National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I have no further requests on this en bloc package.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source