Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to thank the Committee on Foreign Affairs again, Mr. Lantos, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, and the entire committee for their quick response to these issues. I think it is very, very important that we in the United States, particularly when we are talking about incidents in Latin America, our neighbors to the south, recognize as quickly as possible our solidarity with their struggles and their difficulties and our pledge to support and help them in any way we can. I also want to thank Ms. Solis, who was the prime sponsor of this legislation, for her leadership on this issue. Not just this issue but throughout Latin America on a number of issues on the Foreign Affairs Committee, she has been a tremendous leader for us. She is supposed to be here to speak, but I believe she has been caught up in committee.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I will reserve the balance of my time for purposes of closing.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the Global Poverty Act, and want to explain first what the bill does and then why it is so important. It declares the official U.S. policy to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the U.N. Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty in half by 2015. It requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to carry out this policy. It includes guidelines for what the strategy should include, from aid, trade and debt relief, to working with the international community, businesses and NGOs to ensuring environmental sustainability. It also requires that the President's strategy include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks and time tables. And, lastly, it requires that the President report back to Congress biannually on the progress made in the implementation of the global poverty strategy. There are nearly 2.7 billion people in the world who are living on less than $2 a day. There are close to a billion who are living on less than a dollar a day. Arguably, there is no greater problem facing the globe right now than poverty and the vast number of people who suffer from it, the countries and communities who, every day, get up, simply wondering whether or not they and their children are going to live to see the end of that day. It causes instability, disease, and all kinds of problems from one end of the globe to the other. But the other thing that is simply immoral is that there are this many people on that level of despair and on that level of poverty. And we in the United States have the power to at least try to help, and we are, in many, many ways. I actually want to thank the President for the Millennium Challenge accounts, an effort to try to make sure that countries not just get foreign aid but use it wisely; the efforts to fund prevention of AIDS in Africa. The PEPFAR effort that's been going on for a number of years is a significant step forward. We also have a large number of organizations and groups that are trying to combat global poverty. We have the world coming together in many ways as it never has before to try to combat this menace. As mentioned, the U.N. set out their millennial development goals. The G8 set global poverty as its prime purpose a couple years ago. We have groups like the Gates Foundation and Results and Bread for the World and a large number of other organizations that are combating global poverty from every conceivable angle. And they are learning a lot as they do. They are learning what works, what moves forward, what doesn't work, what the best way to spend money is. We are in the position, I believe, to consolidate those resources to get the maximum return on our effort to reduce global poverty. And I feel that the United States of America should be, not just a leader, but the leader in this effort. And we have, as I mentioned, done a lot. But the one thing we haven't done is stated clearly and unequivocally that eliminating global poverty, or at least reducing it, is going to be a foremost goal of our foreign policy; and we have not implemented a comprehensive plan. It's great that there are so many different organizations working at this problem from a variety of different angles; but if we could bring that together, we could get more out of those resources. And I think the United States should coordinate that effort. I want to thank a large number of people for helping make this happen. Certainly Chairman Tom Lantos has been a tremendous leader on these issues and has been very helpful in this particular piece of legislation, as has the ranking member, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and the Republicans on the committee. This is a bipartisan effort. I want to thank Representative Bachus, who I believe is going to speak, he and I were the original two sponsors on this bill, stepped up and helped. I think this is something that we can come together on, and I think it is very, very important that the United States takes this leadership role. I believe if we do so we will be able to better combat global poverty, and I also think we will be better able to build alliances throughout the world and let the world know that the United States wants to use its power for the betterment of the entire world, not just ourselves. And we're willing to work with them on this problem that affects so many different countries throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, since the United States Air Force was established as an independent branch of the U.S. Armed Forces in 1947, it has played a major role in our national defense. Throughout its 60 years of valiant service, from Operation Rolling Thunder over the skies of Southeast Asia, to Operations Northern and Southern Watch in Iraq, the men and women of the United States Air Force and Air National Guard have defended the United States and our allies around the world. Since 1947, the men and women stationed at McChord Air Force Base in Washington state have played a key role in supporting the mission of the Air Force, and I want to acknowledge their outstanding service. ``Team McChord,'' which includes the 62nd Airlift Wing, and its Air Force Reserve components in the 446th Airlift Wing, has flown continuous combat airlift operations every day since October 2001. These operations provide vital airlift and medical evacuation support to our forces as they fight to stop the spread of terrorism and as they respond to other contingencies. In addition to being the home of combat airlift, ``Team McChord'' includes the Western Air Defense Sector, the 22nd Special Tactics Squadron, and the 262nd Information Warfare Aggressor Squadron. Together, day in and day out, these brave men and women actively support vital military operations around the world. Today, we recognize the continued dedication of the United States Air Force. I congratulate them on 60 years of invaluable service to our county.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, for the record, during consideration of H.R. 3093 on rollcall 733, I voted ``no'', and meant to vote ``aye.''

