Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), who is a member of the Armed Services Committee and also served on the conference committee this term.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas). I note she is retiring from Congress this year, and I really appreciate her tremendous service on the Armed Services Committee and to this body.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the ranking member on the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. I want to particularly thank him for his leadership on climate change and alternative energy. He has done a great job of inserting those issues in this bill. I appreciate that leadership.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his leadership of the committee. Our committee is committed to completing this process every year, and I think it is a great example of how the legislative process should work. It is bipartisan; it follows regular order; and the chairman deserves a great deal of credit for making sure that both of those things happened. He has been very inclusive of all the members of the committee, Democrats and Republicans, and also all the Members of this House who have had interest in what goes into this bill to make sure that we have the strongest possible national security policy. I really appreciate his leadership, but I also share with him the gratitude that we have for our staff and the incredible hard work that they do to pull this process together. As the chairman mentioned, this is the soonest we have completed the NDAA--knock on wood, assuming we complete it--in my entire time in Congress. That took a lot of people doing a lot of work, Members and staff alike. The chairman mentioned some of the legislative counsel staff. These are the people who when at the absolute last minute we decide, oh, we prefer it done this way, they are the ones who have to go back in and rewrite the entire thing and redo the entire thing at all hours of the night. They do a spectacular job and are frequently unrecognized. The chairman mentioned some of them. I want to mention the rest: Mark Synnes, Hank Savage, I am going to do my best on this name--Kalyani Parthasarathy, Tom Cassidy, Casey Ebner, and Paul Kubicki. These folks do an amazing job for our country and for the men and women in the military. I really appreciate their tireless work and the outstanding product they produce for us each year. I agree with the chairman that we have a very strong bill this year. I also agree with the chairman that if any one of us were to write it, we would write it differently. There are things we would like to see in that were left out and things that are in that we prefer were not. But that is the nature of the legislative process. It is a compromise, an effort to work together to hopefully come up with a good product, and I think that is what we did this time. The chairman mentioned a number of the highlights. I am particularly focused on the fact that we do have language in this bill to take a look at the issue of civilian casualties as a result of some of our military action throughout the world, to get a better read on exactly what is happening and how we can minimize those. There is also language for a review of exactly what our military is doing in Yemen, to make sure that it complies with the law and complies with the interests of the United States. I am also pleased that, once again, we were able to avoid putting any environmental riders into this bill. Also, I agree with the chairman that this bill really shores up our ability to contend with the adversaries that most threaten us. On Russia, we have the largest increase in the European defense initiative that we have had in a defense bill. We also shore up our support for Ukraine and the rest of our NATO allies by reaffirming our commitment to NATO and our commitment to defending them from any Russian aggression. Where China is concerned, as the chairman mentioned, we have very strict restrictions on ZTE and also on Huawei and other Chinese companies to make sure they can't do business with the U.S. Government or with companies that do business with the U.S. Government. I do want to address one issue that I heard brought up during the rule. I think there is a popular misunderstanding that somehow our bill is responsible for the deal that led ZTE back into the U.S. market. That is not true. The President of the United States decided to undo what he had done previously, blocking ZTE from doing any business in the U.S., and basically fined them $1 billion. ZTE is paying $1 billion to get out from under the effective death penalty and be allowed back into the U.S. market. For our bill to have undone that, as the Senate bill did, it would have required us to cut $1 billion in mandatory spending. Now, I don't agree necessarily with the Parliamentarian's ruling there, that the $1 billion that ZTE paid is something that we should have had to offset if we undid the deal. But we have to live by the law. This is also mandatory spending, so if we were going to get rid of the ZTE deal and get rid of that $1 billion, we would have literally had to cut retirement healthcare for the men and women who served in the military. I don't think that is something that anyone on this floor would have been willing to do. So this bill does step up to confront our adversaries in Russia and China. I also think it reflects the values, as I mentioned, of dealing with the civilian casualty issue and trying to get a bead on what is going on with Yemen. And it reflects a reasonable compromise between the House and the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to close by echoing the words of our chairman in being grateful that this bill is named after Senator McCain. I knew Senator McCain before I even got into politics, just as a prominent national figure, a war hero, and someone to be greatly admired. It is one of the great honors of my career that I have had the privilege to work with him on the Armed Services Committee process over the course of the last 5 years as ranking member. John McCain is as tough, smart, and committed to this country as anyone you will ever find. It is truly fitting that this bill is named after him. He will be remembered as one of the great heroes of our country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I really want to thank Congressman Yoho. We have worked together on this bill. We have also worked together as co-chairs of the Caucus for Effective Foreign Assistance. This bill really shows the bipartisan support on the committee. I certainly want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work, as well, towards a very important goal, and that is to make more effective use of U.S. foreign aid and foreign development. It is a crucial tool right now in the world. We need as many friends and as many partners as we can find in the world. Development through USAID and other agencies is a crucial way that we build the relationships and, as has been mentioned by all three of the previous speakers, as importantly, build the capacity of our partners to have a strong economy and to grow. What this bill does is it makes our foreign investment policy better, more cohesive, and more robust. It enables that agency to invest in the projects that are necessary to help it be successful by expanding what it can do, by expanding its ability to work with other partners, to work with the private sector, and, crucially, to take an equity stake in some of their investments, something that current law prohibits. This will greatly expand their ability to find projects across the developing world to invest in and help grow these countries and move them forward. The overall goal of foreign aid is to make sure that there, hopefully, at some point, are no countries in the world that can't provide for their people, to go after poverty, to reduce it wherever we can. There are a lot of different projects that are important to foreign aid. Certainly, global health, education, and direct assistance all play a crucial role. But I would submit that nothing is more important than enabling these countries to develop their own economy by giving them the capital they need to invest in projects and grow businesses so that they become self-sustaining partners. This bill does a crucially important job in making sure that the U.S. contribution to that effort is as effective as it possibly can be. It lives up to the name of our caucus, effective foreign assistance. This is critically important. A lot of times people think of foreign aid as being, well, that is just sort of a leftwing issue. Well, I want you to know there is true bipartisan support in this Congress by Republicans and Democrats to improve the quality of our foreign aid. I thank Congressman Yoho for his leadership on that. He has done a great job in making sure that this is a bipartisan issue because it is crucial that we reduce poverty and improve security across the globe, and it is also crucial that the U.S., as the largest, strongest economy in the world, plays a strong role in that effort. This bill will put us in a better position to do precisely that. I will also say, I think this is but the first of many efforts that we can have on improving the quality of foreign aid, of making it more effective and more robust. It is worth noting that this bill also expands the amount of money that is available to our foreign lending. It gives them more money to deal with. I strongly support this bill, this bipartisan effort, and I appreciate Congressman Yoho's leadership. I look forward to continuing to work with him on this and many other issues. General Leave

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have had the broader debate, so let me just say very quickly I agree with the resolution brought forward by Congressman Gallagher; that the budget uncertainty definitely impacts readiness and impacts the ability of Marines, in fact, the entire Department of Defense to fight adequately. I do believe, as I have said earlier, that we need to get at the underlying fiscal issues that have created that, taking us all the way back to the Budget Control Act and why it was passed in 2011 in the first place. We need to get at a fiscal policy in this country so that we can adequately and predictably fund, certainly the Department of Defense, certainly the Marine Corps, but I would say the entire Federal budget in a way that puts us in a much stronger position as a country. Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, and I agree, that the fundamental point is that we need to make sure that we adequately provide for, in this case, what the resolution is focused on, the Navy and the Marine Corps. As I have agreed throughout, adequate readiness for them is incredibly important. The CRs and the budget fiasco that we have had have not provided that. What I am trying to do is, rather than just an empty resolution that says, gosh, it would be great if we actually looked after you, to talk about the policy steps that are going to be necessary to actually do that. So I think that is an incredibly important part of this debate. Now, we can have every resolution all day long saying we want to cure cancer, we want to bring peace to the world. That is great. But what are the steps that are going to be necessary, in this case, to get to the point where the Navy and Marine Corps has the adequate funds that they need, or at least has predictability for what they are going to be able to do, because we have been having these discussions about how, gosh, we ought to do this, and then we don't. I am trying to explain to the people who serve in the military and everybody else exactly why we don't; instead of just giving them empty promises saying we would really like to help you, it just seems like year after year, somehow we don't. We don't, for all of the reasons that I have listed in terms of fiscal policy going forward. The other thing that I would like to point out is, Obama is no longer President. Donald Trump is President. And it seems to me like the one thing the Republican Party would want to do, they would love to have Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to kick around for, like, ever. But you are actually in charge now; so why don't you be responsible for the policies that we have right now. And I just, I couldn't believe that I heard the Representative from Wyoming say that America is now projecting strength. If there was ever an example of the President of the United States projecting the most embarrassing, abject weakness I have ever seen than what President Trump just did with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, I can't think of it. And quite frankly, a number of Republican commentators that I have seen talk over the last 24 hours can't think of it either. So I know it is incredibly comforting, from a policy perspective, to blame everything, absolutely everything, that has gone wrong in the world on President Obama, but he is not in charge anymore. Donald Trump is in charge. The Republican Party is in charge of the House and the Senate, and it is time to focus on policies that are going to move us forward and advance our interests; and not just feel comfort in the fact that we can sort of rewrite history and blame President Obama for absolutely everything that has gone wrong. It is a big, complicated, and difficult world for President Trump. It was for President Obama. We need to work together. We need to find ways to confront the challenges we face in a thoughtful way. Simply blaming the past president for absolutely everything isn't going to get us there. So, again, let me just conclude by saying I completely agree. The issue that needs to be addressed is to make sure that we have adequate readiness for all of the men and women who serve in the military. We are only talking about the Navy and Marine Corps. As I think the gentlewoman said, we are going to talk about the Air Force and the Army next week. I think we should talk about all of them at the same time, because it is all equally important. But to get there, we need to have a strategy that is actually sustainable, instead of one that is based on hope. And to my mind, that is the worst thing that we can do to the men and women who serve in the military is say we want you to do all of this, and we don't really have the funds to do it, so you are going to have to figure it out as you go. It would be far, far better to say, look, here is, realistically, where our budget is at. Here is, realistically, what we can do. Give them that task, and then they will be trained and equipped to do it, instead of being asked to do more than we are willing to provide money for. And it is one thing if this was just 1 year. It is one thing if we had a surplus. But we don't. We have the budget environment that we have. So if we are going to get to the point where we adequately address readiness and address the issues that are being raised, then we need to be realistic about what we can do and, like I said, not keep blaming past administrations for things; actually try to implement policy right now that is going to make sure that we have the strongest national security policy we can, and that, again, the men and women who serve in the military, at a minimum, are trained and equipped to do the missions that we are asking them to do; that we don't ask them to do missions that go beyond the funds that we provide for them. 