Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, nothing is more important to our Nation's security than its nuclear deterrent. And yet, most of us give little thought to the care, attention, and expertise required to keep these aging machines safe, secure, and reliable.

It is my honor to represent a substantial number of the people who make sure that our nuclear deterrent can be trusted. Those who work at the Pantex Plant near Amarillo cannot talk much about their work because it is classified, but every day they do extraordinary work that is central to keeping our country safe.

For the last 13 years, the management team at the Pantex Plant, as well as the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, has been led by the Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) Company. In my view--and it is proven by their record--B&W has done an outstanding job of managing these very important facilities under quite difficult circumstances.

With tight or declining budgets and constant demands to find ways to cut costs yet having no room for error in carrying out the mission, B&W has helped ensure that workers were safe, that the weapons and material were secure, and that our Nation's security was protected. At Pantex, they received a number of awards for worker safety, security certification, and outstanding performance.

All along, B&W also supported the community by donating more than half a million dollars annually to worthwhile charities and causes.

Usually, when we hear about government contractors, it is when something has gone wrong. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to take a moment to recognize more than a decade of contributions to our Nation's security at these key facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Major Robert Likins III of the Army Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison (OCLL), who will retire from the United States Army on October 1, 2014, after almost 25 years of distinguished service.

Major Likins first entered the military as an enlisted infantryman. Looking for challenges

around every corner, he volunteered, assessed, and was selected to serve in the 75th Ranger Regiment, 5th Special Forces Group, and the Southern European Task Force. After several years and multiple overseas deployments, Major Likins felt a greater calling of leadership and pursued a commission in the U.S. Army.

Major Likins was commissioned as an infantry officer on October 11th, 2001, through Officer Candidate School. As an officer, he served in several leadership positions in light infantry and airborne units across the country and Europe. At the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, serving as a Company Executive Officer in the 173rd Airborne, Major Likins participated in a daring brigade-level parachute assault into Iraq. He then deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and served as an operations officer within the 2-503rd Infantry (Airborne).

Major Likins then joined the 10th Mountain Division and commanded two different infantry companies. On his second command, Major Likins deployed his company to an austere company outpost in Iraq where he partnered and trained an Iraqi Army battalion. Major Likins was then selected as an Army Congressional Fellow where he served as an integral member of my staff. Finally, he served as the legislative liaison managing the Soldier Systems portfolio, ensuring our troops going into combat are supplied with the best equipment available.

Major Likins has truly lived at the tip of the spear throughout his career. From Desert Storm to Haiti, Bosnia to Kosovo, and to Iraq to Afghanistan, he has deployed to almost every place around the globe where the Army has been sent into harm's way. He has also earned two Masters Degrees during his service and has exemplified the warrior- scholar who our nation needs leading our men and women into combat.

Throughout his 25 years of service to the nation, Major Likins has earned numerous awards and decorations to include: Combat Infantryman's Badge, Expert Infantryman's Badge, Special Forces and Ranger Tabs, Master Parachutists Wings with combat jump device, Air Assault Badge, the Meritorious Service Medal, and the Legion of Merit.

I am proud to share in the celebration of Major Likins' military career. I would also like to congratulate his wife, Bettina, and his two children, Patrick and Kirsten, whose love and support aided and strengthened Major Likins as he has served our great nation. I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly vote for H.R. 3361. I do so because I recognize that important authorities which help keep our people safe expire next year and that there is a significant chance that those authorities may not be renewed. I also recognize that the abuse of government power by the Obama Administration has damaged the trust that the American people have even in the military and civilian professionals at the National Security Agency. An orchestrated campaign of distortions and half-truths has called NSA's trustworthiness into question for too many Americans.

That is unfortunate and unfair. The men and women at NSA have had more than a decade of remarkable success, not only in protecting our country from another 9/11-type attack, but supporting our warfighters on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. While few Americans will ever learn the details of their accomplishments, we all benefit from their hard work, dedication to their mission, and professionalism.

