Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, there have been many times over the past two days when an analogy has been made to Pearl Harbor. I am struck by a different analogy from the same war. In August 1940, the Battle of Britain raged in the skies. It was different from previous wars because innocent civilians Were thrust into the battle As bombs rained down on London and the rest of Britain. Prime Minister Winston Churchill spoke to the House of Commons on August 20. He said: ``If it is a case of the whole nation fighting and suffering together, That ought to suit us, Because we are the most united of all the nations, Because we enter the war upon the national will and with our eyes open, and because we have been nurtured in freedom and individual responsibility and are the products, not of totalitarian uniformity, but of tolerance and variety.'' The same could be said of us today, Mr. Speaker. What the terrorists will never understand is that the strength of America is the hearts of our people. They may attack our buildings; they may attack innocent civilians. But they can never harm the thing that makes us great--it's inside us. Last night, church services were held across the country--from Clarendon, Texas to Washington, D.C.--as people prayed for those affected by the tragedy and for strength and courage to face what lies ahead. I believe that God will continue to bestow His blessings on this favored land, and each day I will thank Him for the opportunity to be an American.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for the Patient Protection Act legislation that the House is considering. I voted for a similar bill two years ago because I believe that if an insurance company makes health care decisions like a doctor, it should be held responsible like a doctor. I still support a responsible patients rights bill. We are all aware of the concerns over this measure: concerns that it could drive up healthcare costs, encourage more litigation, and result in even more people becoming uninsured, particularly in rural areas. I am especially concerned about how this bill will affect patient protection laws that have been enacted in Texas and other states around the country. While I am not satisfied that this measure, as written fully addresses my concerns, I will vote for this bill to move it to Conference where, hopefully, many of these problems can be resolved. I stand ready to vote against the measure when it returns to the House floor if this does not occur. It is my sincere hope, though, that this will not happen, and we will be able to reach agreement on a bill that responsibly strengthens patients' rights which the President will be able to sign into law.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, and my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), it is my privilege to welcome as our guest chaplain today Tom Nelson, the Senior Pastor of Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas. Tom was born and raised in Waco and grew up in a family of four boys. He attended what is now the University of North Texas in Denton, where he played quarterback for the football team and earned his degree in 1973. From there, he attended Dallas Seminary. Tom has been pastoring at Denton Bible Church for 23 years. With over 4,000 members, Denton Bible Church is the largest church in Denton. Beside the four services he leads each Sunday, Tom disciples over 30 young men and teaches two men's bible studies. In addition, Tom has served as a national speaker for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Campus Crusade for Christ, and Navigators. He is the author of two books and three video series. His taped messages have been heard throughout the world. Tom and his wife Teresa have two sons, Benjamin and John Clark. Once again, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to welcome Tom Nelson to the Congress of the United States. I would like to thank him for his leadership in the community of Denton and express my appreciation for his leading the House today in prayer.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), for yielding me this time; and I rise for the purpose of a brief colloquy. As I am sure the chairman is aware, a serious threat has sprung up in wheat growing areas making the lives of our already-struggling farmers even more difficult. A fungus called Karnal bunt has been found in my district as well as in the district of our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). While Karnal bunt poses no threat to humans or animals, it can make wheat kernels and flour ground from them unpalatable. At this time, a few counties have been quarantined. It appears it has been well contained, but we will have issues of compensation and appropriate action before us. I have been working with the chairman and ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), but I would request the distinguished gentleman's continued assistance in working with USDA and the administration to deal with this issue appropriately and to deal with those who have been affected fairly.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for yielding the time to me. Mr. Chairman, I share the desire of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) that we become more energy independent, but it would be a great mistake to take further funds away from our nuclear weapons program. What the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) may not realize is our existing nuclear weapons are 18 years old and aging. They were designed to last about 12 years. We have decided as a country that we are not going to conduct nuclear tests, but some way we have to make sure these weapons continue to be safe, reliable, and secure. If we do not have the funds to conduct surveillance and to conduct scientific tests, to see whether these weapons will continue to be reliable, the only option for us is to go back to nuclear testing. I am afraid amendments like this which would reduce the funds available to just make sure what we have now is safe, secure, and reliable drives us inexorably back towards nuclear testing which is not an option I suggest the gentleman would like. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment; and I suggest my colleagues do likewise.