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in listening to this debate, I think the biggest problem is the proponents of the stay-the-course plan in Iraq continually and completely equate the battle in Iraq with the battle against al Qaeda and the terrorists who struck us. The two are not the same. In fact, we heard from Ms. Ros-Lehtinen that Iraq is but one of the battlefields that we are fighting against al Qaeda. That is absolutely true. Yet we have 80 percent of our assets in Iraq. Meanwhile, report after report come out that al Qaeda is strengthening themselves in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where we don't have enough resources. Our argument is not for retreat. Our argument is that there is a better way to fight al Qaeda and those who threaten us than to put all of our assets in Iraq while not paying enough attention to where al Qaeda is really strengthening itself. In Iraq, it is primarily a power struggle in which al Qaeda is a player. It is not primarily about al Qaeda's threat against the U.S. In Afghanistan, with the Taliban and al Qaeda, it is a very different story. Our troops, our assets, the lives and the talents of the people of this country are tied down in Iraq fighting what is primarily a civil war instead of better fighting al Qaeda. In fact, our presence, in many ways, has strengthened al Qaeda. Syria would never be an ally of al Qaeda in any sort of real-world scenario, because al Qaeda wants to topple their regime. Yet to defeat us in Iraq, they have come up with an alliance of convenience. There is a better way to fight al Qaeda. We are here today to change course in Iraq because it is a better way to protect this country. Timing isn't the issue. Six months ago, these facts were basically the same as they are today. In September, these facts will be basically the same as they are today. We cannot wait if we are going to have the best possible strategy for defeating al Qaeda, the group that threatens us most, instead of getting bogged down in the civil war and in the tribal differences that are present in Iraq. We want to win, not to quit. This is the better way to do it.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the leadership in both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Armed Services Committee for their efforts to make Afghanistan a top priority and to focus on our challenges there. They've done a fabulous job. I recently returned, during the last break, from a visit to Afghanistan. I am very optimistic about what's going on there but at the same time mindful of the effort that it's going to require in the years ahead to continue to succeed, and I believe this bill reflects an understanding of that required effort. The Afghan people are on our side. They support the presence of the NATO troops to support the Karzai government. They do not want the Taliban to return, and they will fight them and appreciate our help in doing this. I'm also very impressed with the job our military and the military of the NATO alliance is doing there. We have some of the most talented folks in our military there doing a fabulous job of fighting the Taliban. But as we go forward, there are remaining challenges, significant challenges. Number one, we have to maintain the military presence. In fact, I believe we need more troops and further support to train the Afghan army and to fight off the Taliban as they try to resurge in the south and throughout the country. But overarching all of this is the economic challenge. That is the enormous challenge in Afghanistan. It is a country that has never had the best economy, and it has also faced 30 years of civil war. Their infrastructure is destroyed and needs to be rebuilt. Their ability to govern has also been significantly reduced and needs to be rebuilt. The Karzai government has the support of the people, but the people also want infrastructure. They want electricity, and they want jobs. They want alternatives to the poppies, alternatives to that as a way of making their living, and we have to give them a long-term commitment to show them that we will help. We need that long-term financial commitment that is contained in this bill to get them to believe that their economy will be strong again. We need to reward their faith in the Karzai government, their faith in our ability to defeat the Taliban and to build a better future for Afghanistan; and this bill does that. So, again, I thank the chairman. I want to thank the ranking member as well for putting together this piece of legislation and ask all Members of Congress to understand this is a long-term commitment in Afghanistan.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I want to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, for the fantastic job he has done on this mark. He has done it in a bipartisan fashion. And also, of greatest importance, this mark funds the war that we are fighting. We have troops in the field in harm's way. We fund the priorities that they need right now. And given all of the demands on the Armed Services Committee, that is no easy feat. The chairman and all members of the committee have made that a priority, and I want to thank him for that. I also believe that we have well-funded the broader war on terrorism that my subcommittee has a significant part of, Subcommittee on Terrorism. The fight against al Qaeda and the ideology they espouse and those who would support al Qaeda or that ideology is not just in one place. It is in many places in the world. It is in Africa, Southeast Asia, certainly in the Middle East and elsewhere. To combat that ideology, we need a force that is trained in unconventional warfare, that is trained in asymmetric warfare, and we need the Special Operations Forces who are trained to go into parts of the world, to understand the culture and work with the local communities and stop al Qaeda-like insurgencies before they start. That training is critical. It is much easier to fight that type of battle than to get dragged into a larger war. We have had incredible success in places like the Philippines and Chad and Kenya and elsewhere because our Special Operations Forces understand irregular warfare, get in there and work with the local communities to stop insurgencies before they start. I believe this mark reflects that priority. It is certainly one of the highest priorities for our subcommittee. I want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), for his leadership on this issue as well. We have put language, money and report language in the bill that will prioritize irregular warfare, unconventional fights, so that we can defeat al Qaeda globally and understand all of the different challenges that go into that. Again, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for his outstanding leadership of this committee. It is a privilege and honor to serve with him, and to thank him for this mark and this bill that I think adequately prepares our military to fight the battles we face.