Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. On what will be offered on this side.

Mr. SMITH. It would be fine with us to let the Senator speak.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, if Senator Breaux were offering a perfecting amendment, I would take it. But he is offering a poisonous amendment. What his amendment would effectively do is limit the ways that these dollars can be used in America to create American jobs. The more it is limited, the more jobs will be limited. So if my colleagues vote for his amendment, they are voting against job creation in their State. The Senator says he wants a guarantee. My mother used to say the only guarantees in life are death and taxes. What is in this bill are penalties to the Tax Code. If my colleagues want to make sure these things are spent the way they are described, then these companies have to follow the plan they lay out before the IRS. If they do not, they lose the deduction and the penalties attached in the Tax Code will attach to them as well. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Breaux-Feinstein amendment. This bill is important to create American jobs.

Mr. SMITH. It was my understanding that it was 70 minutes on the Dorgan amendment and my request is that that include the debate, equally divided, on the Republican substitute?

Mr. SMITH. I would like to yield 9 minutes to Senator Ensign and 4 or 5 minutes to Senator Allen and, if I could, have 30 seconds to wrap up.

Mr. SMITH. Point of clarification?

Mr. SMITH. I believe when they establish a plan and get the approval for their plan they will follow through on that.

Mr. SMITH. I don't think there is a penalty, I say to the Senator. I am happy to admit that because, frankly, I believe what companies are trying to do is get their money back here on a basis that allows them to be competitive with other multinational companies from other countries. I think what they are interested in doing is a return on investment to their investors. When they give a return on investment to their investors, what they are also doing is creating jobs. They are investing in plant and equipment. And I, for one, do not think it is in the interest of this country to micromanage the Tax Code any more than we already do. So, Mr. President, with that, I will turn the time to my colleague from California.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I emphasize the point that Senator Boxer made in answering Senator Breaux. We did not include special penalties in this bill, but the truth is, when you file your tax returns, you have to own up to what the plan is. You have to live up to that. If you don't, you lose the deduction. Can the IRS impose other penalties? Of course it can. But it then has to make the case against the person. When people file their tax returns, they know they are shooting with real bullets on this stuff. I have every confidence that people will be honest about this and utilize the revenues for the purposes intended in creating jobs. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am going to speak for hopefully less than 5 minutes and then allow my colleague from California to speak. Senator Ensign and, I believe, Senator Allen may wish to speak to this as well. Mr. President, this is ultimately about whether we want the dollars of these American multinational corporations to be brought back to America or left in places like this. We can either put these dollars to work here or we can leave them over there. If you are interested in creating jobs, I think it is important to remind folks what we are talking about is a minimum of $400 billion coming back into this country within the 1-year window that is allowed by this legislation. It has been estimated, on a conservative basis, that it will create 660,000 jobs. It will reduce the Federal deficit, over the next 5 years, by $75 billion. If ever there were a win-win, this amendment on the JOBS bill is a win-win. As I listen to my colleagues, both of whom I esteem as friends, I am astounded so much emphasis is put into the dislike of business and what they might do with this money. I, frankly, have to wonder what is wrong with companies bringing money back here and being allowed to shore up the strength of their business. What is wrong with that? That is exactly what we want them to do. I do not believe, as a former businessman myself, that it is in this country's interest to micromanage how they will reinvest it in this country. Specifically excluded by this legislation is executive compensation. Executive compensation cannot be the target; but plant and equipment, shoring up pension plans, buying back stock, these kinds of things that improve the values of corporations and their competitiveness are exactly what we ought to be doing if we are actually interested in creating jobs. I think it is also very important to point out that our American companies that compete overseas are competing against German and French and other companies in those countries that also have foreign earnings. In these countries--competitor countries--they allow their earnings abroad to have what they call a free walk back. We are not allowing them a free walk back. We are saying, for 1 year, the corporate tax rate will fall from 35 percent to 5.25 percent. The effect will be immediate. It will be beneficial. It will help our economy. It will create jobs. But, moreover, it will, for 1 year, create a level playing field for American corporations as against German or French or Japanese corporations whose countries have tax codes that allow them to take their foreign earnings back to their native lands to be put into their local economies, to strengthen them when they need the strength. Right now, our economy could use $400 billion. If our deficit could be reduced by $75 billion, that would be wonderful. If we could create 660,000 jobs on a short-term basis--we hope that money then stays here--then we have done a tremendous thing for the American worker and the American economy, and we have done it in a way that does not try to micromanage every business decision made in the corporate boardrooms of America.

