Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the late Oregon Governor Tom McCall once said, ``Heroes are not giant statues framed against a red sky. They are individuals who say, `This is my community, and it is my responsibility to make it better.' '' I rise today with sadness because Oregon lost a true hero this past weekend with the passing of Sharon Branstiter, who had served as mayor of the wonderful community of Toledo since 1997. Few people have ever given more of their time, talents, and energy to make their community a better place than did Mayor Branstiter. I consider myself very privileged to have called Sharon my friend. In my job, there are many people who will tell me what they think I want to hear. I always knew that Sharon would tell me what I needed to hear. She expressed her opinions with candor and eloquence, and she always made it very clear that the top item on her agenda was making Toledo a better and more beautiful place in which to live, work, and raise a family. The Greek poet Sophocles wrote, ``One must wait until the evening to see how splendid the day has been.'' While the evening of Sharon's life came much to soon, I hope that her family and friends will take solace in the fact that Sharon could look back on a life filled with love and laughter, a life filled with accomplishment, and a life filled with making a positive difference and say that ``the day has indeed been splendid.'' I will never visit Toledo without thinking of Sharon, and I am confident that her work will live on through the good work of all those who call Toledo home.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Wyden to introduce the Nanotechnology in the Schools Act. Nanotechnology will revolutionize manufacturing, energy, healthcare, national defense and many other sectors by improving the way things are designed and made. The potential benefits of nanotechnology are tremendous, especially for the nation that leads the world in nanotechnology research and development. Studies project that by 2014 nanotechnology will be incorporated into more than $2 trillion worth of manufactured goods. China, Japan, the European Union, India and other nations are fighting for global leadership, and the competition is getting stiffer all the time. For the United States to maintain and expand its leadership in the field of nanotechnology, we must train and educate more scientists and engineers who are capable of conducting research and development in this emerging technology. To reach this objective, students need to be taught the necessary skills beginning at the high school and college levels. According to the National Science Foundation, foreign students on temporary visas earned approximately one-third of all science and engineering doctorates awarded in the United States. By providing high school and college students with the tools to learn nanotechnology, a higher number of American students will enter this crucial field. The Nanotechnology in the Schools Act provides grants to American colleges and high-performing high schools to purchase the tools that will enable their students to learn nano-tech-nology. The Act also provides training for teachers and professors to use these tools in the classroom and the laboratory. The Nanotechnology in the Schools Act is an investment in America's greatest asset, its students, and a key element of the nation's strategy to maintain nanotechnology leadership worldwide. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Wyden to introduce the Nanotechnology in the Schools Act. Nanotechnology will revolutionize manufacturing, energy, healthcare, national defense and many other sectors by improving the way things are designed and made. The potential benefits of nanotechnology are tremendous, especially for the nation that leads the world in nanotechnology research and development. Studies project that by 2014 nanotechnology will be incorporated into more than $2 trillion worth of manufactured goods. China, Japan, the European Union, India and other nations are fighting for global leadership, and the competition is getting stiffer all the time. For the United States to maintain and expand its leadership in the field of nanotechnology, we must train and educate more scientists and engineers who are capable of conducting research and development in this emerging technology. To reach this objective, students need to be taught the necessary skills beginning at the high school and college levels. According to the National Science Foundation, foreign students on temporary visas earned approximately one-third of all science and engineering doctorates awarded in the United States. By providing high school and college students with the tools to learn nanotechnology, a higher number of American students will enter this crucial field. The Nanotechnology in the Schools Act provides grants to American colleges and high-performing high schools to purchase the tools that will enable their students to learn nano-tech-nology. The Act also provides training for teachers and professors to use these tools in the classroom and the laboratory. The Nanotechnology in the Schools Act is an investment in America's greatest asset, its students, and a key element of the nation's strategy to maintain nanotechnology leadership worldwide. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. On March 20, 2007, in Polk County, FL, Ryan Skipper, a gay man, picked up William Brown walking along the side of the road. Some time later Brown stabbed Skipper to death, then bragged about the killing. According to police, witnesses have said that Brown and another man planned the murder in advance and that their motivation was based on Skipper's sexual orientation. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Matthew Shepard 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, today I am proud to join my colleague, Senator Bingaman, to introduce a package of four bills aimed at helping seniors get the assistance they need with their Medicare prescription drug costs. Thirty-nine million individuals now have access to affordable prescription drug therapies through Medicare Part D, many for the very first time. But low-income beneficiaries still are experiencing difficulties taking full advantage of the program's benefits. I believe the bipartisan package of legislation we have developed will go a long way to removing programmatic barriers that are limiting seniors from getting the help we intended them to have when we created Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program. The low-income subsidy (LIS) is one of the best features of Medicare's new prescription drug benefit. Over the past few years, I have conducted extensive oversight of the program's implementation, especially through my work as Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Special Committee on Aging. Through hearings and staff-level investigations, I have identified a number of concerns with both the administration and the overall effectiveness of Medicare Part D's LIS. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) have made a great deal of progress to ensure that the benefit is working well for all beneficiaries. But their efforts can only go so far. Ultimately, it is Congress' responsibility to ensure that all low-income seniors who have difficulty paying their prescription drugs costs get the help they need. Two of the four bills that Senator Bingaman and I are filing today are based upon initiatives that I introduced during the 109th Congress. The first is a measure that would create parity in the cost-sharing charged beneficiaries living in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Under current law, dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries, those who qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare coverage, receive a subsidy from the government to pay the benefit's required $250 deductible. These individuals also qualify for reduced copayments for both generic and brand named drugs in the amount of one and three dollars respectively. If a dual-eligible beneficiary receives long-term care services in an institutional setting, such as a nursing home, he or she is exempt from paying the required copayment. Congress decided to provide this assistance because dual-eligible beneficiaries residing in nursing homes live off of very limited incomes. For instance, in Oregon the personal needs allowance beneficiaries receive each month for incidentals, including medications, is only $30. As many institutionalized beneficiaries are on multiple medications, they would not be able to meet their share of drug costs. This is the very reason Congress provided institutionalized dual- eligible beneficiaries with an exemption from all copayments under Medicare Part D. However, many dual-eligible beneficiaries choose to receive long-term care services in home or community-based settings, such as assisted living or resident care program facilities. Almost all states have chosen to establish Home and Community Based Services (HCS) Medicaid demonstration projects that have expanded access to community based alternatives to an even greater number of low-income elderly Americans. The State of Oregon operates one of the Nation's most successful HCS waivers, serving an average of 23,500 dual-eligible beneficiaries each year. My state has a thriving community based care industry that has provided many dual-eligible Oregonians the freedom to choose the care setting that best meets their own physical and social needs. While dual-eligible beneficiaries are exempted from prescription drug copayments under Medicare Part D, those choosing community-based alternatives are required to pay them. This is despite the fact that beneficiaries choosing community based care options typically live off of the same limited incomes as those residing in nursing homes. While some states provide HCS beneficiaries' a larger personal stipend each month, many may have greater financial demands. At the end of the day, they are in no better position to pay the costs of prescription drugs than those beneficiaries living in nursing homes. I also should note that their less restrictive living environments may require them to take additional medications to support their daily routines. It is not uncommon for dual-eligible beneficiaries in community-based care settings to be on 8 to 10 medications at a given time. At that level, even minimal copayments create a significant financial burden to these individuals. The current dual-eligible copayment exemption policy not only is creating inequity in Medicare Part D, it is potentially restricting access to life-saving medications. This is not what Congress intended. I believe we need to do everything possible to support choice in long- term care, and by applying the current institutional copayment exemption more uniformly, Congress will ensure the Medicare drug benefit does not adversely affect beneficiaries' choices. The second measure I am introducing today is based upon a bill I filed last year. That legislation sought to provide beneficiaries applying for LIS extra time to enroll into Part D if they had not received notification of their eligibility status by the time an open enrollment period ended. The bill also would have also waived the late enrollment penalty assessed to all beneficiaries who enroll outside of an enrollment period. Fortunately, CMS enacted an administrative solution to this problem, and allowed all LIS eligible beneficiaries to enroll into Medicare Part D at any point during 2006, and later extended that policy into 2007. Now that Medicare Part D is fully implemented and policymakers have had an opportunity to assess how well the program is working, I believe that the administrative actions taken by CMS last year to create a special enrollment period for