best leadership in order to meet these challenges. or my intentions to remain fully engaged. >> the u.s. house of representatives about to gavel back in. legislative work today includes debate on six bills including one to let foreign citizens of certain countries through u.s. agentcies over violations. ll be our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as the members return, we ask your blessing on all those, who are discerning significant options about leadership here in the people's house. may a spirit of freedom and public responsibility prevail among the other voices competing in the conversations and debates that ensue. bless all members with wisdom

and good measure, pressed bound, taken together and running over, that the legacy of great legislatures in our history may be carried on with integrity for the benefit of all. may all that is done in the people's house be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal of s approved. the pledge allegiance will be led by the gentleman from jea, mr. carter. mr. carter: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with berty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition.

mr. wilson: ask unanimous consent to permission to address the house for one minute. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: the past two weeks in south carolina have been inspiring as i learned and saw spontaneous acts of compassion for flood victims. the thousand-year rain event was at a disstrouse collision of a weather front from the west and caused by hurricane joaquin bypassing the state dumping 11 trillion gallons of water and inundating communities. the volume was equal to filling the rose bowl over 130,000 times. the governor and the national guard backed up by the state guard have continued to lead dedicated personnel. the colonel will be the recovery coordinator. individual heroism acts are

daily. there were cited by the state for rescuing neighbors from their homes. every church and school has energized volunteers. e salvation army raising $141,000 in a telethon with rot ari club members receiving the calls. homeland security secretary deserves praise for his personnel implementing federal assistance. god bless our troops and the president by his actions should never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. carter: permission to address the house for one minute. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. carter: i rise today in support of national forest products week. the manufacturing industry

support 4,000 jobs in the state of jobs. many architects around the world have demonstrated the successful application of mass timber technologies. these new technologies are providing a new sustainable solution for building safe, cost-effective and high-performing buildings mostly in densely populated cities around the world. by making forests sustainable, we can ensure that the wood product industry will continue to be a significant employer throughout the united states. i encourage continued support of forest lands and support for strong wood product markets so we can keep this industry healthy for future generations. i thank those in the forest product industry to your contributions to our local economy, the state of georgia and the entire nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition?

ms. foxx: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: today, i rise to recognize the students and faculty at marin ward elementary school in north carolina. with news of the destructive flooding, this school conducted an informal collection of supplies for those impacted by the devastation. in just 24 hours, the school community had come together for the people of south carolina and collected clothing, blankets, towels, pillows, baby supplies, pet food and over 60 dayses of water. in addition to reading, writing and math, it's clear that the administration and faculty have been teaching important lessons in compassion and generosity,

which i'm sure went along very well with the lessons being learned by these students from their families. ward elementary met the call for assistance with extraordinary results. its students should be commended for their giving spirit and commitment to helping others. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a separate communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with two grand jury subpoenas for documents issued by the united states district court for the central district of illinois. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with one of the subpoenas is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. after further consultation with counsel, i will make the determinations required by rule

8 with respect to the second subpoena. signed sincerely, ed cassidy. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of pennsylvania for testimony in a criminal case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed sincerely, michelle anderson lee, director of appropriations, office of congressman fattah. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a, rule

>> several years, senator

moynihan's wife sent me a wooden chink to put together -- we had been talking about the kinship that i felt for senator moynihan to his thoughtful approach to governance and put his country ahead of party and search for solutions. and she sent me this from the old farmhouse and had a note on it saying, two square petition in two round holes. some people say i'm a republican who became a democrat, but that i often sound like a republican in a roomful of democrats and actually i take that as a compliment. more people in this country call themselves political independents than either republicans or democrat.

i happen to agree with them. our country is more important than a label. democrats in years past understood this. people like sam nunn, scoop jackson, mike mansfield, john kennedy, among others. by this are disgusted talk of republicans and democrats calling each other the enemy instead of reaching out across the table and actually finding ways to work together. i know what an enemy really is from hard personal combat. the other party is not the enemy, they are the opposition. in our democracy, we are lucky to have an opposition in order to have honest debate. it's creative, it's healthy. there's no opposition party in countries like china because there are no elections in china or in other nondemocratic authoritarian societies.

