Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The American Manufacturing Jobs Bill of 2003--which will provide a tax rate cut for all manufacturers who employ American workers. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator John Breaux. On October 1, 2003, the Senate Finance Committee approved on a bipartisan basis S. 1673, the centerpiece of which resolves the FSC/ETI issue by replacing the export tax benefit with a reduction in the tax burden on domestic manufacturing companies. I applaud S. 1673, a balanced piece of legislation crafted by Chairman Charles Grassley, R-IA, and ranking member Senator Max Baucus, D-MT. I am, however, concerned that the domestic manufacturing benefit in S. 1673 is not applied equally to all U.S. manufacturers. This bill includes a provision--a ``haircut''--that provides less of a benefit to companies that also manufacture abroad. For example, a company that has 55 percent of its manufacturing in the United States and 45 percent abroad will calculate its benefit under the bill and then reduce that benefit by a fraction--the numerator of which is the gross receipts from domestic manufacturing over the same derived from worldwide manufacturing. This company thus suffers twice. First, the domestic manufacturing benefit in S. 1673 is less valuable than the benefit currently provided under FSC/ETI. Second, this company's manufacturing benefit is further reduced by the ``haircut'' merely because it also has overseas manufacturing operations in order to be closer to their markets. The ``haircut'' is a discriminatory measure that hurts both foreign- owned and U.S.-owned companies alike. It is structured so that the more a company manufactures abroad, the less of a manufacturing rate cut it gets. The ``haircut'' makes the United States a less competitive location for current and future investment because multinational companies will believe they are being ``cheated'' and discriminated against. At a time when American manufacturing jobs are leaving our country in record numbers, Congress should support all companies that employ Americans. U.S. companies with global operations employ more than 23 million Americans--9 million of which are in manufacturing jobs--this is tantamount to three out of every five manufacturing jobs in this country. Foreign-owned companies with U.S. operations employ more than 2 million manufacturing workers in the United States. It is these many of millions of manufacturing workers who will suffer if the ``haircut'' remains and companies are therefore discouraged to invest in the United States. Moreover, the ``haircut'' is inconsistent with historic tax and trade policies to encourage U.S. companies to open up facilities outside the United States. In fact, there is an entire department--the Department of Commerce--set up to assist U.S. companies going global and then to promote and facilitate those same companies' efforts once they have established themselves in-country. I am also concerned that the ``haircut'' invites mirror legislation in other countries and may invite another WTO challenge to this legislation. I believe we have a duty to encourage the retention and creation of manufacturing jobs in the United States. We must not treat U.S. jobs created by multinational companies as ``less worthy'' than U.S. jobs created by strictly domestic manufacturers. Congress should be in the business of rewarding all well-paid, manufacturing jobs that are created in the United States, not just those created by domestic manufacturers. I believe that by eliminating the ``haircut'' and providing a tax rate cut for all manufacturers who employ American workers, we can help to revitalize the U.S. manufacturing sector. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this important legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The American Manufacturing Jobs Bill of 2003--which will provide a tax rate cut for all manufacturers who employ American workers. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator John Breaux. On October 1, 2003, the Senate Finance Committee approved on a bipartisan basis S. 1673, the centerpiece of which resolves the FSC/ETI issue by replacing the export tax benefit with a reduction in the tax burden on domestic manufacturing companies. I applaud S. 1673, a balanced piece of legislation crafted by Chairman Charles Grassley, R-IA, and ranking member Senator Max Baucus, D-MT. I am, however, concerned that the domestic manufacturing benefit in S. 1673 is not applied equally to all U.S. manufacturers. This bill includes a provision--a ``haircut''--that provides less of a benefit to companies that also manufacture abroad. For example, a company that has 55 percent of its manufacturing in the United States and 45 percent abroad will calculate its benefit under the bill and then reduce that benefit by a fraction--the numerator of which is the gross receipts from domestic manufacturing over the same derived from worldwide manufacturing. This company thus suffers twice. First, the domestic manufacturing benefit in S. 1673 is less valuable than the benefit currently provided under FSC/ETI. Second, this company's manufacturing benefit is further reduced by the ``haircut'' merely because it also has overseas manufacturing operations in order to be closer to their markets. The ``haircut'' is a discriminatory measure that hurts both foreign- owned and U.S.