National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I have only myself to speak, so I reserve the balance of time to close.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, we had a number of these debates last night as far as DOD resources in supporting the ICE mission at the border.
I might note, parenthetically, no Republican amendments on this issue were made in order under the rule, only Democratic amendments.
But, on the substance of the matter, I completely agree with, I think, the sentiments of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) in that I would prefer not one dollar--or one person--from DOD have to be sent to the border to support the ICE mission. We ought to fully fund border security on its own, because we have enough issues with broader national security for the Pentagon and the military to deal with.
Unfortunately, that is not possible when we don't fully fund ICE and when we have an unprecedented situation at the border. Border Patrol stations are at a breaking point. They have been over capacity for nearly all of 2019. DHS has already apprehended more than 390,000 illegal immigrant members in 2019, which is more than triple the amount of the year before.
So we have triple the number of migrants, we don't fully fund border security and ICE, and now this amendment says we also can't use DOD resources to back up.
So what is the result? The result is either one of two things: You have this humanitarian crisis that appalls us all because the resources have not been put on the border to take care of these people and process them appropriately, or you just give up border security and you just have open borders and let anything and anybody who wants to come in, come in.
Those are the alternatives if you don't provide the resources at the border that are needed.
Again, my preference is DOD doesn't do any of this. DOD has its hands full. But if you don't fully fund ICE commensurate with the number of people, the situation they have got to deal with on the ground, triple the number of migrants, if you don't fund them to deal with that situation, then that is where DOD gets called in as backup and support.
As Ranking Member Rogers mentioned last night, there are no ICE detainees in DOD facilities right now. I hope that there are not. Again, DOD has its own mission.
But you create the problem if you don't fund ICE. If you say you can't use DOD or anything else, then what happens? You have a humanitarian crisis.
I think that we need to do better. This Congress needs to do better on the whole issue of border security. That will benefit the migrants that we are talking about; that will benefit DOD; and that will benefit the country.
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 Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican leader.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, there is a train of thought, a political philosophy in the United States, at least since the sixties, that we are the problem, that the world would be a better place if we reduced our military, if we were weaker, if we did less; we are the problem.
In one political convention, Jeane Kirkpatrick called it the ``blame America first'' approach, and I think we are seeing elements of that philosophy in this amendment, because this amendment requires a bunch of studies about how we cut stuff.
Now, it doesn't really talk about, okay, what are our adversaries doing. It doesn't really talk about the challenges in meeting the security needs of our neighborhoods, how we prevent terrorists from coming to America and blowing us up, how we prevent the Russians, the Chinese from doing a variety of things, the Iranians, North Korean missiles. No, it just talks about, okay, what can we do to cut us.
And, specifically, section (a)(1)A asks for studies on options for reducing the Nuclear Security Enterprise; B, options for reducing service contracts; C, options for reducing special operations forces; D, options for reducing overseas military presence; F, options for replacing military personnel with civilian personnel. It is all about cuts.
I understand that there is that approach, but that approach has not been what has guided the broad majority of American political leadership for the last 70 years, because that approach has been that America needs to be strong. We are not perfect. Absolutely, the Pentagon is not as efficient as it should be, no question. But the idea is we should be strong and we have to pay attention to what adversaries are doing. That is not the approach that this amendment takes.
One other point, I think that Chairman Smith made a very important point a while ago, and that is one of the worst things we can do is send men and women out on missions without providing the support, the training, all that they need to, the best equipment, all that they need to perform that mission successfully.
We owe them that when they risk their lives. Yet, that is exactly what this government, and I think there is blame on both sides, has done in the past.
The world did not get safer. We did not reduce the missions we asked them to do. Yet, the budget was cut by 20 percent. And what happened? More of them lost their lives. There are real consequences to cuts without taking into account a strategy and including what adversaries are doing.
The administration has, for the first time in a long time, a significant National Security Strategy. It is not perfect, but at least it is an approach to dealing with these things: Here is the strategy. Here are the resources we need to meet that strategy.
That is what they have given us. You can agree or disagree, but they have done that.
That is not what this amendment does. This amendment says cut. This amendment says, have America grow weaker and, somehow, the world will benefit. I don't think that is true.
Madam Chair, I am opposed to this amendment. 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 Chair, I would inform the Chair that I have only myself to speak on this amendment. I don't know if the chairman has other speakers.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, let me start in a similar way that I started 2 days ago, and that is to express my appreciation to the staff, which has done a terrific job of wading through a ton of issues, a lot of paper, in bringing this bill to the floor.
I also want to express my particular appreciation to some unsung heroes, and those are the folks in the legislative counsel. Members and staff come up with these great ideas. Well, it takes the professionals to actually get that down on paper in legislative language in a timely way so that we can deal with it here on the floor or in committee or subcommittee, wherever it is. They do a magnificent job, and I don't think they get enough attention for the work that they do.
In addition, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Smith and to all the members of the Armed Services Committee for their commitment, for not just the work they put into it, but for their dedication and commitment to the country's national security.
