Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

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

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Madam Chairman, there are many good provisions of this bill, and I appreciate the hard work of the staff and the sincerity of the Members in attempting to tackle complex, vital issues before this committee. And yet I also have concerns with this bill. Last July the Oversight Subcommittee of the Intelligence Committee issued a unanimous report about the progress of implementing the Intelligence Reform Act so far. And what we found was that there was some good, there were some disappointments, but yet there was overall a lack of a sense of appropriate urgency in doing the things that needed to be done to reform intelligence and to make this country safer. And that is kind of the sense I get from this bill. There is a lot of good in it. There are some significant disappointments. But I worry about a lack of urgency in a sense because as 9/11 drifts further in the past, we have to face up to these very serious threats that are before us. And yet in this bill certain efforts and resources are diverted from higher priorities to lower priorities. And I might point out in the case of one particular lower priority that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) mentioned, there has never been a hearing or, as I understand it, even a question at a hearing about intelligence implications of global climate change. And yet it is so important, it is a mandatory item in this bill for the intelligence community. This bill takes significant efforts that the intelligence community is making and cuts back or places restriction on them, and yet it delays making reforms in essential areas as Mrs. Wilson was talking about. So I worry that we are on a path where we will return to mistakes of the past and do so at a time when we face a ruthless, determined, adaptable adversary. I would like to make one other point. In many respects, I think it is a test for Congress as an institution whether we can pass an intelligence authorization bill. The Intelligence Committees of both Houses were set up in the 1970s as the oversight entities for the broad Intelligence Community. The fact is, if we don't do it in these two committees in the House and the Senate, it will not get done. No one else has insight into the programs. No other committees have the time and resources and expertise to delve down into the many, many activities that the Intelligence Community performs that are essential to our country's security. And yet, if we use these intelligence authorization bills to promote a political agenda, I think it makes the effectiveness of that oversight less so, and particularly if it results in their failure to be a bill. I think we can do better, and I hope we do.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and especially in support of the commitment and dedication that lies behind it, both the troops that make up the Special Operations Command and the Members here in the House who support them. The gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) conceived of this resolution as a way of recognizing the unique contribution that these forces make to our national security, and she has been a leader in advocating on their behalf. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) has been one of the strongest advocates for Special Operations Command, not only their value to the country but also what they need to carry out their job, and he, along with Mr. McIntyre of North Carolina, are co-chairs of the Special Operations Forces Caucus here in the House. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has also been a leading advocate for special operations forces, as has been, of course, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), who have unique military backgrounds to contribute. And I have got to say that the chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. Smith, as well as the previous chairman, Mr. Saxton, work not only for recognition but also to see that these forces have the resources, the support, the organization they need to carry out their job. This is not just a one-time recognition. This is something that a number of dedicated Members work on throughout the year to provide the backup support that these folks need. Mr. Speaker, warfare is always changing. The kinds of skills and missions that our special operations forces bring are absolutely critical to today's fight but even more critical to the national security challenges ahead, both the direct action and the indirect action. Bringing precise targeted effects without a large number of troops, without a big logistical tail, that is very important. It is also very important to help train other militaries so that they can work with us and we are not dependent upon our troops to do all the things that need to be done. So this is an important resolution, but the commitment and dedication of the gentlewoman from Virginia and my chairman from Washington are the crucial elements that help these folks do their job day in and day out. It deserves our support.