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, I appreciate the gentleman's motion. It is part of the same discussion we had on the previous resolution, and I, as I said, completely agree. The lack of certainty on the continuing resolutions has negatively impacted the Department of Defense and our readiness. There is absolutely no question about it. The only thing I would debate today is: What is the best way to address that problem? How do we honestly get at it? These resolutions would suggest that if we simply fund defense and ignore everything else, then we will be fine. I think the way we got into this mess is instructive, and it is also going to be helpful in terms of how we get out of this mess going forward. It is worth noting, at the end of this, we talked a little bit about tax cuts and how one thing doesn't have to do with the other. Tax cuts do not increase revenue. If they did, we would have the easiest job in the world. Also, a tax rate of zero would generate the most revenue for the United States Government. Obviously, that is not true. Now, it is true that tax policy, depending on how it is structured, can be more encouraging to investment. But we have never had lower tax rates on the Federal level than we have right now. After all of the Bush tax cuts, as I mentioned the tax cuts under President Obama, and now the tax cuts under President Trump, all of that has added up to a massive decrease in our revenue, and that is part of the equation. When President Bush put the tax cuts in place in 2001, for three consecutive fiscal years after that, we had a real dollar decrease in the amount of revenue that the Federal Government took in. Now, I also understand that taxes are always a burden on the people who have to pay them. If we are running government well, we are going to try to keep those taxes as low as is humanly possible. But if we are going to meet the needs of government, we have to raise revenue. What we have heard today is a very, very compelling case for how, over the course of the last decade, we haven't met the needs of readiness within the Department of Defense. So, again, I simply urge us to make a choice here. If we want to cover these costs, then let's raise the revenue and pay for it, and not pretend with this fantasy that somehow cutting the amount of revenue you take in is going to increase the amount of revenue you are going to take in. It doesn't work that way, and it certainly doesn't work in the current economic environment. The second thing I would say is, while national security is critically important, it is not the only thing we do that is important. And that is the other thing that worries me about this debate. We massively slash revenue so we have less money to play around with, then we make the case for why we need to massively increase our defense budget, and everything else that the Federal Government does just sort of drifts away as an afterthought. There are a lot of examples of this. I used infrastructure in the previous debate, and I will use a different example this time, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. It is not in my district, but it is just across the street from my district in Seattle, Washington. It is doing incredible work right now on cancer. They are literally this close to, in some cases, curing it. They have come up with a new way for dealing with blood cancers--taking the white blood cells out of the body, reenergizing them, and putting them back in--that has achieved truly miraculous results. Fred Hutch gets an overwhelming amount of their funding from the National Institutes of Health, from the Federal Government. The budget that President Trump originally proposed last year would have cut funding for Fred Hutch by 75 percent. So while we are caring about national security, I think we also have to care about, well, curing cancer. It is not irrelevant. It actually saves lives and makes a difference. Lastly, I do, as I said earlier, worry about a view of the world that says, basically, the entire world is out to get us and we have to spend as much money as is humanly possible here in the United States to defend ourselves. We face threats. There is no question about that. We need a National Security Strategy and a national security budget to meet those threats. But in order to really create a safer and more prosperous world, we need to build alliances so that we are threatened by fewer people and so that we have more friends who will help us deter those who do threaten us. This is a point that Ms. Cheney made that I completely agree with. Deterrence is incredibly important. In a place like North Korea, will Kim Jung-un attack South Korea? Or will Iran attack? If they feel like they face a credible deterrent, they won't, and the U.S. needs to be part of that. But our allies need to be part of that as well. Here, Russia is a great example. If Russia feels that NATO is weak, they will be emboldened. We already are seeing what they are doing in Ukraine. Estonia, Latvia, and other countries in Eastern Europe feel threatened by Russia. They need to know that the United States stands with our allies in Europe in order to deter that aggression and stop the war before it happens. That does not all fall on the United States defense budget. It falls on us having friends and allies who can back up our credible deterrence. Lastly, I just close by saying that we certainly face the threats we face. It is worth noting that we still, in the United States, spend way more money every year on defense than any of our adversaries, than any other country in the world. So it is not just a matter of money; it is a matter of having a smart strategy and spending that money well. I am pleased that--knock on wood--this is supposed to be the first year in forever that the Department of Defense will actually have a full audit of where they spend their money. But making sure the money that is spent is spent efficiently and effectively is also part of having an adequate national security budget. So I worry that, basically, we say, look, all we have to do is spend as much money as the Pentagon wants and everything will be fine. I think it is a lot more complicated question than that. Again, it comes back