Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. I thank the chairman, first of all, for his hard work on this bill, and all the members of the committee and the staff. As the chairman has pointed out, this is a bill that we have passed for 55 straight years. It is a long and complicated bill that essentially sets the defense and national security policy for our country, and there is a lot of good work that has gone into this bill. Again, I thank the members for doing that. They recognize the complex threat environment that the chairman correctly described, and we are attempting to address it as best we can in this very difficult environment. I think the thing that is most difficult that I really want to emphasize is what the chairman said in the middle of his remarks: that over the past 6 years we have had one government shutdown, a number of continuing resolutions, several threatened government shutdowns, and the unpredictability that that has presented to the Defense Department. Now, to be clear, it has also presented a fair amount--the same amount of unpredictability to the nondefense discretionary budget that also has to deal with those challenges. But that uncertainty about our budget has made it very difficult to plan, and nowhere is that more important than at the Department of Defense. As they try to lay out a strategy for national security, not knowing from one month to the next how much money you are going to have or what you are going to be able to spend it on is a huge problem. I will say a little bit more about this later, because as big a problem as that is, we haven't solved it. As we debate this bill here today, we do not have a budget resolution from either the House or the Senate. This is a problem we still need to work on. However much money we wind up spending on defense, if we had a cohesive plan and a clear idea of how much money we were going to have over the next few years, it would be a lot easier to plan for those contingencies. Again, I do want to compliment the work that has been done on this bill. Particularly, I focus a lot on unconventional threats. I think that is the changing nature of the world. I used to chair what is now called the Emerging Threats Committee. I want to thank Congresswoman Stefanik and Ranking Member Langevin for their work and focusing on cyber, focusing on supporting our special operation forces that have borne so much of the brunt of the fight that we face in countering terrorism. I also want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Cooper for their work on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, focusing on space, in particular, on the importance of emphasizing that. For a long time, our country dominated space. We didn't have to worry about it. But now a lot of other countries are catching up and competing with us. I think this bill reflects the importance of that. So there are a lot of very solid things in this bill, but I want to close by emphasizing two significant problems that we still need to address. One I mentioned already. We don't have a budget resolution. This bill has $621 billion in it, as I understand it, in the base bill, and another, I believe, $75 billion in the overseas contingency fund. We are spending nearly $700 billion in this bill on defense. That is a lot of money, and the chairman mentioned a lot of the very necessary programs that it is going towards. However, that breaks the budget caps. In order to break the budget caps, the House and the Senate have to vote to break the budget caps. It is July. We haven't done that. I will emphasize that in the Senate it actually requires 60 votes to break the budget caps. So as much as I see the need in defense, given the complex threat environment out there, it is very possible that $72 billion of what is in this bill is going to disappear between now and the end of this year unless we address the broader issue of sequestration and budget caps. I will also emphasize that addressing that issue by gutting funding for the nondefense discretionary budget and plussing up defense is not going to work for a couple of reasons. Number one, a lot of the national security needs that we have come out of some of those other items. The proposal to cut the State Department by 31 percent in a time when we face the complex threat environment that was described is ridiculous. In fact, I will quote Chairman Mattis as well, who said: If you are going to cut the State Department by 30 percent, you better give me five more divisions because I am going to need them. We are not going to be able to resolve conflicts in a peaceful way. And also, of course, we have domestic needs that are very important as well. We are still waiting on the infrastructure package from the administration. There are a lot of needs that are not being met, and we are not yet voting to bust the budget caps. Here we have a bill that does that, but this House has to step up and take that vote if this defense authorizing bill is going to go forward. The second and final point, we still don't have a national security strategy from the White House. Now, we have a very complex threat environment, as I have said more often than I meant to during the course of the last few minutes--we do. We have got Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, a variety of terrorist threats. What we have heard in our committee for the last 6 months is a series of people from the Pentagon coming over and saying the house is on fire. We don't have enough money to do--fill in the blank. There are a whole lot of different things. What we haven't heard is a strategy, and the most disturbing conversation I had in that regard was with someone from the Office of Net Assessment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself an additional 1 minute. He explained to me that we laid out a strategy in 2012 and said we do not have the money to fund that strategy right now. So I asked him: Well, how short are you? How much more money do you need? He looked at me like he didn't understand what I was asking, so I sort of explained it. The short answer: he didn't know. How could he not know? I mean, if you can sit there confidently and say, ``My gosh, we don't have enough money; we are way crazy short of our 2012 strategy'' and you still can't say how short, then you don't have a strategy. We need a strategy to make sure this money is spent wisely. I will close with a compliment of the chairman for something that he has done. We should also not assume that simply spending more money at the Department of Defense is necessarily going to make us safer. We have to make sure we spend it efficiently and effectively. I think this bill has a lot of very solid efforts to try to make us do that, towards acquisition reform, towards spending the money more wisely. It is not just a matter of spending more money. We have got to spend it smarter, and we have got to confront the lack of a strategy, and we have got to confront the fact that we still have not resolved our budget resolution problem. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I am not going to take that much time. I agree with the chairman. This is uncontroversial and should be adopted. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make two quick points, first to the point Mr. Blumenauer made about how we are planning on recapitalizing our entire nuclear arsenal. Now, we have had a robust debate about how much that is going to cost over 10, 25, 30 years. I have some sympathy for the argument that Mr. Rogers made. It is going to be very difficult to estimate how much it is going to cost over 25 or 30 years. But I do know that if we are talking about recapitalizing our entire nuclear arsenal, all of the submarines, all of the ICBMs, a new bomber, it is going to cost a lot. I don't know if it is $1.2 trillion or $2 trillion. Whatever it is, it is going to be enormously expensive. At a time when we face a multiplicity of threats from Russia, North Korea, and where missile defense is critical, I do not believe this is the best investment of our money to get caught up in the Cold War, in the battle against Russia and their nuclear weapons, and making sure we can counter every possible scenario. It is not an efficient use of money. This amendment is but one piece of it to say let's take a step back and see if this is the best place to spend the money. Maybe it would be better to spend it on cybersecurity. Maybe it would be better to spend it on missile defense. There are a whole lot of other places I think that are better than trapping ourselves in these nuclear scenarios that require us to build an unbelievably expensive nuclear arsenal. Secondly, I will disagree with Mr. Rogers on one point: the more you build nuclear weapons, the more the other side tends to build nuclear weapons. I cannot agree that this is not going to potentially lead to an escalation. In fact, the reason we are so hell-bent on building the LRSO and all of these others is because we are concerned about what Russia and China are doing. That is how it works. It does have that destabilizing effect. I don't think this is the best place for us to spend our defense dollars.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I disagree very strongly with the remarks of the gentleman from South Carolina. First of all, the past BRACs have saved us an enormous amount of money. There have been five rounds. The first four saved us pretty much exactly as much money as they said they were going to. The fifth one was more expensive, but the fifth one was done in 2005, at a time when we were building up the size of the military. It wasn't so much a closure as it was a realignment. But even then, it is now saving us money. So if you want to argue against BRAC, argue against BRAC; but please, let us not argue that it doesn't save us money because that is just factually ridiculous. It absolutely saves us money. Second, there have been a number of studies by the Air Force and others. The Air Force has estimated that they are 20 percent over the capacity of their installations. It would be great if we could have a comprehensive study. I agree with that. What our bill has done every year for the last several years is prohibit them from even thinking about a BRAC. So it is a brilliant argument to say, well, you can't do a BRAC because you haven't done a comprehensive study, and then to put in the bill you are prohibited from doing a comprehensive study. It is a nice little tautology, but it isn't helping our military. As we have been discussing throughout the night, we have more needs than we have money for. We cannot afford for parochial interests to get in the way of what is in the best interest of our troops. We need a BRAC. By the way, it doesn't even authorize a BRAC. It simply removes the prohibition of a BRAC. A BRAC cannot happen unless Congress authorizes it. So all this is going to do if this amendment passes is allow the military to do precisely what the gentleman from South Carolina just said they ought to do. There is no reason to oppose this amendment, and I urge support.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 29, 2017, I was unable to record my Roll Call vote. Had I been present, I would have voted YES on Roll Call vote No. 341, on the motion to recommit H.R. 3003, with instructions.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and accomplishments of Dawn Lucien, an exemplary and civically-minded leader who, for decades, provided the city of Tacoma and its surrounding community with invaluable contributions. After moving to Tacoma in 1947, Dawn quickly became involved in her city's civic and political life. Believing that Tacoma was truly the ``gem of the universe,'' one of Dawn's first accomplishments in the city was becoming one of just two women elected to the Tacoma Board of Freeholders in 1956. Just four years later, Dawn served as an appointed member of the Tacoma City Council until 1962. Dawn's early contributions not only gained the recognition of many at the local level, but also caught the attention of leaders at a national level. In 1962, she was a Nominee to Congress, and was then approached by Vice President Hubert Humphrey to assist overseas. Her commitment to her duties in her beloved Tacoma was so strong that she nearly turned down the opportunity to represent the United States at the 1967 United Nations Economic and Social Council in Geneva. Continuing her commitment to community organizing, Dawn was instrumental in the 1990s rebirth of downtown Tacoma, and in the creation of the Tacoma campus of the University of Washington. She sought to revitalize her city through the promotion of the arts and education. Dawn was a fearless and independent leader who people viewed as the ``godmother'' of the city. She is remembered for working with others to bridge divides within her community. Dawn even won the Greater Tacoma Peace Prize for her 1988 work to resolve hotly disputed land claims between developers and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. Dawn's decades-long commitment to fiercely serving her community and getting results, has played a key role in the growth of the city of Tacoma since she arrived in 1947. Mr. Speaker, it is with great privilege that I recognize the life of Dawn Lucien. She is truly an exceptional reminder of the high level of commitment to our communities that we should all aspire to every day.