Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd. I will be very brief. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, in the Senate Report for the FY 2006 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, S. Rpt. 109-80, under State and Tribal Assistance Grants programs within the Environmental Protection Agency accounts, one of the line items gives a grant to a town in Oregon called Winchester. It is my understanding that the intended town which is seeking the grant of Federal assistance for water improvements is actually Winchester Bay, OR.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to a resolution I will submit honoring a true champion. I rise today out of two affections in my life: one for the land of New Zealand, and another grows out of my enjoyment of the game of golf. Ten days ago, on June 19, Michael Campbell became the first New Zealander to win one of the United States Golf Association's major championships in 43 years, besting a field of the world's most talented golfers. Mr. Campbell showed great perseverance and mettle throughout the Open, mastering an immensely challenging course. He was also the first player to come from behind to win a U.S. Open in 7 years. Mr. Campbell's win is yet another chapter in a proud tradition of excellence in international sports for New Zealand. The Kiwis have won two of the last three America's Cup yacht races and netted three gold and two silver medals at last summer's Olympic Games in Athens. The competitive spirit and success of these athletes is reflective of the bravery and skill of New Zealand's indigenous seagoing explorers, the Maori, of whom Michael Campbell is a descendent. Mr. Campbell's victory in the U.S. Open also provides us with the opportunity to reflect on our relationship with New Zealand and at the same time to shape the future of our friendship. Staunch allies in the two World Wars in the 20th century, New Zealand and its people have made tremendous sacrifices and heroic efforts to help protect freedom and democracy in the world. Those efforts continue today, as New Zealand contributes regularly to international peacekeeping operations, remains steadfast in their alliance in the fight against terrorism, and has helped to reconstruct a new, democratic Iraq. Even though there have been some bumps in the road--the deterioration of the Australia-New Zealand-United States alliance comes to mind--New Zealand has been a great friend and an enduring ally over the years. It is my hope that we will continue to foster this friendship. On that note, I commend Michael Campbell and the nation of New Zealand for this momentous victory and express arohanui to the peoples of Aotearoa, our friends in the Land of the Long White Cloud.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Clinton, Martinez, Reed, and Durbin to introduce the Housing America's Workforce Act. Across the country, low- and moderate-income families face difficulty finding affordable housing. Homebuilding has not kept pace with job growth, and the cost of housing has skyrocketed. In the last 5 years, the number of working U.S. families paying more than half their income to put a roof over their heads has jumped to 4.2 million in 2003 from 2.4 million in 1997, a 76-percent increase in 5 years. Our bill tries to address the issue of affordable housing from a new perspective, one that allows the private sector to play a direct role in promoting housing affordability. Specifically, our bill would create a Federal tax credit for businesses that offer housing assistance programs to their low- to moderate-income employees. Employer assisted housing, EAH, programs have been used successfully for more than 100 years and have proven effective in helping to revitalize neighborhoods and to recruit and retain employees. In my home State of Oregon, EAH programs have been used by employers such as Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center, Housing Authority of Portland, Multnomah County, and Wacker Siltronic. In 1990, Legacy Emanuel developed an EAH program to encourage employees to purchase homes in the neighborhood near the hospital. The program shortened employee commute time, reduced traffic congestion, and helped spur a dramatic revitalization of the surrounding area. Similar programs have succeeded around the country and have helped to ease the spatial mismatch between where job growth is taking place and where people can afford to live. Under our bill, housing assistance can be used for either homeownership or rental assistance. Homeownership assistance could be used for down payments, closing costs, financing costs, or contributions to an employee homeownership savings plan, such as an Individual Development Accounts. Rental assistance could be used for security deposits and rental payments. Employer assisted housing programs are innovative ways to leverage public and private funds to make housing affordable for working families. As such, our proposal has been endorsed by National Housing Conference, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Realtors, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, Mortgage Bankers Association, National NeighborWorks Association, AmeriDream, and the National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to address the affordable housing shortfall.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a national forest that is not in my State, and of constituents who are not in the State of Oregon. I do so because I see happening to my Alaskan colleagues and their constituents what I have witnessed for too many years in my own State of Oregon. As a predicate, I know the difference between environmentalists who make many good points, who have much to contribute, and, frankly, what I would term the ``environmental conflict industry.'' Others have used that term. If this amendment that is offered by my friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, were really about saving money, it would be about streamlining costs associated with timber production as opposed to just an amendment that would effectively end any kind of multiple use in the Tongass National Forest. The truth is, the Tongass is an area as big as many States in the lower 48. It is a vast resource. The truth is also that each of us, as Americans, use many pounds of wood in our lives every day. The question before this Senate is whether we want to have timber come from our country with high environmental standards or from other countries where there are few, if any, environmental standards. Many complain about the way the harvest is done in Indonesia or in Brazil. Some of us even complain that the way Canada harvests, across the border from the Tongass, is done on the basis of tremendous amounts of subsidies. They are called crown lands. The timber companies there are essentially given the raw product, provided access to the forest, and then are able to compete with American