Gordon Smith

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 November, 7, 2005, in New York City, NY, Kyle Spidle was attacked near the Monster Bar where he worked. The attack began when two men began yelling from a vehicle at Mr. Spidle about the way he was walking down the street. When Mr. Spidle yelled back the pair of men got out of the car and begin to beat him. According to police, the pair hurled homophobic epithets at Mr. Spidle as they beat him I believe that our Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, in all circumstances, from threats to them at home. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a major step forward in achieving that goal. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to honor our Nation's veterans. Nowhere is dedication to duty and love of country more evident than among those who have voluntarily chosen to serve our country. Today, America honors the sons and daughters who have helped preserve our freedom and left a lasting legacy of selfless service. Since 1954, we have designated November 11 as Veterans Day to remember the brave men and women who have served in our Armed Forces and defended our Nation. We also give our heartfelt gratitude to today's active service members and members of the National Guard and Reserve who are serving our country as we help to maintain peace and support democracy throughout the world. I am especially proud to recognize Oregon's soldiers serving in our Armed Forces, as they represent our State with honor and distinction across the country and throughout the world. Whether protecting Iraqi citizens in their historic effort to form a free and democratic state or helping evacuate victims of Hurricane Katrina in the gulf coast region, their continued commitment to our Nation inspires us all. Throughout our proud history, the United States has courageously met the challenges posed by enemies of freedom. In the last 100 years, we have lost some 700,000 men and women in defense of our country. As we recall their noble sacrifices, it is also important to honor the relatives and loved ones who help shoulder the burden of service. America now faces new challenges from enemies that did not exist when our Nation's veterans fought in previous wars. Those who fought tyranny and paid the ultimate price did so for an honorable and enduring cause. Generations of free and democratic people around the world join us in thanking the brave Americans who helped them achieve and protect their liberty. Today, we honor the legacy of the fallen and the courage of our veterans and salute the values that have made the United States the greatest Nation in the world. I have the highest respect for those who serve, and I appreciate and honor all of the men and women who continue to defend freedom at home and abroad. These American heroes and their families are at the forefront of our thoughts and prayers on this special day.

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 October, 15, 2005, in Missoula, MT, two gay students were near their home on the University of Montana campus when they were chased by a group of men and beaten. According to police, the group of men were shouting derogatory terms regarding their sexual orientation before and during the beating. I believe that our Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, in all circumstances, from threats to them at home. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a major step forward in achieving that goal. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. 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 January, 2, 2004, in Madison, WI, Matt Collins and Shawn Wiese went to the Dry Bean Restaurant to meet a friend. After the restaurant closed, an altercation between two men and Collins and Wiese occurred. A woman later testified that one of the men told her that night that he should beat up Collins and Wiese for being gay. Mr. Collins, who had no health insurance, was hospitalized for 2 days with multiple broken bones in his right wrist that required a plate and seven screws. I believe that our Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, in all circumstances, from threats to them at home. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a major step forward in achieving that goal. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. 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 August 08, 2005, in New York, NY, an unidentified gay man was beaten by two men in what police are calling a hate crime. The man was walking with a companion when two others approached screaming anti-gay slurs before attacking the victim; the attacker hit the victim repeatedly. Following the attack, the victim was taken to a near by Manhattan Hospital for head injuries. 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 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 July 1999, in Palm Springs, CA, Steven Cagle and a companion were attacked by Randy Reyes and Juan Rios in a Carrow's Restaurant. It is believed that the beating was motivated by the victims' sexual orientation. Cagle stated that it was inhumane and, `` For no other reason than I am a gay man.'' Prosecutors are calling this a hate crime and are asking for the maximum sentence. 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. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2390. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold be added as a cosponsor to my amendment. I am already pleased that Senator Clinton is a cosponsor.

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

Mr. SMITH. The amendment I am offering authorizes $450 million for State demonstration projects to provide Medicaid coverage to low-income individuals living with HIV. It is similar to S. 311, Early Treatment for HIV Act. I introduced this earlier this year with strong support of 33 of my colleagues. As Medicaid generally covers only those disabled by full-blown AIDS, the amendment would vastly improve the treatment available to some of our most vulnerable citizens. With more States having difficulty maintaining their AIDS drug assistance program, it is imperative that we provide alternative methods of delivering treatment to those individuals with HIV who are living in poverty. It is simply the right thing to do. I ask for my colleagues' support for this fiscally and morally defensible policy.

