Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Wyden, Brownback, Specter, and Burns to introduce the Local Railroad Rehabilitation and Investment Act. The bill provides a Federal tax credit for short line railroad rehabilitation and addresses a critical need in small town America. There are some 500 short line railroads serving large areas of the country that are no longer served by the large Class I railroads. These railroads keep our farmers and our small businesses connected to the national main line railroad system and are the only alternative to increasing truck traffic on local roads. Many of today's short lines were once the light density branch lines of the large Class I railroads. As Class I systems began to lose money, these branch lines received little investment and were gradually abandoned. As an alternative to abandonment, the Federal Government encouraged spinning off these lines to form new local railroads that would preserve service and jobs. Today, this local service is threatened due to the introduction of the new, heavier 286,000-pound railcar that the Class I's are making the new industry standard. Because of the interconnectivity of our Nation's rail network, short lines are forced to use these heavier cars. This places an added strain on track structure and makes rehabilitation even more important and more urgent. Studies indicate that it will take $7 billion in new investment for our nation's short lines to accommodate these heavier rail cars. My legislation is not intended to fund this entire rehabilitation. Rather, it is intended to help small railroads make the improvements required to grow traffic so they can earn the additional investment income needed to complete the $7 billion capital upgrade. Short lines operate 50,000 miles of track in 49 states, employ over 23,000 workers at an average wage of $47,000, and earn $3 billion in annual revenue. Railroading is one of the most capital-intensive industries in the country. That capital effort is also labor intensive and my legislation will result in the immediate creation of jobs needed to undertake these rehabilitation projects. The major provisions of the Local Railroad Rehabilitation and Investment Act include: Authorization of a federal tax credit against qualified railroad track maintenance expenditures paid or incurred by a taxpayer during taxable years 2004 to 2008. The qualified railroad track maintenance expenditures include expenditures, whether or not otherwise chargeable to capital account, for maintaining or upgrading railroad track, including roadbed, bridges and related structures, owned or leased by the taxpayer of a Class II or Class III railroad. The total tax credit is capped at $10,000 for every mile of railroad track owned or leased by a Class II or Class III railroad, provided that the expenditure is certified by the State as part of an essential rail upgrade. For example, a 20-mile railroad qualifies for a $200,000 credit. And, to maximize private investment in this critical infrastructure, the bill allows railroads that are unable to fully utilize credits earned to transfer such credits to other railroads, railroad shippers, or railroad suppliers and contractors. For rural America, the specter of losing rail access is a serious matter. As characterized in the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) recent Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report, short lines ``often provide the first and last service miles in the door-to-door collection and distribution of railcars.'' The Association of American Railroads estimates that short lines originate or terminate one out of every four carloads moved by the domestic railroad industry. Preserving short line rail service is important to the national transportation system; it is absolutely critical to the rural transportation system. This legislation provides a modest and efficient way to help the short line industry help itself. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for consistent tax treatment of employer-provided health insurance for domestic partners. Today, Senator Bob Graham and I are introducing the Domestic Partner Health Benefits Equity Act, a bill that seeks to simplify the tax code and address the growing trend among both public and private employers who have decided to provide domestic partner benefits to their employees. More than one-third of Fortune 500 companies, as well as numerous State and local governments, are providing health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of their employees. This is a clear trend in the American workplace. However, Federal tax law has not kept pace with corporate changes in this area and employers who offer such benefits and the employees who receive them are taxed inequitably. Our legislation would provide consistent tax treatment for employer- provided health insurance for domestic partners. Currently, the tax code provides that the employer's contribution of the premium for health insurance for an employee's spouse is excluded from the employee's taxable income. An employer's contribution for the domestic partner's coverage, however, is included in an employee's taxable income as a fringe benefit. In addition, the employer's payroll tax liability is increased. This forces businesses to create a two- track payroll system for benefits provided to spouses and those provided to domestic partners, an administrative burden that this legislation would eliminate. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we will increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance by providing employers with a tax incentive. The tax code should not penalize employers for offering these benefits to their employees. I urge my colleagues to join me and support the Domestic Partner Health Benefits Equity Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Wyden, Brownback, Specter, and Burns to introduce the Local Railroad Rehabilitation and Investment Act. The bill provides a Federal tax credit for short line railroad rehabilitation and addresses a critical need in small town America. There are some 500 short line railroads serving large areas of the country that are no longer served by the large Class I railroads. These railroads keep our farmers and our small businesses connected to the national main line railroad system and are the only alternative to increasing truck traffic on local roads. Many of today's short lines were once the light density branch lines of the large Class I railroads. As Class I systems began to lose money, these branch lines received little investment and were gradually abandoned. As an alternative to abandonment, the Federal Government encouraged spinning off these lines to form new local railroads that would preserve service and jobs. Today, this local service is threatened due to the introduction of the new, heavier 286,000-pound railcar that the Class I's are making the new industry standard. Because of the interconnectivity of our Nation's rail network, short lines are forced to use these heavier cars. This places an added strain on track structure and makes rehabilitation even more important and more urgent. Studies indicate that it will take $7 billion in new investment for our nation's short lines to accommodate these heavier rail cars. My legislation is not intended to fund this entire rehabilitation. Rather, it is intended to help small railroads make the improvements required to grow traffic so they can earn the additional investment income needed to complete the $7 billion capital upgrade. Short lines operate 50,000 miles of track in 49 states, employ over 23,000 workers at an average wage of $47,000, and earn $3 billion in annual revenue. Railroading is one of the most capital-intensive industries in the country. That capital effort is also labor intensive and my legislation will result in the immediate creation of jobs needed to undertake these rehabilitation projects. The major provisions of the Local Railroad Rehabilitation and Investment Act include: Authorization of a federal tax credit against qualified railroad track maintenance expenditures paid or incurred by a taxpayer during taxable years 2004 to 2008. The qualified railroad track maintenance expenditures include expenditures, whether or not otherwise chargeable to capital account, for maintaining or upgrading railroad track, including roadbed, bridges and related structures, owned or leased by the taxpayer of a Class II or Class III railroad. The total tax credit is capped at $10,000 for every mile of railroad track owned or leased by a Class II or Class III railroad, provided that the expenditure is certified by the State as part of an essential rail upgrade. For example, a 20-mile railroad qualifies for a $200,000 credit. And, to maximize private investment in this critical infrastructure, the bill allows railroads that are unable to fully utilize credits earned to transfer such credits to other railroads, railroad shippers, or railroad suppliers and contractors. For rural America, the specter of losing rail access is a serious matter. As characterized in the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) recent Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report, short lines ``often provide the first and last service miles in the door-to-door collection and distribution of railcars.'' The Association of American Railroads estimates that short lines originate or terminate one out of every four carloads moved by the domestic railroad industry. Preserving short line rail service is important to the national transportation system; it is absolutely critical to the rural transportation system. This legislation provides a modest and efficient way to help the short line industry help itself. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred in New Haven, CT. On May 9, 2003, Jessica Mercado, a transgender Latina, was brutally murdered. She was stabbed multiple times and then her body was burned. Her murder is believed to be a hate crime and her murder a result of the homophobia of her attackers. 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, before my friend Senator Biden leaves the floor, I tell him that I think he is on the wrong side of short-term politics, but he is on the right side of history to support the President's request for $87 billion. He has made many points where the administration could have done this or that better. Some of them are valid. I think it is important that we remind ourselves what this is really all about. What are the bigger issues at play here? I have believed throughout my life as a child of the cold war that American foreign policy is something to be proud of. Born in the early 1950s, I remember the nuclear bomb drills, where we would get under our desks and practice how to survive a nuclear bomb. I remember great leaders such as Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, and then Reagan, standing up for the principles of the American Constitution at home and abroad. I ask myself, what are the values of the American foreign policy? I believe they are the spread of democracy. I believe they are the defense of human rights. I believe they are the expansion of prosperity and engaging in trade. The world doesn't need to fear the United States of America as long as those values are intact. I believe they are very much intact. When I came to this body in 1997, I was privileged to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee with Senator Biden. I remember during the Clinton administration a feeling that our foreign policy was very well intentioned, but there was uncertainty about what to do with it. We were attacked