Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks), a valuable member of our committee who continues to serve our Nation in the Reserves.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to make two points. Number one, President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009. The first national security strategy he submitted was in May of 2010, a year-and-a-half later. So I don't think it is completely unreasonable that we haven't yet gotten the national security strategy from the new administration. Secondly, the pay raise for the troops is based on the statutory formula which is related to the cost of living. That is where it comes from. And it seems to me to say, no, you don't really get what the formula says you deserve, is not appropriate. Now, the administration did not request it, and the criticism from some is that we should not provide it. I think if the formula is wrong, we should change it, but if the formula says that is how much the cost of living has gone up, we should provide it. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), the chair of the Subcommittee on Personnel.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) who is the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik) who is the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chair of our Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to bring before the House H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. It was reported favorably by the House Armed Services Committee at 11:59 p.m. on June 28, 2017, by a vote of 60-1. Now, that vote is an indication of the bipartisan support that exists to support our troops and to fulfill our obligations placed on us by the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, I think it is always helpful for us to remind ourselves of the authority by which we undertake our responsibilities. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress has the power and the responsibility ``to raise and support Armies. . . . To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of land and naval Forces,'' and, of course, ``To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.'' The members of our committee and our staff take those responsibilities very seriously. This year, we seek to carry them out in a world which is as dangerous and complex as any of us have ever seen. One example from the news of the day is the alarming progress North Korea is making towards having an intercontinental ballistic missile that can carry nuclear weapons to our homeland. Now, we have, of course, a number of tools to use, including diplomacy and sanctions, but there is no substitute for military power, and I believe we must develop and deploy more of it to be ready to deal with these growing threats. So the bill before us today substantially increases money for missile defense so we are more capable of protecting our homeland against those ballistic missiles. It also increases funding for key munitions and for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance so we can have better visibility on what adversary is doing. It increases the end strength for the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, just as they requested. And it funds more joint exercises with key allies in the Pacific. It boosts our shipbuilding budget to get more ships into the water faster, and also cheaper. So, just as an example, Mr. Chairman, each of those items is important for dealing with this growing threat coming from North Korea, and we could sit here and go through a similar sort of discussion when it comes to Iran, or the provocative actions of Russia and China, or the terrorist organizations of various shades. Of course, we cannot guarantee that the capabilities that we will vote on in this bill will be available by the time the crisis comes for, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we are still dealing with defense budgets that were cut by more than 20 percent at a time when the threats around the world were growing. So we can't guarantee that these capabilities will be available when we need them. But what we can guarantee is, if we don't fund these things now, they will not be available when we need them, so that is the priority given to this bill. Mr. Chairman, exactly 1 month ago, on June 12, Secretary Mattis and Chairman Dunford testified before our committee. And I would like to read just one paragraph of the Secretary's testimony where he was comparing what the military was like when he left it and when he came back as Secretary. Secretary Mattis testified: ``Four years later, I returned to the Department and I have been shocked by what I have seen with our readiness to fight. For all the heartache caused by the loss of our troops during these wars, no enemy in the field has done more harm to the readiness of our military than sequestration. We have sustained our ability to meet America's commitments abroad because our troops have stoically shouldered a much greater burden.'' Four years later, shocked, more harm by sequestration than the enemies in the field, and it is only because our folks are so incredible that they have born an increasing burden. That is what the Secretary testified. Mr. Chairman, we have, indisputably, the finest military in the world, but it is also indisputable that it has been severely damaged by continuing resolutions, by sequestration, and by failure of the executive and legislative branches to adequately support the men and women out there on the front lines. We have an urgent need to begin to repair and rebuild our military. And I also believe, Mr. Chairman, it is fundamentally wrong to send men and women out on dangerous missions without providing them the best equipment, in the best shape, with the best training that our country can possibly provide. This bill, if followed by matching appropriation, takes a significant step toward meeting that objective, to support those troops. It also makes major reforms in the way the Pentagon does business. Among other reforms, it enables the military to buy commercial products through online sites such as Amazon, Staples, and Grainger. We require life cycle maintenance costs to be considered at the beginning of a program, as must intellectual property rights, to maximize competition in the maintenance and repairs. Oversight into service contracts has increased, and there is much more, of course, in the bill. Mr. Chairman, this bill