Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island, the ranking member of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, we're going to have ample opportunity to debate a number of the issues that the distinguished ranking member raised, but I don't think that we can be here on the floor and allow some of the arguments that have been made to go without some challenge. For example, to say that a letter signed by two former Attorneys General, a former Secretary of Homeland Security, and a variety of other officials who have had positions of responsibility in previous administrations who believe that the Smith-Amash amendment would be detrimental to our effort against terrorists, to say that those arguments are somehow silly or foolish I think really demeans past administrations. It is not actually fitting for this sort of debate. I understand that emotions can run high when we talk about these issues, and there are serious issues to be discussed, some difficult problems and some clear differences. But I hope that in the future the nature of the debate is elevated somewhat beyond calling former distinguished officials names. And let me make one other point. One of the key problems that many of us have with the Smith-Amash amendment is that it would bestow upon illegal aliens who come to this country to carry out terrorist attacks, it would bestow upon them full constitutional rights. That means basically, as soon as a member of al Qaeda sets foot on American soil, the first thing he hears after ``you are under arrest'' is you have the right to remain silent. You have the right to be provided an attorney. And if you can't afford one, an attorney will be provided to you. Now, there may be differences about how we should treat illegal aliens who come here as members of al Qaeda to conduct terrorist attacks. But I think the vast majority of people in this body and around the country do not think telling them they have the right to remain silent, as the first thing they hear, is a wise thing. So as you go through the arguments, and I would encourage Members of the House to read the letter themselves. I would encourage Members of the House to look at today's Wall Street Journal editorial. I would encourage Members of the House to look at the Heritage Foundation entry today on their Web site, to look how significant these issues are, how the Smith-Amash amendment would undermine our ability to defend our people, and how it is unfair to characterize concerns expressed by a dozen or eight to 10 former national security officials as somehow foolish or silly. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we can do better with that. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I commend Chairman McKeon for his leadership in developing this bill throughout the course of the year and appreciate the working relationship that he and the ranking member have, as evidenced by the fact that this bill was reported out of committee by a vote of 56 5. And I certainly agree with the comments of Mr. Andrews. One of the bipartisan goals of this committee is to make sure the taxpayers get every dollar of value possible for the money we spend for defense, and that is a goal that I think we are making good progress toward. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to express special appreciation to the members of the staff of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, especially Mr. Langevin, our ranking member. To summarize that portion of the bill, I think one could do it in three parts. One is to support the people and missions of the U.S. Special Operations Command while also providing objective oversight of what they do. Special Operations Forces are at the forefront of protecting this country, but that also puts them at the forefront of a lot of legal and policy issues, and that makes communication between the Congress and the Special Operations Forces and their lawyers and other overseers especially important. Secondly, our portion of the bill tries to sow and nurture the seeds of future capability, such as our science and technology programs. It's always tempting to cut research and development in tight budget times, but if you do that, then you are handicapping yourself from having the capability you need in the future. And, thirdly, this mark tries to take several steps forward on oversight and policy in the critical new domain of warfare of cyber. Obviously, we have talked a lot about that in recent weeks on the floor of this House. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I just make the point that we have lots of problems around the world, but this bill comes to the floor in a time of war. So as we come with these various amendments that cut this, that, and the other thing, we all need to keep in mind that there are still people out there trying to kill as many Americans as they possibly can, as recent news reports reflect. We ought to be cautious about that.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize the thirteen Medal of Honor recipients who trained in Mineral Wells, Texas, at Camp Wolters during World War II and at Fort Wolters during the Vietnam War. On March 23, 2012, the Fort Wolters Gate Committee joined with the citizens of Mineral Wells to honor these brave men with two ceremonies on Medal of Honor Day. These thirteen outstanding individuals are First Lieutenant Eli L. Whiteley, First Lieutenant James M. Sprayberry, First Lieutenant Charles L. Thomas, First Lieutenant Vernon Baker, First Lieutenant Jack L. Knight, Second Lieutenant Audie L. Murphy, Staff Sergeant Edward A. Carter, Jr., Chief Warrant Officer Michael J. Novosel, Chief Warrant Officer Frederick Edgar Ferguson, Captain Ed Freeman, Captain Jon E. Swanson, Major Patrick H. Brady, and Major William E. Adams. The Medal of Honor is our nation's highest military honor that can be bestowed upon an individual service member by the United States government. It is given to men and women of the Armed Forces who set themselves apart through their uncommon courage, selflessness, and valor which goes above and beyond the call of duty. The recipients of this prestigious award are not only leaders among those with whom they serve, they are also the role models to whom future generations of Americans will always look. I am honored to be able to join in recognizing these heroes before Congress today.