-owned companies alike. It is structured so that the more a company manufactures abroad, the less of a manufacturing rate cut it gets. The ``haircut'' makes the United States a less competitive location for current and future investment because multinational companies will believe they are being ``cheated'' and discriminated against. At a time when American manufacturing jobs are leaving our country in record numbers, Congress should support all companies that employ Americans. U.S. companies with global operations employ more than 23 million Americans--9 million of which are in manufacturing jobs--this is tantamount to three out of every five manufacturing jobs in this country. Foreign-owned companies with U.S. operations employ more than 2 million manufacturing workers in the United States. It is these many of millions of manufacturing workers who will suffer if the ``haircut'' remains and companies are therefore discouraged to invest in the United States. Moreover, the ``haircut'' is inconsistent with historic tax and trade policies to encourage U.S. companies to open up facilities outside the United States. In fact, there is an entire department--the Department of Commerce--set up to assist U.S. companies going global and then to promote and facilitate those same companies' efforts once they have established themselves in-country. I am also concerned that the ``haircut'' invites mirror legislation in other countries and may invite another WTO challenge to this legislation. I believe we have a duty to encourage the retention and creation of manufacturing jobs in the United States. We must not treat U.S. jobs created by multinational companies as ``less worthy'' than U.S. jobs created by strictly domestic manufacturers. Congress should be in the business of rewarding all well-paid, manufacturing jobs that are created in the United States, not just those created by domestic manufacturers. I believe that by eliminating the ``haircut'' and providing a tax rate cut for all manufacturers who employ American workers, we can help to revitalize the U.S. manufacturing sector. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this important 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 San Antonio, TX, on October 26, 2003, Allen Everton, age 74, was beaten to within inches of his life. His assailant believed that Everton was gay, and while hitting the elderly man with a baseball bat, called him a ``freaking faggot.'' Mr. Everton died 11 days later of natural causes, but I can only imagine how scarred he must have felt after being the victim of a senseless attack. 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. Today marks the fifth annual Transgender Day of Remembrance and this year, we mourn with 37 families who lost their loved ones to antitransgender violence. My home State of Oregon has also lost a citizen to this form of hatred. In August 2001, Lorenzo ``Loni'' Okaruru died after being savagely beaten about the head and face with a blunt instrument. Detectives believe that the crime was most likely committed by a man who picked up Okaruru, who he thought was a women, and was angered to find out Okaruru was a biological male. Law enforcement officials believe that Okaruru was killed because of his sexual orientation and gender identity and have classified the crime as a hate crime. The Portland community and civil rights groups rallied together to denounce this horrible crime. I believe that Government's first duty 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. In short, SMD was bad for the consumers of Oregon, particularly those in rural areas. Led by the Senate, this Congress has taken the extraordinary step in this bill of blocking FERC from continuing with this rulemaking that would have been so harmful to so many areas of the country. Unfortunately, the SMD is only part of a FERC vision for restructuring the wholesale electricity industry in a way that puts consumers at risk. FERC appears bent on ``competition at all costs,'' regardless of the costs to consumers, and without justifying the need for its draconian proposals. We have stopped SMD in this legislation, but other proposals are out there. Even now, utilities in the Northwest are concerned that they will once again be harmed by California's efforts to get FERC approval for new market structures under what is commonly known as MDO2. We cannot continue to legislate against specific FERC proposals for market design. I do hope that FERC gets the message we are sending them, however. The goal of Federal policy, which I believe is furthered by this electricity title, is to promote universal access to electricity at affordable prices. Electricity is too fundamental to our lives, and to this Nation's economic well-being to be subjected to radical experiments, such as the one proposed by SMD. In closing, Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Domenici and Senator Grassley for their leadership in crafting this important legislation.

