September 17, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 149 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session
All in House sectionPrev25 of 95Next
MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON S. 1790, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 149
(House of Representatives - September 17, 2019)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[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. ____________________
All in House sectionPrev25 of 95Next