Vote Smart - Facts For All

OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020

Floor Speech

By: Adam Smith

Date: July 10, 2019

Location: Washington, DC

Issues: Defense Government Budget and Spending

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. 2500.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chair, this, as always, is an incredibly important piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation by which we provide for the national security of this country, and every little bit, as importantly, we provide for the men and women who put their lives on the line to provide for the national security of this country.

For 58 years, we have passed the National Defense Authorization Act. It is the one piece of legislation that has not failed to pass in that timeframe, and there is a very good reason for that: It is enormously important, and it is our opportunity to show those men and women who serve in the military that we support them, we support what they do, and we are going to make sure that they have all that they need to carry out the missions that we ask them to do.

One of the reasons that we have always been able to be successful on this is because of the very strong bipartisan tradition of our committee. We have worked with various chairmen and ranking members across the aisle for all of those years and really made sure that we worked together, regardless of who was in the majority, to produce a product that we can be proud of--and we have.

On that measure, as we have moved in the majority this year, my staff and I have worked very hard with the ranking member and with all the members of the committee and their staffs to maintain that bipartisan tradition.

When we had the bill in committee, we had a large number of proposals, which I will read to you.

There were 736 proposals from Republicans, 889 from Democrats. We put into our bill 53 percent of the Republican requests and 52 percent of the Democratic requests

In amendments, there were more Democratic amendments in committee, 266 to 248 for the Republicans, but, still, we accepted 57 percent of the Republican amendments.

On the floor, there were a lot more amendments from Democrats, 480 to 201, but, again, we accepted 50 percent of the Republican amendments.

My staff and I and other members, personally, on a large number of issues, most notably on nuclear issues--Mr. Turner, who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, was concerned that we weren't working together properly on a number of nuclear issues. There were 10 or 12 or more. I reached out to him. We worked together, and we resolved half of them, because that is what we do. This is a very strong bill that everybody on this floor should feel proud to vote for.

Now, there are a couple of issues, but the biggest thing is remember what is in this bill. Once again, we give a very high pay raise to the men and women who serve, 3.1 percent pay raise.

We have also, through the amendment process, included a priority that has over 300 cosponsors in the House, and that is Joe Wilson's bill to finally eliminate the offset that cuts the amount of money that goes to widows of men and women who have passed away in the military. This is the bill to eliminate that offset. There is a lot in this bill that we can be proud of.

Now, the issues that we have had disagreement on, I understand, but we always have disagreements. It is a large bill. I don't like everything in this bill. I don't think anybody does, but we cannot forget the central mission of this bill: to support the men and women who serve the military and to make sure that we have a strong national security.

The number one issue is how much money we spend.

Let me just say--and I think there is bipartisan agreement on this-- we need a budget caps deal. A continuing resolution is unacceptable.

It is unacceptable for the entire discretionary budget, and it is certainly unacceptable for the Department of Defense, which can't simply keep doing what it has been doing. There are always programs they need to get rid of and new programs they need to create. We need to get a deal on that. But the number that we marked to, $733 billion, was the number that the Pentagon planned for for over a year.

After we got the last budget deal to get $716 billion, the Pentagon planned on what their next year's budget would be, and the President and the Pentagon put together a $733 billion budget for over a year. But then, at the end of last year, the President felt that number was too high.

By the way, I think I might agree with him. I think there are greater efficiencies to get out of the Pentagon.

So he said it ought to be cut by 5 percent; it ought to be $700 billion. A number of people protested that, went to the Pentagon and said: You can't cut it to 700.

So the President said it can't be 733; it has got to be 700. And then he agreed to 750. That doesn't make a lot of sense. The 733 number is the number that we planned to.

Now, I will agree that there is a robust debate that can be had about that: Should it be 750 or 733? I very strongly support the 733 number. I don't think giving the Pentagon an additional $17 billion at the last minute is fiscally responsible.

I agree with the ranking member, who has said, in the years when we were cutting the defense budget by 20 percent, that wasn't responsible either. I think 733 is responsible, but I can hear arguments for the other side.

What doesn't make sense is to say that, if you don't get 750, somehow 733 is so bad that we have to vote against it. That simply doesn't make sense. 733 is the largest amount of money we have ever spent on the Pentagon. It more than funds our national security needs.

