Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), who serves on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup) of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not require any President to do anything. There is a choice, and the choice that any President will face is, if you go above a certain number, then I think common sense tells us that these folks are doing more than advising; they are in operations. As a matter of fact, the former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Obama administration Pentagon, Ms. Flournoy, has testified that, as the staffs grow, they tend to get more into operational details and tactical kinds of oversight. Historically, when you have had smaller national security staffs--for example, the Scowcroft era--they had a very clear understanding of what their role was. This is a matter of common sense. Absolutely, there are no guarantees. You might have one person who would try to direct; but, generally, the more people you have got, the more stuff they are going to try to micromanage. So I don't prevent a President from doing anything with this amendment. I simply say that it is a choice. You can have 100 people or fewer and not go before the Senate. If you have more than that, you have got to get Senate confirmed like the Director of OMB is now. I think that is what makes sense. I hope Members will support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would inform the gentleman that I have no further speakers and am prepared to close on this side if the gentleman is.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), a distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to an issue that relates to the ability of Congress to do its job under the Constitution and the appropriate balance of powers because I think everybody agrees that a President ought to have advisers, and that there ought to be a zone, a protected zone for those advisers to offer advice to the President. But the problem is when those advisers do more than advise, when they direct, and when they, in fact, get into the operational military chain of command, that is a problem. What we have seen in recent years is a tremendous increase in the number of staff at the National Security Council. And what we have also seen is an astonishing increase in micromanagement and direction of military forces that come from these NSC staffers. In effect, they insert themselves into the military chain of command and, yet, they are not confirmed by the Senate, nor is their supervisor, and they never have to come testify to us about the direction they give the military. That is the reason that there has developed an imbalance in the balance of powers as constructed under the Constitution. Every previous Secretary of Defense in the Obama administration has complained about this. Typical are the comments of Secretary Gates: It was the operational micromanagement that drove me nuts of the White House and national security staffers calling senior commanders out in the field second-guessing commanders. Secretary Panetta and Secretary Hagel have said similar things, as has former Under Secretary Michele Flournoy. So my amendment does not tell the President how many people he can have. He can have 10,000 if he wants, but if he goes above a certain number, they are not just advising, they are directing, and the National Security Adviser must then be confirmed by the Senate. This will not affect President Obama. It is the next President. But the next President will have a choice. Do you have a relatively small or the historically average number of advisers? If you do more, you have to get confirmed by the Senate. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), another valuable member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to file a supplemental report on the bill, H.R. 4909.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to announce the passing of LCDR (Ret.) Robert Dunlap Holland, Jr. of Annandale, Virginia on January 20, 2016, at the age of 89. He is survived by Barbara, his loving wife of 59 years; his daughter Anne and son-in-law Richard McFarland of Springfield, Virginia; his son Thomas Christopher, daughter-in-law Lisa, and stepson Cody Doss of Jupiter, Florida; his sister Phyllis Eggleston of Norfolk, Virginia; and many nieces, nephews, cousins, and special friends. LCDR Holland was born in Norfolk, Virginia on November 18, 1926, to Gladys Matthews Holland and Robert Dunlap Holland. He was raised in Norfolk and graduated from Maury High School in 1944. Upon graduation, LCDR Holland went to Emory and Henry College as part of the Navy's V-12 program. He subsequently attended the University of Virginia, graduating in 1949 from the Naval ROTC program where he earned a degree in commerce and a reserve commission in the United States Navy. When the Korean War broke out, the Navy activated his commission as part of the contingent invading Inchon. Upon returning to the United States, LCDR Holland trained as a gunfire liaison officer at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. After leaving active service, LCDR Holland relocated to Annapolis, Maryland, to manage a small loan office. In 1954, he met his future wife, Barbara Claire Harkins. They married in 1956. In 1960, Robert, Barbara, and their two children moved to Annandale where he began a career in banking. He was tremendously proud of both his service in the United States Navy Reserve and to be a part of the First Virginia Bank Family. Mr. Speaker, LCDR Holland and his family represent the very best of America's Greatest Generation. We rise to honor and thank them for their service to our Nation and to wish them Fair Winds and Following Seas.