Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I simply want to make two points. One is that the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control is supposed to meet with her Russian counterpart on this issue next week. What are we doing? We come to the floor, and we want to tie her hands. We want to restrict her ability to negotiate with the Russians. That doesn't make any sense to me. There has been discussion about flaws in the treaty, how it has not kept up with changes in technology. Yet the House wants to come and say, ``Well, we think we ought to extend it anyway,'' giving the Russians a benefit that they don't have to give anything up for. It may be that we come to a point where we think extending New START makes sense. The Russians ought to participate in that as part of a negotiation, not a unilateral move for us. Secondly, I have to note more broadly in this bill that when New START was ratified, part of the agreement was, yes, we will go down to a lower number of nuclear weapons, but we are going to put increased investment into the nuclear weapons complex to make it more responsive, because with lower weapons, if something goes wrong, you have less margin for error. This bill before us cuts the requested funding from the nuclear weapons complex. It cuts funding requested for the Minuteman III replacement. It cuts in a variety of ways our attempt to have a strong nuclear deterrent.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, it seems to me the studies that have been conducted make it clear that it makes no cost sense to try to extend the life of these missiles that have been in place for so long. I think what is really at stake here is whether the three legs of the triad upon which our defense has depended for so many decades are to be renewed, modernized, and remain credible. Each leg of that triad, the submarines, the air leg, and the missiles that we are talking about now, have unique characteristics. It is the three of them working together that has been so successful in making sure that our country has been protected and that no nuclear weapon has been used since the end of World War II. It is essential to modernize the land leg base of our triad to make sure that it stays credible, modern, and safe. That is why this amendment should be rejected.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that, in January of this year, the independent Office of Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation, which is part of the Department of Energy's NNSA, provided a report and an objective analysis of this program. Everything that they reported was that the program remains on budget as expected for the first production unit by fiscal year 2025. I think what has happened is that they have a greater opportunity, a greater need, to spend more money from 2019 to 2020 than they originally planned. Now, that can occur for several reasons. Number one, a program can start to move a little faster so you can make good use of money. Unfortunately, what sometimes happens is once you start looking into some of these very old warheads, you discover problems that need some resources in order to deal with those problems. Now, we can't really talk on the floor about the specific concerns with any particular warhead today because of classification. But the key point is, the overall funding program has remained consistent and perfectly within the guidelines of what was planned originally. Again, I am afraid that this amendment, like the last one, is delayed by study. We can study things to death, but we have not done what we should to renew the three legs of the triad and the weapons which constitute our nuclear deterrence, and upon which our security depends. We have basically reached the point where we have no margin for error. We have to move ahead with submarines, we have to move ahead with the new bomber, we have to move ahead with the Minuteman III replacement, and we have to move ahead with the warhead replacement, not only to make sure they work, but to make sure the people around them are safe. That is the crucial point.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).

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

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

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, we have had a number of speakers over the course of the last 2 days talk about that this bill provides a pay raise. I just want to clarify that it does not. There is an existing formula which provides the military a 3.1 percent pay raise. If we do nothing, they still get a 3.1 percent pay raise. Now, in the past, sometimes the Obama administration, for example, recommended a lower pay raise. Sometimes in Congress we have enacted a higher pay raise than the formula would require. But the key point is 3.1 percent is what the formula is. This bill does not change that in any way. If the bill passes, if it doesn't pass, the pay raise still goes in. I think the Speaker just indicated that she supported the amendment we are discussing now. Let's be clear. The bill before us cuts $17 billion from the President's request. The amendment before us cuts another $16 billion from that. So all the folks who have come here and said it is not too much, it is not too little, it is just right, they have to vote against this amendment because this cuts an additional $16 billion. What is the effect of this $16 billion? It decimates counterterrorism operations around the world. All of this cut comes from operations and maintenance within the OCO, the overseas contingency account. That means we do not do as much to fight terrorists overseas. It hurts our ability, as another example, to train and help the Ukrainians fight the aggression that is occurring on their soil. Lots of people talk about standing up to the Russians. This amendment takes away the biggest factor in Ukraine that is helping push back against the Russian-backed insurgents. It decimates support for the Afghan security forces. Whether you think Americans should be there or not, we are trying to help you. Afghans defend themselves. This amendment takes that away. Real consequences in the real world, I think this amendment finally gets to where the direction of this bill is headed. Members should oppose it. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I have no other speakers other than myself, and I reserve the right to close.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, for some years now, there have been some people in the country who go around ginning up concern that Americans are going to be whisked out of their beds at night and taken to Guantanamo and left there indefinitely. This sort of scaremongering has been used to call attention to themselves. It has been used to raise money. As Chairman Smith noted, we have had some debates on this issue in the past. It had kind of died down when everybody realized that 18 years after 9/11 it hadn't happened. Yet, there are still some out in the countryside who try to frighten people that, well, it could someday. Well, actually, it can't. Let me read three provisions, starting with the FY 2012 NDAA that said, ``Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.'' Now, that says nothing here affects any right of U.S. citizens or those captured or detained inside the United States. That was part of the law to begin with. Another part of the law to begin with says, ``The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section . . . does not extend to citizens of the United States.'' Well, we passed that in 2012. There were some concerns, so we come back the very next year and have a rule of construction that has been passed and signed into law. It says that: Nothing in that law or in the AUMF shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or deny any constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by Article III of the Constitution for any person in the United States when detained pursuant to an AUMF and who is otherwise entitled to such writ or rights. So, we have belts, suspenders, ropes, pretty much anything you can think of, to make sure that no one inside the United States, no U.S. citizen's constitutional right is affected. And it hasn't been. For 18 years this has not been a problem. So, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is not a problem now, that it is not something that we need to tinker with, especially with so many court decisions that have interpreted some of the legal issues related to detainees. In fact, we should push back against attempted scaremongering and reject this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois.

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