Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), the ranking member on the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, first of all, amen to Mr. Gallagher's comments. I appreciate that impassioned speech. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Kim), who is the ranking member on the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), the ranking member on the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I once again urge adoption of en bloc package No. 5, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), who is the ranking member of the Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chair, I agree with Chairman Rogers. This is a very strong bipartisan bill and it reflects the process that we go through every year in passing the National Defense Authorization Act. We had a great markup in committee. It was a bipartisan process. We considered at least a thousand different amendments and ideas that were brought to us by members from across the committee. We had very good debates in those amendments, and we came out with what I think is an excellent bipartisan product. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Rogers in his first year as chairman. He has done an outstanding job of being inclusive of all of us and producing a great bill. Mr. Chairman, I thank the staff. The members sort of throw the ideas out there and the staff are the ones that have to sort through them and turn them into amendments and negotiate to try to get it done. We are blessed with an outstanding staff on the Armed Services Committee. I very much appreciate their support. Mr. Chairman, I will start by emphasizing one of the last points that Chairman Rogers made on accountability and efficiency within the military. The Department of Defense is a very large bureaucracy. We will never completely eliminate any wasteful decision, but we are absolutely focused on doing the best we can, and this bill reflects that to try to make sure that we are getting our money's worth for the systems and programs that we are funding. I think the chairman has done a great job of leading on that. Mr. Chairman, we are working toward getting a full audit of the Pentagon. We are auditing piece by piece and empowering the Inspector General to make sure that we do a better job of spending the taxpayers' dollars. Overall, the NDAA weaves three basic things into it. Number one, and most importantly, is support for the men and women who serve in our military and their families. Without this bill, crucial programs will be lost that provide that support. We offer bonuses and other incentive pay. We increased the basic housing allowance. There are all kinds of issues that go toward the basic necessities that men and women in the military and their families need to support them that doesn't happen without this legislation. We have mentioned, and I mention again, the importance of recruitment and retention. That is one of the biggest issues. Are we supporting the servicemembers and their families? This bill is the opportunity that we, as Members of Congress, have to make sure that we are doing that as a body. The second big issue is modernizing the military. The chairman mentioned this, as well. On the modern battlefield, technology and new innovations are crucial. It is changing constantly and needs to be updated. The Pentagon historically has not been great at fielding new technologies quickly. We put a variety of different provisions in there to help incentivize that and move them toward doing that. The modern battlefield is about information systems, missiles, missile defense, drone, and counter drone. We need to have the best in all of that. We need to innovate, and this bill helps get us there. Lastly, the bill recognizes the threat environment that we face. They recognize the threat from China, the threat from Russia, and others to make sure that we have adequate deterrence. We continue the Indo-Pacific Defense Initiative to help offer that deterrence to China, and, crucially, we continue to support Ukraine. I want to emphasize that last point. You cannot be legitimately concerned about the threat that China poses and not be willing to support Ukraine. If Putin and Russia are able to do what they want to do in Ukraine, that gives a green light to President Xi and China to do the same thing elsewhere. Russia must be defeated in Ukraine. A sovereign, democratic Ukraine must survive for our country's vision of what national security should be for the globe. You can't do one without the other, and I hope we will do both. Mr. Chairman, this is a very strong bill. I support the bill as it is currently before us. The amendments that are in front of us are going to be debated one way or the other, and I will still support the bill after that. As we all know, that is not the end of the story here. There is a second rule allegedly coming. I sincerely hope that the majority prioritizes getting this bill done over the certain views of a small number of extreme Members. We have a good bill. Let's pass it. Let's not mess it up. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this piece of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), who is the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I think we have heard during the course of this debate exactly why this is such an important bill, why it is such a good bill, and the effort that went into the process. You have heard a bipartisan group of people, and people wide-ranging on the political spectrum, from left to right, describe the process that we go through to produce this product and why it is so important that we pass it. We face a very complex threat environment. Now I happen to be of the opinion that it is not just military strength that is going to help us negotiate that threat environment. For one thing, I very much applaud the Biden administration opening up high-level discussions with China. We need diplomacy. We need development. We need partners and allies throughout the globe. We also absolutely need a credible deterrent to deal with China and Russia, and also, by the way, Iran and North Korea, as well as various other transnational threats. We are doing this I think in a responsible way, and we have put together a good bill that will continue to support that process going forward. Again, I would emphasize what Representative Gallagher very articulately said. This is how this process is supposed to work. This is why we are effective Members of Congress. It is an example of how this body should function, and we need more examples of that. We need to pass this bill to continue that process. It is regular order, working it through the committee, giving everybody a voice, having debates, winning some, losing some. I don't think there has ever been an NDAA that was everything that any one person wanted. Republicans liked a lot of things in it; didn't like others. Democrats liked a lot of things in it; didn't like others. That is what we have put together here. The issue that is holding us up at the moment is around the issue of basically recruitment and diversity. What I hope folks understand is that what the Pentagon is trying to do is they are trying to effectively recruit from across the country. What a minority of the majority party wants to do is to torpedo this entire bill to push a radical antidiversity agenda. We need to recruit everybody, and we haven't always had the best record on this. The reason there is a diversity equity inclusion portion in the military is they recognize it is necessary to be able to effectively recruit within certain groups of people who have been historically discriminated against and marginalized. Just to give you one of the most blatant examples: Don't Ask, Don't Tell basically barred gay people from serving within the military, and 13 years ago, we repealed that to allow gay people to serve openly in the military. Every single Republican voted against that bill because of that issue, because we were allowing gay people to serve in the military. Well, as we look at our needs right now in recruitment and retention, can anyone credibly say that we would be better off if we barred gay people from serving in the military? That didn't happen by accident. We actually affirmatively went out and recruited. Same for trans people; we had multiple efforts to ban them from serving in the military. That doesn't help us. It, in fact, undermines us. We have had a long history of it being very difficult for women to integrate in the military. I hate to keep citing the story, but hearing the one woman who serves in our community talk about her experience, that it was okay because she just knew that she had to work twice as hard as the men in order to succeed illustrates the problem. We have by and large done a decent job of recruiting people of color, particularly Black people. When you look at the leadership in our military, it is very, very White. So if you are a person of color, if you are a woman, if you are gay, if you are trans, and you are thinking about joining the military, can anyone credibly say that it isn't a legitimate question to ask: Well, okay, but am I going to get a fair shot? Am I going to be rewarded for my efforts? Am I going to be promoted when I do a good job? Am I going to face discrimination and bigotry? For the Department of Defense to spend at least a little bit of time going out in those communities and saying, we hear you and we are going to give you a fair shot, we are not going to discriminate against you, we are going to have conversations about this; certain Members of the other side lose their damn minds at the concept of that conversation even happening. They want to pretend like that sort of bigotry doesn't exist. It is like we are making it up, and why are we worrying about it. Well, if it didn't exist it wouldn't be a problem. I would grant them that. Again, the history is right there. It needs to be addressed if we are going to recruit and retain. We are an increasingly diverse country. Do we really want to take huge chunks of that country and say, we are not going to use your talents? We are going to put those resources on the side, and we are not going to bring them forward. Now, as I said in the Rules Committee, bad DEI programs are bad DEI programs, and I am sure it happens. I haven't seen a program that doesn't have some examples of working well and some examples of not working well. If we want to regulate that, if we want to say: Look, you are doing this. We don't think you are doing that right; let's talk about it, that could be a conversation we have. But the conversation that we engaged in, and as Mr. Gaetz pointed out, there are provisions in this bill that, frankly, I don't like, that restricts some of this already. I am not fond of those. That isn't enough for the radical rightwing MAGA Republicans. They want to kill this bill because it doesn't discriminate enough against people in this country, and that is just absurd. This is a good, strong bill. It should go forward on its own merits regardless of where you come down on that debate. To