to having a sound fiscal policy and a sound national security policy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume Mr. Speaker, just a couple of quick points. The Department of Defense budget is 18 percent of the overall Federal budget, and you would be a pretty bad businessperson if you looked at your books and said that a thing that takes 18 percent of the budget has nothing do with the deficit. It all adds up piece by piece. It absolutely is a big part of what contributes to us having a deficit and a debt, so we cannot ignore what we spend on Defense and how it impacts everything else. Now, you can make that policy decision that, you know, defense is just so much more important than infrastructure or healthcare or education or Social Security or Medicare or whatever, but to say that it doesn't impact the debt and the deficit is not, well, fiscally accurate. And second, as far as tax cuts are concerned, yes, President Obama cut taxes repeatedly and by way, way too much and contributed to this problem. Most notably was in 2012 with the permanent extension of all of the Bush tax cuts. So, we did that, and then with the stimulus package back in 2009, there was about a $400 billion tax cut. We have repeatedly, in this Congress--and I didn't vote for any of that. We have repeatedly in this Congress prioritized tax cuts over the men and women who serve in the military. That is what I find so ironic. We hear all these complaints about how we are underfunding the military, the complaints about readiness, and what the gentleman from Alabama said, when he talked about the impact that this is having on the men and women who serve, he is absolutely right. The continuing resolutions are devastating to the way we try to function within the Department of Defense. I will again submit that they are also devastating to every other aspect of our discretionary budget, and that should not be ignored. But to cut taxes by trillions upon trillions of dollars and then look up and say, Gosh, how come we don't have enough revenue to fund our defense is hypocritical. All I am asking is: Make a choice. If, in fact, we need to spend the amount of money on DOD that you are all saying we are, then let's raise the revenue and pay for it, okay. That is fine. That is a choice. But to both say, we are going to give away massive tax cuts primarily to the wealthiest people in this country, who, by the way, have been doing quite well for quite some time, and then come up and say, Gosh, it is just so irresponsible that we are not funding defense, that is not consistent and it is not a fiscal policy. And, again, I will come back to the fact that this is all very well and good. I mean, what all these resolutions are saying is if we could just pass the Defense Appropriations bill, then everything would be fine. We have a $4 trillion plus budget. We have multiple layers of problems here. If we do not address the underlying fiscal issues that we are facing that I have described, then the men and women who serve in our military will face the brutal uncertainty that is very accurately described by my Republican colleagues over and over and over again. We have to address the underlying issue, not just come out and make empty statements about how we want to support our men and women in the military after putting in place a budget and a tax policy that makes it next to impossible to do that. We have to deal with the issue up front so that we are in a position to actually provide what my colleagues have said we need to provide. 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, to begin with, the resolution that is presented before us is 100 percent accurate, and I completely agree with it. We have had uncertain funding for going on almost 8 years now for the Department of Defense. It has been a series of continuing resolutions, two government shutdowns, multiple threatened government shutdowns, and an unbelievable amount of uncertainty. From one month to the next, the Pentagon does not know how much money they have to spend. That uncertainty, without a doubt, has undermined our ability to provide an adequate national security for this country. So I agree with the maker of this motion that budget certainty would help enormously in terms of preparing our national security--well, preparing the men and women in our Armed Forces to face the threats that are in front of us. Beyond that, there was a lot said in the opening remarks there that I don't quite agree with. Also, it is really important to sort of understand the context. Why are we in this situation? Why do we have budget uncertainty year after year? I don't agree that it is simple incompetence or Congress just isn't feeling like doing its job. We have deep-seated differences of opinion about where to spend our money, and also, we have no fiscal policy as a country. Well, that is not true, actually. Our fiscal policy is really rather clear. We want a balanced budget; we want tax cuts; and we don't want to cut spending. Everything you need to know about why we have this problem can be contained in three votes that the United States House of Representatives took over the course of about a 4-month period. As I tell you about these three votes, I want you to know that 134 Republican Members of Congress voted for all three of these things. Number one, a roughly $2 trillion tax cut. Number two, a budget deal that increased spending by $500 