Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 5 minutes.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, like all of my colleagues, I went back home during the Easter recess and listened to the feelings of Oregonians. It is clearly on the minds of the people of my State and much of the country the circumstance we find ourselves in Iraq. I thought I would come and share some of my perspective on where America is, as this one Senator sees it, in the war on terrorism. I shared these feelings with many of my constituents. I wanted to share them with the Senate today as my reflections on the week I have just had. When I first came to the Senate 7 years ago, I was privileged to spend my first term as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I came to the Senate with many preconceived views about the values of many of our alliances and our involvement in all kinds of international architecture--the United Nations, NATO, and many treaties. I have been an advocate of these institutions and treaties on many occasions. But I find myself now in a position where I am questioning some of my earlier positions, based upon my experience as a Senator. My questioning first began when I watched with dismay the U.N. essentially stand by as nearly 1 million Rwandans were hacked to death. I watched with further dismay when approximately a quarter of a million Bosnian Muslims were murdered in cold blood by Mr. Milosevic and his minions, and I wondered why they couldn't do anything? I remember the occasion when a number of us were invited to meet with President Clinton as our European allies were pleading with the President to intervene with them as Europeans to help stop genocide on Europe's backdoor. I remember saying to the President: Mr. President, I think stopping genocide is a value that I share with the international community, it certainly is and ought to be an American value. So, Mr. President, you have my support, but I urge you to seek a resolution from the Security Council so we go in with the ``legitimacy'' of the United Nations. He said to me: Senator, I can't because I have been promised a U.N. resolution to intervene to stop genocide in Kosovo would be vetoed by the Russians and the Chinese. President Clinton believed that was a value high enough that nobody ought to veto it, and America's hand should not be held back by such a veto. I could not have agreed with him more. As a Republican, I voted with President Clinton consistently in our efforts to bail out our European friends in Kosovo to stop genocide. I am proud of those votes. I am proud of President Clinton for that. But I left the experience scratching my head about the United Nations and its role in the security architecture of our planet and particularly my country. Then after 9/11, I heard lots of great speeches and then began to become aware of lots of wonderful resolutions and was so disappointed that there was no resolve in the resolutions; that it ended at words. Now we find ourselves confronted with an investigation in the United Nations in which an oil for food program is going to be revealed to all the world as a monstrous corruption. It would be better titled a ``Fraud for Food Program.'' I wonder how well served we are by a Security Council that would tolerate such a thing. I am not suggesting we withdraw from the United Nations, but I am telling you I believe we should question that is the place we go for legitimacy. I have concluded that the U.N. can do a few things well. Mr. Brahimi's efforts are to be applauded and gratitude expressed, but, frankly, to go there for legitimacy, as some suggest, I think is very misplaced because we cannot get legitimacy from the kind of corruption that has been engaged in the United Nations in its ``Fraud for Food Program.'' What happened here, as Mr. Volcker will soon reveal to the world, is a system of price fixing, price kiting, skimming, bribes, paybacks in which the United Nations bureaucracy, or at least some members of it, were deeply complicit. What Saddam Hussein got out of that, according to the Washington Post, was $4 billion. According to the New York Times, it is $10 billion. According to other estimates, it could run as high as $100 billion. Somewhere in that range the truth will be found. What did he do with the billions, whether it is 4 or 100? He went about systematically rebuilding his murderous machine to buy weapons and palaces and to exterminate about 400,000 Shiite Muslims. Then I wonder why it is we are going to the U.N. for resolutions for legitimacy. I tell you these things because, frankly, I was astounded when our friend and colleague, the Democratic presumptive nominee for President, was on ``Meet the Press.'' When asked what was the first thing he would do, he said: I will go back to the U.N. I remember Dwight Eisenhower, when he became the Republican nominee, we were in trouble in Korea. He said: I will go to Korea. And John Kerry is essentially saying: I will go to Paris. For what? Legitimacy? International involvement? We have gone to the U.N. and gotten 17 resolutions. Apparently, another is needed? For what? Legitimacy? We are going to get people to sanction what we are doing when we will soon learn who was on the take and providing