LIS beneficiaries should be made permanent. The Medicare Part D Outreach Enrollment Enhancement Act of 2007 does just that. It would create a 90-day special enrollment period for any beneficiary who applies and is approved for the LIS at any point during the year. It also would allow them to undergo a facilitated enrollment process overseen by CMS, so they get the help they need to select a prescription drug plan that best meets their needs. Additionally, the bill exempts low-income beneficiaries from Medicare Part D's late enrollment penalty. While an enrollment penalty can be an effective means of helping drug plans better assess their risk in a given period, it is not fair to ask our low-income seniors--many who struggle with a number of challenging healthcare problems--to pay a higher cost simply because they need additional time to enroll in the program. Selecting a prescription drug plan can be a challenging feat, and it can be even more complicated if you are trying to make your limited income stretch as far as it can. We need to guarantee that beneficiaries have sufficient time to choose the most affordable plan that also meets all their prescription drug needs. The measure also would create a new authorization to support the valuable work of State Health Insurance Programs (SHIPs). SHIPs provide a range of services to our nation's seniors, such as help choosing a quality prescription drug plan, applying for financial assistance with their drug costs and resolving general problems experienced with the drug benefit. Unfortunately, funding for SHIPs has not kept pace with the number of beneficiaries that age into Medicare each year. To remedy that, my bill creates a new authorization that increases funding in conjunction with growth in enrollment. The bill also provides funding for the new National Center of Senior Benefits and Outreach, created in the Older Americans Act last year. The Center is charged with developing ways to assist organizations like SHIPs to better target their efforts so that all seniors are fully aware of the benefits that might be available to them. The next bill in the package we are filing today addresses a problem low-income seniors encounter if and when they enter into the drug benefit's coverage gap. While beneficiaries still have access to medications through their drug plans during the coverage gap, they may have to pay more for them. For those living on fixed incomes, this could present a serious problem as the out-of-pocket cost of many common prescription drugs can be quite steep. Fortunately, many safety- net programs, like community health centers and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), provide assistance to eligible low-income beneficiaries during the coverage gap. Effectively, they fill the role of the drug plan in providing beneficiaries access to their medications at a heavily subsidized cost. This scenario presently works well for a number of low-income beneficiaries, but it is simply unsustainable in the long-run for two key reasons. First, from the perspective of beneficiaries, it is not right to ask them to continue paying premiums to their drug plans during the coverage gap when they are unable to generate sufficient out-of-pocket expenses to qualify for the program's catastrophic benefit. Many low-income beneficiaries who get ``caught'' in the coverage gap struggle with significant health problems, such as cancer or HIV/AIDS. These conditions often require costly treatment that a low-income beneficiary would likely have to forge without the assistance of a safety-net provider. Second, the current scenario is placing a disadvantageous strain on the safety-net programs that assist low-income beneficiaries with their drug costs during the coverage gap. One of the primary reasons Medicare Part D was created was to provide relief to states and other safety-net providers who bore a lion's share of the responsibility of providing access to drug therapies for the Nation's seniors. While Part D has gone a long way to fulfill that intention, there is still much that can be done to help our safety-net providers. It is not right that service providers like community health centers and ADAP have been forced to provide discounted medications to low-income beneficiaries during the coverage gap, especially when the beneficiary has no way of accruing enough out-of-pocket costs for their Part D coverage to resume. The bill Senator Bingaman and I are filing today resolves both these problems. It would allow safety net providers' drug costs to count toward a beneficiary's out-of-pocket costs so they are able to reach Medicare Part D's catastrophic benefit at some point. This will ensure that low-income beneficiaries have access to the full range of coverage under the program and will provide much needed fiscal relief to already strained safety net providers. Congress intended for all beneficiaries--especially those with limited incomes--to have full access to the benefits through Medicare Part D. This bill will guarantee that happens. Despite the progress we have made in providing low-income seniors access to affordable prescription drugs, I find it troubling that recent estimates still show that there may be at least three million seniors eligible for the low-income subsidy who have yet to apply for it. While CMS, SSA and their community partners continue their vital outreach to capture these seniors, I believe the existing LIS application is too complex and is preventing seniors from getting the help they need. We need a simpler process that better reflects the true levels of assets and resources held by low-income seniors. The last bill in the package I am filing today does just that. The Part D Equity for Low-Income Seniors Act is the product of months of bipartisan collaboration with representatives of groups like AARP, the National Council on Aging and Families USA. It aims to help SSA better target potentially eligible beneficiaries and make the application process much simpler to complete. First, drawing from a recommendation from the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, SSA is given the authority to use select tax information to help determine which Medicare beneficiaries might be eligible for extra help with their drug costs. With this data, they would be able to more efficiently contact beneficiaries and prescreen them for potential eligibility. I realize that some of my colleagues might have privacy concerns with such an arrangement, but I want to make clear that my bill is not giving SSA access to any data that they already do not have. In order to implement the Part B subsidy adjustment, the Medicare Modernization Act requires that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) send tax data to the SSA--they are legally prohibited from using it for any other purpose than Part B. We simply are establishing the same process for data exchange that already exists between the IRS and SSA so that SSA can more efficiently conduct its outreach work for Medicare Part D's low-income subsidy. The bill also seeks to make the LIS application easier for seniors to complete. I have heard a number of complaints that the current form uses confusing verbiage and is overly burdensome in its reporting requirements. As a remedy, we eliminate the reporting of retirement account balances, the face value of life savings policies and in-kind contributions. This not only will make the form easier to complete, it will prevent seniors from the pressure of having to determine whether they should sacrifice their retirement income or long-term risk protection in order to pay their healthcare bills. I believe we need to be encouraging seniors to save for their later years in life, not requiring them to liquidate their futures to fill their prescriptions. In order to make the LIS benefit more accurately reflect the assets and resources low-income seniors possess, our bill also proposes raising the current asset test limit to $27,500 for an individual and $55,000 for a couple. According to data from the SSA, this increase should help capture almost 40 percent of the individuals who are ineligible for the LIS benefit due to excess resources, and 50 percent of the couples. I realize this can be a sensitive issue for some of my colleagues--especially on my side of the aisle. We want to ensure that only those beneficiaries who truly are in need of help with their drug are eligible for government assistance. But, I also believe that we can be too heavyhanded and prevent those with legitimate need from getting it. The new asset/resource limits Senator Bingaman and I have proposed represent a good, bipartisan solution to the problem. I know many would like to see the full asset test repealed, but this year that may be a difficult feat to accomplish politically and financially. This is a reasonable step forward, one the advocates support. I hope my colleagues will as well. I believe that the Medicare Prescription Drug Program is working for America's seniors and that we should not undertake a significant overhaul of the new benefit in this Congress. However, there is room for improvement, especially in regard to making the program work better for America's low-income seniors. I firmly believe that if Congress does not address some of these lingering problems this year, Medicare's long-term public image could be severely tarnished in the eyes of the very people it was created to serve. One can learn a great deal about the character of a society by looking at how well it cares for its poor and vulnerable citizens. I believe my four bills that improve upon how Medicare Part D serves low- income beneficiaries will help cement the United States as a country that looks out for its citizens in need. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the full package and assist me in moving it through the process. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am proud to join my colleague, Senator Bingaman, to introduce a package of four bills aimed at helping seniors get the assistance they need with their Medicare prescription drug costs. Thirty-nine million individuals now have access to affordable prescription drug therapies through Medicare Part D, many for the very first time. But low-income beneficiaries still are experiencing difficulties taking full advantage of the program's benefits. I believe the bipartisan package of legislation we have developed will go a long way to removing programmatic barriers that are limiting seniors from getting the help we intended them to have when we created Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program. The low-income subsidy (LIS) is one of the best features of Medicare's new prescription drug benefit. Over the past few years, I have conducted extensive oversight of the program's implementation, especially through my work as Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Special Committee on Aging. Through hearings and staff-level investigations, I have identified a number of concerns with both the administration and the overall effectiveness of Medicare Part D's LIS. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) have made a great deal of progress to ensure that the benefit is working well for all beneficiaries. But their efforts can only go so far. Ultimately, it is Congress' responsibility to ensure that all low-income seniors who have difficulty paying their prescription drugs costs get the help they need. Two of the four bills that Senator Bingaman and I are filing today are based upon initiatives that I introduced during the 109th Congress. The first is a measure that would create parity in the cost-sharing charged beneficiaries living in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Under current law, dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries, those who qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare coverage, receive a subsidy from the government to pay the benefit's required $250 deductible. These individuals also qualify for reduced copayments for both generic and brand named drugs in the amount of one and three dollars respectively. If a dual-eligible beneficiary receives long-term care services in an institutional setting, such as a nursing home, he or she is exempt from paying the required copayment. Congress decided to provide this assistance because dual-eligible beneficiaries residing in nursing homes live off of very limited incomes. For instance, in Oregon the personal needs allowance beneficiaries receive each month for incidentals, including medications, is only $30. As many institutionalized beneficiaries are on multiple medications, they would not be able to meet their share of drug costs. This is the very reason Congress provided institutionalized dual- eligible beneficiaries with an exemption from all copayments under Medicare Part D. However, many dual-eligible beneficiaries choose to receive long-term care services in home or community-based settings, such as assisted living or resident care program facilities. Almost all states have chosen to establish Home and Community Based Services (HCS) Medicaid demonstration projects that have expanded access to community based alternatives to an even greater number of low-income elderly Americans. The State of Oregon operates one of the Nation's most successful HCS waivers, serving an average of 23,500 dual-eligible beneficiaries each year. My state has a thriving community based care industry that has provided many dual-eligible Oregonians the freedom to choose the care setting that best meets their own physical and social needs. While dual-eligible beneficiaries are exempted from prescription drug copayments under Medicare Part D, those choosing community-based alternatives are required to pay them. This is despite the fact that beneficiaries choosing community based care options typically live off of the same limited incomes as those residing in nursing homes. While some states provide HCS beneficiaries' a larger personal stipend each month, many may have greater financial demands. At the end of the day, they are in no better position to pay the costs of prescription drugs than those beneficiaries living in nursing homes. I also should note that their less restrictive living environments may require them to take additional medications to support their daily routines. It is not uncommon for dual-eligible beneficiaries in community-based care settings to be on 8 to 10 medications at a given time. At that level, even minimal copayments create a significant financial burden to these individuals. The current dual-eligible copayment exemption policy not only is creating inequity in Medicare Part D, it is potentially restricting access to life-saving medications. This is not what Congress intended. I believe we need to do everything possible to support choice in long- term care, and by applying the current institutional copayment exemption more uniformly, Congress will ensure the Medicare drug benefit does not adversely affect beneficiaries' choices. The second measure I am introducing today is based upon a bill I filed last year. That legislation sought to provide beneficiaries applying for LIS extra time to enroll into Part D if they had not received notification of their eligibility status by the time an open enrollment period ended. The bill also would have also waived the late enrollment penalty assessed to all beneficiaries who enroll outside of an enrollment period. Fortunately, CMS enacted an administrative solution to this problem, and allowed all LIS eligible beneficiaries to enroll into Medicare Part D at any point during 2006, and later extended that policy into 2007. Now that Medicare Part D is fully implemented and policymakers have had an opportunity to assess how well the program is working, I believe that the administrative actions taken by CMS last year to create a special enrollment period for LIS beneficiaries should be made permanent. The Medicare Part D Outreach Enrollment Enhancement Act of 2007 does just that. It would create a 90-day special enrollment period for any beneficiary who applies and is approved for the LIS at any point during the year. It also would allow them to undergo a facilitated enrollment process overseen by CMS, so they get the help they need to select a prescription drug plan that best meets their needs. Additionally, the bill exempts low-income beneficiaries from Medicare Part D's late enrollment penalty. While an enrollment penalty can be an effective means of helping drug plans better assess their risk in a given period, it is not fair to ask our low-income seniors--many who struggle with a number of challenging healthcare problems--to pay a higher cost simply because they need additional time to enroll in the program. Selecting a prescription drug plan can be a challenging feat, and it can be even more complicated if you are trying to make your limited income stretch as far as it can. We need to guarantee that beneficiaries have sufficient time to choose the most affordable plan that also meets all their prescription drug needs. The measure also would create a new authorization to support the valuable work of State Health Insurance Programs (SHIPs). SHIPs provide a range of services to our nation's seniors, such as help choosing a quality prescription drug plan, applying for financial assistance with their drug costs and resolving general problems experienced with the drug benefit. Unfortunately, funding for SHIPs has not kept pace with the number of beneficiaries that age into Medicare each year. To remedy that, my bill creates a new authorization that increases funding in conjunction with growth in enrollment. The bill also provides funding for the new National Center of Senior Benefits and Outreach, created in the Older Americans Act last year. The Center is charged with developing ways to assist organizations like SHIPs to better target their efforts so that all seniors are fully aware of the benefits that might be available to them. The next bill in the package we are filing today addresses a problem low-income seniors encounter if and when they enter into the drug benefit's coverage gap. While beneficiaries still have access to medications through their drug plans during the coverage gap, they may have to pay more for them. For those living on fixed incomes, this could present a serious problem as the out-of-pocket cost of many common prescription drugs can be quite steep. Fortunately, many safety- net programs, like community health centers and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), provide assistance to eligible low-income beneficiaries during the coverage gap. Effectively, they fill the role of the drug plan in providing beneficiaries access to their medications at a heavily subsidized cost. This scenario presently works well for a number of low-income beneficiaries, but it is simply unsustainable in the long-run for two key reasons. First, from the perspective of beneficiaries, it is not right to ask them to continue paying premiums to their drug plans during the coverage gap when they are unable to generate sufficient out-of-pocket expenses to qualify for the program's catastrophic benefit. Many low-income beneficiaries who get ``caught'' in the coverage gap struggle with significant health problems, such as cancer or HIV/AIDS. These conditions often require costly treatment that a low-income beneficiary would likely have to forge without the assistance of a safety-net provider. Second, the current scenario is placing a disadvantageous strain on the safety-net programs that assist low-income beneficiaries with their drug costs during the coverage gap. One of the primary reasons Medicare Part D was created was to provide relief to states and other safety-net providers who bore a lion's share of the responsibility of providing access to drug therapies for the Nation's seniors. While Part D has gone a long way to fulfill that intention, there is still much that can be done to help our safety-net providers. It is not right that service providers like community health centers and ADAP have been forced to provide discounted medications to low-income beneficiaries during the coverage gap, especially when the beneficiary has no way of accruing enough out-of-pocket costs for their Part D coverage to resume. The bill Senator Bingaman and I are filing today resolves both these problems. It would allow safety net providers' drug costs to count toward a beneficiary's out-of-pocket costs so they are able to reach Medicare Part D's catastrophic benefit at some point. This will ensure that low-income beneficiaries have access to the full range of coverage under the program and will provide much needed fiscal relief to already strained safety net providers. Congress intended for all beneficiaries--especially those with limited incomes--to have full access to the benefits through Medicare Part D. This bill will guarantee that happens. Despite the progress we have made in providing low-income seniors access to affordable prescription drugs, I find it troubling that recent estimates still show that there may be at least three million seniors eligible for the low-income subsidy who have yet to apply for it. While CMS, SSA and their community partners continue their vital outreach to capture these seniors, I believe the existing LIS application is too complex and is preventing seniors from getting the help they need. We need a simpler process that better reflects the true levels of assets and resources held by low-income seniors. The last bill in the package I am filing today does just that. The Part D Equity for Low-Income Seniors Act is the product of months of bipartisan collaboration with representatives of groups like AARP, the National Council on Aging and Families USA. It aims to help SSA better target potentially eligible beneficiaries and make the application process much simpler to complete. First, drawing from a recommendation from the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, SSA is given the authority to use select tax information to help determine which Medicare beneficiaries might be eligible for extra help with their drug costs. With this data, they would be able to more efficiently contact beneficiaries and prescreen them for potential eligibility. I realize that some of my colleagues might have privacy concerns with such an arrangement, but I want to make clear that my bill is not giving SSA access to any data that they already do not have. In order to implement the Part B subsidy adjustment, the Medicare Modernization Act requires that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) send tax data to the SSA--they are legally prohibited from using it for any other purpose than Part B. We simply are establishing the same process for data exchange that already exists between the IRS and SSA so that SSA can more efficiently conduct its outreach work for Medicare Part D's low-income subsidy. The bill also seeks to make the LIS application easier for seniors to complete. I have heard a number of complaints that the current form uses confusing verbiage and is overly burdensome in its reporting requirements. As a remedy, we eliminate the reporting of retirement account balances, the face value of life savings policies and in-kind contributions. This not only will make the form easier to complete, it will prevent seniors from the pressure of having to determine whether they should sacrifice their retirement income or long-term risk protection in order to pay their healthcare bills. I believe we need to be encouraging seniors to save for their later years in life, not requiring them to liquidate their futures to fill