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with Representative Mike Thompson and Representative Sanford Bishop to urge our colleagues in Congress to move towards the construction and completion of the National Eisenhower Memorial as a fitting tribute to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War II and the 34th President of the United States. As admirers of Dwight D. Eisenhower and his impact on history, it has been an honor to serve on the Eisenhower Memorial Commission. It is our hope that Dwight D. Eisenhower and our country receive a memorial that properly commemorates his roles as General and President that helped shape our nation for the better. We believe the current proposed design achieves this goal. For over ten years, the Commission has worked to develop a memorial that pays tribute to Eisenhower's achievements as both General and President. During this process, there have been some differences of opinion on how to best honor Eisenhower's accomplishments. Unfortunately, there has also been a fair amount of misinformation in many news stories and reports. The Memorial was first authorized by Congress in 1999. Within the past few months, all final design and site approvals have been obtained under the process required by Congress from the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, and the National Capital Planning Commission. Since its inception, the Commission has consulted with members of the Eisenhower family. David Eisenhower was an original member of the Commission from 2001 through 2011, during which time the architectural firm and Memorial design were approved by unanimous votes. Time is of the essence for our remaining World War II veterans. Funding of construction in Fiscal Year 2016 will allow the Memorial to be completed by the summer of 2019, the 75th anniversary of D-Day. Further delays would mean that those who fought under Eisenhower's command would not see its completion and call in to question whether the Memorial will ever be built. Now is the time to move ahead.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Bishop not only for bringing this bill to the floor, but for taking the time to understand the issues, how they came to be, and cutting to the heart of the matter. I thought he did an outstanding job of explaining the challenges that my constituents face. Also, Subcommittee Chairman McClintock has done an excellent job of talking about this bill. Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely true. This specific legislation applies only to the 116-mile stretch of the Red River that is at issue here; but one point I completely agree with the gentlewoman from Massachusetts on is that the consequences of this extend far beyond those 116 miles, because if the Federal Government can come in and, through a regulatory process, say this land that you may have a deed to, that you may have paid taxes on for generations, that you may think you own, is not yours but is really ours, then that threatens private property rights throughout the country. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that is the reason the American Farm Bureau, the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, the Texas Farm Bureau, the National Cattlemen's Association, and the Public Lands Council all support this legislation, because private property rights are very important to be protected wherever they may be threatened. Now, the bottom line, as Chairman Bishop just mentioned, is that the BLM conducted some surveys several years ago, spot surveys, and they refuse to follow the mandates of the Supreme Court in its 1926 decision. The rest of the story is, BLM has indicated they will never survey the whole 116 miles. So, as the gentlewoman from Massachusetts points out, well, there is confusion, and this, that, and the other. The only way to straighten it out is to conduct a survey of the whole area and do it under the mandate, the way the Supreme Court of the United States said it should be done. BLM has said they are not going to do that. The only way to get that done is to support this bill. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the gentlewoman from Massachusetts accurately described how there got to be this narrow strip of Federal land from the middle of the river to the south bank. Some people don't understand that. The gentlewoman described it exactly right. But that has been the problem for the BLM. They don't know how to manage a narrow strip of sand down the middle of the river. It has been suggested to me that that is the reason they are looking to expand what they own, so it is easier to manage if they can make it grow. Obviously, as the chairman points out, that takes away people's homes, property that people have the deeds to and that they have paid taxes on sometimes for generations. The other misstatement that has been made is that somehow Texas is going to control this survey. That is not true. This legislation says Texas, in conjunction with Oklahoma--and I think the manager's amendment will say in conjunction with the tribes--will choose a professional surveyor to do this right. The Congressional Budget Office says this legislation actually saves the taxpayers money. Certainly, we have bent over backwards to make sure landowners on both sides of the river--the tribes, individuals, and local governments--are part of this process. I think the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is the only way to prevent the BLM from taking this land in a timely way without years of court battles is to pass this legislation, as written, with the manager's amendment that Chairman Bishop will offer, requiring there to be a survey that is done right, and then set up the process so that whatever that survey reveals can be dealt with in an equitable manner. That is what the underlying bill does. Again, I appreciate the chairman's taking the time to understand this. We don't have a lot of Federal land in and around Texas, but any time the Federal Government comes in to try to confiscate what people own and have paid taxes on for generations, it is a threat to us all, and this legislation, I hope, will be supported.