is the vehicle by which we usually, for 55 years, at least, fulfill our responsibilities under the Constitution that I mentioned, to provide for the common defense. I believe that is the first job of the Federal Government. I want to just express my appreciation to each of the members of our committee. Each of them has contributed to the product before us. Each of them takes their responsibilities under the Constitution very seriously; no one more so than the Ranking Member, Mr. Smith of Washington. We don't always agree on the judgment calls about issues, but I have no doubt that he and all the members of the committee try to do what is right for the country and put the interests of our troops first. That is exactly the attitude that we must follow, I think, on the floor over the next 3 days as we go through the amendments which we will consider. I also want to express appreciation to the committee and personal staff who have worked on this bill. It has been a challenging year for a variety of reasons, but, as I started, I will finish. I am proud of this product. I hope it will gain the support of the entire House. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon) who is a valued member of the committee and a retired Air Force General.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Knight) who is another very valuable member of our committee.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 431, I offer a fourth package of amendments en bloc.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to address the topics that the gentleman from Washington addressed. First off, I completely agree with him. This bill that we are considering today, tomorrow, and the next day is about 1,000 pages. I don't agree with it all. It has everything from missile defense to helping spouses pay licenses when they are forced to move from State to State, and I suspect I will not agree with it all at the end of the day. What is important, though, is the overriding obligation we have to support the men and women who risk their lives to protect us. So, I think the gentleman is exactly right. Just because you vote for the bill does not mean you endorse everything in it. And at the same time, even if you disagree with some of the things in it, it is important to support the men and women who serve by voting for the bill, even if you have disagreements. I completely concur with the gentleman on that. When it comes to the nuclear issue, there are a few points I want to make that maybe were not made during the previous debates. Number one is we have drastically fewer nuclear weapons now than we had during the Cold War. I think a lot of people do not realize how significantly fewer weapons and delivery systems we have now than we had all during the fifties, sixties, seventies, and into the eighties. But these are still machines. They do not live forever. Whether you are talking about the weapon itself or the delivery systems, they age; and, as they age, there are chemical reactions, parts wear out, and things change. So they have to be modernized if our deterrent is to remain credible. Now, you can get into an argument about, okay, how many weapons does it take to be credible and what delivery systems are required to penetrate defenses, to hold enough targets at risk, to have that credible defense, but what I think there can be little debate about is that the world is growing more dangerous in the nuclear field. We have seen what happened with North Korea. There is enormous concern about what happens in the Middle East and elsewhere. I believe that our nuclear deterrent is the foundation upon which the rest of our defense efforts are built, and that foundation must remain credible. It has to be rebuilt. My understanding is the estimates are at no point will rebuilding that entire nuclear deterrent require more than 7 percent of any year's defense budget, 7 percent for the foundation and 93 percent for the House that is built on it. It is essential that we maintain that credible deterrent, and it has got to be big enough to be credible so that a country like China does not think they can build a few more weapons and get to parity with the United States. On the subject of BRAC, I do disagree with the gentleman from Washington on this point. Two years ago, I specifically asked that we have included in the bill that was signed into law a requirement that the Pentagon provide us with an updated cost estimate on excess infrastructure. What we have all been citing is a 2004 estimate that there is about 20 percent excess infrastructure. Twenty-two percent is the number that is often used. What we got back was seven pages of nothing. By the way, that was not prohibited by the bill. It was required by the bill. What I am interested in is a real updated, data-driven study that shows whether we have excess infrastructure and of what sort. And I think that is exactly what Secretary Mattis said. Let me quote his exact sentence: I am not comfortable right now that we have a full 20-some percent excess infrastructure. I need to go back through and look at this again because I don't want to get rid of something that we can't sustain and then say we have got to go buy some land here in 10 years. I think that is what we need is an updated study. And if it shows that we have got excess infrastructure, I am not at all opposed to having another round of BRAC. I am very opposed to having another round like 2005, which, I believe, it is either CBO or GAO, I can't remember which, says has not yet broken even 12 years later. It still costs more money than it has, and it has not started to save yet. So I don't want a repeat of that. I am interested if it shows that we do have excess infrastructure and a way to deal with that. Secretary Mattis, I believe, shares that view, but until we see the data, I am not supportive of another round.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 76 printed in part B of House Report 115-212 be modified by the form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I support en bloc package No. 4, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time, and I simply urge adoption of this package of en bloc amendments. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the en bloc amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 2810, pursuant to House Resolution 431, amendment No. 88 printed in part B of House Report 115-212 may be considered out of sequence.