By Connor O’Brien and Jeremy Herb
Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, has long criticized his colleagues for failing to make hard choices in the Pentagon’s budget.
The 10-term congressman from Washington state voted against the National Defense Authorization Act in May, hitting Republicans for shortchanging the Pentagon’s war account to pay for other programs, as well as for rejecting potential savings in the military health system and by retiring older weapons platforms. And he’s taken plenty of positions that a majority of his colleagues oppose, from actively supporting a new round of base closures to his recent opposition to building a new Long-Range Standoff Weapon.
Asked what he sees as the major hurdles to overcome a threatened White House veto of the defense policy bill, Smith singled out congressional efforts to halt the planned reductions of the Army and Marine Corps, calling the impasse a potential “dealbreaker.”
On fellow members’ continued refusal to support another Base Realignment and Closure Commission, he remains as frustrated as ever. “They’ll come up with every argument they can creatively come up with to support that unsupportable decision,” he said.
Over the longer term, however, Smith, 51, worries about the inability to finance the weapons programs the Pentagon currently has on the books. “We’re too committed to too many large programs right now,” he said, calling for a major scaling back of what he called “a trillion for modernizing a nuclear arsenal so we can destroy the world five times.”
POLITICO sat down with the Smith on Capitol Hill to discuss the defense budget, his goals for upcoming negotiations to reconcile House and Senate versions of the defense policy bill and his habit of making movie analogies. Here are some edited excerpts:
Where do things stand on the Pentagon budget after the Senate voted down amendments to add $18 billion to the defense and non-defense spending?
We have needs in defense. There is no question about it. But we have incredible needs in infrastructure and all these other places and Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee saying, ‘Well, I’m not a member of those committees. I’m a member of the Armed Services Committee. I worry about defense. I don’t worry about that other stuff.’ Well you’re a member of Congress, not just a member of the defense committee. So if bridges are falling apart, our water infrastructure is crumbling … and if you simply say, ‘Look, we’re going to spend whatever we have to spend on defense and ignore everything else,’ that’s not a very tenable position, and frankly that’s the divide that exists now between me and Chairman [Mac] Thornberry.
Now, since the Senate has refused to go that route, we’ve got to live with the money that we have. I think the hope in all this is, of all things, the Senate Appropriations Committee … I think the Senate Appropriations Committee model is what’s going to have to be the model for us to get an NDAA and a defense appropriations bill done.
What are the major issues heading into the House-Senate conference negotiations?
The biggest major issue is the laundry list of complaints that the White House has. And every year it’s always a game, because they threaten to veto every single defense bill that’s ever passed. And then you need to get down to, okay, what are the things that are really causing this? And the only other one that I’ve heard is our restriction on the reduction in the size of the Army and Marine Corps … is potentially a dealbreaker.
My sense is that our House bill got a lot closer to where DoD was comfortable with acquisition reform. The Senate still has a few things, like getting rid of the acquisition chief. So, I think the battle is going to be how willing are the majorities to work with the White House to get to yes and how willing is the White House to be flexible?
You’ve said the HASC bill avoids many hard choices. The Senate seems to be more inclined to make those choices. Are there proposals there that you could see yourself supporting in conference?
It’s tough. You know, I want to work with Mac. I want to be supportive of the House position, but you hit the nail on the head on the biggest problem that I have with being supportive of the House position. The House position is basically just spend it. Don’t make decisions. And that puts us in a box long term.
I know Mac Thornberry made a big point of saying, ‘Well, I’m not concerned about the long term. I’m concerned about the troops now. I want to help them now.’ … I guess my only analogy is, you know, you put enough gas in the car to get them out into the middle of the desert, so that they’re not stranded. Are you really helping them now if basically what you’re saying is I’m going to leave you in the middle of the desert without any gas? … So I disagree with that basic premise and I think what we need is a sustainable budget plan.
If a Hillary administration comes calling, would you be interested?
