Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

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

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

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say my view is that, if a servicemember is qualified and can do the job without some sort of special accommodation, then we ought to take advantage of that member's service. I note that Secretary Mattis has testified: ``It is a bedrock principle of the Department of Defense that any eligible individual who can meet the high standards for military service without special accommodations should be permitted to serve.'' That is what I believe. I have read the gentlewoman's amendment. It is not clear to me that her amendment is in violation of that statement or my belief. I heard and listened clearly to the concerns Mrs. Hartzler stated, so maybe we need to continue, as we move forward, to look at whether there are other consequences to the language. But it seems to me the standard that Secretary Mattis has set out--if you can do the job, you ought to be able to do the job--that is the right one. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, this is the third year in a row, I believe, we have had this attempt to require DOD to only buy knives and forks and spoons from a certain supplier. I opposed it when it was brought by a Republican and I oppose it when it is brought this year as well. In all 3 years, I have yet to hear a national security justification to dictate where DOD buys its knives and forks and spoons and plates. I have not heard it yet. At one point, there was a view that certain textiles and food were of such importance to the functioning of our military, that there needed to be restrictions on where they were procured. Again, I have not heard that when it comes to knives and forks. I will say that adding this mandate will hurt our troops, because the only situation in which DOD would choose other than a domestic supplier would be if it saves money if you can buy knives and forks and spoons cheaper from some other supplier. So that means you are taking away money from ammunition or whatever it is and spending more than you would otherwise need to spend on your plates and knives and forks. I can't tell you how much, probably not a lot, but it takes away money for other vital programs. The big question I have, Madam Chair, is where does this stop? I admire all Members who try to support manufacturing in his or her district. That is part of our job as Members of Congress. Got it. But if we are going to say, ``Okay. The DOD has got to buy their plates and cups and knives and forks and spoons from a domestic supplier in my district,'' what about the napkins? What about the soap to wash your hands? Where does it stop? I don't think that we want to go down this road without a clear national security reason to limit the suppliers available to DOD. Computer chips, that is one thing, but knives and forks, that is something else. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, creating domestic jobs in industry after industry is not the primary purpose of the Department of Defense, especially without a national security reason to do so. What this amendment would do, if it does anything, is to add another category of bureaucracy and burdens that the Department of Defense has got to go through before it decides where it is going to procure its plates and spoons. This has not been the law since 2006. I think our military folks have been reasonably well fed in the 13 years since this was last part of the law. Again, the only reason to do it is if the domestic supplier is not cheaper. So it costs money, if it does anything. Madam Chair, there are lots of important national security issues. Mandating where the Department of Defense gets its plates and spoons and cups and bowls and however else you want to define dinnerware, I do not think, is appropriate, and I urge opposition to the amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chairwoman, I would say the first part of the gentleman's amendment is certainly appropriate. There is no question that DOD did not do what it should in reporting to the national database and there have been instances where that made a difference, tragic instances. So requiring DOD to report within 3 days, I think, as the gentleman from Virginia said, codifying the current policy, I think makes sense. I hope someday we can get to the point, by the way, where we require State and local governments to report within 3 days as well, because as the study was conducted on DOD's failure to report to the database, it turns out that some State and localities are even worse. So I think we all ought to up our game when it comes to that. I do want to express some concerns, however, about the second part of the gentleman's amendment. It requires a feasibility study on a military database for military protective orders. If it is a feasibility study about whether it is technically possible to have a database, that is one thing. But it is important for Members to understand that military protective orders are issued by commanders, and do not have any sort of due process that is associated with civilian protective orders or much due process at all. Now, military members can go and get a civilian protective order with appropriate due process. But right now, a military protective order by commanders is just issued at the request of the victim or the victim's advocate. There are some opinions that there are even instances where this process has been abused. I just think we should be careful in treading down a road where we do not provide due process with significant consequences. So as the gentleman noted, there are some related provisions in the Senate bill. I think it would be appropriate to take this measure and look deeper into those consequences, especially to ensure that all servicemembers have due process as well as all servicemembers and civilians have the protection that the gentleman is seeking to achieve. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, June 27, 2019, I was unable to be on the House floor and missed roll call votes No. 426 ``Adoption of H. Res. 466--The rule providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3401--Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019,'' No. 427 ``Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 2722,'' No. 428 ``Passage of H.R. 2722--Securing America's Federal Elections Act,'' No. 429 ``Concurring in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3401--Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019,'' No. 430 ``Approval of the Journal.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``YES, YES, NO, YES, YES,'' respectively.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, I was unable to be in Washington and missed roll call votes No. 403 ``Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 460--The combined rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 2722--Securing America's Federal Elections Act and of the bill H.R. 3351--Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2020,'' No. 404 ``Adoption of H. Res. 460--The combined rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 2722--Securing America's Federal Elections Act and of the bill H.R. 3351--Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2020,'' No. 405 ``Banks (R-IN)--Amendment No. 251--Reduces amounts made available in Division E, Other than amounts made available to the Department of Defense by 14 percent,'' and No. 406 ``Jayapal (D-WA)-- Amendment No. 268--Reallocates $1,000,000 to fund transitional housing and homelessness services.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``NO, NO, YES, NO'' on these bills, respectively .

