John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. TIERNEY. I am happy, I guess, to keep on talking. I think that the desire to have the final word without any rebuttal is somewhat indicative of the strength of an argument, but if that is the gentleman's choice, certainly you are able to do that. I would note that the administration urges the Congress to support the President's initiative to terminate or reduce programs that fund narrowly focused activities and duplicate existing programs and that have outlived their usefulness. It particularly mentions the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program as one of those, indicating that we can better target scarce resources and redirect funds to programs with a greater potential for results. And that, of course, is in the Statement of Administration Policy with respect to this bill. Let me, if I can, Mr. Chairman, just read what the Director of the Missile Defense Agency says about this, and he said this on May 21, 2009: ``The original KEI mission grew from a boost phase only mission to a boost and mid-course mission. The development schedule grew from 5\1/2\ years to 12 to 14 years (depending on spirals), program cost grew from $4.6 billion to $8.9 billion, and the missile average unit production cost grew from $25 million to over $50 million per interceptor. Technical issues delayed the first booster flight test date (established in 2007) by over a year,'' and this year any further testing is highly unlikely. ``Given the above and that 15 percent of the $8.9 billion worth of work on contract till 2018 has been accomplished, the KEI program was terminated.'' And further, you have the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates, indicating that this is one decision that he didn't have to make or take credit for. The Missile Defense Agency itself, under the Bush administration, essentially eliminated the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, or thought that it had. First of all, he said this has been a 5-year development program that now looks like it's about to be a 16-year development program. There has not been a single flight test. There has been little work on the third stage of the kill vehicle, which is obviously critical. A big part of the program is that it needs to be close to the launch site to be able to be effective, and the 38- or 39-foot size of the instrument and the weight of 12 tons means that we have no extant ship that could actually be used to get close enough. It would be virtually of limited or no use against Iran or Russia or the Chinese. It has very limited capability, and that is why this is not a productive way to proceed on this matter. There may be some argument by some here--and we will never know until after we're finished talking, of course--that we want to keep some of this money in for research purposes. Let me suggest to my colleagues that there is a significant amount of money in research, development and testing within the entire Department of Defense budget as well as within the budget for the Missile Defense Program. I urge my colleagues to support this motion and thank the chairman for the time.

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

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 375th Anniversary of the founding of Ipswich, Massachusetts and to congratulate the residents of Ipswich, Massachusetts as they plan to gather to celebrate this momentous occasion in their historical town. In 1633, English colonists from the Massachusetts Bay Colony decided to forge an outpost to the north at ``Agawam.'' These early settlers were led by John Winthrop, Jr., the son of Governor John Winthrop, and were charged with the responsibility of protecting the colony from threats to its destruction and opening up trade opportunities. Their success, in so doing, ensured the future of the nation. The new settlement was so successful as a military outpost and future center of law and culture that, on August 4, 1634, the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony voted to name it ``Ipswich'' after Ipswich, England. In 1638, the Reverend Nathaniel Ward of Ipswich was commissioned by colonial leaders to draft the Body of Liberties, which was adopted by the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and published in 1641 as the first code of laws drafted in New England, and which was the colony's and--some would claim--the nation's first Bill of Rights. In 1687, Ipswich citizens refused to pay new taxes instituted by Governor Edmund Andros and, in so doing, committed acts resisting taxation without representation now known as the ``Andros Rebellion'' that predated by roughly eighty years the episodes of the next century that led to the American Revolution. Ipswich is home to America's oldest continuously working farm, Appleton Farms (1635); the Chebacco Parish of Ipswich (now Essex, Massachusetts) was one of the shipbuilding capitals of New England, thus securing the lucrative fishing industry of Massachusetts, its economic future and early maritime contributions to the nation and Ipswich's literary heritage includes the seventeenth-century resident Anne Bradstreet, America's first published poet. Ipswich's eighteenth-century lace industry, acknowledged with appreciation by President George Washington