Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

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

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers and am prepared to close whenever the gentleman is. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I really don't have a lot more to add from my opening statement. I think we have produced an excellent product out of committee. I just want to mention one thing, and that is I think it is really important, we have passed the NDAA 63, 64 consecutive years? Sorry, I lost track at this point. There is a reason for that. One of the most important things that we do here in Congress is to give the support to the men and women who serve in our military to defend this country. We take that job very seriously on a bipartisan and bicameral basis. We work together to make sure that we produce a bill that supports the men and women who serve in our military and puts our country in the best position to meet its national security needs. I believe, again, that we have done that. I don't love everything that came out of the committee bill, but then you never do. I think we worked in a bipartisan way and produced an excellent product. I urge Members to support that. I also urge Members to reject any of the amendments that will make this needlessly divisive. I will say, we do not have a woke military. Frankly, I am offended every time I hear Members come down here and claim that we do. We have the best fighting force in the world. If you talk to the men and women who serve, they will tell you that they work very well together, and they deal with the challenges they face in a way that would make us all proud. What we do have is an effort to make sure that we include everybody in the military, that we recruit from across the country, from across diverse populations, that we include women in a meaningful way in the military so that we can take advantage of the talent that women would bring to the military and do bring to the military. I hope we will not go too far down the road of denigrating our military as being somehow woke and weak. It is neither. We need to continue to support it and the excellent job that the military does and the men and women who serve and their families who support them do for our country. I urge us to support this bill, reject divisive amendments, and get us the bipartisan product that we produced out of committee. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I will be brief on this, but this is a requirement the DOD at the moment doesn't want to do. For the uninitiated, B-52s are not all nuclear capable because there are limitations within the New START treaty, which is still in existence, even though it may not be in a little while. The Department of Defense is not interested in doing this. What they are interested in doing is investing in the B-21, which is the next generation nuclear-capable bomber. This would cost a great deal of money. Also, they are currently trying to extend the life of a number of B-52s out to 2050, which they are confident they can do. This would be another added expense to that. I think we should look at this issue a little bit more before we require the Department of Defense to go down that route. I would urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the en bloc package, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I urge support of the en bloc package, 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 oppose this amendment for several different reasons. First of all, it is not 100 percent clear what exactly constitutes funds to build or rebuild. This body did just approve, a month or so ago, a large package that included humanitarian assistance to deal with the war in Gaza. I would not want this to restrict that. If it is not meaning to restrict that, there are no funds in the FY25 budget to rebuild in Gaza, so it is restricting something that isn't happening. More broadly, I think the entire argument behind this amendment is misplaced. We have to have a future for the Palestinian people if there is going to be peace in the region and, crucially, for the purpose of this debate, if there is going to be any sort of peace for the people of Israel. I do not believe it should be our policy to simply destroy Gaza and leave it in a state of absolute disrepair. I don't think that will serve anybody's interests, certainly not the Palestinian people living in Gaza but also not Israel. There has to be a future here. There has to be an alternative to Hamas and all the terror organizations that the maker of this motion lists. If you don't create that, if you don't create some kind of future for the Palestinian people, then you will have a perpetual conflict not just between the people of Gaza but between the large number of people who support them. We have already seen Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran be vastly more belligerent in their attacks against Israel because of what is going on in Gaza. If you don't build some kind of future for the Palestinian people, there will be no peace and security. If you vote for this amendment, what you are saying is Gaza should never be rebuilt, that we do not care about that. We spend billions of dollars supporting Israel, and I support that. I think we need to support Israel's right to exist, and I agree with the maker of this motion that that is one of the largest problems going on in Gaza right now. Hamas refuses to recognize that, as do too many other groups, but we also need to have an alternative to Hamas. We need to have some kind of hope going forward. This approach says no, we are not going to do that. I think it will lead to further instability in the region and put Israel at greater risk. Mr. Chair, I urge Members of this body to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. If it is in our interest to send billions of dollars, and we sent roughly $4 billion a year and just approved another, I think, $14 billion a year in military aid to Israel, that is money coming out of taxpayers' hands. Presumably those tens of billions of dollars could be spent on infrastructure here in the U.S. and a wide variety of other needs we have in the U.S. If it is in our interest to send those billions of dollars in military assistance to Israel, and again, I believe that it is, then it is also potentially, at least, in our interest to build greater security in Gaza and elsewhere for that matter to make sure that we don't have to have as much military aid. We don't have to have the wars and fights that go on. It just doesn't make sense to argue that we should send $20 billion in military aid, or whatever the number is, but, heavens, we couldn't possibly do anything to make sure that Gaza can rebuild itself so that there is greater peace and stability in the Middle East. Madam Chair, I think this amendment is misguided, and I urge Members to reject it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I have no particular enthusiasm or opposition for this amendment, so I don't urge opposition, but I really don't have anything more to say than that. Madam Chair, I will let the gentleman handle this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, this is actually an amendment that was defeated on a bipartisan vote in the House Armed Services Committee. There are no plans for the Department of Defense to participate in any resettlement process at this point. It is possible that it could come up, and that could be something that would be necessary