Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House that one of our former colleagues, the Honorable Jack E. Hightower, has passed away at the age of 86. Jack Hightower was the very definition of a Texas gentleman and leader, leading a life of public service until his death. His life-long dedication to serving his country began with military service during World War II, before going on to become a lawyer, a member of the Texas House, District Attorney, member of the Texas Senate, U.S. Congressman, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, and later, Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. He was born in Memphis, Texas, to Floy and Walter Hightower on September 6, 1926. After graduating from Memphis High School, he enrolled in summer classes at Baylor University. However, that fall he joined the Navy and served two years during World War II. After being discharged, he returned to Baylor where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree, followed by a law degree. It was during this time that he married his wife, Colleen Ward, of Tulia, Texas. He joined the Storey, Storey and Donaghey law firm in Vernon, Texas, and soon thereafter, served in the Texas House of Representatives from 1953-1955. He was appointed District Attorney for the 46th Judicial District, followed by a term in the Texas Senate for the 23rd District. In 1966, he was elected to the new 30th Senatorial District and eventually became President Pro-tempore of the Texas Senate. During his service as a Texas State Senator, he received a Doctor of Laws degree from Howard Payne University. Mr. Hightower served the constituents of the 13th Congressional District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1974 to 1985. After Congress, he served as Assistant Attorney General of Texas. He was then elected to the Texas Supreme Court, where he stayed until 1996. In 1999, Mr. Hightower was appointed by President Clinton as a Commissioner on the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, where he served until 2005. His passion for Texas was only surpassed by his love for God, his family, his church, and Freemasonry of Texas. Jack was an active member of the First Baptist Church, not only in Vernon, Texas, where he spent most of his life, but also in Austin, Texas, the latter part of his life. Jack was a member for over fifty years and Past Master of Vernon Lodge #655, Vernon, Texas. He also belonged to University Lodge #1190, Austin, Texas, and the Texas Lodge of Research. He served the Grand Lodge of Texas as District Deputy Grand Master, Grand Orator, member of the Masonic Jurisprudence Committee, and was elected to serve as Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Texas in 1972. Jack was also a Knight of the York Cross of Honor, a member of the Red Cross of Constantine, and a Thirty Third Degree, Scottish Rite Mason, and served as the Sovereign Grand Inspector General of Texas. Jack was also a member of the Maskat Shrine, Wichita Falls, Texas, and served on the boards of the Scottish Rite Hospital in Dallas, Texas, and the Scottish Rite Dormitory at the University of Texas, Austin, Texas, and the Scottish Rite Education Association of Texas. Jack is survived by his wife, Colleen, and his three daughters, Ann Thornburg; Amy Brees; and Alison Suttle. With more than 50 years of public service, Jack Hightower will always be remembered for his selfless devotion to the people of his State and his country. Whether holding a position at a local, state, or national level, he always put the interests and considerations of his country above all else--the living embodiment of a public servant. He will surely be missed.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express appreciation and pay tribute to Michael A. Sheehan upon his retirement as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. Since his confirmation on December 17, 2011, Mr. Sheehan has distinguished himself as a tireless leader and advocate for special operations forces, counterterrorism policy, and operations. With more than 30 years of experience in combating terrorism, Assistant Secretary Sheehan has provided indispensable advice to the defense committees and directly contributed to U.S. government counterterrorism strategy and policy. He has personally shaped many key counterterrorism initiatives, including the prudent use of operational authorities that fully enabled U.S. Special Operations Forces and our foreign partners around the world. Under his leadership and guidance, the Department of Defense worked to degrade al-Qa'ida's reach across the Middle East and Northwest Africa, and to diminish significantly its influence in Yemen, Somalia, Mali, and Afghanistan. By continually pressing for the effective and strategic employment of special operations forces to train, equip and advise our foreign partner forces, Assistant Secretary Sheehan has helped implement a U.S. national counterterrorism strategy to meet the challenges of a diversifying terrorist