Mr. SMITH. The Senator, I guess, does not trust they will use it for what they say they will use it for.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, you may.

Mr. SMITH. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from California, and I will use the remainder.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I today speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On August 9, 2000, police charged four men in Daly City, CA, for allegedly assaulting two gay men in a fast food restaurant. I believe that 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. 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. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Two men harassed a white lesbian in Colorado as she left a 7-11 store; one of them yelled an obscenity and called her a ``faggot.'' The victim got into her own pickup truck and drove away, but the offenders followed her and eventually drove her off the road. When she got out of her car, the two men assaulted her sexually and beat her unconscious. A detective who later interviewed the victim about the incident was verbally abusive, calling her a ``liar'' when she said she could not provide a detailed description of her attackers. I believe that 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. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Christopher Hutcherson of Biloxi is accused of capital murder in the January stabbing death of John Brown Smith III, 39, of Fort Walton Beach, FL. A detective testified that Hutcherson told investigators that he stabbed Smith because the retired military man made sexual advances while holding a gun on him. The detective said Smith and Hutcherson were at an adult video arcade, known as a gay pick-up place, the morning of the killing. Hutcherson told investigators that he left the video store and went to Smith's nearby hotel room. The two men drank alcohol before leaving the hotel in Smith's pickup. Smith's body was later found on the rural road by a passerby. I believe that 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. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On August 8, 2003, in Grand Rapids, MI, an 18-year-old bisexual man was discovered unconscious with his wrists bound in a ditch. Authorities believe that he had been the victim of a vicious sexual attack. The victim survived on a life-support for two weeks before dying of pneumonia-like symptoms. I believe that 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 wanted to take the opportunity today to recognize the importance of tire safety during National Tire Safety Week. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Competition, Foreign Commerce, and Infrastructure, which I chair, has jurisdiction over the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. As such, I am keenly aware of the devastation caused each year on our Nation's highways due to automobile accidents. The National Tire Safety Week, created by the Rubber Manufacturers Association, is now in its third year, and one of a number of their public outreach campaigns designed to focus our efforts on a key issue for all of us: tire safety. Tires are clearly a core component of an automobile and a key aspect to ensuring the safety of the occupant. When you stop to think about it, there is only a small patch of rubber on each tire that meets the road at any given moment. That small patch of rubber is responsible for ensuring the automobile maintains control on the roadway. This function must be maintained no matter what weather conditions exist hot or cold, wet or dry, snowy and icy. Tires are an amazing and highly technical feature of an automobile that is often taken for granted. Just like changing your oil regularly, tires must also be routinely cared for and inspected in order to maintain their safety. Unfortunately, many drivers unwittingly neglect their tires. That is why National Tire Safety Week provides us all with a crucial reminder to do the simple things to ensure that our tires are safe. The result of unsafe tires is simply devastating. Tire blowouts and hydroplaning cause a driver to lose control of the vehicle, which careens out of control, often smashing into other vehicles or flipping over. Tragically, just 3 weeks ago in a small farming community in southern Oregon, a family of five ranging in age from 2 years to 60 years old was killed instantly when the rear tire of their van blew out and the van veered into the path of an oncoming pickup truck. The family was on a last minute outing to gather Easter supplies for their church. We don't yet know why the tire blew out. It could have been underinflated. Or perhaps the tread was wearing low or uneven and it was more easily punctured by a sharp object in the road. The bigger question that we need to address now is, could this accident and tragic loss of life have been avoided? Possibly. With this in mind, I would like to highlight a small Oregon company, Smart Tread, LLC, who has developed a simple visual tread wear identification system. The Smart Tread proposal advocates for an improved visual identification system that would help consumers better understand when their tires are safe and when they are not. One such approach would use color directly in the tire tread turning yellow and/ or red when a tire tread reaches a depth like 2/32 of an inch that is no longer safe and is the legal definition of a bald tire. This system will provide early warnings of a car that is out of alignment or running on overinflated or underinflated tires. It is my hope that industry and consumers will see the benefit of this tread wear identification system that Smart Tread has developed. We need to continue to improve the safety of tires to prevent unanticipated automobile accidents and deaths. Again, I thank the tire manufacturers for all their efforts and continuing to address this important issue.