Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 476, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I strongly support this amendment. The documents that the gentleman just pointed to don't even begin to scratch the surface of addressing the issue that the gentlewoman is raising. Those are very broad documents about where the Defense Department spends its money. And I am sure they mention in there--actually, I am not sure. They might mention in there exactly how much money they spend on overseas bases. Actually, I would be surprised if they outline all the overseas bases we have and what their purpose is, and that is what this amendment calls for. Not the broad strategy, but really how many bases do we have, how much money are we spending, and what do they all contribute to that national security policy. I have read through those documents. They do not have that type of detail. Yes, they point out, for instance, here is why we are in all the places that we are--in Asia, for instance--as we are trying to defend it, but they don't go through all the bases and say why this particular place, that particular place. We are overseas in a lot of places that many people are not aware of. It is not just the big ones that we are all aware of that would be contained in that. There are a lot of other places where we own property and maintain bases. And the gentlewoman is also correct that the inability of the Pentagon to audit--in fact, one of the things that the audit found is that the Pentagon doesn't actually know all of the property that they own--or they can't document it, at any rate. So getting this piece of it documented would be helpful and would begin to answer the question: Is that money well spent? Is that even advancing the policy that is outlined in all of those documents? So I think this is necessary, appropriate, and will be helpful in getting us to a more efficient defense budget. And, again, that is a major difference in our approach from the minority. We don't want to just give the Pentagon money. We want to make sure that they are accountable and spending it well.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 476, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, on Monday, May 20, 2019, I was not present for recorded votes due to air travel delays coming to Washington, D.C. I would have voted: yes on roll call vote No. 218 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1952, as amended), and yes on roll call vote No. 219 (on the motion to suspend the rules and agree H. Res. 106).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Martin ``Mich'' Matsudaira. Mr. Matsudaira was a pillar for Asian American advocacy in Washington State. He dedicated his life to increasing awareness for the history and challenges of those in the Asian American community. Mr. Matsudaira was an influential voice in Washington State. Serving as the first Director of The Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs (CAPAA)--he helped create one of the first and most successful commissions of its kind. His work with CAPAA has touched thousands of people's lives. From his advocacy on behalf of Vietnamese Refugees during the transition process after the Vietnam War, to leading the charge for the redress of Executive Order 9066 and Japanese Internment, Mr. Matsudaira was a champion for Asian-American rights and a political advocate. Mr. Matsudaira personally understood the challenges that Asian- Americans face in our country. Growing up, he and his family spent three years in a Japanese internment camp. After his service in the United States Air Force from 1955 to 1960, he graduated from the University of Washington with a degree in economics and went to work for Boeing. He worked tirelessly to promote social justice throughout his career, and became a champion for diverse communities in Washington State. On top of his critical work in public service, he ran a small business called Mich's Mens' Shop, and raised four children. Mr. Matsudaira will be remembered for his groundbreaking efforts in civil rights, and his commitment to the community around him. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor and humility that I recognize the life of Mich Matsudaira, a staple of the Seattle Community, and a leader in civic service.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Jacquie Jones-Walsh, whose work combating injustice in the workplace has improved the lives of an unmeasurable amount of people in Washington State. Ms. Jones-Walsh tirelessly worked with, and in many cases led, a number of organizations with the singular purpose of supporting the rights of all workers. Ms. Jones-Walsh fought to eliminate the barriers that people of color and women so often face. She served tirelessly as a leader representing several organizations. Ms. Jones-Walsh was the second Vice President of the Seattle King County Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), State President for the Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW), Vice President of the Washington State Labor Council, President of the Seattle Blacks in Government (BIG) Chapter, a founding member of the Seattle MLK Jr. Organizing Coalition, and served several terms as President of the Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) Local 843, to name a few. A long-time advocate for expanding and protecting affirmative action, Ms. Jones-Walsh played an active part in a recent campaign to approve Initiative 1000. This Washington state initiative lifts a ban on affirmative action in education, employment and contracting and extends it to include women, veterans, people with disabilities, and all people of color. Her advocacy on this and countless other projects will be missed. I have personally worked with Ms. Jones-Walsh several times. Each time I've had the pleasure of meeting with her, she exhibited the passion, diligence and intelligence that her groundbreaking causes deserved. It was these qualities and her devotion to the community that made her such a staple in Washington State. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize the life of Jacquie Jones-Walsh, whose leadership in the labor community has been an inspiration for many people. Her dedication and commitment to fighting for equality will live on through her legacy, and she will be greatly missed.