We should be clear-eyed about the effects of this bill. It makes it harder to gather the information necessary to stop terrorism; it means that it will take longer to find the essential connections of terrorist networks; and this bill makes it less likely, hopefully only slightly less likely, that we will stop future terrorist attacks. But there is no doubt that America will be less safe from terrorist attack after this bill takes effect than it is today.

Apparently, that result is inevitable if we are to prevent even worse damage to our country's security and our people's safety. So, I vote today to minimize the damage to our national security while maintaining respect and gratitude for the men and women in the military, intelligence community, and law enforcement who dedicate their lives to keeping us all safe.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman's amendment merely required the President to come up with a plan that Congress and the American people could look at on exactly what he would do and how he would do it to close Guantanamo, including what the costs would be, where he would move them, what the cost of security wherever he would move them would be, I might support that.

The truth of the matter is in all the time since the President has been in office, he has not come up with a specific plan that has gotten the support of the American people or this Congress. Even when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, they were not able to pass any legislation to close Guantanamo.

So if he can put a plan together that gets the support of the Congress, support of the American people, I think that may be a step forward. But to say we are going to close it and, oh, by the way, along the way you can tell us what you are doing and how you are doing it, that is putting the cart before the horse.

The President needs to get the support of the American people. So far he has not done that. The American people have been clear: they are uncomfortable with those detainees coming here. Therefore, it is premature to close it, and this amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment has previously been defeated in the House. Members have voted on it before, and I think it should be defeated again.

This is the underwear bomber case. A foreign terrorist flies into the U.S. in order to kill as many Americans as possible. The bomb malfunctions, the terrorist is captured, he is immediately given under the amendment American constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent.

Now, in fact, the underwear bomber was questioned for about 50 minutes before the FBI gave him his Miranda rights and he quit talking. But meanwhile, when he knows he has the right to remain silent, he quits talking, we have no idea how many more bombers there are, where they may be, or how we may be attacked again.

Actually, this amendment goes further than the Obama administration even wants to, because the administration has admitted that there are several dozen terrorists in Guantanamo that cannot be tried in article III courts and are too dangerous to release. So what happens to them under this amendment? If they can't be tried, they are released.

Especially if you put this amendment with the previous amendment, they come here to the United States, they can't be tried in article III courts because it reveals too much information, so what do you do with them? That is part of the problem. We need this flexibility for indefinite detention.

Secondly, the Supreme Court has held that this right of detention goes hand-in-hand with an authorization for the use of force. I believe probably constitutionally the President has that authority when he has the authority to use military force. So trying to take it away not only limits the options, it is impractical in this case.

It is, of course, true that everybody detained has that right of habeas corpus to contest their detention in front of an article III court, as the gentleman said, even those foreigners held in Guantanamo. But to say that everybody immediately goes into the court system I think would be compromising our security.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, admittedly, there are some difficult issues involved in detention, particularly with this war against terrorists that we are involved in.

But you have got to look at the bigger picture, and part of what one needs to look at is how one is going to deal with these situations. We just debated an amendment where the argument was close Guantanamo. Now we have an amendment on the other hand that says everybody that is here, including the people presumably that we would bring back from Guantanamo when it was closed, automatically and immediately goes to article III courts.

It is not my argument that some of the people in Guantanamo cannot be tried in article III courts. That is what the administration tells us.

So how does this fit together?

It doesn't, not without releasing very dangerous people out into society or into the world.

Secondly, when it is clear that you have greater rights when you come to the United States, rather than if you attack us from some other place, the incentive is to come to the United States because that is where you are given the greater rights. That is the perverse incentive under this amendment. It would be a mistake.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Chair, as the gentleman indicates, he offered this amendment last year, and it failed, and I believe it should fail again.

As the gentleman knows, I believe very strongly that the AUMF should be updated. In fact, this House has voted twice to update it, but then the Senate failed to take any action whatsoever, and I don't think there is any reason to believe that there is any more likely prospect of the Senate acting now than before.

So what this amendment would do, it would be to repeal the AUMF against terrorists, without anything, anything at all to replace it and, frankly, without any prospect of having anything to replace it, at least in this Congress, so we would be left with no authority to take action against terrorists bent on killing Americans.