over the years i have worked with democrats or republicans and my basic beliefs, principles of leadership and love of country have never changed. i proudly served for four years in the reagan administration as a republican. i proudly served in the senate as a democrat. we need to be honest here because the very nature of our democracy is under siege due to the power structure and the money that finances both political parties. our political candidates are being pulled to the extremes. they are increasingly out of step to the people they are supposed to serve. poll after poll shows that a strong plurality of americans is neither democrat or republican. overwhelmingly they are independents. americans don't like the extremes to which both parties have moved in recent years and neither do i. i know i'm going to hear this so

let me be the first to say it. i fully accept my views on many issues are not compatible with the power structure and the nominating base of the democratic party. that party is filled with millions of dedicated, hard-working americans, but it is not comfortable with many of the policies that i have laid forth and frankly i'm not not that comfortable with many of theirs. for this reason, i'm withdrawing from any consideration of being a democratic party's nominee for the presidency. this does not reduce in any way my concerns for the challenges facing our country. my belief that i can provide the best leadership in order to meet these challenges are my intentions to remain fully engaged in the debates that are facing us. how i remain as a voice will depend on what kind of support i'm shown in the coming weeks as

i meet with people from all sides of america's political landscape, and i intend to do that. i hold strong views about where our country needs to go. i will never change those views in order adopt to some party platform as a way of getting nominated. i feel strongly if i were nominated that we would win. and that if i were president i could assemble an administration filled with great minds, good leaders and capable people from all sectors of our society who share my vision and who could bring this country back to itsry veered position as a beacon of fairness at home and common sense in our foreign policies abroad. though i'm not going away, i'm thinking about all my options, 240 years ago, the declaration

of independence from our status as a colony from great britain was announced. it's time for a a new declaration of independence. not from an outside power, but from the paralysis that no longer serves the vast interests of the american people. the presidency has gained too much power. the congress has grown weak and often irrelevant. the present-day democratic and republican parties are not providing the answers and the guarantees that we can rely on. the financial sector represented by the wall street bankers is caring less and less about the conditions of the average american worker for the simple reason that their well-being depends more on the global economy than it does on the american economy. our political process is jammed up. it needs an honest broker who respects all sides, who

understands the complicated nature of how our federal system works, who will communicate a vision for the country's future here at home and in our foreign policy and who has a proven record of actually getting things done. i have worked with both sides. i have a lot of respect for many people who are members of both political parties. i know how broken our system really is. this country needs a new dynamic that respects and honors our history, our traditions and is not a slave to the power structure -- are failing us. i love this country and all that it has allowed me to do and my family to do over the course of the last several decades and even generations. i always have and will put country above political party or personal ambition.

so here we are. i'm stepping aside from the democratic primary process. but i will never abandon my loyalties to the people who do the hard daily work of keeping this country great at home and secure abroad and we'll have to see what happens next. >> questions, please identify yourself. mr. weber: we will talk people -- to people and a number of people who have reached out and encouraged me to

run either as an independent or a lot of people who never voted for a democrat. hundreds and hundreds of people who never voted for a democrat who said i will vote to you and if you run outside the party, i will help you out. there are a lot of people out there from across the political spectrum that i would like to talk to before i would say i am going to do this. i feel much fiscal year now having cleared the air to do that. reporter: are you concerned about helping a republican if you were to run? senator webb: i care about the country and the issues i have been talking about for many years are the issues that i believe needs to be focused on and that's the most important thing. if i were to run -- i know the history of independent candidate cyst. and i have had a number of discussions with people who have

encouraged me to do this before. they topped out at 20%. i have had smart political people saying because of the paralysis in our two parties there is a time when an independent candidacy to win. and those are the questions we are going to be asking. reporter: your campaign has failed to gain traction pretty much anywhere. why as an independent you could gain that traction that you couldn't gain as a democrat? senator webb: it's difficult in the democratic party primary process with the dominance of one candidate, not only in her candidacy but in the structure of the democratic party, the traditional financing structures. the d.n.c. so it's been a very careful process that i put forward here.

