Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, television can take us many places, but it can't make us experience the pain and hardship people feel when they're going through difficult times. Night after night for the past several weeks, the network news shows have been filled with images from my home state of Texas and stories of how people are dealing with the drought. By now, the stories are familiar. Ground too dry for seed to take root in. Farmers having to plow under their crops. The livelihood of towns and communities literally blowing away in the wind. The drought is putting a real squeeze on farmers and ranchers trying to make a living. Economically, it's figuring to be even worse than the drought Texas went through in 1996. The bill we're voting on today will clearly not solve all of the problems people are facing because of these severe weather conditions. But it is a start, and it will put money in people's pockets quicker than any other plan being discussed in Washington. Perhaps just as important, it's a sign that we're finally getting through in convincing people that something needs to be done to help farmers in our area deal with the drought. Over the past few weeks, some people have been trying to play politics with this crisis. That is wrong. Congress and the Administration need to work together to do what's right for farmers. The government can't make it rain. But it can help farmers cope with a major national disaster. This plan is the first step in doing that, and will likely be the first of other agriculture-related proposals coming out of Congress in the coming weeks.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to support what my colleague is saying with two additional concerns. Number one is the effect of this provision overrides the judgment of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, not something necessarily that we should do lightly. And I do not think anyone should accuse them of wanting to lower safety standards for children. Secondly, it is a far more complicated question than a simple speech on the floor can indicate. For example, those of us with small children know that when it comes to bedtime, normally what a lot of children sleep in are big, bulky cotton T-shirts. They like the feel of cotton, but that big bulk presents some dangers to them. That was one of the concerns that has motivated the Consumer Product Safety Commission to take another look at these standards. If people are going to want to put cotton on their children to have a tighter fitting garment, which is part of where this arises. So I want to share the concern of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). This is not as simple as some would have us believe. And I hope as this thing moves forward through the legislative process, we can take a more careful look at it to truly make children safer because that has got to be the goal for all of us.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service who has also been a leader in this effort.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and his willingness to work with us to make sure that the protections that need to be in this provision are there as we move toward the conference. I think he is right, and I think that is important. I also believe that it is morally wrong, not to mention detrimental to our country's security, not to treat military retirees at least as well as we treat civilian Federal retirees. This amendment starts to fix that, and regardless of the other difficulties that have to be overcome, it is the right thing to do. This House ought to pass it.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), a member of the committee. (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, there are two important points in response to the concerns of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). Number one is I think all of us admire the protections that he has worked on in the Medicare subvention pilot program and want to work with him to see appropriate protections are included in this bill. Secondly, before the Subcommittee on Personnel marked up, we were aware that the Committee Ways and Means were interested in this issue, and I have been informed as a matter of fact that the Committee on Ways and Means staff was invited to a meeting on Monday, May 4, 1998, at 11:30 a.m., and they did not show up. Included in that meeting were representatives of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, CBO and others. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes of my time be yielded to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and that he may be entitled to yield time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for raising this concern. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this issue and completely agree it is appropriate to make sure that the Medicare trust funds are not negatively impacted by the amendment. The offsets included in this amendment do include CBO's estimated Medicare costs, and I assure the gentleman I will certainly work with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and others in the weeks ahead to clarify that the legislative language addresses those concerns and that there are appropriate offsets, in addition to the protections that are needed on the concern that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has raised.