I believe this is a very strong bill. We will debate many other issues. When we get done, I hope we can uphold that bipartisan tradition and show that we support national security and we support the men and women who are putting their lives on the line for our country.

House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Washington, DC, June 13, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration, the Committee is willing to waive its right to sequential referral. This is done with the understanding that the Committee on House Administration's jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. In addition, the Committee reserves its right to seek conferees on any provisions within its jurisdiction which are considered in a House-Senate conference and requests your support if such a request is made.

I would appreciate your response confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 2500 and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in your committee report on the bill and in the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor. Sincerely, Zoe Lofgren, Chairperson. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, July 10, 2019. Hon. Zoe Lofgren, Chairperson, Committee on House Administration, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairperson: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree that the Committee on House Administration has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on House Administration is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the Congressional Record. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC, June 5, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Smith: I am writing to you concerning the bill H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the House Committee on Agriculture.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill the House Committee on Agriculture does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 2500 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. Sincerely, Collin C. Peterson, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. Collin Peterson, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree that the Committee on Agriculture has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Agriculture is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC, June 14, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Smith: I am writing to you concerning the bill H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations.

In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive this Committee's right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill the Committee on Appropriations does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name Members of this Committee to any conference committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 2500 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. Sincerely, Nita M. Lowey, Chairwoman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. Nita M. Lowey, Chairwoman, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Ms. Chairwoman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree that the Committee on Appropriations has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Appropriations is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on the Budget, Washington, DC, June 13, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing to you concerning the bill H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill the Committee on the Budget does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 2500 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. Sincerely, John Yarmuth, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. John Yarmuth, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree that the Committee on the Budget has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on the Budget is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, DC, June 17, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill the Committee on Education and Labor does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 2500 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. Sincerely, Rep. Bobby Scott, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. Bobby Scott, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree that the Committee on Education and Labor has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Education and Labor is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC, June 14, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing to you concerning the bill H.R. 2500, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020''. Certain provisions in the legislation fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, the Committee will not request a sequential referral and is waiving its right to said referral.

The Committee takes this action with the understanding that it is not waiving any jurisdictional claim over this and similar legislation or the subject matters contained in the bill, that it will be appropriately consulted and involved as this legislation moves forward, and that its jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. I request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference committee that is named to consider such provisions. The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate conference on such legislation and requests your support in the event the Committee makes such a request.

Finally, I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming this understanding and that you would place our exchange of letters into the committee report on H.R. 2500 and the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked with this committee regarding this matter. Sincerely, Frank Pallone, Jr., Chairman. ____ Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC, June 14, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the bill H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services.