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a member of the Intelligence Committee and a veteran and retired officer herself. (Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to much of the debate yesterday and today, and I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Michigan to remind and educate us all about what is at stake for our security and how Iraq fits into the larger war against radical Islamic terrorists. That is serious work. Unfortunately, this resolution is not serious work. I believe we have to start by asking a basic essential question: Why are we doing this? What is the purpose of this resolution? What good will come from passing it? I cannot find an acceptable answer. The struggle in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islamic terrorists is, in my view, the preeminent national security issue facing our country. It is important for Congress to devote serious, meaningful attention to it. But whatever we do should have a purpose, a purpose that makes the United States stronger, a purpose that will help us be successful, a purpose we can explain and be proud of in years to come. Here we have a nonbinding resolution, which means it does not have the force of law. It conveys an opinion. Now, we do that from time to time. We congratulate a sports team, we express concern about curing a disease, we pat somebody on the back. We do express opinions. What is the opinion in this resolution? It is that we support the troops, but we do not support their mission. We support the troops, but we do not support their new commander, who is this Nation's preeminent strategist and expert on counterinsurgency, who just wrote the manual for counterinsurgency, who was just approved by the Senate unanimously. We support the troops, but we don't support him or her or what he is trying to do. Now, what is the purpose of expressing that kind of self- contradictory opinion? And I continue to be troubled when I think, when in the history of the United States has Congress passed a resolution expressing an opinion on a battlefield strategy for an ongoing operation that Congress has approved? It is like June 13, 1944, D-Day plus seven: Congress passes a resolution that says, ``We support the troops, but Eisenhower should never have landed in Normandy. And, besides, he doesn't have the right number of people to hit those beaches anyway.'' Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that this resolution is more about political posturing than it is about anything else, and I think every American ought to be saddened and disappointed by it. We have a spectacle going on in this country where a group of people running for President try to outdo one another to see who can be the most against our involvement in Iraq. Now we come to add to that spectacle with a nonbinding contrary resolution. Just put yourself in the shoes of those men and women going into battle in Baghdad. Does this resolution encourage you or discourage you? Put yourself in the shoes of those people who do not want stability in Iraq, our adversaries. Does this resolution encourage you or discourage you? Put yourself in the shoes of those families like Ms. Granger, just visited, or the Britt family in Wheeler, Texas, or the Das family in Amarillo, Texas who have lost their sons in this effort. Does this resolution encourage you, or does it discourage you? Who is helped by this resolution? Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be misunderstood; mistakes have clearly been made with regard to our involvement in Iraq, and Members should be part of a serious study to learn from them. There are a good many questions that need to be asked, and there is very good reason for skepticism that this new strategy is really going to work. We should ask those questions. We should hold Iraqis accountable for doing what they say they are going to do. I know there are some people who say we don't need to ask any more questions, they have already made up their mind; they are ready to vote to leave today. Fine, let's vote on that. It is a serious vote, with consequences, and people that vote that way ought to be ready to shoulder the responsibility for the consequences that come from that sort of vote. But this resolution is not serious, it is just political posturing, pure and simple. Mr. Speaker, this struggle is going to require the best of us for years and possibly decades to come. It will require that we put aside the political temptations to get a momentary partisan advantage. It requires that we do our constitutional duty not to be a rubber stamp to any administration, but to be an independent branch of government committed to serious, thoughtful work. To prevail over these radical Islamic terrorists and protect our people, we are going to have to bring the full array of national assets. Yes, our military, but also our diplomats and our foreign assistants and our ideas and our ideals. All of that is going to have to be at our best. But it is going to require the best of us, too, and we are not giving our best with this resolution. Hopefully, we can do better.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and commend an innovative partnership between the Mineral Wells, Texas Independent School District and several veterans' organizations in that community. For each of the past 24 years, citizens of Mineral Wells have come together on Veterans Day to honor those who have served our Nation in the military with a special ``Day of Remembrance'' program. Every year, the program draws over 3,700 youth, community leaders, and area residents to pay tribute to those who embody the American spirit. Working together as a community has helped promote pride and patriotism among students while honoring veterans. Members of the American Legion Post 75, the Sons of the Legion Squadron 75, and Farris Anderson Unit 75 of American Legion Auxiliary, Mineral Wells, along with school leaders and students help plan and participate in an event that features a parade, music, displays of military power, and much camaraderie among generations. Throughout our history, men and women have answered the call of a Nation in need, and on Veterans Day, we are especially mindful of their service, sacrifice, and that of their families. I appreciate what the city of Mineral Wells does to honor those most responsible for our freedom, and I am hopeful they will continue to serve as an example for years to come.