National Defense Authorization Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
I want to thank the chairman for his hard work on this piece of
legislation. As always, I think he correctly described the process and
all the work that went into it. It is always a challenge in the House
and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats.
There are many, many provisions in this bill that we argued over to
reach agreement and reach consensus; but really, this bill is a
reflection of the way Congress should function. It goes through
committee; it goes through the House; it goes through the Senate
committee, Senate; and then we conference and discuss those issues. I
think this year, we flexed that as well. We had a very robust
discussion with Members participating.
I particularly want to thank the staff for their outstanding work.
They always have to work very, very hard on all of those provisions--I
think it was 647 that the chairman mentioned--to make that happen. Our
staff is second to none, and I thank them for that. I thank the
chairman and all the Members for participating in this bipartisan
process.
As the chairman stated, we have a good product. It takes some
important steps on acquisition reform, it takes some critical steps on
reforming our retirement system in a way that I think will benefit the
troops, and it does all the other things that the chairman said it
does.
I will say that the political maneuvering that the chairman mentioned
is not irrelevant because that is the one place that this bill still
isn't quite there, and that is on getting rid of the budget caps. That
is what all of that maneuvering was about; the original approach to
this was to keep the budget caps in place and simply find OCO money.
Now, the budget agreement upped the budget caps for a couple years, but
still used a little OCO money. So it made progress, but it didn't get
us there.
Make no mistake about it. That issue is all about our troops and
national security. Until we finally get rid of the budget caps and
allow for a predictable--at least 5-, if not 10-, year future for our
Defense Department, national security will be at risk.
Now, it is great that we have got 2 years. It is great that we have
got this one bill. But as many, many people in the Department of
Defense--current Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, past Secretary of
Defense Bob Gates--have mentioned, the last 5 years have been terrible
for the Department of Defense. The last 5 years of unpredictable
budgets, CRs, threatened shutdowns, actual shutdowns, budget caps--all
of that has made it very, very difficult for the Pentagon to plan in
the way that they would like.
So the maneuvering that we went through to get to this point is far
from irrelevant to what is in the best interests of national security
and what is in the best interests of our troops. I think it is central
to it.
Even now, within this bill, we don't have as much money for readiness
as I think any of us would like, and we don't have that predictability
past 2 years. Two years is great, but we need to get past that. We need
to get past the budget caps and build in some predictability going
forward.
So while it was frustrating, obviously, to go through the whole
process and have it vetoed, once the budget was resolved, we put
ourselves in a better position. Now we have turned what was a very good
bill into a great bill and a bill that I am happy to support and that I
believe is in the best interest of our troops and the best interest of
national security.
Again, I will emphasize this House will not truly get there until we
have a more predictable budget future for national security in the
Department of Defense. And not just the Department of Defense. As I
mentioned in an earlier debate, the Department of Homeland Security,
the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department, the State
Department, amongst many others, play a critical role in our national
security. They, too, need some budget certainty and freedom from the
caps and sequestration.
All of that I think was very, very relevant to making our national
security stronger and adequately protecting our troops. So I am pleased
to stand up and support the bill today. I look forward to it moving
forward. Again, I thank everybody for their very, very hard work in
making it happen.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I just want to thank Congressman Hunter for his kind words for Mr.
Thornberry and me.
It is really the whole committee, and particularly the staff, that
puts this together. I think it is the staff that I am most impressed
with. They are absolutely 100 percent dedicated to the national
security of this country.
I think Mr. Hunter is absolutely correct that the first and most
important responsibility we have is to protect this country and to give
the troops the equipment that they need to succeed in that venture.
I was particularly moved by Congressman Sam Johnson's comments about
not having the equipment that he needed in Vietnam. I thank Mr.
Thornberry for his leadership in trying to make sure that we don't
repeat that mistake. I think we have worked in a bipartisan way to
achieve that goal: to make sure that the men and women who serve our
country have the equipment and the training that they need to perform
the missions that we ask them to do.
I thank Congressman Hunter and Congressman Sam Johnson of Texas. I
think their words were very well said.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
I just want to start on the last point about certainty and the
President's veto. The bill the President vetoed had $38 billion in it
in OCO funding, which the appropriators had not appropriated and which
was highly unlikely to be there.
If the President had signed that bill, the uncertainty would have
been enormous. There would have been $38 billion promised in the NDAA
with no guarantee whatsoever that it was going to show up.
Now, once we got a budget resolution, we were able to get $33 billion
of that $38 billion, and that is good. But, still, if he had signed
that bill, we would now be scrambling to figure out where to cut that
$5 billion in a bill that we had already passed.
Make no mistake about it: the bill that we passed and that the
President vetoed gave no clarity to our troops or to the Department of
Defense because it had $38 billion in it that the budget resolution and
that the appropriators were not going to approve.
Until we got that resolved, we could not legitimately pass a bill
that would give our troops and the Department of Defense any degree
of--forget certainty--any degree of understanding of what money they
were going to be able to spend.