Mr. SMITH. Might I have another 2 minutes?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, in thinking about my remarks today, I was reflecting back upon the investments made during the Great Depression in the Pacific Northwest by President Franklin Roosevelt, by his congressional friends. They were at the time expensive, but they were done at a time in America, particularly the Pacific Northwest, when only 30 percent of the American people had electricity. One had to live in the city to have electricity. President Roosevelt went to Oregon and Washington and dedicated the Bonneville Dam. At the time, in 1937, it was an enormous undertaking. He was a visionary when he dedicated that dam. He foresaw the benefits of universal electrification of our Nation from an economic and from an environmental point of view. There were those who expressed concern about the cost of this Energy bill. In preparing for these remarks, I read the address of Franklin Roosevelt those many years ago because it is applicable even today. He ends his address with this adage, which is as true today as it was then: We in America are wiser in using our wealth on projects like this which will give us more wealth, better living, and greater happiness for our children. It seems to me the difference between those for the bill and those against it has to do with money and the picking of winners and losers supposedly in this bill, and the difference of approach. The American people want affordable energy. The American people want a clean environment. It does seem to me there are those on the other side who believe the best approach to get energy and to get more green policies in place is through regulation. Indeed, I saw with some interest an article in the Washington Post this morning in which the probable Democratic nominee, Howard Dean, calls for: An age of reregulation. There is the headline. He was apparently a born-again reregulator. He wants to reregulate American industry, and specifically energy. It seems to me you can get different outcomes at the heavy hand, the club, of government. But I think what this legislation does is try to get to green results with affordable energy by incentivizing it with carrots. So you really have a choice between carrots and clubs, depending on which side you want to support in this debate and how you vote. But, Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the conference report on H. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. All of the conferees are to be congratulated for their tireless efforts to craft a bill that provides for real progress in securing our Nation's energy future. It is a positive step toward ensuring our farms, factories, and homes have energy they need at affordable prices. The bill provides significant incentives for diversification of our energy sources and for investment in needed energy infrastructure. I am pleased the bill authorizes $550 million in grants for biomass programs, which will help Oregon's communities and small businesses treat forested lands at high risk of catastrophic fires. This bill will promote the generation of electricity with the wood and brush removed from lands when lands are treated to reduce wildfire dangers. The extension and expansion of tax credits for the generation of electricity from renewable resources will also benefit Oregon, which has been a leader in renewable energy production, particularly in wind energy. There are tremendous amounts of incentive here for windmills. In fact, I heard Pete Domenici say: In 10 years, you are going to be tired of seeing all the windmills that will be produced from this. Now, the Federal Government can mandate it and impose it on electrical utility companies, or it can incentivize it by helping these renewable types of energy to be more affordable and more marketable in the marketplace of today. Again, it is the carrot approach, not the stick approach. We will further improve the environment by establishing tax credits for energy-efficient homes and appliances, and for energy efficiency improvements to existing homes. Expansion of the Energy Star program builds on the success of the collaborative effort between Government and industry to inform consumers about energy-efficient appliances. Mr. President, hydroelectric facilities in the Pacific Northwest provide almost 60 percent of the region's electricity. That is why I am so supportive of the provisions in this bill that authorize $100 million for increased hydropower production through increased efficiency at existing dams. People worried about global warming ought to be very interested in this provision because hydroelectric power produces abundant electricity without global warming. The bill also contains important reforms to hydroelectric relicensing laws, allowing for increased production while maintaining existing environmental safeguards. Our Native-American tribes in Oregon will benefit economically from provisions that promote the development of energy resources on tribal lands and extend the accelerated depreciation benefit for energy- related businesses on Indian reservations. I thank Senator Campbell for his leadership on this important Indian energy title. The bill also recognizes that not everyone is sharing in the Nation's economic recovery. It is very important that we approve the authorization in this bill of $3.4 billion a year from 2004 to 2006 for the Low Income Housing Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP. It is an important addition to this bill. Nationally, we have finally established mandatory reliability standards for the electric transmission system, including enforcement mechanisms. This is something the Senate has attempted to do for the past three Congresses. These standards will help avoid future blackouts like those that plunged the east coast into darkness last August 14 or the August 1996 event which paralyzed the Western United States. Finally, let me turn to the electricity title. This has been an issue of particular importance to my constituents in Oregon and to the West in general. In recent years, Oregon ratepayers have been harmed as a result of market problems that spread from California throughout the West. Most Oregonians have seen their electricity rates increase by around 50 percent in the past 3 years. FERC's proposal on standard market design, SMD, threatened to raise Oregon's rates even further. As originally proposed, it simply would not have worked in the Northwest, where hydroelectricity is the dominant resource.

