Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Garcia).

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for this en bloc package. I urge its support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, somehow, somewhere, common sense has to play a role here. We have a negotiated agreement with the Taliban. Part of that agreement involves the reduction and ultimate withdrawal of U.S. troops. In return, the Taliban has promised to play a more constructive role in the country. This amendment says we are leaving anyway, no matter what the Taliban does. It wraps up their fondest wish, puts a bow on it, and just hands it to them, betraying the brave men and women of Afghanistan who have worked and sacrificed to build a better country and worked side by side with us to prevent another terrorist attack against us. That seems to make no sense. Why would we do such a thing? As all the speakers have said, we all want to ultimately leave Afghanistan. We should do so in a way that is fair to our allies, fair to the people of Afghanistan, and protects American national security. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, near as I can tell, this is an amendment in response to a mistaken press story. We depend on nuclear deterrent as the cornerstone of our defense efforts. The nuclear weapons are aging machines. We don't understand everything that happens as they age. We have fewer of them and fewer kinds of them so that if there is a problem, it is a bigger deal. So, what we have decided to do is to be ready to test in case we need to. That is what the $10 million in the Senate is. It is test readiness, like the diagnostic machines, the machines that dig holes in the ground to do these underground tests. We need to be ready. The harder we make it to test, the more obstacles we put in the way of a test if needed--only if needed. But the harder we make it, the less credible our nuclear deterrent is. The less credible our nuclear deterrent is, the more our adversaries will try to take advantage of us and the more our allies will decide to develop their own nuclear weapons because they can't depend on us. Mr. Speaker, these things are important. They have big consequences. We should not make decisions like this based on a mistaken press story. Mr. Speaker, I urge that the amendment be rejected, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, yesterday, we lost a former colleague, a patriot, and a true American hero. Calling the gentleman from Texas, Sam Johnson, a hero is not some sort of inflated rhetoric or hyperbole; it is the best description I know of Sam Johnson and his life. Born in San Antonio, raised in Dallas, a graduate of SMU, Sam then served 29 years in the United States Air Force. He was a fighter pilot, and some of those fighter pilot traits came through in everything he did, from how fast he drove across the highways of Texas to the way he approached legislation. Sam was a veteran of the Korean conflict and, of course, the Vietnam war. On his 25th combat mission in Vietnam, he was shot down, severely injured, and spent the next 7 years as a prisoner of war in the prison known as the Hanoi Hilton. Many Members have read his book ``Captive Warriors,'' which describes the hellish conditions and the courage and fortitude of Sam and his fellow prisoners as they fought to survive. After serving in the Texas State House, Sam was elected to Congress in 1990 and served until January 2019, including, for a time, as acting chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He now goes to join his wonderful wife, Shirley, and his son, Bob. Madam Speaker, I know of no one in the House who was more universally admired across the Chamber than Sam Johnson. Sam sacrificed much in service of our Nation, but always with courage and good humor and a deep, deep love of country. He inspired those of us who worked with him, and his memory will continue to be an inspiration to follow his example of service, sacrifice, and love of country. Madam Speaker, I ask that the House observe a moment of silence in memory and in honor of this great American.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, those of us on the Armed Services Committee are privileged to work around, with, and for the men and women who serve in the military. Every one of them is a volunteer. Every one of them expects reasonable precautions with their health and safety and well-being. But every one of them knows that in carrying out their duties, there is some risk that goes with it, and they carry out their duties admirably. What a contrast to what we are seeing with this resolution. I think one of the proudest times I have had in this House over the last 25 years has been on 9/11 and the days thereafter. That very evening, Members gathered on the steps of the Capitol, and in the days thereafter we went right back to work and passed the legislation that was needed to deal with the terrorist threat. We were not even intimidated when many of our offices were attacked by anthrax in the days thereafter. It was not just about showing resolution to the terrorists; it was about showing the country that we can come together and get our work done. What a contrast to what we are seeing with this resolution. Through the Civil War, 1918 flu, World War II, 9/11, throughout our history, there has never been proxy voting on this floor. Members accepted the risk and carried out their duties to the best of their ability. It was not about technology; it was about trust and integrity. Were our predecessors so much braver than we are? Were they more ignorant about the risk or more careless with their own safety? Was their sense of their responsibility to the American people greater than ours? None of this makes sense. But what makes the least sense of all, Mr. Speaker, is that any Member of either party would support a resolution that allows any of us to vacate, even temporarily, the trust placed in us by voters and undermine the very foundation of this representative democracy. Our history is better than that. The voters deserve better than that. To me, Mr. Speaker, it is sad, rather despicable, and one of the darkest days in this institution.