is yet another example of the government under this majority in the House, and the Senate and the Republican White House of failing to live up to its role to protect the American people from circumstances beyond their control. We have troops over in Afghanistan and Iraq that are not protected in the manner in which they should be protected. We have people down in Louisiana and Mississippi and other areas affected by the storm, Katrina, who are not getting the attention and the protection that they deserve and their situation warrants. Here we have a failure of the government to step forward and to protect the American working family, who has paid into pension funds, expected them to be protected, expected something to be there after 20, 25 or 30 years of work and contributing to these funds, only to find out that management people, CEOs, walk into bankruptcy court and somehow wipe out the workers' interest while they end up with golden parachutes and protection for benefits once they come out of bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Miller and I and others have been fighting this issue for the working people for some time. In committee we offered an amendment that would allow the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, that corporation, an entity which would protect workers. We wanted that to intervene earlier to be able to work with companies to make sure that they first exhausted all of their possible remedies by permitting them to terminate plans and go into bankruptcy only after they had done that. We presented a substitute for this bill, but we weren't allowed to have a vote on it. Our colleagues in the majority, I think, speculate or were afraid that Members of their party would have joined in this motion, because it would have improved the bill. Companies should first have to exhaust every possible remedy to create financing and be creative in order to save and restore pensions before they are allowed to go into bankruptcy court and wipe them out while enhancing the position of the CEOs and other management people. We are fighting here, Mr. Speaker, to protect the retirement security of American families. We are protecting benefits of airline employees and seeking to encourage retirement savings. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation say that H.R. 2830 would actually add to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's deficit. They say the bill would actually chase companies out of the defined benefit system, that traditional benefit system that people have come to rely on, and it would leave workers with fewer choices actually than the plans for retirement that they have now. This motion to instruct conferees would at least address some of those issues, Mr. Speaker. It would protect the pension benefits of airline employees by asking to support the Senate provision, to keep American and Continental and Delta and Northwest from terminating their plans at the expense of employees and taxpayers, giving them additional time to actually work on their plans. It would support the Senate provision to provide full Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation retirement protections for pilots that are forced to retire at age 60. As Mr. Miller says, they are getting a double- whammy now, and they should not have to face that situation. The motion would also make permanent the Saver Tax Credit, urging conferees to accept the House provision for the credit that provides a matching contribution for low- and moderate-income workers, and make sure that that provision, which is used now by 5.3 million people both in 2002 and 2003, to continue on, and support the House provisions to split the tax refund for automatic forwarding to a retirement account and to provide for the protection of traditional plans, dropping new funding provisions in either the House or Senate bill that would encourage companies to terminate or freeze. Mr. Speaker, all those things are necessary to improve this bill, and I ask for support for the Miller amendment.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud member of the Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, to honor the 100th anniversary of the Saint Vasilios Greek Orthodox Church in Peabody, Massachusetts. The local Greek population, with St. Vasilios as one of its bedrock institutions, has been and continues to be a vital part of the Peabody community. The first Greek immigrants arrived in Peabody at the turn of the last century. As their numbers increased, they pooled their resources to buy their first property, a simple wooden building on Walnut Street which they modeled into a house of worship. On February 26, 1906, they were incorporated and chartered by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, naming their parish ``St. Vasilios.'' By 1912, the parish relocated to a larger property on what is now called Paleologos Street. There they built a new church, and soon after built a school for teaching their children Greek culture and language. This was only the sixth such school in the United States, and it has operated without interruption ever since. The Byzantine style church which was completed on the site and dedicated in 1917 remains a house of worship to this day. This week in my district, thousands of Hellenic American families will commemorate the 100th anniversary of St. Vasilios Greek Orthodox Church with religious services and festivities. I congratulate the clergy and the congregation of St. Vasilios for reaching this noteworthy milestone. The church continues to be a vibrant part of the Greek community in Peabody, serving as a house of worship and a gathering place. The church provides a vital link to the past and to the Greek homeland, its culture and religion. Through its school and the celebration of the rich heritage and language of Greece, the people of St. Vasilios are ensuring that the values and traditions upon which the church was founded will live on for future generations.