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 25, 2003, a Miami, FL, teen was charged with a hate crime after police say he harassed a 19-year-old woman driving with a gay pride sticker on her car. The teen leaned out of his car window at a traffic light to make an obscene gesture toward the young woman and said to her, ``We hate faggots . . . we kill people like you.'' The truck pulled up to her again at the next light where he continued to make lewd comments and gestures. The teen cut in front of the woman and hit his brakes, causing the woman's car to swerve, according to police. Police say the driver then swerved his truck three times towards the woman's car, running her off the road. 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. I thank the Senator from Texas for yielding to me.

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 23, 2003, Luis Collazo was attacked and beaten by a man who asked him for a smoke as he walked to his car from a bar and a pizza establishment in Palm Springs, CA. The attack came after the suspect made an antigay slur to Collazo, said Palm Springs police Detective Mark Melanson. Fortunately, Collazzo was quickly released from the hospital after being treated for facial bruises. 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. I would like to describe one such crime today. In protest of a wedding between two men in Seattle, WA, several young men and one adult who call themselves ``Deliverance Unlimited'' refused to leave a local Christian Church. In the October 25, 2003 incident, the co-pastor of the church asked the protestors to leave, and the group then began verbally assaulting the church staff. One of the protestors, Christopher Dudley, entered the sanctuary and began yelling that the church needed to be cleansed of sin. He then vandalized the church by spraying and wiping oil on the walls and furniture. The co-pastor told police that he was afraid for his own life and the lives of his staff. 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. I would object.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would ask that the Senator modify her request so that just prior to proceeding as requested, the three cloture votes would be vitiated, and the Senate would then immediately proceed to three consecutive votes on the confirmation of the nominations, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, for those of you who may still be watching this debate, I know the suggestion has been made by our friends on the other side that essential work is not being done. This time, I assure you, what is being done is a lot of work, and it is being done currently in conference committees. What we are doing here, I think, is also very important. In terms of dialog and debate in our democracy, we have an important issue before us. You have seen the sign. It says: 98 percent. All these judges have been confirmed. It is important not to get locked into that number because what is being missed is whether we are upholding our oath to the Constitution only 98 percent of the time or 100 percent of the time. In my view, my reading of the Constitution, it is that supermajorities are provided for in our Constitution in cases of Presidential vetoes, expelling a Member, and other areas. Mr. President, I listened to my friend from Connecticut last night. He made a very good speech. He talked about his boyhood and sitting here in the time of his father. I am sure he was listening to great civil rights debates, and the filibusters went on and on in terms of civil rights. But I will tell you, based on my reading of the recent book on Lyndon Johnson's life, by Robert Caro, ``Master of the Senate''--central in the fight among Democratic southerners and Democratic northerners, along with Republican northerners--there was the frustration over the issue of the filibuster. Hubert Humphrey and Clinton Anderson of New Mexico repeatedly began each session trying to change the rules on filibuster because they knew if they could not change them, then Senator Russell would make it impossible for them to break the veto and deny the African-American community civil rights in this country. What is the difference between that fight over a filibuster when it comes to a legislative issue such as civil rights versus an executive appointment or Executive Calendar issue such as we are dealing with today? Well, I suggest