billion. Some of that was for defense; a lot of it wasn't. Then, in the ultimate irony, a week later, those 134 Members of Congress, Republican Members of Congress, voted for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. They want to cut taxes by $2 trillion; they want to increase spending by $500 billion; and they want a balanced budget. And, oh, by the way, we are roughly $22 trillion in debt and running up a deficit that is projected to go up over $1 trillion going forward. That is not a responsible fiscal policy. Now, I serve on the Armed Services Committee with all of my colleagues who are here today, and I hear the same things that Congresswoman Cheney hears about how our military is suffering under the uncertainty. The readiness crisis is 100 percent real. It is getting better as we have gotten some funding the last couple years, but it is still a major challenge. But the reason for all of that is because of decisions that are made on the front end. You can't cut taxes by $2 trillion--after, by the way, over the course of the 15 years prior, we had already cut them by multiple trillion dollars--and then stand up and say DOD doesn't have enough money. You cut revenue and then complained that you don't have enough revenue. It doesn't really make sense. The second point that I would make is it is not just the Department of Defense that is suffering under budget uncertainty. There are a whole bunch of different examples. I won't go into all of them, but the entire discretionary budget suffers under this uncertainty. And one big chunk of the discretionary budget is infrastructure, the bridges and roads and airports and a whole bunch of other things that basically enable our economy to function, which generates revenue and helps pay for things like national security. Also, we have got bridges collapsing all over the country. There are, literally, United States citizens who have died as a result of our lack of investment in infrastructure. So it is not just the Department of Defense. If we are going to address the uncertainty, if we are going to address the problems with dealing with our national security strategy, we have to address fiscal policy. For going on 8 years now, we have been having this conversation in the Armed Services Committee, and most times my Republican colleagues sternly rebuke me for raising issues that are supposedly not directly related to the Armed Services, saying: We are the Armed Services Committee. We are not here to talk about the debt or the deficit or infrastructure or any of that other stuff. Well, it all goes together, and what we as a congressional body have to do is come up with a plan that actually makes sense, that actually there is money for. If we do that, then we can have the stability for the Department of Defense. Now, I will tell you, if we are $22 trillion in debt--and the deficit is projected to be pretty close to $1 trillion this year and quickly north of $1 trillion going forward--we are going to have to deal with that problem or there is not going to be as much money as we'd like for defense or infrastructure or education--or anything, for that matter. So we have to address the fiscal irresponsibility of our budgeting process across the very long period of time, and certainly we can't keep cutting taxes. Now, as far as what does that National Security Strategy look like, as was described, we face an incredibly complex threat environment. I agree with that. I don't agree that getting rid of the Iran nuclear deal so that Iran can pursue nuclear weapons with absolutely no inhibition whatsoever is a step forward in the right direction, nor do I agree that sitting down with Kim Jong-un and agreeing, basically, to back off of a whole bunch of things and getting nothing in return--I know that, in the President's mind, North Korea is denuclearized, but they are not. They haven't taken a single, solitary step in that direction. Lastly, the final point I want to make is the complex threat environment that we face is extraordinarily difficult. I will tell you one thing of which I am 100 percent confident. There is no way that, on our own, the United States of America can confront that threat environment. We need allies. We need friends. We need countries that are willing to work with us to meet the national security threats that we face, which is why the trip that the President just took is so troubling. He spent the first part of it telling our allies, basically--sorry, I can't say that on the floor--just saying that he didn't need them, insulting them over and over and over again, allies that we are really going to need to meet the threats not just from Russia, but China, the terrorism threat that was described. Our NATO allies are going to be crucially important to that, and the President, at one point, said he's not even sure why we are in NATO, insulted the EU and insulted all of our allies, and then turned right around and sided with Vladimir Putin against our intelligence communities, against our Justice Department, on the subject of Russian interference in our election. So, in a complex threat environment, you don't want to make it easier for a country like Russia that threatens us and make it more difficult for countries ranging from Canada to Germany to Great Britain, who actually want to work with us, to meet that threat environment. So, on that point, we need more allies, and we certainly don't need to take the