Adam Smith

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2676, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act. As a proud cosponsor of this bill, I also want to thank the Commission chaired by Congressman Portman and Senator Kerrey, along with Chairman Archer and the Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, for bringing us to where we are today. I was disheartened to find that more than 150 people have contacted my office this year looking for help with the IRS. Most of those individuals are honest, hard-working people who don't mind paying their fair share of taxes, they just want the IRS to be more helpful. Sometimes the IRS has made mistakes and admitted wrongdoing, yet the agency won't correct them and adjust the taxpayer's bill. Other times, the taxpayer simply has questions and can't get a straight answer from the IRS. Mr. Speaker, one of my primary goals in Congress is to help restore people's faith and trust in their government. Without public confidence in our democracy, it is impossible to lead this nation into the next century. This bill to reform the IRS to make it more accountable and customer-friendly is one important step Congress must take in order to regain some of the public's trust in government. This bill will make the IRS more accountable by creating an outside oversight board with real power to perform consistent, ongoing oversight of IRS management and practices. It will make it easier for a taxpayer to comply with tax laws because when they request information or ask questions, they will be able to get answers. Furthermore, Congress will finally be forced to provide the oversight it has been so delinquent in doing. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2676. It is a good bill, and a very important step toward restoring the public's trust in our government.

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule to join two bills, H.R. 2746 and H.R. 2616. These bills reflect two fundamentally different concepts of what is needed to improve the education system in our country, and combination is absolutely unacceptable. H.R. 2746, Helping Empower Lower Income Parents Scholarships, is a voucher bill that will steal money from our public school system. At a time when our public school system is in desperate need of resources to assure all children in this country are given the educational opportunities they deserve, this bill moves us in the wrong direction. Giving a small number of students taxpayer money to attend a private school does nothing to improve our school system as a whole and takes away resources from the 90 percent of the children in our country who attend public schools. This is not the kind of change we need. H.R. 2616, the Charter School Amendments, is the type of innovation that could improve our public school system and these changes make sense. Charter schools provide for local control and opportunities for innovation in a public school system, while assuring the schools are held accountable to specified standards. All students can take advantage of the opportunities that charter schools provide and these changes encourage the first class schools that we are looking for in our public school system. Congress must be allowed the opportunity to debate and vote on these two fundamentally different bills separately.