timber workers. That is to our great disadvantage. Today I have to stand in defense of my colleagues and their State and their forest because America needs to be reminded that we have the best timberlands in the world. We can either use them or watch them, too often, go up in catastrophic wildfires. We know how to manage forests today. We know silviculture science. We know what works and what does not. Clearly, there have been abuses in the past. Clearly, things can be done better in the future. But the truth is, if we, as Americans, want timber products in our lives, that wood will grow and be harvested somewhere, if not from our country, then from where? If not up to high environmental standards, then as against what standards? If you end the road-building component of timber sales in the Tongass National Forest, then you will end timber harvest in the Tongass National Forest because of the size of this area. You can't helicopter in and out everything that could be harvested and could be made available to American workers and American home builders and the tax base of the State of Alaska and, obviously, the Federal Government through timber receipts as well. It is expensive to build roads in forests, to maintain them. But, frankly, to do nothing is to abandon this industry. Americans need to be reminded that timber does not come from the Home Depot. It comes from a tree that grows somewhere. But as to the environmental conflict industry that is pushing this particular amendment and, I am sure, some who want to save the taxpayer money, I want to suggest that it is the environmental conflict industry and not the timber industry that is feeding off the American taxpayer. With appeals and lawsuits, the cost of basic forest management skyrockets. The Tongass National Forest estimates that half of its timber budget is spent on paperwork that will be called into court. And to produce a 1,000-page NEPA document is now the rule rather than the exception. The Tongass currently has 13 environmental impact statements delayed in court. Every forest plan on the Tongass has been litigated. And the environmental conflict industry will ask that their lawyer's fees be paid--by whom?--by you and by me, and by the taxpayer. In 2003, taxpayers were charged $200,000 by the Sierra Club for its lawsuit against the Tongass National Forest. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy for the environmental conflict industry to drive up costs of forest management and then grumble about those costs. If this amendment were truly about fiscal responsibility, we would be discussing ways to produce timber from the Tongass at a lower cost instead of eliminating fiber production there altogether. Or we could be capping lawyers fees. Or we could be talking about other national forests that do not produce any revenue whatsoever, unlike the Tongass. This amendment is not really about fiscal responsibility, it is about environmental responsibility. That ought to be our real objective. If we buy wood products, just know that it grew on a tree somewhere. I would rather that it be managed in an American forest, such as the Tongass, providing American products for American consumers. I felt it important that a Senator from a State who has already suffered, as they are now, and been attacked in the way that they are being attacked, ought to come down and speak for them. There are not a lot of people who stand up for timber workers anymore. These are not big companies operating in the Tongass. These are Americans in very rural places, trying to produce the products of the tree in a scientific way, according to high U.S. standards, so that we can meet the obligations of our law for multiple use as well as environmental stewardship. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and allow an environmentally sensitive industry, a timber industry that is living up to high environmental standards, to survive in a very rural and vulnerable part of our country in Alaska. As I have said, I rise today in opposition to the Sununu amendment. I do so in defense of one of the basic functions of our National Forests--to produce timber. This Friday signifies the 100th anniversary of the United States Forest Service. We celebrate this event because our forests are still there. Our forests are still beautiful. But certainly there's more to celebrate than that. National Forests were originally set aside to produce two commodities: clean water and a continuous timber supply. Ted Roosevelt said: The object (of our forest policy) is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful . . . nor because they are refuges for wild creatures. . . . the primary object of our forest policy in the United States is the making of prosperous homes. Every other consideration comes as secondary. With this in mind, I come to the Senate floor in defense of a National Forest not in my State, and on behalf of communities who are not my constituents. But Alaskans are under the same siege that struck my constituents and National Forests in my State. It is a siege of the ``environmental conflict industry.'' And it is this industry, not the timber industry, that is feeding off the American taxpayer. With appeals and lawsuits, the cost of basic forest management skyrockets. The Tongass National Forest estimates that half of its timber budget is spent on paperwork that will be called into court. And to produce a thousand-page NEPA document is now the rule, rather than the exception. The Tongass currently has 13 environmental impact statements delayed in court. Every forest plan on the Tongass has been litigated. And the environmental conflict industry will ask that their lawyer's fees be paid by the taxpayer. In 2003, taxpayers were charged $200,000 by the Sierra Club for its lawsuit against the Tongass National Forest. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy for the ``environmental conflict industry'' to drive up the costs of forest management and then grumble about those costs. If this amendment were truly about fiscal responsibility, we would be discussing ways to produce timber from the Tongass at a lower cost-- instead of eliminating fiber production altogether. Or we would be capping lawyers' fees. Or we would be talking about other National Forests that do not produce any revenue whatsoever. This amendment is not about fiscal responsibility. It is about environmental responsibility. I would remind my colleagues that a 2 x 4 does not come from Home Depot. It comes from a tree somewhere. The choice of the ``where'' is up to us. If not from Alaska or Oregon, how about the rainforests of Brazil or Indonesia? If not according to our environmental laws, then by whose? If not to feed American families, then whose? The United States has the most productive forests and the strictest environmental laws in the world. To export our industry and our employment is both economically and environmentally appalling. I do not believe this is the intention of the Senator from New Hampshire. But this amendment runs against the very grain of the National Forest System we commemorate this week. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each day I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. In Chicago, a bisexual Latina student was threatened by a white male at a local university because of her sexual orientation. Sometime after the incident, the victim was walking outside of her dorm when the same male student followed her into an alley and assaulted her. She was punched and kicked repeatedly in the stomach. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each day I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. Last year in San Francisco, a male contacted an Asian gay man under the pretense of receiving a professional massage. Once inside the man's residence, the suspect impersonated an undercover cop and pulled out a gun. He used a rope to tie the victim's hands and ankles, then assaulted and robbed him. The case is being investigated as a hate crime. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. A 17-year-old transgender woman and her 18-year-old friend were shot in the head while sitting in a SUV, which was set on fire. The SUV was found in an isolated parking lot after the two had been missing for a day. Their bodies were burned beyond recognition. The perpetrator allegedly killed the two victims when he discovered that one of them was a crossdresser. The Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for his comments. He reflects well the views of his State and the region. Those of us, such as myself, who voted for this RPS standard understand the regional differences. In my view, an important purpose of an RPS is to diversify the Nation's energy supply. I understand that different States have different resources. For that reason, I believe it is appropriate to provide for greater flexibility for the States. I would like to work with the Senator from Georgia and the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to make appropriate modifications to the provision. I yield back to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I discuss the recent announcement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that the number of Americans living with HIV has now surpassed 1 million. An estimated 1.039 million to 1.185 million people nationwide were HIV-positive as of December 2003, an increase over the estimated 850,000 to 950,000 cases at the end of 2002. While the number of persons with HIV in my state of Oregon is small relative to other states, Oregon still saw an 85 percent increase in the number of cases between 2002 and 2003. Not since the height of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s has there been so many Americans living with this terrible disease. The latest estimate reveals both our success and failure at combating this disease. On a positive note, the increase reflects the significant advances in antiretroviral drug therapy that have allowed persons diagnosed with HIV to live longer, healthier lives. On the other hand it also reflects our shortcomings in preventing the spread of this disease. Despite the Federal government's goal to cut in half the number of new HIV cases each year, the figure continues to hold steady at about 40,000--the same rate of infection as in the 1990s. Moreover, some researchers believe that the number of new infections may actually be as high as 60,000 a year. To be fair, responsibility for reducing the spread of HIV does not rest solely with the Federal government. According to the CDC, those at highest risk of contracting HIV have become far too complacent in their behavior, particularly as it relates to the practice of safe sex. Nevertheless, there is much the Federal government can do to help stem the spread of HIV. One way to reduce the number of new HIV cases is to ensure that those infected with HIV have access to treatment. Such treatments not only prevent individuals from developing full-blown AIDS, but also significantly lower the risk of transmitting the disease to others. Unfortunately, the cost of these treatments is prohibitive, especially for those who are uninsured or underinsured. For this reason, it is critical that Congress reauthorize and bolster the Ryan White Care Act this year. Among other things, the act includes the vitally important AIDS Drug Assistance Program, ADAP, which helps low-income and uninsured HIV/AIDS patients afford their costly drug treatments. An estimated 150,000 people--30 percent of all Americans receiving treatment for HIV currently receive their care through ADAP. Even with this program, however, States and local communities are overwhelmed. That is why I am requesting that Congress provide an additional $300 million for ADAP for the 2006 fiscal year. As successful as ADAP has been, critical gaps in our approach to HIV treatment and prevention remain. For example, HIV positive individuals have access to treatment under Medicaid only after they have developed full-blown AIDS. To remedy this flaw, I introduced the Early Treatment for HIV Act, ETHA, S. 311, with Senator Hillary Clinton. By providing access to HIV therapies before such persons develop AIDS, ETHA would reduce overall Medicaid costs and, as important, reduce the likelihood of additional infection. By reducing the amount of virus in the bloodstream, early access to HIV therapies is a key factor in helping curb infectiousness and reducing HIV transmission. Strengthening ADAP and enacting ETHA will help put us on the right track to providing both adequate treatment for those with HIV, as well as reducing the number of new HIV cases.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to announce seven Star of Life award recipients from the State of Oregon. The Star of Life is awarded each year by the American Ambulance Association recognizing America's top paramedics. The reliable responsiveness and medical and safety expertise performed by paramedics throughout the neighborhoods and communities of our country deserves high recognition and praise. Paramedics are the first to respond to the urgent health and safety needs of our Nation's citizens, providing an invaluable contribution to our society. The men and women of this profession truly are dedicated to helping others as they perform a myriad of vital services from delivering babies to rescuing the lives of individuals in harm's way. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the following Oregonians who received the 2005 Star of Life Award: Victor Hoffer, Elizabeth Fullmer, Greg Sorenson, Michael Beaulieu, Shelly Solum, David Landstrom, and Brett LaCroix. I want to congratulate each of these individuals for their esteemed service and recognition in receiving this prestigious award. Oregon is proud and privileged to call Victor, Elizabeth, Greg, Michael, Shelly, David and Brett its own. These Star of Life award recipients exemplify their extraordinary performance among a profession that provides critical services to our communities and our Nation. I am most grateful for their service.