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Lisa Cohen, the Founder and Executive Director of the Washington Global Health Alliance. As Lisa steps down from her ten years of service to the organization, we acknowledge the successes of the WGHA under her leadership, and we thank her for her tireless service to the greater Puget Sound region. WGHA was founded with the goal of facilitating collaboration between various health and globally-focused organizations--empowering them to more effectively face the most challenging global health issues. Under Lisa Cohen's leadership, the WGHA has done exactly that; it has channeled the resources of Washington's vibrant healthcare sector. In the time that I have represented Washington's 9th District, I have had the privilege of attending many WGHA forums and healthcare advocacy meetings. In the past ten years, Lisa Cohen has moderated more than 100 panels and presented to over 50,000 people. WGHA now has over 70 members who, because of her commitment to collaboration, are now better able to serve the communities they touch. It has been an honor to watch WGHA as it has built an international network that achieves more in a more efficient manner. Lisa Cohen has not only helped to set WGHA on a path to success, she has tirelessly served the greater Puget Sound community. Her list of accomplishments include channeling resources to many of those who are most at-risk in our community, mapping the state's global health community, cofounding Global to Local, and leading the Washington Global Health Fund and Global Health Nexus. As a huge proponent of collaboration, Lisa has helped to form Washington's organizations into a community, so that they can collectively tackle the world's most pressing issues. Lisa Cohen's unique ability to bring people together has left our community better equipped to handle future health challenges. As she takes her next steps, I know she will continue to make a positive impact and help to make our world a better place. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I recognize the global health work that Lisa Cohen has done in our community and wish her well in her future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 6 and Tuesday, February 7, 2017, I was unable to return to Washington, DC for recorded votes due to inclement weather at home in the Puget Sound region. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 79 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 689). ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 80 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 337). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 81 (on ordering the previous question on H.Res. 91). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 82 (on agreeing to the resolution H.Res. 91). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 83 (on passage of H.J.Res. 44). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 84 (on passage of H.J.Res. 57). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 85 (on passage of H.J.Res. 58).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Ms. Naomi Bashkansky of Bellevue, Washington for her victory at the 2016 World School Chess Championship. Like many other students of Olde Middle School, Naomi works every day to balance extracurricular activities, family commitments, and school life. With the help of coaches, teachers, and family, she strives to mold her own unique identity as a student, a friend, a daughter, and a citizen. Although many aspects of Naomi's life may be familiar to us all, there was nothing ordinary about her performance at the chess championship. Naomi's accomplishment and strength of character are deserving of the highest level of praise. Naomi not only out-performed 400 young chess players representing 3o different countries, but she graciously represented the people of the 9th Congressional District and the United States of America. During the competition, Naomi's path to victory was not always clear; she suffered some early losses and could have easily admitted defeat, but she did no such thing. As she competed in the championship round, she bore not only the weight of her own expectations, but also the burden of representing the nation. At such a young age, Naomi's courage and determination is certainly extraordinary. I know I will continue to hear about her achievements for years to come. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate Ms. Naomi Bashkansky on a hard-earned victory and wish her the best of luck in the future.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to the President's unjust and un-American executive order that blindly bars individuals from entering our country. This action, and the situation that resulted from it, has hurt an enormous number of families, including several in Washington state. In fact, a constituent of the district I represent, a man who risked his life and the lives of his family by selflessly volunteering as an interpreter in support of U.S. forces in Iraq, was affected by this travel ban. I demand the Statue of Liberty Values Act--the SOLVE Act--be voted on and passed by the House. This legislation would rescind and defund this ill-considered and harmful executive order that hurts refugees and many others who are arbitrarily denied the ability to travel to the United States. By sowing confusion in a thinly veiled attempt to ban an entire religion from entering our country, the President has clearly shown his inability or unwillingness to govern in an reasoned and inclusive manner.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say, not to be a stickler for detail, but we are actually not giving a waiver here. We are changing the law, and that is what makes this appointment different. When you confirm someone to the Cabinet, the gentleman is absolutely right, the Senate, that is their authority. It is in the Constitution. We don't get involved in that. But when you are changing a law, the House has a say in that. It is the Senate and the House. This debate actually makes me even more strongly opposed to this bill as I continue to hear about: We just don't matter. The Senate has got it. Trump has got it. What do we need to do? We have a responsibility as the House, and when you are changing a law, it has to go through the Senate and the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is not a vote against General Mattis. I think I made that very, very clear. I think it is very important that the House have the opportunity to hear from him, as we said we were going to do. Now, yes, he has appeared before the Senate. But, as all of us on the Armed Services Committee know, after the transition is over and the new Secretary of Defense is in place, one of the first things they do is come up and report the budget to us. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs will come up. They go to the Senate, too. Are we just going to say we can watch the television? Why does he need to go to both places? Why would we bother to have him come all the way over to the House and have our members have the opportunity to ask him questions? I don't want to set that precedent. So, as passionate as the previous speaker was, please understand--and I have expressed this directly to General Mattis--this is not a vote against General Mattis. In fact, I have said: if we have the opportunity to do our job as the House Armed Services Committee, if we simply do not roll over for the transition team, we would be more than happy to support General Mattis in a bipartisan way. We have plenty of time to do this right, instead of doing it in the rushed way that disregards the power and importance of the House Armed Services Committee. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I have an enormous amount of respect for the gentleman from California. I have enjoyed traveling with him to Afghanistan and elsewhere. I think what he said in the first part of his remarks was, basically, the Trump administration is going to ignore us, and we just need to get used it. That is not my interpretation of our jobs. I think we were elected as well, particularly on the Armed Services Committee, and, in our elections, we even got more votes than our opponents. That is how we were able to get here. So I don't think we should simply roll over for the Trump administration because that is the way he is likely to behave. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), a new member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. I thank the folks for the debate. I think it has been very good, as it was in committee. But it is disturbing to hear this described as politics, or we feel slighted and we should rise above that. This isn't what this is about. It is about our exercising our constitutional authority as Members of the House and our constitutional authority as members of the Armed Services Committee. It is about us being relevant in the process and doing our jobs, as I said in the opening. Again, there is every opportunity to confirm and then also pass this change in the law that is necessary to make General Mattis the next Secretary of Defense. We can simply insist with the transition team that he appear before our committee. As I have pointed out, if we had done that in the first place, we could have met the January 20 deadline; and even now we could still do it by January 23 or 24. I don't think a few days would make that big a difference compared to the institution of the House actually mattering. Now, I will say that, as I listened to the debate today, I become even a little bit more disturbed, as we have heard some of the reasoning behind supporting this change in the law to allow General Mattis to become the Secretary of Defense. As was said, basically, the Trump administration is going to do this kind of thing quite frequently, as one Member of the opposite party said, so we should just get used to it. I really do think that makes it all the more important at this point, at this moment, that we assert our authority. Again, we can do that and have a bipartisan vote and approve General Mattis. We just have to insist upon it instead of rolling over and accepting what the transition team has said. That was my original argument. I will not belabor it or restate it. I think it is compelling. I think we should stand up for our rights here in the House and on the Armed Services Committee. The final thing I will say is, while I have an enormous amount of respect for General Mattis--and like many who have spoken, I have not served in the armed services, I didn't work with him there, but I certainly have worked with him on the committee--I will point out that General Mattis is not God. As we listen to the people talk here about how we absolutely have to have somebody from the warrior class lead us in the military, that we have to have him in there in order to protect us from this dangerous world, that sort of language kind of makes me a little nervous. That is the point of civilian control of the military. We do not want to be run by the warrior class alone. Now, absolutely we have many Members on both sides of the aisle who have served in the military, and I think that is terrific. That perspective is enormously important. It is not the only perspective that is important to running a representative democracy. We have heard comparisons to the Roman Empire. Again, another analogy that is somewhat troubling. That is not what we want. But more than anything, what we don't want is we don't want a president who thinks that he can roll over the House Armed Services Committee and the entire House any time he feels like it, frankly, as in this case, for no reason. General Mattis, as everyone has admitted, was perfectly prepared to testify, perfectly prepared to come before us, and they simply decided not to send him. I don't think it was mere pettiness or anything like that. I have watched the way President-elect Trump conducts himself, and he is, shall we say, aggressive. I think they wanted to make it clear that they are going to be running things and that we better get the heck out of the way. Well, that is not what I was elected to do as a member of the House Armed Services Committee or a Member of the House. We are not here simply to get out of the way of President Obama or President-elect Trump. We are here to stand up for the people who elected us and for the country and to do our jobs. In this case, for no good reason, we were denied the ability to do that. So, again, I will urge Members to vote down this bill today so that we can assert our authority, hear from General Mattis, get him approved, go forward, but do it in a way that shows that the House of Representatives and the House Armed Services Committee actually matter. We cannot set the precedent that the President of the United States can simply ignore us on a whim. So I would urge us to vote ``no'' on this matter. I, again, thank the chairman for his leadership on this. We have worked very closely on this issue, amongst many others. To echo the comments of the freshman colleague from California, this is a very bipartisan committee. It will continue to be. We have done a bill for 55 straight years, and I am hoping we will make it 56 this year. I look forward to working with Chairman Thornberry, all of the members of the committee, and all of the Members of the House to achieve that goal. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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