In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of H.R. 2500, I am willing to waive this Committee's right to sequential referral and forego formal consideration of H.R. 2500 at this time. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill, the Committee on Financial Services does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in H.R. 2500 which fall within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I also do so under the mutual understanding that the Committee on Financial Services will be appropriately consulted and involved as this or similar legislation moves forward. The Committee reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving H.R. 2500, and I request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the Committee report on H.R. 2500 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House Floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter between our respective committees. Sincerely, Maxine Waters, Chairwoman. ____ Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. Maxine Waters, Chairwoman, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Ms. Chairwoman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree that the Committee on Financial Services has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Financial Services is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill the House Foreign Affairs Committee does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 2500 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. Sincerely, Eliot L. Engel, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. Eliot L. Engel, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Foreign Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC, June 17, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Smith: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 2500, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020.'' There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of H.R. 2500, the Committee on Homeland Security does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 2500 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. Sincerely, Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree that the Committee on Homeland Security has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Homeland Security is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, June 17, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill the Judiciary Committee does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 2500 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. Sincerely, Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on The Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on the Judiciary is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC, June 13, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive the committee's right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill, the Committee on Natural Resources does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 2500 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. Sincerely, Raul M. Grijalva, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. Ral M. Grijalva, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree that the Committee on Natural Resources has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Natural Resources is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Reform, Washington, DC, June 17, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive this Committee's right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill, the Committee on Oversight and Reform does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name Members of this Committee to any conference committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 2500 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective Committees. Sincerely, Elijah E. Cummings, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree that the Committee on Oversight and Reform has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Oversight and Reform is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, DC, June 14, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 2500 and into the Congressional . Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. Sincerely, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Ms. Chairwoman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree that the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC, June 10, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill the Committee on Small Business does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 2500 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. Sincerely, Nydia M. Velazquez, Chairwoman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. Nydia M. Velazquez, Chairwoman, Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Ms. Chairwoman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree that the Committee on Small Business has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Small Business is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC, June 14, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Smith: I am writing to you concerning HR. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, as amended. There are certain provisions in the legislation that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration, I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I also request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this Committee to any conference committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the committee report on H.R. 2500 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Sincerely, Peter A. DeFazio, Chair. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Chairman, Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, June 14, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Smith: I am writing to you concerning the bill H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall within Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill the Committee on Veterans' Affairs does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to appoint Committee on Veterans' Affairs members to any conference committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 2500 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor to memorialize our understanding. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. Sincerely, Mark Takano, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. Mark Takano, Chairman, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of Represetatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Intelligence, June 18, 2019. Hon. Adam Smith, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. Certain provisions in the legislation fall within the jurisdiction of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), as set forth in Rule X of the House of Representatives for the 116th1Congress.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential referral. By waiving consideration of H.R. 2500, HP SCI does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subjects contained in the bill which fall within HPSCl's Rule Xjurisdiction. I further request that you urge the Speaker to appoint members of HPSCI to any conference committee which is named to consider provisions addressing such subjects.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 2500 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. Sincerely, Adam B. Schiff, Chairman. ____ House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, June 18, 2019. Hon. Adam Schiff, Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. I agree thatthe Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision riot to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, Adam Smith, Chairman,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I will just say quickly that I completely agree with the ranking member. The question is, does this bill adequately support our national security?

I don't think that is even debatable. There is no question that at $733 billion, with all the bipartisan provisions that we put in there, this bill more than adequately supports our troops and supports our national security.

That is why I think it is so wrong that even in committee, the Republicans have decided to oppose it. It does more than adequately support.

Now, there are things we disagree with, certainly, but I totally agree with that formulation. If you believe this bill at least adequately, I think more than adequately, supports it, you ought to vote for it.

The only comment I will make on the floor amendments is we submitted 480 on the Democratic side, the Republicans submitted 201. So, yes, there are going to be more Democratic amendments, because we, I guess, are a little bit more prolific in that regard, but there is not a partisan effort in that.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), the chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who is the chair of the Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee.

(Mr. GARAMENDI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would simply note that, in last year's NDAA, when the Republicans were in charge, they cut $751 million from the personnel account, and then the President, 6 months after that, took another $1 billion out of the personnel account to fund his wall.

So, in last year's NDAA, which all of them enthusiastically supported, the personnel account was cut by $1.7 billion. We do not simply rubber-stamp the President's request and never have. What we are doing this year is perfectly in keeping with past history.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), the chair of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is a unique way of looking at the world to describe a nation that has literally thousands of nuclear weapons as unilaterally disarming. I assure the public, we are not doing that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown), a member of the committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), who is a member of the committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the majority leader.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I am the only remaining speaker at this point, and

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker, and then I will be prepared to close.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Chair, I would start on a note of agreement. I stand by the comments I made in 2016: Voting against the defense bill doesn't mean you don't support the troops.

Now, it is interesting, as we go back to the transcript from 2016, the number of folks on their side of the aisle who said the exact opposite, who rather passionately said we were betraying our country by not supporting the bill. I didn't agree with that then, and I don't agree with it now.

But the only partisanship that is going on on this floor is coming 100 percent from the Republican Party. I appreciate the gentleman's words, and I worked very well with him as the ranking member. I continue to work well with him. But on the statement about how the Republican side of the aisle stands ready to work with us to make this bill better, I have seen no evidence of that.

Talking about amendments on the floor, the decision to oppose this bill was made in committee before we even got to the floor, and what we are hearing is a whole series of excuses for why they are opposing the bill.

It is very simple and straightforward why they are opposing the bill: pure partisanship. They keep talking about the number of times the Democrats voted with them and how this is different, yet the difference is the Republican Party has decided that, if it is not their defense bill 100 percent, they will not vote for it, and then they will stand up and accuse us of being partisan.

