EXIT INTERVIEW

EXIT INTERVIEW From the Republican Revolution of 1994 to the Global Pandemic of 2020, Mac Thornberry reflects on the past 26 years.

Mac Thornberry was first elected to represent the 13th Congressional District of Texas as part of the Republican Revolution of 1994. In the years since, he has established a reputation as one of the leading authorities on national security issues on Capitol Hill.

He has also become known for his ability to look over the horizon. In the mid-1990s, for example, he was one of the few members of Congress talking about the Revolution in Military Affairs and the need to increase our investment in such areas as special forces and unmanned aerial drones.

In the late-1990s, he saw that the nation’s nuclear weapons complex needed reforming and introduced a bill to do just that. When the Wen Ho Lee spy scandal revealed holes in our nuclear security, his legislation became the basis for a package of reforms that, among other things, established the National Nuclear Security Administration.

A few years later, Thornberry was – unfortunately -- proven right once again.

In March 2001, he introduced a bill to establish a Homeland Security Department so America was better prepared for a terrorist attack. On September 10, the bill had only a handful of cosponsors. By the following June, it became the basis for legislation that was signed into law. When asked later about the legislation and the fact that he had introduced it six months before 9/11, he said simply, “There are some things you don’t want to be right about.”

Thornberry went on to serve four years as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and currently serves as its Ranking Member. His tenure as Chairman was marked by three qualities — a commitment to rebuilding our Armed Forces after a period when our military was underfunded and being stretched too thin; a commitment to continuing to take the long view of the challenges facing our nation, whether it is the rise of China or the resurgence of Russia; and, a commitment to bipartisanship and making sure that U.S. defense policy has support on both sides of the political aisle.

Defense News once called him “a smart hawk who’s not afraid to buck the party line,” while National Journal called him “the E.F. Hutton of Congress” (because when he talks, everyone listens.) Last fall, Thornberry announced that this would be his last term in office. To honor his service and recognize his contributions to our military and national security, this year’s National Defense Authorization Act was renamed the ‘William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act.’

The Ripon Forum spoke to Thornberry recently about his service in Congress over the past 26 years, and the challenges facing America as it continues its fight against the COVID-19 pandemic and confronts a growing number of threats in an increasingly volatile world.

Forum: You came to Congress as part of the of the internet and social media to the Supreme Court Republican revolution in 1994 and are leaving decision which allowed outside groups to spend during the global pandemic of 2020. These two unlimited amounts of money on campaigns, the events alone would be enough to define someone’s political environment we’re all operating in is very career, and yet you have seen and served during different than it was in 1995.

a number of momentous developments over the past 26 years. In your opinion, what were the Forum: Staying on the subject of national most pivotal of these developments in reshaping security, talk for a moment about some of the not only the political security challenges that landscape of Washington, we face. Again, when but the geopolitical I’m absolutely convinced that you came into office,

landscape around the world? Thornberry: When it if we had not taken the fight to the terrorists and kept on America was the world’s preeminent economic and military superpower. comes to national security, offense, that there would have Today, Russia is you have to say that 9/11 was the most significant event, not just because of the lives been more 9/11s, and they may have been far worse. resurgent, China is on the rise and global Jihadi terrorists continue to be a lost and the next 20 years threat. Did the world get of fighting terrorists. But more dangerous because it was such a shock for Americans to realize that we we let our guard down or was our preeminence were not insulated here at home, and that we could be bound to be challenged in this way? attacked here at home. The whole mindset, I think, was Thornberry: I think both are true. It is really significantly different because we were used to feeling hard for Americans to stay vigilant. We are very good we’re protected by our oceans and that we’ve got the at rising up to meet a specific threat, and then going strongest military in the world. No one could get at us. back to our daily lives once we believe the threat Well, it turned out they could. I think that was a key has gone away. Part of it is the fact that America change when it comes to American national security. has always had isolationist tendencies. We want

There have been tremendous changes in the political to just mind our own business, trading with other world. I don’t know that I could go through them all, nations while staying out of their quarrels. This was but from the proliferation of media outlets to the growth especially true after the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold

War ended. Staying vigilant was hard for us. And then reform and investments into new technologies have we had 9/11. And while we focused our energies on been such a priority for the Committee in recent years. defeating the terrorist threat, the threat from Russia, China, and others was allowed to grow. Forum: Looking back on the years you’ve

