Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, this en bloc package consists of 11 amendments. Generally, they are on the issues related to our strategic deterrence: our nuclear weapons, our ICBMs, missile defense against those sorts of weapons from other countries; in other words, they touch on very important issues that are central to our country's security. They have been sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats, and I hope Members of this House will support this en bloc package. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers at this point, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me start with where the gentleman from Washington left off, that this is one step in the process. That is kind of what I have been saying all along. Earlier the gentleman said he is opposed to this bill because it locks in this OCO approach. No, it doesn't lock anything in. If there is a better way to deal with our budget issues in the appropriation bills, then there is lots of time this year to do that. But the question here for the House is: Will we vote against a defense authorization bill--not an appropriation bill--but a defense authorization bill and prevent it from moving a step ahead? As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I hope all Members had a chance to read the editorial in this morning's Washington Post. Let me just read the last sentence of it: ``Far better for him''--by which it means the President--``and his party's leadership in Congress to help an adequate defense budget keep moving through Congress rather than perpetuate a fight all Americans, whether Republican or Democrat, may later regret.'' That is what we are asking here today: keep this adequate defense budget moving by voting for it. Now, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't solve all the problems. The gentleman is exactly right. There are all sorts of appropriation bills and other things to come in this process. But to try to use this important bill and the authorities it gives as political leverage to somehow make that happen, I think, is not fair to the men and women who serve or to our country's security. Mr. Chairman, there are lots of things that affect the military that this bill does not solve. I admit it. I don't try to solve all of them. When you try to solve all the problems, you usually end up making a mess. But that should not take away from the good that is in this bill. So I want to just emphasize the good that is in this bill has come from both sides of the aisle, and I am incredibly grateful for the contributions the Democratic members of the committee made. Something like 110 provisions in the underlying mark were requested by Democrats. In the committee 96 amendments offered by Democrats were adopted into the mark. We have had 57 amendments offered by Democrats made in order under the rule. We don't know how they are all going to come out yet, but the point is, a substantial part of this measure has been written and contributed to by Members on the Democratic side of the aisle, as well as Members on the Republican side of the aisle. The truth is it is a better product as a result, and the truth is that it is consistent with the bipartisan tradition of this committee. So, Mr. Chairman, I want to end, actually, where Mr. Smith started, and that is to express appreciation to him for being a terrific partner to work with in formulating this bill and dealing with very complex, rapidly changing subjects as the world is swirling around us. As he pointed out, we are the largest committee in Congress--63 members. But each of those members on both sides of the aisle have made important contributions to this bill. I would, like him, also want to appreciate the staff. I think we are unique in the Congress. We have an integrated staff where I can grab someone on the Democratic side or a Democratic member can grab someone who works on the Republican side. They are all integrated, working on the same issues. I think that makes us stronger as a committee. So there is an important bipartisan tradition of this committee, and it is because national security is so important. Let me go back to The Washington Post editorial and read the first sentence: ``There isn't much bipartisan governance left in Washington, but if anything still fits that description, it is probably the annual defense authorization act.'' I am pleased about that. I think that is what the American people want to hear because national security is so important. So for the suggestion to come that we are going to put national security on the back burner while we try to solve all the budget problems of all the agencies and all the government, that is discouraging. Mr. Chairman, I hope that Members will not agree with that tactic, that they will listen to the better angels of their nature as far as supporting this bill because it is a bipartisan bill that is so important for our troops and national security. I hope they will support this en bloc amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying I very much appreciate the service of Mr. Gallego and all the veterans on both sides of the aisle who have served our Nation. I appreciate all of the contributions Mr. Gallego and all the other 62 members of the committee have made into producing this National Defense Authorization Act. It has been a bipartisan product in the tradition of this committee. You know, if you think about it, for 53 straight years Congresses of both parties have passed and Presidents of both parties have signed into law a Defense Authorization Act, and that has been true through Vietnam and the cold war and 9/11. It has been true through Watergate and race riots, and economic recessions and bitter political feuds. And yet, through all those things, somehow the parties could come together to do what was needed for our troops and for our country's security. I think that that strong tradition of bipartisanship is something that we should not walk away from lightly. We have heard some discussion--complaints, really--on both sides of the aisle about using OCO to get up to the President's level. If you look at this chart, this is the President's budget, and this is the congressional budget, which this