that what has happened ever since the defeat of Robert Bork is each side is upping the ante and we are exalting now single-issue politics in our country in a way that I think truly disserves our country. There is an old maxim in the law that justice delayed is justice denied. It is a fact that many justices or judges have been confirmed, but the real potential exists not just to delay justice--and thereby deny justice--but to dumb down justice in our country. Let me tell you why I believe that this could happen. Right now, we are seeing the winnowing out of anyone in the law who is learned, well written, well spoken, and whose views are well revealed to the American people. I remember as a new lawyer listening to the debate in the Senate over Robert Bork. I remember as a law student, prior to that, particularly enjoying the writings of Laurence Tribe and Robert Bork. These two great legal scholars would debate in their writings over the word ``liberty'' and the proper role of judges in enforcing and providing for liberty. You couldn't find two scholars with more polar opposite positions than Tribe and Bork. But, I loved their readings. I had the feeling when I would read them that I was a part of the contest of ideas. I remember the feeling when Robert Bork was defeated that, doggone it, I would sure have given them Laurence Tribe if they would have given us Robert Bork. Because I knew the writings of our country's legal journals would be all the better if the judiciary could attract the best and the brightest. Now we are saying as the Senate, if you have strongly held views, you had better check them at the door. And, if you don't do that, you had better not expose them. We are saying to the judicial branch of Government--we, the Senate, the legislative branch--we don't want the best and the brightest; we want the mediocre, we want the mushy middle; we want those who are just going to go along and get along. I think we also disserve the marketplace of ideas when both parties ratchet up these politics. This is what has happened. The difference between the filibuster as it relates to the Legislative Calendar and the Executive Calendar is simply that we, the legislative branch, are now attacking the judicial branch. American justice will be the poorer for this because, you watch, when we have a Democratic President and a Democratic majority in the Senate--this will happen again--watch the filibusters come up. That is unfortunate because we have elections for a reason. This is an ebb and flow in American politics that is important. Am I suggesting we get rid of filibusters? I am not, but I am suggesting we have escalated this too high. I believe we are exacting single-issue politics, I believe we are delaying justice, and I believe we are dumbing down justice in America. The unspoken word here is the single issue of a woman's right to reproductive choice. The word is ``abortion.'' Every one of us has wrestled with that issue. I truly believe and I understand why a woman doesn't want the Government part of such a decision. I also believe there are times when life is so viable and so obvious that the law ought to protect that life. As I looked in the mirror and then presented myself to the people of the State of Oregon, I had to say: You know, I am pro-life. I am pro- life with exceptions, but I am pro-life. My State is pro-choice. But, they had a right to know my position. I told them. Ultimately, I was elected anyway. I promised them I would not have a single-issue litmus test on judicial appointments. I am here to tell the people of Oregon, I have kept that promise. I voted for President Clinton's nominees who were pro-choice because I believe we should not let single-issue interest groups rule the day on an issue so constitutionally fundamental to the future of justice in our country. But that is what is happening here. That is why this time is so important, that we spend it debating and hopefully resolve this issue. Mr. President, I will not take more time. My colleague, Senator Sununu, deserves to be heard. I pray, I plead, I hope we can get beyond this as it comes to executive appointments, the Executive Calendar, because we are disserving America with this process that has now ratcheted up to a new level that is constitutionally dangerous. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH. Ten minutes.

Mr. SMITH. I would like to speak.