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today to oppose H.R. 2830, the so-called Pension Protection Act, not because the system certainly does not need to be reformed, but because I think this particular vehicle, the way it was constructed, actually does damage to what used to be our three-legged stool of retirement security. We used to rely on pensions; personal savings; and, of course, Social Security. We spent a great deal of this past year fighting any efforts to privatize Social Security and making sure that we had that leg in place. This bill does nothing to enhance personal savings, something this Congress ought to be taking up and making sure we do enhance. With respect to pensions, we are in need of serious reform, but this moves us in the wrong direction. We have millions of Americans who have worked and tried to put their houses in order, tried to make sure when they retired they had a dignified and comfortable living, but this situation shows us over and over again that companies are now finding it better for themselves financially to go into bankruptcy, capsize their pension responsibilities, and then sometimes coming out more profitable for the shareholders and for some of the CEOs but not for the rank-and-file workers. This is not fair, it is not right, and it certainly is not sound policy for this country. In too many instances, these companies are defaulting without first having made every possible effort to finance these pension plans and making them work. Workers on the other hand have had decades of working for companies, providing loyal service, the bargain for which was that in the end they would have a guaranteed pension. Many of them had forgone wages during the course of their 20, 25, 30 years of service. CEOs, however, are still getting golden parachutes. They are getting the chance to steer their businesses into court to dump the pension plans and come out and still get taken care of handsomely; yet workers do not. The Congressional Budget Office and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation both say that this bill will actually add to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's deficit; that the bill could actually chase companies out of the defined benefit system and leave workers with fewer choices and plans for retirement than they have now. This bill does not seem to do anything to discourage the pension plan terminations that threaten workers' retirement security, and it does not stop companies from dumping plans in bankruptcy. In committee, we offered an amendment that would allow the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to intervene earlier, to work with companies in making sure they first exhausted all their options for making sure the plans survived before permitting them to terminate the plans and go into bankruptcy. A substitute for this bill would have allowed us to present that notion again. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the Republican majority saw fit not to allow a substitute amendment so that we could not debate this proposal. And I suspect we do not see it here today because it would have carried. We would have gotten a majority of people in this Chamber to understand that everything should be done that is possible to prevent a plan from going into bankruptcy before the plan is actually terminated. Companies should first have to exhaust every single avenue of creative financing in order to save and restore pensions before they allow bankruptcy filings. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation does have expertise it can lend to companies before it gets to that situation. For those reasons and many others, Mr. Speaker, I urge we vote against this bill and hope we get a better vehicle in the future.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the troops in this country are going to be surprised to find out that the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee filed a resolution saying that it is the sense of the House of Representatives, apparently as he sees it, that the deployment of the United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately. Apparently, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee thinks that we should not have an orderly withdrawal of the troops, thinks that we should not provide for their safety and protection on the withdrawal, thinks that we should not do the things that Mr. Murtha suggested that we do. It is either that, sir, or they are going to think that this is some sort of a trick, that you filed this so that we would have been looking at something that Mr. Murtha did not want us to look at. Because if you are concerned about what the message is that the troops are getting in Iraq, you would, in fact, have a full-fledged debate here so that Mr. Murtha and other Members of both parties could express clearly and succinctly what it is they believe ought to happen in terms of policy. But that is not what we are seeing here. You should have a chance for Mr. Murtha to discuss his idea on protecting the troops when there is a redeployment or redeploying to over the horizon so that there will not be a spread of terrorism, of making sure that any redeployment is made with the protection and the safety of the troops. But I do not think that is what is going on here. You talk about your respect for Mr. Murtha. You talk about his known knowledge for the military, and yet it is you, sir, who comes down here and says that the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee proposes that the House of Representatives put their statement and their resolve that we should deploy immediately from Iraq and not protect our troops, apparently, because it does not say that, and not provide for their safety, not provide for redeployment somewhere over the horizon so that we will be sure that terrorism does not spread there and we will be ready for any emergency. If instead you want the troops to get the message that that is not what we want, then why did you not work with your delegation over there to make sure that Mr. Murtha's resolution could be proposed and debated and explained fully and then this country could have the benefit of a full discussion of where the policy is going, because this administration, apparently, has no clue and has no idea. They politicized the lead-up going into the area, and now you are politicizing how it is we are going to get this country back in order and out of there. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand it to ever be the habit of this institution for a Member on one side taking it upon himself to interpret the meaning of a resolution of a Member on the other side without giving that Member the courtesy and the respect of allowing them to put forward what the meaning and intention of their own resolution is. I think, sir, you are playing games.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from California (Mr. George Miller) for yielding to me. As you say, reading those articles is just shocking, but it is nothing new to us. For a couple of years now, we have been following my colleague's lead as Democrats on the Education and Workforce Committee trying to get the Republicans in this body to understand the need to confront what is nothing short of a crisis. Millions of Americans are in retirement, or they are nearing retirement; and all they are experiencing now is either decreasing health benefits or decreasing pension benefits, and the total loss of one or the other in many instances. It is not fair, it is not right, and in fact it is not sound policy for this country. For the past century, we have really had a history of gradually improving people's quality of life. Go back to 1938, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: ``There is still today a frontier that remains unconquered, an America unclaimed. That is the great nationwide frontier of insecurity, of human want and fear. This is the frontier, the America we have set ourselves to reclaim.'' At the time that he said that, a majority of aging citizens were faced with either working until they dropped or living in poverty as they got older or as ill health set in. But Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his thirst set about doing something about it: Social Security. Eisenhower later on added disability to that, and the Johnson years saw Medicare and Medicaid. All along the way, corporate America actually helped, with Jacob Hacker constructing what they called ``structures of security.'' They guaranteed pensions, generous health care benefits, and generous life insurance. So we had all of America working together. This was an effort where together America did better. We were protected from what FDR called ``the hazards and vicissitudes of modern industrial life.'' Together, we shielded families and we covered them from uncertainty and fear. Now that is all settling back in. If you look around and talk to any family, as my colleague has done, talk to families and again that uncertainty and that fear of the future is there for them. Corporate America no longer seems to want to participate. They are taking away health benefits; they are taking away pensions. They do not want to honor the pensions. And my colleague and I both know that people worked for those pensions. It was not something that was just given to them. They gave up extra salary on the promise that the company would set aside that money to build a pension fund or a health care fund for their retirement, for the future. They earned those benefits. They struck a bargain, and now that bargain is being broken. We are watching as company after company cut back on health benefits, jettison pension obligations, and usually through the side door of bankruptcy. The gentleman mentioned what happened with United. They are not just going to toss them out. They go into a bankruptcy court, and they convince the court that they have to cut loose on those pension funds in order to regroup and come back out of bankruptcy at some point as a healthy company. But the CEOs do not get hurt. The CEOs and other management people walk out with golden parachutes worth millions of dollars, leaving very little for the people that put their blood and sweat into building that company in the first place and building the value of that stock. We hear the obligatory regrets, we see the handwringing, and we are told there was nothing else to be done. But we know that is not the case. Most did not exhaust all the avenues to finance a continuation of those pension funds, and my colleague pointed out a number of occasions like that. Most of these companies did not even work with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to look at the numerous number of financial vehicles that are out there that could have been used or at least considered to try to keep these plans healthy so that all these employees could have gotten more than they got when they were brought up at the bankruptcy and ignominiously dropped off and dumped. Shareholders, new shareholders and new owners come out of bankruptcy and find a profitable company and make millions. But people who lost their pensions end up on the short end of it and their livelihoods are getting killed in this process. Companies did not honor their promises. They did not set enough funds aside. They used tricky accounting, unscrupulously applied by management, management obviously more involved with the bottom line and sometimes their own benefits and their own retirement programs than they were with the human needs of all those people that worked so hard to make that company successful. Whole industries are now parroting what United did. We are watching the airline industry one after the other marching into the bankruptcy courts and saying, hey, this is not so bad. We can dump off our obligation and hurt all these employees, but we might save the company against other creditors. Under this Republican leadership in Congress, we have done nothing about that. We really have not looked at it and have not tried to deal with this problem. We have done way too little. We have done a little. After 2 years of badgering from the Democratic side of the aisle, we are looking to try to shore up that Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, increasing the fees somewhat, making it more expensive to withdraw. But it is late, and it may or may not be all we need to do to make sure that that works. We have to tighten the rules to make sure we have the proper valuing system going on and to discourage people from dumping the funds. We also have to set some parity. Maybe