There have been some inferences, and even more than inferences, on the floor that there is some sort of political maneuvering or games going on. I have not seen that in the Armed Services Committee. I believe, to a man and woman, every member of that committee is sincerely dedicated to doing the right thing for the troops and for the country's national security.
The truth is, together, we have done a lot of good work over the years, 58 straight years. In recent years, we have together grappled with the problem that we were discussing a few moments ago, a readiness crisis that resulted in the highest number of aviation deaths in 6 years last year and an increasing number of accidents.
Together, we grappled to turn the corner and do a better job. There is a lot of pride in what the committee together has done over the years.
There is concern, at least among the Members on my side of the aisle, that a lot of that progress we have made together stands a chance of slipping backward with this bill.
We have spent 3 days going through hundreds of amendments. A lot of times, we don't talk about the core of the bill. Let me give some examples of the concerns that I have about the reductions in authorization in the underlying bill that make a real difference.
For example, the underlying bill cut $295 million from aircraft carrier procurement, leading to a 1-year delay in the construction of the next carrier. We need 12 carriers. We have 11. We are on a path to nine. As a result of this bill, we are going to delay by another year getting another carrier.
It cuts $155 million from fast inshore attack craft mine countermeasures. Within the last 2 days, we have had some of these small boats in the Persian Gulf threaten British tankers, yet this bill cuts $155 million from the sort of thing that deals with that.
A lot of us are concerned about what the Russians and the Chinese are doing in hypersonics. A number of people think they are ahead of us in a number of respects. This bill cuts $20 million from hypersonic wind tunnels and infrastructure. It makes it harder for us to catch up.
This bill cuts $261 million from 5G next-generation communications. These funds were supposed to go to sites across the country to kick- start domestic innovation and explore 5G applications in military depots, seaports, and defense manufacturing. 5G is a big deal for the military, and we are competing with the Chinese especially. Yet, the bill cuts $261 million from what the administration requested.
It cuts $123 million from F-15 spares and repair parts. Twenty-eight of these aircraft are grounded today. The average age of the fleet is 35 years. Yet, this bill cuts $123 million from the spare parts to get those planes flying again. I think that is a mistake.
The bill cuts $42 million for a missile defense test that was approved, on a bipartisan basis, for the SM3 Block 2A missile.
It cuts $376 million from next-generation OPIR, which is the new satellite constellation to help warn against missile threat.
Specific, concrete things--these are not numbers out of the air. These are specific things where Members are concerned that it leads to sliding backward on readiness or not making the progress that we need to make when it comes to our adversaries.
That was the bill coming out of committee. Then, as we have heard, the bill took a disturbing turn on its way to the floor. I won't repeat the numbers about the Rules Committee. The statistic that concerns me the most, frankly, is that, of the amendments made in order that were contested--in other words, there was a debate; there was a difference of opinion; it was not agreed to--of those amendments that were made in order, one was a Republican amendment, Mike Turner's amendment on low- yield nukes. That was the only Republican opportunity to shift the bill in a different direction.
Then, Madam Chair, I note that the Armed Services Committee has put out a press release that is titled ``Democratic Priorities in the FY20 NDAA.''
The first bullet says, ``This is the first time in history that HASC has cut $17 billion from the President's budget.''
``First time in history,'' not exactly a way to maintain a bipartisan approach to national security when the majority is boasting that, for the first time in history, they are cutting a President's request more than ever.
I turn to page 4: ``Accelerates Closure of Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. . . . Eliminates arbitrary statutory restrictions on transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay.''
This restriction was put into law about 10 years ago under a Democratic majority and with President Obama in the White House. It prevented GTMO detainees from being transferred to the U.S. That was taken out in this bill. Not exactly the way to build a bipartisan majority.
On page 6, the headline is ``Protects Against Nuclear Catastrophe.'' Underneath, it says, ``Prohibits deployment funding for low-yield nuclear warheads,'' and, ``Reduces requested funding for NNSA nuclear weapons programs by $608 million.'' Down a little lower, it says, ``Cuts $103 million from the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent.''
So, we are going to prevent nuclear catastrophe by cutting ourselves. It doesn't talk about what the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, anybody else are doing. We prevent nuclear catastrophe by cutting ourselves.
That is the trend that this bill has taken as it has approached the floor.
I realize that there are various points of view within the Democratic Caucus. I note a political article that says Congressional Progressive Caucus leaders ``are demanding a string of concessions from Speaker Pelosi and her top lieutenants.''
That is the concern, I think, that many of us have.
Madam Chair, I would say two things.
One is, unfortunately, this year in the House, we have spent a lot of time on messaging bills that are never going to be considered by the Senate, will never get to the President. I don't want the NDAA to turn into a messaging bill, where we can go home and brag about something we voted, but those provisions have no chance of becoming law.
Secondly, and lastly, I would say there is a lot of good in this bill. I have talked about some of the not so good, in my view. There is a lot of good in this bill. There always is in an NDAA, in a bill this big, good and bad. There is a lot of good, and a lot of Members on both sides have contributed a lot of good, but the direction it has taken is not for the good.
I would suggest that Members who do care about a strong military, about doing the right things for our troops and for our American national security, consider very carefully their vote on final passage when it comes to that time.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source