and helpful, so precluding it doesn't really make a lot of sense. We have in the past--in different sets of circumstances, certainly in Afghanistan--had some DOD assets participate in the resettlement of refugees, some aspect of it. There will never be a situation where the Department of Defense is in charge of this sort of operation, but it is conceivable that assets within DOD could be used for that purpose. To block that off entirely doesn't make sense. I think the Department of Defense and the broader executive branch should be allowed to determine whether or not refugee resettlement is in their best interests. It is certainly not inconceivable that in certain circumstances refugees from the war in Gaza could benefit, and it could benefit us to help them be resettled through a refugee process. As the gentleman noted, there is a robust vetting process within that. More than anything, the general tone of this amendment and the previous amendment that we had--not the previous amendment, the one before that about rebuilding in Gaza--seems to take the opinion that every single Palestinian living in Gaza is an enemy of the U.S. and an enemy of Israel. I think that is wrong, and I think it is incredibly dangerous. Hamas is doing more damage to Palestinians than anybody right now. We need to find allies and partners within the Palestinian community if we are going to get to peace. If we treat every single last one of them as an enemy of the U.S., we are, A, wrong; and, B, putting ourselves and more crucially Israel, who is a lot closer to the issue, in greater danger than we need to. To pass an amendment that is biased and somewhat bigoted against the Palestinian people, to deny this possibility, I think undermines our interests in a wide variety of ways, and I would urge this body to do what the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee did and defeat this amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, while I would not say at this point in particular Gaza is an ally of the U.S., as clearly they are not, I do not believe that Gaza is an enemy of the U.S., which is what is clearly being implied here. Yes, obviously, while I say there are no plans to do this, that is a recognition of the fact. I oppose this amendment because if an opportunity were to present itself, I can see it being in the U.S.' interests to relocate some refugees from Gaza to the U.S. Completely blocking that out puts us in a position of saying we are the enemy of all Palestinian people. Again, I don't believe that we are. I don't believe that all Palestinian people see us as an enemy. To view it that way I think puts us in a very dangerous position and puts Israel in a very dangerous position. There are plenty of people in Gaza, plenty of people in the West Bank, and plenty of Palestinians that we can work with to build a better, more peaceful future. To totally block off any possibility of that, even while recognizing the current conflict--and again, I strongly support Israel. I strongly support them in this fight against Hamas. There is no question about that. What this amendment and the other amendment seems to do is to suggest that we are against all the Palestinian people and there is no hope for them whatsoever, and I think that is wrong. Again, I think we should reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, I think the gentleman admits, certainly there are some Palestinians who are not enemies of ours, and if they needed our help, we should put ourselves in a position to help them. This amendment forecloses that possibility, which is in all instances. Yes, we will absolutely vet anybody. The refugee process does not say: Just because you are under 18 there is no vetting, or just because you are over 45 or just because you are a woman, there is no vetting. There is a vetting process. Whether or not this ever happens, I don't know, but passing an amendment to completely foreclose the possibility I think is a mistake. Madam Chair, I urge Members of this body to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, this amendment would effectively ban electric vehicles and ban any effort to use them. Now, I will certainly agree that we are a long way off from having all electrical vehicles, but that is not what we are debating here. We are debating whether or not this should even be an option within the military. First of all, from a readiness standpoint, having options is always a positive thing. Energy is enormously important within the military. Having access to it can be difficult, and if you have electric vehicles as an option, that gives you one greater option so that you don't necessarily have to rely on fossil fuels to power a vehicle going forward. More importantly, the basic debate over global warming--and that is what it is, more than climate change--comes down to the belief that digging up fossil fuels from below the ground and burning them is bad for life. There is considerable evidence of this. It is placing carbon in the atmosphere that is damaging to the planet, and we need to develop alternatives so we are not 100 percent dependent upon fossil fuels. That is the basic plan here, to save the planet, which is actually kind of important to all of us, certainly to members of the military, and certainly to the defense of our country. Eliminating this as an option goes in the exact wrong direction. Now, the gentlewoman is correct. It is an industry that is still struggling. The fossil fuel industry, the internal-combustion engine, has well over a 150-year head start, has been very thoroughly subsidized across the board. If you build more charging stations, or if you build more electric vehicles, it will become more affordable and more viable. That is the entire point of this. This isn't going to happen tomorrow. We are not going to build all electric vehicles tomorrow, but why wouldn't we want that option to preserve our planet and move forward? An outright ban on electric vehicles within the military does not make sense. I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, the biggest issue here is that we keep hearing about climate politics. It is not climate politics. It is climate policy. I have reminisced about this before, but back in the 2008 campaign, Republican nominee John McCain and his Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, were in favor of addressing climate change. There was a bipartisan agreement, but then Barack Obama had the nerve to get elected President and pursue those policies. All of a sudden, it became partisan. All of a sudden, we decided that the planet isn't, in fact, warming and isn't, in fact, a problem, so we are just not going to worry about it anymore. That doesn't change the basic facts that it is warming and that fossil fuels are contributing to it, and developing alternatives is going to be crucial to our national security going forward. This isn't politics. This is basic policy. The lengths to which people opposed to these basic facts will go never ceases to amaze me, like the argument that we can't have electric vehicles come to our aid because they will be sitting there uncharged. Let me assure you that as basic readiness, they will be charged in the same way that gas tanks are currently full. It is not impossible to have electric vehicles work and function for us. They are doing it all over the world. Please reject this amendment and understand the need to get us to a more sustainable energy future. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.