the money that Saddam Hussein used for palaces, weapons, and mass murder. I hope John Kerry runs his new ad in Oregon a lot because he repeats his ``Meet the Press'' statement in a slightly different version. He says: The first thing I will do is internationalize this. I will go to the international community. I want the people of Oregon to know how vacuous a statement that is. I want my friend from Massachusetts to know I don't want the international community defending my family and my country. I know the American people want a sense of how do we get out of this because we don't want an open-ended commitment. I hear it said by some of our European friends: You did it for oil. I tell the American people, if we had done it for oil, we would have invaded Venezuela. There is a lot of oil there, and they have no military. We did it for values. We did it because we believed in a post-9/11 world that Saddam Hussein was part and parcel of the war on terrorism. We believed, like all the other intelligence communities in the world, that he had weapons of mass destruction because he had declared them but not disclosed them. That is why Bill Clinton bombed Saddam Hussein for 4 days and nights in 1998. That is why this place, the United States Senate, under the direction and urging of Bill Clinton, passed a resolution calling for regime change.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, we passed the resolution on regime change. In a post-9/11 world, with that intelligence that we had from President Clinton's administration and with that belief that he was a clear and growing danger to this country, and for all the reasons which President Bush has articulated, we did what President Clinton said we would ultimately have to do: Change that regime. I tell you, my belief is that those who would say the war on terrorism is here, but Saddam Hussein is somehow exempted from that, are engaging in a theory because the truth is, he was, by every measure, a central financier and tormenter of terrorism. Ask the Israelis. Where did Hamas get its money? There is a way out. There is a deadline that is drawing out of the shadows all those who want to compete for power. A lot of poison is being drained out of the Iraqi system and America is bearing the burden, but we will see a gradual transition of power and sovereignty from us to the Iraqi people because our country does not aspire to the territory or treasury or oilfields of Iraq. We desire a more peaceful world. President Bush has concluded, yes, we can swat flies and we can send cruise missiles here and there, but the truth is, if the fundamentals on the ground cannot be changed to give the people some democratic institutions, frankly, nothing is going to be changed in the Middle East. Now, there is a very tribal culture there and ultimately Iraq may be evolving into a three-part state, with Kurds in the north and Shia in the south and Sunnis in the center, and there may be a very loose confederacy of Iraq, but to avoid civil war they will have to have some religious and ethnic elbowroom as Iraqis. We are going to allow that to happen, I hope. I say to the people of my State, regard with humor if you can but great skepticism if you will those who call for internationalizing America's war on terrorism. They can come in any time. The problem is, they are complicit in the financing of Saddam Hussein and they run at the first shot. Tony Blair recently addressed this body and the House of Representatives. In conclusion, I share with my colleagues his words. Said the Prime Minister: I know how hard it is on America. And in some small corner of this vast country out in Nevada or Idaho, I know out there is a guy getting on with his life perfectly happy, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of the country, why me and why us and why America? And the only answer is because destiny has put you in this place in history, in this moment of time, and the task is yours to do. This world is a better place because of American leadership and because America's foreign policy is still based on the best values of our Bill of Rights, democracy, human rights, the spread of freedom and enterprise through trade, religious freedom, thought, press, assembly. Things that we are privileged to take for granted are, frankly, unknown in the Middle East. This is our idealism and it is a centerpiece now of our foreign policy, but those who would go to the U.N. to establish those principles, they will do it in vain and they will do it with my opposition, if to internationalize this means my family and theirs are protected by institutions which the Russians, the French, the Chinese, or anyone can veto when it involves the security of the American people. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Crime Victims' Rights Act. America is a country ruled by law and not by individuals. For that reason, our criminal justice system serves as a beacon of light for many who live in the shadow of tyranny. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than those rights of the accused protected by the U.S. Constitution. A defendant has the right to due process under law, the right to a speedy trial, the right to counsel, the right against self- incrimination, the right to confront witnesses as well as a host of other protections. These constitutional rights aim to protect the innocent and punish only the guilty. No American should be wrongly incarcerated and denied the most basic liberties. While the Constitution provides a panoply of rights for the accused, it does not guarantee any rights to crime victims. Victims do not have the right to be present during prosecution. Victims do not have the right to be informed of the defendant's hearing. They do not have the right to be heard at sentencing or at parole hearings. Victims have no rights to restitution or notification even if they may be endangered by the release of their attacker. To maintain the integrity of our judicial system, a careful balance must be struck between the rights of the accused and the rights of victims. Unfortunately, the scales of justice have been tilted. As a result, 32 States have enacted constitutional amendments to provide some protections for victims. Today, I am proud to have joined my colleagues in sponsoring and voting in favor of the Crime Victims' Rights Act which would extend rights to victims of federal crimes as well. Nationally, this sends a clear message to victims that they will finally be given a voice in the Federal criminal process. I also want to take this opportunity to recognize the leaders of the victim's rights movement in my home state. Established in 2000, the National Crime Victim Law Institute has been committed to the enforcement and protection of victims' rights in the criminal justice system. While there has been a flood of legislation at the State level on victims' rights, there has been a dearth of academic attention paid to this area of the law. The National Crime Victim Law Institute, at the Lewis and Clark School, is one of the first academic institutions to undertake a focused effort to study and enhance the effectiveness of victim rights laws. The Institute's Executive Director, Doug BeLoof, has authored Victims in Criminal Procedure, the first casebook to be published in this area of law. Along with this important legal scholarship, passage of this legislation is an important step in the fight to protect victims' rights. I look forward to President Bush signing this legislation into law.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. 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. A lesbian couple was assaulted by a group of men and women outside a Scottsdale, AZ, bar on April 4, 2004. The assailants called the couple derogatory names and beat one of the women and ripped the other woman's dress and then took photographs of her exposed breasts. 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 the 440th anniversary of the birth of William Shakespeare in Stratford-upon-Avon. Shakespeare's name is undoubtedly the most recognized in English literature. Every one of us has spent time exploring the Elizabethan society and language through Shakespeare's dramas, poems, and sonnets. I remember with great enthusiasm the times I read Shakespeare or watched one of his plays. Who among us does not have their favorite line from one of Shakespeare's many works? Mine, which all of us in this chamber should pause to consider from time to time, comes from ``Hamlet Prince of Denmark'': ``This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.'' His plays abound with all of the human emotions: love, jealousy, hatred, joy, envy, and are filled with the eternal themes of loyalty, betrayal, friendship, and revenge. He wrote of family strife, of the best laid plans gone awry, of tender love and bitter feuds. His themes transcend culture, nationality, and ethnicity. They are universal; and to this day are repeated time and time again throughout the world. From the American retelling of ``Romeo and Juliet'' in ``West Side Story'' to the Japanese adaptation of ``King Lear'' in ``Ran,'' Shakespeare's cultural influence is virtually limitless. Was William Shakespeare a visionary? Or was he simply a keen observer, chronicling human relationships that have essentially remained unchanged in the four centuries since he lived? We, in Oregon, are very fortunate to have the renowned Oregon Shakespeare Festival which has been presenting its namesake's works, as well as other classic and contemporary plays, for nearly 40 years. Some 380,000 people--Oregonians and audiences from various parts of the country and the world--visit Ashland each year to attend these repertory performances. From the very first productions of ``The Merchant of Venice'' and ``Twelfth Night'' to this year's ``The Comedy of Errors,'' ``King Lear,'' ``Henry VI,'' and ``Much Ado About Nothing,'' the Oregon Shakespeare Festival has brought Shakespeare's magic and great wit to 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 October 3, 2002, a 17-year-old transgender woman, Gwen Araujo, was viciously killed and buried in a shallow grave near South Lake Tahoe. Gwen was beaten severely--with fists, canned goods and a metal skillet--then strangled to death. Before driving her to a remote location to be buried, the attackers wrapped her body in blankets and hit her in the head with a shovel to make sure she was dead. After a confession to police by one of Gwen's attackers, her body