at the World Trade Center; we were attacked at the Khobar Towers; we were attacked in our ship in a port in Yemen; our embassies were blown up. In each case, our response was to hit them with a cruise missile, but not the commitment to actually go get them. I joined Senator Biden and others on the Democratic side in supporting President Clinton in Kosovo, believing that the defense of human rights included stopping genocide on a massive scale in Bosnia. I remember when many Republicans criticized President Clinton for not coming with a plan--planning for peace, having every jot and tittle accounted for in the expenditures in Kosovo. I suspect if we look up what we have spent in Kosovo on a per-capita basis, it is about the same as President Bush is proposing to spend in Iraq. As important as Kosovo was in terms of our strategic interests, Iraq is infinitely more important. Now I believe America's best days are still ahead. I believe our role in world leadership is more important now than ever before. I believe after the Second World War America was laden with debt and our people wanted to go home, and President Truman came to this place and said we have to have a Marshall Plan to save Europe. It was one of the most beneficent acts ever by a government over a continent that had been conquered and suffered much tyranny. I believe that Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, MacArthur, and other leaders helped to save the free world in that act. But if you added it up at the time, as many did, and tried to make sense of it, it didn't make sense. But as I say, Joe Biden is on the right side of history because America has been called to a new sphere of responsibility, just like our parents were in Europe and in Asia. I talked about the spread of democracy being one of the pillars of American foreign policy. Democracy is setting its roots everywhere on the planet except in Arabia. The Arab peoples have suffered mightily because of its absence, not having the rule of law. All you have to do is go look at the mass graves in Iraq to understand that. All you have to do is look at his people and his neighbors, the Iranians, who have suffered the effects of weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein to understand his danger. All you have to do is understand where Hamas got its money to blow up the people of Israel; they got it from Saddam Hussein. I believed this President when he came to us and asked for our support. He said the threat was not imminent, but after 9/11 we could no longer wait until it is imminent when we are dealing with a madman like Saddam Hussein. Many of my colleagues criticize President Bush for not planning for the peace. Well, frankly, we, the Republicans, criticized President Clinton for not planning sufficiently for the peace in Kosovo. I am not sure how well you can plan for the peace, but I know every time a chief executive, Republican or Democrat, comes here and says I have a plan for the peace, we have many of our colleagues simply say we cannot pay for the peace. We can pay to win a war, but we want to go home when it is time to win the peace. The American people, I know, are tired of paying, but world leadership and American interests in relationship to that are priceless, and sometimes we cannot tote it all up. But I ask you what kind of a world we will live in if we succeed in this vision of establishing a democracy in Iraq. Think what that means to Arabia, to Israel; think what that means to our country if we can avoid a future 9/11. It will make the pricetag for peace in Iraq look like a good price, and it will mean that while some will complain we have created a breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq, in the Middle East, we can answer, yes, we have, but the ground is there; it is not here. That is what I think President Bush is trying to do. So when we criticize our leaders for bold vision, just as Republicans criticized Roosevelt for Yalta, understand Roosevelt tilted the ship of state in the right direction so we could ultimately win. Understand that Truman laid the groundwork for democracy in Europe so we are not constantly fighting between Germans and French. And understand that what President Bush is now saying is, after 9/11, no more of them. If they want to fight, it is there, not here, and we have to go and win the peace. It falls to us now to pay for it. I say Joe Biden is on the wrong side of short-term politics but Joe Biden is on the right side of history, just as Republicans were when they supported Truman with the Marshall plan. We are being asked to do something that is historic. If the time of the Americans is over with the cold war, vote no. If the time of the Americans and American leadership is still present, vote yes, for this appropriation. Vote against the amendments that would gut it because I believe our place in the world, democracy's future on this planet, is in large measure determined by what leadership we give to the world. I wish I had more confidence in international organizations. I think we should stay in them, but I don't believe we should ever have our interests and our values subordinated to the veto of the Security Council of the United Nations. That would be a mistake. And if we had ever done that, we would never have defended Europe in the cold war, we would never have defended our allies in Asia, because we never could have gotten support of the Security Council for such things. So it does require American leadership, and sometimes, with allies such as the British, we have to go it nearly alone. I believe the time of the Americans is still now, and I think we need to support this President because I think the peace of the world and the spread of democracy are dependent upon it. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SMITH. Ten minutes.

