Gordon Smith

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.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I ask for additional clarification regarding the conferees' intent with respect to the rule in section 422 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 that disallows deductions for expenses ``properly allocated and apportioned to the deductible portion.'' I would ask for clarification of the type of expenses that may be ``properly allocated and apportioned''. Would it be reasonable to say that properly allocable and apportioned expenses would not include general and administrative costs not directly related to generating the income being repatriated and such indirect expenses as research and development costs, interest, state and local income taxes, sales and marketing costs, depreciation, and amortization.

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 rise today to pay tribute to the President and the people of Taiwan on the occasion of Taiwan's National Day on October 10. Despite the lack of formal diplomatic relations between the United States and Taiwan over the last 25 years, the relationship between the two countries has continued to flourish in terms of economics, politics, security, culture and education, science and technology, and human rights. Most important, we share with Taiwan the core values of democracy and freedom. In the past two decades, Taiwan has truly emerged as a model democracy. Taiwan's economy currently ranks as the l6th largest in the world. As Secretary of State Colin Powell stated, ``Taiwan has become a resilient economy, a vibrant democracy and a generous contributor to the international community.'' I hope that we will continue to help Taiwan proceed on the path toward further democratization and peaceful relations with its neighbors. The President of Taiwan, Chen Shui-bian, is a dedicated and strong leader for the people of Taiwan. In his May 20 inaugural address to his people, he reiterated his commitment to maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, which is vital to the political development and economic prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region as a whole. In closing, I wish to congratulate President Chen, the Taiwan Ambassador, Dr. David Lee, and the people of Taiwan on their National Day and wish them every success in the years to come.

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 October 4, 2000, in LaCrosse, WI, Jason Welch and Jason Elisius, both 21, were charged with a hate crime for allegedly violently targeting two gay men because of their 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 a troubling dispute between two great partners in trade. Boeing Commercial Airplances, a pioneer and mainstay in American aerospace manufacturing since 1917, is being injured by subsidies that European governments are providing to its main competitor, Airbus. More than 30 years ago, Airbus was created by the governments of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Spain with the goal of building a competitive airplane manufacturer for the European Continent. To help encourage growth by their new company, these governments began giving Airbus large amounts of money with very liberal terms. These subsidies included infrastructure loans, loss coverage, debt forgiveness, money for research and development, equity infusion, and launch aid. These subsidies have allowed Airbus to develop and market a full range of aircraft without incurring full commercial risk. The launch aid assistance alone, which is essentially no-fault borrowing, has amounted to over $15 billion and allowed Airbus to undercut the marketplace with lower prices. In fact, if Airbus had borrowed this money at standard commercial rates, it is estimated that they would have to incur an additional $35 billion on their books today. While subsidies of this sort might be acceptable for a company in its infancy, Airbus has long since grown into a robust and mature competitor. Airbus today competes in every single airplane market over 100 seats and is now jointly owned by the European Aeronautic Defense and Space--EADS--Company and BAE Systems, the world's second- and fourth-largest aerospace companies respectively. Combined, these two defense companies are actually larger than Boeing. In fact, last year, for the first time, Airbus surpassed Boeing in annual aircraft deliveries. Yet, they continue to receive large government subsidies. As much as these subsidies have helped Airbus, they have harmed Boeing. Boeing's global market share, based on deliveries, fell from nearly 67 percent in 1999 to 48 percent in 2003. In the past 5 years, Boeing Commercial Airplanes has reduced employment from 115,880 to 54,880--that is 61,000 workers who have lost some of the highest quality and highest paying manufacturing jobs in the Nation. The aerospace industry is one of the most competitive sectors of our economy, and it is the single largest positive contributor to the U.S. manufacturing trade balance. The facts are simple. Airbus is a mature company with a full family of airplances that can no longer justify these subsidies, and the obvious damage to Boeing must be addressed and resolved.