Mr. SMITH. I object.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I rise to honor a tireless advocate for Oregonians with disabilities. Cynthia Owens has committed herself to helping ensure, whether through grassroots organization or legislative activism, that individuals with disabilities are granted equal access and opportunity. Today, I recognize Cynthia Owens as an Oregon Health Care Hero. Twenty-one years ago, Cynthia and David Owens' youngest son, Andy, nearly drowned. The accident left Andy with severe physical disabilities. With the realization that she would need to be her son's advocate, Cynthia began working to protect and expand critical services that allow individuals with disabilities to live independently in their communities. Although her son's new disability served as her impetus, Cynthia's work with countless boards, commissions and organizations has had an impact far beyond her own son; her efforts have been felt throughout the disabled community in Oregon. United Cerebral Palsy was the first to benefit from Cynthia's commitment to the disabled community. She served for 13 years as a volunteer, working with families to help identify resources and services for their disabled loved ones. After becoming a legislative advocate at the federal and state level, she began working for The Arc of Oregon as the coordinator of a campaign to extend services to all those eligible for disability assistance. With the experience she gained helping her son find a job in the community, Cynthia became involved in larger efforts to find employment for individuals with disabilities. She now works with the Oregon Health Sciences University Center on Self Determination, the National Coalition on Self Determination, and Self Determination Resources, Inc. Cynthia works with groups around the state to train others in the disability employment field, as well as maintaining a database for families and other interested in employment opportunities. Cynthia was recently honored with an appointment to the State Rehabilitation Council by Governor Kulongoski. The Council works to ensure that Oregon Vocational Rehabilitation Division assists Oregonians with disabilities achieve meaningful employment and independence. I have had the distinct pleasure of meeting both Cynthia and Andy. I am repeatedly amazed by the strong will, warmth and goodwill of the Owen's family, and honored to help support Cynthia and her work on behalf of the disabled community in Oregon. Cynthia and her husband, David, have faced many challenges raising their son. However, Cynthia has turned those challenges into opportunities for Andy and others like him. For being an outstanding mother and advocate. I salute Cynthia Owens and thank her for being a true Oregon Health Care 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. I would like to describe one such crime today. At a well-known Atlanta college, Aaron Price left a dormitory bathroom after suspecting that one of his classmates had made an unwanted sexually suggestive gesture toward him. Mr. Price returned to the bathroom, with a baseball bat from his bedroom closet, and proceeded to beat his classmate in the head. Mr. Price did not stop until he had fractured the student's skull, chipped many of his teeth, and caused a life-threatening blood clot to develop in his classmate's brain. Also, I would like to recall two crimes that occurred in a 90-minute span on September 2, 1998, in Huntington, WV. There, two men were berated with anti-gay slurs, then beaten by the same trio of attackers. The first of the two anti-gay attacks occurred as a 31-year-old New Jersey man, who was headed to the PATH train from a local bar, was attacked by three men. The man was kicked and punched, then thrown down a flight of stairs. The victim of the second attack was a 48-year-old man who left a different bar. He was grabbed from behind and thrown to the ground by three men fitting the description given by the first victim. The men made anti-gay remarks, then took his wallet. One of the men pulled out a knife, and the victim suffered a cut on his arm and a broken wrist during the fight. Police believe the two victims were targeted because they are gay. In conclusion, I would like to describe a terrible crime today. Guinn ``Richie'' Phillips of Rineyville, KY, disappeared on June 17, 2003. His body was found one week later. Josh Cottrell, the man accused of the murder, is believed to have killed the victim because he dislikes homosexuals. Mr. Cottrell had earlier told his aunt and cousin that he planned to kill Mr. Phillips after Mr. Phillips made an unwanted advance in a local hotel. Mr. Cottrell allegedly strangled Mr. Phillips and stuffed his body into a suitcase, later dropping it in a lake. 