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 a terrible crime that occurred in Houston, TX. On May 25, 2003, a Houston high school student was attacked by a teacher's aide in class because he is gay. The teacher's aide, also an assistant coach at the school, allegedly taunted the student with comments about his sexual orientation over the course of the school year. The incident was in full view of the class and was later corroborated by seven or eight other students. 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 a terrible crime that occurred in Islip Terrance, NY. On September 23, 2003, two brothers from Colombia were attacked by white students at East Islip High School. The incident, in which anti-Hispanic epithets were spoken, occurred in a hallway of the school. The victims, a junior and a senior, were treated at Southside Hospital for undisclosed injuries. 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 a terrible crime that occurred in Boston, MA. On November 16, 2002, a 31-year-old Pakistani man was physically assaulted at a convenience store where he was working. Three men, believing the store clerk was from Afghanistan and associated with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on America, shouted racial slurs at the man and then proceeded to kick, punch and throw things at him. The trio were later charged with a hate crime violation. 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 my good friend and fellow Oregonian Michael Mosman. Recently, the ABA rated Mr. Mosman as well qualified for the position of District Court Judge. Those of us from Oregon, however, have long been aware of Mr. Mosman's stellar legal credentials and talents. It would be an honor to have Mr. Mosman serve our state as the next U.S. District Judge in Oregon. He has distinguished himself as a leader in our state and in the legal community. Since 1988, Mr. Mosman has worked for the United States Attorney's office in Oregon. First joining the Department of Justice as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, he was subsequently promoted to the position of U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon in 2001. In addition to his public service, Mr. Mosman has worked in private practice with the Portland law firm of Miller Nash LLP. He clerked for Judge Malcolm Wilkey of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit-- and for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell. Graduating with highest honors, he received his undergraduate degree from Utah State University and his law degree from BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School. With his academic and legal background--both in private and public practice--Mr. Mosman will bring a wealth of knowledge and, most importantly, compassion to the bench. In 2001, Senator Wyden and I convened a bipartisan blue ribbon panel to interview applicants for the position of U.S. attorney--our unanimous No. 1 recommendation was Mike Mosman. Earlier this year, we convened another bipartisan blue ribbon panel to interview applicants for the U.S. District Court. Once again, our unanimous No. 1 recommendation was Mike Mosman. It is, therefore, with great pleasure that I highly recommend to you my friend, Mr. Mosman, and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of his confirmation as United States District Judge for the District of Oregon.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred in Berkeley, CA. On May 12, 2003, the victim, a 23-year-old male Sikh wearing a turban, was assaulted while on an evening walk at the University of California. The attacker, and his two male companions, started to walk past the victim, then yelled, ``Taliban, look out!'' The suspect punched the victim in the nose then pushed him to the ground. The suspect later pulled the victim back to his feet and the men left the scene on foot. 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 a terrible crime that occurred on August 30, 2003, in New Orleans, LA. There, a 53-year old gay man from Pennsylvania was stabbed in the back. Upon arrest, his attacker confessed that he ``wanted to kill a gay man.'' I believe that our 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 a terrible crime that occurred in Redwood City, CA. On September 13, 2003, a Sikh cab driver, Devinder Singh, was shot and killed in an apparent hate crime. Two days after the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, bombing tragedy, Devinder Singh was called to pick up two passengers and drive them from Redwood City, CA to Menlo Park, CA. One or both of the passengers shot and killed him after driving less than four blocks in the cab. 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 a terrible crime that occurred in Denver, CO. On November 6, 2001, a 35-year-old Middle Eastern man was attacked by two men while on an evening walk. One of the men attacked the victim with a soda can, knocking him to the ground. Once on the ground, the second assailant kicked the victim in the ribs and threw soda cans at his head. The assailants also yelled obscenities and racial slurs at the victim ordering him to ``Go back to his country.'' 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 a terrible crime that occurred in San Diego, CA. On September 24, 2002, two teenagers attacked an immigrant, Jose Luis Cisneros, that left him in a coma for several days and with head and facial injuries. The pair were charged with hate crimes. According to the Deputy District Attorney, they went looking for ``beaners'' to beat and rob and went to a spot where they knew they could find undocumented immigrants. 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 speak today 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 a terrible crime that occurred in Newark, CA. On October 3, 2002, several men became enraged after learning that a young woman was actually a 17-year-old boy at their party. The men punched Eddie ``Gwen'' Araujo, dragged him into the garage and strangled him with a piece of rope. Eddie's body was then wrapped in a sheet and buried in a shallow grave near Placerville, about 150 miles from his family's home in Newark. 