The reason I cite all of those numbers is that all of the outreach and effort we did to make this bill bipartisan, they did not reach back. This is pure partisanship: If we are in charge, they are not going to support it to try to make us look bad.

And the to-ing and fro-ing matters, because that is what guts the bipartisanship. If they will not even try to work with us if they are not in charge, that is the definition of partisanship, and it jeopardizes 58 years of history.

I am not going to give up; I am going to keep trying to reach out and keep trying to work with them. But, please, for those of you watching this, understand the only partisan thing going on here is, if the Republicans aren't in charge, they are not going to vote for it. And I will pick just a couple of examples.

We heard that we have taken a hatchet to the nuclear budget, so I am sure you are wondering how much we have cut the nuclear budget by. Well, we have increased it by 4 percent. That is taking a hatchet to it?

We are engaged, believe it or not, in unilateral disarmament on the floor of this House as we increase the amount of money that we spend on nuclear weapons by 4 percent, as we fully fund the B-21 bomber, the Columbia-class nuclear submarine, the LRSO, and the modernization of our nuclear weapons force. All of these arguments are nonsense.

Going back to the personnel argument, they cut the personnel account by more than we did because they didn't agree with the President.

All of these arguments are pure partisanship, and nothing drives this point home more clearly than the $733 billion.

Now, I can't say it any better than the majority leader said it, but the quote from General Dunford in January of 2017. Well, if that is the case, why did Chairman Thornberry--I am sorry; that is the way I always think of him--write an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in November of 2018 insisting that we had to have $733 billion?

If we had said $750 billion, they would be on the floor saying, ``Not enough. It has got to be $775 billion,'' because that is the partisanship.

This is a really important policy point. These numbers also matter, because accountability at the Pentagon matters. I would submit to you that this bill doesn't just maintain the bipartisan tradition; with Democrats working on this bill, this bill is better for national security because we don't believe in sending a blank check to the Pentagon, and sending a blank check to the Pentagon is not in the best interest of our troops or our national security.

Now, Mr. Thornberry is the best person working on reforming our procurement system to try and increase efficiency, and I support him in that effort. But if you try to reform a system and make it more efficient but then say, ``You know what,'' at the last minute, ``here is another $17 billion,'' the people are not going to get the message. They are going to say, ``Accountability? You don't want accountability. You are going to give us more money no matter what we do,'' which is what we have done for far too long.

So, yes, we have accountability in this bill, but you have not heard a single good reason to oppose this, other than pure partisanship. And it is a brilliant way of doing things.

As a friend of mine said a long time ago, when you are in an argument with someone who is unreasonable, it is hard not to sound unreasonable.

It is brilliant. Just vote against the bill and say it is partisan; okay?

Partisan is when you ignore the other side. And, my goodness, the people behind me, I mean, I have worked on it, but nobody has worked on it more than my staff and, frankly, the minority party staff. If you could see the hours that we spent working with Republicans to get to ``good'' on a variety of different amendments, you would laugh out loud at the partisanship claim.

And I think this is important. I think if the minority party, if the Republican Party, cannot work with us unless they are in charge, then we are not going to get to a bipartisan place.

And again, we talk about how we cut the President's budget. It was the President who tweeted out in November that $733 billion was too much. That is what the President said.

So as the majority leader said, we took your number, and after we took your number, you said we are being partisan. That is absurd.

This is a good bill that protects our country. Every Member of this body should be proud to vote for it.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This is an amendment that was actually adopted at the committee level, but there was a technical problem with it which we couldn't get corrected by UC, so we are re-debating it on the House floor. I think it is appropriate.

Last year, the Trump administration decided to stop reporting on civilian casualties that were caused by our raids. This amendment reinstates that and requires the Director of National Intelligence to report to us on civilian casualties that have resulted in raids that we have done outside of existing combat zones.

We are engaged in many military operations, which we have read about, in places like Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. We think it is appropriate to keep statistics on how effective those raids have been, and one of those measures of effectiveness is the number of civilian casualties that are included in that.

That is what this amendment does. We have gotten the support of the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Schiff, to do this for both DOD operations and intelligence operations.

I think it is an important transparency measure that will help us better understand the effects of our military policy.

