Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred July 30, 1992 in Elk Grove, IL. A gay man was assaulted by two men after being invited to go out with them. One of the assailants, Robert F. Braschko, 19, of Rolling Meadows, was charged with criminal damage to a vehicle, battery, and a hate crime in connection with 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 of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred May 19, 1994 in Savannah, GA. Milton Bradley, 72, was fatally strangled by a man who believed Bradley to be gay. The attacker, Gary Ray Bowles, 32, was charged with the murder in connection with 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 of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred April 6, 1997 in Tyler, TX. Two men attacked another man who the assailants perceived to be gay. The attackers, Billy Glenn Adams, 30, and James Dean Dickerson, 33, were charged with aggravated assault in connection with 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 of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred April 17, 1993 in Portland, ME. Two men assaulted a father and son they mistook for a gay couple. The assailants, James G. Miezin, 23, of Parma, and Thomas J. Lengieza, 22, were charged with harassment and assault. 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 of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I come to the floor once again to talk about the uninsured in America. I think it is important that, as we sink our teeth into this year's budget, we remember the men, women, and children who live, work, and go to school every day without health insurance, knowing that any illness could threaten their livelihood and even their lives. I have spent a great deal of time in recent months learning about the uninsured--who they are, why they have no health coverage, the effects on individuals and their families, and what can be done to resolve this crisis. This year, the president's budget contains $89 billion to help the uninsured. This is no small number, to be sure, and it demonstrates the president's commitment to providing health coverage for all Americans; however, this proposal is only projected to provide coverage for up to six million of the forty million uninsured--leaving thirty-four million men, women, and children without health insurance. Therefore, I see the president's proposal as a starting point from which to make insurance both more accessible and more affordable for all working families. Yesterday I pressed Office of Management and Budget Director Daniels to explain how the uninsured would fare under the president's new budget proposal. I also met with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Tom Scully to urge him to assist in improving upon President Bush's proposal to provide health coverage to more low- income Americans. In my visits to community health centers across Oregon, it has become clear to me that the uninsured--working mothers, fathers, children, single adults, students--are not interested in budget battles that may prevent action on this important matter. What Americans need is access to high quality, affordable health insurance. There are a lot of good ideas out there to help the uninsured, but no single proposal is going to help or please everybody. We need to take the best these plans have to offer and come up with a comprehensive solution as soon as possible. There has never been a better, or more important, time to act with respect to the uninsured. I understand the demands on our treasury are great as we fight the war on terrorism both at home and abroad; however, the demands on our health care system are also increasing. With a recession and rapidly rising health care costs, more and more Americans will find themselves without health insurance. This is no time to ignore them. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration to find a way to make room for as many of them as we can in this year's budget, as we work toward a day when every American has access to high quality health care coverage.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred in March 1996 in La Verne, CA. The president of a gay students' organization was attacked by two men. The assailants, Eric Britton, 20, and David Riffle, 19, were each charged with battery and civil rights violations in connection with 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 of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation that, if enacted, could prevent another tragic situation like the farmers and ranchers of the Klamath Basin experienced last year. The Act, the ``Sound Science for Endangered Species Decisionmaking Act of 2002,'' would require independent scientific peer review of certain actions taken by the regulatory agencies under the Endangered Species Act. In addition, it would require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to give greater weight to scientific or commercial data that is empirical or has been field- tested or peer-reviewed. As many of you may recall, I have come to the floor of the Senate on many occasions over the last year to plead the case of the farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Basin. Last year, field-level biologists with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service developed two separate biological opinions on the operation of the Klamath Project, as it related to suckers and coho salmon, respectively. Taken together, these two biological opinions sought to both raise the lake level of Upper Klamath Lake and increase flows in the Klamath River, at the time the Basin was experiencing a severe drought. On April 6, the Bureau of Reclamation announced that the agency would deliver no water to most of the agricultural lands that had received irrigation water from the Federal project for almost one hundred