Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to bring to the House today H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. The House Armed Services Committee reported it favorably 3 weeks ago by a vote of 60-2. The only way a vote like that is possible is that members are willing to work together for the best interests of the country. I want to start by thanking my partner on this committee, Mr. Smith, for his work, his insight, and his commitment to work together to try to do the right thing for our servicemembers and for the good of the Nation. Now, I am sure that he does not agree with everything in this bill, nor do I. It is the product of difficult choices, of compromise, of input from many members of this body. But, as a whole, I think this bill is good for the troops, good for the country, and is faithful to the constitutional responsibilities that we have on our shoulders to provide for the military of the United States and defend the country. I want to thank all the members of the committee as well as the staff. We had a compressed schedule this year. At the same time, the country is facing national security challenges that are growing more complex and more dangerous and we are still dealing with the consequences of defense budget cuts. Coupled with an ambitious reform agenda, all of those things meant that our job was not easy, but members on both sides of the aisle put in the hours, attended the briefings and hearings, and contributed to this product. This bill was built from the ground up. We started with about 2,000 legislative provisions that were suggested by members of our committee. We then received many additional requests from members who are not on our committee through testimony, letters, and other forms of communication. For example, some members of the Small Business Committee all came together with a package of proposals to help small businesses contribute to our defense efforts. We had subcommittee markups and then a full committee markup that lasted about 16 hours and considered 248 amendments. Now we have more than 370 amendments that have been filed with the Rules Committee, and many of them will be considered over the next 2 days on this floor. Mr. Chairman, I think that is the epitome of a regular legislative process and is particularly appropriate for this bill because providing for the common defense is the first job, I believe, of the Federal Government. I would add that servicemembers here and around the world deserve to know that we in this body are doing our job and that we support them and are actually trying to do our job, inspired by the courage and dedication and selfless sacrifice that they exhibit in doing their jobs. I want to just highlight two primary thrusts of this bill in addition to fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities. Those thrusts are readiness and reform. The term ``readiness'' is often used by the military. It is sometimes not understood by those who are not in the military. Readiness involves the preparation and support required to successfully accomplish what the political leadership asks the military to do. It means having the right number of people for a mission, each of whom is fully trained, has appropriate equipment, and is able to carry out their mission. Now, we have got severe readiness problems today in the United States military. We have pilots who are getting less than half the minimum number of training hours they are supposed to get in order to stay proficient in their airplanes. We are cannibalizing some aircraft just to keep other aircraft flying. We have significant shortages of people in key areas, such as pilots and aircraft mechanics. I could go on with examples and statistics which point toward, unfortunately, the kind of hollow military that our country has seen in the past. Certainly there is a high level of frustration among many of our servicemembers. Now, we do not fix all of those problems in this bill, but we start to turn them around. And to truly turn them around, it means not only providing more resources for operations and maintenance and training accounts, it means we have to deal with personnel accounts, and we have to deal with modernization accounts. This bill authorizes spending at the same level as requested by the President, $610 billion, when you add it all together. Now, personally, I would prefer a higher number, but last year we saw military funding used as a hostage to get more domestic funding. In fact, the President vetoed this bill once last year to force more domestic spending, the first time that has ever been done. Once an agreement was reached, he signed the exact same bill into law with the funding adjustments. I think using the military as a hostage for domestic political leverage is deplorable, but I also want to avoid a repeat of that since President Obama is still in the White House. So we used the exact same number, the exact same top line as requested by the President. Mr. Chairman, it would also be irresponsible for us to turn away and ignore the severe readiness problems that are coming to the fore, so this bill authorizes funding for several items that the President rejected in the budget proposal that he sent to us. For example, it restores a full cost-of-living adjustment for our military. It prevents further cuts in the number of people serving. It begins to repair facilities. It adds funds for training and for maintenance, and it makes some progress on replacing outdated weapons systems. So this bill provides full funding for the base requirements for the full year, as was agreed upon in last year's balanced budget agreement. It then provides a bridge fund to pay for the overseas deployments for about half of the new fiscal year. That gives the new President, whoever he or she may be, the opportunity to look at the deployments that President Obama has begun, look at the funding that he has requested, make adjustments however they think it needs to be adjusted, and then come back to Congress with their conclusions. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly the approach that was used the last time we transitioned between administrations. In June of 2008, this body, under Democratic leadership, did exactly what I have described with a bridge fund to get into 2009. We are following the same approach this year. Now, this bill also contains major reforms. In fact, there are five major reform packages in it, all of which are the work of bipartisan work on the committee, and consultation with the Department of Defense. Those areas, just briefly, are: Acquisition reform to try to ensure that we are getting more value for the money we spend, and that we get modern technology into the hands of the warfighters faster. Military health care to modernize the system, provide better care, and ensure that the emphasis is where it is supposed to be, and that is military health care for our warfighters. Commissary reform to put domestic commissaries on a self-sustaining track while maintaining the benefit for our servicemembers, their families, and for retirees. Organizational reform, including the changes to the 30-year old Goldwater-Nichols law, and replacing the Quadrennial Defense Review, the QDR, with something that is less costly and more useful. Reform of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, long overdue and modernization spurred by a review that we required in this committee that was prompted by the sexual assault allegations of recent years. So, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot here. There is a lot of substance, and there is a lot of reform, and it is all focused towards two goals. One is to support the men and women who volunteer to risk their lives to protect us. And secondly, to preserve and protect the national security of the United States of America in a very dangerous world. I believe this bill deserves the support of all Members. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine), who is a member of the committee and who also continues to be active in the Air National Guard.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the subcommittee chairman on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), the chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, who is both a doctor and a general in the Reserves.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. As usual, I largely agree with many of the comments made by Mr. Smith. I think he is exactly right when he discusses the many complex, dangerous threats that face the United States at this point. I think he is also right that we all have to put the Federal budget--but especially the military budget--on a more stable, predictable footing. I absolutely agree with him on those points. At the same time, we have an immediate need, one in which lives are at stake. Mr. Chair, let me just offer the fact that the Air Force is currently short 4,000 maintainers and more than 700 pilots. Another fact: in fiscal year 2015, the Navy had a backlog of 11 planes in depot. In fiscal year 2017, they are going to have 278 planes backlogged in the Navy depots. Less than one-third of the Army is now ready to meet the requirements of the defense strategic guidance. We can't just turn away and say: Oh, we don't like this budget approach, so we are willing to live with all of those problems. We have to deal with them. That is what this bill tries to do. Mr. Chair, by the way, if we take away the $18 billion that we try to put to readiness issues, then a lot of the things that the Members have asked for go away. I have before me, for example, a letter that has been signed by a number of House and Senate Members who ask for new Black Hawks this year. The fact is the President did not request any Black Hawks in his budget request. Currently, too many of our military folks are flying Black Hawks that were made in 1979. They can't get the parts for them. They can't even fly them in a lot of the circumstances because of the restrictions on these helicopters. So we look to the Army's unfunded requirements' list of the things they would like to have had that were stripped out by the administration, and we put into this bill 36 new Black Hawks. That is the way you deal with a lot of these readiness problems, is you replace the 1979 helicopter with a 2016 helicopter. We do that in this bill, but if we take away the approach that we have here to meet the readiness requirements, all of those Black Hawks go away. I also have letters from Members who ask for the third littoral combat ship. We were only able to do that because of the $18 billion. I have a letter signed by a number of Members to increase the U.S.- Israeli cooperative missile defense. Again, if our approach is not used, which some people on the other side are critical of, that funding goes away. It doesn't just come out of the air. Mr. Chair, my point is we have an immediate problem. This bill tries to deal with the immediate problem that is affecting the men and women who serve our country today. Is it perfect? Of course not, but I have yet to hear of a better alternative that meets these needs and can pass the House. Mr. Chair, just to reiterate, the other point is this is exactly the same approach that was used in the last administration. It is curious to me that some people who wanted to give President Obama a chance of a fresh look of the deployments which he found when he came into office now want to deny the same possibility for the next President, whoever he or she may be. We take exactly the approach that was used under Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2008, and we apply it to the next transition. I think that is what makes sense because that is what enables us to deal today with the readiness problems that threaten our military. I hope all Members will support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I ask that the following exchange of letters be submitted on H.R. 4909: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, April 28, 2016. Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Thornberry: I write concerning H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, as amended. There are certain provisions in the legislation that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. However, in order to expedite this legislation for Floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation that fall within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I request you urge the Speaker to name members of the Committee to any conference committee named to consider such provisions. Please place a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the committee report on H.R. 4909 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Sincerely, Bill Shuster, Chairman.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment, which I do not believe is controversial. Mr. Chairman, one of the many parts of this bill, on which Members on both sides of the aisle have contributed, is to try to improve our acquisition system, partly to get more value out of the taxpayer money that is spent and partly to try to get technology into the field, into the hands of our warfighters faster because technology evolves and the threats evolve so quickly. Members on both sides of the aisle have contributed to that effort, and we have consulted with folks in the Pentagon and in industry to try to make improvements in this part of the bill. This amendment is a technical amendment, which just deals with some of those issues, to ensure that whatever process we set up here, obviously, the money has to be appropriated as well. Mr. Chairman, I don't think it is controversial, but I want to reiterate that most of this bill is built from the ground up on a bipartisan basis, including each of the five major reform areas. I think acquisition reform is very important that we pursue, that we continue to try to improve the equipment and the weapons that we provide our personnel. That is what helps make them more ready to conduct the missions that the country asks them to conduct.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY

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

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, I have no further speakers. I urge adoption of the en bloc package. I yield back the balance of my time.

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 the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), the chair of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.