Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself 1 minute just to make two quick points. Mr. Speaker, first of all, we will have a motion to recommit that takes the money out of OCO and puts it into the base budget. So this is a problem that our bill could fix. We didn't have to buy into the OCO dodge and put money in there that we knew wasn't going to exist. Our motion to recommit will make that obvious. We will simply take it out of OCO. We will put it in the base budget so that you can do long-term planning with it and so that we actually get out from under the budget caps. The second point that I will make is that the previous speaker said that voting against the Defense bill was all of those bad things. Well, people have voted against the Defense bill. In 2009 and 2010, all but seven or eight Members of the Republican Party voted against the Defense bill. They voted against the defense bill because they didn't like Don't Ask, Don't Tell in one instance and because they didn't like adding LGBT people to hate crimes in the other instance. So they all were perfectly willing to vote against the troops and do all of the awful things that the previous speaker said for social policy reasons that had nothing to do with defense. So voting against the defense bill does not mean that you don't support the troops, and that is proof because most of the people who are now saying that it does have voted against the bill in the past. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to register my deep concerns with a pair of bills, H.R. 3504 and H.R. 3134, that were considered by the House last week. Although I was unable to be present to vote against these measures due to a medical appointment related to my recovery from two recent hip surgeries, I remain steadfastly opposed to both bills. I am a strong supporter of increasing access to family planning and women's healthcare services. H.R. 3134, passed in the House last week by a vote of 241-187, prohibits the federal government from funding Planned Parenthood health centers for one year. This legislation is nothing more than a punitive and intrusive attack on the essential and wide-ranging healthcare services that Planned Parenthood provides. If this bill was signed into law, it would cut off essential health services for millions of women, men, and families across the United States. Planned Parenthood serves a total of 2.7 million patients per year. It is a central provider of equitable access to healthcare for both men and women of underserved communities across the United States. One in five American women will use Planned Parenthood services at some time during her life. In Washington State, more than 103,000 women and men-- nearly 65 percent of whom are at or below the poverty line--use Planned Parenthood for their family planning and basic health needs. If this legislation succeeds, millions of Americans will be stripped of this access. Anti-choice rhetoric and controversy has surrounded federal funding for Planned Parenthood because about three percent of the services they provide include abortion services. Current law already denies Medicaid coverage for these services by almost completely barring federal funding, except in very limited circumstances. Ninety percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides are preventative health services, including lifesaving cancer screenings, blood pressure checks, birth control, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, and educational efforts to avoid unwanted pregnancies and prevent abortions. Failing to fund Planned Parenthood will greatly diminish access to these services for low income women, men, and families in need of affordable healthcare and preventative screenings. H.R. 3504 was also passed in the House last week. This bill legislation attempts to advance the anti-choice, anti-health agenda by interfering with important and difficult medical judgments that should be left up to health professionals. If enacted into law, this bill would apply scare tactics like onerous criminal penalties on doctors and clinicians. These penalties are punitive and will intimidate women away from seeking safe, legal, standardized, evidence-based care. This legislation is not a restatement of current ``born-alive'' law which contained language assuring no interference in a women's right to terminate a pregnancy. Instead, this bill takes that assurance away from women. This effort signifies the latest attempt by extreme Republicans to limit women's access to safe, legal abortions. I strongly oppose this legislation that politicizes women's health and interferes in the doctor-patient relationship Mr. Speaker, I stand with women across the United States to defend their access to comprehensive reproductive health options, and commend Planned Parenthood for leading in this effort.