In many ways, we face more complex dangers been in office, what, in your opinion, were some today than we ever have before. Even during the Cold of the key decisions made by Congress and the War, we had the focus and we put a lot of effort into not President that served to strengthen our national just building weapons, but into understanding Russia, defense and keep the American people more their mindset and so forth. Today, our challenge is to secure? understand a lot of different mindsets, a lot of different Thornberry: The reaction that the nation had to kinds of military capabilities, and so forth. We can’t 9/11 in the form of the authorizations to use military afford to just focus on just one thing. We’ve got to force, but also the funding in the years thereafter, have worry about the whole range of challenges, and that been very important. The hard thing about national translates not only into budgetary implications, but security is taking into account the events that did not mindset implications, as well. take place. I’m absolutely convinced that if we had not

Forum: Looking at the budgetary implications, there would have been more 9/11s, and they may have at the height of World War II in 1944, we were been far worse. So if you look at the last 20 years at spending about 35% of our least, the bipartisan decision to GDP on national defense. go on offense against terrorists Today, that figure has was very significant, and I dropped to about 3%. As We’re not putting the dollars have no doubt saved American Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, you into defense that we need to. lives.

led the effort to rebuild our Fifteen percent of the federal Forum: Following up military and invest more in budget goes to defense these on that and the flip side our national defense after years of sharp decline. But days, and yet everything else of the same coin, what were some of the decisions how much of our security depends on it. that were not made that in depends on dollars and your opinion left us more cents, and how much of it vulnerable to threat or depends on making sure attack?

this money is spent in a smarter way? Thornberry: Well, the first thing that comes to my

Thornberry: You have to focus on both. As a mind is Congress’s irresponsibility when it comes to result of the Obama years, we saw what happens when funding the military. I think of Secretary Mattis’s quote, we don’t put enough dollars into defense. In real terms, where he said that, ‘No enemy in the field has done it was cut about 20%. One of the consequences of that more damage to our country than continuing resolutions was you saw service member accidents and service have done.’ member deaths in training go up pretty significantly. It This is especially true when you’re looking at how was really that increase in training deaths that helped we protect the country against the threat coming from convince, I think, Members of Congress in both parties Russia, China, and others. You’ve got to have consistent that we had to reverse that trend and put more money funding in order to develop new capabilities and in into the military, just to be fair and responsible to the order to reassure allies, among other reasons. Generally people who are out there risking their lives for us. speaking, Congress has not done that. And there are

But that just takes care of what we have. That does consequences that flow from that. I can’t say there not address the threat coming from China, Russia, and has been any specific attack, but certainly our national others. Various commissions have said you need 3% to security posture has been damaged because of it. 5% real growth in defense spending in order to meet taken the fight to the terrorists and kept on offense, that the challenges we face in this regard. We’re not doing Forum: Shifting our attention away from that. We’re not putting the dollars into defense that we Washington, you’ve always had a reputation need to. Fifteen percent of the federal budget goes to as someone who believes that a person needs defense these days, and yet everything else depends on to see the world in order to better understand it. Now, clearly at the same time, we’ve also got to make it. You’ve met with foreign leaders, visited U.S. sure that we’re spending that money smarter and more bases overseas, and met with American troops in efficiently. That’s part of the reason that acquisition combat zones around the globe. Looking back on

it all, what are some of your main memories and the world. takeaways from these missions and these trips As for the kind of threat that I am most concerned that you’ve made? about — and this’ll seem like I’m following the

Thornberry: Oh, I think clearly the best part of headlines — but every year in which I chaired the international travel has been when I’ve gotten to be Emerging Threats Subcommittee, I had a hearing on with our troops and walk with them or be with them as biological threats. they carry out their missions for the country. I observed a tabletop exercise shortly after 9/11.

Now, obviously they don’t allow us to go into And the premise was that terrorists were spreading dangerous places. But I think of walking through an animal disease around the country. And when you some of the villages in Afghanistan. I think of staying looked at what it took — not just to identify it, but up all night as operations to contain it — it brought were being conducted to the country to a standstill. remove terrorists from And I’ve thought of that the battlefield. There is many times with COVID, no substitute for at least because that is what we’re being close at hand and seeing happen today. And seeing what incredible I think there are countries professionals we have who around the world that are are protecting our safety watching and learning and freedom. That’s clearly about what’s happening the best part. right now. It’s hard to

I would say sometimes know whether something is I felt a little weird being in naturally occurring, or are the Kremlin, being in the manmade or man spread. Great Hall of the People in And so the biological Beijing, and so forth. It’s threat is one that I am most kinda like, “What is this concerned about, because kid from Clarendon, Texas it’s so hard for us to deal doing in this place?” But with and yet has such the best part has been with devastating consequences. the troops.

