Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, Tuesday, March 3, 2015, I was detained in a meeting and unable to be present for the first recorded vote of the day. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 108 (on the motion to table the Senate amendment to H.R. 240).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the 50th Anniversary of AmeriCorps VISTA. AmeriCorps VISTA has been on the front lines in the fight against poverty in America for 50 years. Every year, more than 8,000 Americans--serving at 1,100 projects nationwide-- dedicate their skills, talents and passion in efforts to overcome poverty. Since 1965, VISTA members have served in some of our nation's most impoverished urban and rural areas. As a result of their dedication, they continue to make a tangible difference in the lives of more than 46 million Americans who live in poverty. VISTA focuses on providing structural support for low-income communities in order to fight illiteracy, improve health services and foster economic development. In Washington's 9th Congressional District, VISTA members work with several service organizations in the community. In partnership with the United Way of King County, volunteers help mentor students, advocate for the homeless and provide families with social services. Through their selfless service, VISTA members and volunteers have improved the quality of life for many in our community and continue to be a vital force in the fight against poverty. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize AmeriCorps VISTA for its fifty years of service to our nation. VISTA members have set the standard for meaningful volunteer mobilization. I look forward to hearing about the future progress and success of VISTA for many years to come.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President's decision to defer the deportation of some of the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are in this country. This is a decision that every President has made, to one degree or another. We do not have the resources to deport everybody, so he makes a decision about which ones should go and shouldn't. There is nothing illegal about that, and the House should not be holding up the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill because of that policy issue. First of all, it is a policy issue best addressed by a policy committee, not by holding hostage an appropriations bill. There is an authorizing process to go through to have that fight. Secondly, and more importantly, the President's decision was the right one. There are millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants in this country who are valuable members of our community. They are wives and husbands. They are fathers. They are working productively and paying taxes. Tearing apart families and communities is not something that is going to help this country. I think the President made the right decision. We should support it. And we certainly shouldn't be shutting down the Department of Homeland Security in a misguided attempt to go after that policy.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 2 and during the first series of votes on Tuesday, February 3, 2015, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``YES'' on roll call vote No. 51, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 361; ``YES'' on roll call vote No. 52, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 615; ``YES'' on roll call vote No. 53, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 623; ``NO'' on roll call vote No. 54, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 70; ``NO'' on roll call vote No. 55, on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 70; and ``YES'' on roll call vote No. 56, on approving the Journal.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 12, 2015, I was unable to be present for a recorded vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 17, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 203, ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 18, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 33, and ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 19, on approving the Journal.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will only take a few minutes and then yield the bulk of the time to Mr. Clyburn. I rise about a particular situation that has happened to me and, I am sure, has happened to other Members that you might not be aware of. Other Members can sign you on to a piece of legislation without your consent, and that happened to me just this week. Representative Diane Black signed me on to H.R. 217, which is a particularly strong anti-choice bill and a bill that I would never support. Now, it was an honest mistake. My name is Adam Smith. Regrettably, there is an Adrian Smith, who serves--well, not ``regrettably.'' Adrian is a very nice man, but he is someone who has a name very close to mine, ``Adrian Smith.'' She thought it was Adrian Smith she was signing on to the bill. She signed me on to the bill instead, and that creates two problems and two things that I would urge this body to change. First of all, nobody should be able to sign you on to a bill without your signature. Now, I know we do that, and that speeds up the process, but it creates a situation where anyone can put you on any bill. In this case, I was put on a bill that is polar opposite to my personal beliefs and my 18-year record in Congress. The second thing that is really problematic about this is you would assume--well, okay--there is a simple fix: just take it off. To her credit, as soon as she noticed the mistake, Congresswoman Black did just that--she had my name removed as a cosponsor--but that is not what happens. On the bill that is out there with the original cosponsors, my name does not simply disappear. A line is drawn through it, and it is said next to it ``withdrawn'' as if, at some point, I did cosponsor the bill and then changed my mind. I don't know how we change this rule, but when