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 join the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in wishing a happy birthday to Senator Boxer. I also thank Senator Boxer and Senator Santorum for their tenaciousness in advancing this bill. It is long overdue and it is to be celebrated by all of us. Senator Lugar, Senator Biden, and the Foreign Relations Committee have worked this bill into a condition where we can bring it to the floor, giving the President sufficient discretion, and make clear that we will continue to engage in diplomacy with the Syrians but we are going to do it on a more realistic basis, a basis that has consequences, a basis that deals with facts, not fantasy, and truly makes progress in the Middle East. It is a matter of historical record that for a long time, several decades now, the Syrians have occupied the nation of Lebanon, their smaller neighbor to their west. In the course of that, whatever their motives were for going in, they have stayed there for gain. They have denied democracy to the Lebanese people, they have denied them self- determination, and they have been responsible for keeping the breach and the wound alive in Lebanon. But as it relates to this bill, I also have to take note of the fact it is Veterans Day. We thank our veterans. We celebrate our veterans. We owe them a great debt. As we think of yesterday's veterans, I am reminded of today's veterans, many of whom, from the State of Oregon, are in Iraq now and who are in harm's way for the cause of American liberty and the safety of the American people and our allies in the ongoing war on terrorism. The truth is, much that is aimed at them today comes from Syria. It comes from car bombers holding Syrian passports. Indeed, just the other day we learned the car bomb that was interdicted and the person pulled out of the car that was filled with explosives was from Syria. Syria maintains a porous border with Iraq that simply cannot remain as it is because if it does, it will mean the death of more of our soldiers. We want them home and we want them safe. There is more than a porous border that concerns me with Syria. It is the fact that Syria provides a safe harbor, indeed a safe haven, a heaven, if you will, for terrorists. For those who conspire to murder on a massive scale, Syria gives them a place to stay, gives them protection, and a place to hide their money and their weapons before they can bring them into conflict with American soldiers. Who knows what also may be there from the arsenals of Saddam Hussein. Who knows what weapons of mass destruction may even be there as well. All of this needs to end. Our President needs to have the tools, the diplomatic tools necessary to prosecute the case with Syria in a way that gets us beyond the status quo because the status quo is unacceptable and the status quo is deadly and the status quo has to be over. I join with Republicans and Democrats alike today in urging passage of the Syria Accountability Act, for the sake of our country, for the sake of the Middle East, for the sake of Muslims, for the sake of Jews, for the sake of Christians, and all who have suffered much. The road to Damascus has brought so much murder, so much conspiracy, so much weaponry, so much blood money that has been used against the peace process and those who are the advocates of a peaceful resolution in the Middle East. It is a matter of Scriptural record that a man named Saul on the road to Damascus once saw an awful lot of light, changed his way, and even changed his name. We know him today as the Apostle Paul. What we need now on the road to Damascus is a lot more light because all we have been getting is so much darkness. We need a new beginning with Syria. The President needs a new authority against Syria. This bill is crafted in a way that is helpful diplomatically so we can avoid hostilities. But let us have the courage in this war on terrorism to go where the facts take us. Let us all pray it does not take us down the road to Damascus, but we have to be realistic. This bill is a very good start. I urge the Senate to adopt it today by a very large margin. I yield the floor.