during his 1789 visit to Ipswich, is considered the first women's industry in America, and Ipswich's nineteenth-century mills produced more stockings than any other place in America and transformed the town culturally by attracting new residents from all over Europe. To honor Ipswich's proud heritage, Town officials and Ipswich residents have registered historic structures on the National Register, mounted plaques to mark historic sites and preserved thousands of acres of open space and the centrally-important Ipswich River. They have a deep appreciation for the town's architectural and historical significance in our nation's history and are committed to historical preservation so others can share the traditions of our nation's past. As a result, Ipswich currently contains more houses (fifty-nine at last count) built during the ``first period'' of American architecture (1625-1725) than any other town in America. Some town folks suggest that this makes Ipswich, ``America's Colonial home town.'' Today, Ipswich Clams are known throughout America with good reason, and Ipswich thrives as a diverse community of cultures and professions that lives comfortably with its history and welcomes visitors from around the world. As they have been throughout 2009, the residents of Ipswich will continue celebrating the Town's 375th Anniversary while simultaneously honoring its 11,000-year Native American heritage (as documented by the Paleo-Indian site called Bull Brook). As their representative in the United States House of Representatives, I salute the residents of Ipswich and Town leaders for their welcoming nature, their sense of community and their warm hospitality in opening their arms and doors to visitors from around this country and around the world. As Ipswich celebrates its 375th Anniversary, I encourage my colleagues and their constituents to travel to the 6th Congressional District of Massachusetts to discover and celebrate the storied history of Ipswich, Massachusetts one of the founding cornerstones of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States of America. I assure you that you will enjoy Ipswich and its people and its natural, cultural and historic treasures.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I want to thank the chairman for the time and for the bill that he has put on the floor today. I rise in support of this en bloc amendment, particularly because it includes two amendments that were made in order under the rule. The bill as reported by the committee specifies that no funds may be obligated for the deployment of a long-range missile defense system in Europe until the Secretary of Defense submits a report to Congress certifying that the proposed interceptor that is going to be deployed has been realistically flight-tested and has demonstrated a high probability of working in an operational manner. That makes perfect sense. In recent months, those studies have been conducted by various independent scientists, and they have shown that the radar proposed for the Czech Republic does not have enough range to perform effectively. As my colleagues know, the interceptors' capabilities are dependent on the ability and the accuracy of the radar. That is why I believe that it is imperative that the Secretary's report also certify about the proposed radars, and that first amendment requires just that. The second amendment directs the JASON panel, which has been providing independent scientific advice and consultation to the government since 1960 on matters of defense, science and technology, to conduct a study on whether the discrimination capabilities being sought by the Missile Defense Agency are achievable. The system has to be evaluated by its ability to successfully distinguish between an enemy's missile and any accompanying decoys countermeasures. And right now, there is little evidence to suggest that the system can make those kinds of distinctions. Furthermore, this is a big challenge. As Dr. Phil Coyle, who was the former director of operational test and evaluation at the Pentagon noted during a hearing that we convened, ``shooting down an enemy missile going 17,000 miles per hour is like trying to hit a hole-in-one in golf when the hole is going 17,000 miles per hour. If an enemy uses decoys and countermeasures, missile defense is like trying to shoot a hole-in- one while the hole is going 17,000 miles per hour and the green is covered with black circles the same size as the hole. The defender doesn't know what target to aim for.'' So this report should inform Congress on whether or not the ballistic missile defense system will actually be able to employ discrimination technology. So I hope to thank Chairman Skelton for approving these amendments in the en bloc package. I believe they will provide important oversight over the missile defense system. And finally, as one who has long believed Congress must reexamine how it funds this program, I'm delighted that it takes a small but important step in reducing by $1.2 billion the funding for these programs. I hope it is the beginning of a trend on the way we go.