Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about one of the amendments that is in this en bloc package offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney). My understanding of that amendment is that it tries to have a clearer process by which we fund the military, and that is a goal for which I have enormous sympathy. We clearly need to have more predictable funding for the military. That is true on behalf of our military commanders and all the troops. It is true on behalf of industry. It is true on behalf of budgeting in the government. I personally also agree we need to do away with the artificial caps that have caused such difficulty for the military in recent years. I also believe that it would be beneficial if administrations did not play political budgetary games. For example, in this year's budget, the President requests a very low number for Israeli missile defense, knowing full well that the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, is not going to let that go through. We are going to be more responsible. So they are counting on us to have to cut other programs so that we can do what they should have done to begin with. There are all sorts of tactics that are used in developing budgets. There has got to be a better way. Apparently, some administration political appointees have been urging Members of the House to call the approach in this bill a gimmick. Actually, I have heard that term used a few times on the floor over the last couple of days. Well, one question I have is: Was it a gimmick in 2008 when, under Democratic majority, this House used exactly the same approach in fully funding the base requirements for the year and then had a bridge fund that allowed the new President to evaluate deployments and the funding and to make adjustments, which President Obama took advantage of? That is what it was intended for. Now, why was it okay then, but it is a gimmick now? It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, someone would consider that a double standard. Would Members rather that we continue to cannibalize aircraft and deny pilots the minimum amount of training they are supposed to get? Are Members content to have class A mishaps continue to go up in service after service, or is the desire to score political points so strong that Members would rather let those trends continue rather than deal with them here in this bill before us? Mr. Chairman, my point is that I agree there has got to be a better way. But I also believe that we have a choice before us today, and that is whether we fund the training, the maintenance, the end strength, the modernization that starts to fix the problems that I have talked about or we stick with name-calling, we look for excuses to vote ``no'' and allow those problems to get worse. Lives are at stake. So while I don't know that I agree with all the particulars of the gentleman from South Carolina's amendment, I think he raises important issues. Therefore, I urge Members to support that amendment as part of this en bloc package and resolve to try to put partisanship and excuses aside and think about the men and women who serve and what is in their best interest. I urge adoption of the en bloc amendments. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the many contributions the gentlewoman from Guam has made to our committee as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Readiness, among other capacities. I think this is a good amendment, and I certainly hope our Members will support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 732, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, each of these amendments have been coordinated with both sides of the aisle. I urge Members to support this en bloc package. I reserve the balance of my time.

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 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, pursuant to House Resolution 732, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman makes the point very well that, at a certain point, you get enough people that the institution of the National Security Council staff takes on different characteristics. When it has those different characteristics, then you have to comply with FOIA, then you have to be confirmed by the Senate, and then you have to be able to come before Congress and justify the decisions that you have made. That is the point with both of our amendments, that there comes a point that basic nature changes and there are implications of that, including the one that is related to the gentlewoman's amendment. I support her amendment, and I hope Members will support it.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the importance that the gentleman places on securing nuclear material. I share his view. I still am very concerned, for example, that terrorists will obtain--and we know they would use--nuclear material if they have the opportunity. The concern here is that we are doing things for Russians with American taxpayer dollars so they need not do it for themselves. In fact, what they do for themselves is build more capability that threatens us. We can't continue down that road. I oppose the amendment, and I urge Members to do likewise. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 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. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the points raised by the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen). As a matter of fact, I remember very well that one of my early speeches on the floor of the House was on a motion to recommit-- supporting a Democratic motion, actually--regarding our efforts to help the Russians get control of their nuclear material. That certainly has been an important priority. It is also true that, since I was in the well in the mid-1990s on that, things have changed. What we see is Russia spending an incredible amount of money modernizing a variety of weapons systems, including their nuclear weapons. It includes submarines and bombers and a whole variety of things, but it includes new nuclear weapons. Yet, on the other hand, we have enormous backlogs of deferred maintenance, we call it, in our nuclear infrastructure, in our nuclear weapons complex. Deferred maintenance is a euphemism, Mr. Chairman, because even in my own district we have folks working in deplorable conditions. We are talking about engineers and others working in conditions that no one should have to work in because we have neglected our infrastructure throughout the nuclear complex. So I think the purpose of the underlying provision is that we shouldn't spend money doing what Russia has the money to do for itself, especially when our own nuclear infrastructure is in such disrepair. Now, there is a waiver provision. If there is something crucial, then, obviously, another arrangement can be made. But the basic premise is Russia has changed. They are behaving not only more aggressively, but modernizing their military. Meanwhile, we have neglected ours. It is time for us to catch up. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, among the amendments in this en bloc package is one by Mr. Nolan of Minnesota that prohibits funding for the Syria Train and Equip programs to recipients that the Secretary of Defense has reported as having misused that training or equipment. This amendment comes from a Democratic Member, but I think it is very important for all of us to do what we can to ensure that training and weapons provided to forces we are assisting in Syria not be misused, that they not get in the hands of terrorists. Just to take that one example, where I believe a good amendment has been accepted by both sides of the aisle, that helps ensure that the goals we all share--in this case, for the Syria Train and Equip program--are met. That is an example of the bipartisan nature of this bill. Similarly, there is an amendment here by Mr. Aguilar of California creating a pilot program to improve the ability to recruit cyber professionals, a new domain of warfare, an enormous challenge for the government to compete with Silicon Valley, the Austin-San Antonio corridor, and other places that are recruiting cyber professionals, but a good and valued step. Those are examples of the amendments in this en bloc package. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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, each of these amendments in this en bloc package has been worked on both sides of the aisle. I believe this package deserves Members' support. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 732, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4909.

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.