Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to all of the Members who came to speak on the conference report today. Yet, I have the feeling we have only begun to scratch the surface of all of the issues that are addressed in this bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a big bill. It is about 1,800 pages big. About 200 pages of that is the CFIUS reform, led by the Financial Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, but there is a lot that is in this bill. The distinguished ranking member just talked a bit about reform. This bill eliminates a number of requirements that Congress had put on the Department of Defense in previous years. It streamlines some decisionmaking. It begins to put in some sort of comprehensible order all of the laws related to acquisition. It requires that there be savings of overhead expenses of a number of DOD agencies that have not been addressed before. I could go on and on. There was a Secretary of Defense who wrote a book a few years ago, who complained about this bill, who said that it is too much that Congress is doing to tell us what to do. Yet, I would remind all of us, Mr. Speaker, that the Constitution puts that exact responsibility on our shoulders. It says that it is Congress' job to raise and support, provide and maintain, and make the rules and regulations for military forces of the United States. This is the bill by which we carry out that responsibility. It is our job to do it. And this bill is the product, as you have heard, of Members of both sides of the aisle throughout the process. There have been, approximately, 1,005 amendments that have been proposed at some point in this process: subcommittee, full committee, floor consideration, and then on to conference. About an equal number of them were Republicans and Democrats. We have come together, as we have for each of the past 57 years, to exercise our constitutional responsibilities on behalf of the men and women who risk their lives to protect us. I would certainly join with the ranking member and other Members, who have said: Now, in order to get the full benefit of this, we need to have an appropriations bill that matches, on time, before the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, over the course of this debate today, you have heard a lot of thanks. It is appropriate because, obviously, it takes a lot of work, by a lot of people, to put together an 1,800-page bill and try to think through the consequences of what it means for us, what it means for our servicemembers, and what it means for our allies around the world. It truly is a team effort, a bipartisan team effort. And I believe the reason that is so, the reason it has passed every year, and has been signed into law every year for the past 57 years, is because of the men and women, of whom we are so proud, who risk their lives to protect us and our freedom. They continue to be at the forefront of our thoughts. It is on their behalf, and for their benefit, that we bring this conference report, urge its adoption, and appreciate their service to the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time

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

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize Sarah Jennings on her retirement after more than 19 years of exceptional service to the Congress at the Congressional Budget Office. Sarah will be retiring at the end of August. After working as a civilian nuclear test engineer for the U.S. Navy, an economic consultant, and an instructor at George Mason University, she began her congressional career in CBO's Budget Analysis Division in 1999. She worked as a principal analyst and then as the unit chief for the Defense, International Affairs, and Veterans' Affairs Cost Estimates Unit. During her time at CBO, Sarah has been recognized as a knowledgeable and experienced manager. As the third longest tenured unit chief in the Budget Analysis Division, she has extensive knowledge of the program accounts in her unit and fosters an outstanding collegial environment where analysts respect each other and work well together. Sarah has established an exceptional working relationship with the Armed Services Committees, which allows CBO to work on the proposals for the annual National Defense Authorization Act in an effective manner. During her tenure, she has taken a strategic and methodical approach to the analysis of legislative proposals as she assists her analysts in considering the budgetary effects of different proposals. Her support has made an important contribution to the Armed Services Committees' success in achieving the timely enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act each year. She deserves a well-earned retirement. In short, with Sarah's retirement, the Congressional Budget Office will lose a great asset. Over the past 19 years, the Congressional Budget Office--and by extension, the Congress itself--has been fortunate to enjoy the dedication and insight that Sarah has brought to her work. I know my colleagues join me in extending our thanks and appreciation to Sarah for her service to our nation, and our very best wishes for a happy and productive retirement.