side of a dictator who is threatening our country over our own intelligence agencies. That is not in the best interest of national security. Overall, we have to have a fiscal policy. We can have the argument about the defense budget all we want, but if we keep cutting taxes and have no policy whatsoever to get our budget even close to under control, we are not going to have the money to spend on our national security needs or other things. Now, I will close it out with this. General Mattis, Secretary Mattis, likes to say, ``We can afford survival.'' That is a nice phrase. Unfortunately, it is a little bit unclear on what it means because, what do you have to spend to survive? By and large, DOD doesn't engage in that sort of black-and-white way of looking at it: We spend this money, we survive; we don't spend this money, we die. What they do, and what they've said over and over again, is they manage risk: If we don't spend the money here, that increases the risk by this amount. I think that is a better way of looking at it. It is not a matter of whether or not we can afford survival, because we don't know exactly what China is going to do or Russia or any of these other folks are going to do or how we are going to manage it. It is a matter of managing risk. It is very true that, if we continue to have an uncertain defense budget--heck, I would submit, if we continue to have an uncertain fiscal policy and an uncertain infrastructure budget, we are increasing the risk of our country's ability not so much to survive but to prosper and live in a peaceful world. So this resolution is fine. It is horribly insufficient to actually give us the certainty and predictability in our budget that we need. To get there, we need to honestly address the fiscal challenges that our Nation faces and come up with a coherent fiscal policy that takes into account all the needs of our country in a balanced and coherent way so that we manage those risks in the best way possible and in the best interests of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 14, and Friday, June 15, 2018, I was not present for recorded votes because I needed to travel home to attend my daughter's high school graduation. I would have voted: ``YES'' on roll call vote No. 265 (on passage of H.R. 5788), ``NO'' on roll call vote No. 266 (on passage of H.R. 5735), ``NO'' on roll call vote No. 267 (on agreeing to the Thornberry Amendment to H.R. 2851), and ``NO'' on roll call vote No. 268 (on passage of H.R. 2851).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of the Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area designation. This is a project that has been completely collaborative throughout the region. I think it is a great example of how to get things done. It was various government officials working with the private sector, all with the same goal, and that is to preserve open spaces in the Puget Sound area. This is a very difficult thing to do. We are growing rapidly, businesses are popping up all over the place, and that is great. But the other thing about the Pacific Northwest that everybody loves is the ability to get outdoors and fish, hunt, hike, and basically enjoy the beauty of the Pacific Northwest. This group came together to make sure that we can preserve that, even in the face of such massive growth. It wasn't done by government fiat. It was done by working together with private landowners, tribes, and all of the interested stakeholders to say: ``We have a mutual interest in preserving open spaces for the better enjoyment of all of us in our community,'' and that is how the Mountains to Sound Greenway was born. This is an incredibly successful collaborative effort. I am pleased to have the Federal Government put its stamp on it as a national heritage area. It definitely deserves that. It will help the process moving forward as they continue to make sure that they preserve these open spaces for the enjoyment of all people in the Puget Sound region. I also want to particularly thank Congressman Reichert for his leadership on this issue. He has been working on it for a number of years, and it has been a true bipartisan effort. People ask me all the time, basically: ``Don't you guys work together on anything?'' referring to Democrats and Republicans in general, not to Dave and me specifically. I have been pleased to work with Dave for, I guess, 14 years now that he has been in Congress--I worked with him before when he was the King County sheriff--and it has been a great working relationship. Whenever people ask me that question, I am very pleased to know that, right next door, I have got Congressman Reichert. I say: Well, Dave and I work on a whole bunch of different things. We have over the years, and this is certainly one of the most important in his final year in Congress. I think it is very appropriate that we get this to the finish line, pass it into law, and get it signed by the President. Again, this is a fine example of what we can do when we work together with all interested parties coming together for a mutual benefit. Maintaining open spaces in the Puget Sound region is incredibly important. It is not easy. This project is a reflection of how you can get that done, and I am pleased to support this legislation. Again, I want to thank Congressman Reichert for his leadership and partnership. It was great working together with him on this and other issues in the interest of our community in the Puget Sound region.