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Hall, and the ranking member, Ms. Johnson, for bringing this bill and the next bill to the floor. This will mean the House will have passed four bills this week related to cybersecurity, taking important steps in the right direction. I particularly appreciate the work of the gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul, and Mr. Lipinski for bringing this bill to the floor. As they have said, they've been working on it for a while, and I appreciate their persistence and also the substance of the bill. Of course, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul, as you've heard, has been working in this area for a number of years, and the study that he cochaired with Mr. Langevin with the CSIS Commission on Cybersecurity remains one of the leading studies in this field. Mr. Speaker, this bill is important. You've heard about the education and awareness. It also helps make sure that the research and development is coordinated so that we don't duplicate within the Federal Government, but also that it is complementary to what the private sector is doing. I think it's important to emphasize that the answer to cybersecurity is not a government program; it is our people and innovation. That is really the key. So others may steal information from us--they may even copy some of the things they steal--but what they can't do is produce the sort of innovation and new approaches that are absolutely essential to our future. That's part of the reason this bill is important. It's part of the reason we have to be careful about new regulations and other things that some people want to do because nurturing the innovation that comes from this country, from the private sector and the government, is absolutely essential to our future. So I appreciate all of the work that the gentleman from Texas and others have done, not only on this bill but in the larger scheme of things, as it cuts across a number of committees, and it takes our country a few steps in the right direction. But it's important that we take those steps for our future security.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank Chairman Issa for yielding. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for working together and bringing this important bill to the floor. I also want to commend the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), who was a member of our task force and, as the chairman noted, has done so much work on this. Madam Speaker, this is an important bill on cybersecurity. The FISMA law passed in 2002 needs to be updated. The growth in the number and sophistication of the threats has not been matched by our response, and so laws and policies are increasingly outdated and not able to keep up with the threats faced by Federal networks as well as private sector networks. And this bill requires continuous monitoring, as you have heard. The threat is dynamic. It changes. It doesn't work anymore to just check a box and say, I've done this. You have to have that continuous monitoring of what's happening within your networks. That's important for defense of the Federal Government, but it's also important to be an example for the rest of the country. And in cybersecurity, it seems to me, it's particularly important for the Federal Government to lead by example. I also want to just say that this is an example of an issue, a part of cybersecurity, on which everybody agrees needs to happen, and this committee has brought a bipartisan answer. We cannot allow differences that may exist between this body and the other body on other cybersecurity issues prevent us from taking action, getting something accomplished on something that everybody agrees on. This is one of the things everybody agrees needs to happen. Information-sharing, everybody agrees on. Research and development that we'll have tomorrow on the floor, everybody agrees needs to happen. I appreciate the work of this committee. It's an important bill. It will help make the Nation more secure, as well as this government, and I hope all Members will support it.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I don't think we can say often enough how important it is that the chairman and ranking member have worked together, not only on the substance of this bill, but in the process of getting us here. They have, truly, put the country's interests first, and I think all Members should commend them for that. This was a good bill when it was reported out of committee 17 1. I think it will be a better bill once the amendments are considered and adopted. And for any Member who has concerns about privacy or misuse of information, I think they should look at the amendments that are going to be adopted; and any reasonable concern, any semi-reasonable concern about privacy will be addressed with the limitations that those amendments add. Madam Chair, this bill does not solve all the problems in cybersecurity. All four bills that we're considering today and tomorrow don't solve all the problems we have in cybersecurity. But it makes no sense to me, as some seem to have argued, that we should not solve this problem of information-sharing because we're not solving all the problems that somebody can see out there. This problem of information-sharing has been central to cybersecurity concerns for some time. I happened across a report from December 2004 that was issued by a subcommittee I chaired of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, along with the gentlelady from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), where we wrote: Whether it is vulnerability assessments, threat warnings, best practices or emergency response, information- sharing with the private sector is critical to securing the United States from cyberattack. That was 8 years ago. Why has it not occurred? Because all the legal obstacles, all the fear of being sued has prevented it from occurring. And that's what this bill does. It clears away the legal underbrush that has prevented the kind of information-sharing that people have been talking about for a decade. This is a good, important step. It doesn't solve all the problems, but it puts more information at the disposal of critical infrastructure so that they can be protected. It should be adopted.