I can't help but note, Madam Chair, that they just opened the 9/11 museum in New York in the last few days. Have we forgotten so quickly about what this AUMF is all about?

One other factor, the President has made some comments about engaging Congress on this issue, but he has exercised absolutely no leadership whatsoever in doing so. What does the President propose, if he proposes an update to the AUMF?

We have no idea. Unfortunately, that lack of leadership is all too common for this administration.

Meanwhile, what is happening in the world? Well, terrorism is growing, and it is getting more dangerous. I note there was a New York Times story just 3 days ago, where the new director of the FBI says that, before he was sworn in and got access to the latest information, he underestimated the terrorist threat.

``I didn't have anywhere near the appreciation I got after I came into this job just how virulent those affiliates had become,'' Mr. Comey said. ``There are many more than I appreciated, and they are stronger than I appreciated.''

Yet the Obama administration, Madam Chairman, wants us to believe that terrorism is done; we have got them on the run. Everybody's going to live happily ever after. That sort of wishful thinking is not only unrealistic, it is dangerous.

As a matter of fact, Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, has written within the last month that:

American foreign policy is in troubling disarray.

David Brooks wrote in The New York Times:

All around, the fabric of peace and order is fraying.

I would suggest that a substantial part of that disarray and fraying is the sort of wishful thinking that we can wish terrorism and other problems away and go along and the world is not going to bother us.

In other words, short-term political messaging is taking precedence over longer-term strategic interests; so repealing the current authority that helps the military protect us against terrorism, without something to take its place, is exactly that kind of wishful thinking.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the gentleman argues that, oh, we don't really need these authorities, that there are other authorities.

Well, either they are important, or they are not. Either article I, section 1 makes a difference in what the President can do to defend the country, or it is all superfluous, and I don't know why we continue to have these debates and declare war.

Obviously, there are different views about how far a President's power under article II goes, but most people believe article I, section 8 means something and that for the Congress to authorize the use of military force means something.

I would say, parenthetically, the last thing we need is to get all balled up in court arguing about this after we have repealed the AUMF, but have nothing to take its place.

Secondly, the gentleman argues that: well, we are not going to do anything unless we make a deadline.

I hate to remind us all, but we have had deadlines before that we have not exactly met. Unfortunately, repealing something this serious without something to take its place is a dangerous game, I think, to play.

The evolution of al Qaeda is a very serious issue, Madam Chair. We should be having a conversation about how to update the Authorization for Use of Military Force, but we still have to protect the country while we are having that discussion.

Unfortunately, this puts the cart before the horse, deciding to repeal before we know what will be used to replace it.

This amendment is not about Afghanistan, Yemen, Mali, Somalia, or anywhere else. This amendment is about us. This is about protecting Americans, and when the President and the military have the authority that the Constitution allows us to give them to protect the country, we should not abandon that lightly.

The world is still dangerous. The terrorists are still coming for us. We need to keep this in place unless and until there is a more updated AUMF to replace it.

Madam Chairman, I oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by commending the leadership of Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith in getting this bill to the floor in such a timely way, especially after the President's budget was quite late, but also in getting this bill here on a unanimous vote by the committee.

None of us agrees with every provision that is in this bill, but members of the committee were able to put aside personal preferences on individual issues to support a bill that benefits the Nation overall, and I hope that the House will do likewise.

I think it is important to emphasize that it has been a bipartisan effort, working together with the chairman and the ranking member and also with the chairmen of the subcommittees and with the ranking members of the subcommittees, that has gotten us to this place.

I think it is especially appropriate for this bill to be named for Chairman McKeon, not only in recognition for his leadership on this bill, but for his leadership of the committee during some very challenging circumstances throughout his tenure.

Some of those challenges have included our own budget issues, as was just addressed by the ranking member, as well as a myriad of threats around the world, so this measure that does so much for our country's security will always be associated with the many contributions of Chairman McKeon to our country's security.

Mr. Chairman, this bill meets the budget targets of the House-passed budget resolution and also of the Ryan-Murray budget agreement. I agree with the ranking member in that it does not solve our budget issues in the future--we still have to grapple with those--but this year, it meets those requirements, and it does so by making some difficult choices.

