Gordon Smith

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. On January 11, 2005, a popular 21-year-old gay man from Tucson was found unconscious and bleeding from the head. Mark Fontes had been struck in the back of the head with what appeared to be a baseball bat. Although an investigation into the attack is still underway, the motivation for this vicious beating appears to be the victim's sexual orientation. 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 Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. In January 2005, a teenage Texas male was repeatedly beaten by a group of teenage boys. The apparent motivation for this attack was the victim's sexual orientation--he was gay. The attackers punched and repeatedly kicked the victim with a steel-toed boot while yelling slurs regarding his sexual orientation. 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. President, I rise today to shine a spotlight on one of the most lopsided and unfair programs in the Federal Government, and to reintroduce legislation to correct it. Every year, the Federal Government collects millions of dollars in ``universal service'' surcharges on telephone bills. In part, this money is intended to be used to provide, affordable telephone service in isolated, rural areas--a goal we all support. Unfortunately, instead of sending these funds equitably to rural areas throughout the United States, many residents in 40 States-- including some of the most rural States in the country--receive no support from this program, while a few States receive enormous windfalls. In 2005, about 75 percent of a key universal service fund account is projected to go to just three States and a single State will receive more than half of the funding provided by this program. All of this continues the pattern of lopsided funding distribution seen in recent years. I am referring to the Federal Universal Service Fund program for so- called ``non-rural carriers.'' This is a ridiculous misnomer because more than 70 percent of all rural Americans are served by one of 30 so- called ``non-rural'' carriers. If you live in a small, isolated town or rural area, you are likely served by one these carriers, and chances are your community is receiving none of the benefits of this program. The calls to fix this program have been growing louder and louder. In the 108th Congress, more than 80 independent organizations and state and local officials called on us to fix this unfair, broken program, including 21 governors, 38 State utility commissioners, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Grange, and groups representing business, labor, consumers, minorities, and the rural poor. Responding to that broad support, more than 30 Senators and 80 Representatives cosponsored my bill or the House companion measure offered by Mr. Terry of Nebraska and Mr. Stupak of Michigan last Congress. And the Senate Commerce Committee approved my bill on a strong bipartisan vote. Today, I am reintroducing the Rural Universal Service Equity Act, along with 19 of my colleagues. This legislation would guarantee a fairer, more targeted distribution of the non-rural-carrier account by requiring allocations to be based on actual community needs, not an arbitrary mathematical formula. Beyond basic fairness for the majority of rural America, there are at least two additional reasons to enact this legislation. First, it will help overcome the ``digital divide'' between urban and rural America, and prevent it from growing worse. As long as the current rules remain in place, the majority of rural communities and the telephone companies that serve them will suffer a significant competitive disadvantage in today's digital economy. Second, the bill will fix this program while keeping a tight rein on USF expenditures. My legislation would redistribute existing funds more fairly, without imposing any additional burdens on the USF or requiring increased federal spending or revenues. Finally, my bill would not interfere with important efforts to fix other serious problems in the Universal Service Fund. We all know the USF must be modernized and reformed to reflect the challenges and technologies of the 21st Century. But the broader USF reform debate is likely to be contentious and protracted. In the meantime, we should be able to correct a shameful inequity in a program that is intended to benefit the majority of rural Americans. And we should do it as soon as possible. Once again I thank my colleagues and friends across America who have helped in this effort to date, and I call upon all members of the Senate to become cosponsors of the Rural Universal Service Equity Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. President, I rise today to shine a spotlight on one of the most lopsided and unfair programs in the Federal Government, and to reintroduce legislation to correct it. Every year, the Federal Government collects millions of dollars in ``universal service'' surcharges on telephone bills. In part, this money is intended to be used to provide, affordable telephone service in isolated, rural areas--a goal we all support. Unfortunately, instead of sending these funds equitably to rural areas throughout the United States, many residents in 40 States-- including some of the most rural States in the country--receive no support from this program, while a few States receive enormous windfalls. In 2005, about 75 percent of a key universal service fund account is projected to go to just three States and a single State will receive more than half of the funding provided by this program. All of this continues the pattern of lopsided funding distribution seen in recent years. I am referring to the Federal Universal Service Fund program for so- called ``non-rural carriers.'' This is a ridiculous misnomer because more than 70 percent of all rural Americans are served by one of 30 so- called ``non-rural'' carriers. If you live in a small, isolated town or rural area, you are likely served by one these carriers, and chances are your community is receiving none of the benefits of this program. The calls to fix this program have been growing louder and louder. In the 108th Congress, more than 80 independent organizations and state and local officials called on us to fix this unfair, broken program, including 21 governors, 38 State utility commissioners, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Grange, and groups representing business, labor, consumers, minorities, and the rural poor. Responding to that broad support, more than 30 Senators and 80 Representatives