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I would just point out two other things, briefly: One is, again, one criticism one hears is that, well, you don't solve this problem or that problem, and that is absolutely true. These bills, all four of them, don't solve all the problems in cyberspace. But we shouldn't let the pursuit of the perfect answer prevent us from accomplishing some significant steps in the right direction, and that's what these bills do. The second point I'd make, as the gentleman from Florida mentioned, is three of these bills were reported out of committee by voice vote. The information-sharing bill was reported out 17 1. I believe that it has been made better since then. New protections are there. A host of restrictions on how the information can be used and privacy protections have been added and will be added with the amendments to come. So I think this deserves the support of all Members on both sides of the aisle, and Members on both sides of the aisle should take credit for taking a step to make our Nation more secure.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me. I rise in support of the rule and the cyber bill that it brings to the floor, as well as the other cyber bills which the House will consider today and tomorrow. Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by acknowledging the leadership of the Speaker and majority leader for setting up a process for a thoughtful examination of the many issues related to cybersecurity. They recognize that not only is it a significant national security threat, it's a threat to our economy and to jobs. But at the same time, what we are trying to protect, at least 85 to 90 percent of it is owned and operated by the private sector. So one has to tread carefully in this area, and we have tried to do so with the limited legislation that is before the House today and tomorrow. I also want to thank the members of the House Cybersecurity Task Force, who put in a great deal of time and expertise in sorting through these issues and making recommendations: Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Coffman, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Hurt, Mr. Latta, Mr. Lungren, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Stivers, and Mr. Terry. Of course, a number of Members have worked on these issues for several years, including a number of those I've just mentioned, as well as Mr. Langevin, Mr. Ruppersberger, people on both sides of the aisle. Finally, I also want to take a second to thank the staffs of the various committees who have worked on this issue, as well as Josh Martin and Michael Seeds of my office, as well as Jen Stewart, the Speaker's national security adviser, whose guidance on substance and process was invaluable. Mr. Speaker, we will have ample opportunity to debate the merits of the individual pieces of legislation, but I think it's important at the beginning just to step back and say: Why all this hubbub about computers? What does all that mean? Well, I think we should start with the point that cyber--and that includes networks that are connected to the Internet and networks that are not connected to the Internet--but cyber is deeply ingrained in virtually every facet of our lives now, from the time we get up until the time we go to sleep and all the times in between. We very much depend on cyber, and anything you very much depend on can, and often does, become a vulnerability. We know of at least three different kinds of vulnerabilities these days. People can reach through the Internet and steal information which businesses, large, medium, and small, have produced. It happens every day in this country. Intellectual property is ripped out of the possession of those who produce it. And every time people steal information, they cost us jobs; they are stealing jobs as well. So our economy is directly affected by the difficulty in protecting the information that we, as individuals and businesses, store on our computers. In addition to that, though, information can be destroyed on our computers or it can be manipulated, or the computers themselves can be manipulated so that what we intend to do or what we want to do is not possible. If, for example, you have a lot of bank records that are destroyed or other such important records, then it can have a huge effect on our economy as well as our security. But going beyond stealing information, destroying information, we now know it's possible to reach through the Internet and other networks to have physical consequences in the real world, to flip a switch, to open a valve. It's the sort of thing that happened with the Stuxnet virus in Iran. But there are physical consequences to doing so. So that's part of the reason that people talk about the electricity grid going down, a whole city being poisoned by its water supply, chemical plants releasing emissions that they don't intend to release, physical consequences. Real death, potentially, and destruction can occur all because of things going on the Internet. That's the reason a lot of people talk about a cyber 9/11 or a cyber Pearl Harbor. I know it's tempting to think all that's hype, but the truth is that over the past decade--and especially over the past couple of years--the number and sophistication of threats has grown much more rapidly than our ability to respond. And it's especially our laws and policies that have not kept up with the growing sophistication of threats. So the bills that we have before us this week, four of them, try to begin to take a step to close that gap between the growing threat and laws and policies. They don't solve all the problems, they don't try to, but they are a step in the right direction.