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor and congratulate Kathy Haggart, the CEO and President of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Bellevue, on her retirement. Kathy Haggart has had a remarkable career in the nonprofit sector-- having worked in nonprofit management for nearly 36 years. Ms. Haggart has spent the majority of her nonprofit work with the Boys & Girls Clubs of Bellevue serving as the President and CEO for 22 years. She was appointed as the President and CEO in 1997 after a successful term as the Club's Director of Development. In her position as President and CEO, Kathy oversaw 12 Club locations and managed a multi-million dollar budget. Ms. Haggart is an incredible, high-performing leader with an exceptional ability to bring teams together. During her time as President and CEO, Ms. Haggart fostered strong relationships between the Boys & Girls Clubs and the larger community. She strengthened partnerships with the City of Bellevue, the Bellevue School District, the King County Housing Authority, Youth Eastside Services, and other notable community organizations. She has helped shift the focus of the Clubs to include community outreach and services for parents as well. Under her guidance, the Boys & Girls Clubs of Bellevue expanded from one clubhouse to over 12 program sites. Additionally, the Club received many awards for program excellence from the Boys & Girls Clubs of America and local organizations. These include ``Best of'' recognition in several local publications, and selection as a ``Community Treasure'' by a local school. The Boys & Girls Clubs of Bellevue serve over 11,000 children and teenagers with educational programming, afterschool activities, summer programs, and athletics. The Boys & Girls Clubs of Bellevue thrived under Ms. Haggart's innovative leadership. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I recognize and congratulate Kathy Haggart on her retirement from her longtime service to the adolescents of the Bellevue community.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor and congratulate Jon Fine, the CEO and President of United Way of King County, on his retirement. Jon Fine has served as the CEO and President of United Way of King County for the past 18 years. He has been credited with making King County one of the leading branches of United Way. Before joining United Way, Mr. Fine had a distinguished career in finance, which aided his ability to restructure United Way of King County's giving program. Under his leadership, United Way of King County's programs have thrived. Mr. Fine led the growth of the homelessness prevention program to include over 2,200 units of permanent supportive housing. In addition, Mr. Fine's commitment to ensuring all youth have access to education helped to scale the United Way's parent-child home program from serving 160 families to over 1,300 families--with the goal of providing better educational outcomes for low-income children. Mr. Fine also spearheaded the creation of the Gates Challenge Endowment, which is one of the largest fundraising campaigns of any United Way chapter. Throughout his tenure, Jon Fine fostered innovative partnerships with businesses and other organizations that strengthened United Way of King County. Mr. Fine always encouraged program staff to think big. He challenged them to reach more people, start more services, and expand fundraising. Mr. Fine's commitment to service, innovative thinking, and vibrant nature are sure to remain with the United Way of King County going forward. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I recognize and congratulate Jon Fine on his retirement from his longtime service to the communities of King County.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the life and accomplishments of Washington State Senator Margarita Lopez Prentice, who will be remembered for her dedication to public service. I had the pleasure of serving with Ms. Lopez Prentice in the Washington State Legislature, where she was the first Latina elected as a Washington State Senator. After first being elected in 1988, she served as a public official in the Washington State House of Representatives for four years, and then in the Washington Senate, for 27 years. Before her retirement in 2013, Ms. Lopez Prentice served as the Senate Pro Tempore, and as Chairwoman of various committees. She was known for her caring manner, her mentorship, and her ability to forge bipartisan partnerships. Ms. Lopez Prentice's many contributions to the State Legislature earned her the distinction of Legislator of the Year in 2006 from several organizations, including the Washington Health Care Association and the Washington State Labor Council. Ms. Lopez Prentice was dedicated to bettering the lives of others. Her career in nursing and her passion for women's health, LGBTQ rights, veterans' benefits, and migrant workers' rights, demonstrate her commitment to helping others. During her 30-year career as a nurse and nurse administrator, Ms. Lopez Prentice was active in the Washington State Nurses Association, where she ultimately became vice president of the association. Ms. Lopez Prentice spent countless hours giving back to the Renton community through her service for the Renton Historical Society and the Renton Area Youth Services, as well as on the Renton School Board. Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I offer my condolences to the family and friends of Senator Margarita Lopez Prentice. I am confident that her love of public service will continue to inspire Washington State Legislators for years to come.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let's remember one important point. There was no problem. This was not an issue. It was not talked about until the President decided that, in his words, he wanted to ban transgender people from serving in the military. I hope that is not engaging in personalities. It is simply saying what he said and did. He sent out a tweet saying we should ban people who are transgender. Then the military has had to backfill that tweet with a policy. I feel bad for the members of the military who have had to do that, who have had to waste their time for the last year trying to accommodate the ignorance and bigotry of this presidential policy. There was no problem. Every single service chief testified there is no impact on unit cohesion. We weren't talking about that until the President decided that he wanted to discriminate against transgender people. I think the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee is 100 percent correct. Every eligible person who can perform the duties should be allowed to serve. This policy violates that principle in a whole bunch of different ways, but I will simply mention two. Even if you have already transitioned, even if you have already gone through all of the healthcare needs and have fully transitioned to a new gender, this policy says you will not be allowed to serve if you are transgender. That means that fully qualified people--not ones who have potential future surgery or anything--are being banned from serving. It also says, if you are serving now, you cannot be who you are. And this is where the ignorance comes in. Wow. What do you mean? You have got to be the gender you were born in. That is not the way it works. That is ignorance talking. This policy saying that, No, sorry, you have to be in your ``biological sex'' means you have to deny who you are. And that will also ban people from serving who are otherwise 100 percent qualified. Without question, trans men and women who are fully qualified to serve in the military will be banned by this policy. We have already seen the other two arguments: Well, the healthcare costs will go up. No, they won't. The stats, the evidence, the facts show that transgender people have no greater healthcare costs than the average person serving in the military. And the unit cohesion argument is an absolute joke. This debate, this policy, prompted by the President, inserting discrimination where it did not belong, is the only thing that has caused any of this issue. As General Milley said: zero evidence of any unit cohesion issue. So, let's be 100 percent clear here. This policy is based on ignorance and bigotry. And why are we doing it on the House floor instead of down in some press conference somewhere? Because the vote of this House matters more than just the individual words of a few Members. I, as a Member of the United States House and as a citizen of the United States of America, want my Congress to go on record that we will not stand for ignorance and bigotry in our military or anywhere else. A vote of this House makes it clear just how wrongheaded this policy is. And make no mistake about it, this is not the military that wanted this. The President drove it, and he is causing problems that do not need to be caused. We should reject this policy. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I am prepared to close at this time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, at some point someone has got to tell me what ``engaging in personalities'' means. I have served in this body for a long time. I still don't know what that means. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts an additional 1 minute.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is very straightforward. The Department of Defense, in cooperation with the White House, recently issued a policy, which will be implemented in a couple weeks, that would, effectively, bar transgender people from being able to serve in the military. We have this resolution to reject that policy. It is that simple and that straightforward. We believe the policy that the Pentagon is putting forward is unfair, based on ignorance and bigotry, and will actually harm national security. We ask the House, in this resolution, to express the sense of Congress that we oppose this policy from the Pentagon. Again, what this policy is primarily based on is ignorance and bias against the transgender community. The policies being implemented will make it virtually impossible for them to serve in the military. This is unfair discrimination, and it is also harmful to national security. The Army last year failed to meet its recruitment quotas. It is a constant challenge in the military to find the people who have the character, the capability, and the ability to serve in our military. We have the best military in the history of the world. We need high- qualified people to serve. To single out a particular group of people, to discriminate against them and say that they cannot serve, not because they can't meet the qualifications--it is not because they can't run fast enough or shoot straight enough or work hard enough--to be a member of the military, but because of something that literally has nothing to do with their ability to do their job, is bad for national security and is unfair discrimination. We have heard a lot from people about how difficult it is for unit cohesion to have transgender people in the military, a whole bunch of arguments. The only problem with that is the military leaders who have actually been responsible for this--and I am just going to read one quote. There are many, and some of my colleagues will say it as well. Army Chief of Staff Milley, who is about to become the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, last year said there are precisely zero reports of issues of cohesion, discipline, or morale as a result of transgender people serving. There is no issue in terms of readiness, despite what the proponents of this policy will say. It is discrimination, pure and simple, and it is unnecessary. We also hear opponents say that the policy doesn't ban transgender people from serving and, under certain circumstances, they can. But those circumstances, as described, are so limiting and restricting. Worst of all, as I will explain in a minute, in certain parts, it allows them to serve only if they are willing to deny who they are. That amounts to a ban. If you cannot be who you are and serve in the military, then that is a choice nobody should have to make. Let's start with the fact that, right now, under this policy, anyone who wants to join the military, if they have transitioned to a different gender, either gone through the surgery or began hormone therapy, this ban says they cannot join. Again, this doesn't say anything about their fitness to serve, in terms of their physical ability or anything. If they have simply had transition surgery or gone through hormone therapy, they are barred from serving. Worse than that, the people who are already in the military who are transgender are, to a certain extent, grandfathered in. In many different places throughout this policy, it says over and over again that they have to serve in their biological sex. A lot of people go: Well, what the heck does that mean? That gets at the essence, at the very heart, of what it means to be transgender. This is not something that is just in people's minds. It is a physiological condition that people are born into in which they decide they are more comfortable being in the opposite gender. That is one of the cornerstone difficulties that all these people have to go through: Who am I? What gender do I want to be? Working with therapists and working with other people, they make that determination. They decide: I know who I am, and this is who I am going to be. This policy now says: Sorry, we don't care what your doctor says. You cannot be the gender that you know that you are. You have to deny who you are in order to stay in the military. In many places throughout this policy, that is a consistent theme and points out what is so totally and completely wrong about this policy. You have also heard, undoubtedly, that there are higher healthcare costs for people who are transgender. There are a number of studies out that show that actually isn't true. Yes, healthcare expense is part of people who serve in the military, and, regrettably, people who join the military have all manner of different healthcare expenses that we do have to pick up, but there is no evidence that this has an increased cost over an average servicemember. Furthermore, we know that the purpose of this policy is not about cost because one of the first points that I made was about how they are not now going to be allowed to join the military even if they have already gone through transition surgery or hormone therapy. So even if they are all done with that, and there is no additional medical cost to come, this policy says that they are barred and banned from joining the military.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds. It makes it perfectly clear that this policy is unfair discrimination based on bigotry and ignorance, and I urge this House to reject it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, just briefly, I will agree, this is a messaging bill, and the message is this is a bad policy. That is what the House is doing. I will also agree that, when it comes to crafting the right policy in this area, it should be done in committee, and it will be done in committee. That is why we didn't bring that out here on the floor. But I think it is important for the House of Representatives to make it clear how wrong we think this policy is. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).