this happens--when it is clear that someone signs you on to a bill you had no intention of being on--your name should be removed. Period. End of story. It was never really there in the first place. Now, as a part of my permanent record, there is my name as having been on a bill--to all appearances as my own choice--that, in a million years, I never would have cosponsored. I rise to make that point clear to my constituents, first of all. I never signed on to it, and I never had any intention. Second of all, as I will do in a letter that I will send to the Speaker and to the minority leader, I would urge us to at least change that second policy. Once it is clear that you never intended to sign on to a bill, your name should simply be removed. It should not be there with a line through it as if you did intend to sign on to the bill at one time. I think this is potentially damaging to a lot of Members. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 9, Wednesday, December 10, and Thursday, December 11, 2014, I was out on medical leave continuing to recover from surgery and unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 552 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 5781); ``no'' on roll call vote No. 553 (on passage of H.R. 5781); ``no'' on roll call vote No. 554 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 775); ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 555 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 1000); ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 556 (on approving the journal); ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 557 (on passage of S. 2244); ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 558 (on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4681); ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 559 (on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2719); ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 560 (on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1204); ``no'' on roll call vote No. 561 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 776); ``no'' on roll call vote No. 562 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5806); ``no'' on roll call vote No. 563 (on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 83 with an amendment); and ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 564 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5699, as amended).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to join with the chairman in urging the body to pass this important piece of legislation. This bill every year helps our military do its job. It provides pay increases for the people who serve in the military, it provides for military construction, and it provides for the necessary authorities that the men and women who serve in our military need to perform the missions that our country asks them to do. This is particularly important as we continue to fight in Afghanistan and as we continue to try to figure out how to deal with the challenge in Syria and Iraq. I think this bill is of even more importance because it contains within it the train and equip authority to help deal with ISIS and Syria and Iraq. I really wish to emphasize for this body that that train and equip mission is just that. It in no way, shape, manner, or form authorizes the use of military force, and I think it is the best approach. I don't want U.S. troops fighting this war. We have learned that U.S. troops cannot win the battle against the evil ideology that al Qaeda and ISIS have promoted. We need local partners. That is what this bill helps us do: train and equip those local partners so that they can fight ISIS on their home turf locally and in a far more successful way. I will say that this bill is deficient in one regard. We have a smaller defense budget than we ever anticipated that we would have. If sequestration comes to pass, it will be smaller still. There are very difficult decisions in terms of what equipment to procure, what equipment to set aside, how to cut personnel costs. The Pentagon has wrestled with all of those issues and made a series of proposals to us about how to make those cuts. We rejected pretty much all of them. That is not going to happen in the future. In 2016-2017 we are going to have to make some choices, because if we don't make choices, readiness gets hurt. It is the last thing that they can cut. They do not fix equipment. They do not train troops as much. They do not pay for ammunition and fuel to do the training. If we don't make the decisions on how to make rational cuts in the budget in light of how much that budget has shrunk, readiness gets hurt. So in the future, I hope we will make those decisions. I applaud the chairman for his fine work. I want to thank him for an excellent working relationship. I wish him the best. He has been an excellent chairman. He has upheld the tradition of bipartisanship on the House Armed Services Committee as well as anybody. I really appreciate that working relationship. I thank you for the work on this bill, and I urge its passage. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

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