years. I cannot begin to describe for you the human toll that these biological opinions exacted on the farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Basin. Suicides and foreclosures have both occurred. Those who still have their farms lost most of their farm income last year, many depleting their life savings to hold onto their land. Ranchers were forced to sell off livestock herds. Stable farm worker communities were decimated as families moved to find work. The real tragedy is that none of this had to occur. Just this week, the National Research Council found that key decisions regarding the operation of the federal Klamath Project had no clear scientific or technical support. In fact, the Council went so far as to say that, ``the committee concludes that there is no substantial scientific foundation at this time for changing the operation of the Klamath Project to maintain higher water levels in Upper Klamath Lake for the endangered sucker populations or higher minimum flows in the Klamath River mainstem for the threatened coho population.'' In other words, the two key decisions that deprived farmers of their water were not justified by the science. This situation should never be repeated. Decisions of this magnitude under the Endangered Species Act must be peer reviewed, and some standard for the science used in these decisions must be established. I was in Klamath Falls the day after the decision was made to cut off water to the farmers. I will never forget the anguish on the faces of the people I met with that day. Many were World War II veterans who received homesteads in this Basin after the war. Our constituents deserve better from their government. They will get it if this bill is enacted. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill. I've submitted for the Record an editorial from today's Oregonian newspaper that describes this situation, and expresses support for the House companion bill. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation that, if enacted, could prevent another tragic situation like the farmers and ranchers of the Klamath Basin experienced last year. The Act, the ``Sound Science for Endangered Species Decisionmaking Act of 2002,'' would require independent scientific peer review of certain actions taken by the regulatory agencies under the Endangered Species Act. In addition, it would require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to give greater weight to scientific or commercial data that is empirical or has been field- tested or peer-reviewed. As many of you may recall, I have come to the floor of the Senate on many occasions over the last year to plead the case of the farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Basin. Last year, field-level biologists with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service developed two separate biological opinions on the operation of the Klamath Project, as it related to suckers and coho salmon, respectively. Taken together, these two biological opinions sought to both raise the lake level of Upper Klamath Lake and increase flows in the Klamath River, at the time the Basin was experiencing a severe drought. On April 6, the Bureau of Reclamation announced that the agency would deliver no water to most of the agricultural lands that had received irrigation water from the Federal project for almost one hundred years. I cannot begin to describe for you the human toll that these biological opinions exacted on the farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Basin. Suicides and foreclosures have both occurred. Those who still have their farms lost most of their farm income last year, many depleting their life savings to hold onto their land. Ranchers were forced to sell off livestock herds. Stable farm worker communities were decimated as families moved to find work. The real tragedy is that none of this had to occur. Just this week, the National Research Council found that key decisions regarding the operation of the federal Klamath Project had no clear scientific or technical support. In fact, the Council went so far as to say that, ``the committee concludes that there is no substantial scientific foundation at this time for changing the operation of the Klamath Project to maintain higher water levels in Upper Klamath Lake for the endangered sucker populations or higher minimum flows in the Klamath River mainstem for the threatened coho population.'' In other words, the two key decisions that deprived farmers of their water were not justified by the science. This situation should never be repeated. Decisions of this magnitude under the Endangered Species Act must be peer reviewed, and some standard for the science used in these decisions must be established. I was in Klamath Falls the day after the decision was made to cut off water to the farmers. I will never forget the anguish on the faces of the people I met with that day. Many were World War II veterans who received homesteads in this Basin after the war. Our constituents deserve better from their government. They will get it if this bill is enacted. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill. I've submitted for the Record an editorial from today's Oregonian newspaper that describes this situation, and expresses support for the House companion bill. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to honor February as Black History Month. Each February since 1926, our Nation has paused to recognize the contributions of black Americans to the history of our Nation. This is no accident, February is a significant month in black American history. Abolitionist Frederick Douglass, President Abraham Lincoln, and scholar and civil rights leader W.E.B. DuBois were born in the month of February. The 15th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified 132 years ago this month, giving black Americans the right to vote. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was founded in February in New York City. Last Friday, February 1, was the forty- second anniversary of the Greensboro Four's historic sit-in. And on February 25, 1870, this body welcomed its first black Senator, Hiram R. Revels of Mississippi. I want to take time during this important month to celebrate some of the contributions made by black Americans in my home State of Oregon. Since Marcus Lopez, who sailed with Captain Robert Gray in 1788, become the first person of African descent to set foot in Oregon, a great many black Americans have helped shape the history of my State. Throughout this month, I will come to the floor to highlight some of their stories. One important story in the history of the Pacific Northwest belongs to a black pioneer named George W. Bush. George Washington Bush, a veteran of the War of 1812, headed west on the Oregon Trail in 1844 hoping to leave the racism of Missouri behind him. A wealthy farmer, Bush purchased six wagons, packed up his friends and family, including his Irish wife, and settled in The Dalles. Upon arrival, Bush discovered that the racism he was trying to escape was, tragically, alive and well in the Oregon Territory. While slavery was illegal in Oregon, my State shamefully tried to drive out blacks through the enactment of exclusion laws, including a disgraceful ``lash law.'' The lash law required that a black person be whipped twice a year ``until [they] shall quit the territory.'' As a result of this law, Bush was forced to move across the Columbia River to live under the more hospitable rule of the Hudson's Bay Company. Bush thrived as a farmer and rancher in the Puget Sound area, and his success attracted a large number of settlers to the Northwest. Because his prosperity helped spur the tremendous growth of settlements north of the Columbia, Bush, one of the first black Oregonians, is now credited by some historians for bringing the land north of the Columbia River, present-day Washington State, into the United States. Bush might never have completed his journey to Oregon had it not been for one of the first Oregon Trail guides, a black man named Moses Harris. Harris spent years trapping in the Northwest, and was one of the explorers who christened Independence Rock in what is now the State of Wyoming. Harris was renowned for his knowledge of the region, and, on more than one occasion, saved lost or stranded wagon parties from certain death along the treacherous route to Oregon. He guided thousands to the Pacific Northwest, including the famous Whitman party, and did so until his death of cholera in 1849. Without Moses Harris, and people like him, Oregon, as we know it, would not exist today. Moses Harris and George Bush are only two early examples of the black men and women who changed the course of history in Oregon and in the United States. During the remainder of Black History Month, I will return to the floor to celebrate more Oregonians like Harris and Bush, whose contributions, while great, have not received the attention they deserve.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred August 30, 1997 in Chicago, IL. A woman and two gay men were attacked by several men who were shouting anti-gay epithets. The assailants, Matthew W. Polley, 21, Jason C. Polley, 22, and Kenneth A. Schultz, 20 were each charged with a felony hate crime in connection with 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 of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. My last point was you can make these arguments against any expenditure. The point is, we can't leave the States high and dry as we try to stimulate the economy. This is about real people needing jobs and health care. It is a win- win for Republicans and for Democrats. I urge the overwhelming passage of the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for yielding time. I learned as a little boy from my mother that if you at first don't succeed you should try and try again. I come to the Chamber to try again on the issue of accelerated depreciation. I am proud to be joined by Senator Baucus. This is the Baucus-Smith amendment now. The point is simply to try and bridge the difference between the two sides on the whole idea of how best to give a meaningful stimulus to business to take advantage of this accelerated depreciation, this bonus depreciation over a period of time that on the one hand will stimulate in a timely way the economy and in another way will help the States to be able to afford this action. I believe the Baucus-Smith amendment is the compromise that will provide real stimulus to the underlying package that is offered by the majority which, I respectfully say again, is just simply too short a period of time to be meaningful to our economy. The point was made that my amendment over 3 years was too much time. Then surely 2 years is enough. I believe Senator Baucus and I have provided a compromise that will give business people time sufficient--I wish it were more--to be able to buy the equipment, do the planning, do the environmental studies, and make the investments that will allow employers to call employees back to work. In addition, we are doing something that is very much needed by the States. That is, we will provide an increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage known as FMAP. Most States, mine included, are struggling with how to continue to provide the resources for Medicaid. I understand that very well in my own State. Our State has a budget shortfall that approaches $1 billion. I have been reminded by people in my State that accelerated or bonus depreciation would only make that situation worse. I am not unmindful of that, and Senator Baucus and I have a way in this amendment to fix that, not just for my State