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder, listening to this particular substitute, whether some people here, whether it's the administration or whether it's our friends on the other side of the aisle, have been sleepwalking through history. If you want to see a repeat of the last 8 years then, fine, let's get rid of all the accountability. A billion and a half dollars now for the next 5 years is going to be given to the Pakistanis on the civil side of things. In the past, there's been tens of billions of dollars since their independence. We have maybe a structure that's supposed to be a school or a structure that's supposed to be a clinic standing somewhere but no teachers, no nurses, no doctors, no systems that actually work because there's been a total lack of accountability. This substitute amendment would continue that lack of accountability. On the security side of things, we have a situation where we have $6.2 billion given in the coalition support funds which, essentially, were a blank check to General Musharraf and the military over there. What we got in return, when we finally started doing some oversight in January of 2007 and afterwards, was a determination that some 40 percent of that had vaporized, cannot be accounted for. It was supposed to be going for things that are counterinsurgency, weaponry that would help fight a common problem of extremists in that country, and disappeared somewhere else. This particular bill that the substitute is trying to undermine would put in place the accountability provisions. They are flexible enough. They simply say that you have to fight those extremists that are mutual problems. You have to make sure you stop people from going over the border to create problems in Afghanistan. You have to cooperate on nuclear nonproliferation, reasonable things. The American people have a right to expect that their Representatives are going to be accountable for the billions of dollars. We are supposed to be having a partnership and a mature relationship with the Pakistanis. Then let's get over that notion that we're going to offend their sensibilities so that they won't actually cooperate with us if we want to put some conditions to make sure that our mutual problems are addressed with the billions of dollars of American citizens' money. We've had 8-plus years of not having accountability on funds to that country and others. We've had times since 2002 where we had totally no accountability. Let's stop sleepwalking. Let's get the problem resolved. Let's make sure we have accountability. I say vote against the substitute; vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to note that the rule and the process leading to its presentation are flawed and consequently, the underlying bill does not adequately serve our military forces or the taxpayers of this country. Since 2002, billions of dollars have been given to the Pakistan military and much of that amount has not been accounted for. Pakistani military commanders continue to consider certain extremists as their ``strategic assets'' in their seemingly never-ending security concerns involving fears about India; and the Pakistani military continues to fail to give proper attention to Pakistan's existential threat--the very extremists who associate with and harbor Al Qaeda and are also a threat to Afghanistan, our forces in Afghanistan, and others throughout the world. I proposed, with a number of colleagues, and believe the bill must be improved by, an amendment establishing enforceable benchmarks on U.S. military assistance to Pakistan that would lead to the articulation of reasonable expectations. Functionally, the amendment requires that the President make reasonable determinations about the state of mutual security objectives of Pakistan and the United States before any remainder of the military assistance for Pakistan can be obligated. It does not seek to condition any civilian assistance to Pakistan. The American people and its government are the friends of Pakistan and its people, and we fully understand the crisis nature of the economy and civil governance status. The assistance in any measure should certainly be accounted for, and should be put to effect in such a way as to ensure it maximizes benefit to the Pakistani people. America is making a long term commitment to Pakistan, its democracy and its future prosperity. Nevertheless, with respect to military funding, specifically, the amendment requires determinations on Pakistan--through its military--to make concerted progress toward: (1) Ceasing of all support to groups presenting cross-border terrorist threats, (2) Dismantling training facilities for such groups across Pakistan, (3) Preventing and disrupting cross-border attacks, (4) Strengthening and increasing counterterrorism prosecutions and extraditions, (5) Degrading such groups' radio broadcast infrastructure, and (6) Extending Pakistan's legitimate governmental writ across its territory and the protection of all its citizens' civil and human rights without discrimination. As an oversight forcing function, the amendment requires written justification of the President's determinations and also tasks the U.S. Government Accountability Office with providing an independent analysis of the categories requiring Presidential determination. Additionally, the amendment includes language allowing the President to waive the requirement if such action is certified to be vital to the national security interests of the United States. Finally, there is in the