cosponsored my bill or the House companion measure offered by Mr. Terry of Nebraska and Mr. Stupak of Michigan last Congress. And the Senate Commerce Committee approved my bill on a strong bipartisan vote. Today, I am reintroducing the Rural Universal Service Equity Act, along with 19 of my colleagues. This legislation would guarantee a fairer, more targeted distribution of the non-rural-carrier account by requiring allocations to be based on actual community needs, not an arbitrary mathematical formula. Beyond basic fairness for the majority of rural America, there are at least two additional reasons to enact this legislation. First, it will help overcome the ``digital divide'' between urban and rural America, and prevent it from growing worse. As long as the current rules remain in place, the majority of rural communities and the telephone companies that serve them will suffer a significant competitive disadvantage in today's digital economy. Second, the bill will fix this program while keeping a tight rein on USF expenditures. My legislation would redistribute existing funds more fairly, without imposing any additional burdens on the USF or requiring increased federal spending or revenues. Finally, my bill would not interfere with important efforts to fix other serious problems in the Universal Service Fund. We all know the USF must be modernized and reformed to reflect the challenges and technologies of the 21st Century. But the broader USF reform debate is likely to be contentious and protracted. In the meantime, we should be able to correct a shameful inequity in a program that is intended to benefit the majority of rural Americans. And we should do it as soon as possible. Once again I thank my colleagues and friends across America who have helped in this effort to date, and I call upon all members of the Senate to become cosponsors of the Rural Universal Service Equity Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby submit for publication the rules of the Special Committee on Aging. I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation aimed at helping some the world's poorest countries along their path toward economic development and self-sufficiency. Joining me in introducing this bill are my colleagues Senator Feinstein, of California; Senator Baucus, of Montana; and Senator Santorum, of Pennsylvania. I appreciate their efforts in getting us to this point, and I look forward to working with them to see that this legislation is enacted into law. When President Bush delivered his second inaugural address last week, he reaffirmed in absolute terms the commitment of the United States toward furthering human dignity around the globe. He drew on the words and the beliefs of our forefathers that every life has worth and is deserving of the freedom and security of economic independence. The bill that I bring here today is aimed at spreading America's ideals of economic independence to regions of the world that have seen few such successes. My bill, the Tariff Relief Assistance for Developing Economies (TRADE) Act of 2005, would extend to some of the poorest people of the world the opportunity to work toward a better life. Specifically, my legislation would provide duty-free and quota-free benefits, similar to those afforded under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, to some of the world's most impoverished nations. The countries covered by this legislation are 14 of the least developed countries (LDCs), as defined by the United Nations and the U.S. State Department, which are not covered by any current U.S. trade preference program. They include Afghanistan, East Timor, Maldives, Cambodia, Bangladesh, and Nepal. My bill also includes a special emergency trade provision to assist Sri Lanka as it struggles through the aftermath of the recent tsunami. The TRADE Act countries are subject to some of the highest U.S. tariffs in the world, averaging over 15 percent. This stands in glaring contrast to the nearly negligible tariffs that face our wealthier trading partners in Europe and Japan. The TRADE LDCs have been given duty-free entry from all other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, and they need our help now. In prior years Congress has acted generously toward LDCs in the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa. It is now time for us to act in a similar fashion to LDCs of the Asia-Pacific region. By allowing duty- free imports into the United States, we can encourage these countries to diversify their economies while creating employment opportunities and promoting democracy. In supporting these values, we can also help to bring about a safer and more peaceful world. Recent history has shown us the violence and resentment that can arise when people lose hope and societies breakdown. Backward economic policies and repressive regimes offer fertile breeding ground for radical and dangerous ideologies. In its final report, the 9/11 Commission recommended a U.S. strategy to counter terrorism that includes ``economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and enhance prospects for their children's future.'' The bill that I am introducing today can help us meet the goal of greater economic development in an increasingly important region of the world. The devastation brought by the recent tsunami coupled with the end of the textile quota system make this legislation especially timely and hasten the need for its passage. I thank you for the opportunity to speak here today, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to pass this legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation aimed at helping some the world's poorest countries along their path toward economic development and self-sufficiency. Joining me in introducing this bill are my colleagues Senator Feinstein, of California; Senator Baucus, of Montana; and Senator Santorum, of Pennsylvania. I appreciate their efforts in getting us to this point, and I look forward to working with them to see that this legislation is enacted into law. When President Bush delivered his second inaugural address last week, he reaffirmed in absolute terms the commitment of the United States toward furthering human dignity around the globe. He drew on the words and the beliefs of our forefathers that every life has worth and is deserving of the freedom and security of economic independence. The bill that I bring here today is aimed at spreading America's ideals of economic independence to regions of the world that have seen few such successes. My bill, the Tariff Relief