Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, this is a very problematic amendment. I mean, we all have parochial interests in our district that we want to protect, but one thing our committee has worked very hard to do is to not put those peripheral interests ahead of the broader interests of the Department of Defense and the national security of this country. No determination has been made to alter or close Parris Island at this point, but it is being examined for a lot of the reasons that the maker of this amendment stated. For this body to come in and make a political decision to block DOD from being able to analyze that data in a fair and unbiased way is an enormous mistake. This is the mother of all slippery slopes. I don't think there is a single Member in this body who doesn't have some interest in their district affected by the DOD. They have a base, they have a particular defense product that is maybe being manufactured there, and we could pass an endless array of amendments telling DOD that they can't touch anything in our district. That is the road to an incredibly ineffective, inefficient Department of Defense. We need to give the Department of Defense the ability to make their decision based on what is in the best interests of the country and the best interests of our national security. There are issues around Parris Island that they are trying to manage due, ironically, to some of the climate change problems that the previous amendments that we have considered in here are studiously trying to ignore, so maybe if we could work on that so that we didn't have the climate change problem, we wouldn't have to worry about this. However, that point aside, again, we can't be passing parochial amendments that simply try to protect things in our district. DOD needs to analyze the data, the facts, and make the decision on where to allocate resources and where to base based on what is in the best interests of the country. Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I just want to clarify one point. I did not say that Parris Island is not at risk. I think you have outlined exactly why Parris Island is at risk. What I said was a determination has not been made, and it has not been made. I would like the Department of Defense to have the opportunity to make that determination based on the best facts available, not on the parochial interests of Congress saying, no, you can't even consider it. I don't know how this is going to come out. I don't think anybody knows for sure how this is going to come out. I do know that Congress shouldn't be standing in the way of a factual analysis to figure out what the best decision is. This amendment takes away any sort of factual analysis and just says under no circumstances can you reduce, much less close Parris Island. That is the wrong approach, and it ties DOD's hands in a way that serves parochial interests. It does not serve the interests of our national security. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I don't have an enormous problem with this amendment. The 1033 program is very controversial, as we will get into in the amendment that follows. As to how they prioritize the program within its existing parameters, I can understand that that is debatable going forward, and I am certain that the border communities that the gentleman described have the needs described, but there are a lot of communities across our country that have needs when it comes to dealing with crime of one kind or another. The 1033 program provides a wide variety of equipment. Prioritizing one group over another, I am not sure that it is justified. Yes, the needs for law enforcement in those areas and those communities are great, but I would have to hear the argument as to why the needs for other communities are not great. It seems like it would be equal across the board. I would urge opposition to maintain the flexibility for the Department to make those decisions based on their own priorities, not on how Congress has directed it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, the gentleman answered a question that I didn't ask. I don't doubt the need that you describe in those communities. The question that I asked was why are other communities' needs not as great, which is a more complicated question. Nor do I disagree that there is a time and a place for Congress to prioritize and say this is more important to us. It just seems to me that there are criminal justice problems out there. In the communities that have tried to defund the police, by the way, they are not asking for these programs, so you don't need to worry about competing with them, sadly. That is a problem which I think I agree with the gentleman on, but not a problem in this case. My only issue is not with the need of the communities that you are prioritizing, it is an issue of, well, how can we say that those needs are greater than the needs of other communities, that maybe drug and crime problems are not confined to the border, as I think many, many Members can tell you. That is the prioritization that I am more interested in an answer to, how we should balance that. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The 1033 program has been highly controversial because it has led to some pretty substantial pieces of military equipment being transferred to law enforcement--vehicles, in particular--and, to some degree, led to the militarization of the police in the past. Over the years, we have worked to try to get a delicate balance. I agree with the gentleman that the 1033 program is important and incredibly helpful to local law enforcement. There are some on my side who don't agree with that, who would like to see the 1033 program banned. There are others on the other side who would like to see it wide open. We have, over the years, as I said, worked to strike a balance between those two things. Supporting local law enforcement with excess military equipment is what the 1033 program does. It is equipment that is owned by the DOD but that they no longer need and that they can transfer to local law enforcement. Obviously, you don't want them transferring a tank or a missile launcher or a whole bunch of other things, so there are restrictions on that. From time to time, we debate what those restrictions should be. The most crucial part of this amendment that I find problematic is it eliminates the executive's ability to do that by not just changing the executive orders that are currently in existence but prohibiting any future executive orders that would reexamine that question. For that reason alone, and because of the delicate balance that we have tried to strike on the 1033 program, I oppose this amendment and wish we would keep the 1033 program where it is and how we have worked it out over a series of Congresses going back years. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Just to repeat the arguments that I made, I think we have struck the right balance on the 1033 program. We should not upset that balance, nor do I support removing the ability of the President, any President, to issue an executive order on this very important and sensitive program that has impacted communities across the country. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I believe we have the right to close, I have one speaker remaining, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I think that was an excellent close. I would just urge opposition to this amendment for all the reasons that were stated by the previous speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Stephanie Peters for over thirty-five years of work in corporate social responsibility, and to congratulate her on her retirement as one of Microsoft's Directors of Federal Government Affairs for the House of Representatives. Throughout her 15 years with Microsoft, Stephanie has been instrumental in guiding and evolving the company's public policy practice. She was responsible for engaging Democrats in the House of Representatives to advance a wide range of priorities for Microsoft, including supply chain management, national security, and intellectual property matters. While Stephanie's service to Microsoft is commendable on its own, her prior experience and achievements with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and Patton Boggs LLP are equally worthy of praise and recognition. Thanks to her unmatched combination of work ethic and subject matter expertise, House Democrats were able to draft and pass the landmark Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as well as navigate complex immigration reform negotiations throughout the late 1990s. Moreover, her legal work on international issues ranging from corporate global sustainability to pro-bono representation of refugees is a testament to her commitment to building a better world and helping others advance. From her service on the Boards of Directors for organizations like the Ohio State University Alumni Association to her co-founding of DC Jazz Fest, Stephanie's desire to foster positive community is evident in every personal and professional effort she embarks on. Her mentorship to others and dedication to lifting as she climbs has left an indelible mark on everyone in her path, and they will continue leaving a positive impact on her community and our country for years to come.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, let me focus on one argument of the sponsor of this amendment, who is basically saying that if we pass this bill, we are advocating the killing of Ukrainians. That is a uniquely demented way of looking at this war. Putin invades. Putin, as we speak, is bombing and killing Ukrainian civilians. The only thing that is reducing the number that he can kill is the Ukrainians' ability to fight back. So to look at this from a pure Russian propaganda standpoint, they invade, they bomb, they kill, and it is our fault for helping the Ukrainians defend themselves. That is the argument here against supporting Ukraine, and it literally makes no sense. If you want peace, give the Ukrainians the strength to stop Putin. He is the one that will not come to the bargaining table right now because he thinks he is winning. He thinks he can go all the way to Kyiv. He thinks he can take the whole country. If we give the Ukrainians the ability to stop him, that forces him to the table. It makes no sense to say that giving the Ukrainians the ability to defend themselves is what is killing them, when it is very clearly the Russians that are killing them. Mr. Chair, I would also note that no President has added more to the debt in one 4-year term than President Trump, and I didn't hear a single Republican complaining about the debt or the deficit during that period of time. The Ukrainians need our help to bring peace, to stop Putin, to stop what he is trying to do. Also, to Ms. McCollum's point, this also helps our industrial base. We face a dangerous world between Russia, Iran, China, North Korea-- all of whom who are working together, by the way. If we don't help Ukraine fight Russia, that helps Iran, that helps China, that helps North Korea. This is about our national security, which I am quite confident that whether asleep or awake, the American people also care dearly about. Please defeat this amendment and support Ukraine and support the United States' national security interests.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of the Millennium Challenge Corporation on the occasion of its 20th anniversary. Established by Congress in 2004, the Millennium Challenge Corporation has had tremendous success reducing poverty, building sustainable economic growth, and promoting good governance in lower income countries. Over the past two decades, MCC has invested nearly $17 billion in 86 projects across 50 countries, delivering results for over a quarter billion people in sectors including agriculture, energy, health care, transportation, and education. MCC's data driven, evidence-based approach to foreign assistance is a vital model to address the challenges of our times. The agency's focus on results paired with rigorous transparency, and oversight standards ensures we are investing in the most effective solutions in partner countries that share our values. These efforts not only improve people's lives and promote stability, resilience, and growth, but also crucially advance U.S. global development priorities and national security goals. As geopolitical and social challenges around the world continue to evolve, it is essential to recognize the value investments in programs that build resilient communities and promote poverty reduction have on our national security. Mr. Speaker, I commend the incredible work of the Millennium Challenge Corporation for the last 20 years and look forward to its continued success.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, no, I am not.