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. Last year, a 19-year-old gay man was bludgeoned with a pipe while standing on a street corner in Queens, NY. I believe that the Governments first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation critically important to our Nation's continued economic growth and future environmental progress. I am joined by my friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln. Nearly everything sold in the United States moves by truck at some stage of delivery. In fact, America's trucking industry is responsible for moving nearly 70 percent of the tonnage of all products sold in the U.S.--a total of more than 9.8 billion tons of freight shipped in 2004. If trucking serves as the circulatory system for the U.S. economy, then diesel engines provide America's economic heartbeat. Because of their superior fuel efficiency, durability and reliability, diesel engines power 100 percent of the long-haul trucks responsible for the bulk of freight deliveries in the U.S. Engineers have revolutionized this technology over the past decade by dramatically reducing emissions while maintaining diesel's inherent fuel efficiency. For example, a new truck sold today produces 78 percent fewer smog-forming and particulate emissions than a similar truck built in 1987. Even more advanced, cleaner technology is scheduled to begin rolling on America's highways in 2007. Beginning that year, a new Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, regulation for diesel trucks will require further reductions in smog-forming and particulate emissions-- reductions of over 90 percent compared to current levels. When fully implemented in 2010, EPA's clean diesel rule is estimated to reduce smog-forming emissions of nitrogen oxides by 2.6 million tons each year, along with 110,000 tons of fine particulate matter annually. These clean diesel trucks are expected to play a leading role in helping cities and states meet strict new federal standards for ozone and fine particulates. And the technology is real; truck manufacturers and suppliers have demonstrated their commitment to delivering clean diesel by 2007. However, we must recognize that clean air comes at a price. Trucks containing clean diesel engines that meet the EPA regulation in 2007 will include innovative emissions control technology that will increase purchase and maintenance costs. Additionally, the 2007 trucks will run on low-sulfur diesel fuel that will be more expensive because of the added cost of sulfur removal. These additional financial burdens will fall upon America's trucking industry--where 96 percent of companies are designated as small businesses. Equally important for those of us concerned about clean air, we must recognize that EPA's projected environmental benefits will materialize only if trucking companies can afford to purchase the cleaner but more expensive trucks equipped with the clean diesel engines. Federal regulation can require manufacturers to produce emissions compliant products, but the government cannot mandate the purchase of these clean diesel trucks. Customers always have the option of holding on to older trucks longer, rebuilding older engines, leasing older trucks, or turning to the used truck market. They can also simply buy more trucks today, with older design components and without the cleanest technology, and defer the purchase of cleaner trucks. The bottom line is that the actual trucks in service on America's highways in 2007 and beyond will not yield the emissions reductions currently projected by EPA's own air quality models unless trucking companies can afford to buy the new clean diesels. Absent a short-term incentive for the purchase of these new trucks in 2007, simple economics will drive most trucking companies to either pre-purchase trucks that do not meet the new EPA regulation or extend the lives of their current fleets. This ``pre-buy/low-buy'' scenario played out most recently with the introduction of lower emission diesel trucks in October 2002. Avoiding this problem, Mr. President, is the reason I am introducing this legislation today. Truck manufacturers and suppliers have responded to our clean air challenge and will be ready for the on-time delivery of remarkably clean trucks in 2007. The Federal Government needs to take the next step by helping to ensure the widest possible distribution of this clean diesel technology into the U.S. trucking fleet. Under the proposal I am introducing today with Senator Lincoln, taxpayers would be allowed an investment tax credit equal to 5 percent of the cost of EPA-compliant diesel equipment for acquisitions after December 31, 2006 but before January 1, 2008. The credits could be used against the taxpayer's regular tax or AMT liability. The credit would be part of the general business credit and thus credits unutilized in a taxable year would be carried over to another taxable year. In addition, taxpayers would be allowed to expense the acquisition cost of qualifying equipment acquired and placed in service after December 31, 2006 and before January 1, 2008, for purposes of both the regular tax and the AMT. Enacting the short-term tax incentive that Senator Lincoln and I propose would put the cost of new clean diesel technology on at least a level playing field with the cost of today's trucks. It would ensure that trucking companies have the financial ability to purchase these modern clean diesels. Consequently, our legislation would ensure that Americans can breathe easier because the full air quality benefits intended by EPA's clean diesel rule will be realized. I look forward to working with Senator Lincoln and the rest of my colleagues to see this important clean air legislation enacted.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation critically important to our Nation's continued economic growth and future environmental progress. I am joined by my friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln. Nearly everything sold in the United States moves by truck at some stage of delivery. In fact, America's trucking industry is responsible for moving nearly 70 percent of the tonnage of all products sold in the U.S.