Conference Report on H.R. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, no, I am not.

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the Chairman's conclusions. We worked this process as bipartisan and as open as any process in Congress. We had the markup in committee, we had the floor vote, and we had a bunch of amendments. The Senate did the same. We went to a conference committee, and we had a very robust discussion.

We had disagreements. There are a lot of things in this bill that I do not like, but we have bipartisan control here. We have the Senate controlled by the Democrats, the White House controlled by the Democrats--they have to sign the bill--and the House controlled by the Republicans. So we worked a good compromise.

Mr. Speaker, what this bill does is it supports our troops in their efforts to defend this country and to meet our national security needs. It has a robust pay increase, it has increases in basic housing allowance, and a number of other provisions to support our troops and their families.

Critically, it solidifies our alliances with our European allies, with our allies in Asia and with Israel and our allies in the Middle East, to meet the threats that we face.

You cannot oppose this bill and claim that you support the national security of this country because this bill represents that bipartisan compromise that we worked for to get a good bill, to meet our national security needs, and again, I would emphasis, to support our troops and to support their families.

Nothing is more important to the national security of this country than the people who we ask to defend it. This bill protects them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member in the body to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Just briefly on the 702 issue. Section 702 needs to be reformed. There is no question about that. Nobody I know of, however, says that it should completely go away. If we don't do it on this bill, it completely goes away on January 1, which is a huge national security threat to this country, universally agreed.

Now, I agree with the gentleman that we should debate that policy, but it is fascinating because on Tuesday we were set up to debate that policy. We had a couple different choices there, and the very people now who are screaming that we can't extend this without reform blocked the rule that would have allowed us to reform 702. It really doesn't make any sense.

What this bill does is it gives us time to do the reforms that need to be done without jeopardizing national security.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), the ranking member of the House Intel Committee who knows this issue very, very well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining for the various Members.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Speaker, I want to focus on this notion that this is how this town works and how terrible that is. I really don't understand where people get the idea that the way the world works is that you get absolutely everything you want and nobody else gets anything. That isn't how this town works. This is how life works in your family, your community, and in your neighborhood--everywhere.

I know these Members know this because we just had the vote on Israel not long ago. I would ask: What does the IRS have to do with defending Israel? Somehow, these Members decided that they had to put the IRS cuts in with Israel. They all voted for it and were happy as clams.

If you don't like the deal, fine, vote ``no.'' That's cool.

The idea that you say that this is just the worst process in the world, apparently you don't like democracy because that is what democracy is. You compromise and work with people. You do it all the time.

Argue against the substance of the bill, but please stop tearing down this institution and tearing down this democracy. We have to try to get along with people we don't agree with.

Madam Speaker, to quote ``Game of Thrones'': ``We make peace with our enemies, not our friends.'' You have to find a way to get along with people who you disagree with. The chairman of the committee did an outstanding job of doing that in this bill.

Madam Speaker, I urge everybody to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I would point out that the money from the IRS was not a pay-for. It actually increased the deficit. Under the rules of the House, the people who decide how to score those things scored it as adding money to it.

It wasn't a pay-for. It was going after the IRS to appease people so they could vote for the larger package.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, may I inquire again as to how much time is remaining.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), the ranking member on the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, as I understand it, I could go second to last, but I am prepared to close at this point, as well.

I think the most revealing thing said by the gentleman from Texas was: A majority of Republicans. A majority of Republicans supported something, so how possibly could we not do it?

That really reflects their opposition. They would like the majority of Republicans to control this bill.

Now, to the credit of the chairman and others, they recognize that bipartisan compromise is what we have to get to. They believe that what they want they get regardless of how anybody else votes. That is not the way the process works.

We have worked a very good bill and got a very good outcome here. We haven't even mentioned things like the AUKUS agreement, a crucial agreement in deterring China and strengthening our allies. There are a whole lot of things in this bill that are going to have a very positive outcome on national security.

Also, I do want to point out that this is important for the House to be involved. If we insist upon the notion that everybody has to agree, then we become irrelevant. This is the House expressing oversight of the executive branch, and, yes, it is on the Defense bill, but it is also in the Intel bill, and it is in the Foreign Affairs bill. If we aren't able to do that, then the executive branch becomes more powerful, and we disappear.

Now, in the appropriations process we tried that. The House couldn't pass roughly one-half of the appropriations bills because everybody insisted on having it exactly their way, and, again, we have rendered ourselves irrelevant.

Please vote for this bill. It is a reflection of a bipartisan and bicameral effort of the legislative branch to assert its authority and its obligation to exercise oversight.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I echo Mr. Rogers' comments. Our staff is beyond fantastic. I have not had as much time in this debate to thank them as I would like. They have done a great job. The floor staff and the parliamentary staff pulled it all together.

On a note of personal privilege, I specifically thank Connor Stubbs, my legislative director, for his outstanding work. He has the bad taste to be leaving my office tomorrow and going on to bigger and better things. He has done an outstanding job and is really reflective of the entire staff that I have, and that Mr. Rogers has, HASC and SASC. These are tremendous people who work more hours than anybody could possibly calculate to make this happen. So I thank them very much for their hard work.

Again, Mr. Speaker, please, vote for this bill. It is enormously important that we do so, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source