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. In closing, I want to, first of all, thank all the people who worked so hard to pull this bill together. The staffs on both the House and the Senate side do an amazing job that most people do not understand just how many long hours they put into this. The process has been made more and more difficult in recent years by the fact that the Senate either doesn't pass a bill or waits until the absolute last minute to pass a bill, so then we have to work through the committee process. So there have been fits and starts back and forth, and the committee has done a fabulous job. This is a very lengthy, very complicated piece of legislation. Without the expertise of our staff, there is no way on Earth we would be able to accomplish it. I also want to point out, again, how important this piece of legislation is. This is the 53rd consecutive year that we have passed an authorizing bill. I think that recognizes how important national security is and how it is one of the central duties of the United States Congress to make sure every year we give the authorities to our men and women who are serving in the armed services to do the jobs that we ask them to do. So I thank our staff for that. I really want to recognize their leadership. I also want to particularly recognize the leadership of Chairman McKeon, as this is his last time as chairman and as a Member of Congress. Our committee has tried to have two basic core principles: one, we get our bill done; two, we work in a bipartisan fashion. When you look around this body today, you have greater appreciation for how difficult those two things are. We are not naturally bipartisan, and we are not naturally inclined to pass legislation because there is always something about any piece of legislation that somebody would prefer to be just a little bit different. That is not any less true in our bill, but we recognize the necessity of getting it done. The ability to do those two things starts with the chair of the committee. When I arrived here, Floyd Spence was the chairman of the committee, and he and everyone right up through Ike Skelton, who was Mr. McKeon's predecessor, have made it a priority to, number one, work with the other side. Buck, from the very moment he was elected and the moment I was elected as ranking, reached out to me and made sure that that bipartisanship started at the top and flowed down throughout the entire committee. And the second piece of it is the absolute commitment to getting the bill done no matter what. Again, Chairman McKeon has just been outstanding in that regard. It has been a tough, tough, long 4 years. Many challenges have cropped up, but we have met every one of them and been able to get the bill done, so I thank him for his leadership. I also want to thank Chairman Levin on the Senate side, as he is retiring as well. This is his last year as chairman. He showed a similar commitment, and he had an even more difficult time over there. In fact, he and Senator Inhofe had a conversation a couple of days ago as we were trying to figure out how to do this in which they were trying to explain to us the Senate rules. I said: Look, I am never going to understand them. Just don't explain them. There is nothing I can do about it. That is up to you. You guys figure it out as best you can. So Senator Levin has shown outstanding leadership as well. On the whole, I think this is a very good piece of legislation. We have to remember that we face a wide variety of national security threats at this point. We still have troops in Afghanistan. We now again have troops in Iraq. We have North Korea, which is very unpredictable. We have the challenge of dealing with Iran and all of its levels. We have Russia and Vladimir Putin that are messing around in Ukraine and a variety of different other areas. This is probably as dangerous a time as we have had since the end of the cold war. Our national security strategy, funding, and the decisions we make could not possibly be more important. At the same time, we have a huge budget challenge. We have sequestration, and we have this rampant desire to cut, cut, cut, cut everything from government, not contemplate any new revenue, not contemplate any possibility of spending more money; and our national security strategy has to try to wrestle with that, so that makes it very, very difficult. I will say again what I think is going to be most important in the next few years. I don't think sequestration is going away. I am going to continue to argue that it should, but given the majorities in the House and the Senate and given the last election, it is unlikely to go away, which means that the military is going to have to live with a dramatically lower amount of money than they thought they were going to have. They are also going to have to live with all those national security challenges that I mentioned and, undoubtedly, a few that I didn't. So how do we do that? Right now, unfortunately, Congress is doing it the old way, which is parochial. We all have an interest. We don't want our base closed. We have an airplane or a ship that is stationed in our district or a particular defense contractor that is invested in a particular piece of equipment. So whenever the Pentagon comes up and says, ``We need to cut this,'' you have a predictable group of people who will rally and say, ``Here is why we shouldn't''; and by and large, the rest of Congress has gone along with that group of people. I am here to tell you that is just not going to continue to work. It is not. The very small minor personnel cuts that are in this bill are things that none of us would have liked to do. We would love to have more money, but we don't. On the A-10, on the retirement of the cruisers and the amphib vehicles--I am sorry, not the retirement, the refurbishment, the layup of those vehicles--on the changes to the Guard and Reserve that have been proposed, all of these are things that we would prefer not to do. But we have the money that we have, and until this Congress decides to change that and provide more, it is the absolute worst thing we can do to reject every single change. We have had things as minor as a guard unit wanting to move five C- 130s from a base in one State to a base in another and proposals on our bill to disallow them from doing that because the people in that State don't want them to be moved. I understand that, but that is not a sustainable defense strategy in this environment. We are going to have to make some difficult choices that we don't want to make if we are going to properly protect our military because, again, what happens when we don't make those choices, money doesn't magically appear to pay for these things. The Pentagon has got to reshuffle the deck and make cuts elsewhere to try to figure out how to make it