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. Mr. Speaker, every person elected to the House believes that we're here to do important work on behalf of our district. Of course, the House is bigger than any one issue or any one person. Yet, there are a relatively small number of persons who are central to the functioning of this House. Too often, I'm afraid, Members get so wrapped up in what we're trying to do that maybe we take for granted the institution of the House. But it is the institution that is established in the Constitution. It's the institution that provides the continuity of government as political majorities come and go, and it's the institution that provides the legitimacy and the respect for what we do here. I say all that to make the point that I think, in many ways, the Parliamentarian is the central figure for the institution of the House. Since 1927, there have only been four of them, and in my time here, we have been incredibly privileged to have had two outstanding public servants, Charles Johnson and John Sullivan, serve in that position. It is with some regret, but even more with respect and gratitude, that we honor the service, but I'd say just as much the character and the intellectual integrity, of John Sullivan as he leaves the House to begin a new chapter in his life. As one of those who has benefited from John's steady guidance while I was in the chair, I can testify to his even temper. He guides our proceedings with intellect and logic, based on the Constitution, the rules of the House, and our precedent. But at the same time, he is able to factor in the human dimension, taking into account the personality of the person in the chair as well as that of the persons at the microphone. And that means it's as much art as it is science to keep the House running smoothly. Much of the work he does, of course, is done off the House floor, advising Members and staff as to how they can accomplish their goals within the rules and precedents of the House. I have tremendous respect, though, for John's abilities and for his professionalism. But I have even greater appreciation for his commitment to and his love for this institution, for that portion of his heart that he has given to the House for the past 25 years. He has elevated each of us who have worked with him, but more importantly, he has elevated the institution of the House of Representatives through which government by the people's representatives is possible. He is among our best and brightest, and all of us here, and the institution, will miss him greatly.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, each Member of this body is assisted by those who serve on our staffs. The roles and responsibilities of a Member of Congress make it impossible for any one individual to do it all. It takes a team. Today I wish to recognize and express appreciation to a key member of my team as he retires from official public service. Bill Harris has served as my Chief of Staff and then Senior Counselor since 2004. But his service to the country began in 1968 as a member of U.S. Army Signal Corps and his service to the Congress began in 1972, when he took a job as a staff assistant to Congressman Mike McCormack of Washington State. Earning his law degree from Georgetown, he was Congressman McCormack's Counsel until 1976. Between his stints with the Congress, Bill worked for the Atomic Industrial Forum, the Committee for Energy Awareness, the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness (which is now the Nuclear Energy Institute), and the University Research Alliance. In each of these positions, Bill's focus was energy and the tremendous possibilities that can come from nuclear research and development. In 2004, I enticed Bill back into government service to serve as my Chief of Staff. He led my team by helping each staff member develop his or her talents and interests to grow and serve the people of the 13th district. His expertise in energy and in management, as well as his background in the law, were invaluable. But, perhaps most importantly has been his character and strong, steady leadership. Too few individuals possess the modesty that puts the good of the organization and the mission ahead of any personal considerations. Yet some of the strongest leaders and those with the most to say are those persons of character whose soft-spoken demeanor quiets the noise with intellect, honesty, and sound judgment. Bill is just such a leader. He has helped ensure that we made decisions based on the concerns of the people in Texas, not how policy in Washington should control the lives of people back home. No matter what the task, my staff and I counted on Bill's guidance and sense of duty to the people we represent. Of course, Bill's commitment to service goes beyond his profession. He spends his free time engaging with all corners of the community. For example, he is currently a Mission Pilot with the Civil Air Patrol, a long-serving board member of the Harrington Cancer Center of Amarillo, and a member of the Amarillo Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee. But that is just a sampling. Over the years, Bill and wonderful wife Bev have become fixtures in the community when it comes to serving others and the community as a whole. Bill has been on more committees and organizational projects than anyone could count. President Reagan put a premium on principle-based leadership. He kept a small plaque on his desk in the Oval Office with a quote that read, ``There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he does not mind who gets the credit.'' Bill's example of servant leadership is one that has shaped the lives of many individuals and shown that a benevolent heart earns the respect of others. It is for this spirit of service and dedication to the highest standards of excellence that I am honored to recognize the contributions and to acknowledge the retirement of a man who is a credit to my office, his family, and our country. As he moves into the next phase of his life, I want to express my gratitude, not only for all of his help with my work in representing the 13th district, but for all he has done so far to make our community and our region a better place to live.