--a total of more than 9.8 billion tons of freight shipped in 2004. If trucking serves as the circulatory system for the U.S. economy, then diesel engines provide America's economic heartbeat. Because of their superior fuel efficiency, durability and reliability, diesel engines power 100 percent of the long-haul trucks responsible for the bulk of freight deliveries in the U.S. Engineers have revolutionized this technology over the past decade by dramatically reducing emissions while maintaining diesel's inherent fuel efficiency. For example, a new truck sold today produces 78 percent fewer smog-forming and particulate emissions than a similar truck built in 1987. Even more advanced, cleaner technology is scheduled to begin rolling on America's highways in 2007. Beginning that year, a new Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, regulation for diesel trucks will require further reductions in smog-forming and particulate emissions-- reductions of over 90 percent compared to current levels. When fully implemented in 2010, EPA's clean diesel rule is estimated to reduce smog-forming emissions of nitrogen oxides by 2.6 million tons each year, along with 110,000 tons of fine particulate matter annually. These clean diesel trucks are expected to play a leading role in helping cities and states meet strict new federal standards for ozone and fine particulates. And the technology is real; truck manufacturers and suppliers have demonstrated their commitment to delivering clean diesel by 2007. However, we must recognize that clean air comes at a price. Trucks containing clean diesel engines that meet the EPA regulation in 2007 will include innovative emissions control technology that will increase purchase and maintenance costs. Additionally, the 2007 trucks will run on low-sulfur diesel fuel that will be more expensive because of the added cost of sulfur removal. These additional financial burdens will fall upon America's trucking industry--where 96 percent of companies are designated as small businesses. Equally important for those of us concerned about clean air, we must recognize that EPA's projected environmental benefits will materialize only if trucking companies can afford to purchase the cleaner but more expensive trucks equipped with the clean diesel engines. Federal regulation can require manufacturers to produce emissions compliant products, but the government cannot mandate the purchase of these clean diesel trucks. Customers always have the option of holding on to older trucks longer, rebuilding older engines, leasing older trucks, or turning to the used truck market. They can also simply buy more trucks today, with older design components and without the cleanest technology, and defer the purchase of cleaner trucks. The bottom line is that the actual trucks in service on America's highways in 2007 and beyond will not yield the emissions reductions currently projected by EPA's own air quality models unless trucking companies can afford to buy the new clean diesels. Absent a short-term incentive for the purchase of these new trucks in 2007, simple economics will drive most trucking companies to either pre-purchase trucks that do not meet the new EPA regulation or extend the lives of their current fleets. This ``pre-buy/low-buy'' scenario played out most recently with the introduction of lower emission diesel trucks in October 2002. Avoiding this problem, Mr. President, is the reason I am introducing this legislation today. Truck manufacturers and suppliers have responded to our clean air challenge and will be ready for the on-time delivery of remarkably clean trucks in 2007. The Federal Government needs to take the next step by helping to ensure the widest possible distribution of this clean diesel technology into the U.S. trucking fleet. Under the proposal I am introducing today with Senator Lincoln, taxpayers would be allowed an investment tax credit equal to 5 percent of the cost of EPA-compliant diesel equipment for acquisitions after December 31, 2006 but before January 1, 2008. The credits could be used against the taxpayer's regular tax or AMT liability. The credit would be part of the general business credit and thus credits unutilized in a taxable year would be carried over to another taxable year. In addition, taxpayers would be allowed to expense the acquisition cost of qualifying equipment acquired and placed in service after December 31, 2006 and before January 1, 2008, for purposes of both the regular tax and the AMT. Enacting the short-term tax incentive that Senator Lincoln and I propose would put the cost of new clean diesel technology on at least a level playing field with the cost of today's trucks. It would ensure that trucking companies have the financial ability to purchase these modern clean diesels. Consequently, our legislation would ensure that Americans can breathe easier because the full air quality benefits intended by EPA's clean diesel rule will be realized. I look forward to working with Senator Lincoln and the rest of my colleagues to see this important clean air legislation enacted.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. A gay white male was severely beaten and sent to the hospital by two men in a Columbus gay bar. The victim and a friend noticed the men in the bar when they arrived. At the end of the evening the two males started calling the victim various derogatory names, and pushed him out of the bar. Once outside, the men continued to beat the victim, using liquor bottles. Since the beating, the victim has had his tires slashed and received a letter in his mailbox telling him to `watch his back.' A police report was filed, but no arrests have been made. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I introduce important legislation to enable more Americans to realize the dream of homeownership. The First- Time Homebuyers' Tax Credit Act that Senator Stabenow and I are introducing would give a one-time tax credit that will help more Americans to become homeowners. Homeownership brings safety and stability to families and their communities. People who own their homes have the security of knowing that they have a reliable investment, and they are protected from spikes in housing costs. Yet despite these advantages, barriers exist for many who are looking to make the leap to homeownership. Even for families and individuals who can make monthly mortgage payments, down payment and closing costs can prove too great a burden. Based on information from the Mortgage Bankers Association, the average loan of $175,000 would incur closing costs of approximately $4,000. Combined with even a modest down-payment of as little as 3 percent of a home's value, total costs can quickly approach $9,000 or more. To help Americans achieve the dream of private homeownership, the First-Time Homebuyer Bill would provide a tax credit of up to $3,000 to individuals and up to $6,000 for families falling within or below the 27 percent tax bracket. The bill would allow first-time homebuyers to claim the credit on their tax return or transfer the credit directly to the lender at closing, providing an immediate benefit to potential homeowners. This credit is similar to the Washington DC Homebuyers' Tax Credit. While Congress has enacted legislation to increase incentives for homeownership in the past, including the mortgage interest tax deduction, these benefits are available only to those who already own a home. In contrast, the First Time Homebuyer Bill will help increase