was finally found 2 weeks later. Currently, three men--Michael Magidson, 23, and Jose Merel and Jason Cazares, both 24--stand trial for her murder. A fourth man was also charged with her murder but pled guilty to manslaughter in exchange for testifying against the others. Despite this confession and eyewitness testimony in this case, defense attorneys have suggested that Gwen's murder was a result of something the victim provoked because of her lifestyle choice. The defense has asserted that Gwen ``deceived'' her attackers. Once learning of her biological sex, it caused one defendant to become enraged ``beyond reason,'' thereby resulting in her attack. One attorney has even claimed that no hate crime has been committed in this case. Clearly, the murder of Gwen was motivated by hatred. I believe that the government's first duty is to defend its citizens, and to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become one of substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I rise to honor an Oregon veteran who answered the call of duty in service to his country. Grover Judd Killpack was born on January 24, 1924 in a small mining town called Mohrland, close to Price, UT. Judd's military career began in October of 1943, when he entered the Coast Guard as an Seaman Apprentice. He was assigned to the USS Callaway, an attack transport ship that fought in the Pacific theater during World War II. While on the Callaway, he ran one of the landing boats, transporting the soldiers to the fight and returning the wounded to the ship. He participated in six invasions in the Pacific, including the Battle for Leyte Gulf and the Battle for Iwo Jiwa. Judd watched as the Marines took control of the island and raised the flag on Mount Suribachi; a scene immortalized in the now-famous monument in Arlington, VA. After his tour of duty ended in May of 1946, he left the Coast Guard as a petty officer 3rd class and went home to Price, UT where he married Eva Milkovich. He attended Carbon College where he focused his studies in the dairy field. He demonstrated his leadership skills as the student body president. He transferred to Utah State University where he participated in the ROTC program and received his degree in Dairy Technology. During this time Judd and Eve were blessed with a son and a daughter. Judd took a sales job that led him and his family to Denver, CO. One day before his tour was over, his country called for his services once again. He answered that call, leaving for the Korean War as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army in January of 1952. During his short time in the conflict he served as an artillery observer flying over enemy lines to direct friendly fire on communist targets. He came home for good in November of 1952 as a 1st Lieutenant. A new job opportunity brought Judd and his family to the northwest. They stayed in Seattle, WA until January of 1955. They found their permanent home in Beaverton, OR and the Killpack family has lived there since that day. Judd went on to be a sales rep for the R&H Company in 1961 and spent the rest of his working days with them, finally retiring in 1986. Judd has been married to Eve since July 3, 1946 and has two children, five grandchildren, and one great grandchild on the way. For his selfless service to others, and to the United States in time of war, I salute Grover Judd Killpack as an Oregon Veteran hero.

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 February 2004, two gay men visiting from Washington State were attacked by four men and one woman outside a popular bar in Government Camp, OR. Investigators believe the two men were attacked because of their sexual orientation and are pursuing leads in the search for the suspects. The five suspects are charged with first-degree intimidation. 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 ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, a year ago come Friday, I remember watching with some emotion as the television recorded the events in Baghdad, and an American soldier crawled up a statue of Saddam Hussein and put a chain around its neck and, with the help of American equipment, pulled down that statue to the cheers of a throng of Iraqi people who had suffered for decades under the tyranny of this vicious man, this mass murderer, this fomenter and financier of world terrorism. I saw that day people hungry for a chance at freedom, hungry for a chance to have a new beginning as a people and as a nation. I remember shedding some tears watching that scene. I reflected at the time that I was watching a piece of American history not unlike the fall of the Berlin Wall, not unlike the surrender of the empire of Japan on the battleship Missouri to General MacArthur, a moment in which I was seeing the values of American foreign policy displayed before the entire Earth. As a Member of the Senate and as a student of American foreign policy history, I have always taken great pride in the fact that America does not seek the treasury or the territory of other neighbors and nations. But what we do say to the world is: We hold out and spread the values of our Bill of Rights, of our Constitution, of our Declaration of Independence. We hold out values such as democracy, human