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that statement by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts. I do not disagree with anything she said, and I think I said that a while ago, that there absolutely is a legitimate Federal claim from the middle of the river to the south bank. That has been the case ever since 1803. The gentlewoman is exactly right in laying that out. The problem is that the Bureau of Land Management has said now the south bank is as much as a mile to the south of where it is because they refuse to follow the survey method that the Supreme Court mandated. They have done these spot surveys the chairman mentioned. It is not a question about the middle of the river to the south bank. It is a question of where the south bank is. In some cases, it is a tremendous difference back, and that is where they confiscate the land. It is because their new interpretation of the south bank is far, far away from the river, as I say, as much as a mile. That is the issue. That is the reason the only way to solve this is to have a professional survey define the south bank using the criteria set by the Supreme Court, and then that decides it. Will there continue to be Federal land between the south bank and the middle of the river? Absolutely. BLM has said they don't know what they are going to do with it because it is a narrow strip of sand. But the key is to define that boundary so we don't take away the livelihood and the homes of the people who have lived and had deeds on the land far beyond the south bank. That is what is at issue here. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I appreciate the chairman's yielding to me. I also appreciate the considerable efforts that have gone on not just in the past few weeks and months but all the way back to the last Congress with Congressman Cole, with the Governor's Office of Oklahoma, and with the tribes directly to try to make sure that any concern was addressed. Mr. Chairman, let me just say one overall point. Actually, the gentlewoman from Massachusetts made this really clear, which is that in going back to at least 1867 there is no tribal claim that goes south of the median line of the river. As a result, really, the only interests that could be threatened are that narrow strip of sand that the Federal Government does have a rightful claim on or its expansion beyond its rightful claim. There should be no question of any tribal surface or mineral interest that is impinged by this legislation because they only ever went to the middle of the river. What we are talking about is the south bank of the river, which is what the BLM is now claiming. I want to address the $1.25 issue because the bill requires that any land sold to an adjacent landowner or to anybody else be sold at current market value. The only exception is if, for a period of at least 20 years, you have owned the land, if you have a deed to the land, if you have paid taxes on the land, or if the Federal Government has never made a claim on the land for at least 20 years. In that instance, then you can under color of title procedure purchase the land for $1.25 an acre if the Bureau of Land Management agrees. It is at their discretion. The idea is, if this survey happens to find some acreage--and I am not sure it will--that somebody has owned, has a deed to, has paid taxes on, has lived on, or if nobody else has claimed the title to it, then they don't have to buy it twice because they already bought it once. That is the purpose of this. In every other case, you have to pay the full market value for any land. The last point is that Congressman Cole is very interested in making sure that the tribes are fully participating and know this about the survey, et cetera. I agree. I think the manager's amendment that Chairman Bishop has just offered ensures that the tribes participate in the survey from the beginning. Of course, they have the right to appeal just like any other landowner would. Mr. Chairman, I think this is the answer to a problem that needs our intervention because it is wrong to leave these people hanging for another 6 or 10 years without a complete survey that answers the question.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman from Washington yielding me the time and his work on this issue, as well as the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee for bringing it to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to spend a great deal of time debating the merits of the bill at this point on the rule. I think it is important, however, that I try to clear up some misunderstandings, apparently, that have been generated. Let me just say that one misunderstanding that I have heard referred to on the floor is that the committees in this House are not taking action against terrorism. I can say that the committee I am privileged to chair, the Armed Services Committee, has had a briefing this very morning about how we can be more effective against ISIS and the threat of terrorism. So there is a great deal of work that is going on around this House. It may not be every bill that every Member wants to see debated, but a variety of committees and committees working together are working to take action to try to keep this country safe, and I think that is important for the American people to