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 a terrible crime that occurred in Washington, DC. On August 21, 2003, a transgendered woman was murdered. Her nude body was found about 2 a.m. in a wooded area near Malcolm X Avenue and 2nd Street, SE. The woman, identified by friends as Emonie Kiera Spaulding, 25, was the second transgendered woman to die of gunshot wounds and the third to be shot in the District during a 5-day period. The D.C. police department have arrested a suspect. 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 a terrible crime that occurred in Washington, D.C. On August 16, 2003, Elvys Augusto Perez, 25, was shot and killed. Mr. Perez was an immigrant from Guatemala who dressed and lived as a woman. Police have classified the first-degree murder 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.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Legal Services Benefit Act of 2003. My friends and colleagues from the Senate Finance Committee, Senators Breaux, Kerry, Lincoln, Rockefeller, and Snowe, join me in introducing this important bill. This bill will amend the Internal Revenue Code to restore and make permanent the exclusion from gross income for amounts received under qualified group legal services plans. When Congress first enacted Internal Revenue Code Section 120 in 1976, employers were provided with an incentive to provide their workforce with group legal services benefits at modest cost. These benefit programs enabled employees to contact an attorney and get advice and, if necessary, representation. Most plans covered the everyday legal events that we all expect to encounter in life, from house closings and adoptions to traffic tickets and drafting wills. The provision sunsetted in 1992, however, eliminating this valuable benefits' favorable tax status. Qualified employer-paid plans have proven to be highly efficient. These arrangements make substantial legal service benefits available to participants at a fraction of what medical and other benefit plans cost. For an average employer contribution of less than $150 annually, employees are eligible to utilize a wide range of legal services often worth hundreds and even thousands of dollars, which otherwise would be well beyond their means. In addition to the efficiency with which these plans can deliver services, their ability to make preventive legal services available results in additional savings in our economy. Group legal plans give investors access to legal services before they are induced to make unwise investments. Having a lawyer available to review the investment documents could mean the difference between a comfortable retirement and lost life savings. Group legal plan attorneys add a layer of security to the system. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important proposal to provide efficient access to our legal system for working Americans. I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley to move this matter successfully through the Finance Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Legal Services Benefit Act of 2003. My friends and colleagues from the Senate Finance Committee, Senators Breaux, Kerry, Lincoln, Rockefeller, and Snowe, join me in introducing this important bill. This bill will amend the Internal Revenue Code to restore and make permanent the exclusion from gross income for amounts received under qualified group legal services plans. When Congress first enacted Internal Revenue Code Section 120 in 1976, employers were provided with an incentive to provide their workforce with group legal services benefits at modest cost. These benefit programs enabled employees to contact an attorney and get advice and, if necessary, representation. Most plans covered the everyday legal events that we all expect to encounter in life, from house closings and adoptions to traffic tickets and drafting wills. The provision sunsetted in 1992, however, eliminating this valuable benefits' favorable tax status. Qualified employer-paid plans have proven to be highly efficient. These arrangements make substantial legal service benefits available to participants at a fraction of what medical and other benefit plans cost. For an average employer contribution of less than $150 annually, employees are eligible to utilize a wide range of legal services often worth hundreds and even thousands of dollars, which otherwise would be well beyond their means. In addition to the efficiency with which these plans can deliver services, their ability to make preventive legal services available results in additional savings in our economy. Group legal plans give investors access to legal services before they are induced to make unwise investments. Having a lawyer available to review the investment documents could mean the difference between a comfortable retirement and lost life savings. Group legal plan attorneys add a layer of security to the system. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important proposal to provide efficient access to our legal system for working Americans. I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley to move this matter successfully through the Finance Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred in Manchester, NH. On October 15 and 16, 2001, a 43-year-old woman bumped and elbowed her Muslim neighbor while the two women passed in the stairwell of their apartment building. The victim fell, bruising her elbow and hip. On the previous day, the woman approached her Muslim neighbor, pushed and harassed her with insults and epithets, calling her ``Middle East Trash'' and ``terrorist.'' 