Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, I will take this opportunity on the last en bloc package to give my closing remarks on the bill. We do have a few more amendments to go, but this will be the last opportunity to speak about the broad issues surrounding the bill. The first thing I will do is thank Chairman Rogers, his staff, and the entire team on the Armed Services Committee for the work that they have done in pulling this bill together. As we often lay out from the beginning of the process in committee, there were well over a thousand amendments offered in committee, well over a thousand amendments offered to the Rules Committee that we all had to sort through to try to produce a piece of legislation. Coming out of committee, we produced an outstanding piece of legislation. I think even on the floor and even where we are at right now, this is a very, very good bill. The chairman, Mr. Rogers, deserves an immense amount of credit for getting us to the point where we have a very good bill that deals with a lot of incredibly important issues. Most notably, as we have mentioned, this is a piece of legislation that does the most to help support the men and women who serve in the military and their families out of any piece of legislation that I have ever worked on. I thank Don Bacon and Chrissy Houlahan and all of the members of the Quality of Life Panel that really did a deep dive to figure out what our servicemembers and their families need. They did a large number of hearings. They brought in veterans. They brought in Active- Duty members. They brought in family members to say what their life is like and how we can make it work better. They put together a series of proposals that are really quite remarkable. Some of it is pay, certainly, but it also has to do with support for spouses in finding employment. It has to do with childcare, healthcare, education, housing. A wide range of issues are very aggressively addressed in this bill, and I strongly support those provisions. I also have worked closely with the chairman on what I think is a critical issue of modernizing our military, making sure that we can hit the production numbers that we need to hit, to have an adequate deterrent in light of the challenges we face in the world and then also making sure that we modernize. So much technology is crucial to warfare when it comes to drones, counterdrones, missiles, missile defense, and having secure information systems. There are a lot of provisions in this bill that put us in a better place to get those technologies quickly and field them. We have a long way to go. I understand that. We are not where we need to be, but we have made a lot of progress and, again, that is a testimony to everybody who worked on this bill. I also thank my staff on the Democratic side. We have a real spirit of bipartisanship in this committee that I think serves us well. They have done an outstanding job of getting us to where we are. The amendments that were adopted yesterday, unfortunately, mean that I am going to oppose this bill and the bulk of the Caucus is going to oppose this bill as well, and there are three main reasons for that. Number one is the prohibition on the travel policy within the military. This is something that we didn't need to address. We did not address it in committee, but it is a crucial issue. It is a crucial issue because so many States across the country have passed restrictive laws when it comes to access to healthcare for women. You may find yourself stationed in one of those States, and you may not have access to that healthcare. The travel policy was meant as a way to give people serving and, crucially, their family members, access to the healthcare that they need. Passing a piece of an amendment to this bill that basically eliminates that access to healthcare is a readiness problem and is a problem for the military. Women serving, and even if you have a spouse and you are serving, you will have concerns as to whether or not you are going to be able to access the healthcare that you need. The stories have been documented over and over again: A woman has a miscarriage and can't get the healthcare that she needs because of some law that was passed. This is a debate and a struggle that will be fought out State by State across the country, sadly, for years to come, but our servicemembers shouldn't be caught in that debate and denied healthcare when they need it. That provision alone is extremely problematic. Also, along the healthcare theme, we have two severe restrictions now in this bill on trans people and their families receiving the healthcare they need. I am not going to presume to say what the right healthcare is. I am not a doctor. I am not a trans person. It should be between them and their doctor. We placed two restrictions in this bill that presumed that the United States Congress is a better medical professional than a doctor. It is a restriction on that access. Again, it hurts the military because not only if you are a trans person serving, but if you are someone who is serving who has a trans child, you now have to wrestle with the fact that if you are in the military, your child is not going to be able to get the healthcare that he or she may need. That is a problem for our servicemembers. It has got no business being in this bill. We had these discussions in committee and decided that we weren't going to do it and didn't. The fact that it is added undermines the credibility of this bill. Lastly, we have the whole epic fight over diversity, equity, and inclusion. My position is the Department of Defense ought to be able to deal with that issue as is necessary and as they see fit. I understand we are in a very, very difficult culture war right now, but the restrictions in this bill that say you can't do DEI ever for anything fundamentally misunderstands that culture war. I don't think anybody, even on that side of the aisle, would disagree that this fight is going on. If you are running the Department of