OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN THORNBERRY

Apr 27, 2016
Press Release
MARKUP OF FISCAL YEAR 2017 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

WASHINGTON -Today, Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-TX), of the House Armed Services Committee, made the follow opening remarks on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Markup for Fiscal Year 2017.  For the mark text, bill summary and to watch the markup live click here.  

"Today, the Committee meets to mark up the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Bill.

We all take pride in the fact that for 54 straight years, Congresses, with majorities of both parties, have passed and presidents of both parties have signed an annual NDAA.

I believe, however, that it is more important to do so this year than at any time since I’ve been on the Committee, which, I note with some chagrin, is longer than anyone else here, except Mr. Jones.

There are several reasons that it is more important than ever: One is that we live in a dangerous, complex, rapidly changing world; Two is that we are nearing the end of an administration when there are a lot of questions and doubts about what our policies are and where America is headed;

Third is that the cuts in defense spending in recent years, coupled with government shutdown and various standoffs over spending, have created uncertainty even among our own servicemembers about the support they will receive as they risk their lives for us.

And so, the importance of upholding this obligation placed on Congress by the Constitution, of making a clear statement to friends and adversaries that the United States will have the means to defend itself, and of reassuring the men and women who serve our nation that whatever they are asked to do, they will be prepared and supported fully, means that we have to do our job and pass this bill even with its imperfections – and there certainly are some.

Of course, we will have debates and differences on particular provisions.  But, after working our way through them, I hope and I trust we all can come together for our servicemembers and for our nation.

Perhaps it is also true every year, that when it comes to overall spending levels for defense, we are presented with only difficult, imperfect options. Something is going to be short-changed.

But, the bottom line for me this year is that it is fundamentally wrong to send servicemembers out on missions for which they are not fully prepared or fully supported.

For that reason, I think that it is essential that we begin to correct the funding shortfalls that have led to a lack of readiness and to a heightened level of risk that we have heard about in testimony and that some of us have also seen for ourselves.

We often talk about readiness.  But, I hope each of you has had the opportunity to look into the eyes of pilots who are not getting even close to the minimum number of training hours they are supposed to have to stay proficient in their planes, or of the mechanics who are working longer and longer hours with no days off to try to get planes flying and are increasingly voting with their feet to leave the military, or of the commander who is tasked with deploying his unit overseas but does not have the functioning equipment he is supposed to have and is not sure when or if he will get it.

As the Committee heard in one of our meetings, 'the bill payer for a lack of readiness is dead service members.'

To fix readiness will take time.  And, I have come to realize it is not just a matter of putting more money into operations and maintenance accounts.

For example, end strength cuts can get us to a place where we can never fix readiness because we do not have enough people to get the job done and those we do have get worn out.  And, however good our maintainers are, there is only so much they can do to keep a 30 to 40 year old airplane or helicopter flying.

We have to field new systems faster, and so procurement is also a key part of the readiness equation.

Starting to turn around our readiness shortfalls while staying within the total dollars requested by the Administration means that there is not enough money to fund the OCO activities proposed by the President for the full year.  There will be enough for roughly 6 months.  

But there will be a new President, who undoubtedly will review the operational activities proposed by President Obama as well as the funding levels for them.  And, the new President and the new Congress will have the opportunity to make adjustments.

That was exactly what occurred in 2008 and 2009.  Congress, under a Democratic Majority, passed a supplemental “bridge fund” in 2008 that paid for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for part of the year in 2009 until the new Administration had a chance to review the situation, which it did, and then it submitted a supplemental request to carry out operations for the rest of the fiscal year.

I think that the best thing for us to do now is to ensure that for whatever operational deployments our men and women are sent on by this President or the next, they will be prepared, and they will be supported.

The good work of the subcommittees, coupled with the full committee mark accomplishes that goal, and helps ensure that our military capability has both strength and agility, the two characteristics that I believe summarize best what is essential for our nation’s security.

It stops more cuts in the size of the Army and adds small numbers to the Air Force and Marines.

It restores the full pay raise of 2.1% for all service members, which is what the statutory formula says they should have.

It puts more money into facilities.

It puts money into readiness accounts for depot and other maintenance and for training and for exercises.

It responds to unfunded requirements for ammunition and for a variety of weapons and equipment.

I do not mean to overstate. These funding levels do not fix our problems.  To quote Churchill, '. . . this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end.  But, it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.'

This bill also contains a number of reform items, which we will discuss more later.

At this point, I just want to thank all of the members who have contributed to our efforts to improve and update our acquisition system, ,health care, commissaries and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and to improving and updating the organization and responsibilities within the DOD, including updating the 30 year old Goldwater Nichols Law, as well as other reforms.

Our job is not just about allocating money.  It is also about continually working to see that the taxpayers and our servicemembers get more value for the money that is spent and that updated technology is fielded faster, and that our laws and institutions meet the needs of our times.

We are the largest committee in Congress, and Members may view their responsibilities differently.  But, I feel the weight of two duties, which the Constitution places on our shoulders. One is to support our nation’s security in way that is consistent with the hopes, dreams, and sacrifices of generations of Americans -- past, present, and future.  The other is to support the men and women who volunteer to serve in the Armed Services. If we can do our duty with the kind of dedication and commitment and strength of purpose they show, we can look ourselves in the mirror and know we have done our job."