Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. The most important thing I can say about it is that it is good for the troops and it is good for national security. And when it comes to a Defense authorization bill, that is all that really matters. This is a good bill, and it deserves the support of everyone in the House. And a lot of credit--much of the credit--for navigating a very difficult political process goes to Chairman Smith for getting us to this point. I am also grateful to Chairman Inhofe and Senator Reed during these final negotiations over the last 5 months as we have worked our way through a host of issues. But it is also all of the conferees and members of the Armed Services Committee and, especially, the staff who have had to help us work our way through these things, essentially, all year. And it is a credit to all of them that we are in this place. Madam Speaker, this bill does a lot, as Chairman Smith just said, for the men and women who serve and their families. There is a lot of focus on people here: For example, 3.1 percent pay raise; a number of provisions related to childcare for the military; increase in professional license fees for spouses; military housing reform, including a requirement for a tenant Bill of Rights; reforms to the movement of household goods; additional steps to combat sexual assault and harassment; a number of provisions related to military healthcare, to improve the quality of care that they get; compensation for medical malpractice at military treatment facilities; repeal of the widow's tax, which is something that Congressman Joe Wilson, among others, has been pushing for for a number of years. Those are just some of the things related to our military folks that are in this bill, and, essentially, I can't think of another significant issue military families have brought up to me over the past year or two or three that does not have at least some provision in this bill. And, in addition, for the civilians at DOD and the rest of the government, it has paid parental leave so that we can be in a better position to compete with big employers around the country. A lot for our people. In addition, it does a lot to help rebuild and repair the damage that is done by sequestration to our military. It helps us prepare for our adversaries: very importantly, to authorize in title 10 a space force, as this House has voted for twice, including 2 years ago. Yet, now, with this bill, it takes effect. As well as further reforms to the Pentagon, not just to get more value out of our money, but to get top technology into the hands of the war fighter faster. There is a lot of good in here, and it deserves Member support. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), who is the distinguished author of legislation with 383 cosponsors to repeal the widow's tax that is now a part of this legislation.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the coauthor, along with Mr. Cooper of the Space Force provision.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, Majority Leader Hoyer made two points on which I want to emphatically agree. Number one, he said that we are blessed in this Nation to have the benefit of dedicated staff working on important legislation such as is before us today, and their patience has been tried more than in most years to bring this bill to this point with what I expect will be strong bipartisan support. A tremendous amount of credit goes to them as well as, as I said before, to Chairman Smith, Chairman Inhofe, and Senator Reed. The second point the majority leader made is this is a compromise, and he is exactly right. I can give you a list of things in the bill that I wish were not in the bill, and I also have a list of things that I wish were in the bill that I tried to get into the bill. So I have some strong opinions about things I would do differently. And yet it is not about me; it is about what this process can produce. There is no question that what we have today on the floor is very different from the bill that the House passed on July 12. It is a very different bill. Also, the House-passed bill was very different than the Senate bill, which they passed something like 86-8. So bringing those two together has been a challenge, but it is done. I will confess, Madam Speaker, that I feel better that at least some Members came to the floor to oppose it because I was beginning to worry that this conference report was not as good or as important as I thought it was. But I do feel better that at least some Members with whom I do not normally agree have come to oppose it. I am somewhat relieved on that point. I am also relieved that the President has said emphatically that he will sign this bill, that he strongly supports the pay raise, the Space Force, the paid parental leave, and other provisions that are in this package. I believe, Madam Speaker, the first job of the Federal Government is to defend the country. We need to do the things that are in this bill first before we look at the other things that all of us would like to see done. I agree with the point that as we do this first job of the Federal Government, we as a body and certainly the Armed Services Committee need to carefully oversee this large amount of funding. That is absolutely part of our responsibility. I resent, by the way, any implication that we have not been doing our best to oversee that funding over the years because under both parties I believe that is exactly what we have been doing. The challenge is we face more risk in the world than we have ever faced before in our