Press Releases

Today, Ninth District Congressman Adam Smith announced that the House of Representatives passed H.R. 894, “Aimee’s Law”, legislation he has co-sponsored and worked to pass for nearly three years.

“This bill encourages states to keep the most violent and dangerous criminals off the streets,” said Smith, a former prosecutor for the City of Seattle. “I am pleased that the House has finally passed this important bill.”

Last year, the House passed the measure as an amendment to H.R. 1501, the Child Safety and Protection Act, but the Senate has not yet acted on that bill.

H.R. 894 would create a financial incentive for states to hold violent criminals instead of releasing them to commit more crimes. If a state releases an individual convicted of murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense involving a child under the age of 14 and that individual then commits one of those violent crimes again in another state, the first state is liable for the costs of apprehension, prosecution, and incarceration.

The bill is named in honor of Aimee Willard, a former student at George Mason University who was raped and murdered in Pennsylvania by Arthur Bomar in 1996. Bomar, who had been convicted of murder in Nevada, was released from prison despite a history of violence. Smith is an original co-sponsor of H.R. 894.

“The average time served for rape is currently only five and a half years,” Smith said. “The woman who is raped by a criminal after he gets out of prison suffers life-long consequences. This legislation will also place consequences on criminals and the states who prematurely release them.”

Two years ago, a Tacoma woman testified before a congressional committee in support of the legislation. Mary Vincent was brutally attacked in California by a violent criminal and suffered serious lifelong consequences. Ms. Vincent moved to Gig Harbor and then Tacoma. After she heard that her attacker had been released from San Quentin after serving only eight years, she barricaded herself in her house and became anorexic and bulimic. In February of 1997, her attacker killed a Florida woman. Ms. Vincent testified at her attacker’s sentencing, and he was sent to death row. Ms. Vincent is one of the many victims and victims’ rights advocates, including Marc Klaas whose daughter Polly was kidnapped and murdered in 1993, who has come out in support of this legislation.

It is also endorsed by a broad group of organizations, including the National Fraternal Order of Police , Mothers Against Gangs, The Women’s Coalition, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and Kids Safe.

Saying that it fails to meet the needs of seniors, Ninth District Congressman Adam Smith will oppose the Republican prescription drug proposal today.

“This plan fails on four critical fronts,” explained Smith. “It does not guarantee prescription medicine access for all Medicare recipients, it does not adequately control the spiraling costs of prescriptions medicines, the cost is unpredictable, and it is extraordinarily confusing to patients.”

Providing prescription drug benefits to seniors has risen to the top of Congress’s to-do list in recent months. Several weeks ago, the Republicans wrote a plan and introduced H.R 4680. While the Democrats have a competing plan, the House leadership will not allow a vote on the alternative plan during today’s consideration.

“I know how important it is that seniors have access to the medicines they need to stay healthy,” Smith said. “At the same time, we must ensure that we enact a common sense policy that solves problems instead of just reacting to poll numbers. I am concerned that this bill won’t do a thing to help our seniors.”

Smith says that both access and cost control are important. “This bill fails on a critical front: does it provide all Medicare recipients with access to prescription drug coverage? The answer is no,” he said. 

Under the legislation, seniors would enroll in an individual plan offered by a private insurance company. However, private insurance companies have testified to Congress that they are unwilling to offer these individual plans. “We continue to believe that the concept of so-called drug-only private insurance simply would not work in practice,” said Charles Kahn, the President of the Health Insurance Association of America, which is a group comprised of 294 insurance companies.

Scott Serota, the acting President of Blue Cross and Blue Shield, added, “This idea [a private sector drug benefit] provides false hope to America’s seniors because it is neither workable nor affordable.”

The reliance on private insurance companies to offer individual plans does not guarantee coverage for seniors, Smith notes. “We don’t know how many, if any, insurance companies would offer these drug-only plans to seniors and if they would be offered everywhere in America or just in certain regions,” he said. “Instead, Congress should pass legislation that provides a prescription drug benefit under the Medicare program, which serves all of our nation’s seniors.”