the surest way to make sure people get treated fairly is a bill my colleague has proposed to make sure that CEOs and other executives do not get treated much, much better than the employees; that they do not get to dump the employees off while saving themselves. If we had parity, where what is good for the goose is good for the gander, we would not be watching that happen. We have to create more transparency. This is anther issue we have brought up time and time again. We ought to know ahead of time what the true status of these funds is. It is not enough to, well, say we cannot tell the public because sometimes on paper it looks worse than it is and they will panic. We are talking about adults here. We are talking about people trying to plan their future. And if we let them know what state that pension is in early enough in time, we can get the company and apply enough pressure to maybe correct that situation. That is good for all stakeholders, employees, shareholders, customers, and everybody right down the line. We should require that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and companies try to work these things out before they go to bankruptcy. It ought to be a requirement that they use every single measure available and consider all alternatives and only go in as a last resort. And we had better find a way to protect workers' pensions if they do go into bankruptcy. What is the explanation why people who have invested over the course of 15, 20, 30 years of work do not have their rights protected as a creditor, yet someone who might have given a loan to the company in the last 6 months gets credited as a preferred creditor and gets supported. Whose rights are more important and who has a better claim to the assets of that company than the employees who made it what it is? Finally, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation was not designed to have whole industries fall apart. It was designed that if an occasional company went under, it would be able to shore up and at least give those employees some portion of their retirement benefits so they would not lose everything. But now what we are seeing is other people following the lead of United, whether it is Delphi, United, other airlines, we stand the prospect of having whole industries jumping on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation as an insurer and they are totally underfunded for that kind of a situation. We need to look at that and say, is there something that we should set up, another source of funds, whether it is a ticket fee or something else, something that we can set aside so that industry going down does not take on the whole Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and all corporations and put all those employees at risk. More broadly, I think we need some leadership here in Congress on this issue. If corporations are not going to do anything about it, what are we going to do? What are we going to put in place for structures of security for the American people? What is our plan to make sure that something is there for people? People do not save enough. History shows us that. If corporations are going to take their money over a number of years and not hold their promise, what are we going to do as a society to make sure there is some security for people when they retire and can no longer work because of their age or because of their health? We need 21st century structures of security here. Democrats have been talking about this. We want to do something about it. We have ideas and we are open to a lot of other ideas. We cannot get the conversation started. We are going to keep at it.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, there are simple things that we should do just to get started. If we change the default on 401(k) plans so they default into them as opposed to they have to take an affirmative action in order to sign up for them, all of the reports show that would increase savings in this country or at least put a hedge on that. If we allowed people to bifurcate their tax returns, so instead of one check sent back or put towards next year's taxes, workers could actually have some set aside for a 401(k), reports show it would increase savings. We cannot get our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in doing a simple first step. This is a serious matter. They talk about the ownership policy of the President. But basically it is every man, woman and child for themselves. They are not going to tax the estates of dead people, not going to tax dividends, but are going to tax every ounce of work that causes sweat on your brow, not have companies live up to their promises with respect to your pensions, let companies take away the health care that they promised when you retire. Mr. Speaker, as a government, we are about much, much more. This is a country that has always had a mixed economy. This is a country that has always relied on having a free market and that was always invigorated by a rigorous public square, public policy that worked for everybody; and corporations and individuals and government leaders worked together to find solutions. We are ready to do that. If the other side does not want to do that, then step aside and let us go because this is a serious matter for families across the country. They are rightfully worried about this.