history with Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, terrorism, and the list goes on, new technologies moving faster than ever. Just cutting back a little bit on funding does not ensure that the country will be protected. As a matter of fact, this amount of money does not ensure that the country will be protected. But it is what we do need to keep working to do. By the way, with support of both parties, what we have been trying to do is see that the taxpayers get more value for the money we spend and also see that, when we send a warfighter out on a mission, he or she is equipped with the best equipment, the best support, the best training that this country can provide because it is wrong to send them out there on that mission without providing the best that this country can provide. Madam Speaker, this is the last point I want to make. This bill is not about us, as important as we think we are sometimes. It is not about our preferences. It is about them. It is about men and women who risk their lives to defend us and our freedom. It is about their families who sacrifice in order that that service may take place. Going back to where I started, there is so much in this bill that is good for the men and women who serve and their families. To me, that is the thing to be most proud of in this bill because it is about them and what they do for us. That is the reason I ask all Members to support this conference report. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, November 12, 2019, I was unable to be in Washington and missed roll call votes. On Roll Call No. 610 on the passage of H.R. 4162, the ``GI Planning Bill Act of 2019,'' had I been present, I would have voted Aye. On Roll Call No. 611 on the passage of H.R. 3224, ``To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for increased access to Department of Veterans Affairs medical care for women veterans,'' had I been present, I would have voted Aye.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and join him in opposing the previous question so that Congress can meet its most fundamental responsibilities under the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 says that it is Congress' responsibility to ``raise and support,'' ``provide and maintain'' for the military forces of the United States. Congress is failing in that responsibility. Not only have we missed the October 1 deadline, but we are currently operating under a stopgap funding measure that prevents our military from adapting to a volatile world, and even that expires in less than a month. In this debate today, we have heard a lot about Russian attempts to interfere in our elections. Well, who is on the front lines of protecting the country in cyberspace as well as the other domains? It is the American military. It is the Cyber Command that is funded for less than a month. It seems to me that we ought to start with the first responsibility of providing for our military, which is on the front lines of defending us, yes, in cyberspace as well as all the other domains of warfare. While this House and Washington in general are consumed by secret impeachment proceedings, adversaries are looking to take advantage of this Washington dysfunction. Who gets caught in the middle of all this political squabbling? It is our troops, the very men and women who volunteer to risk their lives to protect us. They are the ones who suffer the most. There are dozens of programs in every military service that cannot begin under the current stopgap funding measure. There are dozens of programs in every service where we need to do more of something, but we can't do more under the current continuing resolution. There are many programs we need to hire good people to work on. You can't do that under the current stopgap funding measure. Instead, what we get is political squabbling. Now, I know there will be people who say: Well, the House has passed these bills. It is the Senate's fault. It is Trump's fault. It is somebody else's fault. We have enough of that squabbling, finger-pointing, and blame. What we need are results. Results will require the leadership of this House to focus on getting first things done first, and that means we need to get these essential defense bills signed into law. To get them signed into law, they have to be done in a bipartisan way. Madam Speaker, I am absolutely convinced that, given the chaos and volatility of this world, the United States is going to be tested severely in the weeks to come. The best thing this Congress can do is put aside the political squabbling and focus on support for those people who are defending us, the American military.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct conferees at the desk.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct conferees instructs the House conferees to agree to the Senate position to replace money transferred from out of the military construction projects under title X, section 2808. Just to clarify, when the Senate passed its bill, we didn't know which specific projects we were talking about. The Senate has, in its bill, a provision to replace the full $3.6 billion that was then expected to be transferred out of military construction and used for border security. Well, now we know what specific projects those are, so the only difference in the motion and this underlying Senate provision is to list the specific projects. It is important to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate passed its bill replacing the full $3.6 billion by a vote of 86-8. Three Republicans and five Democrats voted ``no'' on the whole measure, but, overwhelmingly, they supported the bill that includes a provision to replace this money. Each of the projects that is listed in the motion to instruct has been specifically authorized and appropriated by the House and the Senate and signed into law by the President. Now, it is true that the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Esper, has tried to minimize the effects on our military when this transfer was made. But it is still true, even with his efforts, that there was $544 million taken away from dependent schools, $13 million taken away from child dependent centers, $15.3 million from medical clinics, more money from fire stations, dining facilities, et cetera. Despite his best efforts, our troops are affected by the transfer of this money. Mr. Speaker, we are really good at fighting, arguing, and pointing fingers of blame about how this came to be, and I am sure we all have different opinions about that. But voting ``yes'' or ``no'' on this motion to instruct will not change that at all, will not change the transfer, will not change any of those underlying facts. The only thing that we have an ability to influence with this motion to instruct is whether or not the troops have to suffer as a result of Washington dysfunction. It will make a difference to them. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the right thing to do for national security and, certainly, the right thing to do for our troops is for the House to instruct our conferees to agree with the Senate provision, the only difference being we would list the specific projects rather than the total amount. That way, we can ensure that, as we continue to argue about border security and a whole variety of other issues, our troops do not suffer as a result of that argument. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time other than myself to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Earlier, the term was used that the President had stolen, or would steal this money. Actually, section 2808 authorizes any President, when a national emergency is declared, to transfer military construction funds to deal with that situation. Now, again, we will debate about whether this was a true national emergency, and whether he should or should not have done it here. But the President did exactly what he has the authority to do. The only question is, what are--who is going to suffer because of that. As the gentleman from Alabama pointed out, no President and no Member of Congress ought to have to choose between border security and supporting our troops. And yet, that is, unfortunately, the situation that, without adopting this motion to instruct, Members are put into. The administration requested specifically, in the fiscal year 2020 budget request, that this $3.6 billion which was transferred out of military construction be put back into military construction so that these projects could be funded. Now, you can have a 5-year authorization, but you have got to have the money that year in order to actually build them. And so that is what the Senate did in their provision. That is what this motion to instruct would instruct the House conferees to do, with more specificity. Mr. Speaker, just so Members have a general idea, we are talking about a weapons maintenance shop in Alabama, central heat and power in the State of Alaska. Arizona has a ground transport equipment building. California has a C-130 simulator. Colorado, a space control facility; Florida, fire crash rescue station; Hawaii, security improvements for a gate; Indiana, construct a small arms range; Kentucky, Fort Campbell Middle School. Those are some of the specific projects, and I could go on. Louisiana has NORTHCOM, various air facility improvements; Maryland, a child development center at Joint Base Andrews; New Mexico, an MQ-9 ops facility. Specific projects are listed in this motion to instruct, specific projects which FY20 money would then fund, if the conferees would agree to what the Senate has already agreed to and what the motion seeks to get the House to endorse. Again, Mr. Speaker, bottom line, there is a lot of argument on border issues. There is a lot of dysfunction in Washington these days. But our troops and their families should not suffer the consequences of those arguments and that dysfunction. This motion to instruct offers a path forward to at least ensure that they have some insulation from those differences, and I urge Members to adopt it. 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. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Major Miles Miller, U.S. Army, to honor his completion of military service. Major Miller is departing the Army after serving our country for more than a dozen years helping to defend our great nation. Inspired by his family's history of military service and by the attacks of September 11, Major Miller enlisted in the Army in 2006 to help fight the Global War on Terrorism. After completing his Basic Combat Training and Officer Candidate School, Major Miller joined the historic 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. During his time as a ``Screaming Eagle,'' he deployed first to Baghdad, Iraq, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and later to Kandahar, Afghanistan, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. While in Iraq, Major Miller commanded a 55-Soldier Distribution Platoon and planned, coordinated, and led more than 350 ground-based throughout resupply operations to forward combat outposts. These successful missions delivered over one