So passing an NDAA with a bunch of money in it that isn't reflected
in the budget resolution, that isn't reflected in the appropriations is
hardly supporting our troops and hardly giving them any sort of clarity
as to what money they are going to have.
Now we have a little bit of that clarity because of that budget
resolution. I won't be so bold as to say that the President's veto of
the NDAA was partof the incentive for getting that budget resolution, but I am sure it
didn't hurt because we wanted to clarify that very important national
security process.
But more than anything, there was $38 billion in there that wasn't
going to be there. That is not keeping a promise to our troops. So I am
glad that we got that clarity. I am glad it happened as soon as it did.
I was skeptical we would get the budget resolution so quickly, but I
am glad that we did. I think it does now give our troops and the
Department of Defense the sense of clarity on the budget for at least
the next 2 years that they need.
As I have said, we need to go beyond that. We need to get rid of the
budget caps. We need to get rid of, I believe, the Budget Control Act
so that we can have some degree of planning ability for the next 5 to
10 years for the Department of Defense and for all these other
departments that are important to national security, but also important
to economic security. That matters as well to our country.
So I am glad that we have arrived where we are at. I, again, want to
thank the chairman and thank all of the members of the committee for
all of their very, very hard work.
In particular, before I wrap up today, I want to thank Betty Gray,
who works on our staff, who--and, if you look at her, you would not
believe this in a million years--who has actually been here for 40
years. I don't think she's aged in any of those 40 years.
But she has served the Armed Services Committee and, gosh, more
Members than any of us could probably count for 40 years. She is the
epitome of a public servant and the epitome of exactly everything that
the HASC staff stands for in terms of always putting the troops first,
always being concerned about our national security.
I don't know how we would function without Betty. She makes the
trains run on time, makes sure everyone is doing what they need to be
doing, and has just done a fabulous job. And she is just a truly
wonderful person as well, has been a good friend to many, many Members
and many, many staff members.
But also, I think the great thing about Betty is, she has always
managed to do something that is very difficult for all of us, and that
is balance both professional and personal life.
Her husband, Dick, and her children, Zach and Cal, have always been
just number one priority for her. She takes care of them, and she also
takes care of us.
So for 40 years, she has been a dedicated public servant. I just want
to have those of us who are here give a round of applause for Betty
Gray and her 40 years of amazing public service.
I don't know what we will do if she ever decides to retire. We like
to think that no one is irreplaceable, but Betty comes as close as
anyone I could possibly imagine.
So I thank her for her help and leadership and for 40 years of
dedicated public service.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the career of Betty Gray, a loyal public
servant and a key staff member on the House Armed Services Committee.
Betty has served in Congress for 40 years--a benchmark only the most
dedicated public servants achieve.
Betty typifies what it means to be a public servant, a colleague, a
friend and, most importantly, a mother and wife. Anyone who has had the
opportunity to meet Betty quickly understands that the most important
thing in her life is her family. Her husband, Dick, and two children,
Zach and Cal, are at the center of her life.
We all fear the day Betty decides to retire. While no one is
irreplaceable, some people come very close. Betty is one of those
people. Her institutional knowledge and administrative skill set are
unrivaled. After 40 years of service, Betty has accumulated a wealth of
knowledge and depth of understanding about the Armed Services Committee
and the Congress that cannot be replaced. When she retires, a part of
Congress will retire with her.
Betty is a true professional. Ask anyone who has worked with Betty
about the quality of her service and the response is unequivocal: Betty
has always been the quiet, consistent presence on the committee--the
person who is never rattled, regardless of how chaotic or stressful
things become. Betty is always here to remind us of whether what we're
thinking has been tried before, and failed, or whether it has worked.
An eagle-eye editor of letters and memoranda, Betty is literally the
person who makes sure that we ``cross our T's and dot our I's.'' Not
only is she the person with the clipboard checking off staff at Member
meetings, she is the person who assures that the Members know the who,
what, where, when, why, and how of the meeting. Throw five conflicting
times and dates at her, and Betty can make calm out of schedule chaos.
As security administrator for classified information regarding the
committee's special access programs, Betty literally handles our
deepest, darkest secrets. For 37 years, she has shepherded every
National Defense Authorization Act through committee markup, ensuring
every roll-call vote is tallied correctly and serving as the
committee's unofficial historian.
On a more personal level, she's the librarian of the House Armed
Services Committee, the school counselor, the motherly presence who
remembers everyone's birthdays, and, on occasions, even the school
nurse. She is the go-to person to get things done and the one who lends
a helping hand or a listening ear.
Betty has out-lasted eight Speakers of the House, seven Presidents,
and ten House Armed Services Chairmen. Speaking as someone who has been
here for a while, I understand the difficulty of achieving that level
of longevity. We are here today to celebrate all that Betty has done
for her country and for Congress, and to thank her for her service. You
are a true public servant, Betty. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize Betty Gray for her
distinguished career. I am confident that others will continue to
benefit from her service.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source