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 October 1, 2003, just east of West Hollywood, a gay man was attacked in his home with a bat by a pair of assailants. The two assailants took the victims house key after he ran home and left his keys in the door as he hurried inside. The victim, who identified his attackers as Evar Rivera and Selvan Campos in court, said he received 14 stitches for his injuries. According to police, anti-gay slurs were yelled during the bat attack, and police later classified the attack as a hate crime. I believe that our Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, in all circumstances, from threats to them at home. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a major step forward in achieving that goal. 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, it is always difficult for Congress to save money. As the keepers of our Nation's checkbook, our main responsibility lies in allocating our resources where they are needed most. Instinctively, we as Senators like to send help to those who are in need, improve our infrastructure, and prepare for future crises. Yet, in order to adhere to our budget, we are considering a reconciliation bill that requires us to save a significant amount of money. While saving money during a time when there is so much need in our country is a very arduous task, the reconciliation package we are considering today is not only fiscally responsible but also morally defensible. This is a bill that protects the less fortunate among us. It takes pains to preserve the vital safety-net programs that millions of Americans rely on for such basic needs as feeding their families and receiving proper medical care. The package before us represents the work of five different committees and contains many hard-fought compromises. As is true with most pieces of legislation, it is not perfect, especially when considering the many interests involved in an undertaking of this size and complexity. Yet when you consider the policies that are not included in this bill, I believe even many of my Democratic colleagues will have to agree that this bill represents a true victory for our Nation's poor because we found efficiencies through government and did so in a manner to protect people from harm. In recognizing this victory for America's poor, I would be remiss if I did not thank Chairman Grassley for his diligent work in compiling this bill. He managed to unite Members with diverse views and goals, many of whom were skeptical of the process. For this, Chairman Grassley is to be congratulated. I also commend Leader Frist for his tenacious efforts to hold this delicate agreement together and shepherd it through the full Senate. The same can be said for Chairman Judd Gregg who has, likewise, been patient with me and others and persistent in trying to accomplish this very important piece of legislation. To be sure, it is quite a challenge, but one which I am confident we will succeed in achieving. Our greatest victory in this bill lies not in what is included in the reconciliation package but what we succeeded in keeping out of it. While all components of this bill are important, there are two areas that if done incorrectly would have unraveled the very fabric of our Nation's safety net system--Medicaid and food stamps. Since March, I have worked with leadership to ensure that proposals intended to undermine the programs were not included in this bill. I established five very straightforward criteria on which to judge the package. First, the $10 billion in savings the Finance Committee was instructed to find would come from both Medicare and Medicaid; second, that any savings achieved through policy would not impact beneficiary access or coverage under Medicaid; third, that we did not simply cost- shift to the States; fourth, that food stamps should be protected from reductions; and finally, that we would not utilize flawed and unjustifiable policies that result in cuts to services for the poor to pay for spending on providers or people at higher income levels. When you review this package, I believe you will agree with me that it meets all of these principles. This reconciliation bill protects our most vulnerable and achieves savings by utilizing system efficiencies rather than placing an undue burden on our poorest citizens. For instance, we did not put forward cost-sharing requirements in Medicaid. While some of my colleagues will argue that the poor get a free ride under Medicaid and Congress should require them to contribute to their health care, studies actually show this to be a fallacy. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Expenditure Survey, people with annual incomes under $20,000 contribute far more toward their health care--15.2 percent, to be exact--compared to Americans with annual incomes above $70,000, who contribute just 2.6 percent. Additionally, because those who receive assistance through Medicaid have such diverse needs, we should not assume a one-size-fits-all policy will work for all States. In fact, looking at the experience of my home State of Oregon, it is clear that cost-shifting does not generate money to be reinvested into the system; rather, it acts as a barrier to care. Now, this may be the objective of some. It is certainly not my objective. Following Oregon's move to implement what they thought were modest premiums and copayments, the State only saved money because 50,000 Oregonians lost Medicaid coverage. The State's own research shows no savings were generated from the actual premiums or copayments. Implementing such a policy nationwide would result in millions of Americans losing Medicaid coverage and joining the ranks of the uninsured and shifting the cost of their care to private insurance plans. Another critical program the Senate protected from cuts--and for this I must commend my colleague, Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia--is food stamps. According to a report released last week by USDA's Economic Research Service, the number of households nationwide that were food insecure increased to 11.9 percent, and those who are considered hungry increased to 3.9 percent. The major assistance received by these families comes through the Food Stamp Program, which on average helped about 23.9 million people each month in fiscal year 2004. It is also important to note that most food stamp recipients are children or elderly in poor families with a gross income of $643 per month. Oregon has made bigger gains than any other State in the Nation in its fight against hunger, drastically reducing its hunger rate. USDA's report showed that Oregon's food insecurity rate dropped from 13.7 percent of households in 1999 to 2001 to 11.9 percent for 2002 to 2004. The report further showed that Oregon's hunger rate dropped over the same period from 5.8 percent to 3.8 percent--the biggest decline in America. Oregon's policy analysts and food relief leaders believe that the State's aggressive food stamp outreach is to credit for the decline in Oregon's hunger rate. By 2002, 81 percent of those eligible, or more than 427,000 Oregonians, received food stamps--the highest rate in the Nation. I am proud of Oregon's achievement and pleased this bill does not include any cuts which would jeopardize the tremendous progress we have made in recent years. We also excluded policies that, while cloaked as a crackdown on fraud, waste, and abuse, simply are known to result in cost-shifting to States and private plans. One such proposal is called Intergovernmental Transfers or IGTs. Some have argued we should draw a hard line in Federal statute to prevent the use of IGTs. However, if you step back for a moment and review the rules presently governing these policies, you will find that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services already has the authority to enter into these types of agreements with States and to force States to change their arrangements. In fact, CMS has required 26 States to adjust their so-called IGTs to better reflect what CMS believes is appropriate and has just 7 others to go in which it wants to make adjustments. I fear that by drawing a hard line on this policy, we will remove CMS's flexibility to work with States to ensure that access and coverage are not impacted. After all, some of the biggest recipients of aid from these arrangements are children and public hospitals. Those facilities are on the front lines serving the people in need. We also rejected policies that would have abdicated the Federal Government's responsibility to ensure certain levels of access and coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries. Many of the Governors support instituting broad authority for States to restructure their programs by changing benefit packages and eligibility standards. As a former president of the Oregon State Senate, I am a staunch advocate of States being the test bed of ingenuity. Over the history of Medicaid, we have seen numerous examples of States finding new and innovative solutions to make their programs more efficient and able to serve more people. In fact, Oregon's creation of the Oregon Health Plan is just such an example of a success. However, I feared that in a rush to complete the budget reconciliation process Congress would simply provide too much open-ended flexibility that ultimately would undermine the cornerstone of Medicaid--ensuring access to a comprehensive benefit package for those with diverse health care needs. That is why I worked to ensure that these types of proposals are left for when we take a comprehensive review of the program that is based on a thorough understanding of the implications. In developing this package, consideration was given to Medicaid's long-term care program. It is unfortunate that our Nation has not done more to prepare for the needs of an aging population. Medicaid currently is the long-term care provider for most Americans, regardless of their wealth. However, some policies were put forward that I could not support. They would not have solved the problem, which is that some people try to hide their assets so they can be passed on to heirs upon their death. Rather, I believe they would have succeeded only in penalizing unknowing seniors with limited money because of transfers they made with good intentions to some of their family members or charities. Instead, I continue to advocate for reviewing this system thoroughly and develop policies that encourage Americans to seriously plan for their long-term health care needs. Only then will we truly address the growing challenge of an aging population. Many of us have worked extremely hard to craft a reconciliation package that is morally defensible and achieves savings through sound policy decisions instead of arbitrarily cutting aid to those who need it most. By passing this bill as it stands we are sending a strong message that the U.S. Senate will fight vigorously for those who cannot fight for themselves. The policies we adopt as they relate to Medicaid and food stamps will be and must be the basis for any reconciliation bill that is ultimately considered by this body. We owe it to the American people to let them know that their Congress will not turn its back on our less fortunate citizens. Hubert Humphrey once said: The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life--the sick, the needy, and the handicapped. In light of this standard, the reconciliation package before us is a success and I offer it my full support.