Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, there have clearly been a number of wild exaggerations and mischaracterizations about the effect of section 1034. If Members have any doubt about where the truth lies, I recommend you look at editorials in The Washington Post, the L. A. Times, The Wall Street Journal, all of which support modernizing and updating the authorization for the use of military force. They clearly debunk some of the wild accusations that have been made. Let's take it back for just a second to the basics here. The current authorization for the use of military force passed this Congress on September 14, 2001. Now, smoke was still rising from the ruins of the Twin Towers in New York. The Taliban was still the Government of Afghanistan at that time. The Madrid train bombing, the London subway bombing, Indonesia nightclub bombing had yet to occur. But Congress believed that action should be taken giving the President the authority to go after those who perpetrated 9/11, and the AUMF authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those whom he determines authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored them. Now it is absolutely true, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) voted against that. I believe she was the only one. Everybody else supported that authorization, and that was a decade ago. It has not changed since then. In the decade since, al Qaeda has changed. As a matter of fact, we have had testimony this year from the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center that the most serious threat to our homeland actually comes from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula headquartered in Yemen. They are the most serious threat now. With the death of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda will change more. But yet the language that passed September 14, 2001, has not changed. One article noted that it is increasingly strained and artificial to tie everything the military is doing back to 9/11, and yet that's what the lawyers have to do now. They have to tie it all back to those attacks of September 11, 2001. Doing so depends upon the court interpretation of those lawyers' arguments. That's what our national security authority is dependent on at the moment. I believe it's clear we have got to update the authority. The question is: How do we update it? Now, here is one option. The gentleman said you remove all reference to 9/11. Well, we could add a list of other dates. We could say Congress gives the President the authority to go after those who aided, abetted, or committed the attacks of September 25, 2009, and the attacks of May 1, 2010--Times Square bombing, by the way, and the first one was the underwear bombing in Detroit--and the attacks of October 29, 2010. That was the attempted toner cartridge bombing attack. Most of those, by the way, we think came from AQAP. The point is I don't think it's a very good way to legislate, to put a bunch of dates in there of the various attacks and the President is authorized to go over who did those various attacks. That's not a good way to do it. A much better approach is to take the exact arguments this administration is using in court to justify what it's doing right now and saying, yes, we will take that language. It makes it clear. It's what we are doing now, but Congress will do it this time rather than rely on court interpretations of what they are doing. So, somebody might ask, well, why bother if that's what they are doing now? You know, why do you mess with it? Well, number one, it's less time with the lawyers straining and stretching language to fit back to the attacks of September 11. I would say, number two, nearly everybody in this House is concerned about our relevance in authorizing the use of military force in various engagements. Now, are we going to sit back there and stick our heads in the sand while the courts do all our work for us, or are we going to take action to reflect what's really happened? It's time to take action now.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I think the bottom line here is that the American people have made their views on this subject quite clear, and their views are they do not want Guantanamo terrorists brought here to our homeland. And that view has been reflected in legislation that was passed even in an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress during the last term. And I would suggest that there are good reasons that the American people feel that way, that they don't want terrorists brought here to our homeland. Part of that reason, I would suggest, is that the administration has not done a lot to promote confidence in its ability to handle these situations. They come up with one plan, they get criticism, and they back off. It's back and forth. And so we have had needless delays ever since this administration has been in office because, frankly, they have been inept when it comes to having a plan that deals with terrorists that the American people can trust. Now, maybe if we had a different history there could be some greater confidence in giving greater options, as the gentleman wants to do, or to having some other possibilities. But we cannot rewrite history, and the trust is simply not there. Instead, what we have are some rather petulant comments by the Attorney General saying that, well, they still want to close Guantanamo and they still want to try them in Article 3 courts even though the law is the other way and the opinion of the American people is clearly the other way. So I believe that the current law that we had in last year's bill should be the same policy for next year. I do think it's important to point out that this only applies to the coming fiscal year. This is not a forever thing. But this does continue the ban on bringing terrorists here to our homeland for the coming fiscal year. If you're given the history of where we've been and where we are, that's what the American people want.