rights, freedom and liberty, the freedom of enterprise, the spreading of peace and prosperity, of domestic tranquility, of promoting the general welfare and providing for the common defense of our people and our friends. To me, that is what American foreign policy is about. I believe that is what it has always stood for. So it is with particular sorrow that I reflect upon some of the commentary upon our current action in Iraq. I was a new Member of the Senate. I had been here 2 years when President Clinton came to this body and asked that we issue a resolution that called for regime change in Iraq. President Clinton, after the expulsion of U.N. weapons inspectors, felt compelled to rain bombs on Baghdad for 4 days and 4 nights in order to hit those targets where we believed weapons were held because they had been declared, but not disclosed. President Clinton wisely warned that, based on the intelligence he and other nations had in common, we would fight them now or fight them later. President Clinton's warnings took on greater urgency for this Senator and for many of my colleagues in the light of 9/11, when still declared but undisclosed weapons of mass destruction were in the hands of a terrorist nation and a sponsor of terrorism like Saddam Hussein. We felt compelled to pursue the policy we all voted upon, to change the regime in Iraq for the safety of the American people, for the safety of the free world. As I recall that resolution, it was darn near unanimous, if not so. My pride in that vote is we did it together, Republicans and Democrats. Yet it is disappointing to me, as a Republican who stood with President Clinton on so much foreign policy during the 1990s, when President Bush, after 9/11, asked for support and following through on that resolution and 17 U.N. resolutions, this conflict has become increasingly politicized. I think it is important in my comments and in those of my colleagues that we not question the patriotism of any of our colleagues who voted otherwise or any of our colleagues who believed this is not the right action. But I do think it appropriate to question the wisdom of those who would undermine this American initiative at a time when we need unity. The comparison was made by one of my colleagues this is Vietnam again. I think it is important, if we want to make that comparison, we point out how many inconsistencies there are to Vietnam. But I think it is also well to remember Ho Chi Minh said the Vietnam war would not be won by them in the streets of Saigon, but in the streets of San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Washington. The whole point of his comment at that time was the way you beat America is not to beat them militarily but to beat their will at home. I think that is what is being called into question. What is our will? What are our purposes? For this Senator, my will is we must win. My vote has been for this action, both under President Clinton and now under President Bush. It is unfortunate that some now call for policies which amount to retreat and loss. I cannot think of a more devastating result for America's place and purpose in this world than for us to fail at this time. We must win. We must not have the will of the American people broken to the naysayers of today. We have to continue to stand up for the values of freedom embodied in our founding documents, the values of democracy, the values of human rights, the values of enterprise and freedom. Those are the things we hold out to the people of Iraq. I was stopped in the hall by a reporter who asked if in fact it was true American military forces fired a missile into a mosque in Baghdad. I did not know the answer until I inquired. Now it is all on the news and, in fact, there was a missile fired in the direction of a mosque. The reason it was is because five American soldiers were shot from that mosque as they tried to advance through the streets to secure the security of that area. I say for the record murderers and terrorists must not find sanctuary behind the cloak of religion in any place. There should be no sanctuary for people such as these. So if the American forces made the decision to fire where they were being fired upon, I say: Well done and do it again. Let them find no sanctuary anywhere if their purpose is to deny the American forces the ability to provide security, if their purpose is to undo this Nation's effort in establishing democracy for the people of Iraq. They have suffered too long; they have suffered torture, maiming, rape rooms, weapons of mass destruction, at the hands of a brutal dictator. There are a few--I mean a decided minority--in Iraq who will not win from the values we enjoy because they won under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. They must not be allowed to win now. I plead with my colleagues, patriots all, be careful in the words we use, be wise in what we say, so we do not give aid and comfort to the enemies of that country, the fomenters of terrorism; that we do what we have set out to do, and that is to remove a regime that was bent on tyranny, fomenting terror, and financing it wherever it could; and that we follow through with the promises made by this Government and the previous one, President Clinton and President Bush, that democracy can have a new beginning--in fact, a first chance--on the streets of Arabia. This is our purpose, and may we win. We will win sooner if we watch our words and we weigh them on the scales of wisdom. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as the new year arrived, I looked to coming back to Congress with, frankly, a sense of dread because I knew we were entering a political year, a year where the stakes are high, and the President stands for reelection. I knew there would be an awful lot of my work and the work of all of us tied up in partisan gamesmanship. I will confess to my colleagues, I do not much enjoy it. I look at my friend from Nevada, Senator Reid, and I see a great human being. When I look at Senator Feingold, I see another great human being. I love the message of compassion of the Democratic Party. I know where their hearts are. This is not about good people or bad people. This is about competing ideas. But because I had that view--my father was a Republican, and my mother, a Udall from Arizona--I understand good people can differ on these issues. Because of that sort of bipartisan approach to life I have always had, in my former life as a businessman, as candidates for public office would come to our company and ask to meet with us and our employees, I welcomed Democrats and Republicans alike equally. Unfortunately, what I often came away with was the feeling those on the Democratic side loved my employees but they hated employers. That is because they would demand we create jobs and then they would say the way you do that is you raise the minimum wage, increase your regulations, and raise your taxes. I came to understand by doing the books, by doing accounting, one of my most significant costs was Government overhead. All of them are well meaning. But all of them make it more difficult for capital to come together so labor can be given work to do. As my colleagues have come to the floor and complained about various aspects of this current obstructionist period--you know, we talk about medical liability, the Senator from Wyoming talked about energy, others have talked about judges--I have to talk today about the whole issue of FSC/ETI and how critical it is we find a way through this morass of partisanship to getting this bill done. What we do by failing the American people is to impose on manufacturers a European tax and a penalty to American potential for creating jobs. I don't think that is what Senators intend, but that is what is happening if we don't get FSC/ETI through this process. As I mentioned earlier, I love the compassion I hear from my Democratic friends. Yet when I look at some of the policies that are advanced, what I see are policies designed to make the United States more like Western Europe, more like socialist democratic welfare states. I recently had an experience on a trip with Senator Shelby and Senator Cantwell when we had traveled to Berlin to meet with Gerhard Schroeder. The German Chancellor was explaining to us his policies to reduce taxes, to reduce regulation, to reform medicine and Social Security. I said in humor, Mr. Chancellor, your policies would make Ronald Reagan smile. His response was: It isn't because I want to do this, but I must do this because Germany no longer grows. We no longer have opportunity for our people. Our economy is dead in the water and yours is growing at a spectacular rate. He even commented to the effect: You worry about losing jobs? We wonder why Mercedes and BMW are building plants in South Carolina. It is because you can get a return on investment here. I think we have to get beyond this lamentable side of the Democratic message, we love employees but we hate their employers, because the truth is both have to win and there is room for both. These policies that are punitive are well-intended. They want a vote on the minimum wage. I am ready to vote on that. They want to vote again on the overtime provision. We have voted on all these things before. These are not reasons to hold up progress on FSC/ETI. But that is what is happening. We have to vote two, three, four times on policies already decided by this bicameral Capitol Hill. It is so very frustrating. I don't want America to become a democratic socialist welfare state. I don't care how well meaning all that was when they constructed the French and German economies, but I know, as Vice President Cheney pointed out last week, while our economy was growing at nearly 8 percent in the last half of last year, their economies were growing at 1.4 percent. So as we look to where these policies that are being proposed lead, let's understand we don't want to become like that. We want to be Americans. We want the American economy to produce jobs and to ensure freedom. All the well-intentioned taxes, regulations, and burdens of costs that are put upon employers ultimately translate into harm to employees. I think we have to start pointing that out. In the FSC/ETI bill we passed through the Finance Committee, there was included in that a very important provision I was proud to sponsor. It was the repatriation provision. One of the good things the Europeans do and many of the other countries with whom we compete do, when