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, more and more our country's fight against HIV/AIDS is being hindered because we are not focusing enough of our resources on treating individuals who have been diagnosed with HIV so we prevent their illnesses from progressing to full-blown AIDS. This is especially true for those with low-income who may lack stable access to potentially life-saving pharmaceutical treatments and other health care services. While Medicaid is an important provider of health care to vulnerable Americans living with AIDS, they generally must be disabled before they can qualify for coverage. In a sense, we require them to become sicker before they can get treatment, and that is simply not right. Full-blown AIDS is an incredibly costly illness and it has much more of an impact on an individual's quality of life than HIV. That is why it is important for us to focus our resources on providing early treatment to individuals with HIV. Earlier this year, I, along with 27 of my colleagues, filed legislation that would have allowed states the option of providing Medicaid coverage to low-income individuals who have been diagnosed with HIV. The initiative, known as the Early Treatment for HIV Act, or ETHA, was modeled after the successful breast and cervical cancer benefit added to Medicaid program several years ago. My amendment would provide the care in the same ``early is better'' fashion, so that more HIV cases are prevented from reaching the point of full-blown AIDS. Like the breast and cervical cancer benefit, ETHA would provide States the incentive of an enhanced Federal Medicaid match to extend coverage to those individuals living with HIV--the same rate that is paid to them to operate their S-CHIP programs. Realizing the tight budget constraints we are currently facing, I have restructured my original ETHA proposal into a 5-year demonstration project that is capped at $450 million. States will apply to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to offer Medicaid coverage to low-income individuals who have been diagnosed with HIV. This scaled back version would provide Congress and CMS the opportunity to learn more about the cost-saving benefits of providing treatment to those with HIV in the early stages of their illness. It is expected that in addition to Medicaid, other Federal programs--like SSI and Medicare--will realize significant long-term savings by preventing individuals from being disabled by full-blown AIDS. Additionally, with more and more states having financial difficulties with their AIDS Drug Assistance Programs--such as North Carolina, Nebraska, Missouri and Minnesota--it is important that we provide alternative methods of delivering treatment to those individuals with HIV/AIDS who may be living in poverty. Most importantly though, the assistance authorized by this proposal will help individuals with HIV lead healthier, longer lives, so that 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. As I mentioned, the cost of this amendment is $450 million over 5 years. That amount would be offset with a .8 percent increase in the brand-name prescription drug rebate. I realize that the package already includes an increase in the drug rebate, but the additional request made in this amendment, less than one percent, will have an enormous payoff in the long-run. I don't believe it's too high a price to pay for the benefits that ETHA will provide the Federal and State governments, as well as individuals living with HIV. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I understand that there is concern over keeping the underlying package that was passed by the Finance Committee intact. I assure you that this amendment will not affect the bottom-line savings Chairman Grassley and other members--including myself--worked so hard to achieve in title VI of the Deficit Reduction Act. In fact, in the long-term, my amendment should increase savings to the Federal Government by providing targeted, effective care to those individuals who genuinely need it, which will help them maintain active, healthy lives. That is a strategy I fully support. I will be working with the leadership as the debate moves forward today to schedule a vote on this amendment. At the appropriate time, I ask for my colleagues' support on this bill that is not only fiscally responsible, but the right thing to do. amendment no. 2351

Mr. SMITH. I probably would not need more than 15 minutes.

Mr. SMITH. I will certainly try.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Paul Ross of my staff be given floor privileges.