and again, as i said, i have issues that i care about that maybe are in line with that particular hierarchy. so we'll see. i'll tell you this, if you look at polls on where the american people are on these issues that i'm talking about, they are more in line with what i have been saying than they are in the democratic party's hierarchy. reporter: do you still consider yourself a democrat? senator webb: we'll think about that. reporter: senator, you entered -- you came out of the debate saying that you felt it was hurting you. do you feel like the whole process is rigid? do you feel you had a chance to run as a democrat? and if so, why did you choose to run as a democrat? senator webb: i ran as a democrat for the same reason i

ran as a democrat when i ran for the senate and that is if you look at the history of the democratic party, it is the party that has given the people who have no voice in the corridors of power, a voice. .hat is the reason that i ran i have also said for a number of years that the democratic party needs to get back to its more traditional message and not seeing that in the way that i wish that i could see it. and so -- in terms of it being rigid -- the debate -- the point i made in the debate was, when you come to a debate, where you are supposed to have an equal opportunity to present your issues and you get 14 minutes when the leading candidate gets 32 minutes and the way the

questions were being asked were designed to do that, then i wouldn't say that was a fair process. reporter: over the course -- i want to talk about the idea of the democratic party being too extreme at the high levels. over the course of the campaign you struggled with the democratic party as it embraced the issue of taking down the confederate flag. affirmative action on the debate stage. do you think the democratic party has gone too far in areas like that? senator webb: you can look at a lot of the issues that i have talked about over the years. i have been consistent on them. with respect to the issue of the confederate flag, what i said was, yes, the confederate flag should come down. but i'm a historian and we need to be careful in examining the fairness of our history. there are people who do not --

have not viewed the confederate battle flag as a symbol of racism. let's take them down from public places, but let's not get carried away here in terms of our own history laid out during the period. i have talked about the need -- by the way, i'm not trying to stand here and attack the democratic party. these are areas where i think there were strong differences of feeling between the hierarchy and myself. the democratic party is heavily invested in the notion of interest group politics and interest group politics, if you are not careful, can exclude people who also need a voice in the corridors of power. and i have spoken about this a lot. the question i was asked, by the way, with respect to affirmative action, i gave a very careful

answer to and i don't believe that it should be misunderstood when i said affirmative action was an african-american program because of the unique history of african-americans with slavery and the jim crow laws that came after that. but once you expand that into what we call diversity programs for anyone who happens to be a person of color, by definition and what you are actually doing in the long run is you are hurting poor blacks and poor whites. take a look at west baltimore and take a look at the appalachian mountains in kentucky and you will see two different cultures that are not being helped in terms of poverty and educational opportunities and these sorts of things. that's where the democratic party -- that's where the country should be whatever party rment. we should be making sure we are serious having a level playing

field. and i think still giving special consideration to the journey of african-americans. but for everybody else, welcome to america. you have the best shot in the world here at having a great future. and my wife standing next to me is a perfect example of that. her family escaped from vietnam when the communists took over. her parents never spoke english and she came here, studied, learned the language and ended up graduating from cornell law school. that's what this country can do and that has been my frustration on those sorts of issues. we can do that. we should be looking at that. reporter: on the debates, do you plan on attending the next democratic debate? senator webb: no, i do not. as of today i'm not involved in the democratic party's process. porter: in addition to the

platform and your goals and the democratic party, you have also suffered from poor fundraising and lack of infrastructure. if you were to do an independent bid, what would you be prepared to do to bolster fundraising, to go against that machine to build an organization, to hone a message to be disciplined? senator webb: i can't tell you how many people have written to me over the last year and offered to help if i would run as a democrat or as a republican. it is very difficult to fund raise inside the democratic party structure now for reasons that i had mentioned. i have no doubt if i ran as an independent, we would significant financial help. reporter: from -- senator webb: from people who want me to run as something other than a democrat. we'll see over the next few weeks. but i have had so many people

asking me to stay in this and to keep the voice out there. i think if we ran, we would not have the same difficulty that we had with the democrats, quite frankly. eporter: senator webb, i'm a professional firefighter and i want to say thank you for what you have done for the firefighters. my question would be in terms of organized labor. it seems like it really has not been that big of an issue in this race and i also have something for you in the spirit of military, i brought you a coin -- how do you think we need to bring that back into the forefront. i have been working on the 9/11 health care bill and it seems like there is not the support and seems like people have forgotten the events of 9/11. how do we keep that in this presidential race? senator webb: that's a good point. if i'm in a roomful of