And, I guess, the final thing I would say on this is it is part of an underlying theme. One of the other things that the minority party doesn't like about our bill is that, again, we want to hold the Pentagon accountable. We think Congress actually has a role in defense policy and we shouldn't simply turn it over to the Pentagon.

For us to know what is going on with this will inform our decisions as we attempt to exercise legitimate and effective oversight of Pentagon operations.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I would simply say that there are reporting requirements; there are not comprehensive reporting requirements. And that is the purpose of this amendment, to make sure we report everything and so that we have all of the information that is available to us.

And, I guess, to a certain extent, if the opposition feels like it is already being done, then why not do it effectively and efficiently. Regrettably, DOD is not in charge of all of the operations involved here.

The Director of National Intelligence would take into account everything we are doing and make sure that we have an accurate picture of that.

Again, I urge support, and

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Just a couple of quick points: First of all, we did not bypass the committee of jurisdiction. We were in constant consultation with the Intelligence Committee, with their staff, and we had that conversation and worked with them to get this result.

We did not bypass them. In fact, we got a waiver from the Intelligence Committee to have this amendment before our committee.

Our committee takes jurisdiction that this bill has a number of provisions in it, including one on which I worked very closely with the gentlewoman from New York, that has jurisdiction within the intelligence community. We include in this bill items that have their jurisdiction, but we worked with them and in careful consultation.

I really don't think it is a lot to ask of our national intelligence to look at the very important issue of how our military action, regardless of who is doing it, impacting casualties, both civilian and otherwise.

That is all this amendment does. I think that it is something that we should be doing, regardless, and it is information that will be valuable to this House.

Mr. Chair, I would urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 476, I offer amendments en bloc.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers on this first en bloc.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I have an additional speaker. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I urge support for the en bloc package.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, this is a very important issue and something that our committee worked on over a long stretch of time on export controls. We made very carefully thought-out reforms in that process.

The process was a nightmare. Dual-use was the big problem. We could have, just as an example, a bolt that happened to go into a piece of military equipment. If it was to be put in something else, it was subject to this far more aggressive export control thing. But we fixed all of that.

What the gentlewoman is trying to prevent is stepping way over the line here and allowing the export of things that really are clearly within the military use concern. We covered what wasn't. This goes beyond that and undermines our ability to make sure that we are not giving potential adversaries access to weapons that can jeopardize our national security.

I do think we need to take this step to make sure that the Trump administration doesn't go beyond what we worked out. I realize this word is being overused, but we did work this out in a bipartisan way. With the chairman's help, we included this in the National Defense Act a few years ago. That was helpful.

This goes too far by the President. I think this amendment is perfectly appropriate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I strongly support this amendment.

The documents that the gentleman just pointed to don't even begin to scratch the surface of addressing the issue that the gentlewoman is raising. Those are very broad documents about where the Defense Department spends its money.

And I am sure they mention in there--actually, I am not sure. They might mention in there exactly how much money they spend on overseas bases.

Actually, I would be surprised if they outline all the overseas bases we have and what their purpose is, and that is what this amendment calls for. Not the broad strategy, but really how many bases do we have, how much money are we spending, and what do they all contribute to that national security policy.

I have read through those documents. They do not have that type of detail. Yes, they point out, for instance, here is why we are in all the places that we are--in Asia, for instance--as we are trying to defend it, but they don't go through all the bases and say why this particular place, that particular place.

We are overseas in a lot of places that many people are not aware of. It is not just the big ones that we are all aware of that would be contained in that. There are a lot of other places where we own property and maintain bases.

And the gentlewoman is also correct that the inability of the Pentagon to audit--in fact, one of the things that the audit found is that the Pentagon doesn't actually know all of the property that they own--or they can't document it, at any rate.

So getting this piece of it documented would be helpful and would begin to answer the question: Is that money well spent? Is that even advancing the policy that is outlined in all of those documents?

So I think this is necessary, appropriate, and will be helpful in getting us to a more efficient defense budget.

And, again, that is a major difference in our approach from the minority. We don't want to just give the Pentagon money. We want to make sure that they are accountable and spending it well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Clark).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, this amendment is very straightforward.

Currently, all Members of Congress are prohibited from having contracts with the Federal Government, either way. In other words, if you are a Member of Congress, you own something, you can't lease it to the government, rent it to the government.