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 November 20, 2002, in Scottsdale, AZ, a gay man was attacked while leaving a bar. According to police the man was leaving a bar when two men approached him. One man said, ``you offend me . . . you are an insult to straight men.'' He then attacked the victim punching him twice in the face. 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 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 January 7, 2005, Robert Martin, an openly gay man, was found severely beaten at an abandoned school in Ashburn, GA. Before the beating Martin was being taunted about his sexual orientation by the man who later attacked him. The man that attacked Martin is still being sought by police. I believe that our Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, in all circumstances, from threats to them at home. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a major step forward in achieving that goal. 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 would like to talk briefly about the importance of the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, or ADAP. ADAP is a vital resource for low-income individuals who are living with HIV/AIDS. It helps get medications to those who most need them so that they can stay healthy and avoid more costly health care treatments that are required if their condition worsens. To date, ADAP has been a successful partnership between Federal and State governments, but it is rapidly buckling under the strain of budget shortfalls and rising demand for services. Currently, there are over one million individuals living with HIV in the United States, many of whom rely upon expensive medications to stay alive. While we have made significant strides in stabilizing the spread of HIV in recent years, it is the most vulnerable individuals who are unable to afford medications to treat their condition. These are the people that ADAP helps. They are not eligible for Medicaid--as most State programs only cover those individuals who have been disabled by full-blown AIDS. They are individuals who simply cannot afford to purchase all the medications required to keep them healthy and active members of the community and the workforce. Each year, ADAP caseloads increase by 7,000 to 8,000 people. Yet funding has not kept pace with that growth. It has been estimated that ADAP would need an additional $100 million each year to keep pace with increased demand. While increases in drug rebates or State funding could contribute to part of that need, they will by no means cover the entire amount. The Federal Government must also step up its financial commitment to ensure that all individuals, including those new to the program, get the care they need. Unfortunately, we have not met the new demand. In the budget we are debating today, ADAP has only received a $10 million increase over amounts appropriated in 2005, the same amoun recommended by the House. In 2004, funding for ADAP only increased by $34 million. Year after year, ADAP goes underfunded, which means more and more low-income individuals are unable to access medications that may keep them alive. In my opinion, that is simply wrong. In response to funding shortfalls, many states, struggling with their own budgetary difficulties, have been forced to create waiting lists, implement additional cost sharing requirements or create restrictive formularies that create barriers for many individuals to access treatment. Other states with lower than average eligibility guidelines have been unable to extend coverage to individuals who live in poverty because they do not meet restrictive income and asset tests. The State of Oregon has done its best to keep ADAP service levels constant, with the support of organizations like Cascade AIDS. But it is becoming increasingly more difficult to meet the rowing need for assistance. Oregon's ADAP has been forced to implement priority service ran kings and may have to consider additional cost-sharing requirements next year. Our income eligibility guidelines have also been lowered, a change which means more individuals are going to go without the medications they need. Oregon is not alone. Currently, 2,185 low-income individuals are on waiting lists for ADAP nationwide. Some of these individuals have been fortunate enough to receive temporary assistance through an emergency initiative launched last year by the President. However, that program expired in September and will be entirely phased out by the end of the year. Individuals on waiting lists are sick and in most cases they only get sicker while they wait for treatment. Sadly, individuals on waiting lists in Kentucky and West Virginia died while waiting for acceptance into their States drug assistance programs. In a nation with wealth such as ours, it is unacceptable that individuals face the threat of dying from AIDS because we do not adequately fund the programs such as ADAP. Now is the time for Congress to act so further tragedies like these do not occur again. Apart from these unfortunate examples, others who are on waiting lists are only likely to see their conditions worsen, which means they may one day require more costly health care treatment. It is not good fiscal policy to continually fail to invest in medical treatments that could prevent HIV cases from progressing to full-blown AIDS. It is a fact that treating AIDS is much more expensive than treating HIV. The more we can do to keep individuals healthier, longer, the better, not only in terms of cost savings for the government, but in extending the chance that those living with HIV/AIDS can live to see a cure for their illness. As a matter of fiscal and moral responsibility, Senator Bingaman and I are offering an amendment today that would increase funding to ADAP programs by $74 million in the 2006 budget. That amount, combined with the new funding already in the bill, should just barely cover the costs associated with new caseload growth in the coming year. I know it will not be enough to address past funding inequities, but it is a start. We have to act now to do something to address ADAP waiting lists and support those States--like Oregon--that have fought to keep their programs whole, but often at the expense of imposing increased cost- sharing and additional access barriers. I understand there are enormous demands on the Federal budget, but this isn't an issue of increased spending, but of priorities. ADAP has the potential to save lives and must be a priority of this Congress. For too many years, appropriations have not kept pace with new case growth, and the situation is becoming unsustainable. We must act now to better support some of our most vulnerable citizens who live with HIV and that is why I am asking you to support my amendment. I realize I do not have an offset for my request and I respect Chairman Specter's position to keep the pending bill in balance. But at the same time, there are some issues that are of such great importance that they require us to commit new funding, regardless of whether it was accounted for in our original spending plan. ADAP is one of them. In a bill that appropriates almost $150 billion, I don't believe $74 million is too much to ask, especially if it could save someone's life.