million gallons of fuel and water and two million tons of ammunition and supplies supporting uninterrupted life support sustainment and operations for nearly 1,000 U.S. and Iraqi security force personnel. In Afghanistan, Major Miller was a key planner and logistical operations manager for an 800-Soldier deployment to Afghanistan. He led a 12-Soldier cross-functional team that coordinated the construction and improvements of six new and existing combat outposts while simultaneously procuring nearly ten million dollars of life support and base security contracts and commodities, which increased logistical capabilities and operational limits for U.S. and Afghan security forces. Following his deployments, Major Miller held a broad and diverse series of leadership positions, including commanding the Army's only Active Duty Heavy Boat Company, the 97th Transportation Company, at Fort Eustis, Virginia. As a result of his exceptional performance with increasing rank and responsibilities, Major Miller was selected for the prestigious Army Congressional Fellowship Program where he served as a Defense Fellow in my office and in the Army's House Liaison Division. During his time as my Defense Fellow, Major Miller was an invaluable member of my team. He routinely advised me and my staff on national defense and veterans' affairs issues and priorities for the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. Additionally, he collaborated with my district staff and multiple federal agencies to resolve dozens of veteran and military-related casework issues while drafting hundreds of official responses to constituent inquiries. While serving in the House Liaison Division, Major Miller helped advance Army interests as the intermediary for legislative correspondence, policy, and constituent issues between the Army and 58 offices of the U.S. House of Representatives. He also facilitated U.S. diplomacy abroad and congressional oversight as the lead planner and escort for over 400 Members of Congress and staff during nearly 40 worldwide fact-finding and investigative missions. Major Miller escorted me on several overseas visits to military installations that aided my decision making and priorities as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Throughout his distinguished military career, Major Miller was recognized and rewarded for his exceptional performance, including his selection as the Basic Combat Training ``Soldier of the Cycle'' in 2007 and his early promotion to the rank of Major in 2016. He also received 27 individual and unit awards and badges for military service, including two Bronze Star Medals awarded for meritorious achievement and service for combat leadership during both Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom and the U.S. Army Transportation Corps Honorable Order of Saint Christopher Medal. Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize Major Miller for these outstanding achievements, thank him for his service, and wish him and his family well with their future endeavors.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. As the current occupant of the chair will remember, on February 6, 2018, just last year, Secretary of Defense Mattis testified: ``Let me be clear, as hard as the last 16 years of war have been, no enemy in the field has done more harm to the readiness of the United States military than the combined impact of the Budget Control Act's defense spending caps, worsened by operating in 10 of the last 11 years under continuing resolutions of varied and unpredictable duration.'' Mr. Speaker, this bill before us now fixes, finally, the problems that Secretary Mattis pointed to in his testimony last year, for, as members will recall, starting in 2010, with the responsibility of both Republicans and Democrats, both the White House and Congress, defense spending went down, in real terms, about 20 percent. And we are not just talking numbers. We are talking increased aircraft accidents. We are talking tragic accidents at sea where sailors were killed. We are talking in all the services, a number of training accidents and malfunctions that had real consequences to the human beings who volunteer to protect our country. Now, the last 2 years--again, on a bipartisan basis--we have begun to turn that around. We have begun to improve our readiness, begun to improve training, begun, as the gentleman from California was talking about, to narrow some of the gaps that have developed on key technologies with other adversaries. But the job is not done yet. We have to continue that momentum. While the underlying bill before us does not provide for as much defense spending as I believe we should spend, the certainty of a 2- year deal having more money for defense than was originally in the underlying House budget, all of those things, to me, say the right thing to do is to pass this. I know Members can find some excuse about what is in the bill they don't like or what is not in the bill that they wish it were. Any sort of legislation that is a result of compromise between two parties, two Houses of Congress, two branches of government, is going to yield that sort of result. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot forget that the first function of government is to provide for the common defense; and the Nation and, especially, the men and women who serve and their families depend upon us doing our job under the Constitution. Article I, section 8 says it is our job to raise and support, provide and maintain. This bill helps us fulfill that responsibility, and it should be passed.