[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 149 (Tuesday, September 17, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7737-H7741]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON S. 1790, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
[[Page H7738]]
take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 1790) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House; to strike out all after the
enacting clause of such bill and insert in lieu thereof the provisions
of H.R. 2500 as passed by the House; to pass the Senate bill, as
amended; and to insist on the House amendment thereto and request a
conference with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Thornberry
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct conferees at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Thornberry moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the House amendment to the bill S. 1790 be
instructed to agree to section 2906 of the Senate bill with
the following amendments:
In subsection (a), strike ``military construction projects
authorized by such Acts'' and insert ``the military
construction projects described in subsection (d)''.
Add at the end the following new subsection:
(d) Military Construction Projects Described.--The military
construction projects described in this subsection are the
projects set forth in the following table:
Deferred military construction projects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State/Location Installation Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................ Anniston Army Depot....... Weapon Maintenance Shop.. $5,200,000
Alaska................................. Eielson AFB............... Repair Central Heat/Power $41,000,000
Plant Boiler PH 4.......
Eielson AFB............... Repair Central Heat & $34,400,000
Power Plant Boiler Ph3..
Eielson AFB............... Eielson AFB Improved CATM $19,000,000
Range...................
Fort Greely............... Missile Field #1 $8,000,000
Expansion...............
Arizona................................ Fort Huachuca............. Ground Transport $30,000,000
Equipment Building......
California............................. Channel Islands ANGS...... Construct C-130J Flight $8,000,000
Simulator Facility......
Colorado............................... Peterson AFB.............. Space Control Facility... $8,000,000
Florida................................ Tyndall AFB............... Fire/Crash Rescue Station $17,000,000
Hawaii................................. Joint Base Pearl Harbor- Consolidated Training $5,500,000
Hickam................... Facility................
Kaneohe Bay............... Security Improvements $26,492,000
Mokapu Gate.............
Indiana................................ Crane Army Ammunition Railcar Holding Area..... $16,000,000
Plant....................
Hulman Regional Airport... Construct Small Arms $8,000,000
Range...................
Kentucky............................... Fort Campbell, Kentucky... Ft Campbell Middle School $62,634,000
Louisiana.............................. Joint Reserve Base New NORTHCOM - Construct $15,000,000
Orleans.................. Alert Apron.............
Joint Reserve Base New NORTHCOM - Construct $24,000,000
Orleans.................. Alert Facilities........
Maryland............................... Fort Meade................ Cantonment Area Roads.... $16,500,000
Joint Base Andrews........ PAR Relocate Haz Cargo $37,000,000
Pad and EOD Range.......
Joint Base Andrews........ Child Development Center. $13,000,000
Mississippi............................ Jackson IAP............... Construct Small Arms $8,000,000
Range...................
New Mexico............................. Holloman AFB.............. MQ-9 FTU Ops Facility.... $85,000,000
White Sands............... Information Systems $40,000,000
Facility................
New York............................... U.S. Military Academy..... Engineering Center....... $95,000,000
U.S. Military Academy..... Parking Structure........ $65,000,000
North Carolina......................... Camp Lejeune, North 2nd Radio BN Complex, $25,650,000
Carolina................. Phase 2.................
Camp Lejeune, North Ambulatory Care Center $15,300,000
Carolina................. Add-Alt.................
Fort Bragg................ Butner Elementary School $32,944,000
Replacement.............
Seymour Johnson AFB....... KC-46A ADAL for Alt $6,400,000
Mission Storage.........
Oklahoma............................... Tulsa IAP................. Construct Small Arms $8,000,000
Range...................
Oregon................................. Klamath Falls IAP......... Construct Indoor Range... $8,000,000
Klamath Falls IAP......... Replace Fuel Facilities.. $2,500,000
South Carolina......................... Beaufort.................. Laurel Bay Fire Station $10,750,000
Replacement.............
Texas.................................. Fort Bliss................ Defense Access Roads..... $20,000,000
Joint Base San Antonio.... Camp Bullis Dining $18,500,000
Facility................
Utah................................... Hill AFB.................. Composite Aircraft $26,000,000
Antenna Calibration Fac.
Hill AFB.................. UTTR Consolidated Mission $28,000,000
Control Center..........