homeownership among those who are working towards their first home purchase. I thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I introduce important legislation to enable more Americans to realize the dream of homeownership. The First- Time Homebuyers' Tax Credit Act that Senator Stabenow and I are introducing would give a one-time tax credit that will help more Americans to become homeowners. Homeownership brings safety and stability to families and their communities. People who own their homes have the security of knowing that they have a reliable investment, and they are protected from spikes in housing costs. Yet despite these advantages, barriers exist for many who are looking to make the leap to homeownership. Even for families and individuals who can make monthly mortgage payments, down payment and closing costs can prove too great a burden. Based on information from the Mortgage Bankers Association, the average loan of $175,000 would incur closing costs of approximately $4,000. Combined with even a modest down-payment of as little as 3 percent of a home's value, total costs can quickly approach $9,000 or more. To help Americans achieve the dream of private homeownership, the First-Time Homebuyer Bill would provide a tax credit of up to $3,000 to individuals and up to $6,000 for families falling within or below the 27 percent tax bracket. The bill would allow first-time homebuyers to claim the credit on their tax return or transfer the credit directly to the lender at closing, providing an immediate benefit to potential homeowners. This credit is similar to the Washington DC Homebuyers' Tax Credit. While Congress has enacted legislation to increase incentives for homeownership in the past, including the mortgage interest tax deduction, these benefits are available only to those who already own a home. In contrast, the First Time Homebuyer Bill will help increase homeownership among those who are working towards their first home purchase. I thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on behalf of a woman I have never met, Janice Rogers Brown. I do so also to note the delicious irony in the recent comments by the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, former Governor Howard Dean. I am told that yesterday Mr. Dean said: Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They are a pretty monolithic party, behave the same, and they all look the same. You know, it is pretty much a white Christian party. The delicious irony is that we have been here arguing on behalf of an African-American woman of great distinction for over 4 years. Other names like Miguel Estrada come to mind, and the fights we have had to confirm members to the Federal judiciary of all walks of life, of all kinds of diversity, of all kinds of hyphenations, if you will, who happen to be Republicans, who happen to be conservatives, but certainly represent every race, every ethnic background, and every national origin. Yet the chairman of the Democratic National Committee would make a statement like that. That is something that should not be missed by the American people. I am not a terribly partisan person. I, frankly, think the American people are deeply weary of all the partisan bickering and name calling. But I also want to note the contrast of style between Chairman Dean and Chairman Mehl- man of the Republican National Committee. Ken Mehlman has gone out of his way to speak at African-American universities, to speak to all kinds of groups, to include them in the Republican Party. I also want to make this comment. When I read the other day Chairman Dean's saying ``I hate Republicans,'' I want to say that I do not hate Democrats. Some of the finest people in this Chamber sit on that side of the aisle. They are my friends, as are my Republican colleagues. This kind of hate speech really doesn't have a productive place in our political discourse. It is important to recognize the humanity of Republicans and Democrats and the diversity that each party has as they try to include majorities of the American people. I, for one, am tired of the bravado. I am tired of the hyperbole. I am tired of the name calling. But I do want to say that we in the Republican Party are trying to include people, women and minorities, who have historically been kept out of public service and much of the benefit of American law in our history. And I do not think that should be condemned. I think that is to be celebrated when both parties do that. I, for one, see the Republican Party and our chairman doing that in a dramatic and constructive way. Chairman Dean's comments are not worthy of the great Democratic Party. I am not here to pick a fight with him, but I do want to note that I and others, particularly on the Judiciary Committee, have for a long time been waging the fight for an African- American woman who deserves to be confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Any fair reading of Justice Brown has to remember that for over 25 years she has provided public service through her legal skills. She has most recently been a member of the California Supreme Court, since 1996. She is the first African-American woman to sit on that court. Prior to her appointment to the California Supreme Court, she was an associate justice of the California Court of Appeals. From 1991 to 1994, she served as a legal affairs secretary to a former colleague of ours from California, the former Governor Pete Wilson. Her office monitored all significant State litigation and had general responsibilities for acting as legal liaison between the Governor's office and executive departments. She performed the heavy duties of her office with unfailing fidelity. And Governor Wilson wrote in his letter to UCLA's nominating committee: She often told me what I did not wish to hear. In her 9 years on the California Supreme Court, Justice Brown has earned a solid reputation of being fair and competent in her jurisprudence and as one who is committed to the rule of law. In fact, it needs to be said again and again what was written of her by 12 of her current and former colleagues in the California judiciary. It is a bipartisan group, as many Democrats as Republicans. They wrote: Much has been written about Justice Brown's humble beginnings, and the story of her rise to the California Supreme Court is truly compelling. But that alone would not be enough to gain our endorsement for a seat on the federal bench. We believe that Justice Brown is qualified because she is a superb judge. We have worked with her on a daily basis and know her to be extremely intelligent, keenly analytical, and very hard working. We know that she is a jurist who applies the law without favor and without bias, and with an even hand. It is notable what many of her colleagues have said before. She was born in 1949 in Alabama to sharecroppers. She attended segregated schools and came of age in the midst of Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow laws were not a product of Republicans. Janice Rogers Brown, however, is a conservative. Some conservatives, of course, have stated that she is more of a libertarian than a conservative. But I guess that is bad enough as far as liberal Democrats are concerned. At the heart of her judicial philosophy is the notion that property rights and economic liberty deserve judicial protection. In an opinion on a California rent control ordinance, Justice Brown stated in her dissent: . . . arbitrary government actions which infringe property interests cannot be saved from constitutional infirmity by the beneficial purposes of the regulators. That is, the government and politicians cannot arbitrarily take away a person's right to property for the ``common good.'' Critics charge that Brown will be unable to separate her personal ideology and philosophy from judicial rulings. Justice Brown has stated: I do recognize the difference in the role between speaking and being a judge.'' I urge the confirmation of this distinguished African-American woman and ask my colleagues to support her.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as someone who has been involved in family-owned business for many years, I know the hard work and sacrifice it takes to make such a business a success. I also know that small businesses are the backbone of the American economy and the economy of Oregon. I am very proud today to salute an Oregon small business which has achieved some national recognition. Portland Transmission Warehouse was recently honored with the ``National Family Business of the Year'' award for companies with 50 or fewer employees. Portland Transmission Warehouse was founded in 1943, when Gene Bradshaw fulfilled his dream of opening an automobile repair business. John Bradshaw--Gene's son--joined his father in the business upon graduating from college in 1964. Ross Bradshaw--John's son--continued the family legacy when he joined the business in 1991. Under the leadership of three generations of Bradshaw family members, Portland Transmission Warehouse now boasts 20 employees, and has earned a reputation for outstanding customer service and for outstanding service to the community. For nearly a quarter of a century, Portland Transmission Warehouse has sponsored a neighborhood car show as a thank you to customers and the community. Over the years, the show has grown from 28 cars to over 500 cars. The Bradshaw family has also understood that their employees are really part of their extended family. Portland Transmission Warehouse is hailed by employees as a business that has helped some of them through some difficult times. It is no wonder that the average tenure of Portland Transmission Warehouse employees is 14 years. It was Ronald Reagan who put it best when he said, ``When you're talking about the strength and character of America, you're talking about the small business community, about the owners of that store down the street, the faithful who support their churches and defend their freedom, and all the brave men and women who are not afraid to take risks and invest in the future to build a better America.'' I know John Bradshaw and am proud to call him a friend. I also know that he and his family are living proof of the truth of President Reagan's words. They are the strength and character of America. I salute three generations of the Bradshaw family for the risks they have taken, for the example they have set, and for the difference they have made. They are truly worthy of recognition as the National Family Business of the Year.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, at each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. A 25-year-old gay man was physically assaulted by a group of white males last year in Ohio. The victim was followed from a well-known Columbus gay bar after the bar closed. The victim was dragged from his car, severely beaten and later found by the Columbus Police Department several blocks from his car. I believe that the government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Kate Stephenson of my office staff today.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a problem impacting communities across the United States and throughout the world. As many of my colleagues know, today is National Hunger Awareness Day. It is a day meant to focus our attention on those for whom putting food on the table continues to be a daily struggle. For the last several years, my home State of Oregon has been at or near the top of repeated nationwide studies of hunger and food insecurity in the United States. While we have made some progress in fighting hunger in Oregon, there is still a long way to go to ensuring that children and families in my State and around the country do not go to bed hungry. According the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service, in 2003, approximately 36.3 million Americans lived in households that at some point during the year did not have access to enough food to meet their basic needs. Of those 36.3 million, 3.9 million were considered hungry. In 2003, Oregon State University published a study on food insecurity and hunger in Oregon. The study found that pressures related to the high-cost of housing, health care, and the high-level of unemployment all contribute to food insecurity and hunger in our State. One of the more striking findings in the report is that underemployment is also a major factor leading to hunger and food insecurity; working families throughout Oregon are having a difficult time accessing food. On the horizon, Oregon's economy appears to be brightening. While there are no quick fixes, I believe that solving hunger is within our grasp. Federal nutrition programs certainly serve an important safety net role in combating hunger; however, they are only one piece of the puzzle. Community organizations, churches, business groups, and private citizens all have a part to play. Ultimately, winning the fight against hunger in Oregon and around the country requires that families are able to provide for themselves--that means having access to living wage jobs. Many of my colleagues will remember that last year I asked them to join me in forming a Senate caucus devoted to raising awareness of the root causes of hunger and food insecurity. I appreciate very much the work of my Senate Hunger Caucus cochairs Senator Lincoln, Senator Dole, and Senator Durbin--in helping to get the caucus off the ground. I am proud to say that today, the Senate Hunger Caucus counts 34 members, with both Republicans and Democrats. This is clearly not a battle that will be won overnight, but it is something about which our conscience calls us to act. If we are to end hunger, we must work to address its root causes. Being successful in this mission will require that we are innovative and find new ways of doing things. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in Congress and groups in Oregon to win this fight.