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I support the nonproliferation efforts which can reduce the amount of nuclear material and nuclear expertise which is floating around the world and which some reports say is the greatest single threat to U.S. security, but I cannot support reductions in programs that keep our own nuclear stockpile safe, secure, and reliable. I would say to the gentleman who just spoke in the well that this Congress is not walking away from the management difficulties that the NIF has had. As a matter of fact, in the Committee on Armed Services we have had a number of hearings over the past several years on the NIF and its management difficulties. As a matter of fact, I think one of the reasons we have a new entity within the Department of Energy is to help correct some of those problems in the past. And I can report that the new National Nuclear Security Administration and General Gordon, its head, has moved aggressively to solve the management problems that the NIF has had in the past. As my colleague from California has said, we have sunk a tremendous amount of money into this project. To walk away now would be the height of folly. But I want to take just a second to put the NIF into its proper context, because I think many of my colleagues do not realize we continue to rely today on nuclear weapons as the central part of our security deterrent; yet those nuclear weapons are 18 years old, on average. They were designed to last 12 years, and so they are already well beyond their design life. What many people do not realize also is that there is a lot we do not know about nuclear weapons and how they work. In spite of the fact that we have conducted many tests over the past number of years, going back to 1945, there is a lot about what happens with a nuclear explosion that we do not understand, and NIF and other programs like that are designed to help us understand what is going on so that as our weapons age we can continue to have confidence that they are safe, secure, and reliable. If we do not have NIF or other tools like NIF, then the uncertainties will grow, and they will grow to a point where the President and a Congress will have no choice but to resume nuclear testing, and that will have enormous consequences. I would point out to my colleagues that this subcommittee has already cut the President's request by $176 million. That gives me enormous concern. But to take more money out of the President's request to increase the uncertainties and here to stop the funding for NIF, which is one of the essential tools to help answer those questions as our stockpiles age, would be a serious, serious mistake. Mr. Chairman, I think that what we have before us as an amendment will hurt the security of the United States not only here but in the long term, and I hope my colleagues will reject it.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), the sponsor of this resolution.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), honoring the continuing commitment of Army National Guard combat units in support of U.S. operations in Bosnia. Throughout our history, America's citizen soldiers have played a crucial role in making and keeping the peace. Nowhere has this been more evident than in recent deployments of the National Guard to support peacekeeping missions in Bosnia. Clearly, we are increasingly reliant on the men and women of the National Guard and Reserve to perform peacetime operational missions. For example, in 1996, the National Guard and Reserves provided less than 1 million duty days of direct support to active components. Today, they are providing in excess of 12 million duty days of support annually, the equivalent of nearly 34,000 active duty personnel. In October 1999, the Army announced an important decision to employ National Guard combat units and National Guard division headquarters in support of the NATO peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. As a result, the 49th Armored Division headquarters for the Texas National Guard, and combat units from the 30th Enhanced Separate Brigade, North Carolina National Guard, and the 45th Enhanced Separate Brigade of the Oklahoma National Guard have completed deployments in Bosnia. I am particularly proud of the 49th, because several of its members came from my district, soldiers like Bob Wenger of Amarillo, Texas. The 49th was the first Guard or Reserve unit to command active duty troops since World War II. They set the standard for others to follow. Today, more than 1,200 soldiers of the 48th Brigade, Georgia National Guard, have deployed in the largest such deployment of National Guard soldiers to Bosnia. This resolution not only honors the commitment and dedication of the soldiers in these combat units who have left home and family to serve the Nation, but it also honors the sacrifices of their families and employers. It also serves as a reminder to us, and to the Nation, that the National Guard and Reserve are critically important to the security of the United States. Their readiness directly contributes to America's military readiness, and we must continue to provide the support necessary for both the active and reserve components to perform the missions assigned to them. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 154.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 154) honoring the continued commitment of the Army National Guard combat units deployed in support of Army operations in Bosnia, recognizing the sacrifices made by the members of those units while away from their jobs and families during those deployments, recognizing the important role of all National Guard and Reserve personnel at home and abroad to the national security of the United States, and acknowledging, honoring, and expressing appreciation for the critical support by employers of the Guard and Reserve.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I believe the committee's resolution is preferable to the substitute, and I want to focus on just one issue, and that is national defense. The committee budget recognizes that the President has ordered a strategic review, and that strategy should come first, and that strategy should drive decisions on resources. We know there are some places we need to spend more money. The budget recognizes that we are going to spend more than $5 billion on people for pay raises, more housing and military health care. We know we are going to have to spend more on research and development, and we make a down payment on that. But there is a lot we do not know. So we have this contingency fund so that, after the strategic review is completed, we can draw more resources to fund the strategy that the President and the Secretary of Defense recommend. Now, the substitute takes a different approach. They believe they know how much more resources we need for defense. They believe we need $2.6 billion more in 2002 and about $48 billion more over the next 10 years. But that is putting cart before the horse. For too long we have had a mismatch between the strategy, the programs to implement that strategy, and the funding of those programs. It is time to get it all together and to get it all aligned. This administration is trying to do that with a strategic review to see where we are in the world, what our missions should be, and what kind of force structures we need to accomplish those missions. This administration also acknowledges that the world is changing around us, and we better do some hard thinking about what we need to spend money on so that we can be prepared for those threats coming in the future. I believe that the strategic review, followed by the contingency fund to implement that review, is a better approach to making sure that this Nation is safely defended in the years to come.