their companies invest over here they let them take the money back to their home country without a tax. They let it be taxed once here. They don't retax it. As to American companies who compete overseas, we allow them to be taxed over there and then we tax them again when they come back. So this repatriation provision, which for 1 year would have treated our companies like our competitors treat their companies, would have dropped the tax from 35 percent to 5.25 for 1 year. That would have created over 650,000 jobs. All the economists said that. It would have brought $300 billion into the economy, and it would have increased Federal tax receipts by nearly $12 billion a year. It is a win-win. Yet we are stuck trying to re-vote on votes we have already voted, holding up this critical legislation, which I promise you is a vote against jobs. To obstruct this bill is a vote against American jobs. It is a vote for a European tax increase on American workers. Repatriation is a component of ending the FSC regimen that promoted exports by helping to bring into balance with our competitors American taxation on our companies which export abroad. I listened with some humor last week when my colleague Senator Kerry, the Democratic nominee for President, introduced his tax plan. It contained my repatriation provision. But when we put it through the Finance Committee, Senator Kerry voted against it. But now it is included. I don't know. I am glad he changed his mind, but I don't know why the flip-flop. It is a great idea. It is important to do. I am glad he is now with us. I wish he were here today to vote on it. We could use his vote to get this off the Senate floor, to a conference, and into the American economy. It truly does produce jobs. While I think it is easy to hate employers, it is easy to bash corporations, at the end of the day that is how American free enterprise does its work. I know not all corporations are perfect. There is always a rotten apple or two to spoil the barrel. But most employees don't hate their employers, and most employers care about their employees. Most American companies are anxious to see America succeed. These are patriotic people. We have to understand there needs to be a win-win here. Right now the obstruction on FSC/ETI is a lose-lose for the American people. If we want to see jobs created, we need to pass this bill. We need not to accede to a European tax through the WTO on the issue of FSC/ ETI. We need to fix it now. We needed to fix it yesterday. We need to get it to the House so we can get it to the President and then get it to the union shop, the corporate board room, so labor can be reemployed, because American capital comes home.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Yes, I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

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 4, 2000, an 18-year-old Brooklyn man was charged with allegedly slashing three men and threatening the life of another because he believed the men 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 Saturday, March 13, 2004, nine large holes were punched in the windows of the only gay bar in Newport, RI, just 6 days after its opening. Mayor Richard C. Sardella said the incident was likely motivated by hate. A detective who is investigating the incident also stated that it didn't appear to be random. 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. A high school senior in Perry, IA, was harassed for 4 years by students who believed him to be gay. The high school student was repeatedly pushed, shoved, and verbally attacked with anti-gay epithets. Students had also urinated on the high school senior in the shower after wrestling practice. 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 March 1, 2004 Christopher James Barnhart and John Matthew Aravanis left a Morgantown, WV, bar around 3:30 a.m. when they heard, ``Get out of the way, faggots.'' A fist subsequently landed on Barnhart's head and he was knocked to the ground. Barnhart, who sustained two facial fractures in the scuffle, said the men also struck Aravanis in the head as he came to Barnhart's aid. The men left the scene, but returned and kicked and punched them and continued to call them ``faggots.'' City police have obtained arrest warrants for the three men charged with beating Barnhart, Aravanis, and their friend who was with them during the incident. 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 Unborn Victims of Violence Act and our duty to protect the most innocent among us. A woman becomes a mother the moment she hears she is with child. From that time forward, her primary concern is providing for and protecting the new life within. Our concerns should be no different. It is horrifying that an expectant mother could be the target of violence--yet it happens. And when such a crime is committed, there is not one victim, but two. Recognizing this fact in Federal law not only fulfills our commitment to mothers and the unborn, it also serves as a deterrent to crimes against the innocent. Under the laws of 29 States, if a person commits a violent crime against a pregnant woman and seriously injures or kills her unborn child, that assailant can be punished for both the violence against the