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, September 16, Thursday, September 17, and Friday, September 18, 2015, I was unable to be present for recorded votes for medical reasons related to my ongoing recovery from two hip surgeries. Had I been present, I would have voted: Yes on roll call vote No. 495 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1214, as amended), Yes on roll call vote No. 496 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1949, as amended), No on roll call vote No. 497 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 420), No on roll call vote No. 498 (on agreeing to the Collins Amendment to H. Res. 420 to waive clause 6(a) of Rule XIII of the House Rules with respect to any resolution reported on the legislative day of September 24, 2015 or September 25, 2015), No on roll call vote No. 499 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 420, as amended), Yes on roll call vote No. 500 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 758, with instructions), No on roll call vote No. 501 (on passage of H.R. 758), No on roll call vote No. 502 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 421), No on roll call vote No. 503 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 421), Yes on roll call vote No. 504 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 3134, with instructions), No on roll call vote No. 505 (on passage of H.R. 3134), No on roll call vote No. 506 (on passage of H.R. 3504).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr Speaker, on Monday, July 21, 2015, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 448 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1557), and ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 449 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2256, as amended).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, July 22, 2015, I was detained in a meeting and unable to make the first vote in a series. I would have voted ``No'' on roll call vote No. 450 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 369).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the work and achievements of Jim Theofelis, Founder and Executive Director of The Mockingbird Society. With an eye towards the future, Mr. Theofelis founded The Mockingbird Society in 2001--which has worked to improve the foster care system as well as end youth homelessness for the past 14 years. The organization stands on the principle that all young people deserve the right to reach adulthood in a healthy, supportive environment with the opportunity to thrive in life. As Executive Director of The Mockingbird Society, Jim and his team successfully advocated for a number of policies aimed at reforming the child welfare system. Under Jim's leadership, The Mockingbird Society pushed for legislation that allowed youth to seal their juvenile records, so they will not be automatically disqualified in obtaining employment and housing. The Mockingbird Society also advocated for extended foster care and access to medical care for youth, which established the organization as a strong national presence on juvenile policy issues. Prior to his work at The Mockingbird Society, Jim earned a MAEd from Seattle University and served in various positions dedicated to helping youth and families ranging from direct service to senior management. Overall, he has spent nearly 35 years working with and advocating for disadvantaged children and youth--specifically in mental health--and has been widely recognized for his hard work and selfless commitment to youth causes. Of his many awards, Jim received the 2011 Jefferson Award, our country's longest standing and most prestigious celebration of public service--a testament to his commitment to the community. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize the work Mr. Theofelis has done to reform the child welfare system in our state and in our nation. Jim's unrelenting and passionate dedication to advocating for vulnerable youth serves as an example of the tremendous impact one outstanding person can have on his community.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the service of Colonel H. Charles ``Chuck'' Hodges Jr., a decorated and active leader in our Armed Forces. For the past several years, Chuck has commanded Joint Base Lewis- McChord (JBLM) with passion, courage, and dedication. With unparalleled determination to forge stronger ties with the surrounding communities, improve the on-base education system, and assist with the transition from military to civilian life, Chuck has tirelessly worked to improve the lives of those both on and off the base. During his command, Chuck has been fully aware that his influence and work extends beyond JBLM's fences. He has been recognized on numerous occasions for his work, including with the Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber Military Citizen of the Year award, which honored his tireless efforts to cultivate a stronger bond with the base's host community. Chuck has also helped to facilitate the renovation and replacement of five aging on-base schools. These schools, modernized with Congressional funding following the efforts of the Military Child Education Initiative, are the foundation for the growth and development of the next generation of leaders, both military and civilian. Furthermore, Chuck's focus on smoothing the transition from military to civilian life is a major asset to the Puget Sound region and our military veterans. He assisted thousands of service members by helping to facilitate job fairs, training, and career-counseling services on base. His hard work is paying off: between December 2011 and April 2014, the employment rate of service members transitioning from JBLM rose from 18 to 42 percent. While there is still work to be done, Chuck's efforts have undoubtedly left a mark in providing for our past, future and present service members. It is with great honor that I recognize Chuck as he moves on from his position as Base Commander of Joint Base Lewis-McChord, and more importantly for his 30 years of service in the United States Army. I wish him the best and am confident that he will continue to do outstanding work in his civilian life.