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the managers' amendment to S. 150, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. Although the amendment is not perfect, I believe it will sufficiently protect consumers from State attempts to embrace the Internet as a new platform for taxation. Rather than increasing taxes on consumers, we should all work to embrace the Internet for its potential as a critical source of information and services and as a tremendous new marketplace for all to access, not just those that can afford to pay more taxes. Of course, this vote takes place at a time when the economy is beginning to rebound as a result of tax relief--not tax increases--and the U.S. high-tech sector is getting its second wind, preparing to lead the economy once again into a period of increased productivity and job growth. Let us not stifle this by giving a green light to taxing innovation, to taxing Americans' access to the Internet. There is no question that technology boosts U.S. economic output and makes U.S. workers more productive, and that the U.S. high-tech sector is a leading force driving our recent economic growth. Between 1992 and 2000, high tech companies created twice as many jobs as non-high private employers nationwide in the United States. Not to mention that these jobs pay, on average, nearly twice as much as other private sector jobs. Additionally, the Internet and technology have contributed dramatically to our expanding knowledge base, bringing opportunity and hope to those who need them most. Distance learning is offered to more than 3,300 American schools, providing knowledge and education to anyone who can log on, wherever they live. Not to mention, the increased access to government services, born by State, local and Federal Government reliance on the Internet to provide its citizens with valuable government information and services. To realize the full potential of the Internet and the digital economy, every person must be able to participate fully. But today, we are talking about taxing the Internet, the vital core of the information technology revolution of the 1990s and the single greatest resource for Americans to have increased access to vast information resources and government services. About this, there should be no question, and no debate. With technology playing such a critical role in our economy, society and way of life, one would expect political leaders to be supportive of its continued growth for all Americans. Taxing Internet access has never been good policy, and it isn't today. Whether access is provided by traditional phone lines, high-speed Digital Subscriber Lines, DSL, or even wireless, the Internet must remain free of taxation. To the extent that I have any reservations about the amendment, it will likely prolong the different tax regimes for DSL and cable modem service. It is my belief that all high speed data connections should be treated the same and that the government and this legislation should not allow any disparities to continue. Nevertheless, let me reiterate my support for this bill and the promise that it provides for continued economic growth. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital measure. I remind them that the economy is not beginning to rebound as a result of more taxes; it is beginning to rebound as a result of less taxes.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am going to yield to the Senator from Arkansas, and I hope to speak after him. Briefly, I wonder if the Senator from West Virginia would permit me to thank him for his kind words. I have heard Senator Byrd many times speak about his mother. In hearing his speech today, from a statesman such as he, he is uniquely qualified to remind us Senators as to our institutional responsibility and the importance of remembering civility. I remember when my mother used to say: ``Gordy, the best way to ruin a good story is to hear the other side.'' I have remembered so much else that she taught me while she was alive about treating others as I would like to be treated. I appreciate Senator Byrd's civility on every occasion on which I have ever dealt with him. We don't vote much the same, but I will tell you, we both care about coal miners, we both care about timbermen, or lumbermen, we care about people who love the land. In all of my dealings with him, he has always been civil and set that example. For that, I publicly express my appreciation and thank you, sir, for your kind words.