democrats, i think i'm a republican. but don't get into either party structure. one of them for the different positions that were just raised by the gentleman over here, there are issues that i care deeply about that don't align with the republican party either and one of them is organized labor. a hink i was only one with union card, a purple heart and i believe in collective bargaining order to help recollect the working people. thank you very much. reporter: senator webb. should the polls hold up and hillary clinton becomes the

nominee of the democratic party and donald trump is the nominee of the republican party, could you see yourself supporting one of these two candidates? senator webb: if we ran an independent race and got traction, i could see us beating both of them. reporter: it's been difficult for reporters to obtain information about the day-to-day of your campaign. how often were you out campaigning and meeting voters? senator webb: every day. cam papering, there were times we did and did not. reporter: where were you campaigning? senator webb: iowa, new hampshire, south carolina. i went to other states. we can get a list. reporter: how many staffers did you have? senator webb: we had a very small staff.

we had challenges creating an organization inside a democratic party where the expected nominee d a lot of control, a lot of leeway, that was then. reporter: will you be keeping your staff on payroll? senator webb: we'll get to that later. i am. we do have very dedicated staff some of them on payroll and some of them volunteers. you er: i'm wondering if could see yourself endorsing any candidate in the primary or launching a superpac and getting involved besides running an independent bid. senator webb: i don't see myself endorsing anyone at this point. i don't see that in the future. we want to go out and talk to

people and see what -- a lot of people have made suggestions and recommendations and we'll talk in more concrete terms this time around and. i have not been a a fan of superpac's. and i have been approached about them. if you read the citizens' united case, which i have read, it says anyone has the first amendment right to create a superpa crmp and no candidate can stop them. at the same time candidates are not going to be directly cooperating with them. and there is a violation in the decision even as it is written. reporter: democrats in iowa and new hampshire said they haven't seen you. what sort of campaign are you mounting when they say you haven't showed up. and if you run as an

independent, will you actively campaign? senator webb: we made visits and didn't make as many visits as we could have. financial resources to do it or if i made different decisions about traction in any way. what we are looking at now is the reality that i mentioned in my opening statement that there are differences in positions. and i'm not running in the democratic party. reporter: how do you explain, a nondemocrat, a socialist is doing well, if this hierarchy -- senator webb: bernie sanders is a friend of mine and i like him a lot. e is a healthy venting apparatus for people who are worried in the country. but i said to him on stage, i said your revolution isn't going to happen and not going to pay

for it. what i have done during my time in government is actually get things done, actually get programs passed, legislation pass, raise the level of public discussion on things like criminal justice reform. so i'm not -- i'm glad bernie's out there with the voice he has. but the programs i'm he's talking about, they aren't going to happen. reporter: in terms of the financial support that you have talked about, you said you have heard from people. are you speaking about -- on social media, you have been referencing a lot of people that would cross the aisle who are big fans of yours. are you talking about voters or small-time donors or people who are republicans or democrats who are involved in bundling for you nd being large-scale donors? senator webb: i think both. and let me clarify something. and that is political comment

eors view elections -- commentators view thing as an auction. view campaigns purely by how much money was raised. i don't think that is always true. when i ran for the senate, i was outspent in the primary 10-1 and general election 3-1. governor bush has 4%. if you can go out and connect with the right people who will support candidacy, uzbekistan your money wisely, you can still have a chance. eporter: i think so far you've talked about how your not interested in the extremist rhetoric on both sides and i think you have detailed how

different from democrats your but what policy and what ways on different policies are you different from republicans running in the field? guns, you are closer to republicans. are their specific policies that you don't align in the republican field. senator webb: you saw someone from organized labor stand up and thank me for my support in organized labor. it's from my heart and it's not transactional. i felt that way before i even thought i would run for the senate. i began a friendship with trump in 1989 when there was a coal strike, piston strike, met with him and talked to him about how the organized labor people could get a better result. the biggest difference i would