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, in addition, I think it should be pointed out that in the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, the Congress required that the Panel on Contracting Integrity review policies related to post-employment restrictions. Now that report is supposed to be delivered this summer. It seems to me to be prudent that we listen to what we ordered them to tell us before we start making new restrictions and new requirements without even hearing what their report says. So I appreciate the concerns that the gentlelady brings up on this issue. But as the chairman indicated, study after study related to our acquisition process talks about the difficulty of attracting top quality acquisition folks and yet the importance of having those very people. I think it's very important, while we obviously must consider the ethical considerations, we also, just as obviously, have to consider whether we are attracting top quality talent or repelling top quality talent. And it would be very helpful for Congress to hold off and listen to the report that we have ordered them to give us before we start making additional legislation and additional requirements that could have severe adverse consequences in this area. So, I think we should reject this amendment, listen to the report, see what it says, and see if and when additional action is needed after that.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, noting that it's not about where it's built, it's about saving lives and completing the mission, I would yield to my colleague from Texas, the ranking member of the Air and Land Subcommittee, Mr. Reyes, such time as he would consume.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the chairman for yielding. And, Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend the chairman of the committee and Ranking Member Smith for their leadership in shepherding a complex and important bill to this stage of the process. A 60-1 vote coming out of committee is a significant achievement and is a testament to the attitude of putting the national security interests of the whole country first, which has been the hallmark of this committee, and their leadership exemplifies the best of that in my opinion. Mr. Chairman, the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee is charged with looking ahead at those national security threats that are coming at us, and also helping to develop new capabilities to meet those threats. We oversee the Special Operations Command and counterterrorism efforts. Now, throughout the country, there is a greater appreciation, I think, for the capabilities within the Special Operations Command after the successful raid on Osama bin Laden, but I think it is important to emphasize that those folks in that command conduct that sort of raid just about every night somewhere with the same sort of precision and professionalism that the country now appreciates from the Osama bin Laden raid that got all of the attention. But they do much more. They are also responsible for helping train and advise other militaries, building up the capacities of those governments to defend themselves, and they are doing very impressive work in all parts of the world, including Afghanistan where, among other things, they are helping to train the military and train local police to help provide security for individual villages. Our bill provides a modest funding increase for this command, as well as meeting some real unmet needs that they have. Our part of the bill also deals with research that leads to future capabilities. In tight budgets, it is always tempting to cut research and development, science and technology programs, but it is a mistake to do so. In this budget, the funding for such programs at least holds steady with some added emphasis in some key areas that are important. The largest dollar amount in this subcommittee's portion of the bill is with DOD IT and cyber. This area may actually be the preeminent area of emerging threats in warfare. This mark takes some important steps forward in dollars and policies. But, Mr. Chairman, I think we should all acknowledge that there is a lot more work for this Congress and for this country to do in the area of cybersecurity. Not all of it is military; most of it is not. But yet the military is affected, as are we all. Mr. Chairman, a lot has changed since September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda is a changed organization; and with the death of Osama bin Laden, it will change further. But I think it is important to emphasize that this Congress must fulfill its responsibilities to affirm and update the authorization for the use of military force to deal with al Qaeda. There have been some wild exaggerations about the attempt to do so in that bill. I think if Members read the exact language and look at exactly what we are doing and why, that they will support it and agree that it is a fulfillment of our responsibility.