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be addressing a Texan, the Presiding Officer, at this moment. I wish to speak about a Texan. I was serving in the Senate for 4 years when I got a call from the Governor of Texas, George W. Bush, to ask if I would give him some time and consider his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States. I was privileged to travel to Austin, and an hour's meeting turned into a half a day's meeting, as I found in this good man a man of the West, a man who understood from whence he came in rural parts of Texas. I represent the State of Oregon. I come from the dry side of Oregon, a side not unlike many parts of Texas. People do not think of Oregon in those terms, but many parts of Oregon are arid. My neighbors are people who farm the earth, fish the rivers, the ocean, and they harvest timber from our mountains. I had served for 4 years as a Senator, working with President Clinton and his administration, trying to make sense of his Northwest Forest Plan, and other proposals of his administration that had an enormous effect upon the State of Oregon. It was interesting to watch the election results 4 years ago and to see the diversity of voting between urban and rural places. Overwhelmingly, rural people voted for George W. Bush, as did I because I am from a rural place. In my first meeting with George W. Bush, I began to discuss the issues of the people I serve and who elected me. I could tell in an instant that he got it, that he understood. He understood water. He understood ranching. He understood farmers. Should he be elected, I asked him as he formulated his environmental policies to please not forget the people who I thought would vote overwhelmingly for him. I asked him to please try to better balance the environmental policies of the Federal Government so we did not forget our human stewardship as we try to implement our environmental stewardship. We have just observed the 34th annual Earth Day. I know many in the environmental community are assembling an arsenal of millions of dollars to run against George W. Bush and suggest that the air has gotten dirtier, the water is fouler, and that the earth is more imbalanced because of his tenure. He has not forgotten those who have elected him. He has not forgotten rural people. He has reconsidered and rebalanced some proposals, and the air is cleaner, the water is cleaner, and the land is doing fine. We have made enormous environmental progress in our country and sometimes we do not stop to celebrate all the progress we have made. I remember as a boy growing up in Bethesda, MD, one could not safely go in the Potomac River because it was so polluted. We can do that today because of the EPA, an Agency established by Richard Nixon and the Congress. We can do that because of all of the efforts that have gone on before. I used to be somewhat concerned and frustrated as President Clinton would go to Virginia and West Virginia and decry rural poverty, when I recognized that much of the poverty occurring in my State was as a direct result of Federal policies. It used to be that in the State of Oregon, for a long time, we harvested tremendous amounts of timber. We had a very vibrant timber industry in our country. Indeed, from the Pacific Northwest region alone we would average about 4 billion board feet a year. I think President Clinton recognized that maybe that was more than was sustainable. He promised the timber industry and the people of the forest in Oregon that he would give them 25 percent of their average harvest--that is 1 billion board feet. We have probably harvested 10 percent of that since that promise was made, and I have witnessed tens of thousands of family wage jobs evaporate. When that happens, it is not just jobs that go away. There are problems with alcoholism, spousal abuse, crime, hopelessness, suicide, and a loss of dignity. So when one wants to know where a lot of our jobs went, they went away because of conscious Federal policy. Right now, as we barely utilize our resources in Oregon and in America, we are overcutting in Canada. The spotted owl does not know the difference. In fact, as we overcut in Canada, we watch our forests burn at record rates. George W. Bush, fortunately, true to his word, helped with this Senate and the House of Representatives to pass a forest health initiative. It is a modest step but it is designed to make communities safer, improve environmental health, and to harvest timber. All of those things will begin to be enjoyed by the people of Oregon again: a better environment and a better economy. Some of those jobs can come back. I lamented when Michael Kelly, the late columnist, lost his life in Iraq. He put the natural resources conflict quite eloquently in a column he wrote in 2001. He said that the battle of values over land use and environmental policies, while often framed as between man and beast, is better understood as between increasingly poor and powerless rural voters and increasingly rich and powerful urban and suburban voters. Kelly went on to note that the Endangered Species Act ``has been exploited by environmental groups whose agenda is to force humans out of lands they wish to see returned to a pre-human state.'' For my counterparts in the East, some of whom think all resource extraction on public lands should be off limits, I would like to give you a sense of how vast the Federal presence is in my State. This picture is of an area known as the Biscuit Fire. The Biscuit Fire consumed lands larger than the State of Rhode Island, or four times the size of the District of Columbia. It destroyed countless acres of roadless areas, wilderness, spotted owl habitat, and salmon spawning grounds. I ask how that moonscape leaves the environment better. I know it left the people worse. The Federal Government owns over 50 percent of the State of Oregon, which amounts to almost 33 million acres; greater than the total acreage of 22 other individual States. So it is safe to say Federal land management policies have a significant impact on the people, the economy, the environment, and the environmental health of my State. I am proud we have a President who understands the implications of Federal policies on rural America. This