mother and the unborn child. This is not the case in federal law. A perpetrator who commits a violent crime under Federal jurisdiction and kills an unborn child cannot be prosecuted for that death. This is wrong. Today, I am proud to join my colleagues in voting in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Under this legislation, an assailant who commits a Federal crime and kills or injures an unborn child can be charged with a separate offense on behalf of the child. Passage of this bill sends an immediate message to criminals that they will be punished for violence against women and their unborn children. This legislation and the ban on partial-birth abortion enacted last year further protect the sanctity of life. Like the ban on partial- birth abortions, this bill is supported by the vast majority of Americans who recognize it as a reasonable stop we can take to protect women and children. I look forward to President Bush signing this legislation into law. It will show criminals that they can no longer act with impunity and it will tell expectant parents what they already know--that their unborn children have value, too.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I rise to honor an Oregon veteran who went above and beyond the call of duty in service to his country. On February 19, 1941, 16-year-old Mike Ryan left high school and voluntarily enlisted in the United States Army to serve in World War II. Private Ryan underwent basic training at Fort Mills on Corregidor in Manila Bay. Japanese bombing attacks on the island intensified and ultimately led to the fall of Corregidor. U.S. forces surrendered on May 6, 1942. Pvt. Mike Ryan and other troops in the southern part of the Philippines became Japanese prisoners of war. Ryan and hundreds of other prisoners were taken to Manila, were paraded through the streets and taken to prison, and transported to a prison camp in Cabanatuan, Philippines. For the next 3 years, Mike Ryan suffered immensely, enduring hunger, fatigue, and sickness in a Japanese forced labor camp. The conditions were dismal; food and clothing were scarce and the heat was intense. After spending time in a holding area, which was nothing more than a cow pasture with no sanitary facilities, Ryan was sent out on work details and later transferred to prison. Thirty-seven percent of the prisoners did not survive. Mike says he never gave up hope, saying he always knew he would come back someday. On September 13, 1945, Ryan and his fellow prisoners were released from captivity. Mike Ryan had spent a total of 3 years, 4 months, and 6 days as a prisoner of war. After spending a short time in a military hospital in Denver, CO, Ryan was honorably discharged from the service on June 20, 1946. On March 30, 1948, he married and moved to Oregon. Mike worked at a plywood mill in Lebanon for more than 40 years until it shut down in 1985. Ryan served as the department commander of American Ex-prisoners of War. Now retired, Ryan enjoys spending his time with his wife of 56 years and his family. He has two sons, four grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren. Mike Ryan made many sacrifices by entering the military at such a young age. He never had the opportunity to finish high school and receive his diploma. Last session, the Oregon Legislative Assembly passed S. 374 allowing World War II veterans who left school to serve in the war to receive their high school diploma. Ryan is hoping he will graduate this year with the Lebanon, OR class of 2004. Now 79 years old, Ryan looks back on his life and gratitude, thankful for the opportunity to serve his country. For his selfless service to others, and to the United States in time of war, I salute Mike Ryan as an Oregon veteran hero.

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 21, 2000, in Fort Worth, TX, a 17-year old high school student was hospitalized after two peers allegedly attacked him in a parking lot. The young assailants beat the victim and scratched anti- gay slurs into his car. The victim suffered a broken nose and numerous other injuries, including blood clots on his brain. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. In Muncie, IN, Brian Worden attacked another man viciously with a tire iron because he believed the man was 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. In Stafford, VA, Thomas Rivers heard that another boy thought he was cute. Rivers responded by shouldering the classmate in hallways at school, shouting slurs and spitting on him. The next year, 18-year-old Rivers attacked the boy by bashing him in the back of the head with a metal pole, nearly killing him. 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 April, 2000, in Keene, NH, a 19-year-old was sentenced to 3 years of probation for carving antigay epithets into a student's back the preceding year. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. In Dix Hills, NY, in March 2000, a young man's remains were found in a plastic container in a park in Queens. The teen's social security number and racial and anti-homosexual epithets were written on the skull with a marker. I believe the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The 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.