amendment a process for Congress to disprove of such certification if in its judgment such action is appropriate. We must stop just handing out cash slush funds only to witness conduct not conducive to both nations' national security. We have a right to expect that dangerous suspected terrorists will not just be set free as has reportedly happened with the Pakistani military's complicity; and a right to expect accountability for the hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars that should be targeted to effective security for our troops in Afghanistan and people here at home. We must ensure resources are focused on Pakistan's and America's common security interests and the only really verifiable way to have that occur is to condition any funds sent to the Pakistani military in the way set forth in the proposed amendment. For too long our military, and our government, have dealt directly with the Pakistani military and ignored the civilian government empowering their military to circumvent democratic accountability and hindering our ability to account for our investment. The way to resolve matters in Afghanistan relies heavily on circumstances in Pakistan. The situation in Pakistan cries out for accountability if we are to successfully protect our security.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the Member for yielding me the time. I want to congratulate the sponsors of this bill, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights. Obviously, we have been proud to sponsor this bill and its previous iterations in past Congresses as well as this Congress. People in my district are upset about what's been going on with this. A Gloucester, Massachusetts, resident says that his bank has raised rates to the 27 percent level. Now they have to use part of their retirement savings to pay off their cards. From North Andover, Massachusetts, rates going up as high from 12 percent to 29 percent. A 12-year customer of their bank never late on a payment. Salem, Massachusetts, their interest rates were threatened to go up to 31.99 percent. Cardholders need protection. They need protection against arbitrary interest rate increases. They need protection against being punished even when they pay on time. They need protection against due-date gimmicks. They need protection against excessive fees. But we also take nothing from the underlying bill, which is a good piece of legislation, to say that we also need protection on interest rates, period. Usury has been with this country since its origination all the way through the end of the Carter years. It wasn't until the courts in 1978 indicated that companies should not have to deal with 50 different interest rates State by State. But Justice Black also said the Federal legislators could undertake to set a cap on interest rate fees, and we should have been doing that long ago. We should have taken this opportunity in this rule to allow an amendment to do just that. We've had usury rules since the Babylonian Empire. The fact of the matter is these credit card companies will go out and just raise those interest rates to try to make up on what they're losing and the other things that we're doing in this bill. If we don't do it in this bill, we should do it soon in a freestanding bill to stop those usury rates. We have to find out whether the Members of this body and the Senate are standing with American families and businesses or whether they're going to stand with the companies as they take excessive profits and unjustly enrich themselves on the backs of our families and our neighbors. So I want to thank you for the time and say this is a great bill. The rule is a good rule. We need to move forward, however. If we're not going to allow a cap on interest rates in this bill, then we ought to do it in a freestanding bill and do it as soon as possible.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member McKeon. This was a cooperative effort, a bipartisan effort for sure focusing on access and affordability. There's a partnership in education, higher education in particular, between parents and children, entire families, levels of government at both the State and Federal level, and the institutions. The families for too long have seen their share of that partnership go up and up in tuition and fees. This Congress dealt with the reconciliation bill last year, putting $20 billion additionally in for Pell Grants, reducing the cost of loans. We needed to ask these institutions to step up to the plate, and we've done that in this bill. They have incentives to keep their tuition low and the incentives go to more aid to the students. They're going to be held accountable by being required to report any reasons for tuition increases. States are going to have to maintain their investment in higher education so they can't supplant their responsibilities with either the money from the Federal Government or by charging students more in tuition and fees. If they do, they won't get access to a program. So they have that incentive to move forward. We restore the integrity and accountability to the student loan programs, we've provided loan forgiveness for people, and all of this focuses, Mr. Speaker, on families and makes that partnership work. I support the bill and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Marian