Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I missed two votes on April 27, 2026, due to personal obligations. Had I been present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 138, and YEA on Roll Call No. 139.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I missed one vote on April 20, 2026, due to personal obligations. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 126.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I missed three of the votes in the vote series on March 4, 2026, due to a classified call that occurred during this time period. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 83; YEA on Roll Call No. 82; and YEA on Roll Call No. 81.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I missed the votes on Monday, February 9, 2026, due to travel complications. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 57, and YEA on Roll Call No. 58.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Phil MacNaughton for his many years of dedicated service to the House Armed Services Committee. After 17 years, this is Phil's last week on the committee. Phil joined the committee staff in 2009 and has been the Democratic lead for the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee since 2011. He has made indispensable contributions to the committee's work and the security of our Nation, spearheading reforms to improve safety, readiness, and effectiveness of naval forces; laying the legislative foundations for the landmark AUKUS agreement; collaborating with the defense industrial base to strengthen our submarine and shipbuilding capacity and workforce; working tirelessly to ensure our Sailors and Marines had the necessary authorities, weapon systems, and capabilities; and leading efforts to secure the most significant acquisition reforms in a generation. Phil exemplifies the qualities of the best professional staff members--bipartisan, collaborative, deeply knowledgeable, politically astute on legislative and executive branch politics; and committed to working diligently with Members on both sides of the aisle to achieve the best outcome. He has modeled the virtues of service, leadership, and dedication. Phil's outstanding work on the House Armed Services Committee is but one chapter in a lifetime of remarkable service to our Nation. Phil graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 2000, serving on active duty until 2009 and continuing to serve in the U.S. Navy Reserves until 2021, retiring at the rank of Commander. It has been a privilege working with Phil, and I thank him for his service to the House Armed Services Committee. His departure will be deeply felt, and I wish Phil and his family the best as they embark on this new chapter.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Steve Bachmann for his many years of dedication to our country, both through his military service in the United States Air Force and through his time at The Boeing Company. After graduating with a Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Virginia, Steve became an officer in the United States Air Force. During this time, he earned a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. In 2006, after twenty years of military service, Steve went on to join The Boeing Company as Vice President for Legislative Affairs. Throughout his time at Boeing, Steve was known as a dedicated mentor who always made the time to share his knowledge and expertise. An honest and forthcoming friend, Steve brought humor and lightheartedness to tough conversations. After retirement, Steve plans to spend time with his grandkids and enjoying traveling in his RV. It has been a pleasure to work with him for the past twenty years and I wish him all the best. Mr. Speaker, I thank Steve Bachmann for a lifetime of service to the United States of America and to his community. His legacy will not be forgotten.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Rev. Dr. Sammuel McKinney for what would be his 100th birthday on December 28, 2025 for the contributions he made to our Nation as a civil rights leader who fought tirelessly for social justice and racial equality in Seattle and who served devotedly as the beloved pastor of the Central Area's Mount Zion Baptist Church. The son of a Baptist minister and grandson of a Georgia sharecropper, the Reverend Dr. McKinney was devoted to serving his community throughout his life. McKinney bravely served during World War II in a segregated unit of the U.S. Army Air Corps. He graduated from Morehouse College in Atlanta after returning home from war, and then he went on to earn a divinity degree from Colgate in 1952. He settled down in Seattle, where he came to lead the congregation of one of Seattle's oldest and largest African American churches for forty-three years as pastor of Mount Zion Baptist Church. He was not only a spiritual guide, but a community builder who tripled the size of his congregation during his time as pastor at Mount Zion. McKinney was a founding member of Seattle's First Human Rights Commission, which successfully fought for the Seattle's first Fair Housing Act, establishing protection for tenants of protected classes and marginalized communities. A lifelong champion for racial justice, McKinney founded Liberty Bank, Seattle's first black-owned financial institution which countered racially biased restrictions on loans to African Americans and expanded opportunities for homeownership in Seattle. McKinney was a friend to many, including the noted fellow pastor and civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The pair had known each other from childhood but grew closer friends at Morehouse College. Dr. King visited Seattle only once, after his old friend requested that he come to give a speech in 1961. During his visit, Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of McKinney's influence in the civil rights movement and his commitment to racial equality. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Rev. Dr. Sammuel McKinney for a lifetime of service to the United States of America and to the city of Seattle. I am deeply grateful for his important efforts towards protecting our country, advancing social justice, and fostering economic development. His legacy will not be forgotten.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I also support this bill. I thank Chairman Rogers, the committee staff, House and Senate. This has truly been a bipartisan process. I am not in love with everything in the bill. There are some other things I would have liked to have seen included, but I really compliment Chairman Rogers and the majority staff for having worked with us throughout that process and worked with the Senate. I thought we had a very good bicameral, bipartisan agreement this year. The chairman is right. The highlight of this bill is acquisition reform, something that our committee has worked on for quite some time. For the last 2 years, in particular, we have been really focused on how to get this right, and this is the most ambitious swing at acquisition reform that we have taken. I know that can sound sort of dry. Acquisition reform doesn't exactly excite people, but it is really important because what it is about is getting the Pentagon to be able to buy the equipment, the innovative equipment, that it needs to adapt quickly so that our warfighters can have what they need to meet the challenges of the modern battlefield. It is way too slow right now, too many programs, way over budget, and not delivering as advertised. Speeding up that process and delivering a better product is an enormous priority for this country to meet our national security needs, and this bill does that. The House really led on that, and I think it is really important. There are other key aspects of this bill. We have others outside of the jurisdiction of the NDAA who are part of this, including Coast Guard reauthorization, Foreign Affairs reauthorization, and the intel community's reauthorization. Those are important to meet our national security needs, as well. There is also a very important component on countering UAS domestically. The threat the drones pose to many of our military installations and other sensitive areas in the country is a real problem. This bill takes a step toward trying to address that. I am also very pleased that this bill does a meaningful job of trying to reassert some legislative authority, to truly be the coequal branch of government that we say we are. We show strong support for Ukraine with $400 million in USAI. We blocked the President's misbegotten efforts to pull troops out of Eastern Europe in this moment and really reassert the ability of our committee to exercise oversight. We have a fence on the travel budget for Secretary Hegseth until he follows the law and releases the videos for all of the boat strikes that are going on right now in Latin America and also until he gets us the execute orders that by law he is supposed to get to us. We also have a requirement in here that if any senior-level military officer is going to be fired, Congress has to be notified and a reason has to be given. Overall, I think this bill is a good balance of the interests of both sides, in the Senate and the House, as well. It is a good product that we should be supportive of. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), the ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Davis), who is the vice ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), who is the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs), who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), the ranking member of the HASC Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the first thing I will say is we have mentioned repeatedly ``acquisition reform,'' which is such a huge part of this bill and such a major undertaking. It took a long time. We held a lot of meetings with a lot of different defense contractors, think tanks, and former people at the Pentagon to really get an understanding of exactly what is going on so that we could fix it. Mr. Speaker, ``fix it'' means moving faster and getting more innovative technologies more quickly. There are two people I will acknowledge. The staff on the House Armed Services Committee is outstanding. Collectively, I thank all of them. I cannot possibly name all of them, but I name Phil MacNaughton and Lynn Williams, who are the two members of the staff who worked on acquisition reform and worked on all of those nitty-gritty details that are very difficult to understand to help us produce such a great product. I publicly thank both of them for their incredible work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I do support this bill. That does not mean that I don't have concerns. I do. The biggest concern I have is that the Pentagon, being run by Secretary Hegseth and by President Trump, has simply not been accountable to Congress or accountable to the law. I guess it started with Signalgate, when Secretary Hegseth put on an unsecure channel sensitive, classified information that could place our troops at risk. The inspector general did a report on that. They concluded exactly that, that Secretary Hegseth had unnecessarily placed our troops at risk. His response to this was to say: I am completely exonerated; no problem. He didn't even try to fix it. Also, this Pentagon, unlike any Secretary of Defense whom I have dealt with, simply has not given Congress the information we are supposed to receive and given us the ability to do the level of oversight that we are supposed to do. Mr. Speaker, in this bill, I mentioned there are things that try to force that forward, and I think that is a positive step. It is not enough. To begin with, it is in the law that you are supposed to transmit execute orders, when the White House tells the Pentagon what it wants to do, to Congress. It is in the law. Within 30 days, you have to do that. It is not really complicated. It is not a big deal. They just don't do it, and we have been asking over and over again. The