have is in the area of how the financial sector has so dominated politics. actually in both parties, but it's a very strong issue in the republican party. 46% is isn't -- as i said, of americans, i don't have a clear exact in either political party. i care about the country and care about the future of this country and put my issues on the table without regard i'm being transactional to one party or the other. reporter: are you different on social issues like abortion, et cetera? senator webb: i have my own feelings about those and -- the whole country is evolving on ose issues right now but i'm supportive of roe v. wade. i have been a supporter on those.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a look at some of the poll numbers after last week's presidential debate. the poll conducted by abc news showing hillary clinton up 12 points. >> the front runner of the democratic party will be testifying on friday. she will be appearing on the house select committee on benghazi. we'll have live coverage on c-span 3, thursday starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. rizona senator john mccain and

representative thornberry say it has overwhelming bipartisan support in congress. made those comments during a discussion at the brookings institution on defense programs. hey spoke for about an hour. host: good morning. thank you for joining us. i see we have a standing-room only. i'm a new yorker, so i'm impressed that everybody is at any meeting before 9:30. i'm bruce jones i'm the director of foreign policy at brookings and delighted to welcome you today and our very distinguished guests. we are very honored to be joined

today by senator mccain and congressman thornberry chairman of the house armed services committee to discuss the defense authorization act. it is vital to the national conversation. moderating our discussion will here at director brookings and well known expert on the defense budget. senator mccain is known for his service to the nation both in the u.s. navy and representing the people of arizona and u.s. congress and one of the key voices to strengthen our armed forces to eliminate wasteful government spending. congressman thornberry has served on the house permanent select committee on intelligence, the budget committee, and is widely known as an innovator and the two of them have been working together

to put together the national defense authorization act. n a moment, i'll turn to mike. let me make two contexts. we are entering a moment of geo political challenges in asian europe as well as confronting the role and collapse of the order in middle east with huge implications. -- the second is despite united states is the most important world actor on the world change. that is the context in which we have to have the debate and discussion about our defense appropriations act and the tools we need for america's national security. mike, with that, over to you. mr. mica:

mike: in addition to funding the pentagon at the $612 billion which is the level the president had requested last winter and takes important steps forward on acquisition reform and authorizing syria, ukraine, deal with the military pension question where so far in our history, the military has given a generous pension to 20 years service but nothing for those who did 19 years or less. many other important bipartisan achievements. we are at a juncture where

high-budget politics are interfering with this bill and the president has threatened to veto it and will have 10 days excepting sundays to make his decision about whether to veto or not. if he does, we will lose all the -- potentially lose all of the reforms in addition to the $612 billion authorization. the senator and congressman have point d out that the president could support this bill and then veto an appropriations bill if he wishes, later on. what is going on, the congress has tried to fully fund defense but the budget control act continues to present the funding levels the president would advocate for nondefense. at this juncture, how do you reconcile these competing concerns. we'll get to those questions

when the chairman wishes. but i thought we'd begin by talking about some of the specifics that are in the bill that are so important. and regardless of one's position on whether the president should veto or not, most would agree that the reforms and initiatives in this legislation are very, very helpful to our national defense and would be wonderful to find a way to institute them in law. that is the subjects with which i wanted to begin, senator mccain, again by asking you to address the military pension reforms and anything else you wish to touch on and work on acquisition and some of the hot spots in a minute as well before getting to the big questions. thank you for being here and ask you about military pension reform. senator mccain: as i always say when i return here and i'm happy to and nice to see old friends and enemies. thank you for inviting me back

and could i also say it's been a real honor for me to have worked with chairman thornberry, a very dedicated and hardworking chairman who also is committed to many of the reforms that we were able to turn out together, particularly the issue of acquisition reform. there are many reforms, but acquisition reform, mac has been engaged in that for many years and that doesn't mean we agree on everything. we have had spirited discussions on occasion but i'm proud of the product that we and the members of our committees overwhelmingly bipartisan have approved. and our committee was 14-4 and similar in the house. is a s not -- our product bipartisan product.