Forum: A few

Forum: Let’s talk years back, Bob Gates

about the future. We’re Thornberry’s official portrait was officially said that “the greatest in the middle of the unveiled on September 16th and will be hung national security threat worst pandemic in in the main hearing room of the House Armed to this country at this over a hundred years Services Committee, joining the portraits of point is the two square in a global threat 14 other former Committee Chairmen. miles that encompasses

environment that can the Capitol building best be described as and the White House.” unstable. What keeps you awake at night and Do you agree with him? Is political dysfunction what areas when it comes to our national security, a threat to our security? And if so, how do the do you think Congress and the President need to parties come together to do what’s in our best pay special attention to in the years ahead? interest down the road?

Thornberry: The number one thing that Thornberry: Political dysfunction is clearly a keeps me awake, that worries me, is not something threat to our national security. On the other hand, somebody else does. It is what we do to ourselves. I bipartisanship on national security can be one of our am absolutely convinced that we can protect American country’s greatest strengths. We saw that after 9/11, security, America’s way of life, and our values if we and we have seen it on other occasions. Right now, decide to. That’s why these budgetary decisions and one of the only issue areas that is receiving bipartisan similar sorts of political decisions that Congress and support is support for our military. We were able to Presidents make are so important. And that’s the thing pass the Defense Authorization bill out of the House I worry about the most — whether we will decide to by a vote of 295 to 125. The Senate passed their put the resources into it, support the men and women version of the bill with a similar level of bipartisan who are risking their lives for us, and be engaged in support. But it’s getting harder and harder to hold this

together because of the pressures of polarization. So Forum: Since we are talking about advice, our political system can be our greatest strength or our what advice do you have for your colleagues as greatest weakness. And we’re seeing elements of both you prepare to leave the Hill after 26 years? sides of that today. Thornberry: We’ve talked about it. My number one piece of advice is do everything you can to try to

Forum: Let’s finish with a Barbara Walters-like maintain bipartisan support for our military. And I would question. And it’s not, “If you were a tree, what kind also add to that maintain the bipartisan approach to of tree would you be?” engagement with the world Rather, the question is this: that has been so successful If you could have dinner The biological threat is one for us and for the world since with any three individuals in history, who would they be and what advice would that I am most concerned about, because it’s so hard the end of World War II. Back to your previous question, if I have one other they have for the American for us to deal with and worry that keeps me up at people today? Thornberry: Well, I’ve got three busts in my office yet has such devastating consequences. night, it is that we have lost sight of what a series of remarkable decisions we — of Lincoln, Churchill, and made right after World War Ronald Reagan. If I were II, and how we have benefited going to have dinner with them, I would want to do it one in the years since. And you see elements in both parties at a time so I could listen to each one individually. Now, I who seem to be willing to walk away from keeping a don’t know what they would say about the challenges we strong military and from being engaged in the world. face today, but I absolutely believe that we can learn from And man — I think it’s so important that we hang on their example. While they had very different challenges to that success. Of course, it needs to be adjusted to and very different circumstances, we can learn from how meet the realities of today. But we need to maintain this they dealt with what they were faced with, and we can also approach that has been so successful for us and for most learn from their character and the example that set. others in the world. RF

Novartis proudly supports the Ripon Society

At Novartis, we harness the innovation power of science to address some of society’s most challenging healthcare issues. Our researchers work to push the boundaries of science, broaden our understanding of diseases and develop novel products in areas of great unmet medical need. We are passionate about discovering new ways to improve and extend people’s lives.

Everything your public affairs team needs to get the job done.

Legislative tracking, grassroots advocacy, and stakeholder engagement – all in Quorum.

MEETING THE THREAT Dangerous activity of Russia and China underscore importance of enacting the NDAA

by DEB FISCHER

At the end of August, Russian soldiers crashed their This year’s National Defense Authorization Act, the vehicle into a U.S. military vehicle in Syria, injuring Senate version of which passed 86-14, helps resource the several U.S. service members. A few days later, two Department to carry this mission out in the face of these Russian fighter jets harassed a U.S. B-52 bomber over growing threats. It also includes the largest troop pay the Black Sea, intentionally operating in a provocative increase in nearly a decade, as well as several provisions and reckless manner. that will support our military

Incidents like these have families through employment grown more common in recent opportunities and child care. years as Russia, under President I represent Nebraska, Vladimir Putin, has set out on a the home of U.S. Strategic quest to become a global power Command, which is responsible once more. Since 2012, Moscow for strategic deterrence, has invaded and annexed the nuclear and space operations, Crimean Peninsula, significantly and missile defense, among expanded its presence in Syria, other things. As the chairman where it supports the dictator of the Senate Armed Services Bashar al-Assad, and interfered Subcommittee on Strategic in democratic elections around Forces, which oversees the world. STRATCOM’s activities, I am