know. Mr. Speaker, the Red River Private Property Protection Act is an important act not only for the landowners on both sides of the river along this 116-mile stretch in Texas and Oklahoma, but it is important for property owners across the country; because, if an agency of the Federal Government can wake up one day and say, ``We own more land than we ever have thought we owned over the last 90 years,'' it puts in doubt the property rights of landowners everywhere because it is very difficult to fight the Federal Government. The suggestion was made that this underlying legislation is a landgrab by Texas. Of course, my opinion, Mr. Speaker, is that reflects a fundamental understanding of the situation and certainly of what this legislation does. Let me take just a moment to explain that, when Thomas Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase from France in 1803, he bought for the United States all of the land in the riverbed of the Red River down to the south bank of the river. That was affirmed in numerous treaties between the United States and Spain, the United States and Mexico, and the United States and the Republic of Texas. That is the boundary, the south bank. But in 1867, the United States made a treaty with three Indian tribes, and that reservation that was the subject of that treaty just went to the middle of the river. I have the exact treaty which I may well enter into the Record at a future point. So, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, any reservation which later became private property in the State of Oklahoma extended only to the middle of the river, while Texas did not go further north than the south bank of the river. That leaves a narrow strip from the middle of the river to the south bank that is absolutely Federal territory. That is the way it has been since, as I say, at least 1867, with nobody else making a claim that they owned it--until 2 years ago; and then the Bureau of Land Management said: We think we own a lot more land, not just the south bank, but a lot more land. And that is what has caused this controversy. So how do you solve a controversy like that? You do a survey. You follow the Supreme Court decision from the 1920s. You get professionals out there who know what they are doing, and you conduct a survey exactly along the line the Supreme Court said we should. And that is what this bill does. It requires a survey along the whole 116-mile stretch, which has never been done. As the gentleman from Washington states, as a matter of fact, they have only surveyed 6,000 acres in a spot sort of fashion. So this tries to answer this issue once and for all. Survey the whole thing. We know where the line is, and, therefore, people who are private property owners on both sides of the river know where the line is as well. Now, clearly, Mr. Speaker, there is no intention of infringing upon any of the rights that the tribes or anybody else has. Let me just quote a few provisions from the underlying legislation: Nothing in this act shall be construed to ``alter the valid rights of the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Nations to the mineral interest trust fund created pursuant to the act of June 12, 1926.'' ``Nothing in this act shall be construed to modify the interest of Texas or Oklahoma or sovereignty rights of any federally recognized Indian tribe over lands located to the north of the South Bank boundary line as established by the survey.'' ``The sale of a parcel under this section shall be subject to . . . valid existing State, tribal, and local rights.'' There are more protections in here than even I can count. So the point is not to change anybody's rights. It is to prevent the Federal Government from confiscating the land that private property owners have deeds to, often for generations, and have paid taxes on for years and years. That is what this is trying to solve. The suggestion has been made, well, all this ought to be worked out in court. Number one, private landowners sometimes don't have the pockets to work it out--especially a fight with the Federal Government--in court. Secondly, while you are working it out in court, this cloud hangs over your title. You can't sell your land. You can't borrow money on it because nobody knows if that is really Federal land or private land. This was not a problem until 2 years ago, when the Bureau of Land Management said: We are going to take in more land than anybody has ever alleged that the Federal Government owns. The way to fix a BLM overreach is for this House to take action and answer the question once and for all. That is what this legislation does. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman from Washington and the chairman of the committee for giving us the opportunity to debate it.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Rotary Club of Wichita Falls, Texas, on its milestone of providing 100 years of service inside and outside of our community. The Rotary Club of Wichita Falls consists of 90 dedicated men and women who make a difference on the local, national, and international level. The Club's motto is ``Service Above Self,'' and this organization certainly abides by this statement with its many service projects and support for numerous organizations throughout the Wichita Falls area and beyond. The wide variety of organizations supported by the Club includes the Boy Scouts, YMCA, Youth Leadership, and the Boys and Girls Club. In fact, the Boys and Girls Club has maintained a connection to the Rotary Club for an impressive 86 years and continues to flourish with its support. These programs provide needed growth and leadership opportunities for developing future leaders. The Club also plays a key role in a variety