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Donald ``Donnie'' Chin, an unsung hero who was both a protector and savior in the International District of Seattle. Early on the morning of Thursday, July 23rd, Seattle activist Donnie Chin was taken from our community in a senseless act of violence. A strong force for positive change in Seattle, he was doing what he had done tirelessly for the previous five decades: patrolling the streets of the International District and caring for those in need. Throughout his years of service and as the Director of the International District Emergency Center, Donnie acted as the International District's guardian. At a young age Donnie recognized the delayed emergency response times in his community, and became well known as an effective first responder and frontline hero. From assisting with medical emergencies, to finding lost children and feeding the homeless, he took it upon himself to better the lives of those around him and earned the respect of medical professionals, residents, area business owners, and local leaders. Guided by a love for his community and a desire to assist others, Donnie made the International District and Greater Seattle area a more welcoming and caring place with his unrivaled dedication and courage. While his passing is a tragedy, his life is an inspiration: an inspiration for us all to reach out in our own communities and lend a helping hand. Donnie will be remembered as an active and caring member of the International District who was always ready to give of himself for his neighbors. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and accomplishments of Sterling Smith, an extraordinary civic leader who will be remembered for his invaluable contributions to the community. Sterling graduated from the University of Washington in 1963. From there, he secured a position teaching at Chinook Junior High, where he became chair of the English Department, and then later at Tyee High School. Sterling was well known as a beloved teacher with a high standard of excellence for his students. On top of his success as an educator, he was also known for his compassion, good humor, and the significant influence he had on the lives of his students. During my own time as a student at Tyee, I was fortunate to have Sterling as a teacher. I am grateful for the positive impact that Sterling had on my life and my decision to pursue a career in public service. Sterling continued to teach language arts at Tyee until he retired in June 1994. Sterling was an incredible educator and treasured community member dedicated to serving others in various capacities. He served on several boards that interviewed candidates running for office, including candidates for the Washington State Governor's office. Moreover, Sterling spent countless hours volunteering at the Kubota Gardens, one of Seattle's beautiful Japanese gardens and a cultural center for the region. Along with his partner, Jem, Smith was the caregiver to 37 patients living with AIDS over a 22 year span. On numerous occasions, Sterling and Jem also opened their Federal Way home and gardens to community activities, including events for the Federal Way Symphony Orchestra and the South End Social Group picnic. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize the life of Sterling Smith, an individual whose unrelenting and quiet dedication to his students and community serves as an example of the tremendous impact one person can have.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Although it is important that we sustain this program, this is not the best reauthorization bill the House could consider. However, the program expires on September 30 and this legislation allows workers in my district and across the country to access the support they need to compete in our global economy. Unlike the bill that I introduced with Ranking Member Levin earlier this year, today's bill has several shortcomings, including one of critical concern. This legislation cuts funding for worker training from $575 million to $450 million at a time when we are expanding markets and transforming our economy. We are in the middle of simultaneously negotiating trade agreements with Asia and the Pacific, as well as the European Union. Those who are impacted from increased competition deserve support and a safety net to adjust and reenter the job market. The Administration recognizes that the $450 million funding level does not take into account increased competition from Asia and the Pacific. However, Secretary Perez has assured Congress that his funding level is adequate to cover not only training services, but also case management, reemployment services, and state administration of the program--all areas that had been previously funded separately, not with a combined funding stream, like that in this bill. I hope the Secretary is correct but should this not be the case, I hope the Administration is prepared to work with Congress to provide additional funding with the same vigor they've invested in passing TPA. I am glad to see that we are no longer paying for this program by cutting funds from Medicare. However, I am disappointed that this bill does not qualify public sector workers for Trade Adjustment Assistance. They are an important part of our workforce and should be able to qualify for access to the same services. Our nation's economy and success depend on our workers. Over the last decade, I have been a strong supporter of Trade Adjustment Assistance and have led the effort to protect, extend, and enhance the program. I believe in this program and will continue this fight for good jobs, to ensure American workers can provide for their families, and that our country remains competitive.