Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. The chairman of the committee, on a couple of occasions, has made reference to the fact that, if you have things in the bill, it doesn't make any sense to vote against it because then you are basically nullifying your own work. Then there was a statement earlier about how never before has a party asked for a ``no'' vote on this National Defense Authorization Act. He is actually wrong about that. In 2009 and in 2010, the Republican Party asked for a ``no'' vote on the National Defense Authorization Act. In fact, 160 Republicans in one year voted ``no''--that was virtually all of them--and 131 voted ``no'' in another year. To now argue that, A, you shouldn't oppose the NDAA because it supports our troops after having opposed it in 2010 and in 2011 is very, very inconsistent. Now, they had their reasons. I think one of them was hate crimes was included, and I think the other one was that repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was included. I would also venture to guess that, as a very senior member of the Armed Services Committee at the time, Mr. Thornberry had stuff in both of those bills. He can correct me if I am wrong about that, but I would be stunned if he hadn't worked on those bills and had amendments in them; yet he voted ``no'' on both occasions. I hope for the rest of this debate we can at least dispense with that argument, that notion that, number one, no party has ever asked to oppose the defense bill when, in fact, the Republicans did it when they didn't like the substance. Let me say and be clear on that. I completely respect that. That is the choice we, as legislators, have to make. You have to decide whether or not, on balance, a bill is worth voting for or voting against; but this notion that, somehow, you can never vote against the NDAA rings unbelievably hollow from people who have voted against the NDAA. This idea that, if you get something in the bill that you support, it doesn't make any sense to vote against it, rings every little bit as hollow when at least the Members who were here in 2009 and 2010 on the Republican side of the aisle, virtually all of them did exactly that. This year, what we as Democrats are saying is there is something about this bill that we don't like that regrettably--and I say this with all sincerity--trumps the things about the bill that we do like. The thing about the bill that we don't like is it uses the overseas contingency operations fund to bust the budget caps. One, as Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has made clear, that is a terrible way to budget within the Pentagon, and he has said he opposes it because of the restrictions that it places on them and because of the difficulties that it places on the Department of Defense. Two, it is disingenuous to claim that you are keeping the budget caps and that the OCO money somehow doesn't count because it is, I guess, free money; it is outside of the budget caps.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the chairman--this is his first year as chairman--on his hard work on this bill, and there are a lot of very good things in this bill. I think most prominently is the reform the chairman mentioned, the compensation reform. We formed a commission to study how we do personnel compensation and the retirement system. In a very rare move, we actually followed some of the advice of that commission in this bill and made, I think, some very positive reforms to the personnel compensation system. There are a variety of other reforms the chairman has worked on that are important. There is also a whole slew of provisions in there that do, in fact, do an excellent job of providing for the men and women who defend our country. So there are a lot of very positive things about this bill. I appreciate the hard work of everyone involved. Unfortunately, for the first time in 19 years, I am going to be opposing the NDAA on the floor for two reasons, but one is really the big one, and it is understanding how our budget has worked. We have not had a normal budget appropriations process since 2011, and this has affected every single government agency--and keep that fact in mind--not just the Department of Defense. I will talk about the Department of Defense at length. But the lack of a normal appropriations budget process has impacted every single Federal agency: transportation, infrastructure, education, housing, on down the line. Ever since 2011, Mr. Chairman, they have faced one government shutdown and a succession of threatened government shutdowns and continuing resolutions. This has made it absolutely impossible to plan long term and also has cut a pretty dramatic amount of money out of all of these agencies. It has been particularly hard on the Department of Defense, which tries to do a 5-year plan when they are figuring out what they can procure. This sort of halt, stop, we are going to fund you, we are not going to fund you, we are going to shut down the government, CR, has had a devastating impact on the ability to fund government. The budget resolution passed by the House and the Senate this year does not fix that because it relies on the overseas contingency operation fund, which is limiting. It is 1 year of money. It, again, does not allow the Department of Defense to be planned. I want everyone to know the Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, in the Senate, testified on why OCO, funding $38 billion of the Defense bill through OCO, is unacceptable, and he doesn't support it and doesn't support this bill. But the reason we oppose this--and this is very important to understand--to fix the problem, to get us to the point where we can fund Defense and everything else in a reasonable way, we need to get rid of the budget caps from the Budget Control Act. That is the only way. And we do not do that here. We take money out of the overseas contingency operation fund to give Defense 38 billion additional dollars. But, in one sense, Mr. Thornberry is wrong when he says that in all senses what we do here matches what the President did. Within the Defense budget, the number is the same. But the