Assistance for Developing Economies (TRADE) Act of 2005, would extend to some of the poorest people of the world the opportunity to work toward a better life. Specifically, my legislation would provide duty-free and quota-free benefits, similar to those afforded under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, to some of the world's most impoverished nations. The countries covered by this legislation are 14 of the least developed countries (LDCs), as defined by the United Nations and the U.S. State Department, which are not covered by any current U.S. trade preference program. They include Afghanistan, East Timor, Maldives, Cambodia, Bangladesh, and Nepal. My bill also includes a special emergency trade provision to assist Sri Lanka as it struggles through the aftermath of the recent tsunami. The TRADE Act countries are subject to some of the highest U.S. tariffs in the world, averaging over 15 percent. This stands in glaring contrast to the nearly negligible tariffs that face our wealthier trading partners in Europe and Japan. The TRADE LDCs have been given duty-free entry from all other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, and they need our help now. In prior years Congress has acted generously toward LDCs in the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa. It is now time for us to act in a similar fashion to LDCs of the Asia-Pacific region. By allowing duty- free imports into the United States, we can encourage these countries to diversify their economies while creating employment opportunities and promoting democracy. In supporting these values, we can also help to bring about a safer and more peaceful world. Recent history has shown us the violence and resentment that can arise when people lose hope and societies breakdown. Backward economic policies and repressive regimes offer fertile breeding ground for radical and dangerous ideologies. In its final report, the 9/11 Commission recommended a U.S. strategy to counter terrorism that includes ``economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and enhance prospects for their children's future.'' The bill that I am introducing today can help us meet the goal of greater economic development in an increasingly important region of the world. The devastation brought by the recent tsunami coupled with the end of the textile quota system make this legislation especially timely and hasten the need for its passage. I thank you for the opportunity to speak here today, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to pass this legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, cosponsored by my colleague from Oregon, to reauthorize participation by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes River Conservancy for an additional 10 years. The Deschutes River Conservancy, formerly know as the Deschutes Resources Conservancy, was originally authorized in 1996 as a pilot project. It was so successful it was reauthorized in the 106th Congress. The Conservancy is designed to achieve local consensus for on-the-ground projects to improve ecosystem health in the Deschutes River Basin. The Deschutes River is truly one of Oregon's greatest resources. It drains Oregon's high desert along the eastern front of the Cascades, eventually flowing into the Columbia River. It is the State's most intensively used recreational river. It provides water to both irrigation projects and to the city of Bend, which is one of Oregon's fastest growing cities. The Deschutes Basin also contains hundreds of thousands of acres of productive forest and rangelands, serves the treaty fishing and water rights of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, and has Oregon's largest non-Federal hydroelectric project. By all accounts, the Deschutes River Conservancy has been a huge success. It has brought together diverse interests within the Basin, including irrigators, tribes, ranchers, environmentalists, an investor- owned utility, local businesses, as well as local elected officials and representatives of State and Federal agencies. Together, the Conservancy board members have been able to develop project criteria and identify a number of water quality, water quantity, fish passage and habitat improvement projects that could be funded. Over the years, projects have been selected by consensus, and there must be a fifty- fifty cost share from non-Federal sources. Over the past 8 years, they have been very successful at finding cooperative, market-based solutions to enhance the ecosystem in the basin. The Conservancy has used this approach to restore over ninety cubic-feet-per-second of streamflow in the Deschutes Basin. In addition, by planting over 100,000 trees, installing miles of riparian fencing, removing berms and reconstructing stream beds, the Conservancy has helped improve fish habitat and water quality along one hundred miles of the Deschutes River and its tributaries. The existing authorization provides for up to two million dollars each year for projects. This bill would continue that annual authorization ceiling for 10 years. Funds are provided through the Bureau of Reclamation, the group's lead Federal agency. The Deschutes River Conservancy enjoys widespread support in Oregon. It has very committed board members who represent diverse interests in the Basin. The high caliber of their work, and their pragmatic approach to ecosystem restoration have been recognized by others outside the region. I am convinced that Federal participation in this project needs to continue. This organization has helped to avoid the conflicts over water that we have seen in too many watersheds in the western United States. I urge my colleagues to continue support for this project. Not only is it important to central Oregon, but the Deschutes River Conservancy can serve as a national model for cooperative watershed restoration at the local level.