Gordon Smith

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 15, 2001, a man was killed in a ninja-like stabbing in Prospect Park, NY, near a popular area for gay men. The victim was slashed across the throat and stabbed in the chest and back. Because nothing was stolen from the victim, police believe he was killed because he was believed to be gay. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On October 10, 2003, Bart Browne approached several men congregating outside an Albany, NY, gay bar. It is alleged that Browne hated gays and thus felt justified in sucker-punching one of the gay men in the face. The force of the single strike broke the 28-year-old victim's jaw, caused a permanent loss of feeling in his left cheek and eradicated the sense of smell in that nostril, prosecutors said. Fearing further assaults for being gay, according to prosecutors, the victim moved away from the area. Browne faces a hate crimes sentence of up to 4 years in state prison. 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 wish 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. Edgar Garzon, 35, died three weeks after he was attacked when leaving a gay bar in Jackson Heights, NY, on August 14, 2001. Garzon suffered a skull fracture in the attack and died at Elmhurst General Hospital. Garzon had just left Friends Tavern when two men in a red car exchanged words with him and followed him toward his home. At the intersection, the suspects got out of their car, pounded Garzon with either a baseball bat or lead pipe, then fled with his wallet. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleagues on the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, to reauthorize programs under the Individuals with Disability Education Act--IDEA. In 1975, Congress enacted legislation to help States meet their obligation to provide education to all American children including those with disabilities. Children, regardless of their disability, deserve and ought to receive a quality education. IDEA assists States in meeting this goal by providing important federal funds. In 2002, approximately 6.5 million children with disabilities benefitted from IDEA. Nevertheless, much work remains for Congress to fulfill its promise of fully funding 40 percent of the estimated implementation costs. With passage of this important legislation, we have advanced yet another step toward meeting the needs of America's children with disabilities. As I travel across Oregon and talk to school administrators about the challenges they face, they routinely tell me about the financial burden of IDEA. They also tell me of their firm belief in the spirit of this legislation and want to provide the best education possible for their special needs students. This requires adequate Federal funding. For many years, Congress did not fulfill its promise, with significant consequences to schools and students across the country. IDEA spending was one of the few appropriations that did not grow during the 1980s. In fact, in some cases, the Federal government actually covered less of the States' average per pupil expenditure than the previous year. What many may not realize is that when we provide funding for students with special needs, we benefit all students. Across the Nation, and particularly in Oregon, States are struggling to provide funding for our schools. When schools are forced to make up the Federal portion of IDEA funds, they are forced to take funding from other important education programs. When we fulfill our cost sharing commitment to IDEA programs, there are more dollars available for teacher training, new books, and computers for all students. In effect, schools are forced to choose some students over others, and it is a choice they should not have to make. I am proud to report that IDEA funding is back on track--and has increased by almost 225 percent since 1996. If the President's budget is approved this year, funding for IDEA will have increased by almost 400 percent. This clearly demonstrates both Congress' and the President's continued commitment toward full funding. For children with disabilities, IDEA has opened the door to greater educational opportunities. It has served as the cornerstone for greater participation in our society for people with disabilities. The only way to ensure that our promise to provide every opportunity for students with disabilities, and help them achieve their full potential, is to give our schools the dollars they need. I look forward to President Bush signing this legislation into law.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit Modernization Act. I am pleased to join my colleague and friend, Senator Conrad, in introducing this legislation to accelerate economic growth for every American community. A Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) is a tax vehicle created by Congress in 1986 to support the housing market and investment in real estate by making it simpler to issue real estate- backed securities. By pooling real estate loans into mortgage backed securities, REMICs offer residential and commercial real estate borrowers access to large pools of capital that would not otherwise be available. REMICs allow commercial banks and other lenders to sell their loans in the capital markets, thus freeing up assets for additional lending and investments. Because they contribute to the efficiency and liquidity of the U.S. real estate markets, REMICs help to minimize the costs of residential and commercial real estate borrowing and to spur real estate development and rehabilitation. REMICs play a critical role in providing capital for residential and commercial mortgages. As of September 30, 2003, the value of single- family, multi-family and commercial-mortgage backed REMICs outstanding was over $1.2 trillion. While the current volume of REMIC transactions reflects their important role in this market, certain changes to the tax code will eliminate impediments and unleash even greater potential. Current rules that govern REMICs often prevent many common loan modifications that facilitate loan administration and ensure repayment of investors. The legislation that created REMICs has not been updated in nearly 20 years. Our legislation will update the REMIC provisions of the tax code. These proposed changes are simple, non-controversial, and will greatly enhance the ability of commercial real estate interests to obtain capital for financing new construction projects. These changes would ultimately benefit the entire real estate community, including local real estate owners, builders, construction managers, the engineering, architectural and interior design firms that provide real estate services, as well as firms that offer services to support real estate sales. The changes would accelerate the creation of jobs and economic activity throughout the U.S., and would have a positive effect on federal and state tax revenues. By encouraging property renovations and expansions, these changes would strengthen the local property tax base in towns and cities across America. We urge our colleagues to work with us to enact this legislation to spur economic and employment growth in real estate, the construction trades, and the building materials industry. 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. On April 6, 2000, in Ashland, OR, Michael Susee was charged with intimidation and assault for allegedly attacking three gay men while yelling anti-gay remarks. Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. By passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit Modernization Act. I am pleased to join my colleague and friend, Senator Conrad, in introducing this legislation to accelerate economic growth for every American community. A Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) is a tax vehicle created by Congress in 1986 to support the housing market and investment in real estate by making it simpler to issue real estate- backed securities. By pooling real estate loans into mortgage backed securities, REMICs offer residential and commercial real estate borrowers access to large pools of capital that would not otherwise be available. REMICs allow commercial banks and other lenders to sell their loans in the capital markets, thus freeing up assets for additional lending and investments. Because they contribute to the efficiency and liquidity of the U.S. real estate markets, REMICs help to minimize the costs of residential and commercial real estate borrowing and to spur real estate development and rehabilitation. REMICs play a critical role in providing capital for residential and commercial mortgages. As of September 30, 2003, the value of single- family, multi-family and commercial-mortgage backed REMICs outstanding was over $1.2 trillion. While the current volume of REMIC transactions reflects their important role in this market, certain changes to the tax code will eliminate impediments and unleash even greater potential. Current rules that govern REMICs often prevent many common loan modifications that facilitate loan administration and ensure repayment of investors. The legislation that created REMICs has not been updated in nearly 20 years. Our legislation will update the REMIC provisions of the tax code. These proposed changes are simple, non-controversial, and will greatly enhance the ability of commercial real estate interests to obtain capital for financing new construction projects. These changes would ultimately benefit the entire real estate community, including local real estate owners, builders, construction managers, the engineering, architectural and interior design firms that provide real estate services, as well as firms that offer services to support real estate sales. The changes would accelerate the creation of jobs and economic activity throughout the U.S., and would have a positive effect on federal and state tax revenues. By encouraging property renovations and expansions, these changes would strengthen the local property tax base in towns and cities across America. We urge our colleagues to work with us to enact this legislation to spur economic and employment growth in real estate, the construction trades, and the building materials industry. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I 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 7, 2001, in Palm Spring, CA, Eric Bridge told police he was robbed and beaten unconscious by four men who chased him from a downtown bar after accusing him of being gay and hurling anti-gay slurs at him. Bridge was treated for cuts and bruises at a local medical center and released. The victim said he was not gay but believes he was targeted based on perception. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. By passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I want to thank you for your strong leadership on this very important piece of legislation and call your attention to one specific provision in S. 1637 known as the domestic production activities deduction. As you know, your bill includes a provision that allows for a deduction for income from manufacturing done in the United States. However, as I understand, the provisions phases in the deduction much more slowly for companies that also manufacture abroad. At a time when American manufacturing jobs are leaving our country in record numbers, we need to support all companies that employ Americans, not penalize them. I know that we agree that multinational companies should not be penalized merely because they also manufacture abroad. Thus, I would like to clarify that it is your intent to urge your colleagues during the Senate/House conference deliberations on this bill to eliminate this penalty in the final bill that is sent to the President for his signature.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the Senate for its passage of S. 1637, the Jumpstart Our Business Strength Act, which includes my provision lowering the corporate tax rate on repatriated profits. In one short year, this provision will bring $400 billion into our economy. This money is going to create over 650,000 new jobs and get our economy moving again. At the same time, it's going to help reduce the federal deficit. I believe this is one of the most important provisions of the JOBS Act regarding job growth and strengthening our economy. This provision would require that repatriated funds be reinvested in the United States for hiring workers and worker training, infrastructure, R&D, capital investment, or financial stabilization for the purposes of job retention or creation. It is my understanding that the concept of financial stabilization, for this purpose, encompasses use of the repatriated funds to repay debt of the U.S. parent corporation. Use of these funds to pay down debt is a qualified use for purposes of the provision. In fact, debt repayment will strengthen U.S. corporate balance sheets, which will improve a company's ability to employ and hire workers. I thank the chairman for his strong support of this repatriation provision and look forward to swift action by the House.

Mr. SMITH. I thank my colleagues. This is a critical matter that the Senate needs to exercise its oversight responsibilities upon. If this issue cannot be addressed in the very near future, my colleagues and I will have no choice but to bring this amendment back to the floor on another bill to have an forthright discussion about ensuring the constitutionally afforded due process U.S. citizens and interests must have in NAFTA disputes. I also want to applaud the administration in particular the U.S. Trade Representative, as well as the International Trade Commission, for acting steadfastly to enforce U.S. trade law. But their efforts are being thwarted by the current NAFTA Panel rules. This must be changed.

Mr. SMITH. I came to the floor today to introduce an amendment to the FSC/ETI bill relating to the U.S. approval of NAFTA panel decisions. The handling of the current case before the NAFTA panel regarding Canadian softwood lumber imports gives me cause for concern. There are substantial allegations that one panelist judging the case is, at the same time, appearing as a private lawyer in two other antidumping cases before the International Trade Commission which involve similar issues as the Canadian lumber case. This creates at the very least the appearance of impropriety and a conflict of interest. Indeed, the USTR has taken the position that the panelist is in violation of the code established to prevent conflicts of interest involving panelists. However, it seems that Canada has been able to block any action to remove this panelist from the case. This situation is unacceptable and indicates that fundamental reform of the NAFTA panel process is required. We cannot allow NAFTA panelists with a conflict of interest to rule in these cases, especially since their rulings are equivalent to a Federal Court order. At the very least, such panel decisions should be subject to Presidential review before being implemented. I have an amendment that would implement such a review procedure. However, while this is an urgent matter that affects the outcome of the largest trade case in U.S. history, I recognize that the Senate is close to completing the FSC/ETI bill. I do not want to beleaguer that eventuality, so I am willing to withdraw this amendment, and agree instead to work with my colleagues, particularly on the Senate Finance Committee, to have this issue firmly addressed by the Senate in the near future.

Mr. SMITH. I would like to engage the Senator from Iowa in a colloquy regarding section 102 of the bill in order to clarify the Senator's intentions.