In addition, among the many provisions of this bill, there are those that start to make a modest start on some defense reforms that are being worked on by both the House and the Senate in coordination with the Pentagon and with private industry.

I think everyone recognizes that we have to find a way to get more defense out of the money we spend, and there are some small but important steps to enable us to make greater progress in that area in the future, both by reducing overhead and by improving the way we acquire goods and services.

This bill is also active in all areas of responsibility for the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats, and Capabilities, including military cyber, science and technology, information technology, defense intelligence, special operations, and counterterrorism and irregular warfare.

I agree with the ranking member on the importance, especially, of cyber and special operations. In addition, we have coordinated with other subcommittees on a number of provisions that touch on the areas I have mentioned. In fact, I think the work among the subcommittees has been closer than I have ever seen it.

In that regard, I want to express my appreciation for my partner on the IETC Subcommittee, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), for all of his insights and cooperative spirit that make our work together so beneficial and rewarding. Like the chairman, I appreciate all of the work of the staffs of the subcommittee and the full committee.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, the centerpiece of our national security is our nuclear deterrent, and we have neglected it terribly for years, both in the administration and in Congress, and we have got a lot of catching up to do.

So as the gentleman from Ohio said and the administration itself says, we have a $3.5 billion maintenance backlog on our facilities. Thirty percent of the facilities we are using were built during the Manhattan Project, and 50 percent of the facilities we are using are more than 40 years old.

Now, we are fortunate that we have got some engineers and other highly skilled workers who are willing to work in those conditions, but they are not going to be willing to work in it forever. And so this bill doesn't solve that problem by any stretch of the imagination, but at least this extra $39 billion helps it from getting too much worse. It takes a step in the right direction.

These nuclear weapons are aging machines, just like the facilities are aging machines, and they require care and trading out parts if the people who have to work around them are going to be safe. That is why it is a mistake to take away from this central element of our facility.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this issue has been a longstanding concern of the gentleman from California as well as other Members. There is certainly evidence that terrorists and criminal organizations use a variety of illegal methods to fund their organizations. That includes wildlife trafficking. It includes human trafficking. It includes drug trafficking. It includes kidnapping for ransom. A whole variety of illegal methods are used to fund these organizations.

Now, in last year's NDAA, we expanded the authority of the military to deal with Ministries of Interior so that in fighting terrorism they can have more options available to them. It is also those Ministries of Interior that deal with these wildlife trafficking issues.

Last year's bill also added 15 countries in Africa to the list of those countries with which DOD can partner on transnational criminal organizations involving drugs.

For Boko Haram they already designated a terrorist organization. For them or for drugs those authorities already exist.

The question is: Do we want to make it a priority of the military to focus on this illegal poaching as a priority in itself? My concern is that the military is already stretched thin. If it is terrorism, fine. If it is these transnational organizations, fine. But to give the military poaching as a priority would be a mistake.

The other point I would make is that the President's budget for the State Department cut funding for this very purpose this year. Last year, they spent about $54 billion. This year the President asked for less than $30 million.

So my suggestion to the Member is that perhaps he could focus on the President's budget request for the State Department, the Department of the Interior, law enforcement agencies, all of which are engaged in this, and that would be a better use of resources.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), a valuable member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is if there is a terrorism connection to this illegal poaching, the military has full authority to go after it and try to stop it, just like other forms of terrorist financing. But as an independent objective for the military, we are stretched too thin already, and for that reason I recommend that the Members reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 24, I was unable to be present for two rollcall votes while attending to personal matters in Texas. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Nos. 136 and 137.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the work of the Agriculture Committee and especially Chairman Lucas, to bring this very long farm bill negotiation to a conclusion. Agriculture and all of its supporting industries desperately need a five-year farm bill and the stability it brings.

I am profoundly disappointed, however, that the bill does not take the opportunity to resolve some very important issues affecting livestock. The Country of Origin Labeling rule proposed by the Administration is unworkable and puts our livestock industry at a significant disadvantage. It will invite punitive trade sanctions. That requirement should have been repealed, and I will continue to work to repeal it.