Nor does the proposal work to contain the spiraling costs of prescription drugs. “As we aim to provide access to prescription drugs, we cannot forget to also enact measures to contain costs,” Smith said. “This proposal would have seniors purchase individual plans, instead of incorporating any competitive or pooling mechanisms to keep costs down.”

Smith continued, “I don’t support government-mandated price controls on prescription drugs, but we do need to utilize purchasing power and competition to keep drugs affordable, both for seniors and for the Medicare program that will be subsidizing the drugs. I support pooling Medicare recipients and allowing several prescription drug plans to compete for their business. That will help keep costs down.”

Although the Republicans estimate the plan will cost $40 billion over five years, the costs are actually unpredictable because the subsidy to insurance companies can be flexible and the government could be required to offer plans if no insurance company opted to enter a particular region.

“Right now, we have a surplus forecasted, and I think using a portion of those funds to provide a prescription drug benefit to Medicare patients is money well spent,” Smith said. “However, the cost estimate of this plan, I believe, is unrealistically low, and if we’re going to maintain a balanced budget and pay down the debt, we need to be honest about the true cost of our policies.”

Costs to seniors are also unclear. Premiums, deductibles, and benefits could vary widely, and insurance companies may raise them far above the current estimates in order to make offering an individual plan financially worthwhile.

Finally, Smith points out that any prescription drug benefit should be easy to understand and non-bureaucratic. “Once again, the Republican plan falls short,” he said. “This proposal creates a new government agency, and seniors will have to find private drug insurance and deal with a patchwork of different plans, benefits, and availability. We should instead offer all seniors a good prescription drug benefit package as part of Medicare.”

Smith would have supported a Democratic alternative. “The Democrats came up with an alternative plan, which is not perfect in my view, but still better than the Republican plan,” he explained. However, House Leadership did not allow a vote on this proposal.

The Republican proposal is expected to narrowly pass the House this afternoon, but prospects in the Senate are unclear.

Ninth District Congressman today joined the New Democrat Coalition (NDC), a group of 65 centrist Democrats in the House of Representatives, to unveil the group’s “e-genda 2.0.”

The e-genda is a list of the NDC’s technology priorities and includes measures to improve teacher quality, expand technology education, provide greater access to overseas markets, encourage innovation, promote e-commerce, and maintain fiscal discipline.

“The e-genda outlines policies that we need to adopt in order to keep our country poised to compete in the New Economy,” said Smith. “One of the most important aspects of the e-genda is the focus on education and worker training. We have thousands of unfilled technology jobs right here in Washington state, and we need to make sure that we’re training today’s workers and educating the next generation. Enormous opportunities are provided by the New Economy, and I want to make sure that no one is left behind.”

Technology issues are critically important to the Ninth District, argues Smith. “Growth in the technology sector actually has a far bigger impact in the South Sound than it does up in Redmond and the Eastside,” Smith explained. “The Microsoft millionaires are going to be fine. What I want to do is encourage technology companies to grow and create good paying jobs in the South Sound, and that’s happening. What’s more, the entire Puget Sound economy benefits by the growth in technology and the job creation it brings.”


Ninth District Congressman Adam Smith announced today that Congress overwhelmingly passed legislation to repeal the federal telephone excise tax. Smith, an original co-sponsor of H.R. 3916, has prioritized repeal of the phone tax this year.

“We should be encouraging growth in telecommunicatons and Internet access, not taxing it,” Smith said. “I’m very pleased that this legislation was passed so overwhelmingly and seems to be on a fast track to becoming law.”

H.R. 3916 would phase out the 3 percent federal excise tax on telephone service (FETT) over three years and be completely eliminated on October 1, 2002. 

