Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I have only myself to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, I am very sympathetic to the idea that Congress has neglected to fulfill its responsibilities under the Constitution in this area for many years, with Presidents of both parties and with congressional majorities of both parties. Unfortunately, I believe that this amendment goes way too far in restricting the ability of the President to exercise his responsibilities under Article II. I note that one of the most recent speakers referenced President Obama. It was President Obama who used force in Libya with no authorization from this Congress. As a matter of fact, every President since Truman has done so. The notion that it is either all-out war or nothing does not reflect the way the world is or has been for the last 70 years. I also have to note that it is somewhat concerning to me that much of this amendment seems focused personally at President Trump, who is bending over backward not to use military force and has campaigned against some of the uses in the past. It does not seem to me to be appropriate. On the substance of the amendment, we have asked senior general officers with responsibility for operations on the Joint Staff and CENTCOM to look at this language. What they tell us is that they are concerned with this language. I understand the representations that have been made, but the people who have to live under it believe it would foreclose the inherent right of self-defense at a time when we have specific, detailed, and credible threats against 65,000 military personnel in the CENTCOM region. They believe it would immediately stop purely defensive intelligence-sharing and defensive border security we are doing with partners in the region. They believe it would halt orders with options to strike back proportionally against Iran in order to limit escalation and would stop active information- related capabilities directly countering Iranian threat networks. Furthermore, they believe that there is enough concern about this language that it would at least throw doubt on our ability to come to the defense of Israel if it were under attack from Iran, Iranian proxies, or the Iranian threat network. They believe it would cast doubt on our ability to come to the defense of a ship or vessel in the Strait of Hormuz if an ally comes under attack. I would point out that just within the last 2 days, an allied tanker was at least threatened by Iranian boats coming through the strait. Senior general officers at the Joint Staff and CENTCOM believe it would threaten continued Seventh Fleet interdiction efforts in the Indo-Pacific to thwart Iranian sanctions evasion. We have a number of ways that are not war but legitimate use of force. People who have to live under it believe this goes too far and prevents them from doing what they are doing, which gets back to what Mr. McCaul was talking about. That is, this is only good news for Iran and the threat that they pose. It uses a powerful funding mechanism to tie the President's hands, and they can only be untied after the House and Senate take action. We know that we often don't move too quickly in these areas. Again, I am sympathetic with the idea that Congress needs to stand up and do our job. We need to do it responsibly, not the kind of overreach that gives assistance to adversaries and makes our allies much more concerned about whether we will stand with them or not. Madam Chair, I believe this amendment should be rejected, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. McGovern. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendment offered by Representatives Khanna, Gaetz, Engel, Smith (WA), Brown, Levin (MI) and me, along with 80 other cosponsors, to prohibit funding for any engagement in military hostilities in or against Iran without explicit authorization by Congress. I want to thank my good friend, Congressman Khanna, for his leadership on this issue. I especially want to thank Armed Services Committee Chairman Smith, Foreign Affairs Chairman Engel and their excellent staff, who worked tirelessly to ensure that this amendment reflected a broad, bipartisan range of concerns on how best to respond to the relentless march to war with Iran that is happening under President Trump and his bellicose advisors. Madam Chair, our nation almost went to war with Iran just a couple of weeks ago. Think about this. We were apparently only moments away from the president launching an attack against Iran that could have quickly snowballed out of control into a major conflict. There was no consultation with Congress. No debate on this floor. No input at all from this House whose Members represent the servicemen and women who would be put in harm's way. Let alone a vote. Democrats don't want war with Iran. Most Republicans don't want war with Iran. The American people certainly don't want a war in Iran. But this president was apparently about to use an AUMF passed nearly two decades ago to fumble us into another conflict in the Middle East. I'm glad the president backed off bombing Iran. But I'm terrified about the lack of thoughtful leadership coming from the Oval Office. We need to make clear to this administration that the president cannot use an old AUMF to initiate hostilities against Iran. Nor can he engage in military hostilities in or against Iran without first coming to Congress and getting a specific authorization for the use of such force. Period. It's long past time for Congress to step up to the plate and carry out its constitutional responsibilities on matters of war and peace. I urge all my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to support this amendment.