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania yielding and the support of the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentlewoman from Nevada for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I introduced this legislation with a near unanimous request of the legal community and the broader leadership in the Texas Panhandle. Since 1980, the Federal building and courthouse in Amarillo, Texas, has been known as the J. Marvin Jones Federal Building. Judge Jones led a remarkable life. He served in this House from 1917 to 1940, including as chair of the Committee on Agriculture. He was then appointed to the court of claims, took a leave of absence to serve in the Roosevelt administration during World War II, and went back to the court of claims, where he was the chief judge there from 1947 until his retirement in 1964. As I said, it was a remarkable life, but there is another remarkable life that has made a lasting impact on the cause of justice in the Northern District of Texas, and it has also been an inspirational life. Judge Mary Lou Robinson has served as a judge, as Members have heard, for more than 60 years, more than 35 years of which has been as a Federal district judge in the Northern District of Texas. She is a pioneer: She attended and graduated law school at the University of Texas at a time when very few women applied or were admitted to the law school at all. When she went into private practice in Amarillo, she was one of two female attorneys practicing there. In 1955, Judge Robinson became the first woman in Amarillo history to serve as a judge higher than the justice of the peace level and was the first Potter County court at law judge. Up until that time in Texas, women could not serve on juries. She was elected State district court judge in 1960. As you have heard, in 1973, she became an associate justice of the Seventh State Court of Appeals, making her the first female appellate judge in the entire State of Texas. She later became the chief justice of that court. In 1979, Judge Robinson was nominated and confirmed to the Federal bench, again being only the second woman to serve as a U.S. district judge in Texas. Then, day in and day out, for nearly 40 years, Judge Robinson presided over Federal and criminal cases with fairness and with high expectations fitting the American legal system. She took senior judge status in 2016. As Members have heard, she has been honored repeatedly, such as the Sandra Day O'Connor Award for Professional Excellence from the Texas Center for Legal Ethics and the Texas Lawyer magazine's one of 100 Legal Legends in the State. But I will say, Mr. Speaker, that Judge Mary Lou Robinson's influence extends even further than the trailblazing and remarkable longevity that her legal career would indicate. Throughout it all, Judge Robinson has upheld the highest standards of legal ethics and professionalism, being a role model not only for those in the legal system, but for men and women throughout the region. She is fair, but she is tough. And here I can speak from a bit of personal experience that no lawyer wanted to go unprepared into her courtroom. With her razor-sharp intellect and knowledge of the law, she was always well prepared and probably knew more about the law of the case than the lawyers arguing it. No one ever doubted that all sides of the case would get a fair hearing. At the same time, those who know her off the bench know her to have a great sense of humor, compassion, and a warm human touch. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5772 would add Judge Mary Lou Robinson's name to the Federal building and courthouse in Amarillo, Texas, so that it would be known as the J. Marvin Jones Federal Building and Mary Lou Robinson United States Courthouse. Marvin Jones served in all three branches of our Federal Government. Judge Robinson has served in the judicial branch of the State and Federal Government for more than 60 years. This designation honors each of them in a way that is fitting to each of them. Adding Judge Robinson's name to that of Marvin Jones will not only honor the careers of two remarkable individuals, it will help inspire all of us to reach toward their high standards of integrity, professionalism, and service to our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5515) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has just laid out a number of arguments in support of a Senate provision. There are obviously Members who may think differently on his arguments, although I do not believe this is the time or the place to have that debate. That will be discussed in the course of the upcoming conference with the Senate. At this point, I would just like to offer two thoughts. One is the provision that the gentleman talks about requires that there be a mandatory spending offset. Now, when you look for how that spending can be offset, really, the Armed Services Committee only has two ways: one is to increase TRICARE copays, pharmacy copays, and the second one is to reduce retirement benefits. So I notice that the gentleman's motion to instruct does not deal with that part of the equation. My thought is that it is far better to look at the whole universe of issues in the course of a conference rather than to try to dictate one outcome or another that doesn't include how you pay for something. Second point, Mr. Speaker, there are 907 House provisions and 603 Senate provisions that will be the subject of this conference. They will all have to be hashed out in one way or another, but the conferees should have the flexibility to deal with all of those 907 and 603 provisions in a way that makes the most sense for national security. So my suggestion is that the House reject this particular motion and allow the conferees to do their work in looking at the whole universe of what is best for the men and women who serve and what is best for the country's national security. Mr. Speaker, I would inform the gentleman that I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say that there are a number of provisions which Members on one side or the other consider inequitable, and a big part of the challenge we face is, okay, to enact a particular provision, you have to pay for it. So my point is we need to look at the whole universe not only of what we would like to have done, but also of how it would be paid for. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 12 of rule XXII, I move that meetings of the conference between the House and Senate on H.R. 5515 may be closed to the public at such times as classified national security information may be discussed, provided that any sitting Member of Congress shall be entitled to attend any meeting of the conference.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, first, let me commend the manager of the bill, Mr. Marino, and the author of the legislation, Mr. Katko. Synthetic drugs are a plague on this country, and part of the reason is that our laws have not kept up with the evolving threat. Mr. Katko's legislation helps the law catch up somewhat, and that is important for the safety of our people. My amendment deals with a related area where the law has not caught up. Many of the purveyors of these poisons will seek to evade responsibility by printing on the label ``not intended for human consumption.'' The reason they do that is 21 U.S.C. 813 says: ``A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for the purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule I.'' Now, the loophole there is, ``to the extent intended for human consumption.'' So what these people do is they just print the label, ``not intended for human consumption,'' and that makes it more difficult to arrest and prosecute and to keep these drugs off of the street. My amendment simply replaces part of that sentence with six factors, which should be considered, to see whether it is really intended for human consumption, whether it is really a situation where people know full well that kids are buying this stuff, that they are smoking it, or that they are otherwise ingesting it and dying as a result. As I said, this is consistent with the idea that we need to have our laws catch up with what the purveyors of these poisons are doing, and this is another attempt to add to the very valuable work that Mr. Katko has begun. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the amendment that affects sentencing in any way. The amendment simply seeks to remove a get-out- of-jail-free card that these purveyors of poison have been using to try to evade responsibility. There is nothing that says, if you meet any one of these factors, you are automatically going to jail. What it says is you have to look deeper into these six factors to determine whether or not it really was intended for human consumption, that just putting a label that says ``I didn't intend anybody to smoke this stuff'' is not enough to evade liability. And I would note, Mr. Chairman, that the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the Fraternal Order of Police have all supported this provision. And as the gentleman from Pennsylvania noted, a similar provision sponsored by Senator Klobuchar was passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee recently. Mr. Chairman, this arises because a few years ago, a constituent of mine named Jesse in Amarillo, Texas, told his mother that it was no big deal; he was smoking synthetic marijuana. Well, it turns out it was this potpourri stuff that had been sprayed with toxic chemicals. Unfortunately, Jesse died. And as the police went to the place where he would buy this stuff, it had prominently on the label, ``Not intended for human consumption.'' It greatly hindered their ability to get that stuff off the street. Mr. Chair, this amendment fixes that. I urge Members to support it. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, we voted on a similar amendment on this topic a week before last in the National Defense Authorization Act. It was defeated then, and it should be defeated now. Mr. Chairman, I think there must be some misunderstanding. We are not talking about a new weapons system. What we are talking about is taking an existing weapon and taking some of the fissile material out so that it results in a lower yield. As the chairman from Idaho pointed out, we have similar low-yield weapons that are air-delivered. The only difference here is a different delivery system through the submarines. Now, by the way, submarines already have the higher yield delivery system. We are multiplying, though, with a low yield two different delivery systems to complicate adversaries' calculations. Now, why would we want to do that? Well, it turns out the Russians have hundreds and hundreds of these lower yield weapons. And not only that, they write and speak openly about using them, even in conventional sorts of conflict. So the point of the Nuclear Posture Review is we need the full range of nuclear capability, from higher yield to lower yield, to make it clear that our nuclear deterrent is credible at every level. Whatever they may think they can get away with they cannot get away with. As Secretary Mattis has written to Leader McConnell on June 3, 2018, this ``warhead is meant to reinforce the credibility of our response, which strengthens deterrence by denying potential adversaries the advantages they appear to believe they could realize from nuclear first use.'' It seems to me that that should be the thing that all of us come together on in national security. It is having a credible nuclear deterrent to ensure that no adversary--Russia, North Korea, no one-- believes that they can get away with using these weapons. That is the reason this is so important.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5515.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 908, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I don't have any more speakers.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 908, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I currently have no speakers on this en bloc package, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 908, I offer amendments en bloc.