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this measure before us today because it provides a clearly needed change in course in Iraq. The President has placed roughly 160,000 of our troops in a highly vulnerable position--refereeing a civil war--while the various factions in Iraq have not made adequate progress toward reconciliation. The needed political reconciliation among these groups will not happen until we make it clear to the Iraqis that our occupation is coming to an end. But our open-ended occupation of Iraq is not only not working; it's working against us. It undermines our fight against al-Qaeda and provides extremists a rallying point. We have every indication that al- Qaeda is resurgent in Pakistan, that bin Laden finds himself stronger than ever, and that al-Qaeda-linked groups are growing in number and audacity. We need to responsibly redeploy our troops from Iraq so we can better fight this growing threat. I initially had concerns with some of the language in this measure regarding funds for troops deployed to Iraq since January of this year. But after examining the bill more closely, I do not believe any provision in this bill would alter funding in a way that would put troops currently in the field at risk. The bottom line is that we must send a clear message to the President that we must change direction in Iraq and redeploy our troops.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to offer my condolences to the families of 1st Lt. Kevin Gaspers, of Hastings, and Burwell native Staff Sgt. Kenneth Locker, who were laid to rest last week with honor. They lost their lives, along with seven other soldiers of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, in a terrorist attack in Iraq. These young men represented some of the best qualities of Nebraskans, and our State mourns their loss. Locker has been described as compassionate, caring, thoughtful, and generous. Before he died, he told his father he was fighting in Iraq for the children, that they might have a safer world to live in. His sacrifice for that idea should be inspiring for us all. Gaspers also had a reputation of generosity, sincerity, and dedication. He touched so many lives during his time with us, and the outpouring of support from the community has been nothing short of inspiring. These young men led lives rich in meaning, and it is tragic to see those lives cut short. They were sons, friends, and role models. They were filled with kindness, selflessness, and humor. My heart and thoughts go out to their families during this difficult period.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As Mrs. Drake pointed out, we are honoring the 20th anniversary of the forming of the command on special forces, and I think it is important to remember why Special Operations Command was set up. It was in reaction to the failure of the Desert One rescue attempt of the Iranian hostages, and there were a lot of lessons learned from that and a lot of studies that went into it. Two of the biggest ones were, one, we needed a better joint structure. The military was too divided in its various service components, and they did not work together. We had large numbers of assets that could function a lot better if they could be brought together in a coordinated fashion, and this is something that was embodied in the Goldwater-Nichols changes throughout the services and especially on the Special Ops Command to try to bring those forces together. Secondly, we didn't really have groups that were trained for that type of mission, for the ability to go in and rescue hostages, to do the direct action missions that required very specialized training. So the command was formed to help address those two issues and has been a fabulous success. As Mrs. Drake pointed out, we now have over 53,000 people who are part of Special Operations Command performing some of the most important tasks in our military and performing them very, very well. Our capabilities have been enormously enhanced because of the Special Operations Command. There are many of them stationed throughout the U.S. and throughout the world. I am very proud at Fort Lewis and in McCord to have the first special forces group at Fort Lewis and the 22nd Special Tactics Aviation Command at McCord. And I have also had the opportunity to visit many of these units in various places throughout the country and throughout the world, and they are serving us very, very well. As we move forward, I think the important thing we are trying to develop on the Terrorism Subcommittee on Armed Services is to bring into play another important piece of what the special operations forces do. There is a tendency to think of them as the direct action guys. They find bad guys and take them out. If we have hostages that need to be rescued, they go get them. But there is another very important task that they perform, and this is in the unconventional warfare, indirect action piece. We are now active in well over a dozen countries throughout the world where our special forces folks go into the community, work very closely with local communities to help stop insurgencies before they take root. We are doing this in the Philippines, and we are doing this in Central Africa. And it is having enormous benefits. It is far, far better to get in early, help train the locals in terms of how to protect themselves and then to help them with their local population on the issues that are most important. We had testimony yesterday from a former special operations person who said when they first went into Northern Africa, the best thing they did was they brought a dentist with them. The locals so desperately needed that help; when we gave it to them, they then helped us deal with the insurgency problem. Whether it is bad schools or bad water supply, our special forces people are getting engaged with the local community, understanding the culture and learning the language and becoming helpful. That, I believe, is the future of our battle against al Qaeda and many, many other insurgent movements, is to get the population on our side, hearts and minds before we have to engage in the type of military action that is by definition messy and not always as focused as we would like it to be. Let's get the insurgency stopped before it starts, and that is what our special forces can do and are very well trained to do. To move forward with this, to continue moving forward on the mission, I think we need to do two things: One, we need to grow the force, never sacrificing quality for the sake of quantity, but to grow the force and to set up the training system necessary and the recruitment system necessary. We are going to need more special operations forces in the wars we are now fighting. The second thing is to get that emphasis on indirect action. We will, I believe, need to make some restructuring within the Special Operations Command to get that emphasis on indirect action because for so long the emphasis has primarily been on direct action. So those are issues that we want to work on. I am very pleased to join with Congresswoman Drake in honoring our Special Operations Command on the 20th anniversary of their existence. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 305) honoring the 53,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and civilians that comprise the Nation's special operations forces community.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say one quick thing. The bipartisan agreement on our support for the Special Operations Command and the support for the mission I think is something that would surprise a great many people and something we need to focus on. And I want to thank Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Saxton, Mrs. Drake, Mr. Kline, the subcommittee that is focused on this issue. We are very much in the same place on what we need to do to be ready to combat the threat we face from al Qaeda and other insurgent groups, and I think it speaks very well of the committee, both the subcommittee and the broader committee, that there is such bipartisan agreement on how to approach this fight. I think a lot of times the national focus is on where we disagree as parties when, in fact, there is an enormous amount of agreement on critical pieces of how we need to proceed with this. So I appreciate Mrs. Drake's bringing this resolution to the floor so we can talk about that, and I look forward to working with her and all the members of the committee in a bipartisan fashion to move forward on these issues.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to work with Representative Drake to mark the 20th anniversary of founding of the Special Operations Command. Congress established SOCOM on April 16, 1987 in response to the failure of the Desert One mission to rescue American hostages in Iran. We learned two main lessons from Desert One. First, we needed a better joint command structure; our military was too divided and did not work well together, due to a lack of interoperable equipment and a lack of familiarity and joint training among the various branches. Second, we lacked forces trained for these kinds of missions. The establishment of SOCOM was meant to address these shortcomings. SOCOM has been a fabulous success. We have roughly 53,000 special operations personnel operating in more than 50 countries around the world, taking direct action to counter terrorists and working with local populations to prevent terrorists from taking root. I am especially proud of the three special operations force components housed in the 9th District of Washington: the Army 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne) and the Army 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR)--4th Batallion at Fort Lewis and the Air Force 22nd Special Tactics Squadron at McChord Air Force Base. I've also been able to visit several other components of our special operations forces across the country and around the world, and they are doing a fantastic job. Going forward, we need more special operations forces to fight the spread of the totalitarian ideology pushed by al-Qaeda and related groups. Consistent with the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, we will seek to grow SOCOM forces by 15 percent. We will not sacrifice quality for quantity, but we must have the capability to train more special operations forces to face complex national security challenges. And, we must ensure proper emphasis on indirect action. Often when people think of special operations, they think of direct action against terrorists. But much of SOCOM's mission involves less dramatic but essential work. Special operations forces are currently working in well over a dozen countries to prevent al-Qaeda and other organizations from taking root. They train locals to defend themselves and help local populations improve their living situations so that they are less susceptible to terrorist recruitment. Getting to know local populations, learning the languages, becoming helpful to them--these steps are vital to preventing insurgencies and terrorist groups from taking hold. We recently heard from a special operations veteran who told us that the most helpful counter-terrorism tool his force brought with them in North Africa was a dentist. The population needed this service so badly that our providing it led to them working with us to root out terrorists in the area. This kind of work to win the hearts ana minds of local populations is essential if we are to defeat the spread of al-Qaeda's message across the globe. That's why we in Congress must ensure that SOCOM is resourced and structured properly to sufficiently emphasize and effectively carry out this critical indirect work. I want to thank the members from both parties on the terrorism subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee for their work to make sure our special operations forces have the tools they need to protect our country. I want to especially thank Ranking Member Mac Thornberry and Representative Thelma Drake for their hard work on this important resolution.

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

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. This resolution is to honor our special forces on their 20th anniversary. I will have much more to say about this, but at this point I want to reserve the balance of my time and thank Congresswoman Drake for her leadership on this issue as the prime sponsor of the bill and allow her to speak first. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I would just first observe that none of these soldiers who died in Iraq, no matter what happens from this point forward, died in vain. No soldier who dies fighting for his country and his comrades dies in vain, regardless of the politics. I hope we would all understand that. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).