Orfeo, a constituent from Lynnfield, Massachusetts and Director of Planning & Coordination with the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), on being named the new President of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA). Marian will assume the Presidency at NACWA's Annual Conference, which convenes in Anchorage, Alaska this week. Ms. Orfeo has served the MWRA in varying capacities for nearly two decades. The MWRA provides wholesale water and sewer services to 2.5 million people in sixty-one communities across eastern and central Massachusetts, including several in the sixth congressional district. As the Director of Planning and Coordination, her responsibilities include long-range planning to construct and renew MWRA's water and wastewater facilities and infrastructure as well as short-term strategic business planning for all agency functions. Marian also manages the Authority's performance reporting system and is a member of the Steering Committee for the MetroFuture initiative of the Boston Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Over her career, Ms. Orfeo has demonstrated leadership and committed countless hours and tireless energy to efforts dedicated to the improvement of Boston's water quality and public health. As a result, she has earned the trust and respect of her peers, who recognize her as an environmental champion. Marian Orfeo's public service career predates her twenty years of service with the MWRA. She previously worked for the City of Boston for sixteen years during which time she was engaged with operations, administration, finance and planning functions. Marian has been an active member of NACWA since 1994 and a Member of its Board of Directors since 2000. She continues to be an ardent advocate for the need to develop a new, holistic approach to the nation's complex 21st century water challenges. It is appropriate that the House recognize this personal accomplishment of Marian Orfeo. I am confident that NACWA will flourish under her leadership, and I trust that Marian will bring her contagious energy and enthusiasm to the position and help secure NACWA's role as a leading advocate for responsible national policies that advance clean water and a healthy environment.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jon Kimbell, Artistic Director and Executive Producer of the North Shore Music Theatre (NSMT) in Beverly, Massachusetts, who after twenty-five years is retiring and embarking upon the next stage of his illustrious career in musical theatre. Jon Kimbell has been at the helm of NSMT for nearly half of its existence. During that time, he provided the inspiration, experience and leadership that transformed the NSMT from a seasonal summer stock theater to a year round operation. Jon's energy and enthusiasm were contagious, and in partnership with a dedicated staff and a committed Board of Trustees, Mr. Kimbell oversaw the theatre's expansion from a $1 million organization with 7,000 subscribers in 1983 to a $14 million operation with 20,000 subscribers in 2008. The North Shore Music Theatre helped make the region north of Boston a major destination in the cultural tourism industry. During Jon's tenure, NSMT became a nationally-recognized venue, and it has been named the second largest performing arts organization in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Boston Business Journal. Jon Kimbell and the North Shore Music Theatre are important pistons in the engine of the creative economy that attracts so many to the North Shore--both to live permanently and to visit repeatedly. For a quarter of a century, Jon was true to the mission of the NSMT, and he worked tirelessly to increase the awareness, significance and celebration of musical theater and the performing arts through superb entertainment and educational programs. Under his tutelage, the North Shore Music Theatre established initiatives that expanded the horizons of countless thousands every year--from special needs populations, to underserved communities, to pre-professionals in training programs, and the theatre supported the development of an inter-generational musical theater program that united senior citizens and elementary school students. Perhaps one of Jon's greatest achievements came at the most challenging of times. In the wake of a devastating 2005 fire that nearly destroyed the building, Jon guided the theatre with a firm hand and resolve, and utilizing his ever-resourceful personality and connections, he successfully arranged for NSMT to produce much of its season at the Shubert Theatre in Boston. Jon brought life to the old adage that ``The show must go on!'' He went on to spearhead a recovery effort that allowed NSMT to reopen a mere 110 days after the fire. It is appropriate that the House recognize this personal milestone of Jon Kimbell. He has been accorded the accolades and been named recipient of numerous industry awards, and he will be remembered locally for having written and created one of the North Shore's valued holiday traditions, A Christmas Carol. His contributions to the quality of life for the people of the North Shore and beyond cannot be overestimated and will last into the future. Jon Kimbell was an engaged and contributing member of the North Shore community. Bravo, Jon Kimbell!