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, assuming that my colleague has no other speakers, I yield myself such time as I shall consume. I just want to, Mr. Speaker, highlight the point that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) finished with in her remarks. If this bill is enacted, that she was talking about, H.R. 609, which, in fact, redistributes the campus-based aid formula, these very States that we are trying to help today, this afternoon, would be harmed. If it was enacted and those funds were redistributed without adding additional funds to protect schools that now receive assistance under that provision, Louisiana would lose almost $1.2 million in work study funds under the plan. Alabama would lose $1.3 million. Mississippi would lose nearly $2.5 million in work study. So almost $4.5 million in all the three campus-based aid programs. This clearly does not make sense. Rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship is not going to save that ship from going down. In higher education, we have a tremendous obligation now to have more children take advantage of college and graduate. It used to be a high school education was enough to catapult a son or daughter into the middle class. We all know today that that is not enough any longer, that we really need to encourage 2 to 4 years beyond high school; and in doing that, campus-based aid plays a very significant and important role. Redistributing the funds in such a way that you are taking them away from some campuses and then putting them on other campuses is, in fact, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) said, taking from Peter to pay Paul. The fact of the matter is we ought to increase the funding so that no student loses current assistance and new students who should be getting it do indeed receive the assistance that they need. A reallocation of campus-based funds must include a significant boost in that funding in order to continue our efforts here so we give more children the responsibility and the opportunity to complete a college degree. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and I had offered that amendment in committee. It failed on a tie vote, 24 to 24. We got significant bipartisan support. In fact, a number of schools would be impacted. More than 80 Members of Congress have signed a letter to the committee asking them to take that offending provision that would redistribute the funds without adding additional money, to take that out of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record at this point a list of each of the States and how much money they would lose on campus-based aid if that redistributed formula under H.R. 609 passed without adding more funds in.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3863 is, in fact, a good bill, and I want to congratulate my colleague for filing this bill and working on it. Obviously, as he stated, the bill directs the Secretary of Education to waive an institution's match requirement and to redistribute millions of dollars in unused campus-based aid funds such as work study and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants to students and colleges that are impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The bill in the first instance states that the Secretary shall waive those match requirements if, in fact, an institution is located in the gulf area that is affected by the hurricanes, and it may waive them for institutions that accept for enrollment any affected students after considering an institution's student population, existing resources, and applying objective and consistent criteria. That makes great sense. Under current law already, colleges that participate in the campus- based aid programs have to return any unused aid to the Secretary of Education at the end of the year. Then the Secretary can reallocate those funds to colleges that have an additional need or return the money to the Treasury. This bill gives the Secretary the instruction and the latitude to take that money and redistribute it where it is most needed at this particular time after the devastation of the storms. The Department of Education estimates that this change could result in an additional $36 million of student aid to help affected students and colleges this year. I support this commonsense step and believe that it will provide immediate relief to the affected colleges and students. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, years ago it was enough to have an education from kindergarten through 12 years, and now it is not enough. People know that you have to have a couple or 3 years before kindergarten and 2 to 4 years afterwards. It is now essential. It is a priority to have early childhood education. It is a difference between a child's future development and learning advantages, especially for those students that are disadvantaged like the ones that are served by the Head Start program. It makes them prepared for school. A national review of 36 studies on the long-term impact of early childhood education programs found that low-income children who participated in such programs were less likely to be held back, less likely to be placed in special education classes, more likely to succeed in school, more likely to graduate, and more likely to be rated as behaving well in class and better adjusted in school. Researchers have also concluded that there is a greater chance of these positive outcomes when young children are taught by teachers with bachelor's degrees in early childhood education. One of the largest national studies in this early education field was conducted by the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. It showed that caregiver education and training were among the strongest predictors of quality in programs for preschoolers. That is why it is a good thing that this bill has in it a provision that half of the Head Start teachers have to hold bachelor's degrees within a few years. That is an admirable goal. We talked in committee about the fact that it is necessary for us to try to help that population of teachers be able to afford that. In Massachusetts, my State, they make less than half the salaries of kindergarten teachers. The national average is almost as bad. I congratulate the chairman for working with us on the Higher Education Act to make sure there is a loan forgiveness program, $5,000 for 5 years commitment to teach early childhood education, that will help with this particular issue. Significant improvements have been made to this Head Start bill. That is why it was unanimous approval essentially in committee. I am afraid some of the recommendations that are being put forward in the amendments here today are spectacular efforts to drive a wedge between the parties on this, to make it a less-than-unanimous bill. It is unnecessary, it is unfortunate, and I hope there is no discrimination in hiring practices. We can do better than that and pass a bill that is worthy of this Congress and helpful to the United States people.