Similarly, Congress has regularly prevented the implementation of the controversial provisions of the GIPSA marketing rule through the appropriation process. I assume we will continue to do so, but it would have been better to remove that threat permanently.

There was also an opportunity missed to resolve the issue related to horse processing, and so the needless suffering of old and unwanted horses will continue, as will the effects on the value of horses across the country.

At the same time, the biggest issue facing agriculture in my district and throughout most of Texas has been the drought. I appreciate the permanent livestock disaster program in this bill, which will be very welcomed by livestock producers of all sizes throughout our region of the country.

I believe that the reforms made to commodity programs are needed and will strengthen the political viability of those programs into the future. Having additional risk management tools available to producers who are increasingly competing in a global market should be quite helpful.

Finally, I would strongly prefer to make greater reforms in food stamps and other nutrition programs, such as were contained in the House passed version, but given the realities of the political situation in Washington, I believe that the savings in this bill are a step, at least, in the right direction.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me commend the chairman and ranking member of the committee and the staff for getting us to this point.

In all the 52 years of the National Defense Authorization Act, I think this has been one of the most challenging years to get a bill actually passed. Not only have they done that, or are about to do that, get us to this point, but it is a good bill with many significant provisions that enhance our national security.

Among those provisions are those under the purview of the Intelligence, Emerging Threats, and Capabilities Subcommittee that authorizes more than $85 billion worth of critical national security activities and programs to include cybersecurity and operations, combating weapons of mass destruction, combating terrorism, defense intelligence, and Special Operations Forces, science and technology, and research, and a host of areas.

I want to express my appreciation especially to the subcommittee staff for the work they have done on it.

But as we look ahead to the threats and also the capabilities that are coming before us in the future, we also

have to update our oversight mechanisms here in Congress.

In this bill, there are provisions known as the Oversight of Sensitive Military Operations Act, which is a big advance to make sure that we can conduct the proper oversight, even as activities are conducted by various weapon systems, even as they happen all around the world.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate what the chairman and ranking member have said: this bill, combined with the budget agreement, doesn't solve all our problems in defense, but they provide absolutely needed stability so that we can return to a way where military leaders and private sector leaders can plan for a change. We have not been in that situation in recent years.

So passing this bill and passing the budget bill are significant advances for our country's national security. I hope all my colleagues will agree.

I commend the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership and for bringing this measure to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, the bill the gentleman brought to the floor on Wednesday, just the day before yesterday, passed the House, passed the Senate, and it was signed into law by the President last night. So the argument that you can't fund any of the government unless you fund all of the government is, obviously, not true. Every single Member of the House voted for the bill that the gentleman from New Jersey brought to the floor that was dealing with military death benefits.

We have set priorities. We have said the military has to be paid, and this bill also sets priorities because the nuclear deterrent is absolutely central to our national security just as the military is.

For 60 years, the centerpiece of our country's security has been the nuclear deterrent that has helped keep us secure. These are aging weapons, however, and so that means there are maintenance issues, there are safety issues, there are reliability issues, which a very highly skilled, dedicated workforce must address every single day.

So that's what this bill does. This allows that work to continue, as well as the very important work in dealing with nonproliferation, as well as keeping our nuclear-powered ships operating. All of those things central to our country's security are empowered by this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is the easiest excuse any of us can use to oppose a bill because of what it does not do.

What we ought to do is look at what a bill does do. What this bill does do is keep the central part of our country's security operating even as we sort out our other budget woes.

I think it deserves the support of all Members of the House, and I encourage them to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey in all matters related to national security, as well as the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana.

I also appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's bringing this measure to the floor. It's rather unfortunate and somewhat amazing to me, actually, that he has to.

The Pay Our Military Act passed the House on September 29, passed the Senate, and was signed by the President the next day. It says clearly that there are hereby appropriated such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to members of the Armed Forces.

Who would have ever thought that some lawyer in the Pentagon would say that the death and other benefits we are talking about today would not be included in that? Rather than spend more time in squabbles with lawyers, I think the gentleman from New Jersey wisely has brought this measure to the floor just to make it clear so everybody understands that all of these allowances should be paid.