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment follows a series of hearings with eminent physicists and security experts all testifying, as well as reports from the General Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service, and others on the status of our weapons programs and their costs, together with an evaluation of the threats realistically facing the United States. The amendment seeks to ensure that we have appropriate resources directed to address our most urgent risks, our most pressing national security priorities. We seek to reallocate $996 million, just under $1 billion, to nonproliferation programs and initiatives aimed at countering weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, to support our wounded warriors and their families, included critical suicide prevention programs, and to cover the National Guard and Reserve shortfalls, especially in connection with homeland security activities. Mr. Chairman, as you know, governing means choosing. Our amendment allows members to consider the importance of increasing funds for our most serious threats, those being nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and materials and national security programs. Slightly reducing the missile defense program's $10.1 billion budget to meet these needs is, we believe, the right choice and the right balance. The pressing national security threat of our time is asymmetric action, some terror-based group attempting to introduce to United States soil some aspect of weapons of mass destruction. Our national intelligence experts and I think other experts all agree on that. And it is common sense to know that such threats won't come from al Qaeda or other groups through sophisticated intercontinental ballistic missiles. In fact, the CIA said in 2000, and I quote, ``The United States territory is probably more likely to be attacked with weapons of mass destruction from nonmissile delivery means, most likely from nonstate entities, than by missiles. September 11 only underscores the susceptibility to asymmetric attack. Mr. Chairman, we just don't seem to be getting that message. In 2005, the 9/11 Commission gave the United States Government a ``D'' with respect to our efforts to secure weapons of mass destruction, calling this, and again I quote, ``The greatest threat to American security,'' and that it should be, and I quote, ``the top national security priority of the President and the Congress.'' Our amendment leaves intact funding for defenses for our troops that they might rely upon for protection against short-range and intermediate missiles. The reductions are solely made from high-risk long-term research projects and from systems from which there currently is not a pressing threat. Experts note that with respect to the long-range programs, realistic operational tests have yet to be successfully conducted so as to provide any appreciable belief that they would operate efficiently. We have plenty of funding left then for research and development, but we decrease funds that would be putting procurement and deployment ahead of capability. We have spent $150 billion, Mr. Chairman, on this program already, an amount that exceeds more than our country spent on the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that assuming that the Missile Defense Agency continues its present course, the taxpayers will spend an additional $213 billion to $277 billion between now and 2025. Mr. Chairman, we simply seek to allocate our resources so as to provide the best defense that we need currently facing the threats that we realistically expect might be directed at this country. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I recognize myself for 30 seconds. Just to note that it is all very interesting that the gentleman just spoke about a race that we are in. But if we are going to run a race, let's run it wisely and let's run it to win. The comments that the gentleman makes about Israel being susceptible to attacks and missiles is also very interesting, but he is talking about short- and medium-ranged missiles. My amendment doesn't address short- and medium-ranged missiles; it addresses intercontinental ballistic missiles, long-range missiles which have never been operationally or realistically tested. All I am saying is, let's put our research and development monies into the future where that may take us on those long-range programs, and leave the money that we have for the short- and medium-ranged ones for those threats that might realistically exist. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, at this time I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for 1 minute.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge myself for 15 seconds just to make a point. With respect to the testing records that the gentleman from Alabama just read, I hope that they've read the amendment. But I certainly appreciate the fact that they understand what it is we're talking about here. But conflating the tests for short, medium and long-range is not going to be effective in addressing the amendment that is before the House. The amendment before the House is dealing strictly with the long-range for that, and those testing results are not reflected accurately by the statement that was just made. So we're not talking about Aegis, we are not talking about THAAD, we're not talking about Patriot attack systems. We're talking about intercontinental ballistic missiles. Those tests have not been done operationally, they have not been done realistically, and they have not been done successfully to show that there's any efficient way that those are going to be successful. All of the testimony by all the physicists and all of the experts who came there indicate that clearly.