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. I would like to describe one such crime today. In September 1997, a gay man in Williamstown, NJ, was beaten enough to receive a black eye, at least two broken toes, and bruises all over his body. Later that day, his house was egged and a brick thrown through a window. Local kids, who allegedly committed the assault, screamed ``you got what you deserve, you faggot,'' at the time of 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. 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. I would like to describe one such crime that occurred in Greensburg, PA. Ian Bishop, 16, allegedly hated his 18-year old brother, Adam, because he thought he was gay. After beating his brother in the head at least 18 times with a claw hammer and wooden club, Ian dumped Adam's body in the bathtub, then went to a nearby shopping mall where he described the attack and laughed about his brother's death. 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 pronouncing sentence on 21-year-old Yitzak Abba Marta, Circuit Judge William Storey told the court, ``this was nothing more than a hate crime . . . this person was killed because he was gay.'' Marta was convicted for the 1996 beating and strangling death of Alan Fitzgerald Walker, a transvestite. Marta and an accomplice picked up Walker outside of a gay nightclub while he was dressed as a woman. Police were called to Walker's home 3 days later when neighbors became suspicious of his disappearance. Not only had he been absent, but the tires on his car had been slashed, and there were notes on his door. Police found Walker's body in his bedroom with ``KKK'' scrawled in blood on an adjacent wall. 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 in reference to the Senator's sense-of-the-Senate. Obviously, there are strong emotions on this issue. One of the problems with this program is the ambiguous nature by which Congress authorized it. In particular, I would call my colleagues' attention to the most recent regulation proposed by USDA. During consideration of the 2002 farm bill, Congress wisely exempted processed foods from country of origin labeling requirements. The complex nature of such labeling would have discouraged the use of U.S. grown products as ingredients and thus would have harmed, not helped, American agriculture. Yet there is tremendous confusion in the food industry and at USDA, I might add, on what constitutes a processed product as it relates to country-of-origin labeling. I also would like to remind my colleagues that many of these processed products, for example, frozen produce, are already required to be labeled. Frozen processed products of foreign origin are required to be labeled for country-of-origin under section 304 of the Tariff Act and have been so required since the Tariff Act was passed in 1930. I certainly do not believe it was the intention of Congress to create a costly, duplicative program that provides absolutely no benefit to American growers, consumers, or producers. Some canned products would be covered by the program while others would not be covered. USDA's determination that frozen breaded shrimp is covered by the legislation is another example. As many of my colleagues are aware, USDA is using the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, PACA, as a blueprint for implementation of the Country-of-Origin Labeling program. Yet, at time of passage, breading is the type of process that would disqualify produce from getting a designation under PACA. It seems to me we are going to great lengths and undoubtedly expending great resources to mandate marking on processed products that it was no one's intention to cover. It is just this type of confusion that USDA references in its cost- benefit analysis. We should not be concerned about whether or not we agree with the accuracy of the estimated costs. The fact is that the agricultural economy can not afford any of them. We ought to be clear that to the extent this program has support by producers, no one advocating extending its reach to processed foods. I reiterate my understanding that when the processed food exemption was included, Congress sought to avoid this excessive cost and the resulting confusion. In fact, after reviewing USDA's proposed rule as mandated by the law, John Graham, administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, sent a letter to USDA's undersecretary for Marketing and Regulatory programs, Bill Hawks, which stated ``These figures indicate that this is one of the most burdensome rules to be reviewed by this administration.'' USDA's cost-benefit analysis raised several disturbing points. First, the USDA has said that ``Current evidence on country-of-origin labeling, however, does not suggest that U.S. producers will receive sufficiently higher farm prices for U.S.-labeled products to cover the costs of labeling. Moreover, it is even possible that producers could face lower farm prices as a result of labeling costs being passed back from retailers and processors.'' The USDA has also said that ``Annual costs to the U.S. economy in terms of reduced purchasing power resulting from a loss in productivity after a 10-year period of adjustment are estimated to range from $138 million to $596 million.'' I do not believe that when adopting Country-of-Origin Labeling legislation Congress intended to create such an expensive program that is detrimental to American agriculture, nor do I believe it was the intention to include processed products, including frozen produce. I hope we can work together to clarify the intention and the breadth of impact of this legislation and minimize the costs of its implementation. However, I do not believe that such a sufficient clarification can be achieved by simply defunding one portion of the program.

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 to our society. Gregory Beauchamp, a 21-year old gay male, was the last homicide victim of 2002 in Cincinnati, OH. On December 31, Mr. Beauchamp was headed to a nightclub to ring in the New Year with friends. At about 9 p.m. a blue Cadillac pulled up alongside them, and the four or five African American men inside started yelling anti-gay epithets, according to survivors of the attack. Shots were fired from the vehicle, killing Mr. Beauchamp. The murder was reported as a hate crime. 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.