President's budget also lifted the budget caps for the 11 other appropriations bills. I know we serve on the Armed Services Committee, and I have heard members of the Armed Services Committee say, ``Don't talk to me about that stuff. I serve on the Armed Services Committee. That is not my department.'' I would love to know what district those people are living in because roads and bridges and schools and housing, it affects all of us, and those budget caps remain in place. What this Defense bill does, unfortunately, is it locks in the Republican budget. It locks in the deal they made with the Senate to continue to provide devastating cuts at the Budget Control Act level for everything else and then let Defense and only Defense out of jail in an awkward sort of backdoor way through the overseas contingency operations. To agree to this bill is to agree to cuts in those 11 other bills--to cuts in transportation, to cuts in research, to cuts at NIH and CDC, in all of these programs that we care about. If we accept this, then those cuts are locked into place. Don't get me wrong. I support spending $38 billion more on the Defense budget; I support the President's level; I support this level, but I also support lifting the budget caps for all of the other areas of our government that are facing the same sort of devastating cuts and difficulties that the Defense Department has. If we agree with this, we lock in the budget. Lastly, I want to point out that the President has said he does not support this process. He opposes all the appropriations bills, and he will oppose this Defense bill. The President hasn't gone away. There is not a sustainable veto override number for those appropriations bills in the House and the Senate.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself just to respond briefly to Mr. Thornberry's remarks. The problem, too, why this won't actually fund our troops is it is OCO funding to begin with; and, as the Secretary of Defense said, it makes it very difficult to do it in any sort of comprehensive way. More importantly, when we get to the end of the process, if the President doesn't agree to it, then we haven't funded the troops at this $38 billion additional level. If that is where he is at on the veto on these appropriations bills, then we haven't done it. We simply run the clock out for another 4 or 5 months. We have got to get to a budget agreement that the President agrees to, or we are not going to fund the troops at the level that I agree with the chairman that we need to fund them at, and this bill does not do that. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself an additional 2 minutes. Everything that we are doing on this bill and in the appropriations bills between now and October is--and I know the Republican plan is to hope the President just sort of changes his mind and signs all those bills; I consider that highly unlikely--so what is going to happen is we are going to get to October, and this is all going to blow up anyway because the President is not going to sign it. He is still there. I know the Republicans won the Senate, but the President didn't go anywhere, and the Constitution didn't change, and nothing becomes law unless he signs it. What I urge is that the President, the House, and the Senate--all three--sit down and come up with a budget solution that ends the budget caps for all of these bills so we can start working on something that is real. I mean, this $38 billion is great, but like I said, between here and when it heads up Pennsylvania Avenue, it is going away, and then we are going to have to double back and try to fix this anyway. I guess all I am saying is we should start now instead of risking another government shutdown, risking another continuing resolution, and get a true budget agreement that actually addresses the Budget Control Act in its entirety, doesn't just find a sort of awkward workaround through the overseas contingency operations just to take care of Defense. I support this level, but not this way. It has too devastating an impact on the rest of our budget, and as Secretary of Defense Ash Carter said, OCO funding is no way to fund the Defense Department if it is not legitimately for OCO expenses. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. The only way to adequately fund our troops is to get rid of the Budget Control Act, so we can actually fund it under regular order with a normal amount of money that allows them to plan for over 5 years. Lastly, I am sorry, but the infrastructure of this country matters. The fact that bridges are falling down matters. The fact that we don't have enough money to do research on critical disease matters. Yes, it is important to defend this country. Yes, that is the paramount duty. But if the country itself crumbles while we have a military to defend it, that too is a problem and one I think worth fighting for, worth standing up and saying we are not going to accept a budget that guts all of these other things and uses the overseas contingency operation as a work-around to fund defense. It is basically acting like this is free money. Well, it is not free money. It costs, and it undermines the entire rest of the budget. Let's get rid of the Budget Control Act. Let's get rid of the caps. Let's get rid of sequestration. We don't do that in this bill, and it is my contention that if we don't do that, then we are not adequately funding our troops and adequately funding our defense.