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reluctantly oppose H.R. 2107, the Interior appropriations conference report. There are many programs in this appropriations conference report that I strongly support. I applaud the conferees on their decision to restore funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. I thank President Clinton for his leadership in restoring funds for the land and water conservation fund. I also commend my colleague Senator Slade Gorton for dropping his opposition to removal of two dams on the Elwha River and allowing the dams to be eligible for acquisition and future removal. However, I am voting against the legislation because of an issue that has been very controversial amongst my constituents throughout the Interior appropriations process. Earlier this year the House approved an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill which would have reduced the appropriation for the roads budget of the Forest Service and would have placed a cap on the use of the Purchaser Road Credit Program. Offered as a compromise, the Dicks amendment was a balanced alternative to an enormously controversial policy of the Forest Service. The Purchaser Road Credit Program may have been an effective tool for some small timber companies in the past, but I feel that it has outlived its usefulness and should be phased out. Timber companies should take more financial responsibility up front when roads are needed for a timber harvest on public lands, as they do currently on private lands. Unfortunately, the Interior appropriations conferees refused to accept this compromise language, instead opting to raise the cap on the Purchaser Road Credit Program. I am disappointed because the House approved the Dicks amendment, the Senate came within one vote of approving a very similar amendment, and President Clinton has indicated his willingness to begin phasing out the Purchaser Road Credit Program. Again, I regret that I cannot support this bill because there are many good things in it. However, my concern that we are not taking the first step to reform the outdated Purchaser Road Credit program has forced me to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to echo the comments of my colleagues and urge that this body bring up campaign finance reform and pass meaningful campaign finance reform in this session. I think the biggest reason I want to see this happen is because of the lack of confidence that the public has in this body. There is a crisis in our democracy that I think too few people have noticed; that is, the majority of the citizens of this democracy do not have trust and confidence in their government. That is essential in a democracy. The people are the government. If they do not trust us, we have a crisis that blocks our ability to stand up to almost any meaningful issue. I have said before that it is impossible to lead if no one is willing to follow. We cannot step up to problems like health care, Social Security and Medicare reform, balancing the budget, or education. A lot of meaningful issues have taken longer and longer to deal with because the public does not trust its leaders. There are a lot of reasons for that. Some of them are justified and some of them are not, admittedly. One reason for the distrust is the system by which we elect our Representatives, the system by which we finance campaigns. There is a perception and a reality out there that the campaigns are funded almost exclusively by people with a lot of money. If you do not have a lot of money to bring to the process, you have no access to the process, and that has turned people off. We are seeing lower and lower numbers of people participating in the system. We need to show them that we can change this system in order to get their confidence back, so we can govern again. Ironically, I have heard a lot of my colleagues tell me that, gosh, when we go home for town meetings, when we talk to people, no one is talking about campaign finance reform. It is not really an issue they care about. It is not a so-called pocketbook issue. It does not directly affect their ability to get a job or feed their family or educate their children, so therefore, they really do not care about it. But what I have heard when I go home on the weekend, and go out and talk to the people in my district, is the reason they do not care about it is because they do not think we are going to do anything about it. We sort of have a self-fulfilling prophecy with Members of Congress saying, gosh, the public does not care, and not doing anything about it, so yes, the public does not care because they do not think anything is going to happen. They do not believe this body is ever going to step up to the plate and change it, because they think we are comfortable in the current system. If we want them to care about it, we have to show them we are serious about it. That is the first point. The second point is, they do care about it on a deeper level. They care about it in the sense that they do not trust the system of government. We do not want a democracy where the people do not care about their system of government. We cannot say we do not need to step up to an issue because apathy has overtaken it. We need an active and involved electorate in a democracy, if we are truly going to be able to represent the people. That means we need to pass campaign finance reform. I rise specifically in support of House bill 1776, which is the updated version of the Shays-Meehan bill. I do that because there are two very important aspects to that bill. First of all, it bans soft money. I do not believe that there is anything wrong with people participating in our election system. I, for one, do not believe that we should go to an exclusively publicly financed system. I think it is very important that the members of a community are personally involved in campaigns, that they support the candidates that they like and get involved in the process so they are more involved in it down the road. It is important that people contribute. The only time we have a problem is when those contributions are so large from certain people as to drown out the rest. When someone has the ability to give $100,000, $200,000, $300,000 to a system, I can readily understand how one of my constituents says, gosh, all I can do is afford to give $50, and what difference does it make, if the politicians are going to get $100,000, $200,000, $300,000 from somebody else? Back in the 1970's we came up with a reform proposal to deal with this. We placed limits on the amount people could contribute: $1,000 for an individual, $5,000 for a group of individuals, what is known as a PAC. I think that is perfectly appropriate. Those are real limits that allow everybody to participate up to a certain point. The problem is, with soft money those limits are meaningless. We see fundraisers every day around here for $5,000, $10,000, as much as $25,000 or $50,000 a person. I remember hearing a story from somebody about how many $100,000 contributors Michael Dukakis had back in 1988, and I was stunned by this notion. I said, but there are limits, $1,000 per person. How could any Presidential candidates have a $100,000 contributor? The answer of course was it was soft money. It was interesting to me. The person who was telling this made no distinction whatsoever between the soft money contribution and the individual contribution. There is a very good reason for that. Around the halls of Washington, DC, there is no distinction. Soft money has rendered limits meaningless. We need to ban soft money in order to make those 1970 reforms have some meaning. I can understand the cynicism of the public in dealing with that issue. I urge that we support campaign finance reform. The other aspect of the bill that I like is putting some teeth in the Federal Elections Commission and actually enforcing the laws.

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago this House passed a good foreign operations bill, a bill which was structured to help ensure stability, prosperity, equality, and peace to our neighbors and allies around the world. But on that very same day, we witnessed an outrageous and cowardly act of terrorism, a triple bombing that shook the city of Jerusalem. And we were reminded that there are those who do not want peace, people who would destroy and tear down rather than resolving differences through negotiation and compromise. Such actions are completely intolerable, and so I stand here today to reiterate what Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has already stated, that the United States expects a ``100 percent effort'' by the Palestinian Authority to stop militants from using areas under Palestinian self-rule as a springboard for attacks on Israel. On this issue there can be no compromise. A serious discussion of peace can not take place while terrorists are receiving nods and winks by the negotiators who are sitting at the bargaining tables. And let us not confuse the issue, bombs are not the same as bulldozers. Recently, many papers have printed that this new wave of bombings is the result of controversial housing policies. While the Middle East peace process has had to overcome many obstacles, and will certainly have to continue to overcome many more, we can not begin to compare the actions of terrorists to the building policies of a government. There is no moral equivalency. So as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright begins her visit to the Middle East today, I call upon all the parties involved to bring their issues to the bargaining table. The terrorists are waging war, and it is a war on peace. As difficult as it may be, we must find a compromise because we cannot let the terrorists win. There is much too much to lose.