I think it's also, Mr. Speaker, very important for all of us to say that our hearts grieve with the families for whom this benefit is immediately relevant. Money alone, of course, cannot express our gratitude for the sacrifice and the service that their loved ones have given to this country. But it is important, even in these times when we have differences on fiscal and other issues, that the House come together and everybody unites, regardless of our opinions about other targeted funding issues, to say that we will stand with those families who have given so much to our Nation.

So, again, I commend the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing this, and I hope that all of my colleagues will vote in support of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Major General Carl M. Skinner on the occasion of his retirement from the Air Force after 33 years of dedicated service to our Nation. Major General Skinner began his career after graduation from the Air Force Academy in 1980. His service is marked with distinguished performance as an Instructor Pilot in the T-38 Talon, Chief, Standardization and Evaluation in the FB-111 Aardvark, and Mobilization Assistant to the Air Force Chief Information Officer, the Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency and the Commander of the Air Force's Air Education and Training Command. Major General Skinner's career followed his father's example during World War II and continues through his son, an Air Force physician stationed at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. My colleagues join me in sincerely thanking Mike, his wife, Pam, and their children, Tom and Kelley Ann, for their service to the United States of America and a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional officer of the United States Army, Lieutenant General Susan S. Lawrence. Currently serving as the Army's Chief Information Officer/ G-6, Lieutenant General Lawrence will be released from active duty after more than 41 distinguished years of active Federal service on December 1, 2013. From enlisted private to three-star general, Susan Lawrence has personified the Army values of duty, integrity, selfless service and dedication to country. Many of us on Capitol Hill have enjoyed the opportunity to work with General Lawrence on a wide variety of Army issues and programs, and it is my privilege to recognize her many accomplishments.

General Lawrence, a native daughter of Ida Grove, Iowa, joined the Women's Army Corps at age 18. After five years of exemplary service, at the urging of her mentor, Maj. Gen. Mickey Marks, then-Sergeant Lawrence decided to make the Army a career. She attended college, she earned a commission and she committed herself to the Signal Corps. Since that day in 1977, Susan Lawrence has positively impacted the lives of thousands of soldiers and civilians, commanded at every level and done the nation's bidding around the globe. From Korea to Germany; from Operation Desert Thunder in Kuwait to three tours in Qatar under Operation Iraqi Freedom, General Lawrence has provided the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, as well as our coalition partners, the Signal and information technology support essential to mission success.

For the past five years, General Lawrence has been deeply involved in modernizing the Army's network, including redesigning its infrastructure and greatly improving security and defense to ensure that soldiers and decision makers have the information they need when they need it regardless of their location. At a time when information technology has become ingrained in every aspect of the military's day- to-day and combat operations; and cyber warfare has moved from the realm of science fiction to one of the country's greatest real-time threats, Susan Lawrence has been out in front, pressing hard to make sure that the nation has a 21st century Army capable of defeating any enemy, whether face to face on the ground or in the ether of cyberspace.

Throughout it all, General Lawrence has paid special attention to the men and women who defend the United States. She has mentored countless military and civilian personnel, helping the Armed Forces to retain the best and brightest. And, she has shown special care for the families of those who wear a uniform, always striving to improve their quality of life and offering a comforting shoulder in times of need.

For 41 years, Lieutenant General Lawrence has provided outstanding leadership and sound counsel on numerous critical issues of enduring importance to the Army and our nation. She is a truly remarkable officer and citizen. On behalf of the Congress and the United States of America, I thank Lieutenant General Lawrence and her entire family for the commitment, sacrifices and contributions they have made throughout her honorable service. Congratulations on completing an exceptional and successful career.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House that one of our former colleagues, the Honorable Jack E. Hightower, has passed away at the age of 86.

Jack Hightower was the very definition of a Texas gentleman and leader, leading a life of public service until his death. His life-long dedication to serving his country began with military service during World War II, before going on to become a lawyer, a member of the Texas House, District Attorney, member of the Texas Senate, U.S. Congressman, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, and later, Justice of the Texas Supreme Court.