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, I was unable to be in Washington and missed roll call votes No. 411 ``King, Steve (R-IA)--Amendment No. 3--Strikes the section 126 of the underlying bill which prohibits the use of funds from the Department of the Treasury's Forfeiture Fund to plan, design, construct or carry out a project to construct a southern Border Wall or barrier along the southern border of the US,'' No. 412 ``Norton (D-DC) Amendment No. 4-- Prohibits funds made available by this Act from being used to relocate the National Institute of Food and Agriculture or the Economic Research Service outside the National Capital Region,'' No. 413 ``Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 3401,'' No. 414 ``Passage of H.R. 3401-- Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``YES, NO, YES, NO'' on these bills, respectively.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, I was unable to be in Washington and missed roll call votes No. 407 ``Republican Motion to Recommit on H.R. 3055,'' No. 408 ``Passage of H.R. 3055--Commerce, Justice, Science, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2020,'' No. 409 ``Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 462--The rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 3401--Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019,'' No. 410 ``Adoption of H. Res. 462--The rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 3401--Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``YES, NO, NO, NO'' on these bills, respectively.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a sense of Congress resolution that makes no change whatsoever in law or policy. It is a messaging bill rather than legislation that actually does something on a substantive issue. So, one may ask, why bother opposing a bill that doesn't do anything? I have a couple answers. Part of the answer, to me, is that we normally do not bring isolated issues in the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee to the floor. Part of the reason that a national defense authorization bill has been signed into law every year for 58 straight years under Presidents of both parties and Congresses of both parties is that we try to look at national security as a whole as it relates to the Department of Defense. There have been a few isolated instances where something needed immediate attention, but, generally, we try to look at the whole, not bring isolated issues to the floor. I worry that doing so, even with a messaging bill, undermines that bipartisan approach that has been so successful. Another part of the reason, Mr. Speaker, is that we also normally try to keep our troops above and beyond politics. Bringing a messaging bill that does nothing to law or policy also threatens to undermine that, and I worry about that. On its face, the resolution, the messaging bill that is before us, includes a number of statements that are just flat wrong. It says that President Trump reversed the prior policy on transgender individuals in a tweet. In fact, well before any Presidential tweet, Secretary of Defense Mattis had put a delay on implementation of the policy that had previously been announced so that there could be a 6-month review. There was a 6-month review with experts, with uniformed and civilian people from all the services, with medical experts, with a whole variety of folks. It is serious and thoughtful, despite some of the characterizations that have been made from time to time. I recommend that Members actually read it, because I think they will be impressed. They may not agree with all of the recommendations, but they will see the serious and thoughtful approach that the Department took to this issue. As a result of this review, the previous policy was modified. It didn't go back to the way it was. Again, those details are in the report. The resolution before us today says that the Mattis policy is a ban. It is not. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found, on January 4, 2019, that it is factually inaccurate to call it a blanket ban. In reversing the lower court, the court of appeals said: ``The district court made an erroneous finding that the Mattis plan was the equivalent of a blanket ban on transgender service.'' This resolution before us says that there is a global medical consensus on transgender care. But the World Professional Association for Transgender Health says that they offer flexible clinical guidelines that cannot possibly reflect all the differences and situations which exist. Mr. Speaker, turning to the substance of the matter for a second, to me, the heart of the issue is contained in the very first sentence to the Department report, which was issued in February 2018. The first sentence says: ``It is a bedrock principle of the Department of Defense that any eligible individual who can meet the high standards for military service without special accommodations should be permitted to serve.'' Any eligible individual who can meet the standards without special accommodation should be permitted to serve. That is what I believe, Mr. Speaker. I think that is what this policy attempts to achieve. Now, it is a fair point to say it went too far this way or it didn't go far enough this way. We can have those substantive, serious debates at an appropriate time and place. But a messaging bill is not going to get that job done. I would say, finally, Mr. Speaker, that our committee heard the day before yesterday a reminder that only 29 percent of Americans aged 17 to 25 are eligible for military service. Only 29 percent meet the physical, mental, and legal requirements to be eligible for military service, even if they want to. That means 71 percent are not eligible, for whatever reason. There could be, and maybe there should be, a debate that the standards are too high, that we need to lower the standards, that we need to make some changes in the standards so that more people are eligible. But the point is, our view of military service is that anyone who meets those standards should be allowed to serve. If someone cannot meet those standards, for whatever reason, through no fault of their own, then they are not able to serve. They can serve in a different way, but not in military service. I think, again, Mr. Speaker, if we were to really be discussing the substance of the issue rather than a messaging bill, then we could talk about the high standards for military service without special accommodation and there would be a substantive discussion. That is not what we are doing today. It is a messaging bill, and that is too bad because there are serious issues that need to be discussed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

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

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

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

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

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