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond briefly when basically it is called unconscionable to oppose something. Aside from being unbelievably arrogant, it is wrong to say that there is no reason whatsoever to vote against this bill. I mentioned earlier that there were--I am sorry, if he can call me ``unconscionable,'' I suppose I can call him ``arrogant.'' I don't know; it seems fair. At any rate, there is another reason not to vote for this bill, and that is that it underfunds readiness once again. It says this matches the President's budget, and overall it does, but it has $2.4 billion less in money for readiness. Last year's bill had $1.5 billion less in readiness. Why? Because every effort that the Department of Defense makes to cut just about anything--the movements that they wanted to make to start a BRAC, the changes that they wanted to make to the National Guard to save money, the plan they had to lay up 11 cruisers, the efforts to get rid of the A-10--efforts to move anything around are blocked by this committee, and they take that money out of readiness to fund what really amounts to a personal priority. What does it mean to take money out of readiness? It means that our troops do not get the training that they need to be prepared to fight. It is just that simple. Readiness money is the money for the ammo. It is the money for the fuel. It is the money for the mechanic to fix equipment. That has been going down and down and down and down as we block every effort to save money anyplace else because just about anything the Pentagon is going to do is going to affect somebody's district. The A-10 is in somebody's district. Every other project is made in somebody's district. We protected all that at the expense of readiness, and I think that is the worst thing that we can do. It has created a situation where we may well be sending our men and women off to fight unprepared and untrained. And you talk to the people who are serving. They are not able to fly as much as they used to. They are not able to train as much as they used to. They are not able to use their weapons as much as they used to because of those continuous cuts to readiness, because we fund other priorities. That is number one. Number two. Funding through OCO, as the Secretary of Defense has said, is not the same as actually funding the Department of Defense through a regular appropriations process. It is one-time money. What the Secretary of Defense has said is: Giving us this one-time money makes it impossible to plan. We don't know if it is going to be there next year. You can't have a 5-year plan under OCO money. You are restricted in where you can spend it and how you can spend it. So this is not adequately funding our troops. I do take offense at the notion that opposition to this bill means that you just don't support our troops. That is the bumper sticker-- sorry, I won't use that word. It is wrong to say that about anyone who opposes this bill. I oppose this bill because I don't think it does adequately fund our troops. It doesn't take care of the budget problems that are in front of us.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. It is not a matter of not supporting our troops. To say that the decision to oppose the defense bill is because you don't support the troops I hope the gentleman would agree is not where we are coming from.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me emphasize again that there are a lot of good things in this bill. I won't disagree with anything that was said. The reform agenda that Mr. Thornberry has, I think, taken a leadership role on is incredibly important, and I think that is a huge positive. There are a lot of programs in this bill that are absolutely critical to our national defense, but the most critical thing, I think, to our national defense is getting us back to the normal budget process, getting us out from under the Budget Control Act, out from under the budget caps, and having a normal appropriations process. If we vote for this bill, we allow that unnatural process where the Pentagon does not have long-term funding and long-term predictability to continue. The biggest thing that has changed since we were in committee is, number one, the President did not issue a veto threat. I actually had a conversation with leadership before we went to committee as to where they were at on that. The fact that the President has now said that he will not support this bill with the additional OCO funding is a major change. It means that what we are working on here is not going to happen. And that is not political; that is substantive. We have to have a bill that the President will sign if we are, in fact, going to fund our troops. The second thing that happened was the budget resolution, which was being debated back and forth. The House passed one and the Senate passed one, but they came together and it became clear that the budget resolution was the budget resolution, and they were locking in place the budget resolution that I have described that takes advantage of the OCO fund to basically create free money--money that doesn't count under the Budget Control Act--to plus-up defense and keep everything else where it is at. Once that was locked in and the President looked at that and said he would not support that appropriations process, we created a situation where what we are doing here is not going to pass. It is not going to be sustainable. We are not going to fund our troops doing it this way. Unless we make those other changes in the budget process, we are just not going to get there. On the gentleman's comments about the BRAC round, the military said they are over capacity in facilities. They are spending money on facilities that they don't need to spend just because they can't close those bases. Yes, in the short term it costs more money, but in the long term, the first four rounds of BRAC have saved us hundreds of billions of dollars over the long term. So not being willing to do BRAC, not being willing to make cuts in certain programs, is undermining readiness. Yes, it is good that we took the OCO money. And because OCO money is so fungible, you can do it this way. You took the rest of the money and you funded all of these programs that the Pentagon was trying to cut, and then you tried to backfill as much as you possibly could with the OCO money and readiness. And that is better than not, but it is still less to $2.4 billion short of what the President's budget was on readiness. And I still contend that we are shortchanging readiness to fund the priorities that are more parochial and more political, and that is something that I mentioned last year that put me on the edge of whether or not I could support last year's bill. Because at the end of the day, the one thing I think we owe our troops is that if we send them into