if there was objection to it it was by members who were concerned or objected to this oco process that we could talk about later on. but the product was overwhelmingly bipartisan which is maybe unusual in congress these days, but i think it shows the commitment of members on both sides of the aisle to the men and women who are serving in a bipartisan approach to defense. friends, today, 85% of the men and women who serve in the military, when they leave the military, don't have any financial benefit. they certainly have veterans' benefits and g.i. bill but as far as pure financial, 85%. 85% don't serve 20 years. with the benefit of a very

excellent commission, that was composed of some pretty outstanding people, we adopted largely their recommendation, which now allows someone after two years and one month to contribute in a 401 k and the matching funds are required. this way some 85% of those who serve will receive a financial benefit from their service even if it's only a minimum of two years. and if i could expand one second on that, there are other reforms that are going to have to be made in the entitlements in the military. secretary gates said a few years ago said we are going to be eaten alive by the ser son ell costs. but we are going to have to make

some very tough decisions on that aspect, the entitlement aspect of the military over time and it's not going to be easy. mike: compromised on that with the military pay increase. it's modest. and also some of the tricare issues. congressman, thanks for being here and if you would like to comment on personnel and acquisition reforms. mr. thornberry: thank you for having us and i very much enjoy and appreciate the opportunity to work with chairman mccain who .as a unique place in history and just in a preliminary way, i want to emphasize what he just said and that is, when you look at the merits of the bill, it truly is a bipartisan product.

our bill came out of the committee 60-2 and there was one of each who were part of the two. from the very conception it has been republicans and democrats working together in committee, on the floor and in conference that has produced this product. only this overlay which i believe is essentially politics that is causing us to be here to have any sort of controversy. and i think we have -- because a defense authorization bill has been signed into law every year for 53 straight years, we may take for granted all the individual provisions. chairman mccain was talking about the retirement reform. let me mention one other provision in the personnel section and that is a requirement that d.o.d. and the v.a. have the same formula for treating people for ptsd, sleep

disorder and pain management. if you could do one thing, make sure the drug they get on when they are in the military they can stay on when they move to the v.a. system. the systems have not been able to do that. we require to do that. and my point is, there are 600 something provisions in this bill that do important things that the system is not able to do on its own and so that's part of the reason we have a separate branch of government to pass a defense authorization bill. among the reforms, as chairman mccain mentioned, is a beginning of acquisition reform and my shorthand version of it, if it takes us years to continue a new airplane and then out of date by the time it gets there. we have got to be better at

being bretter in responding to threats and getting more value for the taxpayer dollars. we have a number of reforms, fundamental reforms thinning out some of the regulations, requiring more the work be done upfront and not event as you go. but it's only a beginning and we are committed on a bipartisan basis to doing much more work in the future. it doesn't happen if the bill doesn't become law. senator mccain: there are moments in people's experiences and i mentioned this to you earlier, mike, two years ago, we had a hearing with the navy, chief of naval operations, and i asked if the chief of naval operations knew who was responsible for $2.4 billion st overrun on the uss gerald

ford. i said who is responsible? he said i don't know. my friends, we now have a multibillion-dollar cost overrun and no one knows who is responsible. one of the major features of this legislation is that the service chiefs have to sign off when there is a cost overrun, and they have to sign off and they are responsible. and guess what? the service chiefs want that responsibility. they crave that responsibility because they want a better army, navy, air force and marine corps as well. as mac mentioned, we have a long, long way to go. both mac have been out to silicon valley and i'm sorry to

tell you right now there's not a lot of interest in silicon valley being engaged in acquisition with the military and with the pentagon because they don't see any benefit in getting involved in defense acquisition. and that has got to be another one of our priorities and we are making the first step to make it so we can engage silicon valley because we know the nature of warfare when we read in the paper this morning that the director of the c.i.a. has had his server hacked. my friends, we are in an interesting high-tech cybersituation. mike: if i could follow up on acquisition policy with some of you are here to talk about vetoes and top-level budget

issues. but they have been working on this for so long with such commitment this is worth bearing down for a moment or two. could i ask you to talk about where we stand in the history of defense acquisition reform. if we go back to senator mccain, when you were a navy pilot, the services did run the acquisition world and before gold water -- senator mccain: it was during the coolidge administration. mike: we thought at that juncture, we concluded that we had given them too much leeway to make their own decisions and -- perhaps they were putting too much high technology into weapons because there was the fighter jock and the carrier and so forth that put a premium on high performance and costs weren't sufficiently considered or timeliness in some of the