“The phone tax was originally put in place to fund the Spanish-American war,” Smith explained. “It was considered a luxury tax because so few people had phones. Obviously, the world has changed and taxing phone lines, which give Americans the opportunity to get on the Internet and take advantage of the technology revolution, just doesn’t make sense.”

Repeal of the FETT would mean a tax cut for almost every American. It would also provide a tax cut for small businesses because many businesses dedicate lines for Internet access, further increasing their tax burden because of the FETT.

“Repealing this tax is a small step forward in the effort to bring technology and the Internet to all Americans,” Smith said. “I look forward to the President signing this tax cut into law as soon as possible.”

In response to concerns that managed care organizations will cease providing Medicare+Choice services to Washington seniors, Ninth District Congressman Adam Smith is urging five health care organizations to remain in the Washington state market while working with Congress and the Administration to solve the financial crisis facing the program.

Medicare patients have two enrollment choices: the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program, or a Medicare + Choice managed care organization. Proponents of Medicare+Choice argue that it lowers costs through more efficient service delivery and gives seniors more choices because plans compete for patients by offering greater benefits, such as prescription drugs. In Washington, PacifiCare, Group Health, Regence Blue Shield, Premera Blue Cross, and First Choice all offer Medicare+Choice, although only 16 of our 39 counties have the Medicare+Choice option. 

“The Medicare reimbursement rate system is unfair to Washington state,” Smith explained. “Medicare+Choice rates have always been based on the fee-for-service costs in each county, and since Washington was one of the most efficient states in Medicare service delivery we had low costs. We tried to fix this problem several years ago, but unfortunately, more needs to be done because we are still being punished for that efficiency and Medicare providers are discovering they may no longer be able to provide services in our state.”

This problem can be illustrated by comparing Pierce County Medicare+Choice reimbursement rates with Dade County (Miami), Florida reimbursement rates. A managed care organization receives a base reimbursement rate of $465.97 for a Medicare patient in Pierce County but $809.90 for a Medicare patient in Dade County. “Obviously, this disparity in payments allows seniors in Miami to receive better benefits than seniors in Pierce County, something that the seniors in the Ninth District are very aware of,” Smith noted. “It’s an unfair system that, ironically, is based primarily on how much each county had previously spent on Medicare, so states that are relatively inefficient have little incentive to cut waste and abuse while efficient states are seeing Medicare+Choice plans disappear.”

Giving seniors choices should be a fundamental part of Medicare, argues Smith. “I think it’s important that we give seniors the option of enrolling in Medicare+Choice,” said Smith. “Competing for patients can help lead to better benefits and a more efficient Medicare system.”

However, the inequality problem was exacerbated when Medicare reforms treated already-efficient states the same as inefficient states when reimbursement rates were recalculated. “Washington state was already very efficient, and there was simply very little fat to trim from Medicare in our state,” he said. “Instead, critical health care services have been scaled back and providers have stopped serving the rural regions of our state altogether.”

To combat this problem, Smith is drafting legislation to ensure Medicare+Choice can survive in efficient states like Washington and in rural areas. He is working with other Members of Congress whose districts are similarly impacted to urge House Leadership to address this issue before Congress adjourns for the year.

In the meantime, Smith is making a personal plea to the five Medicare+Choice providers in Washington state. Private health care organizations must renew their Medicare contracts by July 3, 2000 for 2001, and Smith is working to ensure that they do not abandon Washington state altogether. Smith is also asking the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), the agency that oversees Medicare, to implement several regulatory changes that would encourage Medicare+Choice providers to continue offering services to Washington state seniors. 

“I have asked HCFA to make a few simple changes that would hopefully encourage Medicare+Choice providers to stick around in Washington state,” said Smith. “I’m also working with the health care providers on a long-term solution to this problem and asking them to renew their contracts for 2001 while we find a solution that allows them to continue offering health care options to Washington state seniors. I don’t want to see a situation where our seniors don’t have the choice of enrolling in a managed care organization while Medicare patients around the rest of the country have that option.”