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. It is a broad-ranging conference report that affects everything from personnel policies to weapons systems to research and development across the Department of Defense and the military. And I especially commend Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and all the staff who have worked all year to make this possible, but have worked especially hard in the last few days to make this conference report possible before the Congress adjourns. There are a number of good, important provisions in this bill that strengthen our country's national security. But in light of the comments we have recently heard, Mr. Speaker, let me talk just a moment about this issue of detention. You know, one can put into law ``the sun comes up,'' and if somebody comes and says, no, it doesn't, you can present all the evidence and you can present words that have clear meaning, and if somebody just wants to say, no, it doesn't, you at some level reach an impasse. The two provisions related to detention in this bill, the words that have been put into the law, are very clear. One says it does not apply to U.S. citizens. It does not. Nothing here affects U.S. citizens. The other provision says that nothing in this section can be construed to affect existing law or authorities related to the detention of U.S. citizens. Now, it seems to me there may well be people who are uncomfortable with the current law, and I understand that. And the proper thing to do is to introduce a bill and try to get that amended in some way to get it more to your liking. But to argue that this bill changes in some way the current law when the words say nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities is just not credible. The provisions in this bill, Mr. Speaker, are a small step towards having this Congress back involved in making those detention decisions. I think it is the right small step, and it should be supported.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, it would be a mistake to believe that a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution will solve all of our fiscal woes. There are no magic answers to what ails us. Fiscal discipline and common sense applied day-by-day, year-by-year are required. A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution would, however, help impose the discipline needed on the taxing and spending decisions of the federal government. It would be a very significant step--perhaps one of the most significant we could take--in repairing our fiscal house. It forces Congress and the President to make choices. If new spending is proposed, other spending must be cut or some other way to finance the new program must be found. A basic principle for individuals, businesses, and other organizations is that one should not spend more than one has to spend, except in extraordinary circumstances. That is common sense. Yet, for too long, that principle has been commonly absent from Washington. This vote on this Amendment is our opportunity to apply this basic idea to the federal government. We should do it now.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, this vote is a close call. Like the vast majority of our colleagues, I do not want to see the federal government fail to meet its obligations. And if the government cannot borrow, the fact that President Obama would decide which bills to pay with the money that is available is not reassuring. He could well refuse to pay Social Security benefits in order to build the maximum amount of political pressure for his agenda. But I am equally disturbed by the prospect of continuing to spend and borrow as usual. The United States simply cannot continue down this path of fiscal irresponsibility and meet our duty to our children and to future generations. We must cut some spending now, and we must change the system that allows or even encourages such fiscal recklessness. This bill cuts some spending, although not nearly as much as I would like. The spending it cuts directly is discretionary spending, which is the easiest to cut because it is subject to the annual appropriations process. The bill does not touch mandatory spending, which is well over half of the budget. That is a lost opportunity. The special congressional committee could recommend changes in mandatory spending and hopefully an overhaul of our tax code, which is a drag on our economy and a burden to all taxpayers. The recommendations of that committee will receive a vote in the House and Senate before the end of the year. That is a potential opportunity. Significantly, the bill does cut a dollar of spending for every dollar of additional borrowing authority. No more money can be added to the debt without an equivalent or greater cut in spending. That is an important first for our country and an important precedent to set. The bill also requires a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. It will be the first such vote in the Senate in 15 years. There is, of course, no guarantee that it will pass, but there is a real opportunity for the American people to let their Senators and Representatives know how they feel. If the polls are correct that over 70% of the people support a Balanced Budget Amendment and if they let Congress know of their support, it should pass. I am concerned about the way this measure treats defense. The Department of Defense, like any large organization, can be more efficient. Our national security would be devastated, however, if the sequestration cuts were allowed to occur. Every member of the House and Senate, as well as the President, must ensure that they do not. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is always the question that must be asked when making a difficult decision on how to vote on a bill: If this bill does not pass, what happens then? There is much about this bill with which I am not satisfied, but I have absolutely no doubt that if this bill is rejected, the next one will be worse. The next bill may come after Social Security checks are not received or after the markets plummet, but there would be another bill, and it will not have the cuts or reforms that are in this one. And it would most likely make even greater cuts to defense. The bottom line is that this bill is one step in the right direction. I would rather take two, or three, or five steps, but I cannot reject a bill that cuts spending as much as it increases borrowing and that provides the opportunity for greater cuts as well as for real reforms in budgeting and spending. There is much more work ahead, and I will keep pushing for more steps in the direction of fiscal responsibility in the weeks and months to come.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House that one of our former colleagues, the Honorable Graham P. Purcell, Jr., has passed away at the age of 92. Graham Purcell was a larger-than-life figure who led a remarkable life of service. Whether it was as a soldier in World War II, a State judge, or a U.S. Congressman, he served with a strength of character and with a love of country that has provided an example and an inspiration for many people, including me. A man of deep faith, Graham possessed a generosity of spirit that extended to all aspects of his life. He was a member of the Greatest Generation that saved the world from totalitarianism and then came home to build the most prosperous nation the world has ever known. But Graham Purcell was also an individual who would stand out in any generation, rising from humble roots to help make history. He was born in Archer County, Texas, on May 5, 1919. After high school, he enrolled in Texas A&M, but the war came, and shortly after Pearl Harbor he entered the Army, serving in Tunisia and in Italy, and earning, among other awards, the Silver Star. Even after he was discharged, he continued to serve in the Army Reserves for a number of years. When he returned from the war, he finished his degree at Texas A&M and then Baylor Law School. After practicing law for a few years, he was appointed judge for the 89th district court in Texas, and served from 1955 until 1962, when he resigned in order to run for Congress in a special election. Serving in the House from January 1962 until January 1973, Congressman Purcell focused primarily on his work on the Agriculture Committee, serving as chairman of the Livestock Subcommittee. He also played a key role in the Congressional Prayer Breakfast, and served the people of North Texas with integrity and distinction for 11 years. After Congress, Graham practiced law and helped found a large law firm and then served as a visiting district judge in Texas. But in whatever capacity--soldier, judge, Congressman, citizen--Graham was committed to serving others. He and his wife, Nancy, just recently received an award for helping children in crisis in the Wichita Falls community. Graham Purcell led a rich, full, remarkable life. How many others can say that they shook hands with Winston Churchill while serving as a soldier in Italy; had Vice President Johnson come pick him and his family up at the airport just after he was elected in a special election to take them to the Johnson home so they could stay for a while until they had a chance to find a place of their own; or, on the last night of President Kennedy's life spent more than an hour with him on the plane from Houston to Forth Worth, swapping stories back and forth, and then was in the motorcade the next day when President Kennedy was assassinated; or, made numerous trips back and forth to Vietnam to thank our soldiers for what they were doing there, always stopping at a burn unit along the way to make sure that those severely wounded would know that their country appreciated what they were doing; or, at age 92, just a few weeks ago, offer important guidance and advice to one of his successors about the importance of putting the country first ahead of party, ahead of personal considerations. Although Graham loved history--and he certainly loved to regale family and friends with some of his amazing stories--he was also a person who was always looking forward. He was consumed by what kind of country would be left to his children and his grandchildren. And it was this focus on the common good that dominated his life story and really defined him as a man and as a public servant. He and his wife, Nancy, have 8 surviving children as well as 25 grandchildren and 5 great grandchildren, all of whom benefited from his loving care and will miss him greatly. Although Graham had many titles and roles in his life, he knew that first and foremost he was a child of God. It was from this perspective that he lived--and it is in this assurance that he now rests.