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to start with some important truths to remind ourselves of: one, we are in a struggle against a vicious, determined enemy who is determined to kill as many of us in as spectacular and as brutal a fashion as possible. Secondly, this struggle stretches all around the world and will go on for a long time. And, third, the enemy lives in the shadows and does not reveal when or where or how they are going to strike. Information is the key weapon we have to prevent them from killing us and to prevent them from attacking others in the future. This debate, as you have heard, has been mostly about what rights those few who we are able to capture, what rights, legal rights, they have under our system. But I think it is important to also remind ourselves about the critical nature of information and in stopping future attacks. In the Cold War we worried about missiles and tanks, and we could use satellites to count on. Here we are worried about three guys in a cave or half a dozen in a compound or four in a flat in London. If we don't have credible, specific information to stop those individuals and what they plan, then we will not be able to do so. I think this is a good bill, but I also believe that it is right up to the edge of tying our own hands or, to change my metaphor, of putting blinders on ourselves, to make it very, very difficult to stop future attacks. I think it is important to do this bill now so that there is the certainty that our folks in the field, in uniform and out of uniform, desperately need to have. But we need to be careful that those of us in this Congress do not take the extra step to make their job impossible and then point the fingers at them in the future. I think Members should support this bill, and I also believe Members should be careful in the future.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chairman, I have been around and worked with horses all my life. I think I have as much appreciation and admiration for these creatures as anyone in this body; but I am very much opposed to this bill, first, because, contrary to, I am sure, the intentions of this authors, this bill will result in more abuse, more neglect and more inhumane treatment of horses. I would just say that those who are so certain that horses are better off to die peacefully out in the field have never come across an old horse out in a field or a pasture who cannot get up and stand on its legs and continues to beat its head against the ground in an effort to get leverage to stand back up. Such people have never come across an older horse down in the pasture or field and begins to be eaten by predators and can do nothing about it because he can't get back on his feet. The idea that it is more humane to let all horses die peacefully in a field, rather than dealt with in a regulated, inspected manner, is just wrong. So the bottom line is, this bill results in more neglect and more abuse, more mistreatment of horses, as owners cannot afford to take care of them, or they are left to, quote, die peacefully in a field. Secondly, it is a tremendous blow to private property rights. If anyone thinks there is any reason for the Congress to stop with a regulation of how we govern horses and not go right ahead and say what owners ought to do to their pigs and their cattle or their dogs and their cats or their fish in the aquarium, then you haven't realized the consequences of this bill. It is a bad idea. It should be rejected. Madam Chairman, I have been around and worked with horses all of my life, and I think that I have as much appreciation and respect for these magnificent creations of God as anyone in this body. And I am strongly opposed to this bill. The motives behind this proposal are, I am sure, honorable. But the consequences of it in the real world will be so detrimental to what the authors say they hope to achieve, that I wonder if some are intentionally turning a blind eye to them. If old horses cannot be dealt with humanely, many of them will be left to suffer. Those who are so certain that all horses are better off being allowed to die of old age have never seen a horse that has been unable to get up and continues to beat its head against the ground for leverage to try to stand. How is that better for the animal? If older horses cannot be sold here, they will be sold in Mexico, without our standards and inspections. How is that better for the animal? The bottom line is that more horses will starve, more horses will be abused or neglected, more horses will suffer unnecessarily if this bill were to become law. In addition, the precedent this bill would set would be deeply disturbing to the basic American principle of private property rights. If the Federal Government can dictate what individuals may and may not do with personal property--to whom it may or may not be sold--the fundamental right to own property will suffer a terrible blow. Of course, there is no reason for the Federal legislation to stop with horses. Federal law could regulate treatment of cattle and pigs, dogs and cats, or fish in the aquarium. Criminal abuse of animals is a crime prosecuted by State and local authorities. A Federal law restricting the ability to sell private property based on some people's misguided idea of how that property should be treated is a dangerous thing, and this bill should be rejected. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, ``We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal.'' ``It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.'' Mr. Chairman, those two sentences sum up my concerns with this bill. The first comes from the Declaration of Independence; the second from Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in League of United Latin American Citizens et al. v. Perry, a case about this very Act. We should be moving closer to that American ideal of God-given equality before the law, rather than ``divvying us up by race'' for another 25 years, as this bill would do. To have different levels of scrutiny apply to various states, based on judgments made 40 years ago that are no longer accurate or justified, is wrong. There is simply no reason to believe that Texas requires more Federal supervision of voting than does Ohio or Florida or any other State. The same standard should apply equally to each person across the country, regardless of where he or she lives. I am anxious for the day when race and skin color is as irrelevant to voting as is hair color. Unfortunately, this bill pushes that day 25 years further away.