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of this resolution and in opposition to European interference with the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger. What this should be about is competition. I think to the extent we move toward global competition rewarding the best competitor, the most efficient participator in a given market, then that is good and we are moving forward. The problem that the European Union and Airbus seem to have is that that best competitor right now has been Boeing for the last several years. They have consistently won the better contracts through fair and efficient competition. And we should reward that, not punish it. If the European Union raised an argument that Boeing was doing something improper, unfair competition on some levels, they would have a point and it would be appropriate. But they do not, and it is not. The type of things that they are raising is basic competition. It is almost like Airbus is negotiating this deal, not the European Union, and that is totally inappropriate. Airbus should compete on the economic field, in the marketplace with Boeing, not through the use of their government, as has been mentioned. Airbus is subsidized itself. Their complaints in this ring very, very hollow. The last point that I want to make is that our Government and our country must stand strong on behalf of Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and the entire country and not let the European Union unfairly use trade agreements to push us around and stop our economic advancement. It is in the best interest of the whole marketplace of the world in addition to the United States, and we must do it. I strongly urge the President to stand strong and stand behind Boeing for fairness, and I support this resolution.

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act. The Perkins program provides much-needed vocational and technical education to students around the country. Federal investment in vocational-technical education is vital for assuring a well-trained work force for the upcoming century. The Perkins Act distributes vocational education funds to the local level to ensure that our students are taught the necessary skills to be productive citizens. Investing more in education and training our work force to better compete is a sensible and farsighted way to spend our Federal funds. Just last month, I visited Chief Leschi School in Puyallup, WA. My office helped them apply for their first Perkins grant. They won the grant, and they will receive over $370,000 to put toward vocational and technology programs. The grant money will fund computers and equipment for the vocational department, such as the auto, wood, and print shops and the photography lab. When I toured Chief Leschi, I saw how important these grants could be. I met motivated administrators, high- quality teachers and students who were eager to learn. It's critical to provide them with the equipment and facilities they need to be successful, and because of the Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act, Chief Leschi will soon have even stronger vocational and technical programs. Again, I urge my colleagues' support to reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act. The Perkins grant has made an important difference in the quality to our Nation's vocational and technical education, and we should reauthorize the program to ensure it is maintained for the students of tomorrow.

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate Camelot Elementary School in Auburn, WA, for their recent selection as a Blue Ribbon School. It is an honor to have this school in the Ninth Congressional District. Only 263 schools nationwide are awarded this honor. The Blue Ribbon School status is awarded to schools which have strong leadership; a clear vision, and sense of mission that is shared by all connected with the school; high-quality teaching; challenging, up-to-date curriculum; policies and practices that ensure a safe environment conducive to learning; a solid commitment to parental involvement; and evidence that the school helps all students achieve high standards. I commend the staff, students, and parents of Camelot Elementary School for their hard work in building an effective community for learning. The focus on literacy and assuring students obtain the essential skills needed for life is absolutely necessary and I am glad we have Camelot Elementary School as an example for how we need to work toward in educating our children.

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in support of the Conyers amendment to disclose the aggregate budget of the Committee on Intelligence to the full public. I think the important thing to remember is the presumption should always be in favor of disclosure. As I listened to the arguments against, I do not hear anything to rebut that presumption. I think the American public wants to know as much as possible about what we do back here. Part of the reason why this institution has the confidence problem it has with this country is they figure we are keeping stuff from them, that we do not trust them to know what is going on back here, and they feel left out of the process. There should be a strong presumption in letting them into as much of the process as is humanly possible. If there is some special reason here why that cannot be done, fine. We can explain it and keep it secret. But no special reason has been offered during the course of this debate not to release the aggregate figure that we spend on intelligence in this country. There have been some camel's nose under the tent arguments about how in the future we might authorize the release of something that would cause a problem, but that is not good enough. That does not rebut the presumption that this body should have to disclose whatever possible to the public. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington

Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I too rise in support of the budget resolution before us today. While there are many reasons that I support it, there are two that stand out; it represents fiscal responsibility and bipartisan cooperation. The two things my constituents told me that they wanted during the course of my above campaign were anything else bipartisan cooperation and fiscal responsibility. They feel both of those things are desperately needed back here in Congress. I feel this resolution is the first step toward delivering on those requests and strongly support it. Now, it is not perfect and I do not think any one person in this body would have drafted it exactly as it came out, but that is the nature of compromise. Compromise does not mean we get the other side to do what we want; compromise means we find middle ground we can all live with in order to make progress on difficult issues. As strongly as I support this budget resolution for its fiscal responsibility and bipartisan cooperation, it is but the first step. There is more work to be done by this Congress and by future Congresses if we are going to maintain the fiscal responsibility we need to balance the budget. I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in opposition to H.R. 1. It is basically another blow to the working men and women of our country, and it is important to look at one critical question. As was said by the worker I believe was from Iowa that the majority party cited: If I had the choice. Well, it has been pointed out numerous times the employee does not have the choice in this bill, and that is the critical factor. The employer controls, as they do far too often, the working conditions that men and women face in this country. But what I really want to get into is why this bill is here today. To hear from the majority party and supporters of this measure, we would think that a grassroots movement rose up of working people in this country and demanded comp time, that it was from the people, when everyone on this floor knows that this bill came to us from the employer community. They are the ones who wanted it; they are the ones who lobbied for it. Now, I am not going to say that the employer community never cares about its workers. Certainly they do, but they have another agenda on this bill. That is the agenda that we have heard far too often in the 1990's: reduce labor costs. That is why this bill is here, folks. It is not working men and women who rose up and asked for this. It is the employer community that rose up and asked for this in another effort to reduce labor costs. Mr. Speaker, I just want to briefly remind my colleagues that labor costs are wages. I grew up in a working family. My father was a baggage handler at United Airlines and a union man who was paid $16 an hour the year he died. Those were labor costs. Labor costs to me is the house that I grew up in, the clothes that I wore, the food that I ate, and eventually the education that I was able to get because labor costs were made available to average people in this country. Please do not mistake what this bill is all about. The employers simply want another advantage. Look at the record of the last 15 or 20 years. Do they really need it? Have we not reduced the wages of the working men and women of this country sufficiently? And has not the wages of the upper income brackets in our country gone up sufficiently? Do we need to once again tilt the balance against the working men and women of this country? I do not believe so. Please let us protect labor costs and vote down this measure.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to the students and teachers of Washington State for their accomplishments in the area of music education in our State. Research shows that music is an important tool for building a more creative and intelligent populace and music study helps students to perform better in academic and social settings. March is Music in Our Schools Month and an appropriate time to pay tribute to the students, parents, and teachers in our State who work diligently throughout the year to call attention to the importance of music education in our schools. I would like to pay a special tribute to Grass Lake Elementary School in Kent, WA, for their contribution to the Music Educator's 13th Annual World's Largest Concert which will be shown nationwide. The hard work and dedication of the individuals involved with this project deserve recognition for their important efforts for bringing attention to music education in our community.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support House Joint Resolution 36 to endorse the Presidential finding and release international family planning funds on March 1. Family planning programs are common sense. Democrats and Republicans ought to put partisan differences aside and come together to support population assistance. Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Armey have set an excellent example of bipartisanship by cosponsoring this important bill. U.S. population assistance aid is critical to our world's future. The high rates of population growth in developing countries affect Americans through its impact on the environment, immigration, and the economy. Unintended pregnancies threaten the society of developing countries as well: it can put economic development at risk, it damages the health and economic status of families, and increases the abortion rate. Mr. Chairman, I urge this Congress to support family planning services. It is not a pro-choice or pro-life issue; it is a pro-family issue. This vote today is very important. If we don't vote to release the funds on March 1, we will reduce this year's total population assistance program funding by $123 million. At least 17 worldwide programs will need to defer, suspend, or terminate family planning health care services. The consequences of the delay would be enormous; there would be more unintended pregnancies, more abortions, and more maternal and infant deaths, and more economic and environmental strain on families and societies. Opponents of this legislation argue that we should place extreme restrictions on health care providers who receive U.S. aid. I oppose this draconian policy: denying families the right to plan their childbearing is wrong. Access to birth control is good for children, good for families, good for the environment, and good for the society. I urge my colleagues to vote to support House Joint Resolution 36 and release the previously appropriated family planning assistance funds on March 1.