No, I love my job. I love being the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, I love working on those issues. Have you ever been to Seattle? Why in the name of God would I want to live here if I can live where I live now?
You’ve had a difficult year with your hip surgeries, and it’s been hard to make the trips back and forth. You’ve never lost the motivation?
No. I’ve been a little pissed off that it’s been more difficult than it has been in the past. But I’ve never lost the motivation to do the job. I love doing the job.
On BRAC, are you encouraged or discouraged by the way the debate has gone this year after the Pentagon put out its infrastructure study?
Discouraged. I think Congress has decided that they, again they don’t want to make a tough political choice. Just like on every other aspect of the budget. And if you support a BRAC and a base winds up being closed in your district, it makes you vulnerable. So I think members are going to oppose a BRAC and they’ll come up with every argument they can creatively come up with to support that unsupportable decision.
Have you thought about what an Adam Smith NDAA would look like?
Oh gosh, yes. I’ll agree with Mac Thornberry, we don’t simply have to take what the Pentagon says. But I think it would have a lot clearer vision and make some more decisions. And look, it would contain some cuts that would not be popular. Because we have dodged every single one of those. And meanwhile, the Ford [aircraft carrier class] isn’t getting any cheaper, the F-35 isn’t getting any cheaper.
We are on pace right now, planning on buying equipment that we will not have the money to buy. We are the Thelma and Louise of the moment. And at some point, we have to turn the car around. … And I think, I’ll throw these ideas out and I’ll get myself in trouble in 1,000 different ways. I’ll offer the caveat that I’m open to other ones. Like the Senate Appropriations Committee did. They said we want this stuff, and then they went out and they cut other stuff. And good for them.
But I would say, to begin with, that a trillion for modernizing a nuclear arsenal so we can destroy the world five times based on the premise that there’s some scenario that if Russia attacks here and china attacks there, then we’ll need this? I think we need to spend a lot less money on our nuclear deterrence, a lot less.
Does that mean cutting a leg of the triad?
That I don’t know. I think it means buying fewer nuclear weapons as we go forward. I think it’s quite conceivable. There’s a lot of ways to deliver a nuclear weapon by air, other than building a brand new bomber. I’m a big fan of submarines because they’re obviously the most survivable element of the triad, but you can save a lot of money there.
I think we need to look very closely at the weapons systems that are most important, and figure out which ones we can cut now before spending billions of dollars. … The F-35 is too big to fail. The F-35 is not going away because it replaced 90 percent of our fighter attack aircraft. We have to try to avoid situations like that.
But we’re too committed to too many large programs right now. And I think also we should have in our bill some idea of what our strategy is, what are our priorities, what is the purpose of the various pieces of equipment we have?
You just made the Thelma and Louise reference. You always have a movie reference handy, like when discussing acquisition you reference Austin Powers and “sharks with laser beams.” Is there a method to this?
A method? It’s debate. It’s trying to make your point in an interesting way that will stick with people.
But are you a movie buff?
It’s just the way my mind works. I did debate in college, and one of the things I did learn is make the argument, then make the analogy. Because early on when I was in debate, I’d get so fond of the analogy that I’d make the analogy and people would be like, what the hell are you talking about? So make the point first and then you drive it home with an analogy that hopefully makes it stick in people’s minds.
Though in Austin Powers, instead of sharks, they settle for agitated sea bass.
Well if you want to take the analogy to its logical conclusion. Instead of buying the [Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle], the new Amphibious Assault Vehicles are agitated sea bass. I guess taking the analogy to the logical conclusion, you should have just bought the agitated sea bass in the first place because the sharks weren’t gonna be able to carry those laser beams.
To view online:
https://www.politicopro.com/budget-appropriations-brief/story/2016/06/politico-pro-q-a-rep-adam-smith-121668
Washington D.C. – Congressman Adam Smith released the following statement about the sit-in taking place on the House Floor:
On June 22nd, I was proud to join Congressman John Lewis and Congresswoman Katherine Clark as they led House Democrats in a sit-in to call for action on common sense gun reforms. My fellow Democrats and I took to the floor to demand that gun safety legislation finally be allowed a vote by the full House of Representatives. The time is long past due for action. It is shameful that Republican Leadership has failed to listen to the American people. Speaker Ryan must change course – let us vote now to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous terrorists and enact reforms that will reduce gun violence and keep our communities safe.
Washington D.C. – On June 10, 2016, Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) and Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) introduced bipartisan legislation, The Adoptee Citizenship Act, H.R. 5454, to guarantee citizenship to international adoptees. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate, S.2275 by Senator Klobuchar (D-MN) and Senator Coats (R-IN). Often, when children are adopted, the required paperwork is not filed and the children are never naturalized. With the passage of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, most international adoptees were granted citizenship. Unfortunately, the bill did not apply to adoptees who were already over the age of 18 when it was enacted into law in 2000. The Adoptee Citizenship Act, would fix this arbitrary oversight and grant citizenship to people who were legally adopted and were age 18 or older in the year 2000 when the Child Citizenship Act was signed into law.
“This bill seeks to carry forward the vision of the original Child Citizenship Act of 2000, which sought to ensure that adopted children and biological children are treated equally under U.S. law. It will extend citizenship to foreign born adoptive children who have joined their forever families here in the United States,” said Congressman Smith. “Unfortunately, not all adoptees were able to benefit from the legislation when it originally passed, as it was limited to apply only to minors age 18 and under. Adopted individuals should not be treated as second class citizens just because they happened to be the wrong age when the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 was passed.”
“The Adoptee Citizenship Act closes a loophole and in so doing, brings hope to thousands of adoptees who were lawfully adopted and have lived their entire lives knowing only the United States as home, and yet, may never have been able to exercise their rights of citizenship due to lack of paperwork stemming from the circumstances surrounding their adoption,” said Congressman Franks. “Elevating the voices of adoptees here in Congress has been a priority for me as co-chair of the Adoption Coalition, and I am so grateful to be able to jointly introduce this very bipartisan initiative with my colleague Congressman Smith. I look forward to working together to ensure the legislation moves forward.”
Washington, DC – Today, Members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) released the following statements on the passage of the FY2017 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (H.R. 5325), which includes a provision that will require the Library of Congress to continue using the terms “illegal alien” and “alien” in its subject headings. In March, the Library decided to replace these terms with the words “noncitizens” and “unauthorized immigration” after a lengthy review. Last month, CAPAC Chairwoman Judy Chu joined leaders of the Congressional Tri-Caucus – comprised of CAPAC, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus – in sending a letter to the House Appropriations Committee urging the removal of the provision.
Congresswoman Judy Chu (CA-27), CAPAC Chair:
“By inserting anti-immigrant language into this simple funding bill, House Republicans are once again openly displaying their xenophobia by forcing the Library of Congress to continue using the terms ‘illegal alien’ and ‘alien’ against its own will. Words matter, which is why the Library of Congress decided to stop using these dated and pejorative words. Unfortunately, terms like these are all too familiar to many within the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community due to various ‘alien’ laws that targeted AAPIs by denying citizenship, restricting land ownership, and prohibiting inter-racial marriage. And during World War II, the U.S. government rounded up ‘aliens’ of Japanese ancestry for interment. We cannot allow our country to move backwards by perpetuating the use of these dehumanizing words. The AAPI community and all Americans deserve better.”
Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo (GU), CAPAC Vice Chair:
“The continued use of ‘alien’ and ‘illegal alien’ to refer to undocumented migrants dehumanizes the many hardworking individuals who contribute to our economies and have come in search of a better life for their families. While we can debate the actions we should take to address their immigration status, we should not be using pejorative language that separates these individuals from the dignity they deserve as human beings. I am disappointed the Rules Committee did not allow amendments submitted by Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz and Congressman Castro to be offered on the House floor. These amendments would strike report language in the Legislative Branch appropriations bill to prevent the Congressional Research Service from using other terms when referring to undocumented migrants. Given the many contributions of immigrants to this nation, the full House should at least be able to debate matters such as this, but Republicans on the Rules Committee refused to let us even discuss this matter.”
Congressman Michael Honda (CA-17), CAPAC Chair Emeritus:
“On February 19th, 1942, the U.S. government announced that all ‘aliens and non-aliens of Japanese ancestry’ would be relocated to internment camps. Our government didn’t even have the decency to call us ‘citizens’ or ‘noncitizens’ as we were rounded up and imprisoned for years. The continued use of words like ‘illegal’ and ‘alien’ divides and dehumanizes entire communities and is used to discriminate against immigrants and people of color. No human being is ‘illegal’ and no one should be made to feel ‘alien.’ As a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, I voted to strike this language in Committee which has no place in our national discourse and I will continue to oppose it.”
Congressman Mark Takano (CA-41), CAPAC Whip:
“The most American ideal is that every person – no matter where they come from, what they believe, or who they love – deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. It is disappointing that not every Member of Congress is committed to upholding that principle. Requiring the Library of Congress to use terms that are offensive and dehumanizing is beneath us. It undermines our effort to build a more compassionate and inclusive society.”
Congressman Ami Bera (CA-07):
“Requiring the Library of Congress to use language like ‘alien’ or ‘illegal alien’ is a step backwards for us as a nation. Instead of trying to keep dated rhetoric in place, I urge my colleagues to work on a real solution to our broken immigration system. As the son of immigrants who came to this country to make a better life for their family, I know that our country’s success would not be possible without the contributions of immigrants who’ve come here. That’s why I’ve been fighting for comprehensive immigration reform since I got to Congress.”
Congresswoman Barbara Lee (CA-13):
“Simply put, the term ‘Illegal Alien’ is disparaging and racist. The Library of Congress should be allowed to end the use of this slur without interference from Congress.”
Congressman Ted Lieu (CA-33):
“Today, I join my colleagues in calling for the removal of offensive legislative language that would require the Library of Congress to continue to use derogatory terms such as ‘aliens’ and ‘illegals’ instead of ‘noncitizens’ and ‘unauthorized’ to describe immigrants. As one of six immigrants currently serving in Congress, I am personally offended by this. We are a nation of immigrants and using these types of disparaging words to describe immigrants is not only wrong, it is dehumanizing. I urge my House colleagues to do the right thing and remove this hurtful language from the Fiscal Year 2017 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill.”
Congresswoman Grace Meng (NY-06):
“Shame on those who seek to block the Library of Congress from replacing these antiquated and pejorative terms. The Library of Congress decided to make these changes after a comprehensive review, and we should not be politicizing the process. We are a nation of immigrants and most who come to the U.S. only seek better lives, and to have their shot at the American dream. Let’s work to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which is what our country really needs, rather than waste time on efforts to stop the Library of Congress from updating its subject headings.”
Congressman Bobby Scott (VA-03):
“I am disappointed that there are those in Congress who wish to require the Library of Congress to use offensive, pejorative terms. These terms perpetuate the defamation of immigrant communities. While the term originated in the Naturalization Act of 1970, it has since taken on a negative association. We must continue to modernize outdated terminology in federal law and promote diversity in our nation.”
Congressman Mark Takai (HI-01):
“The House has a standing rule that no legislating is meant to be done through the appropriations process. Yet, Republicans are using this bill to force Library of Congress to revert back to the term ‘illegal alien’ for their subject headings. I urge the House focus on funding critical programs in the Legislative Branch, rather than bringing back the use of derogatory terms.”
Congressman Raul Grijalva (AZ-03):
“The term ‘illegal alien’ is a slur, plain and simple. It has no business in the lexicon of the Library of Congress, or any other institution of the United States federal government. The fact that the Republican Party is trying to force such demeaning and hateful language into official use speaks volumes about their intentions, and about how far removed they are from the immigrant communities that make up the tapestry of our society.”
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (CA-19):
“If denigrating Mexican immigrants, Muslims, and federal judges weren’t enough, Republicans are now taking their anti-immigrant feud to our librarians by insisting on terminology that is outdated and insulting to immigrants. Much in the same way the Library of Congress has substituted ‘African Americans’ for ‘Negroes,’ and ‘people with disabilities’ for ‘cripples,’ the Library regularly reviews and update subject headings. But this election season it seems that there is no limit to the racial invectives Republicans will hurl in their narrow-minded pursuit to dehumanize and vilify immigrants who have worked so hard to contribute to communities all across America.”
Congresswoman Grace Napolitano (CA-32):
“Terms that are offensive should rightly be removed from law, and replaced with language that reflects our true American values of inclusion and integrity. I join my CAPAC colleagues in strongly denouncing today’s attack by House Republicans, which is an affront to the Asian American and Pacific Islander community and all Americans, who deserve better from their elected officials.”
Congressman Charles B. Rangel (NY-13):
“We must not allow the use of such bigoted terms against immigrants, whether documented or not. Like those before them, they came to America to seek a better life in pursuit of peace and prosperity. Immigrants continue to make America beautiful and stronger. They should not be dehumanized.”
Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40):
“I am deeply disappointed that the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill would require the Library of Congress to use the terms ‘alien’ and ‘illegal alien’ in its subject headings. These terms are offensive, outdated, and confusing. They deny a basic measure of human dignity to millions of men, women, and children. As members of Congress and leaders of our communities, it is our responsibility to promote respectful discourse on important issues, including immigration. Removing ‘alien’ and ‘illegal alien’ from Library of Congress usage would be a step towards making our immigration debate more respectful and humane.”
Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (CA-46):
“The term ‘illegal alien’ is a form of dehumanizing rhetoric and has been used to justify continued discrimination against vulnerable migrant and minority communities. This politically motivated Congressional interference in the process to reform the Library of Congress Subject Headings is unprecedented and insulting.”
Congressman Adam Smith (WA-09):
“Our government should actively lead by example and stand up against bigotry. Recent efforts in the Legislative Branch Appropriations process would result in the erroneous and offensive inclusion of a provision that would keep derogatory terms, such as ‘alien’ or ‘illegal alien’ in circulation. Our policies and laws should include language that better reflects the diversity of our country’s history, people, and cultures.”
Congressman Juan Vargas (CA-51):
“With the exception of our Native American brothers and sisters, the Unites States is a nation full of immigrants. The use of dehumanizing terms, like “alien”, belittles those courageous individuals currently seeking a better life and ignores that we were once in the same position. The panel convened by Library of Congress acted appropriately in the past by removing offensive words from their usage and they were right to recently remove the term ‘alien’. I am appalled that my Republican colleagues would force the Library of Congress to use offensive terms against its wishes.”
Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez (NY-07):
“Language and the words we choose have power in shaping our dialogue and reflecting our nation’s values. For the Library of Congress to continue using the outdated and dehumanizing term ‘illegal aliens’ would serve only to justify division and hatred against some of our immigrant neighbors. People cannot be ‘illegal’, which is what this hateful term suggests.”
The Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) is comprised of Members of Congress of Asian and Pacific Islander descent and Members who have a strong dedication to promoting the well-being of the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community. Currently chaired by Congresswoman Judy Chu, CAPAC has been addressing the needs of the AAPI community in all areas of American life since it was founded in 1994.
Washington D.C. – Congressman Adam Smith released the following statement today in response to the National Rifle Association’s release of a misguided video:
“The National Rifle Association’s (NRA) latest video shows how out of touch it is with finding common sense solutions to the issues of the day. In 2013, the year in which the most recent data is available, there were 27,329 deaths involving firearms, with 11,208 of those being homicides. Instead of trying to fix the nationwide health epidemic of shootings, which has resulted in the tragic deaths of far too many Americans, the NRA has turned its misguided aim on Iran. Instead of irresponsibly fanning the flames of war, it should advocate for sensible gun control laws to eliminate the unconscionable and rampant gun violence plaguing our nation.
“The NRA’s uninformed foray into serious national security issues has the potential to exacerbate tensions in a region already beset by conflict. This xenophobic propaganda makes no attempt at presenting long-term solutions to bring about peace and stability. Simply put, the NRA should focus its time, energy, and efforts to address the problems it helped create before it mistakenly pretends to be an expert on foreign policy which could potentially result in the deaths of even more Americans. As a country, we must work to limit senseless gun violence, keep our communities safe, and advance constructive approaches to national security issues.”
Washington, DC – Today, House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith made the following statement indicating his opposition to the FY 2017 NDAA:
“I have been extremely concerned about this bill’s attempt to take $18 billion from Overseas Contingency Operations, setting up a funding cliff that puts our men and women in the field at risk next year. This scheme degrades military readiness by taking funds out of OCO. It also sets the stage to break the budget agreement reached just last October, which will make it more difficult to reach similar deals in the future that we will need in order to make necessary investments in our military, infrastructure, public health, and other critical priorities.
“Now, Republicans have used a procedural trick to overturn a decision by Members of the House regarding women’s equality in the Selective Service. They have misused the rules process to avoid votes on women’s equality, labor laws, and taxpayer-funded discrimination against LGBT individuals, while adding further restrictions on transfers from the Guantanamo Detention Facility, cutting funds for nuclear nonproliferation, and adopting a range of other highly problematic provisions. These have tipped the balance of the bill considerably. I greatly appreciate the efforts of the majority to work with us on this bill, but unfortunately, without proper debate and vote by the whole House on these national issues, it is no longer a product I can support.”
I am proud to announce my endorsement of Initiative 1491, which will help save lives and make our neighborhoods safer. Extreme Risk Protection Orders give concerned family members and law enforcement officers a tool to prevent a private moment of crisis from becoming a public tragedy, or another awful gun violence statistic. No one should be afraid of gun violence in their own home, at school, at work, or in their place of worship.
Washington state continues to lead the nation in voter-driven efforts to address the crisis of gun violence in our country. In Congress, as a member of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and as lifelong Washingtonian, I have always championed common-sense responsible gun laws that protect our children and communities. In 2014, I was proud to support I-594, which created universal background checks in Washington state and passed with overwhelming voter support. No single piece of legislation can prevent every tragedy, but supporting I-1491 and Extreme Risk Protection Orders are the best step we can take right now to reduce gun violence in our state.
The Alliance for Gun Responsibility is in the process of collecting 340,000 signatures to ensure that Extreme Risk Protection Orders are on the ballot this November. Find out more about how you can get involved at www.GunResponsibility.org
Washington D.C. – Congressman Adam Smith released the following statement on the opioid related legislation considered by the House of Representatives:
“Our nation is in the midst of a heroin and prescription drug abuse epidemic, resulting in the deaths of thousands, and taking a toll on the health and safety of many Americans and their families. Since 2000, overdose deaths have increased 137% – costing more than 60 lives a day. Congress must act to stem this nation-wide epidemic by investing in prevention, treatment, recovery, and efforts to prevent the smuggling of drugs across our borders. Addiction is a brain disease, and given the medical and technological advancements over the years, we now have a better understanding of the mental and physical aspects of drug abuse; and can work to increase access to recovery services that can turn the tide of this fight. The debate on the House Floor this week should have been much more comprehensive but I support the steps we have taken to combat the drug abuse epidemic and I will continue to support efforts to address inequities in our society.
“While I am deeply disappointed that the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act and its related bills do not provide the full funding necessary to confront the rising numbers of overdose death and addiction, I believe these legislative efforts will begin to address the fight against opioid and heroin abuse. It is my hope that the conversations my colleagues and I had on the piecemealed legislation that came to the House Floor this week will be the beginning of a much larger fight to secure the resources and funding necessary to meaningfully address this crisis and treat the overdose and addiction affecting our communities.
“The scourge of this disease is not limited to single cities or groups. As Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have personally fought for the wellbeing of our service members and requested critical support in efforts to address opioid misuse, abuse, addiction, overdose and death. I submitted an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, directing the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the DOD’s efforts to prevent, educate and treat prescription opioid drug abuse.
“While the current crisis we face in opioid abuse is extraordinarily important, we must remain cognizant of the unfinished business in the sentencing disparity between crack vs. powder cocaine. That these are essentially two separate forms of the same substance remains a significant issue that cannot be overlooked. In 2010, I supported the passage of S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the sentencing disparity between offenses for crack and powder cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1. It also eliminated the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession offenses. The 100:1 ratio was scientifically unjustifiable, and resulted in individuals of color being targeted and jailed with disproportionately longer sentences.
“In the current Congress, I am a supporter of a number of bills that work to correct this historical inequity. H.R. 1252, the Fair Sentencing Clarification Act, would make the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 retroactively applicable to federal prisoners serving mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine. I also co-sponsored H.R. 1255, the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act, which would eliminate disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentences entirely – creating a 1:1 ratio. This legislation would combat inequities in our justice system, requiring that the same amount of each drug triggers the same sentence.
“We know that in order to pursue true racial justice we must re-examine the role of our justice system as the spearhead against the disease of drug addiction, challenging long-held assumptions and improving our system to emphasis prevention. Rather than focus on incarcerating Americans who suffer from addiction, we must focus on education, access to treatment services, and rehabilitation into society. By doing so, we recognize the evidence-based fact that remanding these individuals to jail and prison is structurally, as well as morally, wrong. I applaud my colleagues for the bipartisan work accomplished this week to start addressing the issues of opioid prescription and heroin drug abuse, but know there is much more work that still needs to be done.”
Washington D.C. – Congressman Adam Smith released the following statement about the Russell amendment attacking LGBT rights that was included in the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. During mark-up of the NDAA in committee, Democrats fought against efforts to expand religious organizations’ ability to conduct ‘taxpayer funded discrimination’ against LGBT individuals, women, and other groups.
“The language in the Russell amendment is a direct attack on LGBT rights. The president issued an executive order prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity by government contractors. The Russell amendment tries to override this executive order by artfully claiming to protect ‘religious freedom,’ but just like similar efforts in numerous state legislatures, this is actually an effort to promote discrimination. The language tries to protect the so-called ‘right’ to get government contracts and grants and still discriminate against people whose lifestyle you don’t approve of. Government-funded discrimination is wrong under any circumstances, and we certainly shouldn’t be trying to expand it in a defense policy bill.”
Washington D.C. (Link) – Congressman Adam Smith made the following statement regarding his opposition to the Combating Terrorist Recruitment Act:
Terrorism is about spreading fear. As we combat violent extremism and the spread of dangerous propaganda, we must recognize that hateful ideology originates both overseas and at home. Since the 9/11 attacks, domestic terrorists have killed more people in the United States than foreign terrorist organizations. Numerous domestic terror acts, including those at the Seattle Jewish Federation, Planned Parenthood in Colorado, Oklahoma City, the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin and the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, have made clear that violent extremism is not limited to a single ideology, nor does it always breed on foreign soil.
Earlier this week, the House of Representatives considered H.R. 4820, the Combating Terrorist Recruitment Act. Notably, this bill weakens national security by excluding domestic terror organizations from its focus and ignoring that terrorists are inspired by a broad number of religious, political and ideological beliefs.
Our national security approach must build people-to-people ties, address the root causes of extremism and empower local partners to prevent violent extremism, both here and abroad. In the Puget Sound region, we have seen the damage that hateful and violent rhetoric inflicts on our local community centers and places of worship. We must remain vigilant in our fight against terror networks that seek to do us harm. By opening our eyes to the realities of foreign and domestic terror networks, we can work together to build a more just and peaceful society as we keep America safe.