Similarly, you cannot rent or lease something from the government for, I think, obvious reasons. As Members of Congress, we could potentially have undue influence. We could get a deal that other Members of the public could not get. Therefore, we would have an unfair advantage and be using our position as elected officials to enrich ourselves, which is supposed to be prohibited.

This amendment is very straightforward. It adds the President, the Vice President, and Cabinet members to that list of people who cannot contract with the Federal Government, again, either the Federal Government leasing something to us or we leasing something back to the Federal Government that is owned, in this case, by the President, the Vice President, and members of the Cabinet.

Because, again, particularly in the executive branch, they would actually have, in many ways, more control over this than a Member of Congress, who does not have the power over the assets that the President, the Vice President, and Cabinet members would.

It prohibits them from doing that so that there are no ethical problems, so the President, Vice President, and Cabinet members cannot profit off of being in the office that they are in. This is part of the way we maintain a transparent and ethical government.

I think it is a good amendment that will improve the ethics of our government, and I urge all Members to vote in favor.

Madam Chair,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This doesn't require someone to commit a crime. It requires you to divest of your interest if you move into this position, something which, by the way, all Members of Congress have to do.

We are not permitted to have outside income over what we have as a Member of Congress. So if you are elected to Congress and you have another job, you have to leave that job; you have to let go of a particular business interest. That is part of public service.

It does not require them to be criminalized. That is like saying having a law against taking bribes is criminalizing the elected official. Now, there is actually something you can do: Don't take the bribe, and you will be okay.

As far as our ``obsession'' with the President, I couldn't help but laugh at the statement, ``instead of doing the hard work of governing.''

I am counting how many hours I have slept over the course of the last month-and-a-half as we have worked to put together a nearly 2200-page bill that fully funds the Defense Department--sorry, in my opinion, fully funds the Defense Department--and all the amendments.

Let me assure you, we are capable of doing both. We are capable of doing the hard work of government and actually trying to make sure that our elected officials are at least passingly ethical so that the American public doesn't think what they already think, which is that too many people get elected simply to enrich themselves.

This is not something new. We have a long list of ethics laws that restrict what you can do as an elected official or a member of government. I would hope that the gentleman is not suggesting that we shouldn't have that because it is somehow inconvenient.

I think it is incredibly important that we have ethical standards, that we make sure that elected officials are not able to enrich themselves based on being in the elected position that they are in.

That is all this amendment does. It is targeting good government, which is part of our job.

Madam Chair,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I don't know where the gentleman was over the course of the last month when we passed 10 appropriations bills and took hundreds of votes on the substantive business of funding the government. That is not a waste of time.

I realize the Senate has decided that they are not going to do it, but it is our job to pass appropriations bills. That is what we did for the last month-plus.

We are now working on the defense bill. I would trust the gentleman wouldn't think of that as a waste of time. It is incredibly important.

We have passed an entire rewrite of the ethics laws for the United States House of Representatives. Whether you support it or not, it is certainly not a waste of time.

We have passed countless other bills and important pieces of legislation.

The Senate hasn't been doing much. I understand its rules are more complicated, so I am sympathetic, but we are working on the substantive ability to govern. We are doing it, even if the gentleman doesn't agree with the bills.

This is where bipartisanship becomes difficult because as we do that, to have someone stand up and say that is not what government is supposed to be doing, I mean, what are we doing here? That is what we have been doing.

Part of that should also be to have an ethical government; ethical elected Members of Congress; and ethical Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Cabinet members.

As I have said, there are a bunch of rules governing that. This is one more that I think would help to make it appropriate.

Madam Chair, I urge support for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 476, I offer amendments en bloc.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I don't have any speakers, and

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 476, I offer amendments en bloc.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I don't have any speakers. We have been doing so many votes on the House floor that it appears we have worn down the Members of Congress. We don't have as many people over here to speak as we normally do on our en bloc packages.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 476, I offer amendments en bloc.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I have no further requests for time. I urge a ``yes'' vote on en bloc package No. 4, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar) having assumed the chair, Ms. Moore, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2500) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source

Meet Civic Sage

You can ask about:

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020

Floor Speech

Navigation

Our Mission