bill is compliant with. There is a little difference in where the light blue and the dark blue start and stop. But the net effect, when you add it all together, is exactly the same: $612 billion. That is what the President asked for. That is what this bill provides. There is no difference between the two. I agree that we ought to find a better way to have fiscal discipline without the arbitrary caps and sequestration that are in the Budget Control Act, but this bill can't do that. This bill is a defense authorization bill. It is not a budget bill. It is not an immigration bill. It is not even a defense appropriation bill. So if this bill fails, how does that get us closer to fixing our budget problems? The truth is we could all find an excuse to vote against every bill, every day, for what is not in it, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. What is important is what is in it. And what is in it is really important for our troops and for our national security. As much as I appreciate Congressman Gallego's service, I find it ironic that he would offer an amendment that tries to make sure our troops get paid, even in the event of a government shutdown; and yet, by voting against this bill, the troops don't get paid. How does that fit together? Let me just mention two of the things that are in this bill for our troops. One is a new retirement system for people who sign up for the military. Right now, 83 percent of the people who serve come away with no retirement. Under this bill, they can put some money aside, the government will match it, and they can have a nest egg. If you vote against that bill, that doesn't happen. One of the complaints we have all heard so many times is that the transition from Active Duty to the VA is problematic because you can't stay on the same drugs. One of the things this bill does is say that they have got to have a joint formulary so you stay on the same drugs and you can take better care of the people as they transition. Doesn't that make sense? I hope all Members had a chance to read The Washington Post editorial today. Let me just read the last sentence: Far better for the President and his party's leadership in Congress to help an adequate defense budget keep moving through Congress rather than perpetuate a fight all Americans, whether Republican or Democrat, may later regret. I think that is the bottom line. This doesn't solve all the problems. It doesn't try to solve all the problems. I know we have got more debate, more discussion to come, but this is a step on what has been a very bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, here is the bottom line. We are incredibly privileged to have these jobs, to live in this country, but those privileges only come because brave men and women are willing to volunteer to serve and sacrifice for our country. Now, we can never match their courage and dedication and sacrifice, but surely to goodness we can do better than use them as pawns for some sort of attempt to apply political pressure on issues that have nothing to do with this bill. Surely we can do better than that. And the way to do better than that is to vote against this motion and for final passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 260, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, this en bloc package consists of 17 total amendments. Nine of them have been offered by Republicans, eight of them have been offered by Democrats. They cover a variety of very important topics for our national security, including cooperation with India, evacuation of U.S. persons from Yemen, the impact of U.S. troop levels on NATO, and violence in Mexico. I believe these are important subjects and important additions to our bill. I hope Members will support this en bloc package. And I hope that all Members who make these contributions will support the final version so that their contribution has a chance to become law. With that, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I just want to show my appreciation for the work of Chairman Royce and Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York on this issue with Boko Haram. I noticed in the headlines of this morning's paper, Boko Haram has a new offensive against a military base in Nigeria. The contribution they have made with this amendment to the bill is very important so that the Nigerians and others in the region are better able to fight these terrorists. And there is no other word for them. There are also provisions in this bill to help the Ukrainians fight the aggression that they are undergoing, there are provisions in this bill to help fight ISIS, which is all part of the reason I believe this bill deserves the support of all Members. I appreciate the contributions of both Members on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday, May 18, 2015, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1735, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the distinguished former chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the Armed Services Committee and the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I remember very well the instances that the gentleman from Washington talked about. In one case, it was the Senate that added hate crimes to the conference report of the NDAA when it came back from the conference. It is absolutely true that, when that happened--an issue completely outside of the military--and went to conference, I and many others voted against it because we thought that was a mistake. It is also true that many of us on this side of the aisle voted against the bill the next year, but that was because of what was in the bill. It was related to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell issue and how that was being handled. That is exactly what the gentleman talked about earlier, which was where you balance what is in it and what is not and the good and the bad, and we all do that all the time. Absolutely right. What is different about this case is this bill is being held hostage to fix something else. Mr. Chairman, I would like to fix ObamaCare, but I am not going to vote against the NDAA until that happens. I would like to have a simpler Tax Code, but I am not going to vote against the NDAA until that happens. It is trying to use this and the good it does for our troops to put political pressure on Congress to agree with the President about changes in the Budget Control Act. It is different here. My point is really very practical. If people get amendments in the bill and then they vote against the bill and the bill goes down, what happens to those amendments? They are dead. I am not arguing it morally; I am arguing it practically. That is what happens to any bill that goes down. The content of the bill is defeated, and I just don't think that makes much sense. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, in this en bloc package, which I encourage all Members on both sides of the aisle to adopt, there are 14 total amendments. Six of those amendments are from my Democratic colleagues; eight are from my Republican colleagues. There are a lot of important subjects that are in these amendments, as Members on both sides of the aisle make contributions to the bill, and I hope that Members on both sides of the aisle, when it comes to final passage--if this en bloc package is adopted--that when it comes to final passage of the bill, they will support final passage of the bill so that their work can come to fruition. That is what it takes, Mr. Chairman. It is support on final passage. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, hoping that all Members support the bill on final passage, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I don't think anybody says we have to leave Guantanamo open forever or necessarily keep these folks, the detainees, there forever. Under the laws of war, detainees may be kept for the duration of the war. And it is absolutely true, we don't know how long this war is going to go. It is also true that if the President came up with a plan that could get the confidence of the American people first about what he would do with the Guantanamo detainees, then there may be something to talk about. But, unfortunately, this amendment would strike the provisions of the bill which prevent them from coming to the U.S., would prevent them from being released to war zones, would prevent construction of new facilities. And make no mistake, new facilities would have to be built because they couldn't be commingled with inmates who are here in the U.S. And it strikes the facility for foreign transfers, but it does that first, and then says, oh, by the way, Mr. President, give us a plan within so much time. How about we get a plan first? And how about we see whether that plan stands up to the light of day? At one point, the President had a plan to take these folks to New York City and have a trial there, but there was an uproar. There was a plan to take them to a rehabilitative facility in Illinois, but there was an uproar. None of that has gained the support of this Congress under either party, and therefore, I think this amendment should be defeated. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Brooks amendment. I opposed the Gallego amendment when it was considered in committee, and I remain opposed to bringing the sensitive issue of immigration into the defense authorization bill. There are Members on both sides of the aisle with a variety of positions when it comes to immigration, but a Defense Authorization Act is not the appropriate time or place to have this debate. Remember, the Gallego language does not change any law. It is a sense of Congress that the Secretary should review existing authorities. So having sensitive debate when there can be no result that changes anything only distracts from the essential provisions in this bill that do matter to our troops and our Nation's security. I notice that the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee has said publicly: ``We're not going to do anything on immigration in the NDAA.'' That is my view as well. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I support the Brooks amendment to remove this provision now so that we can better focus on the things that are essential for our troops and our security.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point that the gentleman made. My point is that for 53 years this product has been the result of bipartisan effort. And never before, I don't believe, have we had a party decision to oppose the NDAA in order to try to leverage it for some purpose outside of defense. And yet that is what is happening here. So my point is simple. I appreciate the contributions that Members on both sides have made. It is not some little something that the Members have just gotten in here. These are important issues: traumatic brain injury, Russia, Syria, human rights, maritime job training. They are significant contributions. But my point is not necessarily a moral one, it is a practical one. You work to get these amendments included in the bill, but then if you vote against the bill and it goes down in defeat, what have you accomplished? Nothing. So I hope that Members on both sides who have made contributions and who do support a strong military will rethink the position that they are being asked to take with this bill. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would simply note that I am pleased to support the amendments that we have just discussed en bloc. I noticed the amendments offered by our Democratic colleagues include such important issues as Russia, traumatic brain injury, a Syrian no- fly zone, human rights in Afghanistan, and maritime job training. All are important issues, and I appreciate the contributions of all the Members who authored these amendments, who presented them, and who have argued for them here before the House. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that all of those Members will not just throw away the results of their efforts by voting against final passage because voting against final passage essentially means all of this work that they have put in goes for nothing. Members on both sides of the aisle have contributed to this product. Members on both sides of the aisle need to contribute to having it become law. With that, I encourage Members on both sides to support the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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