Virginia............................... Joint Base Langley-Eustis. Construct Cyber Ops $10,000,000
Facility................
Norfolk................... Replace Hazardous $18,500,000
Materials Warehouse.....
Pentagon.................. Pentagon Metro Entrance $12,111,000
Facility................
Portsmouth................ Replace Hazardous $22,500,000
Materials Warehouse.....
Portsmouth................ Ships Maintenance $26,120,000
Facility................
Washington............................. Bangor.................... Pier and Maintenance $88,960,000
Facility................
Wisconsin.............................. Truax Field............... Construct Small Arms $8,000,000
Range...................
Guam................................... Joint Region Marianas..... Earth Covered Magazines.. $52,270,000
Joint Region Marianas..... PRTC Roads............... $2,500,000
Joint Region Marianas..... Water Well Field......... $56,088,000
Joint Region Marianas..... Navy-Commercial Tie-In $37,180,000
Hardening...............
Joint Region Marianas..... Machine Gun Range........ $50,000,000
Joint Region Marianas..... APR - Munitions Storage $35,300,000
Igloos, Ph 2............
Joint Region Marianas..... Hayman Munitions Storage $9,800,000
Igloos MSA 2............
Joint Region Marianas..... APR - SATCOM C4I Facility $14,200,000
Puerto Rico............................ Arroyo.................... Readiness Center......... $30,000,000
Camp Santiago............. Company Headquarters Bldg/ $47,000,000
-Transient Training.....
[[Page H7739]]
Camp Santiago............. Dining Facility, $13,000,000
Transient Training......
Camp Santiago............. Engineering-Housing $11,000,000
Maintenance Shops (DPW).
Camp Santiago............. Maneuver Area Training $80,000,000
Equipment Site..........
Camp Santiago............. National Guard Readiness $50,000,000
Center..................
Camp Santiago............. Power Substation- $18,500,000
Switching Station
Building................
Gurabo.................... Vehicle Maintenance Shop. $28,000,000
Punta Borinquen........... Ramey Unit School $61,071,000
Replacement.............
San Juan.................. Aircraft Maintenance $64,000,000
Hangar (AASF)...........
Virgin Islands......................... St. Croix................. Vehicle Maintenance Shop. $20,000,000
St. Croix................. Power Substation- $3,500,000
Switching Station
Building................
St. Thomas................ National Guard Vehicle $3,875,000
Maintenance Shop Add-Alt
Overseas............................... Various Locations......... Various Projects......... $1,836,755,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. THORNBERRY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the motion be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct conferees instructs the House
conferees to agree to the Senate position to replace money transferred
from out of the military construction projects under title X, section
2808.
Just to clarify, when the Senate passed its bill, we didn't know
which specific projects we were talking about. The Senate has, in its
bill, a provision to replace the full $3.6 billion that was then
expected to be transferred out of military construction and used for
border security.
Well, now we know what specific projects those are, so the only
difference in the motion and this underlying Senate provision is to
list the specific projects.
It is important to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate passed its
bill replacing the full $3.6 billion by a vote of 86-8. Three
Republicans and five Democrats voted ``no'' on the whole measure, but,
overwhelmingly, they supported the bill that includes a provision to
replace this money.
Each of the projects that is listed in the motion to instruct has
been specifically authorized and appropriated by the House and the
Senate and signed into law by the President.
Now, it is true that the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Esper, has
tried to minimize the effects on our military when this transfer was
made. But it is still true, even with his efforts, that there was $544
million taken away from dependent schools, $13 million taken away from
child dependent centers, $15.3 million from medical clinics, more money
from fire stations, dining facilities, et cetera.
Despite his best efforts, our troops are affected by the transfer of
this money.
Mr. Speaker, we are really good at fighting, arguing, and pointing
fingers of blame about how this came to be, and I am sure we all have
different opinions about that. But voting ``yes'' or ``no'' on this
motion to instruct will not change that at all, will not change the
transfer, will not change any of those underlying facts.