of adult programs, which includes the Adult Literacy Council, The Food Bank, American Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, and the Salvation Army, just to name a few. Additionally, the Wichita Falls Rotary Club provides many services and support for Sheppard Air Force Base (AFB), a base that plays a key role in training and equipping U.S. Air Force personnel. A highly notable program is the Squadron Adoption Program with the goal to establish and maintain exemplary relations between the permanent party military stationed at Sheppard AFB and the proactive leadership of the communities throughout Wichita County. Units from both the 82nd Training Wing and the 80th Flying Training Wing participate in this program. Groups like the Rotary Club play an important role in ensuring our military receives the support and gratitude they deserve. The Rotary Club also helps remind us that our country remains strong because of the sacrifice made by our men and women in the military. Another important program the Rotary Club has adopted is the flag project, which consists of Rotary members placing American flags around the City of Wichita Falls. With this project alone, the Club has managed to raise and donate approximately $700,000 to local and worldwide Rotary projects. These services are proof that the dedicated men and women of the Wichita Falls Rotary Club can make a difference. Serving others is one of the highest callings for any of us. For 100 years the Rotary Club of Wichita Falls has been serving and contributing in important ways. They deserve our congratulations and our appreciation as they move to their next 100 years of service.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally), another combat veteran from both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, first let me say I very much value and appreciate the partnership that I have on the Committee on Armed Services with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith). I also very much value and appreciate the work of our staff on both sides of the aisle during what has been something of a roller coaster year. Let me take just a moment to review where we are and how we got here. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Armed Services reported out the fiscal year 2016 Defense Authorization Act on April 29, 2015, by a vote of 60- 2. During full committee markup, 211 amendments were adopted, about evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. Then on the floor, 131 amendments were adopted, again, from both sides of the aisle. After weeks of conference with the Senate, a conference report containing 647 provisions was reported out. Now, that conference report was the result of bipartisan effort and bipartisan input every step of the way. The conference report passed this House 270-156, and then it passed the Senate by a vote of 70-27. Then, on October 22, the President vetoed the bill to try to force Congress to increase spending in other areas. As The Washington Post wrote: ``It was historic, but not in a good way.'' Well, last week the Congress passed and the President signed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 not because of the President's veto of the defense bill, but because we were up against the debt limit and because Speaker Boehner was on the way out and was trying to get some things resolved. So what we have before us now is the same bill as the conference report, with funding adjustments to reflect the bill we passed last week. Otherwise, it is the same bill. Now, I understand the White House press secretary has said the President will not veto the bill this time. So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this year has been an anomaly, that never again does the bill that supports our troops become a political bargaining chip in a political game. I would just say, our troops deserve better than that. This bill has a lot of important provisions, and we have talked about them on this floor before: acquisition reform; a new retirement system for the military that allows the 83 percent of the people who serve who leave with no retirement to put aside a nest egg and save for retirement; and changes to the formulary so that, if someone is on a particular drug for post-traumatic stress when they are in the military, they can stay on that drug when they move to the VA. This bill takes additional steps for sexual assault, authorizes defensive weapons for the Ukraine, gives the President more options to assist the Kurds, the Sunnis, and others who are fighting ISIS. We take steps to help protect the country against missile attacks. It increases support for Israeli missile defense by about $300 billion over what the President requested. It allows commanders the discretion to determine when and where folks on their military base can carry personal firearms. It sunsets a number of reports. The list could go on and on. Bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is this bill is good for the troops and good for the country. Hopefully all of the political maneuvering is behind us and, as we move into Veterans Day, we can do the right thing and pass this bill with a very, very strong vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT TO ACCOMPANY S. 1356, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), another veteran of America's more recent wars and a member of our committee.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the order of the House of October 21, 2015, I ask unanimous consent that the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 1735) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, together with the accompanying bill, be referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.