Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the chair of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), the distinguished vice chair of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I will just make two brief points. One is the extra OCO funding that has been so criticized is 100 percent for operations and maintenance, for readiness. That is what it all is devoted to in this mark. Secondly, if we start holding our troops hostage because we want more spending over here or we want some other change in law over there, where does that stop? Where does that stop? What are we not going to hold our troops hostage to because a Senate and a House and a President can't agree on some other issue? I think it is dangerous to start down that road. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 1 minute. ``Somali Men Plead Guilty in Terror Plot,'' ``North Korea Executes Defense Chief,'' and ``Assad Still Has Chemical Arms.'' The list goes on and on. This is the world that we face. This is the world we send our men and women out into to protect us and to defend our Nation. They deserve the best from us. They deserve something other than political games. They should not be used as pawns to make a point. We should give them our best by doing our job under the Constitution, just as they give us their best in defending this country. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think this bill, H.R. 1735, deserves the support of all Members in this House, and I hope they will do so. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to bring to the floor H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. This measure was reported by the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 60 members voting for and two members voting against. Of the two members, there was one from each party. This bill follows the bipartisan tradition of the committee working collaboratively with an integrated staff to support the men and women who serve and protect our Nation. All members of the committee have contributed to this product, and I am very grateful for all of their efforts throughout the year. I am especially grateful to the efforts of the ranking member, Mr. Smith, not only for his contributions and for his partnership in the committee but doing so at a time where he has been dealing with surgeries and a variety of things. But it has been a true pleasure and continues to be to work with him for the benefit of our Nation. Mr. Chairman, this bill authorizes spending for the Department of Defense at a level that is consistent with the congressional budget resolution and a level that is consistent with the President's budget request. So there have been differences, and there will continue to be some differences about how some of that spending gets categorized, but when you add it all up together, this authorization measure meets exactly what the President has asked for, which is essentially $611.9 billion for national defense. Included is a program-by-program authorization for all of that spending; whether it is in the overseas contingency account or the base budget, it is all authorized program by program. This bill also contains some significant reforms, including acquisition reform, to improve the way the Department purchases goods and services. We have been working with the Pentagon and with industry to thin out regulations, simplify the process, and make it easier to hold industry and government personnel accountable for the results. This bill has overhead reform to reduce the amount of money that we are spending on overhead and bureaucracy so that more resources can be devoted to the men and women on the front lines. This measure has reform in the area of personnel pay and benefits. Of the 15 recommendations by the personnel commission, this measure does something in 11 of those 15 so that we can be in better shape to continue to recruit and retain the top quality people that our Nation needs for decades to come. Now, some people say, Well, there is too much reform here. Some people say, Well, there is not enough reform here. There isn't enough if enough means you solve all the problems. But there is a start at significant reform that helps make sure we get better value for the money we spend and also that the Department is more agile in meeting the national security challenges we face. Mr. Chairman, this morning in reading the papers, I made some notes about the headlines just in one newspaper today, May 13, 2015. Some of those headlines are ``Kerry Meets Putin,'' ``U.S. Weighs Plan to Confront China in the South China Sea,'' and ``Fresh Earthquake Rattles Nepal.'' By the way, Mr. Chairman, I know that the Marines and their families who were involved in the helicopter, which has not yet been found to my understanding, are certainly in our thoughts and prayers. Our military is called upon to do humanitarian efforts.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Reclaiming my time, I do not mean to say that is the intention of the gentleman or those who might oppose this bill. It is the effect, however, because there are 40 essential authorities that have to be in a defense authorization bill. One of those authorities is to pay the troops. Without those authorities, it doesn't happen. Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill should be supported, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, I ask that the following exchange of letters be submitted during consideration of H.R. 1735: House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC, April 28, 2015. Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Thornberry: I am writing concerning H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. This legislation contains provisions within the Committee on Agriculture's Rule X jurisdiction. As a result of your having consulted with the Committee and in order to expedite this bill for floor consideration, the Committee on Agriculture will forego action on the bill. This is being done on the basis of our mutual understanding that doing so will in no way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture with respect to the appointment of conferees, or to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation. I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming this understanding, and would request that you include a copy of this letter and your response in the Committee Report and in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, K. Michael Conaway, Chairman.