threat. During this tenure, Assistant Secretary Sheehan has elevated the importance and effectiveness of numerous Department of Defense efforts to build partner capacity and enhance partnered operations. He personally oversaw counterterrorism operational authorities under Section 1208, capacity building efforts under Section 1206, numerous projects under the Global Security Contingency Fund, the Defense Institutional Reform Initiative, and the Ministry of Defense Advisory program that have resulted in the significant improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of these critical components within U.S. defense strategy. Assistant Secretary Sheehan also provided oversight of multiple Department of Defense humanitarian assistance and disaster relief programs and operations, including assistance to the Philippines after Typhoon Bopha in December 2012, support for non-combatant evacuation in the Central African Republic in December 2012, and the humanitarian assistance efforts in Jordan to address refugees from Syria. Additionally, he has represented the Department on the interagency Atrocities Prevention Board (APB) and has overseen U.S. Special Operations Forces contributions to the African Union initiative launched against Joseph Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army. With an encyclopedic knowledge of terrorist organizations, keen strategic awareness, and extensive operational experience, Assistant Secretary Sheehan has continually provided the congressional defense committees of the United States Congress with honest, effective, and timely advice and testimony. Assistant Secretary Sheehan's visionary leadership and guidance has greatly enhanced our national security and further aligned the Department of Defense to meet the 21st century challenges facing our nation and the warfighter. At every turn, in his more than three decades of government service, he has made our country safer. For that, we shall remain forever grateful.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 102 veterans from Texas who visited Washington, D.C. last week with the Texas Panhandle Honor Flight. My wife, Sally, and I had the distinct pleasure of welcoming these heroes to the Capitol building. The veterans on this flight were: Accurso, Charles; Anders, Troy; Ash, David; Austin, Carlos; Bailey, Bruce; Barbee, J.G.; Barron, Bobby; Berend, Raymond; Blackburn, Gerald; Blevins, Howard; Box, Kenneth; Burch, Darrell; Burgess, E.R.; Carter, Terry; Chadwick, James; Chester, Joe; Cobb, Steven; Cornelius, Gayle; Counsellar, William; Creek, James; Davis, Ervin; Denman, Roy; Dibala, Daniel; Dickerman, Lesley; Dill, Kenneth; Ebeling, Marshall; Enevoldsen, Jerome; Perez, Frank; Fisher, Robert; Fowler, Jimmy; Gamble, Rupert; Garcia, Edward; Garner, Olin; George, Aubrey; Gibson, Walter; Glosson, Paul; Graham, Lester; Greathouse, William; Henning, Gary; Hetrick, John; Higley, Richard; Holland, Hugh; Holland, Otis; Holland, Buford; Horn, Olan; Irwen, Joe; James, Kelsey; Jenssen, Dan; Kirby, Freddy; Knuchel, Mike; Larned, James; Lewis, Herbert; Lynch, Earl; Macias, Valentin; Mann, Joe Bob; Mann, Bobby Joe; Martin, Gerald; McNally, Peter; Miller, Gene; Miller, Alton; Miller, Douglas; Moore, Jerry; Morton, Elwyn; Nurek, Steven; Ogle, Ronald; Parsons, Leonard; Peach, James; Penn, Billy; Pohlmeier, Gregory; Rakes, Edwin; Reed, James; Ricks, Don; Rider, Gary; Rider, Emery; Ridgway, Wendell; Riggins, Hubert; Ritter, Henry; Robinett, Thomas; Robinson, Jack; Robinson, Joe; Rogers, Garlon; Romo, Jesse; Roybal, Roberto; Smith, Stacey; Smith, Donald; Sollis, J.W.; Spell, Dalton; Stoops, Richard; Todd, Kenneth; Tomme, Michael; Trosper, Oscar; Waller, Jack; Warren, Bobby; Werschky, Samuel; Werschky, Carlton; Wetsel, Todd; Whiteley, George; Willingham, Randall; Willis, Howard; Wilson, William; York, James; and Yosten, Gilbert. I was honored to have the opportunity to visit with these veterans and the volunteers who traveled with them and show them around the Capitol building, which in many ways is the center of this democracy for which they fought. These men and women remind us all of the great sacrifices so many generations of Americans have made for our nation and the freedoms we hold so dearly. The service they rendered to our country can never be fully repaid, but I hope that their visit to Washington, D.C. was a reminder of the gratitude and respect we have for them. 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 special thank you to the local communities, all of the volunteers, America Supports You Texas, and Mr. Larry Lewis for their extensive work in organizing this Honor Flight. This trip would not have been possible without all of the financial and emotional support from those people.