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mr. Grant Jones, of KuKuRuZa Gourmet Popcorn of Seattle, on receiving the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) Washington State 2015 Young Entrepreneur of the Year award. Today's KuKuRuZa began modestly as Popcorn Pavilion in the garage of his father-in-law, Charles Brown. Shortly after, in 2011, Grant was approached by the original owners of KuKuRuZa with an offer to sell their business to Grant, who jumped at the opportunity. In just three short years, Grant, together with the strong support of his wife, Ashley, grew KuKuRuZa into a multimillion dollar international company. Since 2011, KuKuRuZa has expanded from one downtown Seattle location to 17 stores in Washington state and around the world. During this time, KuKuRuZa's sales have increased substantially; from $360,000 in its first year to $2.7 million by 2014. Much of this success is due to strong demand for KuKuRuZa's products and the company's expansion into international markets, which include 13 stores in Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. At the store location in Japan, for example, customers are said to stand in line for up to two hours to purchase KuKuRuZa's products. Despite its rapid growth into an international company, KuKuRuZa continues to put its consumers first and strives to keep its ingredients organic, fresh, and local to the Pacific Northwest. The company's success has resulted in considerable growth in recent years and generated economic activity and jobs that have benefited Washington state. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate Grant Jones in receiving this year's SBA's 2015 Young Entrepreneur Award. I look forward to hearing further great things from Grant and KuKuRuZa in the years to come.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Valley Cities Behavioral Health Counseling on the occasion of their 50th anniversary. Valley Cities was first established in 1965, formed by members of south King County community who advocated for better mental health resources and with the belief that all people are capable of overcoming personal obstacles and barriers with proper support. The organization's aim is to strengthen communities through the delivery of holistic, integrated behavioral health services that ``promote hope, recovery and improved quality of life.'' Valley Cities became a United Way partner agency in 1967. Over the last 50 years, Valley Cities has grown to operate six clinics in the cities of Auburn, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, Des Moines, and Bellevue. As a reflection of the diversity of the 9th Congressional District, Valley Cities serves clients from around the world. Their health clinics often provide care for those with low incomes and who are from our most underserved neighborhoods, making Valley Cities an important healthcare partner in our community. Today, Valley Cities remains dedicated to helping individuals and families through licensed mental health counseling, chemical dependency treatment for adults, family support programs, and specialized veterans services. In recognition of the pace of change in south King County, Valley Cities continues to evolve to meet the needs of the communities it serves. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate Valley Cities Behavioral Health Counseling on its 50th Anniversary. I am proud to have such a dedicated organization serving and healing community members in and around the 9th Congressional District of Washington.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House considered legislation that reauthorizes the United States' efforts to engage and assist the economies of sub-Saharan Africa. I stand in support of these objectives, as well as the efforts and programs that encourage development and improve economic relations between our nation and that region. Because trade preferences programs between the U.S. and other economies can promote economic development and foster investment, I am pleased that many African countries already join in these initiatives. It is important that long-term certainty is provided for the businesses and workers that have taken advantage of U.S. trade programs and development efforts. In addition, the United States should also be prepared to engage with and support the sustainable growth of those economics that are currently ineligible for and not participating in current preferences programs. Although the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, is among those sub- Saharan African nations that are not at the moment eligible for trade preferences, I understand that after a long-fought civil war, the Congolese are working hard to revive their economy. While the challenges facing the DRC are considerable, there are many ways that the U.S. can work with the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to reduce poverty, increase stability, strengthen the rule of law, improve workers' rights, and support the establishment of a market-based economy that will allow the Congolese people to grow their economy. These important steps can help nations promote exports and investments that foster economic development elopment in partnership with the United States. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to maintain engagement and support for the growth of the economies of sub-Saharan Africa. It is my hope that African countries continue their involvement, and that those currently outside of the program take steps to initiate participation, such as meeting eligibility standards. I am pleased that the U.S. will continue to partner with the people and countries of sub-Saharan Africa to grow economies, reduce poverty, and share prosperity.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 21, 2015, I was on medical leave due to an appointment related to my recovery from surgery and unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 261 (on agreeing to the Edwards of Maryland Part A Substitute Amendment No. 7 to H.R. 2262), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 262 (on passage of H.R. 2262), and ``No'' on roll call vote No. 263 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 274).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I, too, support this en bloc package. I hope that the Members will vote for it. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to once again say that I want to, first of all, thank the chairman. I want to thank all of the members of the committee and the staff for the hard work that they do and have done on this bill. Every year, this is a very, very difficult process, starting with the committee markup, which, this year, I think--we probably didn't set a record. We set a record for my time in terms of one day going until 4:45 in the morning. But I just want to take one brief moment to recognize the staff that does just an unbelievable amount of work throughout this process. We see the amendments both in committee and on the floor that survive that process. The staff has to sift through literally hundreds more to try to boil them down, to try to find compromises, to basically try to work out whatever they can work out. I don't think there are too many members of the staff on either side that have slept more than 2 or 3 hours a night here for the last few weeks. So I thank them for their hard work, and I thank the committee members for their hard work as well. It is the largest committee in Congress. We have excellent members on it. During the course of the debate and during the course of putting together this bill, every one of those members contributed greatly to the product. As I have said before, there are a lot of good things in this bill. The reform package that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) has made of particular priority I think is a very good first step towards trying to get more efficiency out of the military in a variety in different places. And of course we fund a lot of very necessary programs. But we have one overarching problem that we have had since 2011, starting with the fact that we couldn't pass the appropriations bills for 2011. And most have forgotten this, but at the end of March of 2011, we were looking at a government shutdown. We had a marathon 4- day, every amendment you can imagine on the appropriations bill, and, actually, I think it did go past the moment when the government was supposed to shut down before passing a CR, which pushed us then up against the debt ceiling in 2011, which wasn't going to be raised. We were facing a situation where chunks of the government would shut downs in ways we couldn't even predict, and I want everyone to understand the impact that this has on the Department of Defense. I vividly remember a dinner that I had in March of 2011 with then- Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, Pete Chiarelli, and I was asking him about how all of this budget uncertainty impacts the Department of Defense. He said: Well, we have got several hundred programs, and every day we try to figure out which ones we are allowed to fund, which ones we are not allowed to fund, where we can get the money, what we can do, and how we can move it around. They didn't know. For the last 4 years plus, that is what the Department of Defense has had to do. We have gone from CR to government shutdown to occasionally getting a spending bill to living with sequestration and the budget caps. The one thing that this bill doesn't do is it doesn't resolve that issue. It goes to the overseas contingency operation fund while leaving the budget caps in place. As Secretary Carter has said, the overseas contingency operations fund is no way to fund the military and does very, very little to remove that uncertainty that I just described. So I want everyone to understand when I talk about the fact that I am opposing this bill because of its impact on the overall budget, that is also very much about the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense is left in that uncertainty and also stuck with OCO funding, which is unpredictable, 1-year money that makes it very difficult for them to plan. So this bill's reliance on the OCO funding is a problem for the Department of Defense. Leaving those budget caps in place is something that I am opposed to. So it is an issue directly related to the Department of Defense. Now, it is also related to the rest of the budget. We have caps that impact the Department of Homeland Security, that impact the Department of Justice, that impact those other areas that, by the way, are