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this resolution, I rise in support of it and of the goals that it puts before Congress and the country. MS affects my family, and over the last few years, I have learned a lot about the disease and about the efforts under way to fight it. I would like to make just three brief points on this resolution. First, there are some truly heroic efforts going on every day all around the country to battle this disease. MS Societies in community after community help raise funds for research, help increase awareness, and help MS patients and their families to deal with the challenges that this disease brings. At the National Institutes of Health and other institutions, some of the country's best minds and most caring people are working hard every day to find answers to the many questions which remain about this disease. I think it is appropriate for us to recognize and honor those efforts. Secondly, this Congress is on track to double over 5 years' medical research funding at NIH. Much of the medical research is conducted by private companies and researchers; but the Federal Government has an important role to play, and we have got to pull our weight if we are to find answers to diseases such as MS. I am proud this Congress has set doubling the funding for NIH as a goal, and we are on our way at achieving it. Third, there are some unnecessary impediments to providing MS patients with the best possible treatments, and we have to commit to removing those impediments as soon as possible. There are drugs, for example, that have shown very promising results in Canada and Europe, but are unavailable to patients in the United States because of FDA's interpretation of the Orphan Drug Act, which, in my view, is misguided and certainly contrary to the intentions of Congress when it originally passed the Orphan Drug Act. I have introduced legislation on this matter and the Committee on Commerce has begun to look into it, but for those of us concerned about fighting MS and a host of other diseases, correcting this problem with the Orphan Drug Act must be a priority in the next Congress. I certainly look forward to working with my friend from Louisiana and all of my colleagues to making sure that very soon MS is a disease of the past.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, but I also rise in appreciation of the work of the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) as he has guided this committee over the last 6 years. I think it is fitting to honor him in the title of this bill, which helps make our country stronger and safer, because that is exactly what he has done as well. Mr. Speaker, as we have heard, this bill takes a big step forward towards keeping our commitment to military retirees. I think it is the most significant progress we have made towards keeping that commitment. The bill also does right by those who have served our country in the nuclear weapons complex, and I would like to particularly thank two of my constituents, Mr. Pete Lopez, who came to Washington from Amarillo, Texas, to help testify about that proposal, and also Frank George, who has helped guide us to make sure that we did something that really helped. This bill also includes some refinements of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which this Congress passed last year. And I particularly would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and the other members of the panel who have worked over the past year to try to make sure that the law was followed and that the country's best interests were also advanced. The panel will have a report released this week which gives full detail of our recommendations for the future; but in this bill, we prohibit dual hatting of employees by the Department of Energy and the NNSA exactly as Congress voted earlier this year. Mr. Speaker, we also included that the NNSA administrator will be removed from political pressure and he has a specific term of years to help make sure that he can do what is right, regardless of who wins the election. We require specific budget and planning to help put some stability into the nuclear weapons complex, including in that crucial area of infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, just within the past week or two, there has been a report released that shows our infrastructure in the nuclear weapons complex is deteriorating. This will help make sure that we do not take money out of this pile to put over here and allow our infrastructure to continue to deteriorate. There is a lot of work left to make sure our nuclear deterrent is strong and effective, but this bill takes a step forward. I recommend it to my colleagues.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, this resolution deals with a special function entrusted to Congress under article I, section 10 of the Constitution. I want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Gekas) and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member, for the serious, thoughtful way that they have met this responsibility and for their patience and persistence in making sure that we get every detail of this compact just right. I also want to thank their staffs, especially Ray Smietanka and David Lachmann, for their work which brought this matter to a successful conclusion and, of course, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) and the other cosponsors of this bill, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), all of whom represent the border between Texas and Oklahoma. Finally, I want to thank Trey Bahm of my staff for his work in making sure that we get it right. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) said, Madam Speaker, this dispute goes back 200 years to the Louisiana Purchase. The boundary line between the Louisiana territory and Spain was not well defined at that time. But a treaty with Spain concluded in 1819 by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams helped to define the boundary somewhat more clearly. That boundary was reaffirmed by the U.S. and Mexico and the U.S. and the Republic of Texas. Later the Supreme Court found that the proper boundary was the gradient boundary along the south bank of the Red River. The problem is that changes periodically, and so it is a difficult thing to measure. They have to have a survey crew go out there to decide where the boundary is every time the river changes. Obviously, that has not worked very well. Over the years there have been disputes of various kinds. The incident that my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) referred to in the 1930s was one in which Oklahoma failed to follow a court ruling to close the border. One of the Rangers that was sent to deal with the Oklahoma National Guard and the tanks that they brought happened to be my wife's grandfather. And there was a picture of him in Life Magazine meeting the tank, proving that one tank and one Ranger was a pretty equal match. More recently we have not had that kind of open warfare, but we have had difficulties in law enforcement taxation. So having a clearly identifiable border, which this resolution sets out, which has been passed by both the State legislatures of Oklahoma and Texas I think makes sense. We guarantee private property rights. We guarantee the rights of the Indian tribes, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Gekas) pointed out. So this, I think at long last, after 200 years, brings to conclusion the disputes and the difficulties raised by this border. I hope that it will gain the unanimous approval of my colleagues. Moment of Silence in Memory of Officer Jacob B. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my chairman yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think it is perfectly appropriate for the House to express its concern over the recent incidents at Los Alamos. A number of people in the country perhaps have lost sight of the fact that nuclear weapons continue to constitute the central element of this country's security apparatus around which the rest of our defense efforts support, and to have an incident like this at Los Alamos I think is both shocking and frustrating for a number of Members. It is shocking because once we get into some of the details, there are several common sense sort of measures that are simply not employed; and the difficulty for us is how we legislate common sense into the day-to- day activities of these facilities. But it has also been very frustrating, because this is not an isolated incident; this is simply the latest in a long series, a long string of incidents. Last year, as the chairman mentioned, Congress, to try to stop this long string, enacted reforms in the Department of Energy which have not been implemented to the letter and spirit of the law. So there is a great sense of frustration that we continue to have security lapses while we continue to do business as usual, which has not worked, for the past 20 years. Mr. Speaker, we have to break this stream. Recently, General John Gordon has been installed as the administrator of the Nuclear Security Administration and we need to support him to make sure that he can take the necessary action to break this string. Mr. Speaker, this resolution includes two important points. One is that we have to hold individuals accountable, and that is exactly the principle of the reforms we passed last year, to have a clear chain of command, more like a military-style chain of command, but also a system of accountability, so that if somebody messes up, we know who to hold responsible for those lapses. The second element here urges the administrator to take appropriate action quickly. It is appropriate for him to do so, and General Gordon is beginning to go around to all of the sites and try to get a clear picture of the strengths and weaknesses in our current nuclear weapons complex. However, Congress cannot legislate the details of every silly thing that may cause a security lapse. It is up to the administrator, General Gordon, supported by Congress and others within the administration, to change this culture which the chairman talked about, to make the institutional reforms. That is really the answer. So I support this resolution. I think it is an appropriate expression of the deep concern we have, but it also gets at the heart of what it is going to take to fix it.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to briefly comment on some of the things we have heard here on the floor. The first thing is, of course, there is nothing in this resolution which promotes or in any way encourages the sorts of concerns that both the gentlemen have talked about. Of course, none of us want to do that. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I fully agree and I think the committee and Congress fully agrees that we want to be very cautious about saying to any particular group ``We don't want you,'' because the fact is, we have to get and keep top quality people in our National Laboratories and plants. We can afford to do nothing to drive them away. But I think it is important to get back to the principles that are in this resolution, which include individual accountability. That is, if not a group but an individual makes a mistake or worse, then that individual will be held accountable for it. That is what our national security requires. It requires that we get and keep the best quality people, but once they are there and privy to some of the most sensitive information in the country, that we hold them accountable for how they treat that information. That is the principle I think that General Gordon will move ahead with as he tries to reach that difficult balance of doing the work in these facilities and also balancing the security, and bringing it all together to see that our security is not compromised. I think that there is a concern that all of us share. We want to get and keep the best quality people, but this resolution does not hinder that. In fact, I would argue that it helps it by moving towards and encouraging individual accountability.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that votes will be rolled in the morning until there are sufficient number of votes to make sense to bring Members over to cast a series of votes on amendments.