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 January 25, 2001 in Washington, D.C., police arrested a 17-year- old in a gay bashing incident in the Dupont Circle area after the youth and another young man followed two men leaving a gay bar while shouting ant-gay epithets at them. After attacking the victims, the youths fled when passerby said they had called the police. 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, 2000, in Palm Springs, CA, a judge ordered a U.S. Marine, Lance Horton, to pay $4,300 to a gay couple he admitted beating and to complete charity work as part of his 5-year probation. Horton pleaded guilty to two counts of assault and to two hate crimes. 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 would like to join my colleagues in expressing concern about the Canadian lumber NAFTA panel decision. The experience in the lumber case suggests that greater safeguards may be needed to prevent abuse by rogue panels. Without such reform, I fear Canada will continue its strategy of litigation over negotiation. Indeed, the softwood lumber dispute has reached a critical phase. Since backing away from a tentative agreement reached in December 2003, the Canadian Government has pursued an even more aggressive litigation strategy in an effort to insulate its unfair practices. Most recently, the Canadian Government has urged the Commerce Department to act contrary to U.S. law and return on a retroactive basis antidumping and countervailing duties collected prior to recent Chapter 19 rulings. In my view, it is imperative that the Commerce Department clearly and emphatically reject requests that deposits already collected be repaid as a consequent result of Chapter 19 panel decisions. U.S. law clearly follows the generally-accepted convention that international dispute settlement decisions are to be implemented prospectively only. The Commerce Department cannot repay deposits already made without express statutory authorization. And the law as passed by the Congress is clear that entries prior to any panel decisions would be ``liquidated'' in the circumstances of the lumber case at the duty rates that Commerce Department established in its original countervailing duty and antidumping duty determinations in 2002. I find the Canadian Government's current position with respect to repayment of duties to be particularly remarkable considering the Commerce Department's treatment of this issue in the previous softwood lumber dispute. In 1994, the Commerce Department stated that the statute implementing the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement did not permit it to refund deposits paid prior to the implementation date of a panel decision. Since the relevant statutory provisions under the NAFTA remain the same, the Canadian parties know that their position is wrong as a matter of U.S. law. Canadian parties could have appealed the 2002 lumber trade findings to the Court of International Trade, which might have issued an injunction to protect their ability to obtain a retroactive refund of the deposits, but they chose the NAFTA panel route knowing full well that NAFTA panels cannot issue such injunctions. Of course, the deposits made could always be returned as part of a negotiated settlement that preserves the interests of U.S. workers and sawmills, as was done in 1994. But the Commerce Department is otherwise forbidden by law from refunding the deposits made prior to international panel rulings. I expect the Commerce Department to make this clear to Canada. I think it is important for each of us to encourage the stakeholders to come back in good faith to negotiations to resolve these cases once and for all. I believe there will be a window of opportunity later this year and will work with all parties to encourage meaningful negotiations to find a balanced solution.

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 27, 2000, Christopher Weninger, who is not gay, was walking home from a party when three men approached him and one asked him for a cigarette. As Weninger handed the man a cigarette, another man punched him in the face and called him ``queer.'' Weninger suffered a broken nose and eye socket. Police investigated the beating 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 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 May 19, 2002, in Wise, VA, Joseph Armstrong murdered his cellmate, Kenneth Boothe Jr., at Red Onion State Prison. During the trial, prosecutors contended Armstrong killed Boothe because he hated gays and blacks and thought Boothe was 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. Madam President, I have been privileged on a number of occasions to be in that chair when Senator Kennedy was speaking. I say this with affection and admiration. Senator Kennedy has been clear from the beginning of this conflict that he is against the war in Iraq, and I respect his clarity. But it is interesting that while the senior Senator from Massachusetts has been entirely clear and entirely consistent, the junior Senator from Massachusetts, the Democratic nominee, could not have been in more confusion, leaving the American people in a greater sense of chaos than words could make possible. It is amazing, interesting, that we have in Senator Kerry a decorated Vietnam veteran, and yet we have in Senator Kerry a man who now is falling in the polls who faces tonight an opportunity to clarify for the American people his position on Iraq. With plummeting poll numbers, it has to be asked, why has his fortunes as a