say that we need to kill this good, strong bill because it needs to be more discriminatory against people is something that I would hope that the overwhelming majority of this body would reject. Mr. Chair, let me just close by saying that we have five en bloc amendments here; a whole lot of good things in there. Once we get through those five en bloc amendments, we will have a very strong bill, which will be bipartisan amended. If we were to go right from the end of that debate, put that bill up for final passage, it would get at least 350 votes--an overwhelmingly bipartisan, strongly supported bill that the majority at the moment is refusing to allow us to have a vote on as we try to negotiate that extreme agenda that I just discussed. Okay, if you want to debate with them, you don't want to talk, that is fine. At the end of that process, I would hope that we would have the courage to say, yeah, we hear you, you don't like it, vote ``no.'' That is a democracy, okay? Vote ``no.'' Vote ``no,'' send out your press releases, do your whole Facebook thing. You will raise a lot of money. We will pass a bill. We will take care of the country. You will get on TV a lot. You will raise a lot of money. Everybody is happy. I don't see why we can't get to that conclusion. That is the real worrisome thing here. They don't just support their agenda. The one agenda they don't support is democracy. It is the idea that people ought to have a vote, and if you lose, you lose. No, if they lose, they are going to tear this place down, and they are going to take everybody they can with them. Gosh, I hope we don't let them do that. I hope we find a way to pass this bill and work our way through the process and, for the 63rd consecutive year, pass a National Defense Authorization Act that supports the men and women of our military and shows that democracy works just fine and we ought to continue to support it. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Neville Ray for his thirty years of work in wireless network management, and to congratulate him on his retirement as T-Mobile's President of Technology and Strategic Network Advisor to the CEO. Throughout his 23 years with T-Mobile, Neville has played a critical role in architecting the carrier's transition from 2G to 5G and leading a best-in-class team. He is responsible for the management and development of the company's wireless network, technology services, and technology operations. Neville's colleagues recognize him as a strong, adaptable, and innovative leader. According to T-Mobile CEO Mike Sievert. Neville ``takes the crown as the nation's overall network leader'' and ``has made T-Mobile's network a true competitive weapon.'' T-Mobile's 5G network was the first to offer coverage in all 50 states, largely thanks to Neville and his team, who anticipated that the 5G era would be won or lost on mid-band spectrum. Neville has helped T-Mobile achieve numerous company milestones, including the first launch of Wi-Fi calling with a hotspot in 2007, the first launch of video calling using LTE or Wi-Fi in 2015, and the first-ever World Series 5G experiences in 2020. Mr. Speaker, I thank Neville Ray for his career helping T-Mobile innovate and succeed, and I wish him a happy retirement.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Duane Fladland for his many years of service for the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) and to congratulate him on his retirement as SBDC's State Director. Duane guided the organization through the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, leading a coalition of skilled advisors to help thousands of small businesses persevere through the crisis. Duane procured federal funding to relieve businesses owners, while also expanding local funding matching resources. He created the Center for Business Resiliency to mitigate the financial impacts of future business interruptions. Throughout his time as State Director, Duane helped the organization achieve their annual goals, including a yearly increase in our deliverables of over 60%. Duane's colleagues recognize him as a strong, adaptable, and resilient leader. My staff and I have had the privilege of working with Duane on multiple occasions. Through his productive relationships with several elected officials, Duane has helped the SBDC gain exposure at both the state and federal level. His dedication, commitment, and leadership has pushed the organization to support small business owners across Washington state in an effective and human way. Mr. Speaker, I thank Duane Fladland for his career helping businesses grow and succeed, and I wish him a happy retirement.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Teresita Batayola for her many years of service for International Community Health Services and to congratulate her on her retirement as ICHS President and CEO. Teresita guided ICHS from only two neighborhood clinics to a regional health care network with eleven service sites. She also led ICHS through their COVID-19 pandemic response, navigating the implementation of testing sites and telehealth as well as vaccination. Her work has been instrumental in shaping ICHS into an organization that serves over 27,000 patients. Additionally, Teresita's community service is not limited to her work for ICHS. She has served as the Aging in PACE Washington Board President, was appointed by President Biden to the President's Advisory Commission on Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, and has brought together local leaders to push back against anti-Asian hatred. My staff and I have had the privilege of working with Teresita on many occasions. I recently joined Teresita for a tour of ICHS's International District Medical and Dental Clinic to see and discuss the work she and ICHS are doing for health care access and equity. I have also worked with Teresita to secure Community Project Funding for the AiPACE Adult Day Center and Clinic in Beacon Hill. As a leader and advocate for her community about healthcare and addressing social determinants of health, Teresita's work has benefited many, especially in refugee and immigrant communities. Mr. Speaker, I thank Teresita Batayola for her career expanding healthcare access to diverse communities, and I wish her a happy retirement.