Defense or even a commander of a local base, you have to deal with that. I don't like the extremes on either the left or the right when it comes to this. It is absolutely true that there are some people on the left that interpret diversity, equity, inclusion to mean that basically our country is nothing but a racist country, has never been anything but a racist country, we ought to teach people that, and that all White people are racist and we ought to teach people that as well. That is wrong. That is not what the Democratic Party supports. It is certainly not what the Department of Defense is doing right now. On the other side, we have the approach that says racism isn't a thing, let's pretend that it wasn't ever that big a deal, we don't have to deal with it, and let's just blind ourselves and not deal with it whatsoever, which is equally ridiculous. As I have shown over and over again, there is still a problem with racism. When you are trying to lead a bunch of young men and women in the military, they come to you with those issues. How do you deal with them? What the Department of Defense very sensibly has done is, they have some people who are focused on how you deal with that. How do you make sure that we are going to work together cohesively as a unit without bias and prejudice? This bill says nope, you have got to ignore it. You have got to act like none of this has happened. If you are in the Department of Defense, there is no culture war. There is nothing to be worried about. We are not going to let you deal with it at all. That is a really, really stupid approach. Those three things got into this bill because the Rules Committee ruled them in order, and then by a reasonably narrow vote they passed. That is unfortunate because I believe it will undermine the ability of the military to do its job. For that reason, I do oppose the bill at this point, but as I have told everybody I know, in the end, we will work it out. For now, I think it is important to make that statement. I think those areas are wrong. Again, I applaud the chairman and all of the people who have worked on this bill. Ninety-eight percent of the bill is really good, outstanding work. I know in the end, we will get that 98 percent through, but for now, I think it is really important to point out the deep flaws contained in those three areas. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. Sherrill).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time just to say we need to support Ukraine. Ukraine was brutally invaded by Putin. The only way to make this war stop is to make Ukraine strong enough so that Putin realizes he cannot succeed. Please defeat this amendment and continue to support Ukraine. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this is an incredibly important issue in the bill this year. We have several amendments that go after diversity, equity, and inclusion in the military, and it could not be more misguided. We need a diverse military. We need to recruit from all across the country, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, and gender. We need to make sure that we are taking advantage of the talent of all in America. Sadly, we haven't really historically done that. We still have a major challenge. Just to give one example, when you look at the promotions within the military, the statistics have come out, and this is from 2023, not 20 years ago: Every single ethnicity gender is promoted at a lower rate than White men. Now, is it the case that White men are just naturally better at this than anybody else? Absolutely not. Why do we have this disproportionate level of promotion? I don't know for sure, but I think it is worth it to have somebody at the Pentagon trying to answer that question. If you are a Black person, if you are a woman, if you are a Hispanic person, if you are a gay or trans person and you are looking at this and saying, should I sign up for the military, one central question you are going to have is: Am I going to get a fair shot? Historically, all of those groups that I just mentioned have not gotten a fair shot. I challenge anybody on the floor to dispute that fundamental fact. Let's have at least some people at the Pentagon who are trying to make sure that they do and that we are able to recruit a diverse population and bring them in. Two final points on this. One, there is such a thing as bad diversity, equity, and inclusion. I have seen it. I have witnessed it. I have seen efforts that throw out actual standards in favor of a rather narrow-minded racial agenda. That is wrong and shouldn't happen. That is not what is happening in the United States military. If the folks on the other side of the aisle wanted to go after that, I would be happy to work with them, but that is not what they are doing. They are eliminating all diversity, equity, and inclusion in the military, an enormous mistake that will cost us an enormous amount of talent. The second point is the only way this makes any sense is if you buy into this argument that we are past all of that, that racism doesn't happen anymore, that it is just not out there, and that it is not something we need to worry about. I may need an additional 30 seconds, but I want to read you something from David French, who is a conservative columnist who adopted a 2-year-old Ethiopian.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, he is a conservative, but he happened to adopt a 2-year-old Ethiopian. He is not a fan of Trump, so people started turning on him in his own church and his own community. He said: ``The racism was grotesque. One church member asked my wife why we couldn't adopt from Norway rather than Ethiopia.'' Shout-out to the former President for that one. ``A teacher at the school asked my son if we had purchased his sister for a `loaf of bread.' We later learned that there were coaches and teachers who used racial slurs to describe the few Black students at the school. There were terrible incidents of peer racism, including a student telling my daughter that slavery was good''----