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 Montgomery County, MD, in 2001, Robert Lucas alleged that he killed Monsignor Thomas Wells, a local priest, after the victim was sexually aggressive toward him. Lucas contends that his ``killing rage'' resulted from feelings of ``anger, shame and humiliation.'' The victim bled to death as a result of stab wounds. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an outstanding Oregon leader who has been a health care hero for Oregon's seniors. Barbara Arazio has served on the Oregon Board of Nursing Home Examiners for 18 years, mentoring nursing home administrators and ensuring quality care for vulnerable Oregon seniors. When Oregonians find that one of their loved-ones is in need of skilled nursing care, they want assurances that the highest quality care will be provided in a safe environment. Because of Barbara's diligence and hard work, our families have that peace of mind. Barbara has played a central role in helping nursing homes not only comply with, but exceed the State standards for nursing facilities. The level of service at each Oregon nursing facility is driven by its leadership. Barbara has trained nursing home administrators and continually worked with them to make sure that residents have access to the best health care and facilities. In fact, the quality of life at Oregon care centers, from the activities, to the meals, to the well- trained staff, can be traced back to Barbara's caring hand. As Barbara embarks on her well earned retirement, she will be greatly missed by the administrators, staff and residents of Oregon's long term care system. She has touched many lives and is truly a Health Care Hero for Oregon.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, it is no secret that those of us who are privileged to serve in the U.S. Senate could not do so without the support of the hard working and dedicated staff. And I rise today to pay tribute to one of the most valuable members of my staff, who will be retiring at the end of May. For the past 7\1/2\ years, anyone who has called or visited my Portland office has probably talked with Nancy Aamodt. Indeed, from her post at the office's front desk, Nancy is usually the first person who answers the phone, and the first person who greets visitors. I have long believed in the wisdom of the old saying that ``first impressions are the most important ones,'' and I know that when Oregonians talk with or meet Nancy, their first impression will be of a kind, caring, and courteous individual. She treats all callers and visitors with hospitality and courtesy, and leaves everyone knowing that they were treated with great respect. The Bible tells us that ``God loves a cheerful giver,'' and I can't think of a better description of Nancy. She truly is a ``cheerful giver,'' as she constantly reaches out and offers kind words and support to those who need it most. The commitment to helping others and interest in current events that Nancy exhibits at the office also extends to her personal life, as well. For many years, Nancy has been a respected leader in both the Oregon and National Federations of Republican Women. She has served as President of the OFRW, and is a member of the NFRW Legislative Committee. I am very proud to call Nancy and her husband, Dave, my friends, and wish her the very best as she retires from service to the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I 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 December 22, 2001, in Lake Elsinore, CA, two men, ages 19 and 22, and a 20-year old woman, allegedly beat and made defamatory remarks to two people they perceived to be gay. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. By passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Robert Martin was found lying outside an abandoned school in Ashburn, GA, with head injuries from a blunt object. Martin was wearing a dress at the time. Press reports indicate that Martin had been beaten and harassed before because of his perceived sexuality. 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, this is a simple choice for our colleagues. It is either vote for jobs or vote to limit the number of jobs we have the potential to create. By independent studies, this inclusion, repatriation in the JOBS bill, will create 660,000 jobs. It will reduce the deficit by $75 billion over 5 years, and it will bring to each of our local economies new energy. The choice is to leave it offshore, doing little good for the American people, or to bring it here, to give companies for 1 year the chance that a walk-back with their capital will reemploy the American people and allow them to compete with other multinational companies from other nations, which nations allow them that kind of privilege. We are saying, let them do it for 1 year and we will create 660,000 jobs.

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

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

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

Mr. SMITH. That is fine.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, we talk about 660,000 jobs for the whole country. Isn't it also true that California stands to gain 75,000 new jobs, and Louisiana stands to gain nearly 10,000 new jobs; Nevada, over 5,000 new jobs; Oregon, nearly 30,000 jobs; and Virginia, nearly 14,000 new jobs that can be created in a very short period of time. Doesn't it really go to our individual States to show just how dramatic a benefit this brings to America and our States?

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I today speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On August 9, 2000, police charged four men in Daly City, CA, for allegedly assaulting two gay men in a fast food restaurant. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. By passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.