Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I just want to express my support for the amendment. Certainly, border security continues to be a challenge and a priority. The National Guard troops are helping. Now, in a bipartisan way, there is agreement on that, so I support Mr. Flake's amendment, and I urge the body to support it as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I want to thank the Members who offered this amendment. I too support a drawdown in Afghanistan. I want to see us get to the point where we can bring our troops home, and I think we're making progress in that direction, but there are two things that I do want to correct. One, it's a little bit of a myth that no one has ever defined success. Success has been defined by the President clearly. We want a government in Afghanistan that can stand so that the Taliban and al Qaeda do not come back to power. That is success--when we are confident that that government can stand and we can draw down so that we don't go right back to where we were before 9/11. That is what we are trying to accomplish. And the second thing is, we all want to transition to a lesser mission, to be able to bring our troops home, and counterterrorism is the focus. We would not, however, have been able to run the mission against bin Laden that we did if we didn't have the broader support in Afghanistan. If we pull out and think that we can run a counterterrorism mission with a government that is collapsing around us and that does not support us, then we kid ourselves. That's why it is so important, as Mr. Coffman said so well, to make sure that we complete the mission and we have a government that can stand so that we can begin to responsibly draw down. I think it's important we draw down, but we have to do so in a responsible way.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment. I think it's really important to understand what's going on here. The gentleman is absolutely correct. The original purpose for this money, it was $200 million, it was determined to no longer be valid for all the reasons that were stated. They couldn't spend the money. But we had $200 million floating around, and they hate to give back $200 million in the Defense Committee, so they grabbed $150 million of it and simply designated it, broadly speaking, to shipbuilding. We do this a lot. Mr. Flake spoke about this in the other amendment. And I understand there are Members who are concerned about the top line within the defense budget and holding it. I think it's important where we spend the money. We have to have a reason to spend it. We just have to say, well, there's $150 million. We would kind of like to have it because who knows? We might need it at some point. We can't afford that in our current deficit environment, to simply set aside $150 million. I know we're going to talk about shipbuilding. I heard about it a little bit before. Yes, we have fewer ships than we had in 1916. I would submit that our Navy today is vastly more capable than our Navy back in 1916 because our sheer numbers of ships is not the only factor that matters. It kind of matters what their capabilities are.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I do rise to oppose this amendment. I am very sympathetic to the direction that the sponsor is headed--the notion that we need to make sure that if people see something that is a threat to them, or the service, or to our national interests at all, they should feel free reporting it. The problem I have with this amendment is current law protects that. We have current statute with whistleblower protection that very clearly says that if you have any reason to believe that something is going on that is counterproductive or detrimental to the United States' interests or security, you are free to report that to the appropriate superiors. That law is there and is protected. Now I will agree with the sponsor that people nonetheless are reluctant to come forward and provide that information. But what we need to do is we need to educate people about that protection being there in the current law. What this amendment does is broadens that to the point where it's going to sweep a lot of stuff up that we don't want to hear about. It isn't necessarily going to make it any more likely that what we want to hear about is going to be reported by saying ``ideologically based threats or actions.'' That is beyond broad, it almost is beyond definition. It is the freedom to say anything about anyone any time with this protection, which I don't think we want, which I think would undermine the broader mission. So the current law makes it clear. If you are a servicemember who sees a threat or perceives a threat for any reason, ideologically based or otherwise, frankly I don't see why it makes any difference whether or not it's ideologically based; we want it reported. So that is current law, it's protected. We need to make sure that everyone, not just servicemembers, but everyone in society feels free to report such threats to the appropriate authorities. This amendment is overly broad and would cause more trouble than it would solve. So, therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge the body to do so. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute 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. Madam Chair, I support the amendment being offered. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, just to close, I agree with the gentleman's remarks. Let me just say if I thought that there was the tiniest little bit possibility that this amendment would prevent the type of tragedy that happened at Fort Hood, I would support it unquestionably, but I don't believe it will. The concerns, the back and forth about whether or not to report something that is concerning, they exist, they need to be dealt with. They will exist whether or not this amendment is passed. We need to work to educate people to report threats, but making it ideologically based, I think, opens up more problems and shifts the focus away from what we need. And what we need is whether the threat is ideological or whatever the cause, we need to encourage people to go to their superiors, report it, and make sure that they are better safe than sorry. I would encourage that, but I don't think this amendment does that. Again, I would urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield myself the remainder of my time. I find that last argument interesting to say that they move around a lot. I think that is very true. I think they do, and that is a challenge. And they don't have time to make all of these decisions. But they do have time to take a $7,500 voucher and search across all the different schools to see which private schools are going to take it. Because keep in mind, that's another critical aspect of this. Private schools do not have to accept a single solitary student. They don't. You show up with a $7,500 voucher and they say, we're sorry, your child is going to cost more than that. They just say no and move on. Public schools do have to accept these children and do have to fund it. I really do believe that this will be a step in the wrong direction. The cost is also going to be an issue. We are going to have to find the money for this somewhere. It's not going to improve the education or the lives of our servicemembers and their families, and it is going to wind up costing money. Again, I would urge a ``no'' vote; I reserve the balance of my time.