Mr. SMITH of Washington.--``slavery was good for Black people because it taught them how to live in America. Another told her that she couldn't come to our house to play because `my dad said Black people are dangerous.' '' Let's deal with this rationally and intelligently, not just throw everything out. Please preserve diversity and inclusion in our military and oppose this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I do talk to people in the military all the time, and our military is doing just fine. Now, there will always be people who are opposed to greater inclusion. We have seen this throughout the military in a wide variety of areas. Way back when, it was opposition to Black people serving in the military. Then there was a lot of opposition to gay people serving in the military. Every single time you had some people in the military saying this is going to destroy us, unit cohesion will fall apart, we can't possibly treat people fairly and function, they have all been proven wrong every single time. The people I talk to in the military say things are going just fine, that they are, in fact, being more inclusive, and the military is as strong as it has ever been. It is completely wrong for a rightwing political agenda to denigrate our military to try to make the point that there is some kind of excessive wokeism going on. That is not what the overwhelming majority of people in the military are telling me and others. What they are saying is that inclusion does matter. People need to be treated fairly. The idea that if the military goes like this and says that we don't see color, we don't see gender, we don't see any of this, that it will all just go away and everything will be fine is absurd. Reasonable diversity, equity, and inclusion works. That is what the military is doing. Please let them continue to do it.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, to respond to the issue of why recruitment is down, there are actually three reasons why recruitment is down. Number one is the pandemic, when they were restricted in their ability to recruit for a year and a half. Number two is because we have very low unemployment. Recruitment is always down when we have low unemployment. Number three is because the rightwing has decided to demonize the military as some sort of woke place that no one should serve in. Yes, some people do listen to that message. I have spoken to Members and others who are pushing that message who say, well, it is not really a problem. They say, well, it is out there. It is out there because you all are putting it out there and creating this level of division that doesn't need to be created. Recruitment can be just fine with diversity. In fact, it would be better.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Deluzio).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and distinct pleasure to offer a few words in recognition of the impending retirement of Lieutenant General John P. Sullivan, a fellow graduate of Fordham University, after 37 years of faithful and dedicated service to our Nation. Lieutenant General Sullivan, most recently the 17th Deputy Commander of the United States Transportation Command, will officially retire from active duty in the United States Army on 1 September 2024. A native son of Massachusetts, and a decorated combat veteran who served and led our Nation's finest in combat during Operations Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Joint Forge, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, General Sullivan epitomizes the consummate soldier, servant leader, and advocate for our servicemembers and their families. Over the course of his exceptional career, he has successfully led at the tactical, operational, and strategic level to defend this Nation, decisively win our battles, and advance our most critical national objectives. Whether at the head of the 548th Corps Support Battalion and the 595th Transportation Brigade, as the 27th Chief of Transportation and Commandant of the U.S. Army Transportation School, as the Commander of the 19th Expeditionary Sustainment Command stationed in the Republic of Korea, as the Commander of the 1st Theater Sustainment Command stationed in the United States Central Command theater, or as the Deputy Commander of U.S. Transportation Command, General Sullivan unquestionably exemplified the best the Army has to offer in its officer corps. While at U.S. Transportation Command, General Sullivan personally endeavored to inform this Congress of the readiness of strategic mobility forces critical to deploying, maneuvering, sustaining, and redeploying the most capable military in our Nation's history. More importantly, he ensured that the Joint Staff, Department of Defense, and this Congress were aligned in understanding the criticality of recapitalizing our aging strategic sealift fleets, aerial refueling assets, and strategic airlift fleets to sustain our competitive advantage over potential near-peer adversaries in global power projection. In close partnership with the National Defense Transportation Association, General Sullivan worked diligently to enhance our national emergency preparedness programs so that the Defense Transportation System remained ready and responsive to emergent national security needs. We all witnessed the power of these essential relationships and capabilities in 2021, when U.S. Transportation Command helped execute the largest noncombatant evacuation operation in history, Operation Allies Refuge, relocating over 124,000 refugees over a 14-day period. In his address to Congress in 1951, General Douglas MacArthur noted that ``old soldiers never die--they just fade away.'' Mr. Speaker, I could not in good conscience let Lieutenant General John P. Sullivan simply fade away without recognizing his sustained loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage over 37 years of devoted service to this great Nation. I wish him and his family well in retirement.