war hero and veteran been so reversed? I find the answer in the Good Book in a verse where Paul says: For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? I do not know that there is a more certain sound than Senator Kennedy. I cannot imagine a more uncertain sound than Senator Kerry. Let's review the record. Whether you are for or against the war, those are positions one can argue, as I have done on the side of the war on terrorism that includes Iraq, or as Senator Kennedy has against Iraq as a part of the war on terrorism, but let's review what Senator Kerry has said to the American people. Did going to war in Iraq make us more secure or less secure? Apparently, Senator Kerry is not sure. He is saying now that we traded a dictator for chaos in Iraq. That has made us less secure. But during the primary season, he ravaged Howard Dean by saying: Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be President or the credibility to be elected President. Yet those are two diametrically opposed positions. Yesterday on ABC's ``Good Morning America,'' Diane Sawyer asked him this very question. He said: We won't know until we know whether this has been successful or not. Thank Heavens President Roosevelt did not have that position after Corregidor or President Lincoln after Antietam. I think John Kerry was right: People who cannot make up their minds should not be President of the United States. But which is it? If, indeed, as Senator Kerry has claimed, we are less secure, then it seems that he is lacking a serious component of judgment. Can Senator Kerry, by virtue of bringing a new face to the Presidency, convince some of our reluctant allies to participate more vigorously to bringing democracy in Iraq? He believes he can, despite the fact that both the French and German governments have said time and again, repeatedly, no matter the outcome of the American election, they will not do more to help in Iraq. So it seems to me that Senator Kerry is playing a rather false hand to the American people. It is an illusory promise. It just will not happen. I have heard the Senator complain that we do not have enough troops, and now he wants to pull the troops home. So the question is, Should we increase the number of American troops or should we bring them home and leave Iraq to the Iraqis? This is a question about which reasonable people can disagree, but Senator Kerry's statements indicate he disagrees again with himself. First he says we should do what the military leaders say, even if that means deploying more troops to Iraq. Then he said he intends to get all Americans troops home in his first term. Then last week he said he does not intend to increase troops at all. Specifically he said: I believe as a new President, with new credibility, with a fresh start, that I have the ability to be able to change the dynamics on the ground. I agree with him; he would certainly change the dynamics on the ground. The enemies of freedom in Iraq would feel emboldened to wait it out until the United States leaves, rather than recognize the democratic process is irreversible. That is not the kind of dynamic I want to see or the American people deserve to see. When the Senate voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war, did we mean he could actually start a war? This is a question that I, as a Senator, take very seriously. Senator Kerry voted for the authorization, just as I did, but is now saying: The authority was the authority to do the inspections. The authority is the authority to build an alliance. The authority was necessary because it was the only way to make inspections happen so that you could hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And that the Senate also gave the President the ``authority not to go to war.'' End of quote from John Kerry. Yet what did the resolution actually say, Madam President? It could not be clearer. You heard what John Kerry said, what he thought it said, but he should have read it. It says: ``Joint Resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iraq.'' If my colleague read nothing else in the resolution but that first line, he would still have known what this resolution was designed to do. Later in the text, in case anyone missed the intent, it states: The Congress declares that this section-- Which authorizes the use of the Armed Forces-- is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of 5(b) of the War Powers resolution. There is no room for disagreement about what we are doing with this resolution. He voted for it. I did. An overwhelming majority did. And it does not say what Senator Kerry now says it said. I take responsibility for voting on matters of war and peace very seriously, but we cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect to have credibility in the world, that Senator Kerry so consistently states he would bring, if we squander our words in meaning in such a way as he now does on matters as important as authorizing war and peace. What do we do going forward, Madam President? On September 20, Senator Kerry gave a speech outlining his latest plan for Iraq. He had four main points. The first: The President must get international support so American troops do not have to ``go it alone.'' The fact is, 32 countries are contributing 25,000 soldiers to the coalition effort in Iraq. The second part of his plan: The President must get serious about training Iraqi forces. Yet there are currently almost 100,000 fully trained Iraqi soldiers, police officers, and other security personnel out of the 