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this week General Petraeus testified before Congress, and the essence of his testimony was that we are just now getting the necessary assets in place to make a difference in Afghanistan; that our troops and coalition partners are making a significant difference; that the progress is fragile and reversible; but that it is essential that we keep it up because vital national interests are at stake. I fear that as time has passed over the last 10 years and so many other events come and go in our Nation's life, that it is all too easy to forget that this country was attacked on 9/11 and that 3,000 Americans lost their lives. And we could come to the floor and hold up their pictures and the pictures of their children, of those who were killed on that day by terrorists, the attacks that were launched from Afghanistan, that were planned in Afghanistan and directed from Afghanistan. This Congress at the time voted virtually unanimously that we would take military action to go make sure that Afghanistan would no longer be used as a launching pad for attacks against us and that from Afghanistan, people would no longer come here to kill Americans. That is the reason we are still there today, and that is the purpose of our military actions there today. It is true that we may have a hard time plugging all the holes that could develop somewhere in the world where terrorist groups could squirt out to, but it is also true, in my view, that if we don't plug this hole, if we don't fulfill the mission that we have set out to fulfill in Afghanistan, we are going to have more holes all over the world developing, because people will know that we are not serious about doing what we say, and our security will be severely affected if that happens. There have clearly been ups and downs in our military efforts there, just as there were in Iraq. But I believe that from General Petraeus on down, we have our best. They deserve our support to fulfill the mission the country has given them.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, the reason we have troops in Afghanistan is to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a sanctuary from which terrorists will launch attacks against us. For us to one day be able to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, the Afghan people have to be able to stand on their own two feet, and this fund is designed to help them do that. The people there have to be able to resist the Taliban, al Qaeda and other groups that want to undermine their security and use Afghanistan once again as a terrorist base. This program, as has been mentioned, is a very high priority of our own military commander in Afghanistan, General Petraeus. Part of the reason it's one of his priorities is, as the gentleman from New Jersey said, this helps keep our own troops safe. When we are able to work with the Afghan people and develop the country, our troops in the country have a less danger opposing them. It is less likely that they will suffer some of the problems from the indigent population. But the second reason General Petraeus believes this is very important is that it's an integral part of his counterinsurgency campaign plan. So to withdraw this money at this point makes his job more difficult and increases the danger to our troops. I don't think that makes sense at any level. The other point I would make is this: As the gentleman from Washington said, this was a request from the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense for a fund that both agencies would work on. One of these days this government is going to have to get to interagency funds so that you don't have the State Department working on one hand, the Defense Department on another, other agencies doing their own thing. We have to have a combined effort, and this fund is at least a step in that direction. The interagency nature of it helps to prevent waste, abuse and misuse of these funds because you do have the extra oversight on its use. But I think the key point is--this is a question of our national security to help the Afghans stand on their own two feet, and I believe the amendment should be rejected. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to rise and express my respect and gratitude for a number of the senior members of this committee who will not be with us in the next Congress: the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), my colleague from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), and my friend from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder. Each of them have made innumerable contributions not only to the committee but to national security. Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely appropriate to name a defense authorization bill after our chairman, Mr. Skelton, who, over the totality of his career, has made innumerable contributions not only to this body and to the committee, but to the national security of the country. I think it is unfortunate that this particular bill has followed the tortured process it has in getting here. In some ways, it's unworthy of the contributions that the gentleman from Missouri has made over the course of his career. I think it is going to be very important for us moving forward to try to, just as we return the House to a more regular order where Members can make contributions, that the whole process of a defense authorization bill can return to a more regular order. I'd like to just mention a couple of provisions. One was mentioned on bringing detainees here from Guantanamo. Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to have that provision here, but we should remember that how we got here was a rash and irresponsible campaign promise by the President that he was going to close Guantanamo within the first year. And as the administration has tried to dodge and weave its way around keeping that promise, we have come to a virtual standstill on bringing those detainees through a judicial process. I hope that this bill is the first step towards making that happen, getting back to a regular judicial process for those detainees. The other provision I want to mention is the acquisition reform, an important first step to be sure, but it will be very important for this committee also to follow it up and measure the effectiveness, because every dollar spent is critical to be effective.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, let me just say that I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey that we do have an independent constitutional responsibility to obtain the information that is necessary for us to do our job, not just on covert action but on all information. That is one of the reasons I was so disappointed at this fig leaf notification provision which is in this bill. Madam Speaker, there are all sorts of bad ideas that start coming out and can even pass one body or another unanimously at the end of a session, but this bill is not a real bill. We have talked several times about the classified annex. What that means is a line-by-line description of the various intelligence programs and how much funding would go to each of them. That is the basic essence of an intelligence authorization bill, and yet that does not exist with this bill. That is what had bipartisan support over the last 1\1/2\ years as we have been working on it. But then, when it comes to the floor, that part suddenly gets dropped. What is left is just a rubber stamp of what the appropriators have done, and that does include the earmarks that the gentleman from Michigan talked about. So instead of coming to fruition for the work that this committee has done for the past 1\1/2\ years, instead we get what the Senate will accept or are expected to rubber-stamp it over here and pretend we have done something. But we haven't. We haven't done the basic things that the American people want us to do to keep this country safe. And I think it is true, as the chairman indicated, the American people do not want us to just say ``no.'' They want us to say ``no'' more often to bad ideas and wish this Congress had said ``no'' more often to a lot of the things that had actually gotten passed. But they want us to seriously address the issues about Guantanamo detainees, about Mirandizing terrorists, about making sure that terrorists are not released prematurely, keeping this country safe; yet this bill falls short. It is a disappointment.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan yielding. Madam Speaker, I think it's important also to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Michigan who has served on this committee for the last 8 years, including as chairman of the committee and, for the last 4 years, as the ranking member of the committee. The contributions he has made in that capacity to the country will never be fully known, but those of us on the committee I think do appreciate the considerable work that he has done and the contributions he has made. It's unfortunate that the last bill on which he will help manage time on the floor is this bill. I don't see how any Member can come and congratulate ourselves on finally getting an intelligence authorization bill to the floor that doesn't even have a classified annex to it. It doesn't seem to me to be a real bill at all. Unfortunately, and through no fault of the chairman who has been struggling to get a bill to the floor for months--years, actually, more than a year; it is not his fault--but this is not a real bill. Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, the history of this bill is rather pitiful. It was reported out of the committee in June of 2009, but then for 8 months you couldn't find time to bring it to the floor. Now, why was that? It wasn't like we had a lot of other pressing business for 8 months that prevented this bill from coming to the floor. It was because the Speaker set off a firestorm and controversy about when she was briefed on interrogations and what she knew and when she knew it. And then to defend herself, she charged that the CIA lies to us or misleads us all the time. Well, then the bill could not be brought to the floor because there had to be a way found to protect the Speaker. And so 8 months later it finally comes to the floor, and then it takes two rules to get it to the floor because there was a provision added in the manager's amendment, again to prosecute CIA people, to hold them to a higher standard of accountability than all the law enforcement folks around the country. So they had to go back to the drawing board. Now, 7 months after that, we are brought this kind of a shell bill and asked to rubber-stamp on the last day of the session what the Senate has done. As I say, Madam Speaker, I don't think there's much to be proud of here. On the notification provision that we've heard so much about, it does very little. And I think it is sad in a lot of ways that the majority walked away from the bipartisan, the truly bipartisan compromise of a couple years ago that would raise the bar and require any administration to give this Congress more information. Instead, we have this token language which does very little, and yet, Madam Speaker, as the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center testified last week before the Senate, we have had more attempted attacks on our homeland over the past year than at any time since the attacks of 9/11. So I think what is particularly unfortunate is what this bill does not do. This bill does nothing to prevent Guantanamo detainees from being brought here to the mainland of the United States, and yet tomorrow, the end of the fiscal year, tomorrow, all of the existing statutory prohibitions on bringing those terrorists here to the mainland expire. This bill was an opportunity to do something about that, and yet it does nothing. This bill says nothing about releasing detainees who end up returning to the fight and come back attacking and sometimes killing our soldiers around the world. This bill does nothing about foreign terrorists being told that they have the right to remain silent even before we get the information we need from them to prevent the next attack. Even though this House has voted on a bipartisan basis that they are not entitled to be told they can remain silent before we get the information we need, that's not in this bill. This bill does nothing to try to resolve the issues of whether detainees should be tried in military or civilian courts, and yet those are some of the very issues that the American people want to see resolved. For you see, Madam Speaker, for the last several months House Republicans have been listening to people and asking them what they would like to see done in Congress, and we've heard lots of information about not letting taxes go up, about restraining spending, repealing the health care bill, but on national security, the things we heard and the things that are in the Pledge to America talk about bringing detainees to the United States and about not letting them be released prematurely so that they return to the fight and not caring more about their rights than about the rights of the lives of Americans that we try to prevent. We could do a lot better than this bill, Madam Speaker, and it should be rejected.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, one of the things that most Americans don't realize is to what extent the Speaker, through the Rules Committee, controls this House and even what we can vote on. She determines what bills will be brought here, even what amendments may be offered. And there are very few ways to get another issue even considered here. But that's what this next vote is about. It's about trying to get a vote on a proposal that most people who went on the YouCut Web site this week have chosen as something that should at least get a vote. Now the gentleman from Mississippi has a serious proposal on the floor. But there are other serious proposals which ought to be considered as well. One of them is to cut the subsidy that goes to Amtrak's sleeper class service. Madam Speaker, the facts are this. Sixteen percent of the people who ride Amtrak's long distance routes, 16 percent, choose the sleeper class service. Everybody else rides in coach, but the people who choose the sleeper class service, as the whip mentioned, get a private compartment, usually a private bathroom. They have turndown service where somebody comes and pulls back their sheets at night. They have unlimited meals in the dining car, all a very nice thing, but the problem is the taxpayers subsidize an average $396 per ticket for every one of those people who choose that sleeper class service. You add it all up and it ends up being actually more than $1 billion over 10 years that the taxpayers subsidize the people who choose the sleeper class service. Now, our proposal doesn't eliminate that service. It doesn't change any Amtrak routes. It just says, if you're going to have that service, you ought to pay the cost of it. You ought to pay the cost of what you buy. I don't think that's terribly revolutionary, but it saves more than $1 billion to the taxpayers. Madam Speaker, in January I got to speak to a bunch of high school seniors in Randall High School in my district. At that time, their share of the national debt was about $39,000. Today, their share of the national debt is $42,739. I think the next vote hinges on this question: Is it worth $1 billion of subsidies for sleeper class service to add to the debt that those high school seniors have to pay? That's the question the Members will answer with the next vote.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana, who has been a very strong advocate for veterans and a respected voice in national security during the time that he has been in Congress. We will surely miss him in another year when he is no longer in our midst. Madam Speaker, this is one of those issues that leaves people scratching their heads and saying, well, that doesn't make sense, because the way it works now is to be eligible for a State veterans home, a Gold Star parent must have lost all of their children. This bill will allow a parent to be eligible for a State veterans home if they have lost a child while serving in the military. Now, there are 137 State veterans homes in all 50 States. Those States will still be able to determine the priority level about admissions. They still have to have 75 percent of their beds occupied by veterans. But the average occupancy rate now across the country is 86 percent. There is roughly 15 percent of empty beds in these homes, so this bill basically allows an added group of Gold Star parents who have lost a child while serving in the military to be eligible to fill those beds. Essentially, there is no cost. The Department of Veterans Affairs has come back and said it will not cost the Federal Government anything. Our visits with the States have gotten the same result. It is supported by the American Legion, the VFW, and the Veterans Department. Madam Speaker, I would say it has a practical benefit in that it gives an additional option for parents who have lost a child serving in the military, but in a larger sense, it gives a message of gratitude and support for the sacrifice that those parents have made. I want to thank the chair and certainly the ranking member for bringing this to the floor. I want to express my appreciation to Dr. Vic Snyder, the gentleman from Arkansas, who was an original sponsor of this bill with me, as well as Senator Ensign, who brought this matter to my attention last year. He tried to resolve it last year and was not able to do so, but hopefully it can be solved this year. I thank the gentleman again for yielding.