Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As I said at the opening, this was an extraordinarily difficult process. It is worth noting this final conference report also is not anywhere close to what was passed out of the Senate. In fact, of the nearly 1,400 provisions that were adopted, 70 percent of them were House provisions. The House firmly put its stamp on this bill in a bipartisan way, and I think the policies we adopted were very positive. We tried to do more in this bill than has been attempted to do in an NDAA in the 23 years that I have been here, and I am proud of that. We didn't get everything, but we tried to do everything that we could, that we felt was important for the national security of this country and for our interests. I am particularly disappointed that we weren't able to get some of the provisions to help reduce the U.S. influence on the war in Yemen. I completely agree with that. My quibble is with the fact that there was something we could have done to stop it completely. But the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is the greatest humanitarian crisis around the globe right now. If there is anything we can do to reduce that, we need to do it. I will say that the pressure that was put on by the House-passed bill that called for cutting off aid to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the military aid, has put some pressure over there. The UAE has almost unilaterally or almost completely pulled out of Yemen, and they recently signed a peace deal with the southern part of Yemen to resolve some aspect of that complex civil war. Make no mistake about it, that is enormously important to me, and I will continue to fight to get it done. Lastly, I want to say this process, I think, has been incredibly productive. The amount of work that the staff behind us and more people than I could possibly count or name did to make this possible cannot be overstated. It was an incredible amount of work, and it is so important. We are in an incredibly divisive time. There are people who are upset about just about everything, sometimes justified, sometimes not. Passing legislation in a democracy when we have to take into account all of those voices is both extraordinarily difficult and unbelievably important. We have to show the world that representative democracy works, that we can listen to the people. You don't have to be a dictatorship. You can listen to a bunch of people and still get a product done that meets the needs of the people. That is what we did in the defense bill. I will also say it is what we have done in a couple of other bills. The agriculture and immigration bill that we will vote on as part of this was another example of that getting done. We are now working, knock on wood, to pass the appropriations bills in that same spirit. I hope we don't lose that spirit. I hope we don't realize that just because when you participate in a representative democratic process and you don't get everything you want, that that means the process didn't work. Quite the opposite. The fact that you have that voice, the ability to say your piece and advocate for what you want, it is essential to freedom, essential to this country. Frankly, I think it is essential to peace and stability throughout the globe. We should continue to advocate for that passionately. I thank all who were involved. This was a lengthy but important undertaking. Ultimately, we produced something that I am very, very proud of. I don't want to speak for anybody else. I know there are probably a lot of people who are, but just for my part, I am incredibly proud of what I was a part of creating. I think it represents the best of our country and the best of this body, and I urge everybody to vote for it. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has left.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), the chair of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the conference report to accompany S. 1790.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, this was not an easy process. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation. It authorizes the Department of Defense. It basically gives the authority to the men and women who work at the Department of Defense to implement our national security policy and defend this country. And there is a lot of money, a lot of policy, and a lot of people interested in it. We also have the problem that we have a divided government. We have a Republican President, a Republican Senate, and a Democratic House, who do not agree on a lot of issues. And those are the issues that tend to get focused on. But what this conference report reflects, for the most part, is that we do agree on a lot; about 90 to 95 percent of what we were negotiating there was substantial agreement on: doing oversight of the Pentagon to make sure our taxpayer dollars are well spent and to make sure that the men and women serving in our Armed Forces, who we are asking to put their lives on the line to defend our country, will have the training, the equipment, and the support they need to carry out that mission. And there are more provisions than I can count in this bill that help them do just that. We all, in a bipartisan way, should be very proud of that accomplishment. I think, ultimately, the biggest difference between where the Democrats in the House were at and where the Republicans in the Senate were at: We believe in more aggressive legislative oversight, particularly when it comes to matters of engaging in military action. We remain deeply concerned about the war in Yemen. Now, it is not our war. Saudi Arabia and, to a lesser degree, the UAE are engaged in that, but we do support them. We want to make sure that we are not supporting them in a way that is contrary to our values and contrary to peace in the region. Regrettably, we were not able to get the President, primarily, to agree on that, but I think it is something we need to continue to put pressure on. We also believe that we shouldn't go to war without congressional authority. We will continue to fight about that. We have the 2001 AUMF and the 2002 AUMF still on the books 17, 18 years later. We need to update that. We need to make sure that we don't go to war with Iran without authorization.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. All of that said, ultimately, we pulled together what is an excellent piece of legislation. The two big things I want to highlight in the moments I have left: We finally repealed the widow's tax. After 25 years of claiming we were going to do it, this bill does it. And we also give paid parental leave for all Federal employees. I believe both of these things are integral to national defense. The people are the ones who give us the national security. Taking care of widows, taking care of employees is incredibly important. It was not easy to do. We did it in this bill. Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of the conference report, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Madam Speaker, I just point out that there was nothing in the House bill or any bill that would have ended the war in Yemen. It is not just Orwellian to say that. It is breathtakingly dishonest to tell people out there that there was something we could have done to end the war in Yemen. We need to work hard to bring a peaceful solution to that conflict. Being dishonest with the American public does not accomplish that. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor and congratulate Kim Herman, Executive Director of the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, on his retirement. Kim Herman has served as Executive Director of the Commission since its beginning in 1984, guiding the organization through changing economic conditions and championing affordable housing in Washington State and across the country. Under Mr. Herman's leadership, the Commission has helped over 73,000 families become homeowners and assisted the development of 128,000 affordable multifamily housing units statewide. The Commission utilizes the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, the private market, and community partnerships to help families build a solid foundation with accessible and affordable housing. Last year, Mr. Herman was inducted into the national Affordable Housing Hall of Fame, a well-deserved recognition of his decades of work helping Washington State's most disadvantaged citizens, including seniors, farmworkers, and people experiencing homelessness, as well as moderate-income families. Mr. Herman has built and supported the capacity of housing organizations throughout Washington. He helped to create the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance and has served on the boards of countless organizations and policy groups, including the Governor's Affordable Housing Advisory Board and Impact Capital. Mr. Herman's work in housing has expanded not only the Commission's expertise, but the capacity of housing organizations throughout the state and the country by dedicating his time to multiple leadership positions at the National Council of State Housing Agencies and the National Rural Housing Coalition. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I recognize Kim Herman's dedication to expanding access to affordable homes and congratulate him on his retirement from his longtime service to the communities of Washington State.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to quickly point out, again, this doesn't make any difference in terms of whether or not these projects get funded. Then, second, I think the gentleman is correct. This is a debate about whether or not it makes sense to spend money on the wall. But I just want to emphasize two points about that: One, regardless how you feel about the wall, you should not be in favor of being able to simply take the money out of the Pentagon to pay for it. Second, the border crisis that we have is not going to be even remotely alleviated by a wall. The border crisis that we have right now is asylum seekers pouring up to the border and turning themselves in. Now, there are all kinds of challenges associated with that, no question, and all kinds of policies that have led to that happening. I think it is absolutely shameful right now the way the United States of America is handling this. So many people are seeking refuge from violence and horrific conditions, and we are treating them horribly; and there is a lot that we need to do to change that. But building a wall will not stop asylum seekers. It is a billion- dollar waste of money focusing on a campaign promise instead of focusing on the actual problem that we have. But, again, that is a debate that Congress should have. They should not have it out of the Pentagon budget. This is the wrong place for it. I urge Members to reject this Presidential grab of money out of the Pentagon that would set a very dangerous precedent. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to make sure everyone understands: This provision is actually completely irrelevant. It will impact nothing, from a substantive standpoint. There is no way our troops are going to be harmed whether we pass this instruction or whether we follow this instruction or not. That is important to understand. We authorize military construction projects, when we authorize them, for 5 years. Every single project that the President has listed as the ones that he has stolen the money from to build the border wall that Congress expressly said they did not want to spend this money on is already authorized. Whether or not we put an additional authorization into the fiscal year 2020 defense bill is, literally, irrelevant. It has no impact whatsoever on whether or not the troops, their families, whatever the construction projects are, get funded or not. That will be a DOD decision. They have the authority to do it. How do they wish to spend their money? So please don't let anyone say on this motion to instruct that if you don't vote for it, you are voting to not fund these projects. You are not. All of them are authorized for 5 years. There are a couple of projects that were first authorized in 2016, but we are in that 5-year window for every single project in question, so this has nothing to do with that. What this amounts to is a sense of Congress on whether or not we ought to allow a President to effectively steal $3.6 billion out of the Pentagon's budget for his own personal policy desire that Congress has already said they shouldn't. And in a bipartisan way, I am quite certain, but for the politics surrounding this issue, that Congress would emphatically say ``no.'' If we pass a defense budget that says this is where you ought to spend the money, we are not saying, Mr. President, here's a piggy bank. Have fun with it. Okay? If you find something, and it is $3.6 billion out of the military construction fund--it is actually a little over $6 billion total that the President took out of the FY19 defense budget to build a wall that Congress said they did not want. I think this has huge implications and, as members of the Armed Services Committee, we ought to be alarmed about this. And I can guarantee you that if President Obama had done this to the defense budget, for any reason, there would have been no end to the fury about it, and rightly so. Because if we are going to say, Look, the defense budget is crucially important--in fact, particularly the members of the minority party in this body have frequently argued that the defense budget is underfunded. They will give you chapter and verse and, in fact, did just a couple of months ago, about all the areas in our defense budget that don't have enough money. Now they are standing up and saying, as short as the defense budget is, as much as we have claimed that there is not enough money in the defense budget, we are perfectly okay with the President taking $6 billion out of it for something that has nothing to do with the Department of Defense. That is an appalling position for any member of the Armed Services Committee to take. This motion to instruct, while irrelevant substantially, does give us the opportunity to express the sense of Congress that this should not be done for any purpose. It is worth noting that we had a big fight about 6, 7 months ago when we shut down the government. The President said he wanted to have his wall funding, and we entered into a negotiation and, at the end of it, I think we came up with about $1.5 billion that we allowed the President for his wall. So we had that fight. And after that fight, he decided that the Pentagon was just one big piggy bank; that what we do over here is all kinds of irrelevant. We are throwing money out there and the President can grab it for any purpose. I will just close by saying, I disagree with one statement that the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee said, and that is, you know, We can all argue about who is responsible for this. Seriously? It is pretty clear who is responsible for this. The President of the United States decided to take this $3.6 billion out of existing Pentagon projects and spend it on his wall after Congress said they didn't want it to be done. Now you want to argue that he should have, because for whatever reason, that is fine. But there is no question why we are here. And there is no question that if Congress endorses this, if Congress says it is okay for the President of the United States to use the Pentagon as his own personal piggy bank--personal is a bit of an overstatement; I understand this is policy--but basically to decide to spend money wherever he wants to spend it, irrespective of what we say, why are we even here? Why do we even bother to authorize what the Pentagon is doing? So, again, these projects are already authorized. If the Pentagon wants to go find the money in the $738 billion that we have now all agreed that we are going to spend, they can go find it. But there is no way that the United States Congress ought to even irrelevantly endorse this particular action by the President. I would strongly urge every Member to reject this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 12 of rule XXII, I move that meetings of the conference between the House and the Senate on the bill (S. 1790) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, may be closed to the public at such times as classified national security information may be discussed, provided that any sitting Member of Congress shall be entitled to attend any meeting of the conference.