164,000 Iraqis out there on the front lines defending their freedom and protecting their country. An additional 75,000 Iraqis have received some form of security training to guard important facilities. The third point: The President must carry out a reconstruction plan that brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people. Yet the United States has already spent more than a billion dollars on urgent reconstruction projects in areas threatened by the insurgency. In the next several months, over $9 billion will be spent on contracts that will help Iraqis rebuild schools, hospitals, bridges, as well as upgrade the electricity grid and modernize the communications system. This point is actually particularly laughable, given that Senator Kerry, who now says we have to do this, voted against the money to do this. He voted against the $87 billion before he says he voted for it that included nearly $20 billion in vital reconstruction for Iraq. Again, the uncertainty. His final point: The President must take immediate steps to guarantee elections in Iraq will be held next year. Yet an Iraqi electoral commission is now up and running and has already hired personnel and is making key decisions about electoral procedures. The commission launched a public education campaign to inform Iraqis about the process and encourage them to become voters, and United Nation's electoral advisers are on the ground in Iraq. What is particularly interesting about this is that on May 24, 2004, nearly 4 months before Senator Kerry's speech in New York, President Bush laid out a five-step plan for helping Iraq achieve democracy and freedom. Everything Senator Kerry proposed was part of the President's plan he announced in May, and the administration has been implementing it. In conclusion, at the present time, Senator Kerry issued a press release stating that the President's speech laid out general principles--and this is laughable--``most of which we've heard before'' because they are part and parcel of the President's plan. So if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, no one will prepare to battle, and that, I believe, is the reason for Senator Kerry's plummeting in the opinion polls of the United States. I yield the floor.

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 November 29, 2001 in Santa Rosa, CA, three teenagers were charged with battery, conspiracy and a hate crime for allegedly assaulting a student they believed was 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. By passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as we approach the end of the fiscal year, there are many important issues that require our attention. Not the least among them is the extension of $1.1 billion in unspent S-CHIP funding that will revert to the Treasury if Congress does not take action. This is a vitally important program to the State of Oregon, and to America's children. We must take action to protect this funding. The State Children's Health Insurance Program, created in 1997, has always had bi-partisan support. Shortly after being elected to the United States Senate in 1996, I strongly supported the creation of this program. I knew that Congress had an opportunity to reach out to millions of low-income children and provide health care coverage. Working with my colleagues and friends, including Senators Orrin Hatch and Edward Kennedy, in the development of the bipartisan proposal was a pleasure. Since 1997, we have all continued to work together, members from both sides of the aisle, to extend funding and make improvements to the program. This year should be no different. I know it is an election year, a presidential election year in fact, and that often creates a dynamic where politics can overwhelm policy. However, I am hopeful that we can once again triumph over partisanship and pass legislation that will intervene and prevent the expiration of $1.1 billion in unspent S- CHIP funding. I am confident that if both sides are reasonable and willing to work together we can accomplish this goal by the time Congress recesses on October 8. As we prepare to take action on a bill, we need to consider that no one member or group of members have all of the answers; that nobody has a monopoly on protecting America's children. We all work every day to protect our Nation's children and ensure that those who come from low- income families receive the nutritional, housing, education and health care assistance that they need. This time should be no different. I look forward to working with Senators Hatch and Kennedy, the creators of this remarkable program; President Bush, a strong advocate for our nation's children; Leader Frist, Chairman Grassley and others to extend funding for this important program.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a special individual who has been serving the great State of Oregon for years. Tamara Brickman, a legislative coordinator at the Oregon Employment Department, is devoted to improving the lives of Oregonians by increasing the efficiency of the State government and improving the quality of workforce training. Her knowledge of State and Federal labor laws is expansive and impressive. My staff and I rely on her expertise frequently when addressing workforce legislation in Congress. Ms. Brickman is a native Oregonian, the fourth generation of her family to live in a small town named La Grande, not far from my hometown of Pendleton in the northeast corner of the State. She is a graduate of Eastern Oregon University and a former intern of my esteemed predecessor in the Senate, Senator Mark Hatfield. According to Ms. Brickman, it was in Senator Hatfield's office that her true passion for public service blossomed. Ms. Brickman began her career working for Oregonians as a teacher in La Grande at an alternative high school and a job training facility for individuals receiving public assistance. In January 1993, Ms. Brickman took a job in the Senate Ethics, Elections, and Campaign Finance Reform Committee of the Oregon State Legislature. In fact, Ms. Brickman served as a staffer in the Oregon Capitol when I carried my first bill on the Senate floor as an Oregon State Senator. Before heading to law school at the University of Oregon, Ms. Brickman furthered her strong reputation in workforce training by running a federally-funded youth summer employment training program in Union County in 1994 and 1995. The training program was part of the Job Training Partnership Act, JTPA, now known as the Workforce Investment Act. Ms. Brickman taught disadvantaged youth in job skills and then found community job placements for those students in local businesses. After passing the Oregon State bar in 1998, Ms. Brickman held a range of legislative positions for a State senator, member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Oregon University System Chancellor's office. For the last 3 years, Ms. Brickman has gone above and beyond the call of duty at the Oregon Employment Department to help members of our congressional delegation pass unemployment extension benefits and fiscal state relief. Ms. Brickman never fails to share important information about the state of the workforce in ways that allow me to craft timely legislation that responds to our State's needs. Her commitment to Oregon's workers and families shines through in her outstanding work. There are thousands of dedicated State and local government employees across the country who serve their communities with the highest distinction. In my opinion, few could match the professionalism of Ms. Brickman. It is my honor and pleasure to take the time today to recognize Ms. Tamara Brickman for her dedication to Oregon.

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 16, 2000, in New Hope, PA, Douglas Trinkley, 21, and Larry Chroman, 36, were charged with assault, disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment of another person for allegedly attacking another man because of the man'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. 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 July 7, 2000 in San Diego, CA, Paul Cain, a 28-year-old member of the Nazi Low Riders, was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison for the beating and strangulation of a gay man in 1995. 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. Madam 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 April 12, 2000, Edgar Mora was sentenced to 2 years in prison for a hate crime in connection with the March 1998 murder of a gay man. 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 November 20, 2000, in Savannah, GA, the body of Billy Jean Levette, a transgender individual, was found in a secluded area. His body was face up with a wound to the back of the head, his pants pulled halfway down and his shirt pulled up. Levette was the second transgender individual killed in the Savannah area in a year. 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 to speak about an important piece of legislation that is pending before Congress. The Jumpstart Our Business Strength, JOBS, Act, also known as FSC/ETI. This bill was passed by both the House and the Senate earlier this year and now awaits the appointment of conferees by the House of Representatives. As a Senate conferee, I am hopeful that we can move quickly toward a conference with the House and complete action on FSC before the 108th Congress adjourns. This bill has aptly been named the JOBS Act because of the direct impact it will have on businesses and employment in the United States. I believe this bill can strengthen the U.S. shipping industry. Over the past year I have worked closely with my colleagues, Senators Trent Lott, John Breaux and others, to provide critical tax reform for the U.S. maritime industry. I intend to work in conference to provide necessary relief to the maritime industry in Oregon and elsewhere throughout our country. It is clear to me that the ability of the American shipowner to operate ships on a comparable economic basis as foreign competitors is vital to the competitiveness of the U.S.-flag industry. Yet United States shipping companies are subject to significantly higher taxes than their foreign-based competition, particularly those that operate foreign vessels under what are commonly known as ``flag-of- convenience'' countries. Thus, American shipowners are increasingly unable to compete with their foreign-flag counterparts in the foreign trade of the United States. Recently, many of the industrialized trading partners of the U.S., including the United Kingdom, Norway and Germany, have developed tonnage-based corporation tax regimes, known as ``tonnage tax'' regimes, to enable their fleets to compete fairly on the international stage. In a similar manner, our proposed tonnage tax provisions would authorize an alternative U.S. tax regime based upon the tonnage of a taxpayer's U.S.-flag fleet. That alternative regime would create a positive economic environment for U.S.