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the distinguished Speaker about the importance of our role in national security and the importance of Congress' role in overseeing the intelligence community. I agree that national security is the first job of the Federal Government. I also agree with both the gentleladies from California that oversight can be improved from the Congress. As a matter of fact, I've had legislation, which has not been allowed to be voted on the floor, to make clear the notification requirements and statute about what any administration must notify Congress about, the information it must give us. I'd also have to point out that the 9/11 Commission made a number of very important recommendations on how we can improve oversight in this Congress. Unfortunately, that have not been adopted. Now, they adopted a kind of a hybrid panel of the Appropriations Committee, but that was not at all what the 9/11 Commission, the WMD Commission recommend we do to improve oversight. I think we should focus on making our committees of oversight more effective rather than bringing in this other entity, the General Accounting Office, that has historically never had a role with the intelligence community, and that the President says he will veto the bill over if we allow it to happen. Let's look at ourselves, improve ourselves first before we start bringing in others.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I think the first and probably most important point to make on this amendment is that it does not belong on this bill and it imperils the whole bill. This issue about whether to expand GAO's authority to be able to investigate the intelligence community, which has been an issue in the fiscal year 2010 intelligence authorization bill, has been the subject of veto threats from the administration and is one of, if not the reason, here 4 months before the end of the fiscal year we still do not have an intelligence authorization bill. So it does not belong here. This is the DOD authorization bill. It is being discussed in another forum where it should, the intelligence authorization bill, and if it gets added to the DOD authorization bill, it puts in danger this entire bill because just today, the administration sent another email which confirmed the veto threat over this provision. So however Members feel about the particular issue one way or another, I would suggest that you ought to be very careful about endangering the whole bill over this provision. Second point I'd make is this is not a change to be taken lightly. As the gentlelady, my colleague on the Intelligence Committee mentioned, the GAO has not had this power, authority before since the modern intelligence community has existed. Congress after Congress of both parties, President after President of both parties have rejected this, I would suggest, for some very good reasons. So this is not a step to be taken lightly. I think the only argument one can make is that the current intelligence committees are incapable of performing their oversight responsibilities and therefore they have to get this other entity, GAO, in to help them do that. I don't agree with that position. I think the intelligence committees in the House and the Senate are capable of performing their job. Now, I get frustrated. I don't agree with everything that the majority chooses to do, but I believe that the committee is perfectly capable of oversight of the intelligence community as we were tasked to do in the House rules and by statute. These committees were created in the 1970s to fill a very unique role, and to undermine them by saying they are incapable of performing their job which, without bringing GAO and investigators and so forth, I think is a mistake. I also believe, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment may undermine the role of the DNI at a time that is very sensitive for the role of the DNI. Because if you look at the amendment itself, it says the Comptroller General decides what he needs access to, has control over how these investigations will be conducted. Now, the amendment says that you can have discussions with the DNI, but the decision is with the Comptroller General, further undermining the DNI's control over classified material. I think that's a mistake. There are other flaws, in my view, in this amendment. But the bottom line is it undermines the bill. It does not belong here. And it is a step that previous Congresses, previous Presidents have not chosen to take because of the sensitivity of the material and the unique role that the select committees on intelligence play. Therefore, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will reject this amendment. I urge them to do so. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, for the first time since the modern Budget Act was passed in 1974, the House will not pass a budget this year, for the first time in 35 years. This dereliction of duty is important for at least two reasons: One, a budget is the first and necessary step to control spending. Every household in the country knows that you have to get a budget together to know your income and expenses, to separate priorities, and to decide how you're going to spend precious resources. The same is true in Washington. And yet this year the American people and Congress and the administration will not have the opportunity to use that tool. The second reason is that it just confirms the worst that people feel about Washington. People around the country already believe that too many Members of Congress care more about their own re-election than they do about solving the problems of the country. This just confirms that Members of the majority, at least, don't want to take tough votes, that they're more worried about their own political protection than they are about trying to do what's right and solve problems. Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible to not even try to pass a budget this year. The American people deserve better.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill. Mr. Speaker, this is unprecedented. It is an unprecedented intrusion of government into one of the most personal areas of our lives. It is unprecedented procedures to force through a bill of this significance with two hours of debate and no amendments or alternatives even considered. It is unprecedented to pass a measure of this magnitude against the strong, clear opinion of a majority of the American people. I believe we need to reform health care, particularly the way that it is paid for in this country. We can do that without upending the whole system. Real health care reform would protect the nearly 85 percent of Americans who currently have health insurance and want to keep it. It would protect Medicare for those seniors currently enrolled in the program and for those who will be enrolled in the future. It would make health insurance more affordable for everyone, including those who do not have coverage today. And it would keep government from interfering in the doctor-patient decision relationship. The bill before us does none of these things. It cuts more than $500 billion from Medicare and increases taxes over $550 billion dollars. It fines individuals and businesses that do not sign up for the government-approved insurance. It multiplies government bureaucracy by adding a mind-boggling number of new commissions, commissioners, committees, centers, and administrations. It empowers the IRS to determine whether or not your personal health insurance is adequate in the eyes of Washington bureaucrats. And it is filled with special deals to attract support it could not get on its own merit. I believe that this bill will not only fail to stem the growing cost of health insurance; it will actually make it cost more. How could the combination of increased taxes, expensive mandates, and new federal regulations not increase the cost of health care for most Americans? Mr. Speaker, common sense tells us that when the government spends more money, it does not usually cost taxpayers less. Yet, the Majority claims that this bill, which spends at least $1 trillion, will somehow reduce our deficit. It cannot be true. The vast majority of citizens in the 13th district of Texas who have contacted me have been clear and consistent in their opposition to reform that leads to more government, less choice, cuts in Medicare, and increased taxes. The same sentiments have been echoed across the country. Unfortunately, the version the Democratic majority is trying to pass includes new restrictions and more government intrusion. It is over 2,700 pages of big government that we don't need or want. Mr. Speaker, President John Adams once said, ``Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.'' The facts here are plain and simple: this bill includes massive government involvement in health care, higher taxes, and hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts. I know it, most people who serve in this House know it, and the American people know it. It is wrong for our country and for its future.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, the Founding Fathers established this Congress so that individuals would be elected from all over the country, come here with different points of view, discuss those views, yes, but ultimately take a vote on the issues of the day. And then the people who sent them here--the voters--could hold them accountable for the votes they cast here in this Chamber and in the other body across the way. It would be inconceivable to them that this House would deem a bill passed without taking a direct vote up-or-down on the substance of the matter so that the voters back home could hold them accountable, and yet that is exactly the direction that this leadership tries to take the House today. The American people already do not trust this institution. They do not believe that we are in touch with them and listening to them. The intentions of the leadership of this House will only carry those suspicions further and further betray the trust that American people should have in their elected representatives. We should start over and do it again.