Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. All right. Well, if the purpose is to withdraw the amendment, I will withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry, a colloquy does not put an issue in a position to be in conference, does it? It has to be in either the House or the Senate bill?

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Reserving the right to object, I just want to talk for a moment or two. I hear all that, and I am happy to have the amendment withdrawn. I think this is a bad idea from our side of the aisle. I have talked to a lot of people in the military, and they are deeply concerned about the notion of allowing people to be armed on base at all times. The command structure issues that you mentioned and the rights that are given up, this is something that we would strongly oppose. I just want to make sure for the Record a colloquy doesn't put something in conference, okay? I don't know what the Senate is going to do. There is nothing in our bill on this. If there is nothing in the Senate bill, it ain't in conference. So, if you want to withdraw it and keep working on the Senate, that is fine. I just want to make sure that we don't have some record here that thinks that, with this colloquy, it makes this a conference issue.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I just want to again thank the chairman for his leadership and thank all of the folks who have done so much hard work in pulling this bill together. I will make two other quick points. One, to sort of reemphasize, we have heard a couple of times that this bill makes the tough choices. I can't see one at this point. You know, we have sort of dodged and bobbed and weaved. Some of that I actually support. Some of it made sense. One of the issues that we have to wrestle with on the committee is how do we preserve the industrial base? When you are talking about making submarines or tanks or jet fighters, if you don't keep making them, you can't say, well, we are going to shut it down for 3 years and then we are going to start making them again, because that workforce is gone, the plants are gone. Those decisions do have to be made. I just think at this point, on balance, in this instance, every single hard choice that the administration laid out on compensation--I know health care is difficult. I think that the men and women who serve in our military should have the best health care while they are serving and after of anyone in this country, and they will. But there is an important statistic. In 1996, your average servicemember paid 27 percent of the cost of his or her health care. This year, that number is 10 percent. Why? Because health care costs went through the ceiling, but we didn't raise a single penny in costs for anyone serving in the military. Is that sustainable? They also make cuts in some of the subsidies for the commissaries, subsidies for housing. They looked for places where they could save some money. Again, no BRAC. Again, the A-10 we keep. The ships we keep. I understand those decisions, but they are building up an awful bellwether. And the final thing I will say is that I will again bring my amendment on closing Guantanamo Bay. The one thing we are slowly learning is that as we, fortunately, get fewer and fewer inmates in Guantanamo, it becomes more and more expensive to maintain what was supposed to be a temporary facility. Aside from all the arguments about how the international community feels about Guantanamo, arguments that President George W. Bush made when he said he supported closing Guantanamo, it is the sheer cost of maintaining that prison in such an obscure place. So I will again offer that amendment, and again we will have a robust debate on it. But the one point I want to make on that amendment--we have heard people say, well, gosh, we can't release these people in the United States. We are not going to release them in the United States. We are going to lock them up, as we currently lock up over 300 terrorists, countless mass murderers, and some of the worst, most violent people this country knows. They are locked up in secure facilities. We can do the same with the dangerous inmates who remain at Guantanamo. But keeping Guantanamo open is not intelligent, both in terms of cost and in terms of our standing in the international community. With that, I look forward to seeing how many of those 320 amendments the Rules Committee is going to throw at us, and I look forward to a robust debate starting this evening into the next couple of days. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I rise to congratulate MSgt. Lance Nelson on being named the Howard O. Scott Citizen-Soldier of the Year. This award, given annually by the Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber Military Affairs Committee and the Kiwanis Club of Tacoma, recognizes an individual who upholds his or her commitment to civic responsibility in an exemplary way. MSgt. Nelson has served his community and country in great measure and is truly deserving of this award. During his time in the 728th Airlift Squadron, 446th Airlift Wing, MSgt. Nelson has personified what it means to be an airman. He not only serves as a flight leader in his squadron but also as the squadron's Self Aid and Buddy Care Instructor, a position that puts him in charge of conducting classes on battlefield first aid. Furthermore, MSgt. Nelson's commitment to service continues when he is off duty, where he is employed as a firefighter and EMT with West Pierce Fire and Rescue. MSgt. Nelson has also shown enthusiasm for the potential of young people in our community. From starring in Fire Prevention Week assemblies and volunteering in classrooms, to leading Boy Scouts and coaching sports, MSgt. Nelson has consistently invested in the lives of children. As President of the Evergreen Elementary PTA and member of the Bethel School District Long Range Facilities Planning Team, he has been a dedicated advocate and resource for the Bethel School District. Howard O. Scott, for whom this award is named, served America when called upon during World War II, and continued to serve the Tacoma community throughout the rest of his life, leaving behind an impressive legacy. MSgt. Nelson carries on the legacy of Howard O. Scott, setting an incredible example of what it means to give back to your country and community. Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect that I congratulate MSgt. Lance Nelson. I wish him well in his future endeavors, and thank him for his service.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, April 4, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. I would have voted: ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 157 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 539), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 158 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 539), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 159 (on agreeing to the Connolly amendment to H.R. 1874), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 160 (on agreeing to the Israel amendment to H.R. 1874), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 161 (on agreeing to the Cicilline amendment to H.R. 1874), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 162 (on agreeing to the Jackson Lee amendment to H.R. 1874), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 163 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 1874, with instructions), and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 164 (on passage of H.R. 1874).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Seattle Seahawks on being named the Washingtonians of the Year by the Association of Washington Generals. Given each year to those who have demonstrated leadership, selflessness, generosity, and compassion in their service to others, this award is a well-deserved recognition of all that the Seattle Seahawks have contributed to our community. Though their work off the field may be less visible than their stellar on-field performances, it is no doubt equally as valuable. From individual visits by players and coaches to area hospitals, to the innovative work of the Seattle Seahawks Charitable Foundation, the team has contributed to the well-being of our community at all levels of the organization. A shining example of this is the work of the Seattle Seahawks' ``A Better Seattle'' program. This program, in partnership with the YMCA and the City of Seattle, has invested in the future of our youth in powerful ways. Through their support of the YMCA's ``Alive & Free'' street outreach program, the Seattle Seahawks have helped to transform the lives of hundreds of youth in our area by ensuring a safer and more peaceful future. Combined with the many other youth and child focused efforts of the Seattle Seahawks, the Seahawks organization has solidified itself as one of the greatest advocates for the welfare of young people in our region. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Seattle Seahawks on their recognition as Washingtonians of the Year. They are richly deserving of this award, and I look forward to their continued excellence on and off the field.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 8, 2012, I recorded an erroneous vote on the vote to approve the resolution H. Res. 530. I intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 153, on agreeing to resolution H. Res. 530.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 13 and Friday, March 14, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. I would have voted: ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 127 (on the Ellison Amendment to H.R. 3973), ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 128 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 3973, with instructions), ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 129 (on passage of H.R. 3973), ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 130 (on the Polis Amendment to H.R. 3189), ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 131 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 3189, with instructions), ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 132 (on passage of H.R. 3189), ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 133 (on the motion to table H. Res. 517), ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 134 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 4015, with instructions), and ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 135 (on passage of H.R. 4015.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great sadness to mourn the death of Peace Corps volunteer Ashley Earl. Ashley passed away on Saturday, March 8 in her beloved host community of Oshakati, Namibia. As a community health volunteer, Ashley worked tirelessly for the health and well-being of the residents of Oshakati, a community she was proud to be a part of. Working with Catholic AIDS Action, she coordinated after-school programs for youth in the local area. Those who worked with her say she ``cared deeply for her students, and taught them to show respect for others as well as respect for themselves.'' Ashley's time as a volunteer in the Peace Corps was just one component of her legacy of service. Prior to joining, she served six years in the Army Reserve and worked for a variety of social service organizations on behalf of women, children, and veterans. At the beginning of her Peace Corps service, Ashley wrote, ``I am hoping that I will be able to instill or inspire positive change in the community I will be working with.'' I can say with confidence that Ashley not only instilled and inspired positive change in the community of Oshakati, but also in those who encountered her. We all have much to learn from her heart for service and passion for life. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness, and even greater admiration that we remember the legacy of Ashley Earl. Our hearts go out to her parents, Phylliss and Lee Lundquist, and her sister, Stacy Earl.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great sadness to mourn the death of Peace Corps volunteer Ashley Earl. Ashley passed away on Saturday, March 8, in her beloved host community of Oshakati, Namibia. As a community health volunteer, Ashley worked tirelessly for the health and well-being of the residents of Oshakati, a community she was proud to be a part of. Working with Catholic AIDS Action, she coordinated after-school programs for youth in the local area. Those who worked with her say she ``cared deeply for her students, and taught them to show respect for others as well as respect for themselves.'' Ashley's time as a volunteer in the Peace Corps was just one component of her legacy of service. Prior to joining, she served six years in the Army Reserve and worked for a variety of social service organizations on behalf of women, children, and veterans. At the beginning of her Peace Corps service, Ashley wrote, ``I am hoping that I will be able to instill or inspire positive change in the community I will be working with.'' I can say with confidence that Ashley not only instilled and inspired positive change in the community of Oshakati, but also in those who encountered her. We all have much to learn from her heart for service and passion for life. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness, and even greater admiration that we remember the legacy of Ashley Earl. Our hearts go out to her parents, Phyliss and Lee Lundquist, and her sister, Stacy Earl.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Rainier Beach High School (RBHS) men's basketball team on their invitation to the Dick's Sporting Goods High School National Tournament. This prestigious invitation is yet another example of the program's excellence and reminds us that Rainier Beach deserves a place in the upper echelon of high school basketball in our nation. The Rainier Beach High School basketball team has played with excellence all season long, and is incredibly deserving of this opportunity. Going undefeated throughout their regular season has made them the top-ranked team in Washington State, and has given them much deserved national recognition as the basketball powerhouse that they have proven themselves to be. Founded in 2009 to create a national championship tournament for high school basketball, the Dick's Sporting Goods tournament invites the top eight teams in the country to compete. The tournament will be broadcast on national television and the final game played in New York City's Madison Square Garden. This event is a fantastic opportunity for the RBHS Vikings to showcase their skills in front of a national audience. I am pleased that the incredible athletic prowess from the 9th District of Washington State will be recognized across the country. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I recognize the Rainier Beach Vikings on their successful season. I wish them the best of luck as they take on the top talent our country has to offer.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I rise to recognize the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) on thirty years of fighting for the rights of immigrants and refugees in my home state of Washington. With four offices throughout the state, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project has protected the well-being of tens of thousands of immigrants throughout its history. The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project was founded in 1984 as a non- profit legal services organization serving Central American refugees. Since that time, it has expanded to serve individuals and families from more than 100 countries around the world, and added educational and public policy work to its efforts. This level of excellence can be seen in NWIRP's innovative weekly legal clinics on the Deferred Action Program, which have been a vital resource for immigrant youth in our state. Our nation needs more advocates for the rights of immigrants and refugees, and I am proud that an organization in Washington state is setting such a fine example. I am confident that the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project will be a strong voice on these issues for many years to come. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project on a fantastic thirty years. Their work is of incredible value and I wish them well in the future.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, February 28, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. I would have voted: ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 86 (on agreeing to the Cummings Amendment to H.R. 899), ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 87 (on agreeing to the Connolly Amendment to H.R. 899), ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 88 (on agreeing to the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 899), ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 89 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 899 with instructions), and ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 90 (on passage of H.R. 899).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, February 25, 2014, I missed one vote in a series of recorded votes. I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 64 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1123, as amended).