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is sponsored by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and myself. I greatly appreciate their efforts as well as the efforts of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), as well as others who have worked on this issue. The problem is we promised free lifetime medical care to military retirees if they serve the country 20 years. The problem is, we cannot keep that promise. Particularly with base closings, with the declining military budgets, we are not providing that health care. We have got situations in this country where bases are closing. We have got other situations where there are military treatment facilities that are too crowded and other situations where people are a long way from any sort of care. This amendment takes us a step toward keeping our commitments. We already have a pilot for Medicare subvention, which is under way. This sets up a demonstration project to allow over-65-year-old military retirees to participate in FEHBP. The bottom line to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that this program would allow military retirees the same respect as civilian Federal retirees get now. It would treat them the same way. Now they are treated worse. The pilot project is limited in cost. It is limited as far as the number of people who can participate. It is limited in the number of sites that can participate. But I think the key thing is that it is most important for us to take some action today to show the military retirees that we are serious about keeping our commitments, but, equally important, to show those young active duty folks that we are serious about respecting their service to their country, risking their lives for our freedom, and that we intend to keep our commitments to them, because that is in serious doubt at this point. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I believe that one of the most important, and in many ways most difficult, challenges facing our government and our Nation over the next few years is the transformation of our national security organizations to meet our security needs of the next century. Toward that end, I have introduced H.R. 3845, to create a Joint Forces Command in the U.S. military. Inside and outside of government, there is widespread recognition that the world security environment has changed and that our security structures will have to change as well. Throughout history, nations that have prepared to fight the last war have paid the price. Nations that recognize changing conditions, develop new technologies and doctrines, and exert the institutional discipline to overcome the natural resistance to change have had the advantage. The threats to our security are changing--which is not to say they are lessening. There is less risk of a nuclear war with Russia, but there continue to be many nations seeking nuclear weapons. The chemical and biological threat is growing. Conflicts in all parts of the world are more troubling as they are brought into our living rooms and as the world becomes more interdependent. Meanwhile, technology is advancing at a dizzying pace, creating both new dangers and opportunities. Worldwide commerce is becoming dependent upon space, just as it was dependent on the oceans in the past. But limited budgets and uncertainty as to our role in the world, added to the institutional resistance to change, place doubt on our ability to adapt to meet future challenges. One thing is certain: Change is happening all around us, and it will continue to happen. We will have to be prepared to deal with it; the only question is whether we will be prepared in time. We must rethink all of our security structures, not just the military. Our diplomatic, nuclear energy, and international economic efforts must all be part of a new approach. But I fear that bureaucratic self-interests, fighting for scarce resources, focusing on day to day problems, and the lack of urgency will conspire to prevent the kind of timely transformation which is required. This kind of transformation in the military requires changes in process, culture, organization, doctrine, as well as taking advantage of technology. The role for Congress in this transformation is obviously limited. But just as in the past with Goldwater-Nichols, the Congress's role is indispensable. H.R. 3845 would take one small, but significant step toward making sure we make the transformation which is required of us. Since 1991, the Atlantic Command has responsibility for training, force integration and force provider, in addition to having the geographic responsibility for the Atlantic Ocean and the Supreme Commander of NATO. Currently, there is no permanent joint experimentation process. Each of the services has its own. My bill would create a Joint Forces Command, similar to the way Congress created the Special Operations command in 1991. The Joint Forces Command would be the force provider for the geographic CINC's, oversee joint training and experimentation, and coordinate and integrate the service battle labs. Goldwater-Nichols pushed the military into jointness in carrying out military operations. We do not have the level of jointness needed to prepare for military operations. We also do not have a permanent joint experimentation process to help us make smart procurement decisions and to develop joint doctrine, both of which will be indispensable. Since the QDR and NDP reports, virtually every witness before the National Security Committee, who has been asked, has acknowledged that this transformation process is one of the most important and one of the most difficult challenges our country faces over the next few years. DOD witnesses have testified that these issues are being considered and worked by each service. I do not want to replace that. I do want to bring the service's work together, and the Joint Forces Command will help to focus these variety of initiatives into an efficient, joint force. I hope that this proposal will spawn others. I hope that Congress and the military and outside experts will engage in full and fruitful dialogue about where we need to go and how we can get there. My goal is to make sure that Congress fulfills its responsibilities to see that this transformation takes place so that we can continue to provide for the common defense into the next century.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for yielding and for his leadership in keeping our defense at the forefront of the issues we should be talking about in this body. I thought that the chairman's comments outlining some of the threats we face, and the ranking member's comments emphasizing the importance of people in our military, which are our key asset, were very powerful. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the first function of this Federal Government is to provide for the defense of the people, and that that job is getting harder and not easier. We face some enormous challenges, and one of the challenges is we have to transform our military structures and the organizations and cultures and doctrines to meet the challenges that we face in the future, many of which our chairman has outlined. That is a tough job. We also have to make sure that we have the resources necessary in order to keep the American people safe. Mr. Speaker, I want to go from the broad issues that have been discussed so far to just talk about a little piece of it and how this budgetary constraint is affecting even a small piece, but an important piece of our defense efforts, and that is our nuclear weapons program which is not within the Department of Defense, but within the Department of Energy, yet it is part of the overall defense budget. Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone will contest that our nuclear deterrence was absolutely essential and probably the key to winning the Cold War during our struggle with the Soviet Union, and it is still important in deterring others around the world who may wish us ill. As nuclear capability spreads to more and more countries, as our chairman mentioned; as chemical and biological capabilities spread around the world to more and more countries, and other terrorist-like organizations; as the capability to take those horrible weapons and deliver them very quickly with missiles, as that technology spreads, nuclear weapons continue to be the umbrella under which the rest of our defense efforts will fall. We build our nuclear weapons to last about 20 years. They are fast approaching the end of their design life. They age and change just like other machines do, but they age and change in ways that we do not fully understand. Yet, while all of this aging and changing is going on, we have decided that we are not going to test nuclear weapons anymore. We are going to have to find other ways to make sure they work, to make sure they are safe, to make sure the people who work around them are safe; and that represents an enormous challenge. Some people have said it is kind of like we have a fleet of cars out there on the parking lot through all the weather and the change that goes on in the conditions year after year, and we can x-ray them and inspect them, but we cannot ever turn them on, we cannot ever turn the key. They have to be in as good shape though that if we do ever need to turn on the key, we can instantly spring out at 100 miles an hour. That is just one way of looking at the enormous challenge we face. The way we decided to do that is, as I mentioned, not to test, but through a program called stockpile stewardship. That involves our computer capability. It involves testing components, little pieces of the nuclear weapons; it involves new diagnostic machines to x-ray and look at them in various ways to see what is happening on the inside; and all of that has to go on while we are losing the people who built the weapons to begin with as they age and dwindle and leave, many of them leave, the nuclear weapons complex. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line to all of this is that we face an enormous technological challenge. A number of scientists whom I visited with recently say the only thing this country has ever attempted this difficult is the original Manhattan Project and trying to land a man on the moon. It is that tough technologically and scientifically to make sure these things are safe and reliable without testing. But it is also expensive. These machines are expensive. It is expensive to conduct these tests. It is expensive to keep the right, knowledgeable scientific talent available there, working on these problems. And while we are doing all that, we have the regular maintenance and upkeep and other things that go along with the nuclear weapons stockpile that have to go along as well. Now, to do all that, we have received testimony that it takes at least $5 billion a year, and yet the President's request this year was $4.5 billion, and it is tough to come up with that amount. And this job is only going to get tougher as the years go by and these weapons age and we lose more of the people, it is going to be even more expensive. Yet, if we miscalculate slightly, if we shave off a little bit here and a little bit there, and a problem develops, that problem will have enormous consequences for the future of our security, for others' reliance upon our nuclear umbrella. For the safety of the people who work with and around these nuclear weapons, it has tremendous consequences. That is just a small example of some of the importance, some of the effects that not putting the right resources into these programs can have for our children's future and our children's security. All of the strategic systems upon which our victory in the Cold War was based are aging and becoming more difficult to maintain, and really we are not doing anything in the foreseeable future to replace them at all. We are going to have to put in the spare parts just to keep them going. It is an enormous challenge. It will require the best minds that we have, but it will also require the dollars necessary to keep this effort going. I think that in a way, the nuclear weapons challenge, even though it is less than 2 percent of the whole defense budget, is an example of the kinds of challenges we face throughout the defense budget and an example of the dangers that my more senior colleagues have talked about so far. So I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), for yielding and giving me the opportunity to contribute.