Mr. TIERNEY. I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, again, it's all very interesting what we hear for comments from our colleagues. But the interesting part of this is it does matter whether it's short and medium-range or whether it's long- range. The short and medium-range, some of the testing has, in fact, been effective and does lead us to believe and experts to believe that there might be an effective defense against those. But the experts look at the long-range system and they say, you know, we are procuring and we are deploying way ahead of our capability. These do not work. There has been no realistic operational testing to indicate that they would. There have been sporadic tests that have been successful on some aspects of it. There have been a number of tests that have been abject failures on a large part of it. The fact of the matter is, if we're going to have defense, it should be smart defense. We have spent $150 billion so far for nothing, nothing in terms of that long-range missile system and its effectiveness. You want to spend another $217 billion to $250 billion in the next several years when we have other pressing needs, the ones that the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accountability Office, the 9/ 11 Commission, our own common sense tell us are the more likely threats to this country, some asymmetric threat, some weapon of mass destruction by a terrorist group, or some short-range or medium-range missile coming in our direction. That's what we should be defending against. We can still test, we can still have research and development and testing for the long-range, but that would mean cutting it back substantially so we're not deploying and not procuring ahead of the game, so that we don't find ourselves owning these things, having them deployed and fielded and have to retract all of it and start over again, having a false sense of security, and having things on the ground that only need to be redone, at huge, huge cost. None of that adds to our security. It ignores the real security needs of this country that should be put first and foremost. This is the sensible thing to do. I urge the House Members to support this amendment and let us move forward in a more secure way in this country. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to S. 2929 into the Record.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2929) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate 2929, a bill to temporarily extend programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965. At the beginning of February, the House took the next step in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in passing H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act. Now we find ourselves in the near final phase of completing the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act as we work towards a compromise bill with the Senate to ensure that the doors of college are truly open to all qualified students. It's our goal to ensure that a final bill encompasses the major issues addressed in H.R. 4137, including the skyrocketing college prices and needlessly complicated student-aid application process and predatory tactics by student lenders. The bill under consideration today, S. 2929, will extend the programs under the Higher Education Act until May 31, 2008, to allow sufficient time for final deliberations on the two bills reported out of the respective chambers. While the process of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act may be coming to a close, I would like to underscore that this does not mean that we will complete work on higher education altogether. The committee intends to continue to address issues as needed, which include not only overseeing the proper implementation of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act and the rest of the Higher Education Act, but also, for example, ensuring availability of student loans during this challenging credit market, which the House acted on last week in passing H.R. 5715. It has been nearly 10 years since the Higher Education Act was last reauthorized, and I believe that Members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers are anxious to complete work on a compromise bill in this Congress, and we believe it can happen. I look forward to completing this work with the respective Members on behalf of our Nation's hardworking families and students. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1168) congratulating charter schools and their students, parents, teachers, and administrators across the United States for their ongoing contributions to education, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may insert material relevant to H. Res. 1168 into the Record.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this measure supports the designation of May 5 to May 9, 2008, as National Charter Schools Week and recognizes the growing charter school movement in our Nation. Since their inception in 1991, charter schools have grown by leaps and bounds to address various needs of our Nation's public school students. Diverse charter schools across the country offer innovative instruction. With site-based control and flexibility, charter schools can make timely decisions about how to structure the school day, which curriculum best suits the needs of their students and, additionally, charter schools may form important partnerships with parents and the surrounding community. This week charter schools across the country will celebrate the ninth annual National Charter Schools Week. This year's theme, ``Growing Excellence,'' encourages charter schools to share their successes as part of the effort to reform public education in our country. Today there are almost 4,300 public charter schools operating in 40 States. Their combined force serves over 1.2 million students, and 61 percent of charter schools report significant waiting lists. These waiting lists of nearly 365,000 students nationally are enough to fill over 1,100 new charter schools. Between 300 and 400 new public charter schools open each year, and nearly 150,000 new students enroll in charter schools annually. The growing charter school movement is said to be providing opportunities for many historically underserved communities. Nationally, it is said that charter schools disproportionately serve minority and low-income students. It is reported that 58 percent of charter school students are minorities, and 52 percent qualify for free and reduced-price lunch, and many charter schools are able to achieve impressive academic results. H. Res. 1168 expresses support for National Charter Schools Week and recognizes the charter school movement's 16-year history providing public education options based on innovation, flexibility and community partnerships. The committee urges our colleagues to pass this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.