acquisition programs. so we tried to centralize. and here we are today -- are you essentially saying we have overdone it and need to go back to the old days or is the current model that you are proposing in this legislation essentially a new approach that gives the services more authority, but in a different way than in the old days? senator mccain: 30 years ago water-nichols was acted. it was a great success we will all admit. but times have changed. the challenges have changed and a lot of things are changing. we are committed to starting as soon as we get through this hurdle, starting hearings to review that so we can make the changes that are necessary. it's not as difficult as one at first things and let me give you

one examining. when with -- when we saw that the i.e.d.'s, many of them imported from iran, many of them sent by mr. suleimani seems to be in charge of conflicts at least in three countries, sent in these copper-tipped i.e.d.'s and went through armor. the humvees were taken out and our casualties were high. the m-wrap was in being and got them over to iraq and i don't know how many lives that it saved. we used an accelerated process. if we had the route that mac just referred to of the f-35, god knows what would have happened. there is a model out there at

least in some areas already in being that we could look at. that m-wrap was developed technology. it wasn't something brand new, but we were able to get it to the battlefield in a matter of weeks or months -- but in a very rapid process and i don't know how many lives that it saved because the i.e.d.'s couldn't penetration m-wrap. that is an example what we can do if we get the right process in the pentagon. mr. thornberry: i don't think anybody says turn back the clock and that was perfect by any stretch. but it is true that pendulum swing and we have swung in the direction where there are more layers of bureaucracy which results in no accountability for the decisions because everybody does this. and plus, it is incredibly slow.

part of our just overall theme is simplify so that somebody makes the decision and you can hold them accountable for the decision. and also to speed up the innovation so that we can get capability, so that the m-wrap is not the exception, so that that is more the norm. let's say there is a fundamental change and that is the number of complex national security threats that we face all at the same time. dr. kissinger testified in front of senator mccain, is unique in history. and we have to respond in a more agile way. you cannot respond with this layered bureaucracy that has developed. i will also admit, we are part of the problem. part of what happens is, there is a cost overrun in the past and what do we do? we set a new bureaucracy or

procedure to make sure it never happens again. well, we can't do that and we can talk more about that if you want to, simplify and accountability and not all the checks and balances that parls the system. system. - paralyze the too many programs we're inventing as we are buying and that is a source of the cost overruns and the delays. one of the things that we want yourve more toward is have technology development over here but you buy established technology so you are not inventing on the fly and we end up with better results. mike: speaking of global hot spots, one of the things in the bill that would allow the president to do different things

in syria and ukraine. and i want to ask about the hypothetical, were the president to veto this bill, can we imagine a path forward or propose a possible road map recognizing that a lot of other people will have a say in that as well. seems like it's a fairly imminent debate. back to the bill itself and the hot spots. you have important language on syria and ukraine, iraq, i wonder if you want to begin and the other follow up on those questions. mr. thornberry: we try to give the president more tools. we have authority to provide defensively for assistance to ukraine. and there is a huge amount of bipartisan consensus in the house and senate that that should be done. in iraq, we see if the secretary cannot -- if the iraqi government is inclusive, then

they are authorized to give weapons directly to the kurds, to the sunni tribes and other groups so that everything doesn't have to go through baghdad. now, we can't make the president make any of those specific options but we are trying to give him more tools. senator mccain: and we are expressing the sense of congress, bipartisan on both of those issues. i hope that we remain very careful that the constitution says the president is the commander in chief. to say he has to give those weapons, that, in my view, is not in our area of responsibility. but we not only give him the authority, but overwhelming, that is the policy we want him to pursue. friends, i have been to ukraine on many occasions and when these

people are crying for a jaff lynn because russian tanks are in eastern ukraine. we won't give them that or intelligence, it's heartbreaking. i used to get rangry but now heart broken with so many killed. they are fighting bravely with 20th century weapons against 21st century weapons. sfards the kurds and baghdad is concerned, it's obviously a vacuum that's been created but a sharing now ce between iraq, russia, syria, and iran, that's an interesting scenario. one that, frankly, i never would have anticipated a fairly short time ago. now there's talk about, and i hope it's only talk