battle, they are ready. They are trained and they are ready to fight. If they don't have the equipment and they don't have the readiness dollars, then they won't be. So for those two reasons, I am opposing this bill. I am hopeful between now and when we come back from conference that we can reconcile this issue and that we can actually adequately fund the military and work through this, because I totally agree we need to do this. But where we are at right now is a bill that I don't think does adequately fund our troops in a predictable enough way to give them the training they need and to give the Pentagon leadership the predictability they need in terms of budgeting to have a defense budget. So, reluctantly, I will oppose this bill. And I hope we continue to work to get to a bill that we can support in the end. I do not view this in any way as the end of the bipartisan tradition of our committee. We worked very closely together on putting together this bill, and we will continue to work closely together to find a bill that did actually pass through the entire process. Again, if the President doesn't sign it, then all of our work is for naught, and it is the troops who suffer. So we are going to have to work on finding a way to reach an agreement with all the people who need to approve this bill before it becomes law. I pledge to continue to do that. I do want to thank the chairman and the Republicans on this issue. I think they have done a fabulous job of working on this bill. I just disagree on that one fundamental point that, frankly, has more to do with the Budget Committee than it does with our committee, but it does have a profound impact on our product. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Rainier Beach High School in Seattle, Washington for increasing its graduation rate by 25 percent since 2011. Located in the southeastern region of Seattle along the shores of Lake Washington, Rainier Beach High School first opened its doors in 1960, and is currently home to about 400 students from the 9th Congressional District. In previous years, Rainier Beach suffered low enrollment and graduation numbers, as well as high dropout rates. This suddenly changed two years ago when parents, staff, and community members of the Rainier Beach neighborhood pushed for an investment in an International Baccalaureate (IB) advanced learning program. This investment was made to improve the educational outcomes for all students at Rainier Beach. IB is a proven academic curriculum for 11th and 12th grade students across the nation that challenges young adults and prepares them for higher education. Students who have successfully completed IB classes have the opportunity to earn an IB diploma, making them more academically competitive in the college application process. Since the implementation of this program, Rainier Beach High School has witnessed tremendous improvements in the academic success of their students. Graduation rates have risen substantially in recent years, with 79 percent of seniors graduating with high school diplomas this past spring. Moreover, Rainier Beach continues to exceed the Seattle School District's average graduation rate of 74 percent. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate Rainier Beach High School on this academic achievement. I am extremely proud of Rainier Beach for valuing education and promoting growth. Their success story sets the bar very high for schools around the country.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the founding Executive Director of The Sophia Way, Helen Leuzzi, for being recognized by Seattle CityClub as a recipient of the 2015 Washington State Jefferson Award. The Jefferson Award is given to the unsung heroes who are making a difference in their community through public service. Also known as the ``Nobel Prize'' of social service, the Seattle CityClub awards the Jefferson Award to community leaders who exemplify an exceptional amount of volunteerism and action to better their communities. In 2006, Helen began serving as the Outreach Chair at the Bellevue First Congregational Church, where her passion was ignited to help meet the needs of the eastside's homeless and low-income women. In collaboration with other community organizations, Helen helped to create a women's day center known as Angeline's Day, which eventually inspired her to create a center that would serve the needs of women at all hours of the day. This day center would later grow into what is known today as The Sophia Way. Today, The Sophia Way offers life skills training, social services, shelter, and additional resources to help women gain stability and independence. As the founding Executive Director, Helen has demonstrated an unyielding commitment to combating issues faced by homeless and low income women in our community. Her dedication and selflessness have paved the way for the success and growth of this organization, which has become an important asset to the region. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize Helen Leuzzi for receiving Seattle CityClub's Washington State Jefferson Award and for her commitment to serving vulnerable populations in our community.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and congratulate Ms. Janie Sacco, Vice President and SBA Loan Officer at Kitsap Bank, on receiving the 2015 Washington State Veteran Small Business Advocate Award from the SBA. For years, Janie's main focus has been assisting military veterans with business loans, with a special focus on women, minority, veteran- owned small businesses and non-profits. Janie works tirelessly to discover qualifying veteran-owned businesses to receive a certification as a veteran-owned business by the Washington State Department of Veteran Affairs (WDVA). These certifications allow businesses to apply for SBA loans and benefit from the additional assistance that veterans deserve. Janie's dedication has resulted in many local businesses qualifying for SBA assistance, which has helped to spur economic growth in the region. In addition to her work at Kitsap Bank, Janie also works with the SBA's SCORE and VBOC programs, providing classes on financial education, as well as with the SBA's Boots-to-Business program. During her spare time, she volunteers by providing her expertise and services in the South Sound region in order to strengthen veteran-owned businesses and their finances. Janie has demonstrated--through her career and volunteer service--her dedication to veterans and veteran- owned businesses. Our community and regional economy have benefited greatly as a result and I am proud to call her a constituent. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I recognize and congratulate Janie Sacco on receiving the 2015 Washington State Veteran Small Business Advocate Award from the Small Business Association.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and recognize Torklift Central from Kent, Washington, for their dedication to the community as demonstrated through their annual Turkey Challenge. In 2011, with the economy in the depths of the recession and many families struggling as a result, the Kent Food Bank unexpectedly lost the majority of its funding with the holiday season just around the corner. This left many households in the area scrambling to find ways to feed their families. Fortunately, Torklift Central--a family-owned company based in Kent--stepped up to meet the needs of the community by forming the Turkey Challenge. The Challenge, which is heading into its fifth year this winter, pits local businesses against each other in a friendly competition to see who can collect the greatest amount of canned food items and cash donations for the food bank. One hundred percent of the proceeds go to providing Thanksgiving meals for residents and families who visit the Kent food bank during the holiday. Every year, donations for the Turkey Challenge have grown in both the number of cans and monetary donations received. The goal for 2014 was 4,000 pounds of food and $17,000, an ambitious goal that would have nearly doubled what they collected in the previous year. Participating companies far exceeded those goals, bringing in 10,820 pounds of canned food and $22,418 in donations. Altogether, the Turkey Challenge has raised $56,560 and collected 16,804 pounds of food. Without the continued dedication of Torklift Central to the Kent Food Bank, many families in our community would go without a Thanksgiving meal and food throughout the year. No longer does the food bank have to turn away families on this special day and at other times during the year due to lack of supplies. Because of Torklift Central's outstanding initiative and contributions, the community can give less fortunate families a memorable Thanksgiving. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize Torklift Central. Their service to our community is an inspiration to all organizations across the State of Washington.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and congratulate Dr. Quintard Taylor of the University of Washington on receiving the 2015 Washington State Jefferson Award from Seattle CityClub. The Jefferson Award is given to the unsung heroes who make a difference in their community through public service. Also known as the ``Nobel Prize'' of social service, the Seattle CityClub presents the Jefferson Award to community leaders who exemplify volunteerism and action to better their communities. Today, Dr. Taylor is the Scott and Dorothy Bullitt Professor of American History at the University of Washington's Seattle campus, and has taught in Washington, Oregon, California, and Nigeria over the course of almost 40 years. He has edited, written and published multiple writings on African American History, providing his expertise on African American history specific to the American West. In addition to his commitment to teaching, Dr. Taylor created a website resource called BlackPast.org, a non-profit website that features over 10,000 pages of information on African American history. In particular, this resource features voluntary academic contributions from various scholars verified through a rigorous process. This site is the largest reference center of its type and is a testament to his dedication to providing citizens with vital information on American history. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I recognize and congratulate Dr. Quintard Taylor on receiving Seattle CityClub's 2015 Jefferson Award.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 21; Wednesday, April 22; and Thursday, April 23, 2015, I was out on medical leave while recovering from surgery and unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 162 (on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 25), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 163 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 212), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 164 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 212), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 165 (on agreeing to the Kuster Amendment to H.R. 1195), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 166 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 1195, with instructions), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 167 (on passage of H.R. 1195), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 168 (on agreeing to the Mulvaney Amendment to H.R. 1560), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 169 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 1560, with instructions), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 170 (on passage of H.R. 1560), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 171 (on agreeing to the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 1731), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 172 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 1731, with instructions), and ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 173 (on passage of H.R. 1731).