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, here is a summary of the situation. On an issue of serious interest and concern to Members on both sides of the aisle, the current House leadership has brought to the floor the most extreme proposals, with limited debate, and absolutely no opportunity for any other idea to be considered. They are so afraid of losing a motion to recommit that they have overturned 100 years of precedent and practice in this House by even denying a motion to recommit. And thus, they have taken a serious, complex subject and turned it into a messaging bill that will do nothing except encourage our adversaries. I would suggest it is a sad day for the House and for the country. Now, specifically on this amendment, if this amendment were seriously implemented--and by the way, I think no administration of either party would seriously implement this language--but if it were, it is far more restrictive than the War Powers Act. It says Congress has to approve anything ahead of time, or we have to already wait for the attack to have occurred, and then the President to designate a national emergency. No other time could a President use force against Iran. So, for example, we could not have carried out the attack against Soleimani. Even if we had perfect intelligence that he was about to kill large numbers of Americans, we would have to wait until they died first. Anyone who says, oh, this doesn't restrict his ability; we can always defend ourselves, either you haven't read the language, or you really are trying not to understand the effect that the literal interpretation of this language would mean. We could not, under this language, enforce sanctions against Iran to try to keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. We could not work with our allies to try to keep international shipping open in the Persian Gulf. We could not engage in cyber operations, even to protect ourselves, until after the attack had already occurred. Attorneys at DOD believe that at least it would call into serious question our ability to defend Israel if it were attacked by Iran or its proxies. This language is extreme. It is irresponsible on subject, on substance, tying the President's hands from defending the country. Now, as I said, there are lots of people who are concerned about this issue, but I do not believe that they have understood or thought through the effects of this language. One other point. You cannot ignore what is happening in the world. Things are still a little tense between us and Iran, so why bring it up this week, with those tensions still fresh on everybody's mind? I believe the only effect will be to encourage Iran. So bringing this measure to the floor, in this way, at this time, is irresponsible for our Nation's security and for the integrity of the House.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to make in order the Cole-McCarthy amendment that would ensure the President can protect the United States and our ally, Israel.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, in 1998, I voted for three of the four counts of impeachment brought against President Clinton. Those votes were some of the most difficult I have cast during my 25 years in Congress. Impeachment is an extreme remedy, which, in effect, alters a decision made by the American people through an election. It was clear, however, that President Clinton had lied under oath in a judicial proceeding, a felony crime for which other Americans are routinely prosecuted and convicted. In my view, dismissing such a crime because the lies involved private rather than public actions or because the perjurer was the President of the United States would have undermined the rule of law and presented a danger to our constitutional system of government. Therefore, I voted for three of the counts. The count of impeachment that I voted against in 1998 involved ``abuse of power.'' It was essentially a repeat of the perjury recited in other counts and a failure to provide information to Congress. It was also one of two counts that failed to receive a majority of the votes on the Floor of the House. In contrast to 1998, the votes I make today are not difficult at all. After three years of investigating this President, House Democrats center their case for impeachment on one phone call between President Trump and the President of Ukraine, a transcript of which has been released. I believe that aspects of that phone call, particularly discussing an investigation of a political opponent, were inappropriate for a president. I recognize that ignoring potentially corrupt behavior because of political prominence could lead to another set of problems. Nonetheless, under the circumstances, I believe that it would have been best if the President had avoided such topics. Inappropriate does not mean impeachable. The Constitution sets a high standard for impeachable conduct: ``Treason, Bribery, other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' (Article II, Section 4) A potentially inappropriate conversation does not begin to approach that standard, as the counts brought before us today demonstrate. Count one alleges ``abuse of power,'' the same phrase rejected by the House in the Clinton impeachment. The allegations relate to the phone call, an investigation that was never conducted, and a temporary delay in military aid being released. In spite of a last-minute attempt in the Judiciary Committee's report to allege some form of bribery, the evidence and the law do not support the charge, and the Committee made no serious attempt to prove it. Instead, we are left with a nebulous, subjective phrase that can be used to cover any political or stylistic difference. Count two alleges ``obstruction of Congress.'' I find it remarkable that an impeachment process which, in contrast to those prior, has been totally partisan with no attempt at a jointly-decided bipartisan process, would attempt to impeach a president for resisting such partisanship. In addition, I believe that it is a mistake to essentially criminalize the inherent tensions between the legislative and executive branches of government. To describe these counts as ``weak'' overstates them. A partisan process, designed from the beginning to achieve a desired result, brings to the Floor two counts that do not begin to meet the constitutional standard for impeachment, even if all of the facts alleged are assumed true. It is a misuse--one might say ``abuse''--of the Constitution's impeachment power. One final concern: the partisan process used in this case degrades established boundaries of political competition that have helped this nation survive intense political differences for over two hundred years. As a result, I fear that partisan impeachment efforts may well become just another tool in the political arsenal, expected to be pursued by whichever party loses a presidential election. The damage done to our constitutional processes and to our institutions by this hyper-partisan, flawed process is greater than any alleged harm done by the President's phone call. I hope and trust that the American people in their wisdom will see that appropriate boundaries and constitutional balance are restored.