ms. cheney: thank you, mr. womack. i would like to recognize the republican leader of the house armed service committees, mr. thornberry, to discuss the president's defense budget request. mr. thornberry: the administration's budget request for defense is consistent with the two-year budget deal that was reached last year. .3% increase a over this year's budget. now obviously the world has gotten a lot more dangerous than .3%. thinking about the iranian activities, north korean missile activities. hina's so what the pentagon has done is look internally for savings. that means doing less of some of the things that we have been doing in order to fund the capability we need for the future. i think it's going to be a major test for this congress, whether we are able to take the longer, brder view in thinking about the future even though it means doing some things -- less of some things than we're doing now. if you look at this budget request, number one is people. a 3% pay raise. number two, the largest budget ever for res

ms. cheney: good morning. thank you, guys, for being here. know it's early after last night's state of the union. we appreciate your commitment and your attendance. really thought the state of the union last night was tremendous speech by the president. a combination of laying out what he has accomplished, what the epublicans have accomplished across the board with respect to the economy, national security, for all opportunity americans. and talking about what his vision is for the future and a very hopeful and vision the future. what s guests represented is best for all of us. it was a good speech. been to many states of the unions. this was among the best. it was a special speech. in stark contrast to that, tantrum.elosi had a she disgraced herself, she dishonored the house. once again that she is an embarrassment, that she's nfit for office, and the american people are going to have an opportunity to make that decision to choose between two for the future of this country in november. he contrast couldn't be clearer. the difference between

ms. cheney, the gentleman from minnesota, the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, the gentleman from north carolina, the gentleman from missouri, mr. smith, the gentleman from texas, -- thedy, from oklahom gentleman from oklahoma. >> the president of the senate appoints the following senators onmembers of the committee the part of the senate to escort the president of the united states. the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, the senator from south dakota, the senator from iowa, mr. grassley, the senator from wyoming, the senator from iowa, miss ernst, the senator from missouri, mr. bluhm, the senator from indiana, mr. young, the senator from new york, mr. schumer, the senator from illinois, mr. durbin, the senator from wisconsin, the senator from maryland, the hampshire, andw the senator from delaware. >> thank you mr. vice president. the members of the committees will exit the chamber through the lobby's doors. [indistinct conversations] >> madam speaker, the dean of the diplomatic corps. [applause] [applause] [indistinct conversations] [indistinct conv

ms. cheney: this is not a partisan issue. we believe, the house republicans certainly, that we have a duty to make sure that the nation is prepared. our nation has more resources than any other nation in the world to be able to address whatever threat coronavirus poses. but it's going to require bipartisan action. this is not a time for partisanship. passage -- pathogens do not respect party lines and it's very important for all of us to come together and to work together to make sure that we're prepared. i think we have a duty to do that. it's patriotic duty. we do have the very best infrastructure in the nation, we have -- in the world. we have the very best ability to innovate, the very best ability to develop whatever responses are necessary. but it's got to happen on a bipartisan basis. i think it's absolutely clear, as house republicans, that we are going to be prepared to stand behind and support whatever resources are necessary for this to work closely with the president, to work across the aisle with our democratic c

ms. cheney, myself and others, is that the signal that we are prepared to draw down and withdraw from afghanistan, the signal sent now, even if that is at some point in the near future, could cause a fracturing in the government, by extension a fracturing of the army which to me is the canary in the coal mine with ethnic tensions, and put us essentially back to 2001. here is my concern. would you agree that the taliban has the capability, so let's assume they have the will to enter into a peaceful political process, how do they have the capability to enforce the agreement and keep al qaeda and isis at bay where we have struggled, the coalition has struggled, a 300,000-man afghan army has struggled? do you think they have the military capability to keep al qaeda and isis -- >> unfortunately at this point -- >> -- in the wake of withdrawal? >> that will have to be taken for the record because of time at this point. ms. escobar. >> thank you, chairman. gentlemen, thank you so much for sticking around and for being here all morning with us, thank you for your testimony and your service. this is a hea