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me just take up where the gentleman from Washington left off. You have heard from a number of speakers that the product before us is a bipartisan product, that our committee works in a bipartisan way. Just to put a little bit of quantification on that, over the course of our markup in committee, 96 amendments sponsored by Democratic members of the committee were adopted; and prior to that, at least 110 specific requests by Democratic members of the committee were incorporated into the committee and subcommittee marks. So it leaves one wondering: If Democratic Members are forced to oppose the bill because of something the Budget Committee hasn't done, how can this bipartisan tradition continue? That is one of the things that concerns me, because it is something that I think we are all very proud of, that we worked together, that we put the national defense interests ahead of these other differences that we have. This makes it harder when we don't fix the budget or we don't fix health care or we don't fix the environment or we don't fix taxes. There is no end if that is the way that this is going to go. I think it is ironic, Mr. Chairman. I believe we need to find a better way to impose fiscal responsibility in our government than the Budget Control Act, and I am absolutely anxious to work with any Member who wants to find a better way to go ahead. But we can't do it on this bill. It is impossible. And so what we are doing, for those who would oppose this bill, is to hold the pay and benefits of our troops, all of these decisions, we are holding that hostage to something that we can't resolve here in this measure. As the gentleman from Washington said at some point, this is not the end of the process. This is a step in the process. There are a lot of things to go with appropriation bills and conference reports and so forth before the President ever has an opportunity to veto a bill. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, this President has threatened to veto, I think, pretty much all the defense authorization bills at some point in the process. That is not a reason for us not to take the next step. I think we should build upon the bipartisan work that came out of committee. I suspect there will be bipartisan work with amendments from Republicans and Democrats on the floor and that we should pass this measure, go to conference with the Senate, and keep working towards the end of the process where, hopefully, we can have something better than the Budget Control Act. But to say I am not going to support our troops unless we do that first I don't think is the proper way to go. This is a normal budget process. We have a House and Senate budget resolution for the first time in years.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck), chair of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

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. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, out of necessity to reauthorize the expiring intelligence gathering authorities, I reluctantly vote for H.R. 2048. A recent federal appeals court decision has increased our need to address these authorities. Unfortunately, their pending expiration is now forcing Congress to act hastily rather than take the necessary time to adequately analyze the court's decision and update the laws accordingly. I recognize the distrust created by the Obama Administration's abuse of power, as well as the damage caused by recent intelligence leaks containing fragments, inaccuracies, and speculation. It is unfortunate that those actions will continue to make it more difficult to gather the information necessary to counter terrorism. It is even more alarming that this trend will inevitably make our country less safe. Very few Americans will ever learn the full details of the considerable successes of the National Security Agency (NSA). But through the dedication and commitment of its men and women, the NSA has helped to keep our nation and its citizens safe. I remain confident in their professionalism as they strive to prevent future terrorist attacks and support our warfighters overseas. I believe the first job of the federal government is to defend the country and protect our citizens within the framework of the Constitution, and I will continue to do all I can to contribute to that effort.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to file a supplemental report on the bill H.R. 1735.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents, Shanna Peeples, who has been named the 2015 National Teacher of the Year by the Council of Chief State School Officers. She is the first Texas teacher to win the award since 1957. Ms. Peeples is a high school English teacher at Palo Duro High School in Amarillo, Texas. She graduated from West Texas A&M University in 1997. After working as a disc jockey, medical assistant, pet sitter, and journalist at the Amarillo Globe-News covering education, the mother of three children began teaching 12 years ago. Ms. Peeples was exposed to alcoholism, domestic violence, and poverty as a child. Those hardships help her empathize with her students, 85 percent of whom live below the poverty line and many having fled violent homelands from around the world. Just as her teachers made school her safe place where she could escape her fears through reading and writing, Ms. Peeples strives to give her students a sense of belonging. She wants them to know she is invested in their lives and in their futures. So much so, that she has had to help refugee parents who wanted their children to work rather than go to school understand the importance of education. In addition to serving as the chair of her English department, she is a mentor and instructional coach for other teachers at her school. As she travels the nation over the next year, she plans to emphasize effective teaching methods for students in poverty or facing extreme challenges. Ms. Peeples is the type of educator all parents want teaching our children. She is a shining example of the best of her profession. The fact that she has already been recognized as the Teacher of the Year for Texas and has now become the Teacher of the Year for the entire country makes everyone in our area--and especially our teachers and school systems--very proud.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio yielding. I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Ohio makes a great point. It is not right to have some States given preference versus other States when their States have different methods of taxation. I want to focus my remarks primarily on the death tax. I want to first commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who is the sponsor of the underlying legislation. I have had a bill to deal with the death tax and supported doing away with it completely since I have been in Congress. I want to express appreciation for the 79 Members who have cosponsored my bill in this Congress, which is substantially similar to the bill we will vote on tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, the reason this issue is so important is because the death tax has a huge effect on farmers, ranchers, and small businesses of all kinds, including those in my district. It is one of the issues I have heard the most about. It hangs like a cloud over business growth and job creation. Now, what we often hear is: Well, the thresholds are so high that it really doesn't affect anybody but the very rich. I just want to make two points. Number one is we see continual efforts to increase taxes on estates. Even the President's budget request this year had a different method of increasing taxes. It makes it very difficult for any farmer, rancher, or small-businessowner to plan because you never know what the government is going to do next. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to levy a tax on what someone tries to leave to their children after they have already paid taxes on it when they earn it and then have the government come and want them to pay taxes on it again. It is wrong for an estate of $100, and it is just as wrong for an estate of $100 million. We pay taxes when we earn it the first time. We should not have the government come in after death when we are trying to leave it to our heirs, our children, and then take another bite out of it. There are too many farms, ranches, and small businesses who have had to sell just in order to pay the tax. If there is one thing we want people to do in this country, it is to work hard, to save, and to leave something for our kids so that they can have a better life. The death tax punishes you for doing that. That is why it is so fundamentally wrong, regardless of whether you are leaving a farm, a ranch, a small business, or a lifetime of savings. It is time to get rid of it completely so it does not hang over us in this country. I support the rule and the underlying legislation. I hope my colleagues will as well.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. It is important for the House and it is especially important for the Commander in Chief to fully fund our military without conditions and not try to use it as leverage for other parts of his political agenda. I hope Members will vote for Price 2 and for the final budget.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I want to thank the chairman of the Budget Committee not only for yielding, but for all of his work in putting this budget together. Mr. Chairman, I spent some time on the Budget Committee. Putting a budget together is never easy. And I believe that the committee has done excellent work in putting together a budget that, as the whip just described, helps increase economic opportunity for the whole country. I particularly appreciate the chairman as he has had to navigate through a variety of interests and a variety of concerns in putting that budget together. I know firsthand that Chairman Price and other members of the committee are very concerned about national security. And so I want to take a moment to explain why I believe the amendment we are considering now, Price 2, is better than Price 1 when it comes to national security. I think Members deserve that explanation. The amount of funding that the President has asked for our military this year ends up being $612 billion when you add the base and the overseas contingency account or the global war on terrorism account, whichever you want to call it. When you add them together, it is $612 billion. All of our military leaders have testified that that is the lower ragged edge of what it takes to defend the country, and my opinion is that it would be rather reckless of us to ignore those warnings and do less. Now, I am for more than the lower ragged edge, but that is a base minimum, at least, that our military leaders have said is required. So if you look at Price 1, it has $613 billion. But the problem I have is that $20-something billion of that is conditional upon, first, the House and the Senate and President Obama reaching agreement on how to fund the reserve fund before the military can spend that money. Now, we have a track record here, and I am not at all convinced that President Obama really wants to find those savings. And if that happens, then that reserve fund is never funded, and we don't have the $20 billion. Price 2, on the other hand, fully funds that military up to that basic minimum level, and there is still a reserve fund. So, if there can be an agreement that reduces the deficit, I am for it. I have no doubt I will vote for it. But it doesn't make our equipping, training of our military dependent upon doing that first. And it just seems to me it would be hard to look a spouse or a parent in the eye and say: Oh, we can only train your son or daughter for the mission they are about to be sent on conditional upon this reserve fund being funded. Now, I think that there have been several misconceptions that are going around. Price 2, the budget before us, still balances in 10 years. Removing that condition does not change that in any way. Our committee, the Armed Services Committee, is going to authorize the overseas contingency account just like we authorize the base account. And that is different from what happened before. But we are going to do it program by program, just like we do the base. So, some notion that there is a giant slush fund out there so the Pentagon can do what they want is just not true. It is going to be authorized and appropriated program by program just like the base budget is. I think Members ought to know that our committee, on a bipartisan basis, is absolutely committed to reforms to make sure that we all get value for the money we spend for everything in defense. The same is true on the other side of the Capitol as well. We hear that it would be better to put this money in the base--and that is right, it would be better--but the problem is the law of sequestration can't be fixed in a budget. We have got to live under the law as it is now. Now, I would like to change that law. I would like to remove the cap on defense spending because it turns out there is no cap on the dangers that we are facing around the world. But in the meantime, we have got to live under the law. The way to do that is to increase the OCO fund. And really, if we authorized and appropriated, it doesn't really matter what we call those funds. It still meets that minimum threshold that the President and the military leaders have said is necessary. Let me make one other point. I am concerned that the President is going to try to use defense spending as a hostage to force increased spending in other areas or higher taxes. And I think that we need to say right now that is absolutely wrong.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit the Rules of the Committee on Armed Services for the 114th Congress, as adopted by the committee on January 14, 2015.