He was born in Memphis, Texas, to Floy and Walter Hightower on September 6, 1926. After graduating from Memphis High School, he enrolled in summer classes at Baylor University. However, that fall he joined the Navy and served two years during World War II. After being discharged, he returned to Baylor where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree, followed by a law degree. It was during this time that he married his wife, Colleen Ward, of Tulia, Texas. He joined the Storey, Storey and Donaghey law firm in Vernon, Texas, and soon thereafter, served in the Texas House of Representatives from 1953-1955. He was appointed District Attorney for the 46th Judicial District, followed by a term in the Texas Senate for the 23rd District. In 1966, he was elected to the new 30th Senatorial District and eventually became President Pro-tempore of the Texas Senate. During his service as a Texas State Senator, he received a Doctor of Laws degree from Howard Payne University.

Mr. Hightower served the constituents of the 13th Congressional District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1974 to 1985. After Congress, he served as Assistant Attorney General of Texas. He was then elected to the Texas Supreme Court, where he stayed until 1996. In 1999, Mr. Hightower was

appointed by President Clinton as a Commissioner on the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, where he served until 2005.

His passion for Texas was only surpassed by his love for God, his family, his church, and Freemasonry of Texas. Jack was an active member of the First Baptist Church, not only in Vernon, Texas, where he spent most of his life, but also in Austin, Texas, the latter part of his life.

Jack was a member for over fifty years and Past Master of Vernon Lodge #655, Vernon, Texas. He also belonged to University Lodge #1190, Austin, Texas, and the Texas Lodge of Research. He served the Grand Lodge of Texas as District Deputy Grand Master, Grand Orator, member of the Masonic Jurisprudence Committee, and was elected to serve as Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Texas in 1972.

Jack was also a Knight of the York Cross of Honor, a member of the Red Cross of Constantine, and a Thirty Third Degree, Scottish Rite Mason, and served as the Sovereign Grand Inspector General of Texas. Jack was also a member of the Maskat Shrine, Wichita Falls, Texas, and served on the boards of the Scottish Rite Hospital in Dallas, Texas, and the Scottish Rite Dormitory at the University of Texas, Austin, Texas, and the Scottish Rite Education Association of Texas.

Jack is survived by his wife, Colleen, and his three daughters, Ann Thornburg; Amy Brees; and Alison Suttle.

With more than 50 years of public service, Jack Hightower will always be remembered for his selfless devotion to the people of his State and his country. Whether holding a position at a local, state, or national level, he always put the interests and considerations of his country above all else--the living embodiment of a public servant. He will surely be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express appreciation and pay tribute to Michael A. Sheehan upon his retirement as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. Since his confirmation on December 17, 2011, Mr. Sheehan has distinguished himself as a tireless leader and advocate for special operations forces, counterterrorism policy, and operations. With more than 30 years of experience in combating terrorism, Assistant Secretary Sheehan has provided indispensable advice to the defense committees and directly contributed to U.S. government counterterrorism strategy and policy. He has personally shaped many key counterterrorism initiatives, including the prudent use of operational authorities that fully enabled U.S. Special Operations Forces and our foreign partners around the world. Under his leadership and guidance, the Department of Defense worked to degrade al-Qa'ida's reach across the Middle East and Northwest Africa, and to diminish significantly its influence in Yemen, Somalia, Mali, and Afghanistan. By continually pressing for the effective and strategic employment of special operations forces to train, equip and advise our foreign partner forces, Assistant Secretary Sheehan has helped implement a U.S. national counterterrorism strategy to meet the challenges of a diversifying terrorist threat.

During this tenure, Assistant Secretary Sheehan has elevated the importance and effectiveness of numerous Department of Defense efforts to build partner capacity and enhance partnered operations. He personally oversaw counterterrorism operational authorities under Section 1208, capacity building efforts under Section 1206, numerous projects under the Global Security Contingency Fund, the Defense Institutional Reform Initiative, and the Ministry of Defense Advisory program that have resulted in the significant improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of these critical components within U.S. defense strategy.