very important. I have had some folks mention ISIL and our fight against them. Those departments are incredibly important to that fight. They are still under the budget caps, which are, I believe, jeopardizing our national security. And then there are other issues, infrastructure being the biggest one that those budget caps continue to hamper and continue, I believe, to make our country less safe. So the fact that this bill locks in place and keeps the budget caps, relies on the overseas contingency operations fund, and, most importantly, does not lift the budget cap for defense is the reason I am opposing it and urging other Democrats and Republicans as well to oppose it. It doesn't lift the budget caps. I believe that is harmful to the Department of Defense. So this is a defense issue. Mr. Chairman, I also point out for my conservative colleagues who are so concerned about keeping those budget caps that the OCO goes right around them. I wouldn't think that a conservative who wants to keep government spending under control would encourage the government deciding that they can create free money. The OCO doesn't count against the budget caps. So it is like the money isn't really being spent, only, of course, the money is being spent. It is $38 billion that we are just choosing not to count. It doesn't fix the problem. Lastly, the President has promised to veto all of the appropriations bills and the defense bill that are based on this flawed approach to the budget. So what we are doing here is ultimately not going to be successful until we come up with a better long-term solution to dealing with the budget caps, and I will simply emphasize one more time that has a profoundly negative effect on the Department of Defense, on our obligation to, I believe, properly fund and properly support the men and women who serve in our military. So, Mr. Chairman, while there is a lot of good in this bill, the ongoing budget uncertainty that it continues, I believe, is the fatal flaw in this bill. So I urge people to vote ``no.'' I do appreciate all the work and the effort that went into it. I also emphasize that this is but one step in the process. We have got a long way to go, and I am completely confident by the time we get to the end of it, we will have a National Defense Authorization Act. It will be difficult. We have to work with the President, we have to work with the Senate, and people have a lot of different opinions, but this is but the first step in the process. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge us to continue working to hopefully get a better product that can get the support of the House, the Senate, and the President and fulfill our duty to pass this bill and support our troops. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, during the evening of Thursday, April 30 and on Friday, May 1, 2015, I took medical leave to make an appointment related to my recovery from a surgical procedure and was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 183 (on agreeing to the conference report for S. Con. Res. 11), ``YES'' on rollcall vote No. 184 (on agreeing to the Van Hollen Amendment to H.R. 2029), ``YES'' on rollcall vote No. 185 (on agreeing to the first Mulvaney Amendment to H.R. 2029), ``YES'' on rollcall vote No. 186 (on agreeing to the second Mulvaney Amendment to H.R. 2029), ``YES'' on rollcall vote No. 187 (on agreeing to the Nadler Amendment to H.R. 2029), ``YES'' on rollcall vote No. 188 (on agreeing to the Blumenauer Amendment to H.R. 2029), ``YES'' on rollcall vote No. 189 (on agreeing to the Pocan Amendment to H.R. 2029), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 190 (on agreeing to the Hice Amendment to H.R. 2029), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 191 (on agreeing to the King (IA) Amendment to H.R. 2029), ``YES'' on rollcall vote No. 192 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 2029, with instructions), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 193 (on passage of H.R. 2029), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 194 (on passage of H.J. Res. 43), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 195 (on agreeing to the first McClintock Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``YES'' on rollcall vote No. 196 (on agreeing to the Ruiz Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 197 (on agreeing to the Griffith Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``YES'' on rollcall vote No. 198 (on agreeing to the first Swalwell Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 199 (on agreeing to the Byrne Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 200 (on agreeing to the second McClintock Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``YES'' on rollcall vote No. 201 (on agreeing to the Ellison Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``YES'' on rollcall vote No. 202 (on agreeing to the second Swalwell Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``YES'' on rollcall vote No. 203 (on agreeing to the Quigley Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``YES'' on rollcall vote No. 204 (on agreeing to the Garamendi Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 205 (on agreeing to the Hudson Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 206 (on agreeing to the Sanford Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 207 (on agreeing to the Burgess Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 208 (on agreeing to the Rothfus Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 209 (on agreeing to the Gosar Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 210 (on agreeing to the Blackburn Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 211 (on agreeing to the McClintock Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 212 (on agreeing to the first LaMalfa Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 213 (on agreeing to the second LaMalfa Amendment to H.R. 2028), ``YES'' on rollcall vote No. 214 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 2028, with instructions), ``NO'' on rollcall vote No. 215 (on passage of H.R. 2028).