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 introduce the Pathways to Independence Act of 2003, along with Senators Conrad and Jeffords. This bill includes two important provisions that we will work to include in the TANF reauthorization. These provisions will help both TANF recipients with disabilities, and the States as they work with people with disabilities in their respective programs. In July 2002, the General Accounting Office reported that as many as 44 percent of TANF families have a parent or a child with a physical or mental impairment. This is almost three times as high as among the non- TANF population in the United States. In eight percent of TANF families, there is both a parent and a child with a disability; among non-TANF families, this figure is one percent. The GAO's work confirmed the findings of earlier studies, including work by the Urban Institute and the HHS Inspector General. These figures mean that we need to make sure that TANF reauthorization legislation give States the ability and incentives to help families meet their current needs, while also helping them to move from welfare to work. This is the lesson that Oregon and many other States have already learned as they developed and refined their TANF programs. The first provision of my bill provides a pragmatic approach to helping parents with disabilities and substance abuse problems receive the treatment and other rehabilitative services they will need to succeed in a work setting. It is designed so that, over time, States can gradually increase the work activity requirements, while continuing to provide them with rehabilitative services. Under this proposal, much like in other proposals under consideration, a person participating in rehabilitation can be counted as engaged in work activity for three months. After the first three months, if a person continues to need rehabilitative services, the State can continue to count participation in those activities for another three months, so long as that person is engaged in some number of work hours, to be determined by the State. The next step of my proposal builds on the concept of partial credit that is being considered in the Senate Finance Committee. If, after six months, a State determines that a person has a continuing need for rehabilitative services, the State may create a package that combines work activity with these services. The State will receive credit for the individual's efforts so long as at least one-half of the hours in which the individual participates are in core work activities. For example, if a State receives full credit for a person who works 30 hours per week, and the State has determined that an individual needs rehabilitative services beyond six months, that individual would need to be engaged in core work activities for at least 15 hours per week to get full credit, with the remaining 15 hours spent in rehabilitative services. Similarly, if partial credit is available for a person who works 24 hours per week, then a State could receive that same partial credit if the person was engaged in core work activities for at least 12 hours per week, with the remaining 12 hours spent in rehabilitative services. This approach is appealing for many reasons. First, it allows States to design a system in which a person can move progressively over time from rehabilitation toward work. Second, it gives States credit for the time and effort they will need to invest to help people move successfully from welfare to work by allowing States to use a range of strategies to help these families. Third, it creates a more realistic structure for individuals with disabilities and addictions who may otherwise fall out of the system either through sanction or discouragement, despite their need for financial support. Finally, this approach is appealing because it is designed to work within the structure of the final TANF reauthorization bill. The second provision in the bill would allow States the option of counting as work activity the time that an adult in a TANF family spends caring for a child with a disability or an adult relative who is in need of care. The studies reflect that these people often cannot find care for their relative so they can work. They are often forced into the impossible choice of caring for their child with a disability, or leaving that child to go to work in order to continue receiving their TANF grant. This is not a choice a parent should ever have to make. In order to be able to count the care provided by the TANF recipient as work activity, the State would first be required to determine that the child or adult with a disability is, in fact, truly disabled, and that the person needs substantial ongoing care. Then, the State must decide that the TANF recipient is the most appropriate means for providing the needed care. The State would also have to conduct regular periodic evaluations to determine that the child or adult with a disability continues to need the care provided by the TANF recipient. Nothing in the provision prevents a State from determining that the TANF recipient can work outside the home or engage in other work-related training or other activities that will help the person eventually move to work on a full- or part-time basis. I would like to submit for the record a letter from close to forty national organizations that are members of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities supporting this legislation, as well as a letter of support from my home State of Oregon. I look forward to working with my co-sponsors, Senators Conrad and Jeffords, and with the Chairman of the Finance Committee on these important provisions in the upcoming months, and I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I have joined with my colleague from Alaska to sponsor an amendment to S.14, the Energy bill, which would strengthen the commitment of the United States to supply oil to Israel and other nations pursuant to the International Emergency Oil Sharing Plan of the International Energy Agency. The United States is currently party to two agreements to ensure that in the event Israel was unable to independently acquire its own supply of oil, the United States Government would procure the necessary oil to meet Israel's needs.

Mr. SMITH. I thank my colleague for that clarification. landfill gas tax credits

Mr. SMITH. I believe it is important to ensure that the United States can fulfill its commitment to this vital ally. I want to clarify, however, that nothing in this language would authorize the President to permit oil exploration and drilling in areas currently not legally open to development. Is that also your understanding of the language?