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, cosponsored by my colleague from Oregon, to reauthorize participation by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes River Conservancy for an additional 10 years. The Deschutes River Conservancy, formerly know as the Deschutes Resources Conservancy, was originally authorized in 1996 as a pilot project. It was so successful it was reauthorized in the 106th Congress. The Conservancy is designed to achieve local consensus for on-the-ground projects to improve ecosystem health in the Deschutes River Basin. The Deschutes River is truly one of Oregon's greatest resources. It drains Oregon's high desert along the eastern front of the Cascades, eventually flowing into the Columbia River. It is the State's most intensively used recreational river. It provides water to both irrigation projects and to the city of Bend, which is one of Oregon's fastest growing cities. The Deschutes Basin also contains hundreds of thousands of acres of productive forest and rangelands, serves the treaty fishing and water rights of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, and has Oregon's largest non-Federal hydroelectric project. By all accounts, the Deschutes River Conservancy has been a huge success. It has brought together diverse interests within the Basin, including irrigators, tribes, ranchers, environmentalists, an investor- owned utility, local businesses, as well as local elected officials and representatives of State and Federal agencies. Together, the Conservancy board members have been able to develop project criteria and identify a number of water quality, water quantity, fish passage and habitat improvement projects that could be funded. Over the years, projects have been selected by consensus, and there must be a fifty- fifty cost share from non-Federal sources. Over the past 8 years, they have been very successful at finding cooperative, market-based solutions to enhance the ecosystem in the basin. The Conservancy has used this approach to restore over ninety cubic-feet-per-second of streamflow in the Deschutes Basin. In addition, by planting over 100,000 trees, installing miles of riparian fencing, removing berms and reconstructing stream beds, the Conservancy has helped improve fish habitat and water quality along one hundred miles of the Deschutes River and its tributaries. The existing authorization provides for up to two million dollars each year for projects. This bill would continue that annual authorization ceiling for 10 years. Funds are provided through the Bureau of Reclamation, the group's lead Federal agency. The Deschutes River Conservancy enjoys widespread support in Oregon. It has very committed board members who represent diverse interests in the Basin. The high caliber of their work, and their pragmatic approach to ecosystem restoration have been recognized by others outside the region. I am convinced that Federal participation in this project needs to continue. This organization has helped to avoid the conflicts over water that we have seen in too many watersheds in the western United States. I urge my colleagues to continue support for this project. Not only is it important to central Oregon, but the Deschutes River Conservancy can serve as a national model for cooperative watershed restoration at the local level.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to observe a solemn anniversary. On January 27, 2005, the world will pause and remember as we mark the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the most notorious of Nazi Germany's concentration and death camps. In 1940, Germany established the Auschwitz concentration camp 37 miles west of Krakow in Poland. Formerly a Polish Army barracks, Auschwitz was first used as a prison for captured Polish soldiers and those who were considered by the Nazis to be dangerous. The prison held captive the elite of Poland--their civic and spiritual leaders, educated classes, cultural and scientific figures, army officers, and members of the resistance movement. Throughout World War II, Auschwitz continued to be used to house prisoners-of-war, gypsies, and others who opposed the Nazi regime. In 1942, Germany began to use Auschwitz as one of its principle camps to carry out the systematic extermination of Jews across the European continent. As the Nazis pursued their horrific ``final solution,'' over one million Jews and tens of thousands of others perished at Auschwitz, the majority of whom were executed in the infamous gas chambers. As the Soviet Army approached at the end of 1944, the Nazis attempted to destroy evidence of their atrocities. In late January 1945, the Germans evacuated Auschwitz with the SS leading over 50,000 prisoners on a death march that eventually claimed the lives of thousands more. When the Soviets finally reached the camp, only a few thousand prisoners remained alive to see their liberation. It was some time before the world knew the extent of the atrocities committed at Auschwitz. But as the truth became known, we made the promise to never forget what happened there and at other Nazi extermination camps. Today, by marking this somber anniversary, we keep that promise. Yet, it is not enough to simply pause and remember. I have walked that ground in Auschwitz. I have felt the weight of the air and seen the ruins of the crematoria. It is an unquestionably chilling experience that I have trouble expressing in words. But I do know and understand the words of Auschwitz survivor and Nobel laureate Elie Weisel, who said, ``to remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all.'' It is in that spirit that we not only recall the horrors perpetrated at Auschwitz, but we work to ensure that such unbridled hatred and evil never again goes unchecked. So, too, we must recognize that hatred does still exist in the world and we see signs of it every day. It is our duty as a free people to work against its growth and fight evil wherever it is found. As a beacon of liberty for the entire world, I am inspired by the words spoken by President Bush in his Inaugural address last week, ``we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.'' So, as we mark 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, it is not enough to simply remember, we must be ever vigilant in our fight against bigotry and hatred both at home and abroad.