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Halupka for his outstanding contributions as a United States Air Force officer for his more than 22 years of service. In May 1997, he received his Bachelor of Science from Auburn University in Auburn, AL where the Auburn University ``Flying Tigers'' Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps commissioned him into the U.S. Air Force as a nuclear and missile operations officer. He then joined the 10th Missile Squadron at Malmstrom Air Force Base leading some of America's most important strategic nuclear deterrence forces as a missile combat crew commander. After advanced training in space operations, he transitioned to a space operations officer and was assigned as a defensive counterspace flight commander at NORAD, the North American Air Defense Command, in Cheyenne Mountain where he was in charge of protecting America by providing early missile warning and space object detection. Branching out, he was selected to deploy to Afghanistan to set up a new training command for the Afghan National Army. His efforts yielded clear results with the Afghan Army meeting their training requirements to fight the Taliban. Returning to America, he took on the role of director of operations for missile warning at Beale Air Force Base, boosting U.S. and Allied awareness of space by tracking nearly two million space objects. He then took his accumulated knowledge to work as a space and counter-space senior advisor and analyst embedded with the State Department, where his advice and analysis informed some of our nation's most important strategic foreign policy decisions. In his relentless pursuit of excellence, Lieutenant Colonel Halupka dedicated his free time to pursue additional educational opportunities, earning a Master of Science in Business Management in 2006, and a Master of Arts in International and Security Studies in 2012 from the Naval Postgraduate School. Lieutenant Colonel Halupka concluded his career serving as a congressional liaison at the Defense Intelligence Agency. It was during this last assignment that I had the opportunity to get to know Nick. His tireless efforts ensured members of the House Armed Services Committee received timely and critical intelligence that was crucial to informing lawmakers during both moments of crisis and everyday legislative operations. These efforts supported the creation of many bills and enabled the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act. I am personally thankful for the time he has devoted to this task and the vigor and professionalism with which he executed it. I thank Lieutenant Colonel Halupka for his dedication in service to the security of our nation. While many pursue careers in military, Lieutenant Colonel Halupka viewed the military not as a job, but a calling to service. He is in the less than one percent who serve in the nation's military, and an even smaller percent who give their full service until retirement. The United States owe him a great debt of gratitude. Madam Speaker, I honor Nicholas A. Halupka for his lifetime of public service. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him a happy retirement as we celebrate his legacy of selfless service to the nation.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank Chairman Smith and the members of the Armed Services Committee for the work they have put into developing this product over the course of the year. We have a number of new members on the committee, and I continue to be impressed with the seriousness with which they take their task, with the different insights based on their background and perspective. It has been very helpful. I also want to thank the staff. As you can tell, Mr. Chairman, from the size of the bill, as well as the number of amendments filed throughout the process, it is a big job, and a limited number of staff have worked very hard to get us to this point. I think maybe it is helpful to just step back for a second and talk about what this bill is about. The Preamble of the Constitution says that one of the reasons we have a government is to provide for the common defense, but Article I, Section 8 goes into specifics by putting the responsibility on Congress' shoulders to raise and support, provide and maintain the military forces for the United States. How well we do or do not do that job that the Constitution puts on us has real consequences. Literally, the life and death of the men and women who serve are at stake, as well as the security, the safety, and the well-being of men and women throughout the country. It is a significant responsibility, and, again, the Constitution says it is ours. Now, as the chairman noted, for 58 straight years, one of the ways we have fulfilled that responsibility under the Constitution has been to pass, and a President of both parties has signed, a National Defense Authorization Act. Fifty-eight straight years that has occurred. And most of that time, at least certainly in my experience over the last 25 years, it has been done on a bipartisan basis. For example, in last year's bill, the committee reported the bill favorably by a vote of 60-1. The year before, it was 60-1. The year before that, it was 60-2. The year before that, it was 60-2. Last year, on final passage, the vote on this floor was 351-66. The year before that, it was 344-81. I could go on, but the point is, that there has been strong bipartisan support in fulfilling that essential responsibility under the Constitution. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this year is different. This year, the bill was reported out of committee by a vote of 33-24, and the reasons were serious, substantive disagreements with provisions that were in the bill. As the chairman, himself, said in, I believe, 2016: ``There is nothing shameful about making a legitimate policy choice to oppose the NDAA or any other bill. . . . Regardless of whether we support the NDAA or not, we all support the brave men and women of our military who defend the country.'' I think the chairman was right then, and I think the statement is still true today. When the bill came out of committee, some of us had a hard time deciding whether to support it or not because there are many good elements in this bill. And it is absolutely true that, from the ground up, a number of Republicans, as well as Democrats, have worked together to contribute to this bill. My view was that there were some adjustments that could be made that would enable most Members to support it. Unfortunately, what has happened, as the bill now has come out of the Rules Committee, is, in my view, at least, unprecedented. First, the rule self-executes an amendment that has a number of serious issues. Now, a lot of them have serious support, but shouldn't they be on the floor so that we can talk about them, perhaps discuss offsets on some very challenging issues that we have grappled with over the years? But then when it comes to other amendments, I believe that of the 439 made in order, 340 of them are Democratic-sponsored, 98 are Republican. That is not the way it has been before. Last year, more Democratic amendments were made in order on the floor than Republican amendments. The year before, it was just about exactly even. So we see the bill drifting in a particular direction. Most concerning, I think, in many respects, is, of the contested amendments--in other words, of those amendments about which there is a difference and there will be a debate and probably a vote--63 of them are sponsored by Democrats. I believe there is just one sponsored by Republicans, Mr. Turner's on low yield. I don't believe there is another contested amendment that the rule has made in order. Now, the problem with that, Mr. Chairman, is there is virtually no opportunity to improve the bill. I think Chairman Smith made a very important point in the Rules Committee yesterday. He said it is with this bipartisan input and support, every step in the process that results in a better bill. And I think we have proven that time and time again. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing today. We have made a lot of progress in the last 2 years. As most Members know, starting in 2011, defense spending was cut in real terms about 20 percent. Both Republicans and Democrats share responsibility for that, by the way. And both Democrats and Republicans share responsibility for making up about half of that amount in the last 2 years, but we haven't finished the job. As a matter of fact, a study in the Military Times earlier this year found that military aviation accidents have increased 40 percent over the past 5 years, but military aviation accident deaths hit a 6-year high in 2018. The point is, we made a good start at fixing our problems, but we have not finished the job. And that is part of the reason that some of us are so concerned about cutting the administration's request by $17 billion, to fail to keep that momentum on fixing our readiness, on modernization, on research in key areas, all of the different categories in making sure that we continue to improve the situation for our troops. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of good things in this bill, but they can't seem to overcome the ways in which this bill takes steps backwards. I don't know. There are lots of things we could talk about. The bottom line, however, is there is only one thing that matters: does this bill adequately support our troops and American national security? There is really nothing else, no other criteria, that matters the way that that fundamental question does. I am concerned that this bill does not meet that standard. I know a number of my colleagues are concerned about that as well. We have hopes that at some point in the process, the bill will actually come closer to adequately supporting our troops and American national security, but it is not there yet. And I have concerns, given what the Rules Committee has done, that it will be hard to do so on this floor. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

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

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman), a general new to the committee, but not new to national security.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DesJarlais).

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the majority leader. I know from some personal experience it is certainly not easy to hold your side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle together to have the sort of votes like we had--351, 349, and so forth--to pass this bill. That is part of the reason I began my remarks by pointing out this is different. I am not sure that great Democrats of the past--Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy--would recognize this defense bill that is before us, much less the amendments that we see coming down the pike. I just want to emphasize two points, briefly: One, is we have lots of quotes being thrown around here about what General Dunford has said or what he has not said. I don't have his words from a transcript, but what I do have is Defense News, June 13, 2017, where he says, directly: ``We now know that continued growth in the base budget of at least 3 percent above inflation is the floor necessary to preserve just the competitive advantage we have today, and we can't assume our adversaries will remain still.'' Consistent testimony from Dunford, Mattis, Shanahan, et cetera, is that the floor is 3 percent, and I think statements to the contrary do not reflect his view. Secondly, the majority leader said something like: Loyalty to the President over loyalty to our troops. I want to quote back Chairman Smith's comments that I mentioned earlier, and expand a bit. Chairman Smith said, when he voted against the bill on the floor: ``There is nothing shameful about making a legitimate policy choice to oppose the NDAA or any other bill. But it is hypocritical and the height of shameless partisan pandering for him''--and he was referring to Speaker Boehner--``to now claim that a vote against the NDAA is a vote against the troops. It is not. Regardless of whether you support the NDAA or not, we all support the brave men and women of the military who defend this country.'' I think this side of the aisle, we have nothing to apologize for in our support of the troops and American national security. We want a better product, and I hope that at some point we will get it. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the chairman if he has only one more speaker remaining.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would simply emphasize, as the gentleman from Florida just did, the strong desire of Members on this side of the aisle is to continue to work constructively with anyone who wants to work with us to help improve this bill so that it strengthens America's national security and does not take steps backwards in any critical area. As was pointed out earlier, the body across the Capitol was able to do that with a very strong vote of 86-8 just 2 weeks ago. I think that ought to be our model. I think that this bill, if it moves in that direction, will gain the support of a number of Members here. But it is the real substantive concerns about what is in this bill, as well as the lack of the ability to have amendments to improve the bill, that has so many Members on this side of the aisle concerned. Back to my original point: None of this to-ing and fro-ing matters. What matters is does it support our troops and improve America's national security. We may have different judgments, but that is the only criteria that matters. It is about them, and it is about the country, and that will continue to be our guiding standard. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I have no further requests on this en bloc package. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not completely sure I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).