China, too, poses a growing proud that the Senate NDAA threat to the interests of the also includes funding for free world. Just a few weeks many of the command’s top ago, they test-fired weapons priorities. widely regarded as having been The FY 2021 NDAA developed specifically to threaten authorizes funding for one of U.S. Navy ships, including my highest priorities in the “carrier killer” missiles, into the South China Sea, an area that is The idea that America, Senate: nuclear modernization. Despite being the bedrock of contested under international law not Russia or China, our national security, much of but which Beijing claims as its should play the leading our nuclear deterrent has been own. And like Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, role in world affairs is in service since the Cold War. All three legs of our nuclear China broke their “one country, bipartisan. triad have been extended far two systems” promise to Hong beyond their original service Kong earlier this year, and has lives, and 30% of the facilities perpetrated an ongoing campaign of mass incarceration at the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semiagainst millions of its Uighur citizens. autonomous agency within the Department of Energy

The Trump Administration has been more realistic that oversees the warheads themselves, date to the about Chinese and Russian ambitions than its predecessor. Manhattan Project and early Cold War era. According It moved swiftly to increase defense spending, and in to our top military officials, it is simply not possible 2018 it released its National Defense Strategy, which to keep our oldest weapons in service any longer. As firmly places strategic competition with these two Admiral Charles Richard, the STRATCOM commander, countries at the forefront of the Department of Defense’s unequivocally testified before Congress earlier this planning. year, the “sustainment and modernization of our nuclear

forces has transitioned from something we should do to The idea that America, not Russia or China, should something that we must do.” play the leading role in world affairs is bipartisan. The

Bringing this deterrent up to date will take many Senate NDAA does more than any other bill in recent years, and it requires sustained political and budgetary memory to promote U.S. leadership, and my Republican support. The Senate’s bill provides both. and Democratic colleagues in the Senate recognized this

Nebraska is also home to the 55 th Wing, a unit of the and largely voted for its passage. Air Force that carries out global Congress has passed the intelligence, surveillance, NDAA every year for the past and reconnaissance missions. The Senate NDAA does 60 years, fulfilling its duty to The Air Force has shrunk to a historically small size, and more than any other bill in our military, their families, and our national security. it is critical we invest in its recent memory to promote As we approach the end of modernization and growth. For U.S. leadership. 2020, the Senate and House of this reason, the NDAA includes Representatives are preparing language I authored to help to meet in conference to reach the goals of Air Force We Need, while supporting discuss our versions of the bill. important new technologies and platforms. During this process, we cannot lose sight of our

This bill also includes support for the State greatest geopolitical threats: Russia and China. The Partnership Program, enabling National Guard units and future of our country depends on enacting a bill that puts partner militaries in other countries to train together. One America first and protects our people. RF of America’s greatest strengths is our network of allies, who share our values and whose support will be crucial U.S. Senator Deb Fischer is Nebraska’s senior senator to the free world’s long-term competition with Russia and and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. China. Projects like the State Partnership Program help to She serves as the chairman of the Subcommittee on strengthen these alliances and even to cultivate new ones. Strategic Forces.

How the Senate NDAA Prioritizes Strategic Competition with China and Russia

Extends the limitation on providing sensitive missile defense information to Russia and on the integration of U.S. missile defense systems into those of China and Russia, Requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the risk to DOD personnel, equipment, and operations due to Huawei 5G architecture in host countries and possible steps for mitigation, Requires the Secretary of Defense to consider 5G and 6G security risks posed by vendors like Huawei and ZTE when making overseas basing decisions, Protects the defense industrial base and supply chain, as well as intellectual property and technology, from disruption, infiltration, or theft by the Government of China (see "Innovation Base"), Fully funds the European Deterrence Initiative and increases funding to support rotational forces in Europe, Requires a report on Russian support to racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist groups and networks in Europe and the United States that creates or causes growing national security threats, information warfare, and increasing risks to societal stability and democratic institutions, Extends restrictions on military-to-military cooperation with Russia and any activities that would recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea, Expresses a sense of the Senate that long-term strategic competition with Russia is a top defense priority that requires sustained investment and enhanced deterrence due to the level of threat posed, Prohibits the Secretary of Defense from using any funds to reduce air base resiliency or demolish protected aircraft shelters in the European theater without creating similar protection, or to close or return to host nations existing airbases until the Secretary certifies there is no need for a rotational military presence in the European theater. Source: Senate Armed Services Committee