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Bellevue Downtown Association on the occasion of its 40th anniversary. This non- profit organization is made up of passionate community members and has played a key role in creating the flourishing downtown that the citizens and businesses of Bellevue, Washington enjoy today. Over the last 40 years, Bellevue has been transformed into a thriving business center that is home to roughly 1,300 businesses and 45,000 workers. I am confident that this rapid economic development would not have been possible without the work of the Bellevue Downtown Association, as their efforts have made this area an inviting location for both businesses and residents. In particular, much of Bellevue's growth as a rising entertainment and cultural scene in the area is largely bolstered by the Association's impressive lineup of annual events. From a jazz festival and summer concert series, to the Eastside's largest Fourth of July celebration, the Bellevue Downtown Association's efforts have made downtown Bellevue more than just a great location to do business, but an appealing, culturally diverse place to live as well. Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I recognize the work of the Bellevue Downtown Association. Without its voice and hard work, downtown Bellevue would not be the economic and cultural center that it has become today.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 10, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 55 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2431, as amended); ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 56 (on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 447, as amended); and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 57 (on approving the journal).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There are a number of problems with this piece of legislation. One of the biggest ones is just the process of it. This has been dropped on us at the absolute last minute. In fact, on a bill that has profound impacts on the budget in a number of different areas, we just, moments ago, received a broad outline of a score of how it is going to impact that budget--moments ago. We did not have time to consider this legislation adequately to figure out what impact it was going to have on the budget, but there are a couple of things we do know about it that creates a major problem. Yes, in the short-term, this pleases two constituency groups. It pleases veterans, and it pleases doctors by giving them the money that they want. But what was not mentioned in the speech talking about this bill in favor of it is how it is paid for. It is paid for by adding another year to sequestration. Now, there are a couple of interesting things about this. First of all, that is 8 years from now. We have heard nothing but, from the other side of the aisle, about how government is spending too much money, about how the deficit and the debt are out of control, and yet here we have up-front money being spent on the promise that 8 years from now we will cover those costs. And what is worse, 8 years from now, the way we are going to cover those costs is through sequestration, across-the-board cuts that will cut other entitlement, other mandatory spending programs. So we are really simply robbing one group of deserving people to pay another group of deserving people. That is hardly responsible and hardly helpful. There are a couple of other specific aspects of this that I want to mention from the Department of Defense standpoint, focusing now just on the portion that addresses the cost of living reduction. I want to make sure we understand what exactly that cost of living reduction was. In the military, if you serve 20 years, you can retire at that point with your full pension, which is basically half of your pay at that point. This bill took, for those people between the ages of 42 and 62, working age, and reduced their COLA by 1 percent. It didn't reduce the pension. It reduced how much that pension would be increased by each year by 1 percent. Now, I don't deny that that is a hit and a cost, but what is it offsetting? The Pentagon has to pay this cost, or at least a portion of this cost. They have to pay--the old bill, and again, I am just getting the new score. But in the old bill, it was roughly $700 million a year that DOD had to take out of their operating budget and put in to paying for this pension. So, by doing this, we are taking roughly $700 million a year out of the Pentagon budget. What does that mean? What it means is a further blow to readiness. Now, Republican and Democratic members of the Armed Services Committee have rightly screamed that we are cutting readiness to the point where we are not training our forces to prepare to fight the fight that we ask them to fight. Now, the gentleman made an excellent point that, basically, what is going to make people want to sign up for the military? And he mentioned making sure that we take care of our veterans. I certainly think that is an issue. And I will tell you, for the last 10 years we have increased the GI Bill. We have increased pay every single year. We have made dramatic increases in combat pay. I applaud this Chamber for the bipartisan way in which they have taken care of our military veterans. But one other major issue that is going to determine whether or not people want to join the military and stay in it is whether or not we train them and prepare them for the fight we are going to ask them to do. And what the consequences of this are going to be is it is another blow to that. If you are a pilot, you will not have enough fuel or enough fixed equipment to train as often as you need to. If you are an infantryman, you will not have the bullets to practice as much as you need to. Doing this creates the one thing that everyone has said we don't want, and that is a hollow force, a force that exists but is not trained to fight the fight that we ask them to do. In