-flag international shipping operations in line with that of other major U.S. trading partners. This legislative provision is urgently needed to preserve U.S.-flag shipping and related employment opportunities for U.S. merchant mariners. At this time, there are only 89 U.S.-flag vessels engaged in the foreign trade that are operated by U.S. companies to which the tonnage tax regime would apply. Implementation of the tonnage tax regime is required now to prevent further reductions in an already decimated U.S.-flag commercial fleet and depleted U.S. mariner pool. It is also important to the U.S. maritime industry that we enact an additional reform measure to defer U.S. tax on the foreign shipping income of a controlled foreign corporation, CFC--but only if that CFC is affiliated with a U.S. company that maintains a qualified fleet of at least two U.S.-flag commercial vessels. Generally, the U.S. does not tax foreign-source income earned by a CFC until that income is repatriated as a dividend to the U.S. shareholders of the CFC. However, a CFC's foreign shipping income is taxed to its U.S. shareholders in the year earned without regard to whether it is then, or ever, distributed to those shareholders. I look forward to working with my Senate and House colleagues towards enactment of the FSC/ETI tax legislation and to ensure that these critical maritime provisions are included in the final version of the bill.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need to clarify the legal status of employee benefit plans offered by Indian tribal governments. In the past, the pension and welfare benefit plans of Indian tribal governments enjoyed the same status as granted to state and local governments. However, in recent years, a legal cloud has developed over the status of these plans. Confusion has arisen regarding whether or not the existing definition of a governmental plan includes plans sponsored by Indian tribal governments. In part, this has been a result of the Internal Revenue Service's lack of guidance to tribal governments on this issue; the inconsistent practice of granting governmental plan status to plans sponsored by Indian tribal governments; and finally a January ``no ruling'' position by the Internal Revenue Service that places many plans in the status of operating without a current determination letter recognizing the legality of their plan. As a result, many tribal governments have limited their offering of such welfare and retirement benefits to employees. Today, I am introducing legislation--the Government Pensions Equalization Act--to remove this legal uncertainty by amending the definition of a governmental plan to explicitly include plans offered by Indian tribal governments. Indian tribes, like all employers, require legal certainty regarding the status of their employee benefit under the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA. Moreover, Indian tribes should be afforded the same sovereignty status given state and local governments. Governmental plans are relieved from many of the requirements governing the operation of tax qualified pension and welfare benefit plans. There are several reasons for this relief. Governments exist for the benefit of their citizens and are not subject to the profit and loss pressures affecting the private sector. Governments offer redress for grievances under their own judicial systems. Elected officials who are responsible for government benefit programs are directly accountable to their constituents via the ballot box. Governments often offer more generous benefit plans for key officers, such as judges, legislators, and key executive personnel as a means to gain the valuable services of these skilled individuals. They also offer special pensions for public safety officers who can retire at a relatively young age and short period of service. This flexibility is impossible without the special relief provided governmental plans. Indian tribal governments meet all the special protections, conditions, and needs I have described. This legislation clarifies once and for all that they should be afforded the same treatment as their state and local government counterparts. Passage of this legislation is an important step in the fight to protect the sovereignty of Indian country and to foster the ability of tribal governments to provide retirement security to their employees and nation. I look forward to President Bush signing this legislation into law. 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 speak about the need to clarify the legal status of employee benefit plans offered by Indian tribal governments. In the past, the pension and welfare benefit plans of Indian tribal governments enjoyed the same status as granted to state and local governments. However, in recent years, a legal cloud has developed over the status of these plans. Confusion has arisen regarding whether or not the existing definition of a governmental plan includes plans sponsored by Indian tribal governments. In part, this has been a result of the Internal Revenue Service's lack of guidance to tribal governments on this issue; the inconsistent practice of granting governmental plan status to plans sponsored by Indian tribal governments; and finally a January ``no ruling'' position by the Internal Revenue Service that places many plans in the status of operating without a current determination letter recognizing the legality of their plan. As a result, many tribal governments have limited their offering of such welfare and retirement benefits to employees. Today, I am introducing legislation--the Government