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as I have done so many times before, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation and to introduce the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2005. I first sponsored this bill with my colleague, Senator Kennedy, in 1999 and again in 2001 and 2003. In the Senate, this legislation passed as an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill in 1999 and the Defense Department authorization bill in 2000 and 2004, but removed in conference in each case. In 2003, it was introduced as an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, but did not pass due to a procedural vote. Clearly, hate crimes legislation has strong support in the Senate. Senator Kennedy and I are reintroducing this bill again today because the need for Federal hate crimes legislation is greater than ever. The high prevalence of hate crimes is staggering. Every day there is another America that is attacked or even murdered in an act solely motivated by hate. Hate crimes tear at the very fabric of our Nation by intimidating entire groups of Americans and creating fear across communities. No one in America should be victimized because of who they are, how they look, or what religion they worship. And the Federal Government should be able to come to the aid of those who have been wronged and protect victims. Since 1969, Federal law has permitted prosecution of hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, or color, if the victim was engaging in one of six ``Federally protected'' activities. It has become clear that the statue needs to be amended--and that is what our legislation does. Our legislation would expand on current laws to encompass sexual orientation, gender and disability. It would enable Federal prosecutors to pursue hate crimes cases where local authorities often lack the resources or the ability to prosecute such crimes. Nobel laureate Eli Wiesel once said: ``To hate is to deny another person's humanity.'' As a Nation that serves as the beacon of justice, freedom and liberty everywhere, we simply cannot tolerate violence against our own citizens based on their race, color, religion, or national origin. No matter how far the United States has come and the progress we have made in protecting American's civil rights, much work remains. We cannot fight terror abroad and bow down to terror at home. This legislation is a symbol that can become substance. As I have often said, the law is a teacher, and we should teach our fellow Americans that bigotry will not be tolerated. Our government must have the ability to persuade, to pursue, and to prosecute when hate is the motive of violence against another American, no matter their race, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or gender. By changing the law, I truly believe we can change hearts and minds as well. I urge my colleagues to help me to change the hearts and minds and to make it widely known that we live in a society and a country that does not tolerate those who impose on the civil rights of others simply because they are different. This year, Congress needs to act. I look forward to President Bush signing this legislation into law.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as I have done so many times before, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation and to introduce the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2005. I first sponsored this bill with my colleague, Senator Kennedy, in 1999 and again in 2001 and 2003. In the Senate, this legislation passed as an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill in 1999 and the Defense Department authorization bill in 2000 and 2004, but removed in conference in each case. In 2003, it was introduced as an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, but did not pass due to a procedural vote. Clearly, hate crimes legislation has strong support in the Senate. Senator Kennedy and I are reintroducing this bill again today because the need for Federal hate crimes legislation is greater than ever. The high prevalence of hate crimes is staggering. Every day there is another America that is attacked or even murdered in an act solely motivated by hate. Hate crimes tear at the very fabric of our Nation by intimidating entire groups of Americans and creating fear across communities. No one in America should be victimized because of who they are, how they look, or what religion they worship. And the Federal Government should be able to come to the aid of those who have been wronged and protect victims. Since 1969, Federal law has permitted prosecution of hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, or color, if the victim was engaging in one of six ``Federally protected'' activities. It has become clear that the statue needs to be amended--and that is what our legislation does. Our legislation would expand on current laws to encompass sexual orientation, gender and disability. It would enable Federal prosecutors to pursue hate crimes cases where local authorities often lack the resources or the ability to prosecute such crimes. Nobel laureate Eli Wiesel once said: ``To hate is to deny another person's humanity.'' As a Nation that serves as the beacon of justice, freedom and liberty everywhere, we simply cannot tolerate violence against our own citizens based on their race, color, religion, or national origin. No matter how far the United States has come and the progress we have made in protecting American's civil rights, much work remains. We cannot fight terror abroad and bow down to terror at home. This legislation is a symbol that can become substance. As I have often said, the law is a teacher, and we should teach our fellow Americans that bigotry will not be tolerated. Our government must have the ability to persuade, to pursue, and to prosecute when hate is the motive of violence against another American, no matter their race, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or gender. By changing the law, I truly believe we can change hearts and minds as well. I urge my colleagues to help me to change the hearts and minds and to make it widely known that we live in a society and a country that does not tolerate those who impose on the civil rights of others simply because they are different. This year, Congress needs to act. I look forward to President Bush signing this legislation into law.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. A 35-year-old gay man was walking to his Boston home when three young men approached him, knocked him to the ground, and repeatedly kicked him in the face. Although he was yelling for help and near several homes, no one came to his aid. The perpetrators fled and left the victim with multiple contusions and internal bleeding in his face. Neither possessions nor money was stolen. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.