but for every State. Senator Harkin's amendment was just defeated. I suggest that what Senator Baucus and I are proposing is in the same spirit of that but within the realm of financial responsibility. It is the moderate view that I believe will find over 60 votes in the Senate. I certainly hope it will. What this does specifically, the FMAP increase will provide immediate fiscal relief to States such as Oregon which are increasingly cash strapped in the current recession as the demand for State social services rises but State revenues drop. For example, this provision would bring an additional $97 million to Oregon in the first year. Depending on certain factors, they may get in excess of an additional $105 million in the following year, for a 2- year total of more than $205 million. I can imagine that my State, as well as the State of the Presiding Officer, could use that assistance in this time of recession. Again, I remind both sides that whether it is former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin or Chairman Greenspan, they have both said this will be helpful to stimulate the economy. It doesn't go too far. It is not too long. I think for business people who are on their toes and trying to make plans, it will be enough time to have the economic incentives to improve our Nation's economy. America, moreover, is hungering for a sense that the Senate can get something done. Our proposal is that middle ground that allows us to make progress and to go to the State of the Union tonight well on the way to passing a stimulus package. There is something for both sides. But more importantly, there is something for the American people that provides real health care dollars to people in need in States with shortfalls and real business stimulus to employers so that the best social welfare we could possibly foster will be available, and that is a private sector family wage job. Again, I believe Senator Baucus and I have come upon the right formula to make better the underlying proposal and to find the bipartisan support which will ultimately be essential if we are to get beyond 60 votes and get something to conference and then to the desk of the President. The American people deserve that. We should do no less. I yield back my time to the manager of this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. If you want the middle ground, we are talking about it right now. This actually does stimulate the economy; it is insurance. The chair of the Budget Committee, my friend, clearly is concerned about the budget. But if you want to help the budget get back into surplus, let's get our economy going. That is the most sure way to make this happen. What Senator Baucus and I have done is make sure that we do not leave the States high and dry.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred June 5, 1997 in Washington, D.C. A gay man was attacked by a person yelling anti-gay epithets. The assailant, Bobbie Eugene Ross, 30, was charged with simple assault, making threats of bodily harm, and possession of a prohibited weapon. 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 of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of this year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred October 31, 1993 in Olympia, WA. In two separate incidents, men described as ``skinheads'' attacked two groups of people because they were perceived to be gay. The assailants, Derek K. Jensen, 20, Samuel M. Tomasello, 21, and a 16-year-old, were arrested in connection with the assaults. 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 of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I move to waive the respective section of the Budget Act with regard to my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays on this motion.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the President pro tempore. Mr. President, it is a privilege this morning to speak about a component of the stimulus package which I think does garner wide bipartisan support. There are many good ideas. And I, as a Republican, stand in this Chamber to say I look forward to voting to extend unemployment benefits and health care benefits. I think these ideas add to the demand side of the equation by giving dollars to consumers--to taxpayers--who very much need to make ends meet and to meet life's necessities. There is a supply side to this debate that actually is central to an economic recovery, and that is the supply side of doing things which truly stimulate the economy, because if we want to get back to surpluses, the best way we can do that is by pursuing policies that will lend themselves to growth. The bonus depreciation amendment, which I have before the Senate this morning, does that very thing. It has won verbal support from the likes of Chairman Greenspan and former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who uniformly endorse a stimulus package, and specifically the immediate stimulative effect on the economy of the temporary enactment of bonus depreciation. I commend the majority leader for much improving his proposal as to the budget, as to the bonus depreciation from its initial offering. But for reasons I will point out, I think it still falls short of what it needs to be if we are truly serious about stimulating the economy. Senator Daschle's proposal will allow 30-percent bonus depreciation from only September 11 of last year to September 11 of this current year. This means it will only stimulate business purchases for the next 8 months, assuming we can get the stimulus package passed by February 1. It is 12 months, but it is simply an inadequate period when you figure that 8 months to make business decisions is all that is allowed. So we are left with a proposal to stimulate business that just simply lacks the weight that it needs to do the job. If you look at the