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing important legislation to help more Americans realize the dream of homeownership. The Mortgage Insurance Fairness Act would make mortgage insurance payment premiums tax deductible. In doing so, it will help more lower- income Americans purchase homes for their families. It is widely recognized that homeownership helps to create stable and safe communities. As such, the Federal Government has long sought to increase homeownership. President Bush has announced a goal of 5.5 million new homeowners by the year 2010. Achieving that goal requires helping those that have typically had difficulty purchasing homes-- young people, low-income families, members of minority groups. Government and private mortgage insurance programs help first-time, low-income and veteran borrowers afford to purchase homes. The Veterans Affairs (VA), Federal Housing Authority (FHA), Regional Housing Authority (RHA) and Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI) programs allow buyers to make a down payment of 3 percent or less of the appraised value. For many lower- and middle-income families, mortgage insurance makes it possible for them to buy their first home. In Oregon, more than 137,000 families held mortgages with either FHA or private mortgage insurance in 2002. In 2001, 62 percent of the insured home purchases in Oregon were low-income borrowers, and insured mortgages covered 25 percent of all home purchase loans that year. Nationwide, mortgage insurance covers over half of home loans made to African American and Hispanic borrowers. Similarly, over half of the loans to borrowers with incomes below the median income were covered by mortgage insurance. The people who use mortgage insurance are regular working families who live in every community throughout the country. In all, more than twelve million American families pay mortgage insurance. Currently, these borrowers are not allowed to deduct the cost of their mortgage insurance from their Federal taxes. If these payments were made deductible, the cost of homeownership would go down and more families would be able to buy homes. It is estimated that the Mortgage Insurance Fairness Act would increase the number of homeowners by 300,000 per year. Extending tax deductions to mortgage insurance will help to make the dream of owning a home attainable for more Americans. We came very close to enacting this legislation last year when it was included in the Senate version of the JOBS Act. Unfortunately, in the end we were not able to complete action on this bill. I look forward to again working with my colleagues to see this legislation is passed and signed into law. I thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I urge my colleagues to support this important bi-partisan legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, with over 77 million baby boomers beginning to retire in 2008, a serious retirement challenge is looming in our country. Moreover, with Americans living longer and a growing numbers of retirees facing the challenge of managing their own retirement savings, we need to provide them with better retirement options. In response, I rise today to offer legislation aimed at assisting people to maintain their financial independence and their standard of living throughout their retirement by making it easier for them to secure a steady income for life. In recent years, the focus of the ``retirement security'' debate in Congress has almost entirely been on the need to accumulate a nest egg to fund retirement. Congress is doing much to encourage personal saving and employer-provided retirement plans. I am proud of both our successes and our continuing efforts in these areas. Encouraging greater savings is an important step; however, it is not enough. Unfortunately, there has been little attention paid to the retirement income or ``payout'' phase of the retirement security equation. The risk of outliving one's savings is one of the biggest problems facing retirees. I have heard it said that Americans perceive the retirement savings ``finish line'' to be the point of retirement. But retirement is just the beginning of a very different kind of race, one of unknown duration. If Americans are going to fully enjoy their retirement years, we need to ensure that as many Americans as possible will have a stream of income they cannot outlive. We have some control over when we retire. However, we have very little control over how long we will live. For most Americans, a ``secure retirement'' means maintaining their standard of living through retirement and the means to deal with life's challenges from the first day of retirement to the very last. For the majority of Americans, that requires a steady stream of income that, combined with Social Security or other retirement income, covers basic living expenses--from housing expenses to medical bills, taxes to transportation, food to clothing. Yet, Americans today are facing a serious and growing challenge to retirement security. At the same time Americans are living longer, the future of private and public retirement programs, as well as financial markets, is increasingly uncertain. Fewer Americans are covered by traditional pension plans, and Social Security currently replaces on average only about 42 percent of earnings. This means it's increasingly up to each individual to manage their retirement savings to last their lifetime. And exactly how long will that period in retirement be? It depends. Of course none of us know how long we will live; research shows most Americans vastly underestimate their longevity. According to the Society of Actuaries, a male age 65 has a 50 percent chance of living beyond age 85 and a 25 percent chance of living beyond age 92. Indeed, the biggest risk we face in retirement is the longevity risk--that is, living longer than our retirement savings lasts. In order to meet this challenge, Senator Conrad and I are introducing legislation to encourage the use of retirement vehicles that pay a guaranteed lifetime income. Under the Retirement Security for Life Act that Senator Conrad and I are introducing today, a tax incentive would be enacted that encourages retirees to provide themselves with a guaranteed lifetime income that they can't outlive. Specifically, the proposal would exclude from Federal taxes one-half of the income payments from an annuity purchased with after tax dollars (a so-called non-qualified annuity). Importantly, we have proposed a cap on the exclusion so that no more that $20,000 could be excluded in a year. For a typical American in the 25 percent tax bracket, this would provide an annual maximum tax savings of up to $5,000. I believed that this modest tax incentive will enable some retirees to consider annuitizing a portion of their nest egg so that they have a guaranteed lifetime of income. This legislation has a wide range of support from organizations representing women, minorities, farmers and small businesses. Many in these groups do not have access to traditional employer provided pension. As we tackle the challenges of retirement policy, we need to ensure that all Americans have adequate financial security to meet their basic needs during retirement. Personal savings and responsibility are the keys to a balanced national retirement security policy. Please join me in supporting our proposal as a crucial step in providing a secure retirement for all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, with