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. I just want to echo the comments of my colleagues about the basic inhumanity the policy the Trump administration is perpetrating on these people who are trying to cross the border in order to seek asylum, in order to flee violence and absolutely unlivable conditions in a variety of countries in Latin America. To have a policy of separating them from their children is inhumane and goes against every basic value that we, as Americans, hold dear. The terrible thing about it is, if you listen to the Trump administration, that seems to be the idea. Their notion is to make it as painful as possible, to discourage these people from wanting to seek refuge in the United States. Think about how that policy just flips on its head everything that we were raised to believe about America. One of the things that makes America great is we are made up of people from all over the world, in many cases, those who have fled horrific living conditions, to come here and build a better life for them and their families. That has made us all better. Our country is stronger because we are renewed every generation by a new set of immigrants from a variety of places across the world. The Trump administration is the first administration in the history of this country to be openly, 100 percent hostile to all immigrants. They are trying to make the policy as brutal as possible, because they don't understand the benefit of immigration. They seem to think that it is hurting us when it is not. So they are wrong on that policy and it is a very simple policy to fix. In fact, it is interesting. We have heard the President on a couple of occasions in the last month say: Oh, not my policy. It is because of some law that Congress passed. It is possible that he is that ignorant. I doubt it. I actually think that he is simply not telling the truth to the American people about a policy that his own Attorney General has stated clearly. So President Trump, if you are as appalled as you said you were on a couple of occasions by this policy, you are the President. Fix it. Change it. Stop it. In my district at a Federal penitentiary in SeaTac that is supposed to be for the most dangerous criminals that have committed Federal crimes in the country, there are housed well over 150 women right now, many of whom have been separated from their children when they crossed the border. There is a simple fix to this process. As previous speakers, including Mr. O'Rourke, have said, we have an asylum process in this country. There is a standard by which people can seek asylum and it can be granted or not. We should allow these people coming across this border to go through that asylum process. This notion that we don't have room is patently ridiculous. Even at this point, we have all kinds of jobs going on unfilled in this country. But beyond that, our basic humanity should say: these people are suffering. We have a law that says we should protect them. Follow that law. And also, in terms housing them, there are more people than I can count, more nonprofit organizations, more religious organizations, volunteer organizations, who have said: We will gladly take in these immigrants while they await their asylum here. There is a very simple solution to this. We don't have to put them in the horrible barracks that Mr. O'Rourke described a few minutes ago. There are people who will take them, keep them while they go through the process. It is very simple. Stop the policy of separating children from their mothers and fathers. It is wrong. It is inhumane. It is grossly unnecessary. They come across the border. We have got a process. Keep them with their families. Take advantage of the resources that are available out there in the private sector to find them a place to stay with their families together, and go through the asylum process. Now, I understand the asylum process. Not everybody is going to qualify for asylum, and it is possible that some of these people are going to have to be sent back to their home country. But at a minimum, we can make sure that when they stay here, they stay together as a family, and if they are allowed to stay, they stay together as a family. If they don't get granted asylum, then they go back as a family. To separate families--and I want to emphasize this last point before I finish--when you listen to the Attorney General, when you listen to the administration, they are doing this because it is cruel, because they are so opposed to immigration that they want to try to discourage people. And that is just a sad commentary on what the United States has become under this President. We should do the humane thing. Keep families together. Give them their day in court, their day to prove that they qualify for asylum, and then you can make the decision from there. But don't rip children out of the hands of families. It is something that the United States of America should never do. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California, Mr. Correa, for holding this hour, and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to say a few words.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, we have no further speakers. I urge adoption of the amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers on this. I urge adoption of the en bloc amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.