The only thing that we have an ability to influence with this motion
to instruct is whether or not the troops have to suffer as a result of
Washington dysfunction. It will make a difference to them.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the right thing to do for national
security and, certainly, the right thing to do for our troops is for
the House to instruct our conferees to agree with the Senate provision,
the only difference being we would list the specific projects rather
than the total amount. That way, we can ensure that, as we continue to
argue about border security and a whole variety of other issues, our
troops do not suffer as a result of that argument.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to make sure everyone understands:
This provision is actually completely irrelevant. It will impact
nothing, from a substantive standpoint.
There is no way our troops are going to be harmed whether we pass
this instruction or whether we follow this instruction or not. That is
important to understand.
We authorize military construction projects, when we authorize them,
for 5 years. Every single project that the President has listed as the
ones that he has stolen the money from to build the border wall that
Congress expressly said they did not want to spend this money on is
already authorized.
Whether or not we put an additional authorization into the fiscal
year 2020 defense bill is, literally, irrelevant.
{time} 1745
It has no impact whatsoever on whether or not the troops, their
families, whatever the construction projects are, get funded or not.
That will be a DOD decision. They have the authority to do it. How do
they wish to spend their money?
So please don't let anyone say on this motion to instruct that if you
don't vote for it, you are voting to not fund these projects. You are
not. All of them are authorized for 5 years. There are a couple of
projects that were first authorized in 2016, but we are in that 5-year
window for every single project in question, so this has nothing to do
with that.
What this amounts to is a sense of Congress on whether or not we
ought to allow a President to effectively steal $3.6 billion out of the
Pentagon's budget for his own personal policy desire that Congress has
already said they shouldn't.
And in a bipartisan way, I am quite certain, but for the politics
surrounding this issue, that Congress would emphatically say ``no.'' If
we pass a defense budget that says this is where you ought to spend the
money, we are not saying, Mr. President, here's a piggy bank. Have fun
with it. Okay? If you find something, and it is $3.6 billion out of the
military construction fund--it is actually a little over $6 billion
total that the President took out of the FY19 defense budget to build a
wall that Congress said they did not want.
I think this has huge implications and, as members of the Armed
Services Committee, we ought to be alarmed about this. And I can
guarantee you that if President Obama had done this to the defense
budget, for any reason, there would have been no end to the fury about
it, and rightly so. Because if we are going to say, Look, the defense
budget is crucially important--in fact, particularly the members of the
minority party in this body have frequently
[[Page H7740]]
argued that the defense budget is underfunded. They will give you
chapter and verse and, in fact, did just a couple of months ago, about
all the areas in our defense budget that don't have enough money.
Now they are standing up and saying, as short as the defense budget
is, as much as we have claimed that there is not enough money in the
defense budget, we are perfectly okay with the President taking $6
billion out of it for something that has nothing to do with the
Department of Defense. That is an appalling position for any member of
the Armed Services Committee to take.
This motion to instruct, while irrelevant substantially, does give us
the opportunity to express the sense of Congress that this should not
be done for any purpose.
It is worth noting that we had a big fight about 6, 7 months ago when
we shut down the government. The President said he wanted to have his
wall funding, and we entered into a negotiation and, at the end of it,
I think we came up with about $1.5 billion that we allowed the
President for his wall. So we had that fight.
And after that fight, he decided that the Pentagon was just one big
piggy bank; that what we do over here is all kinds of irrelevant. We
are throwing money out there and the President can grab it for any
purpose.
I will just close by saying, I disagree with one statement that the
distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee said, and
that is, you know, We can all argue about who is responsible for this.
Seriously?
It is pretty clear who is responsible for this. The President of the
United States decided to take this $3.6 billion out of existing
Pentagon projects and spend it on his wall after Congress said they
didn't want it to be done.
Now you want to argue that he should have, because for whatever
reason, that is fine. But there is no question why we are here. And
there is no question that if Congress endorses this, if Congress says
it is okay for the President of the United States to use the Pentagon
as his own personal piggy bank--personal is a bit of an overstatement;
I understand this is policy--but basically to decide to spend money
wherever he wants to spend it, irrespective of what we say, why are we
even here?
Why do we even bother to authorize what the Pentagon is doing?
So, again, these projects are already authorized. If the Pentagon
wants to go find the money in the $738 billion that we have now all
agreed that we are going to spend, they can go find it. But there is no
way that the United States Congress ought to even irrelevantly endorse
this particular action by the President.