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 13; Tuesday, April 14; Wednesday, April 15; and Thursday, April 16, 2015, I was out on medical leave while recovering from surgery and unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 145 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1249), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 146 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1265), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 147 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1480), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 148 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 189), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 149 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 189), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 150 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 650, with instructions), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 151 (on passage of H.R. 650), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 152 (on passage of H.R. 685), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 153 (on the motion to instruct conferees on S. Con. Res. 11), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 154 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 200), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 155 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 200), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 156 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1562), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 157 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1563, as amended), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 158 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 622, with instructions), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 159 (on passage of H.R. 622), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 160 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 1105, with instructions), and ``No'' on roll call vote No. 161 (on passage of H.R. 1105).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 23; Tuesday, March 24; Wednesday, March 25; and Thursday, March 26, 2015, I was out on medical leave while recovering from surgery and unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 130 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 360), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 131 (on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 162), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 132 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 163), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 133 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 163), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 134 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 216, as amended), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 135 (on approving the journal), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 136 (on agreeing to the Ellison Amendment to H. Con. Res. 27), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 137 (on agreeing to the Butterfield Amendment to H. Con. Res. 27), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 138 (on agreeing to the Stutzman Amendment to H. Con. Res. 27), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 139 (on agreeing to the Van Hollen Amendment to H. Con. Res. 27), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 140 (on agreeing to the first Tom Price Amendment to H. Con. Res. 27), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 141 (on agreeing to the second Tom Price Amendment to H. Con. Res. 27), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 142 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Con. Res. 27, as amended), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 143 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 173), and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 144 (on passage of H.R. 2).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 16; Tuesday, March 17; Wednesday, March 18; and Thursday, March 19, 2015, I was out on medical leave for surgery and unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 113 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 647), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 114 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 648), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 115 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 876, as amended), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 116 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 138), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 117 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 138), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 118 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1191, as amended), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 119 (on agreeing to the McKinley Amendment to H.R. 1029), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 120 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 1029 with instructions), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 121 (on passage of H.R. 1029), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 122 (on agreeing to the Edwards Amendment to H.R. 1030), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 123 (on agreeing to the Kennedy Amendment to H.R. 1030), ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 124 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 1030 with instructions), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 125 (on passage of H.R. 1030), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 126 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 152), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 127 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 152), ``No'' on roll call vote No. 128 (on passage of S.J. Res. 8), and ``Yes'' on roll call vote No. 129 (on approving the Journal).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, March 4, 2015, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``no'' on roll call vote No. 110 (on agreeing to the McClintock amendment to H.R. 749), ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 111 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 749, with instructions), and ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 112 (on passage of H.R. 749).