work, and the cuts always come from readiness. We have always said that the worst thing that we can do is create a hollow force, a force that does not have the training and the equipment to do the missions that we ask them to do. That is precisely what we do when we reject reasonable cuts--we don't do a BRAC, for instance--and leave the military with no choice but to reduce training and equipment, because that is all that is left. That is the last thing on the table. So I hope that we will start making some of those tough decisions in the next year. Again, I thank the chairman; I thank the staff; I wish Senator Levin the best in his retirement as well; and I urge passage of the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the ranking member of the Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member on the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 17; Tuesday, November 18; Wednesday, November 19: and Thursday, November 20, 2014, I was out on medical leave 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. 520 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5162), ``no'' on roll call vote No. 521 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 756), ``no'' on roll call vote No. 522 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 756), ``no'' on roll call vote No. 523 (on agreeing to the Stewart amendment to H.R. 1422), ``yes'' on roll call vote No . 524 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 1422 with instructions), ``no'' on roll call vote No. 525 (on passage of H.R. 1422), ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 526 (on agreeing to the Kennedy amendment to H.R. 4012), ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 527 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 4012 with instructions), ``no'' on roll call vote No. 528 (on passage of H.R. 4012), ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 529 (on agreeing to the Waxman amendment to H.R. 4795), ``yes'' on roll call vote No. 530 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 4795 with instructions), and ``no'' on roll call vote No. 531 (on passage of H.R. 4795).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, November 12, Thursday, November 13, and Friday, November 14, 2014, I was out on medical leave recovering from surgery and unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 516 (on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4194), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 517 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 748), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 518 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 5682, with instructions), and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 519 (on passage of H.R. 5682).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 15, 2014, I was unable to be present for a recorded vote. I request that the record show that had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 497, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5108, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Bob Dickerson of RESULTS, a grassroots organization dedicated to creating the political will to end poverty in the U.S. and abroad. Mr. Dickerson has contributed immeasurably to the local and international community over the last twenty-five years as a volunteer leader. After working as an attorney in Seattle for a number of years, Mr. Dickerson left his law practice and began working nearly full-time as a RESULTS volunteer. His passionate and ever present voice for the powerless--especially children--is truly remarkable. In 2005, his work was recognized with the Thomas C. Wales Foundation Award for Civic Engagement and Passionate Citizenship. As the RESULTS Seattle Group Leader, Mr. Dickerson has developed deep partnerships with powerful coalitions, elected leaders and the media. His work inspired Members of Congress and volunteers across the country on both sides of the aisle to serve as vocal spokespersons in support of the Global Poverty Act, the Education for All Act, the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria, and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, among many others. Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I recognize Bob Dickerson for twenty-five years of excellence. I wish him the best of luck in all his future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Seattle Sounders Football Club (FC) on the 40th anniversary of its founding. Since its formation in 1974 as a member of the North American Soccer League (NASL), the Sounders have consistently brought world-class soccer to our region. After decades of play in other leagues, Sounders FC was added as a Major League Soccer (MLS) expansion team in 2007. As a nod to the team's history, the notoriously loyal Sounders fans voted to keep the traditional team name alive even after changing leagues. Since joining the league, the Sounders and their fans have set MLS records year in and year out. In every season of their tenure in the MLS the Sounders have led the league in both average attendance and number of season tickets sold. This loud and passionate fan base at every game has spurred the Sounders on to stellar play, and they have reached the playoffs in each of their four seasons as a result. The soccer pitch is not the only place that members of Sounders FC have achieved excellence. Many members of the organization have undertaken efforts to better the community they call home. Through partnerships with organizations focused on youth and sports, and through a 2013 trip by team members to Tanzania with the Washington Global Health Alliance, the Seattle Sounders have done much more than just play outstanding soccer--they have made a difference in our region and across the world. Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I recognize the Seattle Sounders FootballClub on forty years of excellence, both on and off the soccer pitch.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.