fact, there is a great and compelling story told by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in an argument for why readiness is important, and that was the Korean war, and those were the troops that we sent over in the initial effort to stop the North Koreans. Those troops were not trained, and men died because they were not trained and they were not prepared for a battle that we sent them into. So we are robbing one portion of the Pentagon budget to pay another, and I think we are robbing precisely the portion that we can least afford to rob. And I don't think there is anything noble about standing up and taking money away from the readiness that is going to train our troops to fight fights that we, as politicians, send them to fight. Now, I will say, on the SGR fix and the doc fix, that is a short-term problem, and we need to deal with it. Step aside. I would be very, very happy to pay for that, and I support that very strongly. I do not like the pay-for. Personally, I would be more than willing to raise taxes or cut spending in other places other than to, once again, go back to the sequester option and also to kick it out 8 years from now. This is an irresponsible bill that approaches very, very real problems. But make no mistake about it. You can stand up and talk about what you are paying for, whom you are giving the money to, but I do hope people will address whom you are taking the money from. You are taking the money from other recipients of mandatory spending by doing sequester again. And as importantly, you are taking the money away from the readiness accounts that will train our troops so that they are able to fight, so that we will hopefully not do the one thing that I think would be utterly unconscionable, and that is to send troops to a battle that we have not prepared them for. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so if the gentleman has no further speakers I will close. I yield myself the balance of my time just really to drive home one point on the Armed Services' side of the equation, and that is the impact that personnel costs are having on the Department of Defense. They are an increasing, growing part of our defense budget in large part because we have been very, very generous with people who serve in the military in terms of pay, benefits, and retirement, but as everyone who serves on the Armed Services Committee knows, increasing personnel costs squeezes out other portions of the budget. I have talked a lot about readiness. I think that is incredibly important, but also procurement, making sure that the men and women who serve in the military have the equipment that they need to fight the fight. We can have a great military where everyone is very well paid, the benefits go on forever, but they don't have the equipment or the training necessary to fight. I will tell you, every single expert, right, left, middle, wherever, who studies this question, we just had four prominent think-tanks spanning that spectrum come out with a study on the future of the Department of Defense budget. Every single one of those experts has said that if we do nothing to rein in personnel costs, that is precisely the force that we will have; it will be hollow. It will not have the equipment, and it will not have the training to do what it is that we ask them to do. Now, we may not think that the 1 percent cut that was done here in the COLA is the best way to go. I can entertain that argument. I certainly understand veterans who were promised this, who expect to receive it. If it is not that, what is it? What is on the table? All we have done in this Chamber is said no, no, no to every effort the Department of Defense has put out there to try to rein in this spending, to try to rein in this spending, as I said, so that we can have a military that lives up to what we want it to live up to. This is a very, very real issue. Once again, we are punting it and completely ignoring it, completely unaddressed by supporters of this bill. They are just addressing this narrow area, making the broader problem worse. As I said in the beginning, also, once again, adding sequester back in the lexicon for another year. This is not a solution to any problem, other than a series of political ones. We have just too many difficult choices to make to simply rely on politics with every bill that we bring up here. We have got to make some hard choices. This bill doesn't do it. It punts once again in every conceivable way. It simply makes the problems worse. I know it is not going to happen, but I would nonetheless urge this body to oppose this bill and make some responsible choices, actually make choices as to what to do with the budget instead of continually punting on every difficult decision that comes before us. I assure you, this will not be the last one by any stretch of the imagination. With that, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), though she is in support of the bill.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 27, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 24 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2166, as amended), and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 25 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3008, as amended).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 3 and Tuesday, February 4, 2014, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 32 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1791, as amended); ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 33 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 357, as amended); ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 34 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 470); and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 35 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 470).