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Kansas for offering this amendment, because it helps focus on what concerns most Americans and it clarifies what really is and is not happening. Mr. Chairman, sometimes it is a challenge for those of us on the Intelligence Committee to talk openly about this--even the safeguards-- in some of these programs. But this amendment helps make it clear and reassures Americans about some of the things they may have read or heard that is occurring with NSA. But at the same time, this amendment is not an overreaction that actually increases the danger that Americans face from terrorism around the world. This amendment says clearly that NSA cannot acquire information for the purpose of targeting Americans, and it says clearly that NSA may not acquire, monitor, or store the content of the communication of any Americans. I think the key point that Members need to know is there are multiple layers of safeguards to make sure that these programs operate exactly in the way that the FISA Court has laid them out to operate. The Intelligence Committees of both the House and Senate do a considerable amount of oversight, get regular reports. Even if somebody accidentally punches a ``2'' versus a ``3'' on their keyboard, we get a report about that. And it even goes so far as members of the Intelligence Committee can go sit next to the analysts and watch what they are doing. But it is not just the Intelligence Committees. The FISA Court has oversight of the same sorts of reports. They can change the guidelines that it operates under. But in addition to that, there are internal inspector general monitoring of these. So you get every branch of government involved in making sure that the safeguards are in place and those same safeguards will be in place to make sure that the provisions of the gentleman's amendment are followed as well. Some, however, Mr. Chairman, would do away with these programs. No amount of safeguards are good for them. But they never say what would replace them, they never say what would fill the gap in meeting our responsibilities to defend Americans. They would just have them go away, and I guess assume that somehow or other that Americans could be made safe. The truth is, we had been incredibly successful and somewhat lucky since 9/11 as far as preventing further terrorist attacks on our homeland. That is because of the work of the military, intelligence professionals, law enforcement and, as I say, a fair amount of luck. But these programs at NSA have made a crucial contribution to that success over the last decade. It seems to me it would be foolhardy to toss them away, as some would want to do. I think this amendment strikes the right approach. I also believe, Mr. Chairman, The Wall Street Journal makes a good point in today's editorial when it says: The last thing Congress should do is kill a program in a rush to honor the reckless claims of Mr. Snowden and his apologists.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is you have to read the amendment and the words that are in it. The amendment says we can spend no money for any part of the Department of Defense pursuant to the AUMF after December 31, 2014. Now, we can have a very interesting discussion about how the AUMF should be updated, about different authority that could take its place, but none of that is before us. What is before us is that it basically says, no funding shall be used. It essentially repeals the AUMF. Now, I realize the gentleman is trying to precipitate further debate, but the fact is terrorism is not going away. This prohibits any U.S. military action, not only in Afghanistan, but anywhere in the world that al Qaeda or its affiliates may have traveled. This stops all of that. My point is that there is too dangerous a risk in a world where there are too many people still trying to find new, innovative ways to attack us and kill as many Americans as possible. We can't take that risk. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I just point out to my colleagues, this House has voted 2 years in a row to update the AUMF so it does better reflect the way that al Qaeda has changed. We have included the exact language used by the Obama administration and the Bush administration in court proceedings and just adopted that. The House has passed that. I don't remember how the particular gentleman voted on that, but the House has passed it. The Senate has not gone along. But there has been an effort to update the language to better reflect the way that the threat has changed, but that's a far different thing from saying, okay, we're just going to make this go away and hope that in the meantime we can do something better. I think that is terribly risky. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, in some ways I'm somewhat sympathetic to the hopes that underlie this amendment. I hope that terrorism has gone away by December 31, 2014. I hope that Zawahiri and the others responsible for 9/11 and those who authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attack or harbored them are all brought to justice in the next 14 months. I hope that our country and other countries around the world no longer have to worry about terrorists hiding bombs inside their clothing or inside their bodies, trying to kill as many innocent people as possible. And I hope that military and civilians who serve our Nation all around the world, and others in the private sector, are no longer the target for suicide bombings and assassinations and the other sorts of things that we've seen since 9/11. But, Mr. Chairman, what if my hopes don't come to pass? What if the world has something else in store? What if terrorism still exists by December 31, 2014? Well, then it seems to me that this amendment doesn't make a lot of sense. Because this amendment says no matter what--not just in Afghanistan, but anywhere around the world--we're not going to fund anything through the Department of Defense pursuant to that AUMF. Now, I've got to say, I have been and continue to be for updating that AUMF to better reflect the way that al Qaeda has evolved over the last decade or so. Unfortunately, that has been resisted by the administration, as the gentleman just pointed out. Of course we all want this war against terrorists and other wars to end, but, unfortunately, the enemy gets a vote. So for us to unilaterally say, because of the calendar, we're done, and, oh, maybe we'll pass some new authority--but maybe not--in order to protect this country, I think, is dangerous. It's shortsighted. It is putting hopes above reality. So I hope my colleagues reject this. We can do better in fighting terrorists in a variety of ways. But to bury our head in the sand and say it's all going to be over on a certain date is not the way to protect this country, and I believe it forfeits our most essential responsibilities under the Constitution. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, our guest chaplain today has been the pastor of Bible Baptist Church in Wichita Falls, Texas, for the past 20 years; but his ministry and passion for spreading the word of God has never been confined to the walls of any church building. Mike Rucker, known to many as the ``Flying Preacher,'' has been combining his love of auto racing and the ministry since 1985 when he and his wife of 40 years, Sherrie, began Rucker Racing Ministries. Since then, they have traveled to racetracks across the United States, spreading the good word while he races and while Sherrie often sings the national anthem. Pastor Rucker also serves as the chaplain for the Wichita County Sheriff's Office and for the Wichita Falls Police Department and is a regular on Joe Tom White's ``Rise 'n Shine'' radio show. In short, he has never been afraid to roll up his sleeves and be in the world while sharing the Gospel with folks across Texas and the Nation. Pastor Rucker graduated from the Arlington Baptist College in Arlington, Texas. He and Sherrie have two sons, Michael and Matthew, and one daughter, Marlene, and five grandchildren. I am pleased to help welcome Pastor Rucker, the ``Flying Preacher,'' to the House today.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, cost is a red herring argument here. Does it cost more to keep a detainee in Guantanamo than a Federal prisoner here? Probably, but nothing like the figures that have been repeatedly cited on the other side. For example, if you look back at the fiscal year '11 Department of Justice budget request for moving the detainees to the U.S., it ends up in the first year being about $1.9 million per detainee, and about $500,000 per detainee in recurring costs. On the other side of it, even the President, in a speech at the National Defense University, said it is less than a million dollars per prisoner now on detainee. Is there a difference? Sure. Is it anything like what we've been hearing? No. And the rest of the story is: under the Geneva Convention, if you're holding somebody under the laws of war, you cannot put them with Federal prisoners even in a supermax prison. They have to be segregated. So those costs of bringing them here are higher. But that's not really the issue here. The issue is what is the best thing to do to secure the country and to deal with the terrorist threat. And I just remind everybody, the ban on closing Guantanamo is not permanent. We have to reapprove it every year. So if the President actually comes up with a real plan, not just a speech, but a real plan to close Guantanamo and then deal with the detainees, then that ban can go away. But you can't say okay, we're going to remove all of the restrictions and we're going to close Guantanamo, and then we're going to figure out what we're going to do with these people, and that's exactly what this amendment does. The gentleman from Washington says it just asks for a plan. The underlying bill just asks for a plan. His amendment, in addition to asking for a plan, removes all of the existing restrictions. And on page 4, subsection (D), says specifically: No funds shall be used there to detain people after December 31, 2014. We've got to get the plan first before it closes. I think this amendment should be rejected.