over 77 million baby boomers beginning to retire in 2008, a serious retirement challenge is looming in our country. Moreover, with Americans living longer and a growing numbers of retirees facing the challenge of managing their own retirement savings, we need to provide them with better retirement options. In response, I rise today to offer legislation aimed at assisting people to maintain their financial independence and their standard of living throughout their retirement by making it easier for them to secure a steady income for life. In recent years, the focus of the ``retirement security'' debate in Congress has almost entirely been on the need to accumulate a nest egg to fund retirement. Congress is doing much to encourage personal saving and employer-provided retirement plans. I am proud of both our successes and our continuing efforts in these areas. Encouraging greater savings is an important step; however, it is not enough. Unfortunately, there has been little attention paid to the retirement income or ``payout'' phase of the retirement security equation. The risk of outliving one's savings is one of the biggest problems facing retirees. I have heard it said that Americans perceive the retirement savings ``finish line'' to be the point of retirement. But retirement is just the beginning of a very different kind of race, one of unknown duration. If Americans are going to fully enjoy their retirement years, we need to ensure that as many Americans as possible will have a stream of income they cannot outlive. We have some control over when we retire. However, we have very little control over how long we will live. For most Americans, a ``secure retirement'' means maintaining their standard of living through retirement and the means to deal with life's challenges from the first day of retirement to the very last. For the majority of Americans, that requires a steady stream of income that, combined with Social Security or other retirement income, covers basic living expenses--from housing expenses to medical bills, taxes to transportation, food to clothing. Yet, Americans today are facing a serious and growing challenge to retirement security. At the same time Americans are living longer, the future of private and public retirement programs, as well as financial markets, is increasingly uncertain. Fewer Americans are covered by traditional pension plans, and Social Security currently replaces on average only about 42 percent of earnings. This means it's increasingly up to each individual to manage their retirement savings to last their lifetime. And exactly how long will that period in retirement be? It depends. Of course none of us know how long we will live; research shows most Americans vastly underestimate their longevity. According to the Society of Actuaries, a male age 65 has a 50 percent chance of living beyond age 85 and a 25 percent chance of living beyond age 92. Indeed, the biggest risk we face in retirement is the longevity risk--that is, living longer than our retirement savings lasts. In order to meet this challenge, Senator Conrad and I are introducing legislation to encourage the use of retirement vehicles that pay a guaranteed lifetime income. Under the Retirement Security for Life Act that Senator Conrad and I are introducing today, a tax incentive would be enacted that encourages retirees to provide themselves with a guaranteed lifetime income that they can't outlive. Specifically, the proposal would exclude from Federal taxes one-half of the income payments from an annuity purchased with after tax dollars (a so-called non-qualified annuity). Importantly, we have proposed a cap on the exclusion so that no more that $20,000 could be excluded in a year. For a typical American in the 25 percent tax bracket, this would provide an annual maximum tax savings of up to $5,000. I believed that this modest tax incentive will enable some retirees to consider annuitizing a portion of their nest egg so that they have a guaranteed lifetime of income. This legislation has a wide range of support from organizations representing women, minorities, farmers and small businesses. Many in these groups do not have access to traditional employer provided pension. As we tackle the challenges of retirement policy, we need to ensure that all Americans have adequate financial security to meet their basic needs during retirement. Personal savings and responsibility are the keys to a balanced national retirement security policy. Please join me in supporting our proposal as a crucial step in providing a secure retirement for all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to address a topic we have all been contemplating lately, one important to the American people, and one that I hope we will address in the 109th Congress, tax simplification and reform. As we begin to put our ideas together to simplify Federal income taxes for American individuals, families and small businesses, we should be careful not to remove incentives for investment. While many investment opportunities exist today, perhaps none provides more benefits for individuals, families and communities than the purchase of a home. That is why we must continue to allow taxpayers to deduct the interest paid on home loans from their Federal income taxes. The mortgage interest deduction is a vital component of our Tax Code. After State taxes, it is the most common deduction. The tax savings individuals and families receive from financing a home factor strongly into the economic decision people make to buy a house or apartment. In fact, studies have shown that the deduction is critical to young families trying to become homeowners. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the average homeowner has $121,000 in net equity in their home, which represents half of their net worth. Equity in a home is not only a major source of household wealth, but it can also be leveraged to finance goals such as higher education or startup costs for a small business. Children of homeowners are better educated, less likely to drop out of school, and less likely to be arrested. For these reasons and more, people often tell me that buying their house or apartment is the best investment they have ever made for themselves and their family. Benefits also extend beyond the homeowner. Due to positive social effects, promoting homeownership has been a bipartisan public policy objective in this country since the 1930s. Regardless of income or other factors, homeowners are more likely to vote, a critical activity to the health of democracy. Studies have shown that municipalities with higher homeownership rates spend more on schools and streets and less on social welfare. Homeowners have a direct stake in the quality of their neighborhoods, work harder to make their community a good place to live, driving out crime, drugs and blight, and attracting investment in cultural, retail and commercial development. Our Nation's homeownership rate reached a record 69.2 percent in the second quarter of this year. The number of homeowners reached 73.4 million, the most ever. And for the first time, minority homeownership rose above 50 percent. Despite this success, however, homeownership opportunities are not equally available to everyone. For example, while minority homeownership rates have increased, Hispanics and African- Americans still lag significantly behind non-Hispanic whites and Asian- Americans. As we bring the 108th Congress to a close, I urge my colleagues to give careful thought to America's longstanding tradition of encouraging homeownership. With prudent tax polices we can continue to help citizens on the path to homeownership and in pursuit of the American Dream.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am reminded of the words of Will Rogers, that great Oklahoman whose statue is a few steps removed from the old Senate chamber, who once said, ``The income tax system is the only thing that has made a liar out of more of the American people than golf has.'' Coincidentally, the tax system and golf are passions of another great Oklahoman who I am proud to honor at the end of this Congress--our friend and colleague Don Nickles. Don has accomplished a great deal during his 24 years in the Senate. Chief among them is the fact that he somehow has managed to look almost exactly like he did when he first entered the Senate at the ripe old age of 32 in 1981. But the accomplishment of Don that I admire the most is remarkable record of success he has achieved in putting more money in the pockets of America's families by reducing their taxes and by restoring some fairness to the system. To paraphrase Will Rogers, Don never met a tax he liked. And from reducing and then repealing the death tax to equalizing the tax system for the self-employed to being the guiding force behind the child tax credit, lowering the capital gains tax, and reducing tax rates for all Americans, no Senator has done more in the past 20 years to earn the enduring respect of our hard working taxpayers than Don Nickles. Don will be greatly missed as a legislator, but he will also be greatly missed as a friend. I have long believed that you can learn a lot about someone by playing golf with them, and I've been privileged during my 8 years in the Senate to play a little bit of golf with Don. And it should come as no surprise that his actions on the golf course are very much like his actions in the Senate. He is good, very good, at both. And yes, there are times on the golf course like here in the Senate where he can be found on the right, the far right, but for the most part he plays it straight down the middle. It is on the golf course where Don and I became more than colleagues, we became friends. And I know I am not alone in saying that I will miss Don's friendship, and the friendship of his wife Linda, on a day-to-day basis. When tragedy befell my family last year, Don was at my house within the hour. Don and Linda have been incredibly kind and supportive to Sharon and me. Don, as a taxpayer I thank you for your service, as a golfer I thank you for more good memories than I can count, and as a friend, I thank you for being there when I needed you most. I know your contributions to your state and your country are far from complete, and all your colleagues join with me in wishing you and Linda Godspeed as you begin this new chapter in your life.

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 September 19, 1998, in Chicago, IL, three men were allegedly attacked by two men who made anti-gay remarks. 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, on behalf of the residents of Clatsop County, OR, I pay tribute to public servants who are usually referred to here in the U.S. Senate as nameless and faceless bureaucrats. I express my gratitude to the dedicated staff of the National Park Service staff at the newly designated Lewis and Clark National Historic Park--in particular, the superintendent, Chip Jenkins. Fort Clatsop and the Lewis and Clark National Historic Park, which sits in the northwest corner of Oregon, serves as the exclamation mark to the Lewis and Clark expedition across this vast continent. Established in 1958, this unit of the national park system has grown to be one of the most popular tourist attractions along the northern Oregon Coast. For 46 years, this park has endeavored to tell the story of the Lewis and Clark Expedition and its impact on the settlement of the Pacific Northwest. In preparation for the upcoming Lewis and Clark Bicentennial festivities, Chip Jenkins and his staff at the Fort have served as a driving force in planning, facilitating and coordinating region-wide efforts to help tell the tale of Lewis and Clark in the great Pacific Northwest. Along with many key members of the community, Chip's vision and leadership abilities have culminated in the recent passage of the Lewis and Clark National Historical Park Designation Act, which brings several State parks from both Oregon and Washington in partnership with the National Park Service to tell a comprehensive story of the Lewis and Clark experience at the mouth of the magnificent Columbia River. This Act was recently signed into law by President Bush on October 30, 2004. Chip has made such an impact on the State of Oregon that the Oregon Business magazine recently named him one of Oregon's top 50 Great Leaders. Well known in his community for his role at Fort Clatsop, Chip still finds time for involvement in other local organizations and efforts such as the Astoria Children's Museum. Mr. President, I offer my words of appreciation for Chip Jenkins and his staff at the Lewis and Clark National Historic Park for their dedication to the public good. With the peak of Lewis and Clark Bicentennial celebrations coming in the summer of 2005, there is still much work to do. But I am confident that they will succeed and leave a legacy lasting well beyond this season of celebration. While the public servants of our many Federal agencies are often faceless and nameless to us in Congress, they are considered friends and partners in the communities they serve.