Assistant Secretary Sheehan also provided oversight of multiple Department of Defense humanitarian assistance and disaster relief programs and operations, including assistance to the Philippines after Typhoon Bopha in December 2012, support for non-combatant evacuation in the Central African Republic in December 2012, and the humanitarian assistance efforts in Jordan to address refugees from Syria. Additionally, he has represented the Department on the interagency Atrocities Prevention Board (APB) and has overseen U.S. Special Operations Forces contributions to the African Union initiative launched against Joseph Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army.

With an encyclopedic knowledge of terrorist organizations, keen strategic awareness, and extensive operational experience, Assistant Secretary Sheehan has continually provided the congressional defense committees of the United States Congress with honest, effective, and timely advice and testimony. Assistant Secretary Sheehan's visionary leadership and guidance has greatly enhanced our national security and further aligned the Department of Defense to meet the 21st century challenges facing our nation and the warfighter. At every turn, in his more than three decades of government service, he has made our country safer. For that, we shall remain forever grateful.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 102 veterans from Texas who visited Washington, D.C. last week with the Texas Panhandle Honor Flight. My wife, Sally, and I had the distinct pleasure of welcoming these heroes to the Capitol building.

The veterans on this flight were: Accurso, Charles; Anders, Troy; Ash, David; Austin, Carlos; Bailey, Bruce; Barbee, J.G.; Barron, Bobby; Berend, Raymond; Blackburn, Gerald; Blevins, Howard; Box, Kenneth; Burch, Darrell; Burgess, E.R.; Carter, Terry; Chadwick, James; Chester, Joe; Cobb, Steven; Cornelius, Gayle; Counsellar, William; Creek, James; Davis, Ervin; Denman, Roy; Dibala, Daniel; Dickerman, Lesley; Dill, Kenneth; Ebeling, Marshall; Enevoldsen, Jerome; Perez, Frank; Fisher, Robert; Fowler, Jimmy; Gamble, Rupert; Garcia, Edward; Garner, Olin; George, Aubrey; Gibson, Walter; Glosson, Paul; Graham, Lester; Greathouse, William; Henning, Gary; Hetrick, John; Higley, Richard; Holland, Hugh; Holland, Otis; Holland, Buford; Horn, Olan; Irwen, Joe; James, Kelsey; Jenssen, Dan; Kirby, Freddy; Knuchel, Mike; Larned, James; Lewis, Herbert; Lynch, Earl; Macias, Valentin; Mann, Joe Bob; Mann, Bobby Joe; Martin, Gerald; McNally, Peter; Miller, Gene; Miller, Alton; Miller, Douglas; Moore, Jerry; Morton, Elwyn; Nurek, Steven; Ogle, Ronald; Parsons, Leonard; Peach, James; Penn, Billy; Pohlmeier, Gregory; Rakes, Edwin; Reed, James; Ricks, Don; Rider, Gary; Rider, Emery; Ridgway, Wendell; Riggins, Hubert; Ritter, Henry; Robinett, Thomas; Robinson, Jack; Robinson, Joe; Rogers, Garlon; Romo, Jesse; Roybal, Roberto; Smith, Stacey; Smith, Donald; Sollis, J.W.; Spell, Dalton; Stoops, Richard; Todd, Kenneth; Tomme, Michael; Trosper, Oscar; Waller, Jack; Warren, Bobby; Werschky, Samuel; Werschky, Carlton; Wetsel, Todd; Whiteley, George; Willingham, Randall; Willis, Howard; Wilson, William; York, James; and Yosten, Gilbert.

I was honored to have the opportunity to visit with these veterans and the volunteers who traveled with them and show them around the Capitol building, which in many ways is the center of this democracy for which they fought. These men and women remind us all of the great sacrifices so many generations of Americans have made for our nation and the freedoms we hold so dearly. The service they rendered to our country can never be fully repaid, but I hope that their visit to Washington, D.C. was a reminder of the gratitude and respect we have for them.

Colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and their families for their exemplary dedication and service to this great nation. I want to extend a special thank you to the local communities, all of the volunteers, America Supports You Texas, and Mr. Larry Lewis for their extensive work in organizing this Honor Flight. This trip would not have been possible without all of the financial and emotional support from those people.