their prescriptions. In order to make the LIS benefit more accurately reflect the assets and resources low-income seniors possess, our bill also proposes raising the current asset test limit to $27,500 for an individual and $55,000 for a couple. According to data from the SSA, this increase should help capture almost 40 percent of the individuals who are ineligible for the LIS benefit due to excess resources, and 50 percent of the couples. I realize this can be a sensitive issue for some of my colleagues--especially on my side of the aisle. We want to ensure that only those beneficiaries who truly are in need of help with their drug are eligible for government assistance. But, I also believe that we can be too heavyhanded and prevent those with legitimate need from getting it. The new asset/resource limits Senator Bingaman and I have proposed represent a good, bipartisan solution to the problem. I know many would like to see the full asset test repealed, but this year that may be a difficult feat to accomplish politically and financially. This is a reasonable step forward, one the advocates support. I hope my colleagues will as well. I believe that the Medicare Prescription Drug Program is working for America's seniors and that we should not undertake a significant overhaul of the new benefit in this Congress. However, there is room for improvement, especially in regard to making the program work better for America's low-income seniors. I firmly believe that if Congress does not address some of these lingering problems this year, Medicare's long-term public image could be severely tarnished in the eyes of the very people it was created to serve. One can learn a great deal about the character of a society by looking at how well it cares for its poor and vulnerable citizens. I believe my four bills that improve upon how Medicare Part D serves low- income beneficiaries will help cement the United States as a country that looks out for its citizens in need. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the full package and assist me in moving it through the process. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am very grateful the Senate is considering the issue of stem cell research today. This debate marks the culmination of years of work by many of my colleagues and certainly by myself and a host of dedicated advocates. I thank Senators Harkin and Specter for their leadership on this issue, as well as Senators Hatch, Feinstein, and Kennedy. Working together for almost a decade, the six of us have over the years laid the groundwork for the Senate to overwhelmingly approve Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. We did this last July but, as we all know, unfortunately, that bill was ultimately vetoed by the President. That is behind us now, and with a new Congress comes a new opportunity to revisit this important issue, the issue of embryonic stem cell research. I hope the experiences of the past have helped my colleagues to gain a fresh perspective on this issue. I know they certainly have for me. Some may view the vote we will take later today on S. 5 and S. 30 as a one-or-the-other option. In my opinion, that is simply shortsighted. I intend to vote for both measures. At the end of the day, they both accomplish the goal of advancing stem cell science in the hopes of finding cures for debilitating illnesses such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes, to name but a few. S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, would allow Federal dollars to support research on stem cells derived from human embryos created through in vitro fertilization. S. 30, the so-called alternative bill, would provide the support for other means of deriving pluripotent stem cells. In that regard, both measures deserve the Senate's support. I find it troubling that these measures should be pitted against one another. Many argue that S. 5 is a must-pass legislation, and I would tend to agree with them. But that should not detract from the importance of alternative forms of stem cell research sanctioned in S. 30. As research on embryonic and other forms of stem cells like amniotic or the placental therapies is still in its infancy, we need to support them all to fully realize the potential they might hold. Since the Senate last considered stem cell research, we have all had additional time to reflect on the sensitive issues underlying this debate. As a pro-life Republican, I initially had some uneasiness with endorsing this type of research that so heavily relies on human embryos. Drawing from my deeply held religious beliefs, scientific evidence, and countless stories of individuals living with terrible illnesses, I fashioned my position on the basis that I truly believe it supports the sanctity of human life. The real tension surrounding this issue, I believe, pits the potential medical benefits stem cells hold against the ethical uncertainties or the religious convictions some of my colleagues might have with what this kind of research entails. Based upon my personal struggle with this issue, I now believe any reservations with embryonic stem cell research are misplaced, especially when one truly considers the question of when life begins. For me, it begins with the mother, with the implantation of the embryo. I believe the Scriptures provide ample support showing that flesh and spirit become one within a mother. This is one of womankind's supernal gifts. I find verses in the Old and the New Testament, in Genesis, Jeremiah, the Psalms, Job, as well as in the Gospels. All of these things lead me to feel comfortable with an ethical conclusion that life begins when flesh and spirit are united in a mother's womb and not before. Embryos created as part of the in vitro fertilization process were intended to provide infertile couples the gift of life, the chance to become parents. Those that go unused in infertility treatments should still have the opportunity to give the gift of life either by later implantation or to those living with debilitating diseases through stem cell research. Without being implanted in a mother's womb, an IVF embryo is a group of cells growing in a petri dish. If those cells are stored in a lab for 1,000 years, they have no possibility of developing into anything more than a group of cells. They remain the dust of the Earth, one of the building blocks leading to life. It is the act of implantation within a mother that gives them life. It is the act of implantation that is the essential missing ingredient in this debate. So instead of destroying or discarding unused embryos, we have the opportunity to use them to derive much needed stem cell lines for the advancement of stem cell science. It is not more moral to simply throw them away. While many of my pro- life colleagues may not agree with my position, I know they do support the intent of embryonic stem cell research; that of finding cures for a number of chronic diseases and debilitating health conditions. That is why I still struggle with describing S. 30 as an alternative to S. 5. It is not an alternative or a substitute, it is a perfect complement. To fully realize the benefits that all types of stem cell research offer, I urge my colleagues to vote affirmatively for both measures we are considering today. The promise of embryonic stem cell research is very real. Those suffering from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and many cancers believe in that promise, and so do I. But we have yet to unleash the potential behind this science because of the restrictions we have placed upon stem cell research. While I appreciate the President allowing the research to move forward on a limited number of stem cell lines, we all know that over time those lines have been degraded, and scientists are in desperate need of new, uncontaminated lines. We cannot expect scientists to make progress in developing today's treatments if we limit them to yesterday's science. I believe the Federal Government has a vital, moral role to play in the development of stem cell science to ensure that appropriate ethical guidelines are followed. It is uncertain where we will end up if embryonic stem cell research becomes an entirely private sector venture. With lack of sufficient funding and ethical boundaries, who knows where we will wind up? The Federal Government can guide research in the right direction. I fear if we fail to show up to work on this issue, we will run into very serious problems in the long run. Over the last 7 years it has become increasingly clear to me that being pro-life requires protecting both the sanctity of human life and the quality of human life. By allowing research on stem cell lines derived from unused IVF embryos, we could forge a path that would one day lead to cures for some of mankind's most dreadful medical maladies. If only one life-improving application of stem cell science comes from my vote in favor of S. 5, then I believe I have done my job, and done it correctly; for I have chosen to err on the side of hope, healing, and health. I encourage all of my colleagues, even those who have some ethical reservations or contrary religious feelings on this issue, to do the same. I have heard some refer to embryonic stem cell research as a conflict between science and religion. I do not believe that is the case. One of the greatest qualities and aspects of life in the United States is our religious pluralism. It is something we see an absence of, tragically, in too many places around the world. We do not serve the public well by taking the narrowest theological position and trying to impose it on public policy. The American tradition is open enough to include other considerations of ethical ideas, Scriptural interpretations, and scientific hope. I am not a scientist, and I am not a theologian. But as I use my agency to interpret what I know in the Scriptures, and the complexities of medicine, I have come to the conclusion that we are all made of dust. Dust thou art and unto dust thou shall return, as the Lord said to Job. In that regard, pluripotent stem cells are one of the building blocks of life, the dust of the Earth. I believe we miss the understanding of the importance of the spirit, the breath of life, the spirit within mankind, as the essential ingredient which causes life to begin. I do not find that religion and science are in conflict in the Senate today. I believe they are in harmony. I believe we should have a broad enough view to include the many views that comprise American pluralism. To that point, Mr. President, I turn to the Scriptures even to find wisdom that I do not have of myself. In the earliest pages of the Old Testament, I find this statement: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into him, his nostril the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Mr. President, there are two conjunctions. The dust of the ground ``and'' the breath of life ``and'' then man becomes a living soul. Until you have both, you do not have life. I cannot end my comments today without mentioning also my own family's history. It has played a role in shaping my views on embryonic stem cell research. My mother's name was Jessica Udall. I watched my grandmother Lela Lee Udall die of Parkinson's. I watched my uncle Addison Udall die of Parkinson's. I watched my cousin, former Democratic Presidential candidate and Arizona Congressman, Morris K. Udall, die of Parkinson's. To watch people die of such a malady is to instill in one's heart a desire to err on the side of health, hope, and healing. We will all die, but no one should have to die as they died. I yield the floor and urge my colleagues to vote for both of these measures. They are complementary. They are headed in the same direction. They are not putting science and faith at odds with one another.