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 September 2, 1998, in New York City, three men assaulted two men they believed to be gay. 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. 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 25, 1998 in Tremont, ME, Robert Powers was arrested for allegedly taunting a man with anti-gay slurs and throwing rocks at him. 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 it is my privilege to honor an Oregon Veteran Hero. On December 12, 1941, 18-year-old Benjamin Carson left his family dairy farm in rural Minnesota to join the United States Marine Corps. He would join a long family legacy of military service. Carson's grandfather's grandfather was in the Revolutionary War, his great grandfather served in the Civil War, his dad fought in World War I, and he would soon fight in World War II. Though all were wounded in battle, none of them died as a result of their service. After arriving in San Diego at the U.S. Marine recruit depot, Carson began a strict training regimen. A month later, he graduated from recruit school and volunteered to go to war immediately. Carson was interviewed by James Roosevelt's son who asked him four questions--what he did for a living, whether he could swim, whether he could march 30 miles a day on a cup of rice, and how often did he go to Sunday School. Carson must have given the correct answers because 4 days later he was selected for duty. Carson left that day with members of the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion commanded by Colonel Carlson, known today as ``Carlson's Raiders.'' Carson was selected for a special unit because of his strong swimming skills. On August 8, 1942, Carson joined more than 200 men on submarines headed for the Makin Islands. Their objective was to destroy enemy installations, gather information, and divert Japanese attention from the Solomons. Fighting broke out nearly immediately as Carlson's men landed ashore on August 17, 1942. About 30 men were lost and another 16 wounded. Under fierce opposition, Colonel Carlson made a decision to withdraw back to the original landing site and launched his boats for a return to sea. However, since morning the surf had kicked up considerably, and with their outboard motors repeatedly swamped, relatively few of the boats could make it out through the breakers. Many capsized, and most of the marines were cast back onto the beach. Carson was one of the few that survived. In November of 1942, Carson was sent to Guadacanal. He was overseas fighting in various battles until January of 1944, when he was sent home for a 30-day furlough at which time he met his future wife. He married Helen on May 5, 1944, and two days later shipped out to battle again. On February 19, 1945, Carson was a squad leader in the 5th wave to hit Red Beach in Guadacanal. The fighting was intense and men were dropping quickly. With only nine of his men left, Carson was shot in the arm. He spent 5 weeks in a hospital base on Pearl Harbor and received the Purple Heart for his injuries. He was discharged on January 6, 1946 after the war had ended. Carson went to college on the GI Bill and received a degree in Forestry from Iowa State College. He went on to work for the Forest Service and maintained an active lifestyle with his wife and two sons. Eventually the couple moved to Oregon, where they have lived since 1978. Carson says his military experience has very much shaped his life. His sense of duty to his country and the people who have died in the name of freedom has never left him. Nearly 60 years after the famous battle on Makin Island, Carson participated in a campaign to recover the dead. In 2001, authorities located 19 bodies on Makin Island, all American servicemen. Carson says it was extremely gratifying to be able to offer some closure for the families of the deceased. Though he has an artificial shoulder from the injuries he suffered while shot in battle, Carson still travels and works on his farm. He and his wife volunteer with the Mercy Corps and recently traveled to Uzbekistan, where they helped teach Uzbeks about agriculture. For his selfless service to others, and to the United States in times of war, I salute Benjamin Carson as an Oregon Veteran Hero.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I have a question about how to interpret one of the rules contained in section 422 of the conference agreement for the American Jobs Creation Act. Would the chairman please clarify what the rule that disallows deductions for expenses ``properly allocated and apportioned to the deductible portion'' of the dividend is intended to cover?

Mr. SMITH. I thank the chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask if the chairman of the Committee on Finance would entertain additional questions regarding the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would like to ask if the Chairman of the Committee on Finance would entertain additional questions regarding the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I speak about antisemitisim, an ancient pestilence that has torn at the fabric of society for too long. Specifically, I have become concerned with the dissemination of antisemitic attitudes through political cartoons. Last month, on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, I stood in this chamber along with a bipartisan group of my colleagues to speak about the cancerous effect that antisemitism continues to have on humanity. As I stated then, it is of the highest priority for our Nation to stand up against this venomous invective and bigotry directed at the Jewish people. It is an unfortunate reality that some newspapers in the Arab world blatantly promote antisemitism. For my remarks, I had prepared several posters of cartoons that appeared in Arabic-language newspapers to illustrate to my colleagues their insidious nature, but in the end, I found them too unsettling to display. What I find disconcerting, however, is the fact that this sentiment is creeping into political cartoons both in Europe as well as here in the United States. Newspapers across the country and the world have published cartoons that have gone beyond reasonable differences of opinion and expanded into the realm of antisemitism. For example, I have seen a cartoon of a man lying on the ground, bleeding and clutching a small Palestinian flag. Impaled in his back is a large American flag with its stars arranged to form the Star of David. This graphic image, insinuating that an Israeli-controlled America has killed the state of Palestine, is appalling. In Italy, the Newspaper La Stampa ran a cartoon depicting an Israeli tank rumbling toward a baby Jesus, who is crying ``Surely they don't want to kill me again?!'' This is not a criticism of policy or leadership. This is nothing other than an antisemitic attack thinly veiled as political parody. In the Greek Newspaper Ethnos, a cartoon appeared showing two Israeli soldiers stabbing captive Arabs. One of the Israeli soldiers is depicted as saying to the other ``Don't feel guilty, brother. We were not in Auschwitz and Dachau to suffer but to learn!'' How can that be construed as anything other than bigotry? This kind of hatred is simply unacceptable, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate, as well as leaders across the world, to make every effort to end this terrible plague of hatred.