President understands that humans are part of the environmental equation, and he is working to maintain domestic resource industries and to return strength to rural economies. So as he gets attacked in this campaign, I hope the people of Oregon will understand there is a human side to this equation, and they will remember the compassionate conservatism he campaigned on is being restored in rural places: a little compassion, a little balance. In 2002, President Bush came to Oregon. He saw firsthand the destruction and dislocation caused by these catastrophic wildfires. On occasion, I was able to share with him the importance of rebalancing policies, even as it related to producing electricity. For a long time there were serious people in powerful places advocating the demolition of hydroelectric power on the Colombia and Snake Rivers. It is the product of our prosperity in this country that we have come to a place where too many think electricity comes from a light switch, gasoline comes from a service station, and timber comes from the local hardware store. But all of these things come from rural places, from industries that provide us the power and the means to enjoy the American way of life. President Bush has had the good sense to resist some of these proposals that went too far and, when appropriate, to rebalance them so people can have a place again in the environmental equation. This President also is strongly committed to species conservation. Sometimes that is missed. In fact, it will never be included in the ads of environmental organizations, but this President's budget for fiscal year 2005 includes $100 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, which is a $10 million increase from the year before. The combined Federal funding request for Pacific salmon mitigation and recovery is over $719 million, and this commitment is paying off. Ten years ago a little over 200,000 chinook and 160,000 steelhead returned to the Bonneville Dam. But in 2003, nearly a million chinook and 365,000 steelhead returned to that dam. This President has also understood the need for a comprehensive national energy policy, and that energy security is vital to our national security, to say nothing of our economic security. He has championed the research and development of new fuel cell technology that would lessen our dependence on imported oil. He has supported energy conservation and tax credits for the production of electricity from renewable sources. As energy prices remain high, and as our economy rebounds, the need for a national energy policy will only continue to become more and more urgent. President Bush is not going to get credit for these things in the ads of certain advocacy groups, but I hope the American people will remember to credit him for his care for rural people and places, for his tangible efforts to restore lost family-wage jobs as it relates to fishing, farming, forestry, and energy production. I hope people will also remember our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner--we are making tremendous progress. While some will say this has been rolled back, or that has been changed, it is usually because something has gone too far and a little common sense, a little compassionate conservatism was needed to be restored to the equation. On Earth Day I had wanted to come and say these things to defend the President, as he is being attacked so liberally, but time on the floor was not allowed that day. So I am here this day to put in this reminder and ask the American people to remember: President Bush is a good steward. More than that, he is a good man. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business, and after my remarks that the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, be allowed to speak.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Three employees of the Office of Diversity and Dialogue in Scottsdale, AZ, were injured on February 26, 2004, when a bomb delivered through the mail exploded in their office. The Office of Diversity and Dialogue offers community training and outreach programs and handles various complaints from city employees and citizens, including racial and sex discrimination grievances. The explosion occurred when Don Logan, the director of Scottsdale's Office of Diversity and Dialogue, opened a notebook sized package addressed to him that was carrying a bomb. The blast left a 3\1/2\ inch-wide hole in Logan's desk and shot shrapnel into the walls, ceiling and floor. Logan, 48, suffered serious burns on his hands and arms. I believe that 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. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On November 18, 2004, in Fargo, ND, Derek Puttbrese, 20, beat a friend in his apartment. Both the victim and Puttbrese admit that the assault originated after the victim admitted he was gay. The victim told authorities that Puttbrese had stayed at his apartment as a guest and attacked him after the two drank some wine. I believe that 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. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. In Davis, CA, on October 26, 2003, a homosexual man in his mid- twenties discovered that his automobile had been drenched with four flats worth of eggs. The damage to his vehicle was estimated at approximately $4,000 and a gang tag was scrawled on the vehicle. The victim said that he felt his vehicle was targeted because he hangs a gay pride flag outside his home. I believe that 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.