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I'm convinced that the arguments against missile defense are the same today that they were the day that President Reagan proposed it: you can't do it, it costs too much, and it's provocative to try. And it doesn't really matter how the threat evolves, what North Korea or Iran do, and it doesn't really matter how the technology evolves. We just had a successful test just a few months ago. The events and facts don't matter. The arguments are still the same, and they will always be the same because some people just don't want to defend the country against missile attack. This committee pushed in 2010, in 2011, and in 2012 to have more interceptors on the west coast. The President opposed it every step of the way. It didn't happen. And then, all of a sudden, with North Korea this year, the President changes his mind and says, Oh, maybe you all were right after all. At least the President changed his mind. Unfortunately, it seems like some people cannot even do that. A lot of us think the administration is not doing enough, but to do less would be negligent, and I think we should reject this amendment.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

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

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, as a designee of the chairman, and pursuant to H. Res. 260, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate my colleague from Alabama and I would just conclude with two points. One, is that it is in the Constitution where it clearly provides that a primary, and I believe the primary responsibility of the Federal Government, is to defend the country. You can't do that on the cheap. Obviously, you have to be efficient. You shouldn't waste money, but the first job of the Federal Government is to defend the country. The second point I'd want to make is this: there are some people who seem to want to stick their head in the sand and believe that all the threats have gone away. As a matter of fact, the President seemed to say a few weeks ago in his speech that the war on terrorism was over. And then today, the President acknowledges that there is evidence that is clear, at least in his mind, that chemical weapons have been used in Syria. So, whether you think about al Qaeda and its affiliates spreading out all over the world or whether you think about the very real dangers of chemical weapons in Syria, not just being used against Syrians, but potentially getting in the hands of terrorists and being used against us, or whether you think about the new domain of warfare, which is cybersecurity, or warfare in space, whether you think about the potential military rise of China and what that means for the United States and its interests, as you just wrap your mind around the headlines and the news of the world, my point is, the threats have not gone away. This is a dangerous world. Only the United States is a super power to maintain stability and to protect the lives and freedoms of Americans. That takes some resources. We've already cut defense. We've already cut defense enough, and certainly, we should not cut defense again. This amendment, as I say, Mr. Chairman, is dangerous. It should be rejected. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, in some ways I admire the gentleman from Minnesota because he states clearly what he believes. In my opinion, his argument, however, is dangerous, and it will mean a very much more dangerous world for the United States and many of the people around the world who depend upon us. If we're going to talk numbers, we ought to just remind everybody that in 1960 the defense budget was about half of the total budget of the United States Government. Today, it's 17 percent of the budget for the United States budget. Now it's true it's most of the discretionary spending, but that completely leaves out the entitlements or the mandatory spending programs which are a vast majority of the government. In more recent history, let's think about that defense already took a reduction of $487 billion over a 10-year period. In the current fiscal year, it was cut another $55 billion. And now this amendment would take another $60 billion on top of that. Mr. Chairman, I think defense has been cut enough. If anyone has been listening to some of the debates we've been having today, you'd hear about readiness being down, about training not occurring, and about more expensive procurements because we can't buy at the most efficient rate. And this amendment would take another $60 billion on top of the other things, and would include the personnel accounts which were exempt under sequestration. But the ironic thing, Mr. Chairman, is that after you take this $60 billion out of defense, it would get hit again once sequestration kicks in. So in effect this doubles the cuts that come on defense from sequestration. It is mistaken. It is tragically mistaken, and I think it should be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished subcommittee chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Mr. Rogers of Alabama.