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I believe that U.S. troops should come home from Bosnia as soon as possible, but I must vote against this resolution. I have been a skeptic about our role in Bosnia from the beginning. Like many of my colleagues, I have been to Bosnia and witnessed firsthand the remarkable job which our troops are doing there. We should all be very proud of their success and of their morale and of their desire to leave Bosnia better equipped to work out their differences in a peaceful manner. The performance and attitude of our young men and women in a difficult situation should remind us all how fortunate this nation has been and is to have such people willing to fight and die for our country. Yet, I do not believe that vital U.S. national interests are at stake in Bosnia. I believe this deployment has lasted too long, straining the ability of our short-changed military to cover other essential bases. Last year, I cosponsored H.R. 1172, preventing the use of funds to keep troops in Bosnia after a date certain. Furthermore, I voted for amendments that would have cut off funding on December 31, 1997, and June 30, 1998. I believe we should end our deployment in Bosnia and turn it over to those who do have a vital stake in the outcome, the Europeans. But, despite my strong desire to end our deployment in Bosnia, I cannot vote for this resolution. I have long believed that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, and I cannot invoke an unconstitutional act, even to accomplish a goal I support. The history of the War Powers Act is well-known. Passed over a weakened President Nixon's veto in 1973, its supporters hoped to procedurally avoid another Vietnam. Section 5(c) of the War Powers Act says Congress can force the President to remove U.S. forces by passing a concurrent resolution requiring their removal. The Supreme Court's 1983 Chadha decision struck down a legislative provision of another law which did not require the signature of the President. Most scholars and observers believe that section 5(c) is also unconstitutional because it would require the President to remove troops by a concurrent resolution, which does not have to be signed by the President. I believe that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional on broader grounds as well. The Constitution gives the President the power of Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and Federalist Paper No. 23 makes it clear that ``authorities essential to the care of the common defense . . . ought to exist without limitation: Because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the corresponding extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them.'' Federalist No. 74 says, ``Of all the cares or concerns of government the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand.'' That is not to say Congress is helpless. It can stop funding, which it should do in this case. While it is tempting to correct a mistake by the President using the War Powers Act, we should not indulge that temptation when it disrupts the balance of powers essential to our Constitution.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, despite some of the shortcomings that some people may see in this bill, overall it makes us stronger and it deserves to be supported. In the key area of our own nuclear arsenal, it makes sure that our nuclear weapons are safe and reliable in the future, despite a number of shortcomings and deficiencies that are increasingly getting attention. I would commend to my colleagues' attention a CRS report which was just released last week that discusses some of these key deficiencies that this bill begins to address. In the very important area of our cooperation with the nations of the former Soviet Union to take apart delivery systems that were once aimed at us and to prevent nuclear terrorism and smuggling, this bill is a much better bill than the bill that originally left the House. I would also add, Mr. Speaker, in the most important asset of all, and that is our people, this bill makes some needed corrections to improve that area so that we can get and keep the very best people throughout our military and that will serve us well in the future.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special recognition to the Philtex plant, a division of the Phillips Petroleum Co., that is located in Borger, TX. Just last seek Philtex, received the first Award for Workforce Excellence from the National Association of Manufacturers. The award is a direct reflection of the commitment to safety by the employees of Philtex. As a result of a program called [POWER], People Observing Work Eliminating Risk, Philtex has achieved a 65-percent reduction in recorded injuries and most importantly the plant's employees have remained injury-free for over 6 months. Mr. Speaker, Phillips Petroleum is an important industry for my congressional district and for the entire Texas Panhandle. The employees of this company should be proud of their achievement and Phillips Petroleum should be commended for their efforts to provide a safe work environment and for the commitment to their employees safety.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1476, the proposed Miccosukee Settlement Act of 1977, which provides that Congress consents to a settlement agreement reached between the State of Florida, the Miccosukee Tribe, and the U.S. Department of the Interior involving the transfer of rights-of-way from the tribe to the State. Included in the settlement agreement are provisions relating to airboat access to certain lands, the relocation of a microwave tower, interchange lighting at the Snake Road interchange, and the conveyance of 22.87 acres of land to the United States by the State of Florida. Also included in the settlement agreement are provisions whereby the tribe agrees to dismiss certain litigation pending against the State and to release and forever discharge any and all claims the tribe may have against the Florida Department of Transportation and State of Florida in any way related to Interstate Highway 75. Mr. Speaker, I believe this measure deserves the support of the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.