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Housing Development Consortium for their 35 years of service and affordable housing advocacy within King County. The Housing Development Consortium (HDC) is a nonprofit organization in King County that has supported countless housing organizations, businesses, and government organizations to meet the housing needs of people with diverse incomes. HDC is a nationally recognized leader in affordable housing advocacy, and their commitment to the Puget Sound region has made tremendous impacts. From fighting for increased funding for new low-income housing to maximizing opportunities for those living on a limited income, HDC continues to play an important role in affordable housing advocacy. Further, HDC pursues these goals through a lens of sustainability to reduce emissions and energy costs for residents. Their work makes our community a safer, better place for all who reside throughout the Puget Sound region. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply grateful for the Housing Development Consortium and their critical work, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to ensure that the residents of King County have access to safe and affordable housing.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 9, 2023, I missed a vote on the motion on ordering the Previous Question (H. Res. 5). I would have voted ``NAY'' on roll call vote No. 21.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and thank Mr. Everett Coleman for his many years of service to the United States Congress and congratulate him on his retirement. A Navy veteran, Everett served our country in uniform before serving as a civilian. For the last 14 years, Everett has served as a crucial member of the House Armed Services Committee's staff. Everett's contributions to this committee and the country's national security have been immeasurable. He has worked countless hours, whether late at night or on weekends, to keep the committee running and prepared to fulfil its duties. As the lead for the committee's technology, Everett has served the over 60 members and 70 staff throughout the years with distinction. The Armed Services Committee would not have functioned without him. I can say unequivocally that the committee would not have passed consecutive National Defense Authorizations Acts (NDAAs) each year without the tireless work and support of Everett. Since 2007, Everett has kept the committee on track. Everett's role on the committee has not been easy. I suspect that no one on staff has ever called to let him know that the network was operating properly and that all the systems were okay. Rather, Everett has stepped up to make last minute fixes to ensure that a hearing started on time and dropped everything to ensure staff had the ability to communicate while abroad. Everett was also instrumental in moving the committee to an all-digital process for the markup of the NDAA. Further, as the Congress grappled with how to safely continue operations during the COVID-19 pandemic, Everett played a critical role to ensure the Armed Services Committee continued to be able to communicate, access data, and most importantly, meet and conduct effective oversight, ensuring the enactment of consecutive annual NDAAs. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the House Armed Services Committee, I extend our deepest appreciation to Everett for his dedicated service to the committee, the Congress, and the military and civilian personnel of the Armed Forces. We wish him well as he leaves the committee to enjoy his well-earned retirement.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to urge Members to support this piece of legislation. I thank everyone who worked on this process. All told, from the beginning of it, to now, over 2,000 Member requests were considered in some form or another, either in committee, on the House, or as we worked with the Senate. With that open, collaborative, and bipartisan process, we have produced, I think, an excellent product. First, and foremost, we support the men and women who serve in the United States military in this bill. Most specifically, we serve the people who are economically struggling the most by a 4.6 percent pay raise, increase in the basic housing allowance, increase in the basic needs allowance, making sure that the price of items at the commissary do not go up so much as to price people out of it. We support the men and women who serve in the military in this bill, and that is the number one most important role that we have. This bill also continues on the work that we did on last year's efforts to reform how sexual assault is handled in the military by including sexual harassment in the portions that are under the jurisdiction of the special victim prosecutor. There is a laundry