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Harkin for their leadership on this vital issue. The Senate today has conducted a very dignified debate on an issue that brings us right to the edge of science and faith. I have argued for several years now that science and faith need not be in conflict on this issue. I have always supported in vitro fertilization, believing that is a noble way to help infertile couples to be parents. Today in America there are probably a million children who are now Americans because of this process. The inevitable consequence, however, of in vitro fertilization is that excess embryos are created. The question we are debating is, frankly, whether they constitute human life, when does life begin. My colleague, Senator Hatch, has argued nobly and long for the proposition that life begins not with a scientist, it begins with a mother. It begins when cells and spirit are joined to create a living soul. If you have an embryo in a petri dish and you leave it there for 1,000 years, at the end of that time, you will have an embryo in a petri dish for the simple, logical reason that life begins with mom. Life begins with the joining of flesh and the spirit. Then the question becomes: Is it more moral to throw all these embryos away or is it more moral to allow them to be utilized for medical miracles? I have reached the conclusion that we cannot have tomorrow's miracles if we tie scientists' hands with yesterday's rules. I believe we can, consistent with religion, faith, science, and logic, allow embryonic stem cell research to proceed. We should do this because it is morally right. We should do this because the U.S. Government needs to show up to work on this vital issue. We should do this because the resources we can provide and the ethical boundaries we can create are essential for this new area of science to go forward, giving us a chance to cure some of the most horrible maladies that afflict humankind, whether it is Lou Gehrig's, whether it is Parkinson's, childhood diabetes, cancer, and more. We can't overpromise, but the people afflicted with this that I see all the time in the State of Oregon need our best effort, and they need us to keep hope alive. So I urge my colleagues to vote for both the bills before us today because it is a morally right thing to do. It is a pro-life thing to do. It is important that an ethic of life care for the unborn as well as for those who are living, both the sanctity of life and the quality of life. I believe life begins with mom, not in a science lab. Because of that, I am voting for this, and I do so with respect for the feelings of my colleagues who have a different theological conclusion. I believe that scripture and science are not in conflict on this issue and that life begins with mother. With that I yield the floor, and I urge and affirm the vote on both these important pieces of legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. On April 7, 2007, in New York City, NY, Akino George pleaded guilty for his part in the beating of a gay man. George and three other men attacked Kevin Aviance, a popular entertainer, after he left a gay bar. The four men threw bags of garbage and a can of paint at Aviance before knocking him to the ground, punching and kicking him. Aviance suffered several injuries including a broken jaw. George testified in his plea that Aviance was targeted for being gay. I believe that the government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lindy Hawkins, an intern in my office, and Clarita Mrena, a detailee with the Aging Committee, be accorded the privilege of the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 510 and ask that it be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. SMITH. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I also ask that Senator Kennedy, at his request, be added as an original cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, since the beginning of this Congress, I have heard colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, talk about their determination to reauthorize and fund SCHIP to keep its promise to America's children, especially those with low income. This amendment is the one amendment that proposes a real policy that will raise real dollars so we can take a meaningful step in keeping the promise of SCHIP. It proposes a reasonable increase in the tobacco tax that would provide up to $35 billion to help in this reauthorization, keeping this very important promise to millions of America's children. I believe this is a defining moment. Put politics aside and do something the American people can be proud of.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment with this year's budget resolution. This budget is putting us on a very dangerous path in terms of our economy. A huge tax hike is not the right direction for our country. The Republican progrowth tax policies that have been implemented over the past few years have had a tremendous impact on our economy. Since August 2003, more than 7.5 million jobs have been created. Our unemployment rate remains low at 4.5 percent--which is well below the 5.1 percent average rate for 2005 and below the average of each of the past four decades. Thanks to our strong economic growth, tax revenues continue to pour in. Tax receipts were up about 12 percent in 2006, on top of 2005's 14.6 percent increase. Receipts have grown another 8 percent so far in fiscal year 2007. But instead of building on this success, this budget takes us in a completely different direction. The resolution would raise taxes by $900 billion--the largest tax hike in history. This tax increase will have real consequences on American families. An Oregon family of four with $50,000 in earnings will see their taxes go up 132 percent to $3,675 in 2011 if the Republican tax relief is not made permanent, and 15 million seniors would see their taxes increase if current tax policy is not extended. We are heading in the wrong direction with this budget. Therefore, I will be voting against the budget resolution.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts of the chairman and ranking member in setting forth a budget for the United States. I come to the floor today to speak briefly about two amendments that I have at the desk that focus on two issues relating to health care, which I think are very important. I hear a lot of support in the Chamber for the reauthorization of SCHIP. I, for one, not only want to reauthorize it but expand it. There are all kinds of ideas for how to fund such a thing. I am here today to speak substantially about how we actually get the real dollars to accomplish that. It is hard to do a townhall meeting in my State where the issue of health care does not come up. It should come up. Usually there is a story about a child with a health condition ranging from a cold to a broken leg, sometimes cancer, children who do not have access to health care. You see it in the papers nearly every day. Frankly, it is inexcusable in the United States of America. So I have come today to make a proposal on the budget that is unusual for me because it involves a tax increase. I am very proud of my record in the Oregon State Senate and the U.S. Senate of opposing new taxes and voting to reduce taxes. But when it is appropriate, I have in the past voted to increase taxes on tobacco products in order to provide money for health care because of the important nexus that exists between tobacco use and public health care costs. So today with my amendment I am proposing that Congress dedicate an increase in the tobacco products excise tax of up to 61 cents to SCHIP reauthorization. In my home State of Oregon, 117,000 children do not have access to health insurance. We know almost half of these children are currently eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP but they simply are not enrolled. The challenge Oregon faces is that even if they allocate adequate State funding to cover these children, they do not have enough Federal money under the current SCHIP allotment to enroll them. Increasing the tobacco excise tax would allow Oregon to reach out, as in other States, to find those kids and get them enrolled so they have health care coverage. Oregon is one of many States that have a looming so-called shortfall. Starting in 2009 the State of Oregon will run out of money to simply cover the children who are currently enrolled, to say nothing of those who are eligible but unenrolled. Should that happen, the State would potentially cut off new enrollments and be forced to reduce eligibility levels. So increasing the tobacco excise tax will stop that from happening. While we do not yet have an official score from the Congressional Budget Office, we do know that based on their estimates a 50-cent increase would generate an additional $26.6 billion in new revenue. The tax now stands at 39 cents. I proposed in my amendment to increase that up to 61 cents for a total Federal tobacco tax of $1. That would be dedicated to reauthorize SCHIP. I believe if the Finance Committee chooses to utilize the full 61-cent increase, we would see at least $30 billion for SCHIP, if not the $35 billion. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will find it in their hearts and in their mouths to vote aye when this very important vote is cast because it literally means health care for children. Many groups have supported this amendment. To name a few prominent ones: the March of Dimes, Families USA, the American Hospital Association, the National Council of Community Behavioral Health Centers, America's Health Insurance Plans, and First Focus. Amendment No. 509 My second amendment relates to the battle against HIV/AIDS. This battle is being hindered because we are not focusing enough effort on providing early treatment to individuals who have been diagnosed with this disease. By targeting treatment earlier, we can help prevent the progression to full-blown AIDS. This is especially true for low-income individuals who may lack stable access to potential lifesaving pharmaceutical treatments and other health care services. While Medicaid is an important provider of health care to those living with HIV/AIDS, most States require that individuals become disabled before they can qualify for coverage. In a sense, they must become sicker before they get treatment. That is simply not right. Full-blown AIDS is an incredibly costly illness to treat. It has much more of an impact on an individual's quality of life than HIV. From a fiscal and moral standpoint it is essential that we focus more of our resources on providing early treatment to individuals with HIV. That is why I am filing an amendment to the budget resolution that would create a $500 million deficit-neutral reserve fund for demonstration projects that provide Medicaid coverage to low-income individuals diagnosed with HIV. It is similar to the bill that I filed last week along with 20 of my colleagues that extends to all States the option of providing Medicaid coverage to these individuals. That initiative, known as the Early Treatment for HIV Act, or ETHA, was modeled after the successful breast and cervical cancer benefit added to the Medicaid Program several years ago. The treatment authorized under my amendment would be provided in the same earlier-is- better fashion, so that more HIV/AIDS cases are prevented from reaching the point of full-blown AIDS. My amendment would provide Congress and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services the opportunity to learn more about the cost-saving benefits of treating HIV in its early stages. It is expected that in addition to Medicaid, other Federal programs such as SSI and Medicare will realize significant long-term savings by preventing individuals from being disabled by AIDS. With more and more States having financial difficulties with their AIDS drug assistance programs, it is important that we provide alternative methods of delivering treatment to those with HIV/AIDS who may be living in poverty. Most importantly, we will be able to help individuals with HIV lead healthier and longer lives. That way they can remain active participants in both the community and the workforce and improve their chances of living to one day see a cure for their illness. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a reasonable and responsible placeholder to add to the Senate's budget blueprint. I look forward to working with all of you in passing this legislation should we enact it in the budget. I think we can greatly improve Medicaid services in this way to those with low incomes who are afflicted with HIV. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to address a serious concern more than 20 years in the making. In large part because of the secrecy over its nuclear program, America's National Security Strategy for 2006 identifies Iran as one of the greatest challenges to the United States. The Senate recognized this threat in January 2006 by unanimously condemning Iran's refusal to comply with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. Last September, this body unanimously passed mandatory sanctions on persons who knowingly helped Iran acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction. And all the while, Tehran continued its pursuit of a nuclear program that, unchecked, will lead to a nuclear- armed Iran. I cannot overestimate the threat that this poses to the security of the United States and our allies. Since the revolution that brought it to power, the theocracy that rules over Iran has demonstrated its contempt for the democratic ideals on which our country is based. It has held its own people hostage in an effort to maintain absolute control over their destiny. And it has spewed forth hate-filled rhetoric at regular intervals about the very existence of the state of Israel--a valued American ally in the Middle East. After years of vigorous diplomacy by Britain, France, and Germany failed to persuade the Iranians to give up their nuclear program, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution in December 2006 calling for the suspension of all enrichment-related activities. Iran ignored that demand, and instead, responded by stepping up their nuclear program. Inaction in the face of such an egregious challenge is a mockery of the international institutions where diplomatic solutions are tried and tested. Now is the time to use every tool in our arsenal short of military force to stop the Iranian regime from developing nuclear weapons, and to send the message that the international community will not tolerate flagrant violations of our combined will. I have heard the calls of my colleagues that all efforts should be made to avoid military intervention in Iran. I agree with them entirely. But Mr. President, I will not stand idle while up to 3,000 centrifuges in Natanz enrich uranium that one day soon could tip a warhead aimed at the U.S. or our allies around the world. Today I am introducing legislation designed to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions. The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 will significantly strengthen our economic sanctions against Iran and any entities that choose to support the regime. I am pleased that Senator Durbin has joined me in this effort, as well as Senators Coleman, Lautenberg, Brownback, Lieberman, Kyl, Bayh, and Thune. This legislation urges the Administration to pursue measures in the international financial sector to restrict financing in Iran and encourages foreign state-owned entities to cease investment in Iran's energy sector. It prohibits all imports from and exports to Iran. It forbids any action that would extend preferential trade treatment to Iran or that would lead to Iranian accession to the WTO. And it freezes assets of senior Iranian officials and their families. By cutting off Iran's access to the hard currency it needs, we can increase the cost of their decision to pursue its nuclear program. The legislation also singles out Russia--a country that has contributed significantly to the development of Iran's nuclear program and has significant financial ties with Tehran. Among other restrictions, the bill prevents the United States from moving forward with a multi-billion dollar nuclear cooperation agreement with Moscow until the President certifies that Russia has suspended its nuclear assistance and the transfers of any conventional weapons and missiles to Iran. The Russians may feel this is unfair, particularly in light of their recent announcement they would suspend the delivery of nuclear fuel to Iran's Bushehr reactor. I am pleased with this decision and hope that it is the beginning of a new view in Moscow of Iran's nuclear program. But we must remember that over the past decade, Russia has periodically suspended its nuclear assistance to Iran only to resume this assistance at a later date. The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act also seeks to bring to light the names of companies that continue to feel it is appropriate to do business with the mullahs in Tehran. It requires the Administration to submit an annual report to Congress listing any foreign investments in Iran's energy sector since January 1 of this year and a determination on whether such investment is sanctionable under the Iran Sanctions Act. And it requires a report listing companies with American operations, whether or not they are incorporated in the United States, which invest in Iran. In a further effort to highlight the cost to Iran of ignoring the demands of the international community, this legislation will reduce our contributions to the World Bank by the percentage of total money the World Bank loans to entities in Iran. The United States does not support these loans, and I urge those countries contributing the most to the World Bank to oppose such loans in the future. Finally, Mr. President, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act calls on the Administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and to add it to the Treasury's list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists. Funding is increased for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence to strengthen the Treasury's efforts to combat unlawful or terrorist financing. It is critical for us to realize that our problems with Iran are not with the Iranian people, whose legitimate aspirations to live freely in a normal, prosperous country should be recognized. As such, this legislation designates $10 million in funding to enhance our friendship with the people of Iran by identifying young Iranians to visit the United States under U.S. exchange programs. The time for action is now. I hope my colleagues agree with me that we must use every available tool short of military force to compel the Iranian regime to abandon completely, verifiably, and irreversibly their pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. I recognize that sanctions are not always popular, but we need to give them a chance to work. By doing nothing, we limit our future options in addressing this significant threat to the United States. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to address a serious concern more than 20 years in the making. In large part because of the secrecy over its nuclear program, America's National Security Strategy for 2006 identifies Iran as one of the greatest challenges to the United States. The Senate recognized this threat in January 2006 by unanimously condemning Iran's refusal to comply with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. Last September, this body unanimously passed mandatory sanctions on persons who knowingly helped Iran acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction. And all the while, Tehran continued its pursuit of a nuclear program that, unchecked, will lead to a nuclear- armed Iran. I cannot overestimate the threat that this poses to the security of the United States and our allies. Since the revolution that brought it to power, the theocracy that rules over Iran has demonstrated its contempt for the democratic ideals on which our country is based. It has held its own people hostage in an effort to maintain absolute control over their destiny. And it has spewed forth hate-filled rhetoric at regular intervals about the very existence of the state of Israel--a valued American ally in the Middle East. After years of vigorous diplomacy by Britain, France, and Germany failed to persuade the Iranians to give up their nuclear program, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution in December 2006 calling for the suspension of all enrichment-related activities. Iran ignored that demand, and instead, responded by stepping up their nuclear program. Inaction in the face of such an egregious challenge is a mockery of the international institutions where diplomatic solutions are tried and tested. Now is the time to use every tool in our arsenal short of military force to stop the Iranian regime from developing nuclear weapons, and to send the message that the international community will not tolerate flagrant violations of our combined will. I have heard the calls of my colleagues that all efforts should be made to avoid military intervention in Iran. I agree with them entirely. But Mr. President, I will not stand idle while up to 3,000 centrifuges in Natanz enrich uranium that one day soon could tip a warhead aimed at the U.S. or our allies around the world. Today I am introducing legislation designed to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions. The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 will significantly strengthen our economic sanctions against Iran and any entities that choose to support the regime. I am pleased that Senator Durbin has joined me in this effort, as well as Senators Coleman, Lautenberg, Brownback, Lieberman, Kyl, Bayh, and Thune. This legislation urges the Administration to pursue measures in the international financial sector to restrict financing in Iran and encourages foreign state-owned entities to cease investment in Iran's energy sector. It prohibits all imports from and exports to Iran. It forbids any action that would extend preferential trade treatment to Iran or that would lead to Iranian accession to the WTO. And it freezes assets of senior Iranian officials and their families. By cutting off Iran's access to the hard currency it needs, we can increase the cost of their decision to pursue its nuclear program. The legislation also singles out Russia--a country that has contributed significantly to the development of Iran's nuclear program and has significant financial ties with Tehran. Among other restrictions, the bill prevents the United States from moving forward with a multi-billion dollar nuclear cooperation agreement with Moscow until the President certifies that Russia has suspended its nuclear assistance and the transfers of any conventional weapons and missiles to Iran. The Russians may feel this is unfair, particularly in light of their recent announcement they would suspend the delivery of nuclear fuel to Iran's Bushehr reactor. I am pleased with this decision and hope that it is the beginning of a new view in Moscow of Iran's nuclear program. But we must remember that over the past decade, Russia has periodically suspended its nuclear assistance to Iran only to resume this assistance at a later date. The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act also seeks to bring to light the names of companies that continue to feel it is appropriate to do business with the mullahs in Tehran. It requires the Administration to submit an annual report to Congress listing any foreign investments in Iran's