I would strongly urge every Member to reject this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished ranking member of the Homeland
Security Committee.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding time and for his leadership on our committee.
I rise in support of Ranking Member Thornberry's motion to instruct
conferees. It is vital that Congress fund all of the projects that have
been listed today as we vote later. The Senate did the right thing, and
now the House should follow suit.
Securing our border is a vital component to national security. If we
can't control our borders, then we cannot tell the American people they
are secure at home.
Even President Obama's former Attorney General, Eric Holder, said
just this week: ``Democrats have to understand that borders mean
something.''
This motion to instruct conferees supports the President's task of
keeping America safe. It also supports our military by funding
construction projects, including the weapons maintenance shop at
Anniston Army Depot in my district. This project would consolidate
maintenance operations that currently happen in different buildings in
different States under one roof. This facility is in preparation for
future modernizations in support of our force readiness.
This is a simple vote today for securing our borders and building
projects for the military. I urge support of this motion.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I want to quickly point out, again, this doesn't make any difference
in terms of whether or not these projects get funded.
Then, second, I think the gentleman is correct. This is a debate
about whether or not it makes sense to spend money on the wall. But I
just want to emphasize two points about that:
One, regardless how you feel about the wall, you should not be in
favor of being able to simply take the money out of the Pentagon to pay
for it.
Second, the border crisis that we have is not going to be even
remotely alleviated by a wall. The border crisis that we have right now
is asylum seekers pouring up to the border and turning themselves in.
Now, there are all kinds of challenges associated with that, no
question, and all kinds of policies that have led to that happening.
I think it is absolutely shameful right now the way the United States
of America is handling this. So many people are seeking refuge from
violence and horrific conditions, and we are treating them horribly;
and there is a lot that we need to do to change that.
But building a wall will not stop asylum seekers. It is a billion-
dollar waste of money focusing on a campaign promise instead of
focusing on the actual problem that we have. But, again, that is a
debate that Congress should have. They should not have it out of the
Pentagon budget. This is the wrong place for it.
I urge Members to reject this Presidential grab of money out of the
Pentagon that would set a very dangerous precedent.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time
other than myself to close.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Earlier, the term was used that the President had stolen, or would
steal this money. Actually, section 2808 authorizes any President, when
a national emergency is declared, to transfer military construction
funds to deal with that situation.
Now, again, we will debate about whether this was a true national
emergency, and whether he should or should not have done it here. But
the President did exactly what he has the authority to do. The only
question is, what are--who is going to suffer because of that.
As the gentleman from Alabama pointed out, no President and no Member
of Congress ought to have to choose between border security and
supporting our troops. And yet, that is, unfortunately, the situation
that, without adopting this motion to instruct, Members are put into.
The administration requested specifically, in the fiscal year 2020
budget request, that this $3.6 billion which was transferred out of
military construction be put back into military construction so that
these projects could be funded.
Now, you can have a 5-year authorization, but you have got to have
the money that year in order to actually build them. And so that is
what the Senate did in their provision. That is what this motion to
instruct would instruct the House conferees to do, with more
specificity.
Mr. Speaker, just so Members have a general idea, we are talking
about a weapons maintenance shop in Alabama, central heat and power in
the State of Alaska. Arizona has a ground transport equipment building.
California has a C-130 simulator. Colorado, a space control facility;
Florida, fire crash rescue station; Hawaii, security improvements for a
gate; Indiana, construct a small arms range; Kentucky, Fort Campbell
Middle School. Those are some of the specific projects, and I could go
on. Louisiana has NORTHCOM, various air facility improvements;
Maryland, a child development center at Joint Base Andrews; New Mexico,
an MQ-9 ops facility.
Specific projects are listed in this motion to instruct, specific
projects
[[Page H7741]]
which FY20 money would then fund, if the conferees would agree to what
the Senate has already agreed to and what the motion seeks to get the
House to endorse.
Again, Mr. Speaker, bottom line, there is a lot of argument on border
issues. There is a lot of dysfunction in Washington these days. But our
troops and their families should not suffer the consequences of those
arguments and that dysfunction.
This motion to instruct offers a path forward to at least ensure that
they have some insulation from those differences, and I urge Members to
adopt it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________