list of things we do to really improve the quality of life for servicemembers and to exercise our oversight. This bill also contains a number of other oversight bills; the Intelligence oversight bill, the Foreign Affairs oversight bill, the Coast Guard authorization bill--authorization was the word I was looking for--as well as the Water Resources Development Act. All told, this bill is Congress exercising its authority to authorize and do oversight of the executive branch on behalf of the American people; and I think that is enormously important. We are a coequal branch of government. It is our responsibility to exercise that oversight and represent the people. Now, obviously, the most direct, sort of blunt force way that we do it is through appropriations, the money we spend. That is incredibly important as well. But the authorizing portion of what we do matters a great deal. It is our opportunity, as individual Members of Congress, to set policy for this country at the Department of Defense, first and foremost but, as I said, also in this bill on intel and foreign affairs and the Coast Guard and elsewhere. It is really important that we get that job done and we do it really, really well. I can't go through every single item that is in this bill, but I can tell you that just about every Member of this House has something in this bill that is important for policy, important to their district. I know because they have been talking to me for the last 6 months about it. This is important policy that makes a huge difference for the people of this body and the people of this country, and I would urge us to support it. I want to say two more quick things before I yield to my partner-- actually, three more quick things before I yield to my partner, Mr. Rogers, on this. First of all, I really want to thank him, the staff, and everybody involved in all of that. To field that many requests takes a lot of time. The staff on the Armed Services Committee has been outstanding, and we are a bipartisan staff. We work together in a collaborative process. All of the committee members, Republican and Democrat, have worked well together. Heck, in this moment I will even say something good about the Senate. They worked well with us also in a bipartisan, bicameral way. I really thank them for putting that process together. Second, I do want to just briefly address, there is always a lot of controversy about issues not within our jurisdiction and whether or not they go into the bill. What has to happen on that is the committees of jurisdiction have to agree. Democrat, Republican, House, Senate, you have got to get all four. If you get all four, great, we are happy to carry it. If you don't, we can't. I know it is important to you. I know you wish we could, but we can't because we don't have the votes for it. So I hope people understand that as we work with them on those outside issues. Lastly, I do want to address the vaccine issue, and I want to make a couple of things perfectly clear. Number one, the policy that the Department of Defense put in place in August of 2021 requiring servicemembers to be vaccinated was the absolute right policy. It saved lives and it improved readiness for the United States military while it was in place because it was absolutely clear that that vaccine made an enormous difference in protecting people from the disease. It was the absolute right policy; that is number one. Number two, servicemembers who refused to follow that order had to be disciplined. Orders are not optional in the United States military. You cannot function that way, and we are not going to undo that. But number three, right now, today, what is it, December whatever, in 2022, a policy that says you have to have gotten the first shot, and that is what the policy is that we are undoing in this bill. It says that you have to have gotten that first shot way back in 2021, either one Johnson & Johnson shot or the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna deal. Right now, the science does not support that that makes you any safer today; it just doesn't. I urge the Department of Defense to go back now and look at that policy and think about what the right and best policy would be. But it does make sense to repeal that order from August of 2021. Personally, I would have preferred the Department of Defense do it on their own rather than the legislature telling them to. But since they didn't, I think this makes sense, and I think we ought to do it. Again, let me just conclude by saying this has been an excellent process. We have a nearly 4,000-page bill that exercises the authorizing and oversight authority of the United States Congress on behalf of the American people. We did it very well. We have accomplished a lot in this bill. I think every Member of this body can vote for it and feel really good about that. So I urge you to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Cyber, Innovative Technologies, and Information Systems.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1512) providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 7776, with an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 1512.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and I may each insert in the Congressional Record not later than December 12, 2022, such material as we may deem explanatory of the Senate amendment and the motion to concur with the amendment on H.R. 7776. (The contents of this submission will be published in Book III of this Record.)

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.