Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and just say I think the gentleman from Utah makes a very reasonable point. Certainly, one agency shouldn't be shutting something down that has a negative impact on another without consulting them. Perhaps if we work on this amendment to figure out some way where consultation is required, there is some sort of balance. It's just the way this amendment is written, it gives the Department of Defense the ability to do what the gentleman from Utah just said the other agency did, which is just whack it and not talk to anybody else. So we're happy to continue to work on this going forward. In its present form, I am still opposed to it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue. My opinion is that we have done what we can do in Afghanistan. A substantial portion of the mission, which was very clear, was to try to contain the Taliban and contain al Qaeda so they could never again use it as a base to attack our country. And it is not easy work. As Mr. Jones pointed out, and others, there are many, many problems and challenges in Afghanistan, not the least of which is the corruption within the government. Our goal has always been clear: whatever the minimum is to get a government that can stand and deny a safe haven to those who threaten America. That was a fight worth doing. But we have done what we can do. We have trained hundreds of thousands of Afghan national security forces, and it is time to turn that responsibility over to Afghanistan. It will always be a challenging part of the world. In both Afghanistan and Pakistan, violent extremists are abundant, and we'll have to keep an eye on it. But we do not need to have the troop levels that we have now. We need to draw down in a very responsible way, and I think the gentleman's amendment lays out a plan to do that. Therefore, I support it, and, again, I support him for his efforts to get us out of Afghanistan as soon as we responsibly can.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I just, again, want to emphasize how important this piece of legislation is, and the work that goes into it. And all the Members have said this is the way legislation is supposed to work. It really does work when you do the legislative process, when you have committee hearings and you debate amendments and you put together a product. And also to remind folks how important this piece of legislation is. It funds and supports our military in providing for the national security of this country. It is critically important that we pass it and get it done. I do also, however, want to emphasize the point that Mr. Andrews made, and that is that, unfortunately, unless we do something about sequestration, this bill is going to be largely undone. Taking $50 billion out of this budget in a meat-ax fashion will not be helpful. We have to do something about sequestration if we're going to be able to protect this process. So I would urge the full body to follow the example of the Armed Services Committee: get together, work out a bipartisan solution to make sure that we can protect this work and not just the national security. Sequestration obviously affects all parts of government in a very, very negative way; infrastructure, education, health care all jeopardized by the sequestration legislation. So I would urge us to deal with that. But, in the meantime, I thank the chairman and I thank all the members and the staff for the great work that they've done in putting together this bill, and I urge support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. I want to thank Chairman McKeon and the entire committee--and most importantly the staff. It's always this time of year when our staff never sleeps and does an amazing job of pulling this bill together. We, once again, worked in a very bipartisan fashion, worked the bill through the process--a series of hearings, the markup last week. I thank the chairman for his excellent leadership in continuing that bipartisan tradition in the hopes of, for the 52nd straight year, getting our bill done. So I appreciate working with him and with all the members of the committee and the staff. This bill, overall, sets the right priorities, I believe. It makes sure that our military is funded and that our troops get the equipment and support that they need to carry out the missions that we ask them to do. That is something General Dempsey says all the time: We'll do whatever you ask us to do; just make sure that you provide us with the resources to do it. Whatever missions we as policymakers decide the military should perform, it's our obligation to make sure that it's funded. I believe this bill does that. It particularly prioritizes Special Operations Forces, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, and the kind of equipment that we will need to confront the terrorist asymmetric threats that are so central to our challenges right now on national security. As the chairman mentioned, it also takes steps on the sexual assault problem. I will say that no piece of legislation is going to fix this. The military needs to change its culture and prioritize the protection of the men and women in our service. This legislation will help, certainly; but this is a huge crisis right now that the military has not yet stepped up to. I think it is one of the most important challenges that we face in national security. This piece of legislation also recognizes that we are still at war. It funds the ongoing effort in Afghanistan to make sure that our troops have the support that they need to carry out that mission. However, there are a couple of things in the bill that I am concerned about. I believe that we do need to close Guantanamo, and I have an amendment before the Rules Committee which hopefully will be made in order that will set us on a process to do that. I agree with people who say that we can't simply close it tomorrow, we need a plan. My amendment would require that the President come up with such a plan in 60 days and implement it as soon as possible. I continue to be concerned that the President has the power to indefinitely detain any person captured in the United States who is designated to be an enemy combatant. That is a level of executive power that I do not think is necessary; And as we have seen in recent weeks, people are growing concerned about the amount of power the executive branch has. Again, I will have an amendment to try to change that as well. Lastly, it is worth mentioning--sequestration. This bill is marked to a level that assumes sequestration will not happen. I think that's appropriate. That's where we're at and what we have to do, but it points up the challenge of sequestration. If sequestration happens, this bill is going to have to be cut by between $40 billion and $50 billion. Where would that money come from? How would we make that work? Especially the way sequestration works, mindless, across-the-board cuts. Because the sad truth is that's the likely outcome. There is no pathway out of sequestration that we've seen. I thank the chairman for his leadership in continually bringing home how important this is, but we haven't gotten there yet. We need to keep emphasizing that. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), who is the ranking member on the Oversight Investigation Committee and also has done fabulous work on the sexual assault legislation contained in this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, could you please let us know how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), who is the ranking member on the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), who is the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, the ranking member on the Seapower Subcommittee, Mr. McIntyre.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member on the Air and Land Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady.