Share on WeChat
https://www.powervoter.us:443/adam_smith
Copy the link and open WeChat to share.
 Share on WeChat
Copy the link and open WeChat to share.
 Share on WeChat
Scan QRCode using WeChat,and then click the icon at the top-right corner of your screen.
 Share on WeChat
Scan QRCode using WeChat,and then click the icon at the top-right corner of your screen.
Quick Facts
Personal Details

Caucuses/Former Committees

Member, 21st Century Healthcare Caucus

Member, Afterschool Caucus

Member, Alzheimer's Task Force

Member, Arts Caucus

Member, Bike Caucus

Co-Founder, Congressional Caucus for Effective Foreign Assistance

Member, Congressional Fire Service Caucus

Member, Congressional Hearing Caucus

Member, Congressional Kidney Caucus

Former Member, Education Committee, Washington State Senate

Member, European Union Caucus

Former Member, Foreign Affairs Committee, United States House of Representatives

Member, Forest Task Force

Member, Goods Movement Caucus

Member, Historic Preservation Caucus

Member, House Cancer Caucus

Member, House Hunger Caucus

Co-Chair, Intellectual Property Caucus

Member, Kent Drinking Driver Task Force

Former Member, Law and Justice Committees, Washington State Senate

Member, Law Enforcement Caucus

Member, Methamphetamine Caucus

Member, National Parks Caucus

Member, Native American Caucus

Co-Chair, New Democrat Coalition

Member, Northern Border Caucus

Member, Organic Caucus

Member, Pell Grant Caucus

Former Member, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, United States House of Representatives

Member, Port Security Caucus

Member, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus

Member, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education Caucus

Former Member, Select Committee on Benghazi, United States House of Representatives

Member, Soccer Caucus

Former Chair, Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives

Chair, Trade Taskforce

Member, United States-China Working Group

Member, Waterways Caucus

Chair, Law and Justice Committee, Washington State Senate, 1993-1997

Education

  • Attended, Western Washington University
  • JD, University of Washington School of Law, 1990
  • BA, Political Science, Fordham University, 1987

Professional Experience

  • Attended, Western Washington University
  • JD, University of Washington School of Law, 1990
  • BA, Political Science, Fordham University, 1987
  • Prosecuting Attorney, Seattle City Attorney's Office, 1993-1995
  • Contract Attorney, Cromwell, Mendoza and Belur, 1992
  • Prosecutor, City of Seattle, 1989-1990
  • Law Clerk, Schroeder Goldmark and Binder, 1989

Political Experience

  • Attended, Western Washington University
  • JD, University of Washington School of Law, 1990
  • BA, Political Science, Fordham University, 1987
  • Prosecuting Attorney, Seattle City Attorney's Office, 1993-1995
  • Contract Attorney, Cromwell, Mendoza and Belur, 1992
  • Prosecutor, City of Seattle, 1989-1990
  • Law Clerk, Schroeder Goldmark and Binder, 1989
  • Representative, United States House of Representatives, Washington, District 9, 1996-present
  • Democratic Regional Whip, United States House of Representatives
  • Candidate, United States House of Representatives, Washington, District 9, 2018, 2020
  • Senator, Washington State Senate, 1991-1996

Former Committees/Caucuses

Member, 21st Century Healthcare Caucus

Member, Afterschool Caucus

Member, Alzheimer's Task Force

Member, Arts Caucus

Member, Bike Caucus

Co-Founder, Congressional Caucus for Effective Foreign Assistance

Member, Congressional Fire Service Caucus

Member, Congressional Hearing Caucus

Member, Congressional Kidney Caucus

Former Member, Education Committee, Washington State Senate

Member, European Union Caucus

Former Member, Foreign Affairs Committee, United States House of Representatives

Member, Forest Task Force

Member, Goods Movement Caucus

Member, Historic Preservation Caucus

Member, House Cancer Caucus

Member, House Hunger Caucus

Co-Chair, Intellectual Property Caucus

Member, Kent Drinking Driver Task Force

Former Member, Law and Justice Committees, Washington State Senate

Member, Law Enforcement Caucus

Member, Methamphetamine Caucus

Member, National Parks Caucus

Member, Native American Caucus

Co-Chair, New Democrat Coalition

Member, Northern Border Caucus

Member, Organic Caucus

Member, Pell Grant Caucus

Former Member, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, United States House of Representatives

Member, Port Security Caucus

Member, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus

Member, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education Caucus

Member, Soccer Caucus

Former Chair, Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, United States House of Representatives

Chair, Trade Taskforce

Member, United States-China Working Group

Member, Waterways Caucus

Chair, Law and Justice Committee, Washington State Senate, 1993-1997

Current Legislative Committees

Chair, Armed Services Committee

Religious, Civic, and other Memberships

  • Attended, Western Washington University
  • JD, University of Washington School of Law, 1990
  • BA, Political Science, Fordham University, 1987
  • Prosecuting Attorney, Seattle City Attorney's Office, 1993-1995
  • Contract Attorney, Cromwell, Mendoza and Belur, 1992
  • Prosecutor, City of Seattle, 1989-1990
  • Law Clerk, Schroeder Goldmark and Binder, 1989
  • Representative, United States House of Representatives, Washington, District 9, 1996-present
  • Democratic Regional Whip, United States House of Representatives
  • Candidate, United States House of Representatives, Washington, District 9, 2018, 2020
  • Senator, Washington State Senate, 1991-1996
  • Member, Board of Directors, Judson Park Nursing Home
  • Member, Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment
  • Member, Highline Citizens for Schools
  • Member, Kent-Merrimar High School Site-Board Council
  • Member, National Guard and Reserve Components Congressional Members Organization
  • Member, Saint Matthew's Church
  • Member, Sentar Kiwanis Club
  • Member, Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce

Other Info

Astrological Sign:

Gemini

Policy Positions

2021

Abortion

1. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-choice

Budget

1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
- Yes

2. Do you support expanding federal funding to support entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare?
- Yes

Campaign Finance

1. Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- Yes

Crime

Do you support the protection of government officials, including law enforcement officers, from personal liability in civil lawsuits concerning alleged misconduct?
- No

Defense

Do you support increasing defense spending?
- No

Economy

1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes

2. Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
- No

3. Do you support providing financial relief to businesses AND/OR corporations negatively impacted by the state of national emergency for COVID-19?
- Yes

Education

1. Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
- Yes

Energy and Environment

1. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geo-thermal)?
- Yes

2. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- Yes

Guns

1. Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
- Yes

Health Care

1. Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
- No

2. Do you support requiring businesses to provide paid medical leave during public health crises, such as COVID-19?
- Yes

Immigration

1. Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
- No

2. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- No

National Security

1. Should the United States use military force to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a weapon of mass destruction (for example: nuclear, biological, chemical)?
- Unknown Position

2. Do you support reducing military intervention in Middle East conflicts?
- Yes

Trade

Do you generally support removing barriers to international trade (for example: tariffs, quotas, etc.)?
- Yes

Washington Congressional Election 2012 Political Courage Test

Abortion

1. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-choice

Afghanistan

1. Do you support United States' combat operations in Afghanistan?
- Yes

2. Do you support a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan?
- Yes

Budget

Indicate which proposals you support (if any) for balancing the federal budget.In order to balance the budget,

1. do you support reducing defense spending?
- Yes

2. do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
- Yes

3. do you support reducing Medicaid spending?
- No

4. do you support reducing Medicare spending?
- No

5. Is balancing the budget a legislative priority?
- Yes

Campaign Finance

1. Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- Yes

Capital Punishment

Do you support capital punishment for certain crimes?
- Yes

Economy

1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes

2. Do you support providing tax incentives to businesses for the purpose of job creation?
- Yes

3. Do you support spending on infrastructure projects for the purpose of job creation?
- Yes

4. Do you support the temporary extension of unemployment benefits?
- Yes

5. Do you support the 2010 temporary extension of tax relief?
- No

Education

1. It depends greatly on what reforms are being required. For some reforms yes, for others, no.
- Adam Smith. Project Vote Smart: 2012 Political Courage Test. Responded NO ANSWER for “a) Do you support requiring states to implement education reforms in order to be eligible for competitive federal grants?;” b) Other or expanded principles: “It depends greatly on what reforms are being required. For some reforms yes, for others, no.” Adam Smith. Project Vote Smart: 1998 Washington Congressional Political Courage Test. Selected "Slightly Increase" for: "1) Indicate what levels of federal funding you support for the following categories. Select one number (level) only. c) Education (K-12)" Adam Smith. Project Vote Smart: 1998 Washington Congressional Political Courage Test. Did Not Check SUPPORT for: "g) Give all federal education funding to states in the form of block grants and allow them to spend it as they see fit." Adam Smith. Project Vote Smart: 1998 Washington Congressional Political Courage Test. Selected "Local" for: "Indicate which level of government that should have primary responsibility for the following services. Select one level only. c) Education" Adam Smith. Project Vote Smart: 2000 Washington Congressional Political Courage Test. Checked SUPPORT for: "g) Promote education flexibility by giving federal funds, in the form of block grants, to the states to spend it as they see fit." Adam Smith. Project Vote Smart: 1996 Washington Congressional Political Courage Test. Selected "Slightly Increase" for: "1) Indicate what changes you support (if any) concerning levels of federal funding for the following categories. Select one number only. c) Education (K-12)" Adam Smith. Project Vote Smart: 2004 Washington Congressional Political Courage Test. Checked SUPPORT for: "a) Support national standards for and testing of public school students." Adam Smith. Project Vote Smart: 1996 Washington Congressional Political Courage Test. Selected "Yes" for: "2) Do you support the use of block grants given to states, rather than federal spending, in the following areas? b) Education" Adam Smith. Project Vote Smart: 2000 Washington Congressional Political Courage Test. Did Not Check SUPPORT for: "a) Support national standards and testing of public school students." Adam Smith. Project Vote Smart: 2000 Washington Congressional Political Courage Test. Checked SUPPORT for: "l) Eliminate restrictions on federal education funding, giving educators or local school districts more flexibility to design and implement their programs." Adam Smith. Project Vote Smart: 2004 Washington Congressional Political Courage Test. Selected "Slightly Increase" for: "Using the key, indicate what federal funding levels you support for the following general categories. Select one number per category. d) Education" Adam Smith. Project Vote Smart: 1998 Washington Congressional Political Courage Test. Did Not Check SUPPORT for: "a) Support national standards and testing in reading and math." Adam Smith. Project Vote Smart: 2004 Washington Congressional Political Courage Test. Did Not Check SUPPORT for: "j) Providing education is not a responsibility of the federal government." Adam Smith. Project Vote Smart: 1996 Washington Congressional Political Courage Test. Selected "State" for: "Indicate which level of government should have primary responsibility for the following services. Select one level only. 3) Education" Adam Smith. Project Vote Smart: 1996 Washington Congressional Political Courage Test. Did Not Check SUPPORT for: "e) Eliminate the Department of Education, thereby giving state and local government greater control over educational issues." Adam Smith. Education. 30 August 2012. “NCLB established the idea that we must measure academic progress and ensure that students are achieving at appropriate levels as they progress through K-12 education. It also guards against schools failing to properly serve minority groups by separately measuring how each group is doing instead of measuring all students together. I strongly support these provisions of the law. When schools are truly failing, NCLB offers parents and communities various options to fix the problem. But as it is currently structured, NCLB makes it virtually impossible for any school to succeed. The requirement that all students must be above Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) by 2014 has led to award-winning schools to be labeled “failing”. Developmentally Disabled and ESL students who face unique challenges in the classroom are forced to take tests that are counted toward a school’s failure. This is demoralizing for teachers, administrators, and students, making it more difficult to identify schools that are truly failing. These problems can and must be fixed. Once we have adequate models for performance criteria that are collectively agreed upon by all stakeholders, we must implement them. However, I do not support a policy of tying teachers’ salaries to test scores.” (adamsmith.house.gov) Adam Smith. HR 2300. 106th Congress. Academic Achievement for All Act. Adam Smith voted Nay on 10/21/1999. (votesmart.org) Adam Smith. Smith Votes to Keep America Competitive. 2 August 2007. “U.S. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) today voted for H.R. 2272, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science Act (COMPETES) Act, part of the House Democrats' Innovation Agenda […] The legislation authorizes $22 billion over fiscal years 2008 - 2010 for research, education and other programs at the NSF; $2.65 billion for the research labs, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and other activities at the NIST, and $17 billion, over fiscal years 2008 to 2010, for programs at the DOE, including $150 million for K-12 science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) educational programs.” (votesmart.org) Adam Smith. Issue Position: Education. 1 January 2011.“Vigorous standards and holding schools accountable to those standards is imperative in ensuring that our children are ready to face the increasingly complex challenges that the future holds. As part of this accountability, we owe to the next generation of Americans a strong K-12 public education system. I support increased funding for local schools and more efficient methods of sending federal dollars to local classrooms, so that those school districts that need help most, get the extra boost they need from federal funding.” (votesmart.org) Adam Smith. New Democrat Statement 2nd Anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. 8 January 2004. “This week marks the two-year anniversary of the enactment of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. New Democrats played an integral role in ensuring that NCLB refocused federal education policy on raising academic achievement for every child, provided public schools with more funding and flexibility, targeted those new dollars to districts with the greatest needs, and demanded accountability for results […] We remain committed to improving the performance and accountability of our schools.” (votesmart.org) Adam Smith. No Child Left Behind act gets off to poor start - but needs repairs, not repeal. 25 January 2004. “NCLB contains a number of new or expanded requirements for states and local educational agencies that receive federal assistance. The 2001-2002 school year was the "base year" for the new adequate yearly progress standards -- performance in future years will be compared to this period […] Creating unfunded mandates for school reform is a surefire path to generating grass roots opposition to the law. We must provide states and school systems with the necessary financial resources to implement NCLB if we want to make sure it's effective […] Many people throughout the state have looked at these criticisms and have called for a full repeal of this law. We should strengthen this law, not repeal it.” (votesmart.org) Adam Smith. Outsourcing of Jobs. 29 March 2004. “The real number of degrees that U.S. students are receiving in those three key areas, math, science, and engineering, have gone down every year for the last decade. We are putting out fewer people with the skills that are desperately needed, and there are changes that we can make in our education system from the K-12 system forward that will help us deal with that and compete better. We need to set high standards. We need to place emphasis in the K through 12 level on math and science to get our students interested in it.” (votesmart.org) Adam Smith. U.S. Representative Adam Smith Votes Against Flawed Bill Funding Labor, Health, Education Programs. 14 December 2005. “The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program, an important tool in rehabilitating America's troubled public schools, is cut by more than $700 million. Funding for Title I, which is the core of NCLB's efforts to improve reading and math skills for disadvantaged children, received the smallest increase for Title I in 8 years, which means 3.1 million low-income children will be negatively affected by this cut.” (votesmart.org) “NCLB established the idea that we must measure academic progress and ensure that students are achieving at appropriate levels as they progress through K-12 education. It also guards against schools failing to properly serve minority groups by separately measuring how each group is doing instead of measuring all students together. I strongly support these provisions of the law.” https://adamsmith.house.gov/issues/education (adamsmith.house.gov) “This is an overdue critical start for the replacement of two of the five aging schools at JBLM. All students in our community deserve the highest quality education and first-rate facilities. This money will ensure the children at JBLM will receive both.” http://votesmart.org/public-statement/714761/murray-cantwell-dicks-smith-announce-50-million-oea-grant-for-schools-on-jblm#.VYQ8XXUVhHw (votesmart.org) “NCLB established the idea that we must measure academic progress and ensure that students are achieving at appropriate levels as they progress through K-12 education. It also guards against schools failing to properly serve minority groups by separately measuring how each group is doing instead of measuring all students together. I strongly support these provisions of the law.” https://adamsmith.house.gov/issues/education (adamsmith.house.gov) “Supported full funding of the No Child Left Behind Act, and changing the "one-size-fits-all" testing plan so that testing accurately reflects learning, and performance indicators other than test scores are included.” http://votesmart.org/public-statement/905750/issue-position-education (votesmart.org) “This is an overdue critical start for the replacement of two of the five aging schools at JBLM. All students in our community deserve the highest quality education and first-rate facilities. This money will ensure the children at JBLM will receive both.” http://votesmart.org/public-statement/714761/murray-cantwell-dicks-smith-announce-50-million-oea-grant-for-schools-on-jblm#.VYQ8XXUVhHw (votesmart.org)

Energy

Do you support reducing restrictions on offshore energy production?
- No

Environment

1. Do you believe that human activity is contributing to climate change?
- Yes

2. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- Yes

Guns

1. Do you support restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns?
- Yes

Health Care

1. Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act?
- No

2. Should individuals be required to purchase health insurance, as mandated in the 2010 Affordable Care Act?
- Yes

Immigration

1. Do you support requiring illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- No

2. Do you support allowing illegal immigrants, who were brought to the United States as minors, to pursue citizenship without returning to their country of origin?
- Yes

3. Do you support the enforcement of federal immigration law by state and local police?
- No

Marriage

Do you support same-sex marriage?
- Yes

National Security

1. Should the U.S use military force in order to prevent Iran from possessing a nuclear weapon?
- No

2. Regarding the targeting of suspected terrorists, it depends greatly on what one means by "outside of official theaters of conflict." I support strikes in places like Yemen and Somalia where Al-Qaeda affiliates directly threaten us. But in almost all other places, no.
- Adam Smith. Project Vote Smart: 2012 Political Courage Test. Selected NO ANSWER for “a)Do you support targeting suspected terrorists outside of official theaters of conflict?;” f) Other or expanded principles: “Regarding the targeting of suspected terrorists, it depends greatly on what one means by 'outside of official theaters of conflict.' I support strikes in places like Yemen and Somalia where Al-Qaeda affiliates directly threaten us. But in almost all other places, no.” New York Times “For the first time in our history, an entity has declared a covert war against us. And we are using similar elements of American power to respond to that covert war.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/world/15shadowwar.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (www.nytimes.com) “I support a comprehensive foreign policy strategy that will counter the philosophy of religious extremism and anti-American venom that we are currently battling. This means policies that understand and respect other nations and encourages self-determination, democracy, human rights, economic development, and much greater access to education, health care, and jobs.” https://adamsmith.house.gov/issues/international-leadership (adamsmith.house.gov) “Going forward, we must use technology as a tool for securing our nation and fighting the war on terrorism. This means leveraging our national assets – including the National Labs, universities, the private sector, and small business – to develop and bring to bear technologies designed to protect critical infrastructure, identify threats, and prevent potential attacks.” http://votesmart.org/public-statement/369380/issue-position-homeland-security#.VYREyXUVhHw (votesmart.org) “During our trip, we were able to learn more about SOCOM's excellent work in Southeast Asia and get a better sense of the global challenge we face from the spread of a violent, totalitarian ideology. One thing is clear following this trip: the next president faces an enormous challenge in rebalancing our worldwide force distribution to adequately fight terrorism in nations other than Iraq.” https://adamsmith.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/smith-leads-counter-terrorism-delegation-to-pacific-region (adamsmith.house.gov) New York Times “For the first time in our history, an entity has declared a covert war against us. And we are using similar elements of American power to respond to that covert war.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/world/15shadowwar.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (www.nytimes.com) “I support a comprehensive foreign policy strategy that will counter the philosophy of religious extremism and anti-American venom that we are currently battling. This means policies that understand and respect other nations and encourages self-determination, democracy, human rights, economic development, and much greater access to education, health care, and jobs.” https://adamsmith.house.gov/issues/international-leadership (adamsmith.house.gov) “Going forward, we must use technology as a tool for securing our nation and fighting the war on terrorism. This means leveraging our national assets – including the National Labs, universities, the private sector, and small business – to develop and bring to bear technologies designed to protect critical infrastructure, identify threats, and prevent potential attacks.” http://votesmart.org/public-statement/369380/issue-position-homeland-security#.VYREyXUVhHw (votesmart.org) “During our trip, we were able to learn more about SOCOM's excellent work in Southeast Asia and get a better sense of the global challenge we face from the spread of a violent, totalitarian ideology. One thing is clear following this trip: the next president faces an enormous challenge in rebalancing our worldwide force distribution to adequately fight terrorism in nations other than Iraq.” https://adamsmith.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/smith-leads-counter-terrorism-delegation-to-pacific-region (adamsmith.house.gov) Hearing Of The House Armed Services Committee - Department Of Defense Budget Request For Fiscal Year 2010. 13 May 2009. “It's not just in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan. In North Africa, in the Horn of Africa, Southeast Asia, we are fighting insurgencies at various levels, and we need more equipment there, more ISR capabilities most particular, and more focus from the Special Operations folks, to fight that.” (votesmart.org) Adam Smith. Smith's Statement On President's Speech On Afghanistan. 1 December 2009. “It is clear that we face an enormous and difficult challenge in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other extremist groups in the region have a complex set of relationships spanning across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and these ideologies pose a grave threat to the United States and our allies. If the Taliban were to regain control of substantial portions of Afghanistan, or recapture the government they would provide al-Qaeda a safe haven from which to operate, and we can not allow this to happen […] Ultimately, I believe that we need a strategy to contain the threat in this region.” (votesmart.org) Adam Smith. Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3081, Department Of State, Foreign Operations, And Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010. 9 July 2009. “We have seen a major commitment in this bill on the central focus in our efforts right now, which is in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I applaud that effort. But also understand that this bill recognizes that it is broader than just Pakistan and Afghanistan. Throughout the Middle East, throughout Africa, throughout Southeast Asia, failed and failing states are a major contributor to instability and the rise of violent extremist groups. Getting our global development policy right is critical to stopping that effort. This bill makes that commitment.” (votesmart.org) Scott Shane, Mark Mazzetti, and Robert F. Worth. New York Times. Secret Assault on Terrorism Widens on Two Continents. 14 August 2010. “Some American officials believe that militants in Yemen could now pose an even greater threat than Al Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan. The officials said that they have benefited from the Yemeni government’s new resolve to fight Al Qaeda and that the American strikes — carried out with cruise missiles and Harrier fighter jets — had been approved by Yemen’s leaders. The strikes, administration officials say, have killed dozens of militants suspected of plotting future attacks. The Pentagon and the C.I.A. have quietly bulked up the number of their operatives at the embassy in Sana, the Yemeni capital, over the past year. 'Where we want to get is to much more small scale, preferably locally driven operations. For the first time in our history, an entity has declared a covert war against us,' Mr. Smith said, referring to Al Qaeda. 'And we are using similar elements of American power to respond to that covert war.'” (www.nytimes.com)

Social Security

Do you support allowing individuals to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts?
- No

Spending and Taxes

SpendingIndicate what federal spending levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories. Select one number per category; you can use a number more than once.TaxesIndicate what federal tax levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories. Select one number per category; you can use a number more than once.

1. Agriculture
- Maintain Status

2. Arts
- Maintain Status

3. Defense
- Slightly Decrease

4. Education
- Slightly Increase

5. Environment
- Slightly Increase

6. Homeland Security
- Maintain Status

7. International aid
- Slightly Increase

8. Medical Research
- Slightly Increase

9. Scientific Research
- Slightly Increase

10. Space exploration
- Maintain Status

11. United Nations
- Slightly Increase

12. Welfare
- Maintain Status

13. Other or expanded categories
- No Answer

14. Capital gains taxes
- Slightly Increase

15. Corporate taxes
- Slightly Increase

16. Excise taxes (alcohol)
- Slightly Increase

17. Excise taxes (cigarettes)
- Slightly Increase

18. Excise taxes (transportation fuel)
- Slightly Increase

19. Income taxes (low-income families)
- Maintain Status

20. Income taxes (middle-income families)
- Maintain Status

21. Income taxes (high-income families)
- Slightly Increase

22. Inheritance taxes
- Slightly Increase

23. Payroll taxes
- Maintain Status

2019

Abortion

1. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-choice

Budget

1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
- Yes

2. In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending?
- Yes

Campaign Finance

1. Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- Yes

Economy

1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes

2. Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
- No

Education

1. Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
- Yes

Energy & Environment

1. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, thermal)?
- Yes

2. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- Yes

Guns

1. Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
- Yes

Health Care

1. Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
- No

Immigration

1. Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
- No

2. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- No

Marijuana

Do you support the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes?
- Unknown Position

National Security

1. Should the United States use military force in order to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a nuclear weapon?
- Unknown Position

2. Do you support increased American intervention in Middle Eastern conflicts beyond air support?
- Unknown Position

Congress Bills
Speeches
Articles

Defense News - With billions of dollars at stake, let's responsibly and deliberately spend America's funds

Aug. 6, 2020

By Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Adam Smith This week we broke a record: In the second quarter of 2020, the U.S. economy fell at an annual rate of 33 percent. As the largest annualized drop in our history, this staggering statistic underscores the breadth and depth of the coronavirus' effect across all industries, including the defense industrial base. As Congress considers competing proposals for COVID-19 relief, we must ensure that any additional funds provided to the Department of Defense are targeted to protecting jobs and strengthening our industrial base. But we owe it to taxpayers to apply oversight and negotiate on their behalf. We cannot panic and hand out blank checks to defense contractors. To do so would set an irresponsible precedent for years to come. Congress has acknowledged that our industrial base needs help during this pandemic. In March, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act included a provision, Section 3610, to allow employees of federal contractors with critical skills to remain paid if the federal facilities where they work closed due to the pandemic. This additional flexibility would keep workers ready to return as soon as conditions allowed. Since then, Section 3610 has taken on a life of its own, with senior administration officials estimating that agencies across the federal government could be on the hook for billions of dollars to carry out this law. With debate on the next coronavirus supplemental bill upon us, the calls for new funding are growing louder. We must explain to American taxpayers and workers what is, and is not, at stake. The confusion stems from two separate issues: whether to use the generous funding already provided to the Department of Defense to pay contractors for the time they were locked out of their workplaces; and to what extent the pandemic and economic shock will make it more expensive to build weapons and perform research now and in the coming years. The Department of Defense has unofficially asked Congress for nearly $11 billion in emergency funds to cover these costs for this year alone, split between these two purposes. The lack of detail in this request raises serious questions. For example, why are other federal agencies finding money in their regular budget to pay for their 3610 contractor pay claims, but the Pentagon cannot? Americans should know that the CARES Act appropriated $10.5 billion for defense needs, with nearly unlimited flexibility for the Department of Defense to reprogram these funds to address urgent priorities. In addition to that infusion of money, the department has numerous other ways to support defense contractors. At the outset of the coronavirus, the department worked with states and localities to deem defense contractors as essential and therefore able to continue working. In April, the department issued a regulatory change on progress payments for existing contracts, increasing the cash flow to the defense industrial base and encouraging major contractors to advance cash to the supply chain, infusing billions of dollars in cash to companies that needed near-term cash flow. And this brings us to our real problem with the $11 billion set aside for contractor reimbursements in this latest emergency appropriations bill: We do not know what it is for, what problems it will and will not fix, and why other funding and tools are not working. We also suspect that the Pentagon has not done its homework on behalf of American taxpayers before asking for this money. The proposal appears to be based on contractor requests, in the midst of a rapidly changing situation, without asking tough questions about how the funds would be used to prevent American job loss and what the long-term budgeting and recovery strategy may be. Before Congress provides many billions of dollars to make up for the work that has been lost due to coronavirus closures, we should know which programs have been impacted, how much each program may need to recover and whether taxpayers will be on the hook for more money if the disruptions continue. The Department of Defense, in particular, has a weapons budget that exceeds the highest levels of the Reagan-era defense buildup -- even when adjusted for inflation. Given the amount of base and supplemental funds already at the department's disposal, Congress needs more thorough justification for additional spending, both for Section 3610 and for other needs. Generally speaking, it might make sense to appropriate additional funds to make sure that a shipbuilding program or airplane is completed on time. In other cases, however, taxpayers may reasonably question whether it is worth paying more money in light of other priorities. We have before us a unique opportunity to think strategically about future readiness risks and make the defense industrial base more resilient. Hastily throwing money at the problem is simply not the solution to a complex problem. We appreciate the hard work of the hundreds of thousands of companies, of all sizes, that make up the defense industrial base. When the Pentagon spends CARES Act dollars, or any appropriations, we depend on senior leaders to negotiate hard with defense companies to get the best deal for the taxpayers. There is nothing wrong with tough negotiating when billions of dollars are at stake; as public servants, it is our duty. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., is the Democratic whip and the ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Committee's Defense Subcommittee. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Defense News - FCC and Ligado are undermining GPS -- and with it, our economy and national security

Apr. 22, 2020

By Sen. Jim Inhofe, Sen. Jack Reed, Rep. Adam Smith, Rep. Mac Thornberry The FCC granted Ligado (formerly known as LightSquared) permission to repurpose spectrum adjacent to GPS frequencies for a terrestrial cellular network -- framing this proposal as essential to "winning the race to 5G." But what Ligado has done is conflate two different and important spectrum issues: the sharing of mid-band 5G spectrum by the Department of Defense and commercial industry, and harmful interference of Ligado's signal with the low-band GPS signals used in nearly every aspect of daily life. The result: some members of Congress, members of the administration, and the public are now confused about the real and immediate impacts of Ligado's proposal. So, we wanted to clarify things: domestic 5G development is critical to our economic competiveness against China and for our national security. The Pentagon is committed working with government and industry to share mid-band spectrum where and when it makes sense to ensure rapid roll-out of 5G. The problem here is that Ligado's planned usage is not in the prime mid-band spectrum being considered for 5G -- and it will have a significant risk of interference with GPS reception, according to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The signals interference Ligado's plan would create could cost taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars and require the replacement of current GPS equipment just as we are trying to get our economy back on its feet quickly -- and the FCC has just allowed this to happen. Think of all the ways Americans use GPS each and every day. GPS satellites provide free precise timing and navigation that powers thousands of functions: making financial transactions at our banks, keeping the lights on in our homes, traveling around the country -- the list goes on and on. Studies show GPS satellites contribute at least $1 billion to our economy every single day. GPS also forms the backbone of countless military operations and applications -- to get supplies to our war fighters on the battlefield, guide unmanned aircraft and vehicles, target its precision weapons, and much more. It would be practically impossible to identify and repair or replace all of the potentially adversely affected receivers. It would "needlessly imperil [Department of Defense] GPS-dependent national security capabilities," per Secretary Esper, putting the war fighter, U.S. Space Force, military readiness, and even the defense of our homeland at risk. American families and businesses would lose coverage or be forced to use systems from our strategic competitors, China and Russia, jeopardizing our global leadership in precision timing. We're not the only ones with serious concerns. Nine federal departments and agencies have completed extensive engineering tests and analyses on Ligado's proposal; and the results are clear: Ligado's plan would interfere with millions of GPS receivers across the nation. The Departments of Defense, Commerce, Interior, Justice, Homeland Security, Energy, and Transportation -- as well as NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation Administration -- all strongly object to Ligado's plan. What kind of precedent is the FCC setting by disregarding near unanimous opposition of federal agencies to this proposal? It's not just the government, either -- industry leaders representing GPS, satellite communications services, automotive companies, commercial aviation, and weather data have also voiced concerns over Ligado's proposal. We would expect that the FCC listen not just to Ligado's privately funded research, but also broad-based, in-depth research from experts in national security and other fields. This makes it all the more confusing -- why is the FCC ignoring all the evidence, especially now, at the height of a global crisis? The Ligado application highlights the need to use a technical, data-driven approach to balance the use of the spectrum between war fighter requirements and commercial needs, rather than strong-arming a proposal through the process like the FCC just did. We can expect this issue to be an ongoing national security challenge. If we want to strike a responsible balance moving forward, the U.S. government must modernize the infrastructure needed to manage and share spectrum efficiently, promote policy and technology innovation, and improve the ability of military systems to operate alongside commercial systems. Considering the risks, it's clear the FCC commissioners made the wrong decision regarding Ligado's plan, which will set a disastrous precedent while impeding ongoing work on spectrum sharing. The vulnerabilities to our national and economic security are not worth the risk, particularly for a band of spectrum that isn't necessary to secure a robust 5G network. We encourage the FCC to withdraw its approval of Ligado's application and take this opportunity to work with the NTIA and other federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense and Transportation, to find a solution that will both support commercial broadband expansion and protect national security assets. Moreover, we expect the FCC to resolve Department of Defense concerns before moving forward, as required by law. If they do not, and unless President Trump intervenes to stop this from moving forward, it will be up to Congress to clean up this mess. Senator Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., is the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Events

2020

Oct. 17
Virtual Town Hall with Rep. Adam Smith

Sat 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM EDT

Jun. 23
Virtual Town Hall with Rep. Adam Smith

Tue 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM PDT