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Seaman Garlen Eslick and his service to our nation. Mr. Eslick lived in Amarillo, Texas. As an 18 year old farm boy, he joined the Navy. Just months later, on December 7, 1941, Seaman Eslick was aboard the USS Oklahoma as it was attacked in Pearl Harbor. In the galley at the time of the attack, he was a powder handler for the ship's 14-inch guns. Making his way to his battle station four decks below, Seaman Eslick and a few others helped a wounded soldier through a hatch. After the Oklahoma took heavy machine-gun fire and five torpedoes, the ship rolled; knocking Seaman Eslick unconscious in his compartment. He awoke in total darkness to rising water as the only survivor in that compartment. Hours later another sailor carrying a light told him of other survivors several compartments over. The two dove from compartment to compartment, searching for a way out for themselves and the 12 others they found. After 28 hours in the oil- soaked compartment, Seaman Eslick was one of the 31 sailors rescued and returned to active duty after a four-day stay on a hospital ship. While assigned to the USS Saratoga, he survived a torpedo attack from a submarine. Later, on the USS John Hancock he saw action in Leyte and Manila in the Philippine Islands, even weathering a typhoon and surviving a kamikaze attack, and taking part in operations at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Seaman Eslick was awarded a Purple Heart for his heroic actions and the injuries he sustained on December 7, 1941 and the Honorable Service Lapel Pin for his four years of service. Seaman Garlen Eslick never expected special attention for his service during WWII. At the unveiling of the USS Oklahoma Memorial in 2002, Seaman Eslick said ``it's always important to remember the ones we've lost and those who are still with us.'' On Monday, February 8, Garlen passed away, leaving his wife Betty of 65 years, their four children, 12 grandchildren, and 25 great- grandchildren. It is with gratitude for his service and admiration of his heroism that I hope we all will remember Seaman Garlen Eslick, his comrades, and their service to protect our freedom.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, since a number of our colleagues were watching the events or participating in the events at the White House yesterday, like the gentleman from California, I think it's important to review briefly the history of this legislation. The Intelligence Committee referred or reported out H.R. 2701 out of committee on June 26, 2009, by a party line vote of 12-9. The Rules Committee first reported a rule out for its consideration on July 8, 2009, and from July 8, 2009, until February 24, 2010, it just sat there, no action. Meanwhile, there were at least eight attempted terrorist attacks or plots for which arrests were made against our homeland. Meanwhile, events changed in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iran. All around the world things were changing, but we couldn't find time on the floor to deal with the Intelligence authorization bill. We had important things to do. We had post offices to name. But then on February 24, 2010, the Rules Committee reported the second rule out, which included the McDermott language as part of a manager's amendment that was 31 total amendments combined into one. That McDermott language would create a new crime and penalties only for our intelligence professionals if they did things like deny terrorists a proper amount of sleep or if they did something that would violate a terrorist's religious beliefs however the terrorist chose to define those religious beliefs. There was no standard of reasonableness there at all. So throughout the day yesterday, as most people were watching events in the White House, we argued against that provision; yet it was defended on the other side of the aisle throughout the day. Some people said, Oh, it just restates current law. Mr. McDermott answered that himself in a 1-minute last night. He said, My amendment would have expanded on the President's Executive order to define what constitutes cruel, inhuman, and degrading interrogation, and it will create criminal penalties for those who use those kinds of interrogations. People over there who said that it just restates current law were just mistaken. Somebody else said it reflects American values. I don't know when it became American value to treat terrorists better than we treat Americans in the criminal justice system. When it came time to vote, the majority found that they didn't have enough votes to pass the bill, and so they went back to Rules a third time on this bill. Now this rule strips out that provision that the majority spent the whole day yesterday defending. Now, I heard what the gentleman from California said. I am not quite clear that I have understood why we have had this amazing turn of events, why the Rules Committee on Wednesday night would say this provision is so important it must be in the manager's amendment, but on Thursday night they say, no, we are going to have a rule that does nothing but strip it out. Maybe they didn't really know what the McDermott language did. Maybe they just voted the way the Speaker's office told them to vote. As a matter of fact, there is a report in the Washington Times today that says a House Democratic aid told the Washington Times leadership supported the amendment and told the House Rules Committee to put it in the provisions. Maybe they were just persuaded by our eloquence on the floor yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and decided that it needed to be removed. I don't know, but this provision is deplorable; it needs to be scrapped. But it's a symptom, I would suggest, of a deeper sickness that, in fact, some in this body, some in the administration, of how they view our intelligence professionals. Their reflex action is to blame the intelligence community first. We see it when special prosecutors are appointed to go after our intelligence professionals. We see it when classified interrogation memos are released, despite the protestations of five former CIA directors.