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. Lastly, if you simply let defense out of jail in this awkward way and keep everything else under the budget caps, we will never get rid of the budget caps. That is the reason, and it is, I think, a pretty legitimate reason. If the Republican budget holds, we will never be able to get rid of the budget caps. That is why we are opposed to it. It is a legitimate reason. You can disagree with it, but let's stop with this whole, ``Oh, if you have an amendment in it, you can't oppose it, and you can't oppose the NDAA because it supports our troops'' when the very people who are making that argument and who had a reason did exactly that. You can argue about whether or not the reason was justified, but, certainly, it is not consistent to make the opposite argument now. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have only one more speaker, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment in large part because of the broader debate over closing Guantanamo, and this amendment makes it even more difficult to close Guantanamo, which is a policy we ought do. Again, President Bush, Secretary Gates, endless string of military leaders, and, in a bipartisan way, when John McCain was running for President, people have said that we should close Guantanamo. It is not a policy that we should continue. For beginners, it costs nearly $3 million an inmate now to house them there, when the ones that need to be kept can be safely housed in the United States. We have proven that we are perfectly capable of locking up terrorists and protecting our country. We have well over 300 terrorists right now locked up in the United States of America, including Ramzi Yousef, The Blind Sheik, Zacarias Moussaoui, and a number of very, very bad guys. We can do it in the U.S. We do not need Guantanamo. Beyond that, the amendment here makes it very, very difficult to transfer anybody, and a large number of inmates at Guantanamo have been cleared for transfer. They have been deemed not to be a threat, and they are cleared to be transferred. Mrs. Walorski's amendment would make it pretty much impossible to transfer them. These are people that we have already decided are not going to be a threat, and now, we are going to pass an amendment saying we are simply going to lock them up and hold them forever just because. Now, I understand the because; the because is there is a risk, and I am not going to deny that there is a risk if you release somebody. I will say that the statistics on people returning to the fight who have been in Guantanamo are very skewed. Back before 2008, I think, at one point, we had as many as 700 inmates at Guantanamo; a lot of people were released without proper care. Now, they were also brought there without proper investigation to figure out whether or not they were people we should legitimately pick up. Since 2008, the percentage of the people who have been released who have returned to the fight is less than 10 percent. It has gone down considerably. Beyond that, just as a basic system of justice, it is not our principle here in the U.S. that, if there is any possibility whatsoever that someone will reoffend, well, we are just going to lock you up forever--that is not the principle of justice that we have. We have a principle of justice that says you serve your time and then you are let out. At Guantanamo, we have released a fair number of people in the last year because they were deemed to not be a threat. This amendment would eliminate our ability to do that and also make it more difficult to close Guantanamo--which, again, $3 million an inmate--when we can safely do it here. Internationally, Guantanamo continues to be a blight on the U.S. record. Now, I will not make the argument that some make that say this is a recruitment tool--it is a recruitment tool for al Qaeda and like- minded groups--but they have no shortage of recruitment tools. I am not even going to begin to argue that somehow, if we close Guantanamo, they would no longer be trying to attack us. However, our allies, countries in Europe, other Arab states that want to work with us to try to contain groups like ISIL and al Qaeda, they have to deal with citizens who hate Guantanamo, who see it as a symbol of injustice and a betrayal of their values and our values, so working with our allies to properly confront the terrorist threat is made more difficult by the presence of Guantanamo Bay prison. I oppose this amendment. I will have an amendment after this one that would give us a path to closing the prison, but I oppose this amendment because it makes it more difficult to do what we ought to do in this country, and that is close Guantanamo Bay prison. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed to it. The Acting Chair. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.