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always tempting to say we ought to have a plan, but I think the purpose of this amendment is clear. It is to drive us out of Afghanistan on an accelerated time frame without regard for the conditions on the ground. And that is not only a mistake in strategy and detrimental to our security interests; it actually increases the danger to our troops and to coalition troops as well. Timelines undermine their efforts. It discourages your friends, because they know you're not going to be there very long, it encourages your enemies because that helps them plan their assault against you, and it ensures that anybody on the fence hedges their bets because they know that you're not going to be around for very long. And, Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me at a time when our government is wanting President Karzai to make difficult decisions, it is not particularly helpful for the minority leader to go over there and tell him how tired we are. Is that persuasive? Does that help him make the tough decisions to end corruption and to stand up the Afghan police? Somehow I don't think so. Mr. Chairman, I want our troops to come home as soon as they possibly can too, but I do not want the considerable sacrifice of blood and treasure that they have expended to be thrown away because of political impatience. That was the exact concern that numerous servicemen voiced to me when I was there with Speaker Boehner last month. They worry that Washington would throw away the important progress they have fought and died for. Last Saturday, Mr. Chairman, in my district was a banquet to honor Armed Services Day. There were more than 1,200 veterans, people who are serving, the people who have served and their families. And numerous Gold Star families were there. The theme of the night was persistence. And you can tell from those families that have suffered the most and from those veterans that they did not want to have their sacrifice squandered away because of some Washington political compromise. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we need to learn from them and be inspired from them and reject this amendment.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, Will Rogers was quoted as having said, ``It ain't so much what a man doesn't know that causes him so many problems but what he thinks he knows that just ain't so.'' And there have been so many arguments today and in the past about the V-22 that are just ain't so that I suggest that Members have some responsibility to learn the facts themselves. Some of those facts are that as of February 2011, V-22 has exceeded 100,000 total flight hours since the program's inception. For the Marines, over the last 10 years the V-22 has the lowest Class A mishap rate of any currently fielded tactical rotor craft. The unrefueled combat radius of the V-22 is more than twice that of the helicopter it's replacing, and it flies at more than 100 miles an hour faster. On March 22 this year it was V-22s that went in to rescue the Air Force pilot who went down over Libya. And the list goes on and on. The V-22 is performing very well, previously in Iraq and right now in Afghanistan. Madam Chair, I don't know if any of the Members are particularly interested in learning the ground truth of what's going on with the V- 22 or have talked with marines or Special Operations Forces about how it's performing; but I'd suggest if they want to know the real facts, they ought to go talk to the people who really fly it because that way they will learn about what is really happening. A month ago, I did have the opportunity to fly in the V-22 in Afghanistan, and I did talk to the pilots about how it's performing, about any maintenance issues they had, and a whole variety of things-- all of which they thought was performing very, very well. But, Madam Chair, the most memorable exchange I had was talking with a young marine who had lost a buddy of his because the helicopter that was trying to get his buddy to the hospital couldn't make it there to the hospital in that first hour after he was wounded. And that's the critical time. And this young marine told me, he said, I keep thinking that if we'd had the V-22s available at that time, my buddy might have made it there on time. Now, the bottom line is this aircraft is saving lives; it is enabling our marines and special operators to do the mission that we've asked them to do. It is on-target as far as cost, production schedule, the rest. It is doing more than we expected, and such amendments to remove it at this stage are shortsighted at best. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, it is true that the Department of Defense ought to always be examining where we have troops deployed around the world, and that is appropriate for them. It is not appropriate, however, for us to arbitrarily tell them that they will have 30,000 troops in Europe, X number of troops in Asia and so forth. I think that it is important to emphasize that among the important functions that our troops in Europe perform are joint training-- building partnership with our European partnerships. Just a few weeks ago, I was at the NATO SOF Training facility where European allies train with our Special Operations Forces before they have to actually be engaged in the battlefield in Afghanistan and elsewhere. That sort of joint training is made possible because our troops are there. As the gentleman from Ohio mentioned, direct support of our deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya incredibly simplifies, or makes easier, our deployments for logistics and other transportation needs when we are able to base things in Europe and go from there rather than having to come all the way from the United States. Madam Chair, I think we need to remind ourselves that, since 1945, when the U.S. has had substantial troop numbers in Europe, there has not been another general European war. Yet millions upon millions of people died in previous years because of those general European wars. The other key point is that this amendment decreases end strength over a period of 5 years. That has real consequences for real soldiers and marines and sailors and airmen all across the world. As the gentleman mentioned, it means they are going to have to spend more time in deployments.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would yield myself 30 seconds simply to say I understand the gentleman's argument. I would simply say the Defense Science Board has looked at this program, and it comes to a different conclusion. They believe this program has potentially the highest payoff, that it is unique and beyond what is happening in the civilian sector or other defense Departments. And that was February 2011 when the Defense Science Board report came out. Mr. Chairman, I would yield the remaining time to the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. THORNBERRY. How much time remains for me?

Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from California's commitment to deficit reduction, but I'm afraid that this particular amendment is short-sighted. In Afghanistan and elsewhere, more and more of what our troops are doing is living with, working with, and cooperating with the Afghans or the native peoples wherever they happen to be. Helping those peoples to defend themselves is far better and cheaper for us than having us defend them ourselves. But a basic tenet to make that work is to understand the culture and the social dynamics of those various populations, which are different, of course, from one place to another. It is a basic tenet of counterinsurgency that you have to understand the population you are there to protect. This program that the gentleman wants to eliminate is a significant research program to see if modeling that sort of social dynamics will work. And I would say to the gentleman that the Defense Science Board looked at this very program earlier this year and found that it was one of the emerging technologies where investment is likely to have the highest payoff--the highest payoff. The report went further to say, consistent to some extent with what the gentleman was saying, that there is other work being done in this area. But the Defense Science Board found there is a major shortfall in the availability and maturity of these capabilities, and these simulations do not generalize to other environments and require further investment to make them useful for the next potential conflict. So there is work being done in this area in a civilian context, but it does not automatically translate to the military context, and that is why the Defense Science Board says that this emerging technology is one investment likely to have the highest payoff. And so the bottom line is that we need to pursue this to reduce the danger to our troops and to make sure that their work is more effective. This is a good investment by the Defense Science Board and I believe by other studies as well. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that there are provisions in this bill related to cybersecurity. It is not as if we are doing nothing. Yet, as I noted in the comments I made in the general debate portion of this bill, there is much work ahead. I have no doubt the gentleman from Rhode Island, as well as the other Members interested in cyber, will be participating in that. As I mentioned at the beginning, however, I believe this is not the proper bill nor the proper time to take up this very comprehensive, 55- page thoughtful amendment that the gentleman has offered. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the Chair. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment because I believe that this is the wrong bill and it's the wrong time to consider it. But I should say that there is no one in this House who has more respect from both sides of the aisle on cyber issues than the gentleman from Rhode Island. He and I, I know, started working together on cyber issues as far back as 2003. We continue to work together in leading the Emerging Threats Subcommittee, as well as both of us being members of the Intelligence Committee. But the gentleman from Rhode Island has clearly been one of the country's leaders on cyber, as he mentioned, cochairing the CSIS Commission on Cyber, which was a very important contribution to the proposals and the urgency with which this issue must be dealt. And so I would say that he and I are in total agreement on the importance of this issue and the necessity of this country and this government and this Congress taking action on cyber. I would say he and I are largely in agreement on the things that should be done. But having said that, I must remind everyone that just a few days ago the White House sent to Congress a substantial list of proposals on what it believes should be done on cybersecurity. I think the thing that makes the most sense is for us to take a little time and look at what the White House proposed, look at what the gentleman from Rhode Island has proposed, and I think there are some other suggestions out there that need to be considered and need to be in the mix. It is certainly true that some sort of organizational reform may be needed here. But if so, it extends far beyond the Department of Defense, and that is the subject of this bill, which is one of the reasons I believe that this is an inappropriate place to take up the wide-ranging proposals that the gentleman from Rhode Island has put before us today. As a matter of fact, other than the FISMA language, which I think there is widespread agreement needs to be updated, other than that, most of this other language that the gentleman has proposed is outside the Department of Defense and, therefore, I would suggest is not appropriate for this bill. The other thing I've got to mention is that the gentleman's amendment does come at a cost and the offset of the amendment is to reduce the O&M funds from the Department of Defense by $1.5 billion. So, in effect, we are making the Department of Defense be the bill payer for the rest of the government to get its act together. And I think given our serious financial constraints in defense, given the appropriate equities involved, that that would be a mistake. But I want to be clear that the gentleman from Rhode Island has been a, if not the, leader in the House on putting forward important proposals to improve our cybersecurity. I think his proposals definitely need to be seriously considered. But in this bill, it is inappropriate. And at this time, I also believe it would be premature. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.