facts on business investment, it has fallen precipitously since August of 2000. Consumer spending in this recession has been surprisingly resilient, but business investment has fallen off the table. Today's recession is caused primarily by a decline in business investment. Chairman Greenspan made that clear in his remarks to the Budget Committee yesterday. It is the central reason for this recession. So what kind of investment can we stimulate in the 8 months that remain under the underlying proposal? It probably gives businesspeople time to buy a chair and perhaps some new wastebaskets, a rug for the front office, but 8 months is not enough time to start major projects that would, in fact, employ thousands upon thousands of people. It does not allow time to build heavy equipment, modernize a lumber mill, restart a coal mine, revamp a corporate computer system, rebuild a rail bed, or even to construct an airplane. It doesn't allow enough time to obtain building permits, perform environmental reviews, complete architectural or engineering studies. My amendment allows bonus depreciation for farm equipment and improvements and special purpose agricultural and horticultural buildings. Farmers, unfortunately, may not see the turnaround they need in the next 8 months. I wish it were so. It may take longer than that. But when the farm economy does recover, they will need to update their equipment, and they ought to have the advantage of the bonus depreciation that we are offering long enough so they can have that advantage, too. Consider the airplane. If you want to build an airplane, the average is it takes about 18 months. So, clearly, that important industry, that very American industry, is left out of the calculation before the Senate, if my amendment is defeated. Eight months is simply not enough time to build an airplane. Moreover, an 8-month bonus depreciation period does not provide insurance against future down ticks in our recovery cycle. These commonly occur when an economy struggles to throw off the shackles of a recession. We need to create a booming economy, not only for today but for the next several years. So I emphasize that the majority's 8-month depreciation proposal lacks the economic weight that our economy now needs. I plead with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's recognize the realities of the business world and provide the kind of stimulus which is meaningful, weighty, and effective. Mr. President, I have been requested to add the names of Senators Collins and Allard as cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent that they be added.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letters from the Association for Competitive Technology and the American Electronics Association in support of the Smith amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I also will note that President Bush also spoke in support of a bonus depreciation only a few days ago. I quote from him: But any good stimulus package plan must ask the question ``how do we create more jobs?'' and one way to do that is to accelerate tax relief for workers, and the other way to do that is to make sure that the Tax Code doesn't punish companies like Walker. That is the one he was visiting. We ought to allow them to accelerate the depreciation schedule so it is more likely they will buy more equipment. That is simply what we are doing, Mr. President. We are trying to allow this bonus with enough time that they can take enough advantage of it for the greater advantage of our entire country. Mr. President, I think we all recognize that the No. 1 issue in the hearts and the homes of the American people is economic security, as well as national security. I, for one, was deeply disappointed that we went home for Christmas not as Santa Claus but as Scrooge. We should have done this before we left. I am glad, however, that the majority leader has brought it up and is allowing this to go forward now. I hope we are successful because I think we ought to show the American people that we are doing all we can to make this happen and are taking out the insurance policy that is necessary to support our economy and our people. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Brownback as a cosponsor of the amendment as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, if I may in response----

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I think it will win a lot of additional Republican support for the overall effort of the majority leader, and I think for the American people's sake that is important. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for allowing me a minute to simply notify the Senate that I will redo my amendment and try to get 60 votes. It will come back and be filed later today. It will have a 2-year time period beginning January 1 of this year and going for 2 years, with a 30- percent depreciation bonus, and it will also specifically include the motion picture industry so that they can have the advantage of this stimulus as well. I think it is critical we do what the the Senator from Illinois is talking about, and it is also critical we do something that is actually stimulatory of the economy. Two years is the absolute minimum, if we are serious about this part of the stimulus bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred November 8, 1998, in Palm Springs, CA. A gay participant in Palm Springs' Gay Pride weekend was attacked by three men. The assailants, Raymond Quevedo, 18, and two youths, ages 16 and 17, were charged with assault with a deadly weapon in connection with 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 of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I have just been handed a press release by the Secretary of the Treasury. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank my friend from Nevada.