energy sector since January 1 of this year and a determination on whether such investment is sanctionable under the Iran Sanctions Act. And it requires a report listing companies with American operations, whether or not they are incorporated in the United States, which invest in Iran. In a further effort to highlight the cost to Iran of ignoring the demands of the international community, this legislation will reduce our contributions to the World Bank by the percentage of total money the World Bank loans to entities in Iran. The United States does not support these loans, and I urge those countries contributing the most to the World Bank to oppose such loans in the future. Finally, Mr. President, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act calls on the Administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and to add it to the Treasury's list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists. Funding is increased for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence to strengthen the Treasury's efforts to combat unlawful or terrorist financing. It is critical for us to realize that our problems with Iran are not with the Iranian people, whose legitimate aspirations to live freely in a normal, prosperous country should be recognized. As such, this legislation designates $10 million in funding to enhance our friendship with the people of Iran by identifying young Iranians to visit the United States under U.S. exchange programs. The time for action is now. I hope my colleagues agree with me that we must use every available tool short of military force to compel the Iranian regime to abandon completely, verifiably, and irreversibly their pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. I recognize that sanctions are not always popular, but we need to give them a chance to work. By doing nothing, we limit our future options in addressing this significant threat to the United States. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President. I rise today with my colleague Senator Lincoln of Arkansas to introduce the Short Line Railroad Investment Act of 2007. More than 500 short line railroads operate nationally, serving nearly every State and account for almost 50,000 miles of track in the United States. By connecting to the larger railways, short line railroads are critical to farmers and small businesses that need to move their goods into the marketplace. Moreover, transporting goods using rail relieves highway congestion by decreasing the number of trucks that would otherwise move the same products. Railroads are capital intensive and require significant investment to operate. Today, the unmet infrastructure needs of the short line railroads total in the billions of dollars. And capacity and physical demands on the short lines continue to grow. The presence of heavier rail cars being used today only further exacerbates the need for investment to meet the infrastructure needs of the short line railroads. Currently a tax credit exists to enable increased investment in short line railroads. However, this critical credit is set to expire at the end of 2007. Current law allows for a taxpayer to claim a tax credit of 50 cents for every dollar invested in track rehabilitation. The extension of the tax credit for short line railroad maintenance and rehabilitation is integral to meeting this need. The enactment of this credit in the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act has encouraged the private sector to increase investment in short line freight rail infrastructure. The ultimate beneficiaries of these investments will be over 11,000 rail customers employing over 1 million Americans in rural and urban areas. It is imperative that we extend this credit. I propose a 3-year extension of this credit through 2010 that will help achieve the original goal of prompting $1.5 billion in new infrastructure improvements on short line railroads. I urge my colleagues support for this important measure that will improve short line railroads that have such a vital role in the transportation of goods and our Nation's economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President. I rise today with my colleague Senator Lincoln of Arkansas to introduce the Short Line Railroad Investment Act of 2007. More than 500 short line railroads operate nationally, serving nearly every State and account for almost 50,000 miles of track in the United States. By connecting to the larger railways, short line railroads are critical to farmers and small businesses that need to move their goods into the marketplace. Moreover, transporting goods using rail relieves highway congestion by decreasing the number of trucks that would otherwise move the same products. Railroads are capital intensive and require significant investment to operate. Today, the unmet infrastructure needs of the short line railroads total in the billions of dollars. And capacity and physical demands on the short lines continue to grow. The presence of heavier rail cars being used today only further exacerbates the need for investment to meet the infrastructure needs of the short line railroads. Currently a tax credit exists to enable increased investment in short line railroads. However, this critical credit is set to expire at the end of 2007. Current law allows for a taxpayer to claim a tax credit of 50 cents for every dollar invested in track rehabilitation. The extension of the tax credit for short line railroad maintenance and rehabilitation is integral to meeting this need. The enactment of this credit in the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act has encouraged the private sector to increase investment in short line freight rail infrastructure. The ultimate beneficiaries of these investments will be over 11,000 rail customers employing over 1 million Americans in rural and urban areas. It is imperative that we extend this credit. I propose a 3-year extension of this credit through 2010 that will help achieve the original goal of prompting $1.5 billion in new infrastructure improvements on short line railroads. I urge my colleagues support for this important measure that will improve short line railroads that have such a vital role in the transportation of goods and our Nation's economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early Treatment for HIV Act, or ETHA. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill, along with the numerous letters of support I have received from advocacy organizations, be printed in the Record. I am pleased that Senator Clinton is joining me once again to introduce ETHA. I thank her for the steadfast support she has shown people living with HIV. This terrible illness knows no party affiliation, and I am pleased to say that ETHA's 20 cosponsors span both sides of the aisle. ETHA provides States the ability to extend Medicaid coverage to low- income, HIV-positive individuals before they develop full-blown AIDS. Today, the unfortunate reality is that most patients must become disabled before they can qualify for Medicaid. Nearly 50 percent of people living with AIDS who know their status lack ongoing access to treatment. In my home State of Oregon, there are approximately 5,700 persons living with HIV/AIDS. It is estimated that approximately 40 percent of these Oregonians are not receiving care for their HIV disease. I believe it is our moral responsibility to do everything we can to ensure that all people living with HIV--regardless of their income or their insurance status--have access to timely, effective treatment. Unfortunately, safety net programs across the country are running out of money, and as a consequence, they are generally unable to cover all of the people who need assistance paying for their medical care. For instance, Oregon's Ryan White funded AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) is experiencing significant financial hardship due to years of inadequate funding. As a consequence, the program has been forced to impose burdensome cost-sharing requirements and limit the scope of drugs it covers on its formulary. Fortunately, Oregon's ADAP has not had to resort to service waiting lists, a cost control mechanism that many States have been forced to adopt. As safety net programs like ADAP continue to struggle, ETHA gives States another way to reach out to low-income, HIV-positive individuals. I believe ETHA represents a promising opportunity to turn the tide against this devastating epidemic. In 2005, there were 220 newly infected HIV cases reported in my home State of Oregon. If we were able to provide even a fraction of those individuals access to early treatment, we could prevent the progression of their condition to full- blown AIDS. Experience has shown that current HIV treatments are very successful in delaying the progression from HIV infection to AIDS, and help improve the health and quality of life for millions of people living with the disease. Studies conducted by Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PWC) support providing early healthcare to individuals diagnosed with HIV because it has both the potential to save lives and control costs. Specifically, providing individuals coverage through ETHA could reduce the death rate of persons living with HIV by more than half. Similarly encouraging is the potential cost-savings ETHA could generate in the Medicaid program. Due to its preventive aim, ETHA is estimated to begin saving the Medicaid program $31.7 million each year after the effects of expanded access to care are fully realized. I believe ETHA is a key example of the type of reform Congress needs to be implementing to the federal entitlements. The short term investment required to expand Medicaid coverage will ultimately result in significant long-term savings to the program--at no harm to the beneficiary. But most importantly, ETHA takes an important step toward ensuring that all Americans living with HIV can get the medical care they need to lead healthy, productive lives for as long as possible. One of the strongest features of ETHA is the enhanced Federal Medicaid match rate it provides to encourage States to expand coverage to individuals diagnosed with HIV. This provision closely models the successful Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act of 2000, which allows States to provide early Medicaid intervention to women with breast and cervical cancer. We can build upon this success by passing ETHA and extending similar early intervention treatments to people with HIV. HIV/AIDS touches the lives of millions of Americans from a variety of backgrounds. Some get the proper medications they need to keep healthy, but far too many do not. The inability to access life-saving treatment literally creates a ``life and death'' situation for many of our most vulnerable citizens. Fortunately, ETHA can give those individuals access to the care they need so they can look forward to a long, healthy life. I again want to thank the strong group of bipartisan Senators that is joining me as original cosponsors of ETHA. I also wish to thank all of the organizations around the country that have expressed support for this bill, in particular, Oregon's Cascade AIDS Project. The work they do on behalf of individuals living with HIV/AIDS in my home State is truly commendable, and I appreciate the support they have shown ETHA over the years.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early Treatment for HIV Act, or ETHA. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill, along with the numerous letters of support I have received from advocacy organizations, be printed in the Record. I am pleased that Senator Clinton is joining me once again to introduce ETHA. I thank her for the steadfast support she has shown people living with HIV. This terrible illness knows no party affiliation, and I am pleased to say that ETHA's 20 cosponsors span both sides of the aisle. ETHA provides States the ability to extend Medicaid coverage to low- income, HIV-positive individuals before they develop full-blown AIDS. Today, the unfortunate reality is that most patients must become disabled before they can qualify for Medicaid. Nearly 50 percent of people living with AIDS who know their status lack ongoing access to treatment. In my home State of Oregon, there are approximately 5,700 persons living with HIV/AIDS. It is estimated that approximately 40 percent of these Oregonians are not receiving care for their HIV disease. I believe it is our moral responsibility to do everything we can to ensure that all people living with HIV--regardless of their income or their insurance status--have access to timely, effective treatment. Unfortunately, safety net programs across the country are running out of money, and as a consequence, they are generally unable to cover all of the people who need assistance paying for their medical care. For instance, Oregon's Ryan White funded AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) is experiencing significant financial hardship due to years of inadequate funding. As a consequence, the program has been forced to impose burdensome cost-sharing requirements and limit the scope of drugs it covers on its formulary. Fortunately, Oregon's ADAP has not had to resort to service waiting lists, a cost control mechanism that many States have been forced to adopt. As safety net programs like ADAP continue to struggle, ETHA gives States another way to reach out to low-income, HIV-positive individuals. I believe ETHA represents a promising opportunity to turn the tide against this devastating epidemic. In 2005, there were 220 newly infected HIV cases reported in my home State of Oregon. If we were able to provide even a fraction of those individuals access to early treatment, we could prevent the progression of their condition to full- blown AIDS. Experience has shown that current HIV treatments are very successful in delaying the progression from HIV infection to AIDS, and help improve the health and quality of life for millions of people living with the disease. Studies conducted by Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PWC) support providing early healthcare to individuals diagnosed with HIV because it has both the potential to save lives and control costs. Specifically, providing individuals coverage through ETHA could reduce the death rate of persons living with HIV by more than half. Similarly encouraging is the potential cost-savings ETHA could generate in the Medicaid program. Due to its preventive aim, ETHA is estimated to begin saving the Medicaid program $31.7 million each year after the effects of expanded access to care are fully realized. I believe ETHA is a key example of the type of reform Congress needs to be implementing to the federal entitlements. The short term investment required to expand Medicaid coverage will ultimately result in significant long-term savings to the program--at no harm to the beneficiary. But most importantly, ETHA takes an important step toward ensuring that all Americans living with HIV can get the medical care they need to lead healthy, productive lives for as long as possible. One of the strongest features of ETHA is the enhanced Federal Medicaid match rate it provides to encourage States to expand coverage to individuals diagnosed with HIV. This provision closely models the successful Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act of 2000, which allows States to provide early Medicaid intervention to women with breast and cervical cancer. We can build upon this success by passing ETHA and extending similar early intervention treatments to people with HIV. HIV/AIDS touches the lives of millions of Americans from a variety of backgrounds. Some get the proper medications they need to keep healthy, but far too many do not. The inability to access life-saving treatment literally creates a ``life and death'' situation for many of our most vulnerable citizens. Fortunately, ETHA can give those individuals access to the care they need so they can look forward to a long, healthy life. I again want to thank the strong group of bipartisan Senators that is joining me as original cosponsors of ETHA. I also wish to thank all of the organizations around the country that have expressed support for this bill, in particular, Oregon's Cascade AIDS Project. The work they do on behalf of individuals living with HIV/AIDS in my home State is truly commendable, and I appreciate the support they have shown ETHA over the years.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am introducing the United States- Israel Energy Cooperation Act, which is cosponsored by Senators Bingaman and Landrieu. This bill will help foster cooperation on renewable energy projects between the United States and our democratic ally in the Middle East. Israel has some of the most advanced facilities in the world for concentrated solar. Israel is developing technology to use unsorted municipal waste to produce biogas, an alternative ``green'' energy for transportation and power plants. Israel has also developed rooftop systems for electricity and hot water supplies. This bill will help implement an existing agreement between the two nations entitled, ``Agreement between the Department of Energy of the United States of America and the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure of Israel Concerning Energy Cooperation,'' dated February 1, 1996. The Secretary of Energy, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, will establish a grant program to support research development and commercialization of alternative renewable energy sources. Eligible projects must be joint ventures between an entity in the U.S. and an entity in Israel, or between the U.S. government and the government of Israel. Eligible projects include those projects for the research, development or commercialization of alternative energy facilities, improved energy efficiency or renewable energy sources. Under certain circumstances, the Secretary may require repayment of the grant. The bill also establishes an advisory board to provide the Secretary with advice on the criteria for grant recipients and on the appropriate amount of total grant money to be awarded. Finally the bill authorizes $20 million annually for fiscal years 2008 through 2014 to carry out this program. At this time when issues related to energy security and to greenhouse gas emissions are receiving so much attention by the Congress, I hope that my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this bill. This will enable the United States and Israel to build upon the important work being done in both countries to reduce our dependence on imported oil that too often comes from politically unstable or hostile nations.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am introducing the United States- Israel Energy Cooperation Act, which is cosponsored by Senators Bingaman and Landrieu. This bill will help foster cooperation on renewable energy projects between the United States and our democratic ally in the Middle East. Israel has some of the most advanced facilities in the world for concentrated solar. Israel is developing technology to use unsorted municipal waste to produce biogas, an alternative ``green'' energy for transportation and power plants. Israel has also developed rooftop systems for electricity and hot water supplies. This bill will help implement an existing agreement between the two nations entitled, ``Agreement between the Department of Energy of the United States of America and the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure of Israel Concerning Energy Cooperation,'' dated February 1, 1996. The Secretary of Energy, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, will establish a grant program to support research development and commercialization of alternative renewable energy sources. Eligible projects must be joint ventures between an entity in the U.S. and an entity in Israel, or between the U.S. government and the government of Israel. Eligible projects include those projects for the research, development or commercialization of alternative energy facilities, improved energy efficiency or renewable energy sources. Under certain circumstances, the Secretary may require repayment of the grant. The bill also establishes an advisory board to provide the Secretary with advice on the criteria for grant recipients and on the appropriate amount of total grant money to be awarded. Finally the bill authorizes $20 million annually for fiscal years 2008 through 2014 to carry out this program. At this time when issues related to energy security and to greenhouse gas emissions are receiving so much attention by the Congress, I hope that my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this bill. This will enable the United States and Israel to build upon the important work being done in both countries to reduce our dependence on imported oil that too often comes from politically unstable or hostile nations.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleague Senator Kohl, to reintroduce this important piece of legislation. This legislation will work to ensure the United States government does not turn its back on political asylees or refugees who are the most vulnerable citizens seeking safety in this great country of ours. As many of you know, Congress modified the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program to include seven-year time limit on the receipt of benefits for refugees and asylees. This policy was intended to balance the desire to have people who emigrate to the United States to become citizens, with an understanding that the naturalization process also takes time to complete. To allow adequate time for asylees and refugees to become naturalized citizens, Congress provided the seven-year time limit before the expiration of SSI benefits. Unfortunately, the naturalization process often takes longer than seven years. Applicants are required to live in the United States for a minimum of five years prior to applying for citizenship. In addition to that time period, their application process often can take three or more years before resolution. Because of this time delay, many individuals are trapped in the system faced with the loss of their SSI benefits. Many of these individuals are elderly who fled persecution or torture in their home countries. They include Jews fleeing religious persecution in the former Soviet Union, Iraqi Kurds fleeing the Saddam Hussein regime, Cubans and Hmong people from the highlands of Laos who served on the side of the United States military during the Vietnam War. They are elderly and unable to work, and have become reliant on their SSI benefits as their primary income. To penalize them because of delays encountered through the bureaucratic process seems unjust and inappropriate. The administration in its fiscal year 2008 budget acknowledged the necessity to correct this problem by dedicating funding to extend refugee eligibility for SSI beyond the seven-year limit. While I am pleased that they have taken the first step in correcting this problem, I am concerned the policy does not go far enough. Data shows that most people will need at least an additional two years to navigate and complete the naturalization process. Therefore, my colleagues and I have introduced this bill, which will provide a two-year extension. We believe this will provide the time necessary to complete the process. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill, and I look forward to working with Chairman Baucus and other members of the Finance Committee to secure these changes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.