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi, a leader on national defense affairs, Mr. Wicker.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from Maryland, I yield myself 30 seconds to read a quote we mentioned earlier in this debate from Osama bin Laden. He said, ``This Third World war is raging in Iraq. The whole world is watching this war. It will end in victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.'' That is not this side of the aisle. That is Osama bin Laden. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Dr. Weldon.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, part of the job of intelligence is to understand our enemy, and what we should clearly understand about our enemy in the war on terrorism is that they are very sophisticated. They are sophisticated users of technology using, as Chairman Hoekstra just mentioned, the Internet in order to recruit, in order to train its people, in order to intimidate populations to go along. They use Internet video games in order to help train and indoctrinate people in the Arab world to their way of thinking. They use the Internet for communication. They use videotapes and DVDs to get their message out. They have very adept users of technology. But they are also adept at using media. As a matter of fact, Prime Minister Blair said recently that they play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party. They know, for example, that one horrific act of cruelty shown on video will get far more attention than a thousand acts of kindness or patience from our soldiers. They are agile and clever in using cruelty through the media in order to achieve their ends; and, Mr. Speaker, I think maybe the most important point we can make on their sophistication is that they know they cannot beat us militarily, and that is not their object. They are sophisticated enough to know that the way they can beat us is to influence our political decisions, to impact our political will. There has been a very, what has now really become a classic study of this sort of warfare, often called 4th-generation warfare, a book called ``The Sling and The Stone,'' which traces this sort of attack from Mao's Tse-tung all the way through al Qaeda and its affiliated groups. One of the key points that the author makes, unlike previous generations of war, it does not try to win by defeating military's forces. Instead, it directly attacks the minds of enemy decision-makers to destroy the enemy's political will. That is what is going on. Their use of technology, their use of cruelty, their use of the media has a target which is us because, as another author has written, it only takes a few hundred people in Washington, DC, to decide that this war is lost. So they are focusing their attention not on our strength, but on our weakness, which is potentially our political will. That is why this resolution is important. It is why in order to meet a sophisticated threat, a political threat, which al Qaeda and its affiliated groups try to pose to us, we have to resist that sort of manipulation. Part of that resistance occurs on the floor of the House. I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would yield myself the remainder of the time allocated to the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the first 5 hours of this debate, trying to listen carefully to each speaker. And it seems to me that some people try, as best they can, to isolate Iraq from the rest of the war on terror. Now, that may be politically convenient for them to do, but it is not what the real world is like. As a matter of fact, it was not long ago that we found a letter from Zawahari, Osama's number two, to Zarqawi in Iraq talking about tactics. Just as the Cold War had several battles across the globe, the war on terrorism has several battlefields across the globe. And I believe that it is clear from their own words, the terrorists see Iraq as the central front in our war against them now and into the future. Secondly, we seem to have a lot of armchair strategists who want to redeploy this way or redeploy that way, because they say nothing is going right. I would recommend they read the document found this morning, or released this morning, that was found in Zarqawi's house. It says that things are going pretty well for us, and not so well for them. I think it is a little early to give up. Thirdly, there are a lot of people who want to debate the procedures or debate Congress's job or debate past decisions. And it is true, history will have to pass judgment on decisions that the military commanders and the President and the Congress have made in the past. They will do so when the air of partisanship has faded. But the truth is, however you feel about where we are, we are where we are. And the question is, do we leave a job half done? Do we leave early, and leave those Iraqis who are willing to put their lives on the line by being part of the government or part of the police force or part of the military, do we abandon them when they are trying to build a country? I think that would be a mistake. In fact, I think to retreat at this point, whether you call it a strategic retreat, a strategic redeployment, or whatever word you want to use to back up now, will only embolden the terrorists. We have seen time after time, when they sense political vacillation, they strike. They struck in Istanbul in 2003, in Madrid in 2004, in London in 2005. Where they sense weakness, it is like an animal. Where they sense fear, they attack. We have got to do better and make sure we win this war.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be able to control the remainder of the Intelligence Committee's time on this side of the aisle.