Pensions Equalization Act--to remove this legal uncertainty by amending the definition of a governmental plan to explicitly include plans offered by Indian tribal governments. Indian tribes, like all employers, require legal certainty regarding the status of their employee benefit under the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA. Moreover, Indian tribes should be afforded the same sovereignty status given state and local governments. Governmental plans are relieved from many of the requirements governing the operation of tax qualified pension and welfare benefit plans. There are several reasons for this relief. Governments exist for the benefit of their citizens and are not subject to the profit and loss pressures affecting the private sector. Governments offer redress for grievances under their own judicial systems. Elected officials who are responsible for government benefit programs are directly accountable to their constituents via the ballot box. Governments often offer more generous benefit plans for key officers, such as judges, legislators, and key executive personnel as a means to gain the valuable services of these skilled individuals. They also offer special pensions for public safety officers who can retire at a relatively young age and short period of service. This flexibility is impossible without the special relief provided governmental plans. Indian tribal governments meet all the special protections, conditions, and needs I have described. This legislation clarifies once and for all that they should be afforded the same treatment as their state and local government counterparts. Passage of this legislation is an important step in the fight to protect the sovereignty of Indian country and to foster the ability of tribal governments to provide retirement security to their employees and nation. I look forward to President Bush signing this legislation into law. 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 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 September 2004, Michael Hughes, a 58-year old man, was arrested after he verbally assaulted a man he believed was gay, then slashed him repeatedly with a small knife. Upon checking his rap sheet, police discovered that Hughes was wanted in Baltimore for the 1974 Christmas Eve killing of another man. 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 July 16, a 32-year-old man in Austin, TX, went to Oilcan Harry's, a popular gay bar. Four men accompanied the man home when the bar closed, and once there, broke a glass over the victim's head. The four men then ripped off his clothes, beating and kicking him. They also tried choking him with a cord cut from his vacuum cleaner. The assailants allegedly forced the victim to sodomize himself with an object at knifepoint while they used homosexual slurs. After the attackers left, the police were called and the victim taken to a local hospital. 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 wish to rise today to recognize a group of dedicated public servants who are increasing access to mental health care for people in Multnomah County, OR. Because of their willingness to creatively address barriers to care, Cascadia Behavioral HealthCare and its county partners are helping Oregonians lead healthier lives. Three years ago, Multnomah County's mental health services were in disarray. Budget shortfalls and the closure of three major service providers were preventing county residents from accessing care, often with tragic consequences. Because the system's clients are primarily low income, this public crisis became a personal crisis for individuals with no other options. In response, Cascadia and its partners reorganized the county's mental health care system, bringing quality, efficient services to many citizens in need. Employing new tools such as a mobile response unit, 24-hour walk-in clinic, their creative response dramatically increased options for those in need. As a result, there has been a reduction in the hospitalization rate of adult mentally ill patients in the past year, easing the strain on county and State funds. Further, the new organization has saved more than $5 million in the last 3 years, while helping some of the neediest residents access care. Now, the system works. For people like Ann, an Asian-American teenager who began hearing voices in high school, access to services literally saved her life. The daughter of immigrants, Ann's family did not understand her mental illness, which was later diagnosed as schizophrenia. As her condition worsened, Ann's anxiety and suicidal thoughts increased. Eventually, she wound up in the State hospital. Ann was referred to Cascadia Behavioral Health center where she was treated by a psychiatrist for medication management and a trainer to help her understand her diagnosis and develop coping skills. A Cascadia family therapist, working with a cultural specialist, is helping Ann and her family adjust to her diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia. She will receive additional case management and help so she can graduate high school. For people like Ann, the availability of mental health care is absolutely crucial. But for the courage of Cascadia and its county partners, Ann and others like her may not have found the care they need to live stable, productive and rewarding lives. Because of the valuable services they provide, I recognize Cascadia Behavioral HealthCare and its partners as true health care heroes. I look forward to following their continued success.