lack of respect for the law out of this Pentagon is a huge problem. Mr. Speaker, let's start with, actually, one other fact. It is the Department of Defense. It is not the Department of War. The law is very clear on that point. We passed a law that called it the Department of Defense. Mr. Speaker, if you want to call it the Department of War, I think that is a god-awful idea for a whole bunch of different reasons, but okay; come back to Congress, and let's do it. They didn't do that. They just changed it because the law doesn't matter to them, and that has implications. It causes problems. We are supposed to do our oversight for a reason. Some of those problems are borne out in a variety of different ways. We have the National Guard engaged in domestic law enforcement all across this country. They are not trained for that. They are not supposed to be doing it. It is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, and it is bad policy. It also means that the National Guard can't do the job that we are actually paying them to do, which is to train servicemembers to be ready for the fight. They don't have any training dollars. I met with the TAG, the Adjutant General, for the State of Washington, who told me that they are not able to train because all of that money is going to have our National Guard's members stay in hotel rooms all around Washington, D.C.; Memphis; Los Angeles; and New Orleans. That is something that shouldn't be happening. We should have greater accountability. I am also concerned about this whole issue of merit. We have heard that we have to get rid of DEI because it undercuts merit, and yet we have generals, inspector generals, and judge advocate generals being fired all over the Pentagon without explanation, many of them clearly highly qualified people: C.Q. Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Haugh, who was the head of the Cyber Command and NSA Combined Command. These are very talented people. Was that based on merit? There is no merit involved in that. That is about loyalty to Donald Trump. Laura Loomer shows up in the White House and says: I don't like this guy, and he is out. If we are going to have merit, merit can't mean we are going to make sure that nobody who is not a straight, White man ever gets any possible advantage. That is not merit. That is a built-in bias that focuses on loyalty, not on ability. I will also say, I don't love DEI programs. You can read anything I have had to say about this. I am concerned about the way it has been implemented. The idea that we ought to work to make sure that every corner of our country is represented in our military, I support. And there has been bigotry, bias, racism, and sexism that has made that difficult. We ought to try to undo that so that we can access all of the talent in this country. Saying that we are going to get rid of all of that in favor of merit that just happens to focus on people who are blindly loyal to Pete Hegseth and President Trump, that is not merit. I should clarify, I am not opposed to DEI programs. I am opposed to bad DEI programs--we ought to excise those--but we don't do enough here, I think, to correct those problems as we move forward. I am saving the worst for last: stumbling into wars. Why does all that stuff matter, accountability, oversight, the people's House having a say in all this? It is because that way we don't stumble into bad decisions. We are about to do that. We have already done that in Latin America right now. We have launched a war against narco-terrorists. President Trump ran on wanting to stop endless wars. You talk about an endless war, treating every single person who is a drug trafficker as a legitimate target for killing is an endless war and a war without authorization or proper legal authority. That lack of accountability and that lawlessness has consequences. Now, as someone mentioned, we are hearing that we have seized a Venezuelan oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela. The President has spoken frequently about his desire for regime change in Venezuela. That should not be happening. That is not the policy that we should be headed toward. We shouldn't be wanting to go back to the 19th century where powerful countries simply took what they could, and there was no international law. I have a lot of things that I am concerned about. This bill, even if we did it perfectly, could not fix all of that. The reason I want people to vote for this bill is because we need to reassert the authority of Congress. That whole string side of things that I just listed that we are concerned about, one of the biggest things about that is that Congress needs to exist. We need to be a coequal branch. We need to do our job. President Trump puts us in a fiendishly difficult position. He disregards us, abuses us, does all this other stuff. Then, if we pass a bill, eventually he has to sign it. It is like, well, should we do that? Yet, if we don't, then we are completely out of the picture. I will give a sincere compliment and thank you to Chairman Rogers. He worked with us in a legitimate bipartisan way on this bill. There are things that are not in this bill that Republicans wanted in the bill. We got those out because we wanted a bipartisan product. This is a bipartisan product. This starts moving us in the right direction. Does it stop all those bad things that President Trump and Pete Hegseth are doing right now? No. But it really couldn't. It is a step in the right direction toward reasserting the authority of Congress, which is but one step along a very long road, I will grant you, to try to get some restraint on the lack of transparency, the unaccountability, and the problems that are coming out of this White House and this Department of Defense that is creating all of these problems. I hope we will vote for this bill, and I hope we will continue working to do more oversight of the Pentagon going forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

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