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 July, 17, 2004, a 32-year-old gay man left a local Austin, TX, bar with two men, and walked home. The two men, Donald Bockman and Darren Gay, returned to the victim's home later that evening where they proceed to beat him and sexually assault him. Police say the two men dragged, tied-up, beat, cut, then sexually assaulted the victim. According to police, this attack was motivated by the victim's sexual orientation. I believe that our Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, in all circumstances, from threats to them at home. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a major step forward in achieving that goal. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. 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 February, 25, 2005, Thomas Stockwell was on the campus of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, when six men attacked him. Before chasing Stockwell down the street and beating him up, the men were heard yelling sexually derogatory slurs at him. According to reports, the motivation for the attack was Stockwell's sexual orientation. I believe that our Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, in all circumstances, from threats to them at home. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a major step forward in achieving that goal. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. 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 September, 19, 1998, two men and two women pulled up to Peter Johnson's car in Chicago, IL, and asked him if he was gay. When he replied that he was, the four people exited the vehicle and beat the man. He was then taken to a local hospital and treated for injuries that he had sustained during the attack. I believe that our Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, in all circumstances, from threats to them at home. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a major step forward in achieving that goal. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1862, the United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Act of 2005, which I introduced on October 7, 2005. This bill is designed to promote binational collaboration in research, development, and commercialization of alternative and renewable energy technologies. Israel is a strong ally of the United States and our two nations have a long history of mutual interest and successful collaboration in scientific research and technology development. Examples include the numerous successes of the programs under the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation, BSF, and the U.S.-Israel Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation, BIRD. We also share an enduring interest in the development and commercialization of alternative energy technologies that offer the promise of enhancing the energy security of both of our countries as well as that of other nations. Israel and the United States have strong capabilities in renewable and alternative technologies based on extensive research and development efforts. In 1996, the United States and Israel entered into an agreement fostering energy cooperation as a means of sharing the benefits of our capabilities. Today, we are facing increasing concerns about adequate supplies and increasing prices for both petroleum products and natural gas. In this context, it is especially important that we redouble our efforts to cooperate in the development of alternative energy systems. This bill establishes a grant program within the Department of Energy to support collaborative research, development, and commercialization projects in alternative renewable energy. The program will provide grants for joint venture projects between U.S. and Israeli institutions meeting the program qualifications established by the Secretary of Energy. The bill authorizes funding of $20 million for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2012. Technologies include: solar, biomass, energy efficiency, wind, and other types as determined by the Secretary. Proposals may be submitted either to the Secretary or to either of the binational research foundations, BSF and BIRD. This provision enables utilization of the established practices of those existing foundations for implementation of at least half of the funds granted for collaborative projects. To assure sound management of this grants program, this bill calls on the Secretary of Energy to establish an Advisory Board, including representatives of both the United States and Israel. I thank the American Jewish Congress, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, and others for all their efforts and input on this bill. In light of increasing concerns about the security of affordable energy supplies, I urge consideration of this bill as a means of capitalizing on considerable capabilities of the United States and Israel to move toward broader use of these clean and indigenous energy resources. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important bill.

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 August 8, 2005, in Montrose, CO, two men were charged in the murder of Kevin Hale in what police are saying may be classified as a hate crime. Todd Fisk and Adam Hernandez got into a physical altercation with Hale. During the altercation, Fiske grabbed Hale by the neck and strangled him to death. According to police, Hale had received a number of physical threats from Fiske due to his 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 Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Cantwell to introduce the Nanoscience to Commercialization Institutes Act of 2005. Still in its infancy, nanotechnology is an exciting technology with a bright future and the potential to have a significant impact on the economy, global competitiveness and the quality of life for our citizens. The advent of nanotechnology is creating opportunities in any array of industries with applications ranging from improving the performance of sports equipment used in recreation activities to life-saving medical applications used to combat deadly diseases such as cancer. Many promising technological advances have already begun to take shape in the world of micro- and nanotechnology and countless more potential future applications exist in fields such as medicine, electronics, energy to name a few. However, many times innovative research becomes victim of the ``Valley of Death'' by failing to advance from the research labs to application in commercial products and services. My bill will establish up to eight Nanoscience to Commercialization Institutes across the country, each focusing on a specific field of expertise including areas such as energy, electronics, agriculture, medical, textiles and transportation with the purpose of developing and bridging research to the marketplace. My bill is aimed at narrowing this so-called ``Valley of Death,'' by focusing on bringing research to commercialization. To reach this objective, my bill contains provisions requiring these institutes to partner with private sector entities with experience in micro- and nanotechnology and for each institute to develop and maintain business plans. My bill will create additional avenues for entities that are engaged in micro- and nanotechnologies to develop research for application in commercial products and services that will ultimately contribute to sustained economic development, an improved quality of living and increased U.S. global competitiveness. The competitive landscape of nanotechnology is global in nature. Other countries, such as Japan and China are making tremendous investments and advances in various specialties of nanotechnology to gain competitive advantages. It is critical the U.S. demonstrate its global leadership role by further advancing opportunities to advance micro- and nanotechnology to commercial applications. The future of nanotechnology is a bright future and its potential boundless. The legislation that I am introducing today with Senator Cantwell supports and encourages the advancement of this exciting technology. I urge my colleagues to support the Nanoscience to Commercialization Institutes Act of 2005. 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 Cantwell to introduce the Nanoscience to Commercialization Institutes Act of 2005. Still in its infancy, nanotechnology is an exciting technology with a bright future and the potential to have a significant impact on the economy, global competitiveness and the quality of life for our citizens. The advent of nanotechnology is creating opportunities in any array of industries with applications ranging from improving the performance of sports equipment used in recreation activities to life-saving medical applications used to combat deadly diseases such as cancer. Many promising technological advances have already begun to take shape in the world of micro- and nanotechnology and countless more potential future applications exist in fields such as medicine, electronics, energy to name a few. However, many times innovative research becomes victim of the ``Valley of Death'' by failing to advance from the research labs to application in commercial products and services. My bill will establish up to eight Nanoscience to Commercialization Institutes across the country, each focusing on a specific field of expertise including areas such as energy, electronics, agriculture, medical, textiles and transportation with the purpose of developing and bridging research to the marketplace. My bill is aimed at narrowing this so-called ``Valley of Death,'' by focusing on bringing research to commercialization. To reach this objective, my bill contains provisions requiring these institutes to partner with private sector entities with experience in micro- and nanotechnology and for each institute to develop and maintain business plans. My bill will create additional avenues for entities that are engaged in micro- and nanotechnologies to develop research for application in commercial products and services that will ultimately contribute to sustained economic development, an improved quality of living and increased U.S. global competitiveness. The competitive landscape of nanotechnology is global in nature. Other countries, such as Japan and China are making tremendous investments and advances in various specialties of nanotechnology to gain competitive advantages. It is critical the U.S. demonstrate its global leadership role by further advancing opportunities to advance micro- and nanotechnology to commercial applications. The future of nanotechnology is a bright future and its potential boundless. The legislation that I am introducing today with Senator Cantwell supports and encourages the advancement of this exciting technology. I urge my colleagues to support the Nanoscience to Commercialization Institutes Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.