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, January 24, marks the 50th anniversary of the death of Sir Winston Churchill. Few leaders in history made such a mark during their lives, and very few have attracted such study and admiration after their deaths. Even now, 50 years after his passing at age 90 and 75 years after his ``finest hour'' when Britain and Churchill stood alone against the Nazi menace, new books and articles about his life and leadership pour forth. The Churchill Centre is a growing international organization with a mission to ``foster leadership, statesmanship, vision, courage and boldness among democratic and freedom loving peoples worldwide, through the thoughts, words, works and deeds of Winston Spencer Churchill.'' The Churchill Centre and The George Washington University here in Washington are building a National Churchill Library and Center. Hillsdale College is publishing all remaining volumes of The Churchill Documents. The list of activities related to Churchill is long, even 50 years after his death. And, as one measure of popular interest, there are few historical figures who are more regularly misquoted or falsely quoted on the Internet than he. I think there are many reasons that Sir Winston continues to fascinate and inspire. In part, there are his monumental achievements, for few statesmen did as much to shape the world in which we live. Were it not for his vision and his willingness to stand up to the conventional wisdom of his day, history could have had a far different outcome. In part, it is his oratory. Just as his words inspired his nation and the world to stand up to evil then, they still inspire us today. In part, there are his writings, which continue to be studied and referenced as Churchill the politician was a leading figure throughout the first half of the twentieth century, and Churchill the author helped shape our understanding of those momentous times. I also believe that the continuing interest in Winston Churchill stems in substantial measure from the many ups and downs of his career. We all draw inspiration from someone who perseveres through higher accolades and lower derision than us will ever experience. Finally, Churchill the person remains a dazzling personality, fully of humor and eccentricities adding to the interest of new admirers. The qualities that he exhibited are timeless--qualities such as courage, patriotism, hard work, loyalty, and love of family. And, many of the principles for which he stood and fought are timeless as well, such as the need to recognize and confront evil and to nurture and protect freedom. He believed that the values of Western Civilization are a force for good and that the English-speaking peoples had unique contributions to offer the rest of the world on freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. As one who was half American by blood, he appreciated America. That appreciation has been returned by millions of Americans over the generations. His bust has been added to the U.S. Capitol's Freedom Foyer, where it continues to inspire visitors and those of us who work here, thereby continuing to serve as a major link in the ``special relationship'' between the United States and the United Kingdom. The lives of great leaders are always worth remembering and studying, and as long as freedom is cherished, I am confident that Sir Winston Churchill will be studied long into the future.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure. As we have already heard, there are Members who have concerns about various provisions of this bill. I think many Members have concerns about the process which brought this bill to us. It was certainly messy, which was inevitable when the Senate never passed a bill. When you look at this measure as a whole, despite any imperfections, it is better for the country, better for our security, better for the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces to pass this bill rather than to reject this bill, and I hope Members will support it strongly. In fact, there are many good, important provisions in it. Within the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities, we have provisions dealing with cyber operations, with defense intelligence, special operations, and human rights training of foreign militaries. I am very grateful to my partner Mr. Langevin, who has worked with me throughout the formulation of these provisions and throughout the past 4 years on those issues. Mr. Speaker, finally, it is very appropriate that this bill be named in honor of Chairman Buck McKeon, not just for the work he has done on this measure, but for the work he has done to promote our country's security throughout his tenure and for the commitment that he has shown to the men and women who serve our country in the military. He has made substantial contributions substantively and, I agree with Mr. Smith, collaboratively in working in a bipartisan way, which is also good for the country, good for the men and women who serve. We will certainly miss him, but we appreciate very much all his contributions, and naming this bill for him is one way to help recognize those.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 33 veterans from Texas who visited Washington, D.C., on October 10, 2014, through the Texas Panhandle Honor Flight. My wife, Sally, and I had the distinct pleasure of welcoming these heroes to the Capitol. The veterans on this flight were: Brown, Jerry; Chambers, Obra Gerald; Crittenden, Max; Ediger, Walt; Elliott, Glenn; Godowic, Paul; Hartley, Gary; Hickey, D.W.; Howell, Jack; Hunter, Vaughn; Hutson, James; Jones, Dick; Keller, Walt; Kennedy, James; Kinser, David Wayne; Lewis, Carroll; Mantooth, Billy; McManaman, Dennis; Megert, Russell; Merrick, Jim; Morris, Jerry; Pollard, Patrick; Putnam, Julian; Runion, Thomas; Saiz, Jimmy; Schramm, Bert; Smith, Berry; Smith, Benjamin; Stratton, Henry; Swearengen, Gordon; White, Pete; Wilhelm, Tom; Williamson, Norman. It was an honor to have the opportunity to visit with these veterans and the volunteers who traveled with them and to show them a symbol of their dedication to this country and the democracy for which they fought. The willingness of the men and women in our military to put their lives on the line to protect our country and all of the freedoms we enjoy deserves our utmost gratitude and respect. I hope that their visit to Washington, D.C., and the Capitol was a small token of our appreciation for all they have given us throughout the years. Colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and their families for their exemplary dedication and service to this great nation. I want to extend a significant thank you to the local communities, all of the volunteers, and America Supports You Texas for their extensive work in organizing this Honor Flight. This trip would not have been possible without all of the financial and emotional support of those people.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip.