Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the majority leader asked I take a few moments perhaps even of his time to offer some closing remarks on this important debate. I believe he asked me to do this because I have been a Republican Senator since the beginning of my service in this Chamber who has been an advocate for gay rights. I have been an advocate for gay rights while still believing the right to defend traditional marriage. Because of that, I was drawn with interest to an editorial of the New York Times back on April 2, 2004. It frankly reflected many of my feelings. It noted in the editorial: The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research and advocacy group, has been collecting poll results on gay issues going back three decades. The numbers document a profound change in attitudes, most strikingly on employment issues but also in areas like adoption rights, legal benefits and acceptance of gay relations. The Times goes on to note, however: There are lots of theories to explain these more tolerant attitudes. Our own guess is that as more and more gays have acknowledged their sexual orientation, straight Americans have come to see that gays are not deviants to be feared, but valued friends, neighbors, and colleagues, who are not much different from anyone else. I believe that, too. The Times then notes: Sadly, the poll data shows little easing of opposition to gay marriages in recent years, with roughly three-fifths or more of the public still opposed. Everyone has their own theory as to why the American people remain opposed. I would offer my theory as this: In the inner recesses of the American conscience, I think the American people understand that when we tinker with the most basic institution that governs relationships of men and women, we are tinkering with the foundations of our culture, our civilization, our Nation, and our future. I think the American people understand what the great Roman Senator Cicero, a pagan, once described to the Roman Senate: that marriage is the first bond of society. I think many of my colleagues have come with very interesting reasons for their positions on these votes. One of them is States rights. I say this respectfully--and I include myself in the accusation--we all invoke States rights when it serves our political ends. My concern, however, is this: that by standing behind States rights on this issue, they are just standing aside while their States rights get rolled. Make no mistake, our Constitution is being amended. The question is, by whom? Should it be done by a few liberal elites? Should it be done by four judges in Massachusetts? Should it be done by a few rogue mayors around the country, or by clandestine county commissioners, without public notice or public meeting, changing hundreds of years of State law and centuries of human practice? I think many would argue reasonably that ripeness is an issue. Is it time for us to begin this debate and have this vote? I would suggest, whether it is ripe now, if I am right as to what the Federal courts will do--specifically, the Ninth Circuit that governs my State--I believe it will eventually come to every Senator to answer this basic question, and it is this; Shall marriage in the United States consist only of the union of a man and a woman? Today, I answer yes. It is just on a procedural vote, but the substance of my vote is yes. It is yes because I believe marriage, as traditionally practiced, is an ideal worth preserving. However imperfectly practiced, it is perfect in principle. And it is perfect in principle because it involves more than just consenting adults. It involves the creation of children and their natural nurture and rearing. I believe in the United States, boys and girls still need the ideals of moms and dads.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On September 30, 2003, in San Pablo, CA, Police Officers found a transgender hair stylist named Sindy Cuarda wearing a blouse and pants, bleeding heavily from several gunshot wounds in the driveway of a business in San Pablo. She was shot in the chest and genitals. Though police have not commented on the case, witnesses have said that it was motivated out of hate. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an important free trade agreement that was recently signed between the United States and Australia. Earlier today, I was pleased to join an overwhelming majority of my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee to report out this agreement favorably, and I am hopeful that within the next day, the full Senate will give its consent as well. This vote not only reaffirms our strong relationship with a close ally but marks an important step forward on our path toward economic recovery. Since 1994, two-way trade between the United States and Australia has increased 53 percent to nearly $29 billion. Australia purchases more goods from the United States than any other country, giving the United States a $9 billion bilateral goods and services trade surplus. Last year alone, my homestate of Oregon exported more than $257 million in merchandise to Australia. These exports accounted for 2.5 percent of the State total in 2003. The elimination of trade barriers between the two countries promises to increase these figures even more. Under the agreement, duties on almost all manufactured goods will be eliminated. This will result in first-year tariff savings of about $300 million for U.S. manufactured goods exporters. For Western Star--a subsidiary of DaimlerChrysler-- located in Portland, OR, this translates to savings of nearly $2 million a year in eliminated tariffs and duties that currently average $4,000 per truck exported to Australia. It is estimated that U.S.- Australia Free Trade Agreement will result in approximately $2 billion of new U.S. exports. This agreement will also open new doors for U.S. farmers. U.S. agricultural exports to Australia, totaling more than $700 million last year, will receive immediate duty-free access. This means American farmers will be better poised to compete in a market of over 19 million people. Additionally, food inspection procedures that have posed barriers in the past have been addressed, and substantial safeguards have been written into the agreement to ensure a smoothe and stable transition for our domestic meat and dairy industries. As I come here today, I realize that there are those who still have reservations over the prospects of expanded trade. While the benefits of a more liberalized trade policy are vast, I know that they have not been spread evenly across all sectors. I am confident, however, that the safeguards in this agreement will ensure a stable market for domestic procedures while providing new market access and real consumer benefits. I believe this agreement is good for the United States, and I urge its passage.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, water is a precious resource that we must begin to manage as efficiently as possible. In several parts of the country, development is constrained by the lack of good quality water and water infrastructure. Having dealt with the water crisis in the Klamath Basin in 2001, when 1,200 farmers and ranchers had their irrigation water cut off, I can tell you firsthand that the conflicts between competing human and environmental needs are real and are growing. Benjamin Franklin wrote in Poor Richard's Almanack in 1746, ``When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.'' Well, in parts of the West, the well is quickly running dry. As the Los Angeles Times reported on June 18, 2004, the Western United States may be facing the biggest drought in 500 years. The current effects in the Colorado River Basin are considerably worse than those experienced during the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s. The 10-year drought in the Colorado River Basin has produced the lowest flows on record, straining an important water supply resource for millions of people. One immediate way to stretch available water supplies, as well as energy resources, is to provide incentives for water and energy efficient appliances. That is why I am introducing a bill to provide tax credits for the manufacture of highly efficient residential clothes washers, dishwashers and refrigerators. The bill builds on the tax credits for energy-efficient appliances pending before the Senate, which--if enacted--will expire in 2007. Under this bill, for the first time, water efficiency is included in the eligibility criteria for the tax credits, and the energy efficiency criteria are higher. This bill provides graduated credits to manufacturers. The more efficient the dishwasher, clothes washer or refrigerator, the higher the credit. The daily per capita water use around the world varies significantly. The U.N. Population Fund cites that in the United States, we use an estimated 152 gallons per day per person, while in the United Kingdom they use 388 gallons. Africans use 12 gallons a day. According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, 47 percent of all water supplied to communities in the United States by public and private utilities is for residential water use. Of that, clothes washers account for approximately 22 percent of residential use, while dishwashers account for about 3 percent. I firmly believe that we can use technology to improve our environmental stewardship. Water efficiency can extend our finite water supplies, and also reduce the amount of wastewater that communities must treat. High efficiency clothes washers use 20 to 30 gallons per load, compared to the 40 to 45 gallons top-loading machines use. The average annual household water savings is estimated to be 3,500 to 6,000 gallons. Energy savings estimates range from 68 to 70 percent compared to older, standard clothes washers. High efficiency dishwashers use 39 percent less energy to heat the water and 39 percent less water than standard models. Refrigerators must use at least 30 percent less energy than comparably sized models to receive a credit under this bill. While plumbing fixtures such as toilets, showerheads and faucets must meet U.S. water efficiency standards, water-using appliances are not governed by any water-efficiency standards. We can, however, provide an incentive to lower the cost of these water and energy saving appliances, which are generally more costly to manufacture than standard models. Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important bill to provide incentives for water and energy efficient residential appliances. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, water is a precious resource that we must begin to manage as efficiently as possible. In several parts of the country, development is constrained by the lack of good quality water and water infrastructure. Having dealt with the water crisis in the Klamath Basin in 2001, when 1,200 farmers and ranchers had their irrigation water cut off, I can tell you firsthand that the conflicts between competing human and environmental needs are real and are growing. Benjamin Franklin wrote in Poor Richard's Almanack in 1746, ``When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.'' Well, in parts of the West, the well is quickly running dry. As the Los Angeles Times reported on June 18, 2004, the Western United States may be facing the biggest drought in 500 years. The current effects in the Colorado River Basin are considerably worse than those experienced during the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s. The 10-year drought in the Colorado River Basin has produced the lowest flows on record, straining an important water supply resource for millions of people. One immediate way to stretch available water supplies, as well as energy resources, is to provide incentives for water and energy efficient appliances. That is why I am introducing a bill to provide tax credits for the manufacture of highly efficient residential clothes washers, dishwashers and refrigerators. The bill builds on the tax credits for energy-efficient appliances pending before the Senate, which--if enacted--will expire in 2007. Under this bill, for the first time, water efficiency is included in the eligibility criteria for the tax credits, and the energy efficiency criteria are higher. This bill provides graduated credits to manufacturers. The more efficient the dishwasher, clothes washer or refrigerator, the higher the credit. The daily per capita water use around the world varies significantly. The U.N. Population Fund cites that in the United States, we use an estimated 152 gallons per day per person, while in the United Kingdom they use 388 gallons. Africans use 12 gallons a day. According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, 47 percent of all water supplied to communities in the United States by public and private utilities is for residential water use. Of that, clothes washers account for approximately 22 percent of residential use, while dishwashers account for about 3 percent. I firmly believe that we can use technology to improve our environmental stewardship. Water efficiency can extend our finite water supplies, and also reduce the amount of wastewater that communities must treat. High efficiency clothes washers use 20 to 30 gallons per load, compared to the 40 to 45 gallons top-loading machines use. The average annual household water savings is estimated to be 3,500 to 6,000 gallons. Energy savings estimates range from 68 to 70 percent compared to older, standard clothes washers. High efficiency dishwashers use 39 percent less energy to heat the water and 39 percent less water than standard models. Refrigerators must use at least 30 percent less energy than comparably sized models to receive a credit under this bill. While plumbing fixtures such as toilets, showerheads and faucets must meet U.S. water efficiency standards, water-using appliances are not governed by any water-efficiency standards. We can, however, provide an incentive to lower the cost of these water and energy saving appliances, which are generally more costly to manufacture than standard models. Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important bill to provide incentives for water and energy efficient residential appliances. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On February 25, 2001, a transgendered man named Victor Pachas was beaten, stabbed, slashed, and asphyxiated by a man who, according to his own attorneys, was ``driven by revulsion and fear'' of Pachas' sexual orientation. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. By passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On February 10, 2000, in Bay Shore, NY, Javier Morales was charged with allegedly assaulting a man he believed was gay. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Allard for his willingness to change and clarify the proposal he makes today so that it leaves open to the States the elbow room that is appropriate to define legal rights for nontraditional families, gays and lesbians, and others. It is a fact that sociologists say marriage, as we have traditionally known and practiced it, is the ideal circumstance for the creation and rearing and nurturing of children. But it is a fact that not all children have the opportunity of a family with a mother and a father, though what marriage does as a legal institution is to say to children here and those yet unborn that there is a legal framework in which they can enjoy protection and have the society of a mother and a father. It is clear as we wrestle with this sensitive issue, it is clear to the conscience of the American people that boys and girls need moms and dads. Not all get them, but the law has provided a framework for it. Those children who do not have it should also enjoy legal protections not unlike those that are enjoyed in the institution of marriage. In all the time that I have been a U.S. Senator, I have been an advocate of gay rights. Yet throughout that time I also have believed it right to defend traditional marriage. I have tried hard to be clear, consistent, and careful about this issue and this debate. I know my position as being for gay rights but for traditional marriage is a disappointment to many of my gay and lesbian friends. I also note for the record I get little credit from the right because I do advocate for many gay rights. Indeed, the other night on his radio program, Dr. James Dobson said to a national audience, which included many Oregonians, that I was not going to vote for traditional marriage. I wish he hadn't done that. I believe that is a form of bearing false witness because I have been clear and I have been consistent on this point. He may owe me no apology, but I wish he would make it clear to my constituents. I make no apology for supporting many of the needs of gay and lesbian Americans. Issues of public safety, housing, employment, benefits: these are rights that we take for granted, rights which many of them have felt out of reach. So I have believed it is not just right to advocate for these things but it even be a part of my belief system to advocate for those who are oppressed and to show tolerance by helping those in need. Matthew Shephard comes to mind, and many others who have suffered hate crimes against them in the most vicious of fashion. I think our society is changing its heart on these issues in ways that Americans want to be tolerant, they want to be careful, they want to say to gays and lesbians that we love you, we include you, we care about you. But in saying that, I think many feel intuitively to be careful on the issue of marriage. Marriage is a word. Words have meaning. Few words have more meaning to our culture and our future and our civilization than marriage because marriage ultimately is about more than just consenting adults. It is about the natural rearing and nurturing of children, preparing them for citizenship under the most ideal circumstances possible. Senator Robert Byrd often comes to this Chamber, and I love it when he quotes Cicero, an ancient Roman Senator. So I quote Cicero this morning. Cicero said very long ago, ``The first bond of society is marriage.'' I believe Cicero was right. He was not a religious man, he was a secular man. He was a nonbeliever. But he also saw the incredible benefit to building up citizens of Rome through this first bond of society which was then and is still marriage. I suppose I take this position, a nuanced position, to be sure, because I am somewhat of an old-fashioned idealist. However imperfectly practiced by the American people, marriage still is a perfect ideal. I think the American people deserve a debate on this that is civil, that is respectful, and that includes all Americans. Some have come to this floor, and will in the coming days, to hold up the Constitution. Here is a copy of it. They will say this is a sacred document, a document that should not be amended. I will admit to the Presiding Officer it would be better that we not have to do this, to even resort to a constitutional amendment. But this is what Article V of the Bill of Rights says: The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution. . . . It goes on. They would not have included this Article V in the Bill of Rights if it were not intended that this be a living document. But they intended the Constitution to be a living document, and the United States has amended this Constitution 27 times. Were it not a living document, this document would have failed. Were it not subject to amendment, the most egregious kinds of actions would have been put in place that would have made us ashamed forever. For example, perhaps the most dreadful decision ever rendered under this Constitution was that of Dred Scott. Roger B. Taney, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, held that African Americans were not human and were the subject of property and could be controlled as property like any other chattel. That is a decision that goes down in infamy, if ever there was one. It took a Civil War and then the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, which before was silent on the issue of slavery, to ultimately overcome this insidious practice in parts of the United States. Some say: Well, that is a sacred thing that was done. And I agree, it was. I believe the Constitution is both sacred and secular, but living and improving, and open to debate. I mentioned the last time the Constitution was amended was in 1992. It is the twenty-seventh amendment. It reads: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. That is the twenty-seventh amendment. It is about money. It is about salaries for Senators and Representatives. I suggest to you that may be appropriate to be in the Constitution because it went through the process, but there is nothing sacred about that. So the question then becomes, Is it appropriate to put a definition of marriage into our Constitution? I would say, as a matter of preference, it is better not to put cultural issues in the Constitution, until you come to this question: Shall the Constitution be amended? And I tell everyone, the Constitution of the United States is about to be amended. The question is: By whom? Will it be done by a few liberal judges in Massachusetts, a lawless mayor in San Francisco, or clandestine county commissioners, or by the American people in a lawful, constitutional process, as laid out in our founding document? You will hear lots of people beating on their chests and sounding very sanctimonious in this debate that: We should not do this or that. But the truth is, the Constitution is going to be amended. And I say: Include the American people. Now, some also say: The issue of marriage has nothing to do with the Federal Government. Leave it to the States. My family has an interesting history in regard to leaving it to the States. My ancestors were, for the most part, Mormon pioneers who came from England in little boats, crossed the ocean, and walked across the country. They had a peculiar practice among them. It is found throughout the pages of the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament. They practiced a principle they called ``plural marriage.'' The marriages practiced by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. My great-grandfather David King Udall had two wives, one large, happy family. I am descended from the second. He came to America, helped found the State of Arizona, and spent time in prison because he violated a Federal law, the Edmunds-Tucker law from the 1870s, in which the Federal Government defined marriage as ``one man and one woman.'' He was a great man, a great pioneer, had great sons and daughters who helped the desert of the West blossom as a rose. He has a large posterity. He sacrificed much for the principle of his faith. But he paid a price because the Federal Government, long ago, defined what marriage was. Ultimately, Grover Cleveland pardoned him, and he named one of his sons Grover Cleveland Udall. Some people would say this is enacting discrimination into the Constitution. Well, my progenitors were discriminated against, I guess, but the truth is, our country through a lawful process in the 1860s and 1870s defined marriage at the Federal level. Now what is happening? What is happening in our country is we have elected officials and unelected judges reinterpreting the Constitutions of their States and of our Nation to find in it rights that are not mentioned in it. This has happened a lot in recent years. I have concluded it is better that these things be resolved with the American people than without them. The American people have a sense of fairness and tolerance and justice and right and wrong. What is happening is their views, their values, their beliefs, their respect for law is being trampled upon by a few liberal elites. That is not right. In my own State of Oregon, in 1862, Oregon passed its law on marriage. Mr. President, 142 years have transpired, 142 years of Oregon law and practice and custom. But what happened recently? Four or five county commissioners in one of our counties ignored 142 years of law, ignored 1,000 years and more of human history, and, without notice, without a public meeting, changed the law. To me, this is deeply disappointing and terribly undemocratic. Before this happens again, I think it is appropriate, on an issue this central to our country, to our civilization, to the future, we involve ``we the people.'' The only way to do that is through a constitutional process. Now, I wish this cup would pass from us. I do not like this. I love people. I believe in tolerance. But I believe in democracy. Many will tell you we should leave this alone. But if you leave this alone, you will leave it to others. And if you leave it to others, they will dictate to the American people what it has to be. The only recourse then available--when a Federal judge nullifies all State DOMA or constitutional provisions of the several States, finding an equal protection right to same-gender marriage--the only recourse then is through the constitutional process laid out by the fifth amendment in the Bill of Rights. That is how you include the American people. I say public meetings, public notice, public debates, let people vote, let their elected representatives in the several States vote on it. If we are going to change it, let's change it with the American people, not at the American people. Unfortunately, that seems to be what many who will argue against this want to happen. They want to do this to us, not with us. For the record, let me express to my gay and lesbian friends, I don't mean to disappoint you, but I can't be true to you if I am false to my basic beliefs. I believe that marriage, as we have known and practiced it in this country for hundreds of years now, is something that should be preserved. New structures can be created, new legal rights conferred, without taking down this word that represents an ideal--not about adults but including children. I mean to hurt no one's feelings in my position. I intend to be your champion on many issues in the future, if you want me. But on this one, I have to be able to get up in the morning and look in the mirror and be true to myself. I have spoken what I believe to be true this morning. I believe marriage is more profoundly important than we might now recognize. Before we let a few tell the many what it is going to be, I think we ought to debate it, carefully consider it, because while we debate issues of war and peace and recession and prosperity, some will say there are so many more important things to discuss than this. I say to you, there probably isn't a more important issue to discuss than the legal structure that binds men and women together for the creation and the rearing and nurturing of future generations of Americans. I make no apology for my vote for this process, for an amendment that defines marriage, because that is where it is headed, because the courts will compel it. And our legal structure gives American citizens an avenue to be included. So with my vote, I say include we the people. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between both sides.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On October 14, 1992, Robert K. Woelfel, a transgendered individual, was shot twice by a shotgun blast. Harold Maas, the assailant, claimed to have been assaulted by an unidentified transgendered individual the year before and allegedly shot Woelfel in retribution for that crime. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 8, 2004, at 10 a.m., in open session to consider the following nominations: Admiral Vernon E. Clark, USN, for reappointment to the grade of Admiral and to be chief of Naval Operations; and Lieutenant General James E. Cartwright, USMC, for appointment to the grade of General and to be Commander, United States Strategic Command. committee on commerce, science, and transportation

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 8, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. on S. 2411--Assistance to Firefighters Act of 2004. committee on the judiciary

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, July 8, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Building Room 226. Agenda: I. Nominations: Claude A. Allen to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, Michael H. Watson to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, David W. McKeague to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, Richard A. Griffin to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, Virginia Maria Hernandez Covington to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida. II. Legislation: S. 1635, L-1 Visa (Intracompany Transferee) Reform Act of 2003, Chambliss, S.J. Res. 4, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States Act of 2003, Hatch, Feinstein, Craig, Sessions, DeWine, Grassley, Graham, Cornyn, Chambliss, Specter, Kyl, S. 1700, Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act of 2003, Hatch, Biden, Specter, Leahy, DeWine, Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Kohl, Edwards, S. 2396, Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2004, Hatch, Leahy, Chambliss, Durbin, Schumer. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. subcommittee on financial management, the budget, and international security

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 8, 2004 at 10:30 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Oversight Hearing on the Federal Government's 2003 Financial Statement: Improving Accountability of American Taxpayers' Dollars.'' THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Mr. Wyden, to introduce the ``Friends of the Children National Demonstration Act'' to authorize funding for Friends of the Children. Friends of the Children is a promising early intervention program established in Portland, Oregon, in 1993. The program identifies the most disadvantaged children at the kindergarten or first grade level and matches those children with ``professional mentors'' (also known as ``Friends''). Once matched, professional mentors work with children for a period of up to 12 years. Started over a decade ago with just three Friends serving as mentors to 24 children, Friends of the Children has grown to serve over 600 children in 11 communities throughout the United States. The mission of Friends of the Children is to help our Nation's most disadvantaged children to develop the relationships, goals, and skills necessary to break the cycles of poverty, abuse, and violence in order to become a contributing member of society. Extensive research has shown that the single most important factor that fosters resiliency in children is having a long-term relationship with a caring, supportive adult. Friends of the Children is a unique program that provides just such a relationship for disadvantaged children. In 1993, Friends of the Children welcomed T.R., a first grader, into the Portland program. At home, T.R. was routinely exposed to drug use, gang activity, and violence. Through the program, T.R. was matched with his mentor, Jerrell, to help maintain a support system in T.R.'s life. Jerrell tutors, counsels, advises and is a companion to T.R. whether it is discussing T.R.'s plans for the future or dealing with his family relationships. Without the help of someone like Jerrell, T.R. believes that he would probably have dropped out of school or joined a gang. Now, T.R. is giving back to his community by working for Self Enhancement, Inc., an organization that teaches leadership skills to middle school students. T.R. has overcome great adversity to mature into a responsible young adult. T.R. aspires to pursue a career in business and would like to run his own company one day. Last week, T.R. became one of the first students to graduate from the Friends of the Children program. Along with his classmates, T.R. was identified by the program over a decade ago. He was part of a group of children identified as the most in danger of abuse, neglect, juvenile delinquency, gang and drug involvement, school failure, and teenage pregnancy. Today, these children have grown into young adults. They have positive values and show great potential to become healthy, productive members of their communities. ``The Friends of the Children National Demonstration Act'' will establish a national demonstration project to promote learning about successful early and sustained childhood intervention programs. This bill would authorize funding for Friends of the Children activities and local program operations at existing sites including ongoing evaluation, and dissemination of findings for the benefit of policy makers and other youth programs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this bill and make a commitment to improving the lives of disadvantaged children and youth.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, there are many arguments hot and heavy being made today about the important issues that confront our country, issues about our security, about our troops, about the hot summer that is threatened by terrorists, about our economy and its recovery, and I know there are strong feelings on both sides of the aisle. But I hope today to show the American people that we are bigger than just partisans, that there are times when our Nation's elected officials can come together, put aside political and party differences, and actually debate and pass legislation. My bill that I am talking about now in the company of Mike DeWine, the Senator from Ohio--and I believe Senator Dodd of Connecticut will soon join us--is a bill, I suppose, on a smaller subject than war and peace and economic recovery, but it is nevertheless a bill about life and death, so it is important. It is not a far-reaching bill. It is not even all that expensive, certainly not in relationship to all that our Congress will consider, but it represents an important milestone in our country's battle against mental illness and specifically youth suicide. Later tonight, this bill will be introduced by the majority leader. I thank him for his sensitivity and willingness to proceed on this bill. He has been of enormous help to my wife and me in this struggle. I thank also Senator Daschle for truly making this a bipartisan issue. See, what Senator Frist and Senator Daschle understand is that mental illnesses do not register by party; they afflict Republican and Democratic families alike. I would like to thank Senator Gregg, the chairman of the committee, and his staff for their willingness to proceed with this legislation. It would not have happened without him. I would like to thank Senator DeWine. He and his wife Fran know something about family suffering, having lost a child of their own, so he has been unusually sensitive to Sharon and me on this issue. He has championed one of the bills, the major part of this bill we will take up today. I thank you, Senator DeWine. I want to show further how we as partisans, as Republicans and Democrats, are first Americans. During the hearing we had on this bill, it was Senator Dodd, who is the ranking member of the committee, who suggested that if we accomplish little else in this Congress, we at least ought to do this much. Senator Dodd is one of the nicest and most decent Members of this Chamber. There are other Senators of whom I want to take note. Senator Jack Reed has been especially sensitive and has helped to write a big portion of this bill as it relates to campus suicide. Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic whip--his family also having suffered with a suicide--has been a champion of mental health issues and specifically on the issue of how to intervene, interdict, and to stop suicide when it is at all possible. Finally, I would like to speak of Senator Kennedy. I have looked at him often in this Chamber. I have thought of him as a lion in winter. He certainly has a lion's roar in this Chamber. Yet underlying the lion's roar, Senator Kennedy has a heart that is filled with compassion for people. No one on either side of the aisle should ever question his motive, and his motive is as good as gold even though you can reasonably disagree with his method. He has been of unusual help to me and to Sharon as we suffer the loss of our son. He has known much suffering in his days, and I thank Senator Kennedy. Finally, I must mention Arlen Specter, the subcommittee chairman of the Appropriations Committee that helps fund the mental health issues. For a long time, he has found ways to fund programs to help with mental illnesses. And he has been helpful in a tight year with a tight budget trying to find the resources that can be utilized for the authorization of funds this bill will provide. Enough of those things, and now to the substantial. Most of you can probably discern by now that my emotions are still somewhat tender. I didn't volunteer to be a champion of this issue. But it arose out of the personal experience of being a parent who lost a child to mental illness through suicide. Last September, Sharon and I lost our son Garrett Lee Smith to a long battle that he suffered from mental illness. He suffered emotional pain that I cannot begin to comprehend, and he ultimately sought relief by taking his life. While Sharon and I think about Garrett every day and mourn his loss, we take solace in the time we had with Garrett and say to all those who suffer the loss of loved ones that the very best antedote for grief is the gratitude you had for your loved one for a time on Earth. Sharon and I have committed ourselves each in our own way to preserving Garrett's memory by trying to help others so that other families and children do not suffer a similar fate. Sharon and I adopted Garrett a few days after his birth. He was a beautiful child, a handsome baby boy. Forgive me. He was thoughtful of everyone around him as he grew older. His life, however, began to dim in his elementary years. He struggled to spell. His reading and writing were stuck in the rudiments. We had him tested and were surprised to learn that he had an unusually high IQ, but he struggled with a severe overlay of learning disabilities, including dyslexia. However, it would be many years later until we learned how extensive his true illness was because of his diagnosis, which was a bipolar condition. Bipolar disorder, also known as manic-depressive illness, is a brain disorder that causes unusual shifts in a person's mood, energy, and ability to function. Different from normal ups and downs that we all experience, the symptoms of bipolar disorder are severe. People who suffer from bipolar experience swings from manic highs where sleep and eating are not desired, to deep catastrophic depressions where simply getting out of bed can be too much of a challenge. In the United States, more than 2 million American adults suffer from bipolar disorder. This illness typically develops in late adolescence or early childhood. However, some people have their first symptoms during childhood, while others develop them late in life. It can be a debilitating illness. And, as in Garrett's case, it can lead to worse tragedies. As his parents, we knew how long and how desperately Garrett had suffered from his condition and his very dark depression. While we knew intuitively that suicide was possible in his case, there are simply no parental preparations adequate for this crisis in one's own child, no owner's manual to help one in burying a child, especially when the cause is suicide. So I have committed myself to trying to find meaning in Garrett's life by helping to pass, with the help of my colleagues, an important first step to ending the epidemic of youth suicide. It is no small task, but one that I believe should be a top priority of this Congress because every year approximately 30,000 Americans commit suicide in the United States--a number that is almost twice as high as the number of homicides in our country. Almost 700,000 Americans are treated in hospitals every year for self-inflicted wounds and attempted suicides. But keep in mind these figures don't tell the whole story. They do not account for the families, the friends, the coworkers who are affected by each suicide. Suicide and attempts do not simply leave an impression on the individual's life, it leaves a deep impact on everyone who knows the person or a family member of that person. America's youth are committing suicide at staggering rates. Suicide is the third leading cause of death for people age 10 to 24 years--the third leading cause. That is why this bill, at Mike DeWine's suggestion, named the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, is so vitally important. It takes the first significant step toward creating and funding an organized effort at the Federal and State levels to prevent and intervene when youth are at risk for mental and behavioral conditions that can lead to suicide. The loss of life to suicide at any age is tragic and traumatic. But when it happens to someone who has just begun life, has just begun to fulfill their potential, the impact somehow seems harsher, sadder, more out of season, more tragic. Garrett had just begun to reach his potential. His big smile and generous spirit allowed him to befriend everyone, popular or not. Wisely or not, his mother and I showered him with creature comforts as yet another way to show him that we loved him and that we valued him. But as a testament to his character, we later found out that much of what we gave him in a material way he readily gave to others less fortunate. He also wanted to accomplish three things in life. He wanted to be an Eagle Scout, he wanted to graduate from high school, and he wanted to serve his church on a mission. He accomplished those three things, largely because of the efforts of his angel mother. He loved his mission companions, he loved his church, he deeply loved his Savior, and a chance of serving others in his name. Unfortunately, his struggle against his periods of deep depression became too much. We sought out help from school and church counselors, psychologists, and ultimately a psychiatrist. But words of encouragement, prayers earnestly offered, and the latest medical prescriptions could not repair our son's hard- wiring defects. Garrett's bipolar condition was a cancer to him, as lethal as leukemia to anyone else. It filled his spirit with hopelessness and clouded his future in darkness. He saw only despair ahead and felt only pain in the present, pain and despair so potent that he sought suicide as a refuge, a release. The bill I offer today with these great colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, is intended to help other people who suffer from mental illnesses that are so devastating it places them at risk for taking their own lives. No family should experience the pain we have suffered and no child should face the challenges of mental illness alone. When signed into law, this bill will authorize $60 million over 3 years to create a system focused on establishing in each State a statewide early intervention and prevention strategy. It ensures that 85 percent of the funding will be provided to the entities focused on identifying and preventing suicide at the State and community levels. Entities apply to the State for funding and can utilize a variety of options to implement the tenets of statewide strategy. One option that Sharon and I have recently championed in our own hometown is the Columbia University Teen Screen Program. We have chosen to endow this program in our community in our son's memory, in the town of Pendleton, OR, from which I hail. All sixth graders who have their parents' consent will be screened each year for mental illnesses that can lead to suicide and they will receive referrals for treatment. Our hope in sponsoring this program is to help as many children as possible at as early an age, as young as possible, because if we identify mental illness early, we may be able to prevent thousands upon thousands of youth suicides. The bill also authorizes the Suicide Prevention Resource Centers that will provide technical assistance to States and local grantees to ensure they are able to implement their statewide early intervention and prevention strategies. It also will collect the data related to the programs, evaluate the effectiveness of the program, and identify and distribute best practices to other States around the country. Sharing technical data and program best practices is necessary to ensure that Federal funding is being utilized in the best manner possible. That information is being circulated among participants. Finally, the bill will provide funding to help colleges and universities establish mental health programs or enhance existing mental health programs focused on increasing access to and enhancing the range of mental and behavioral health services for students. Entering college can be one of the most disruptive and demanding times of a young person's life, but for persons with mental illnesses the challenges can be overwhelming. Loss of their parental support system, familiar and easily accessible health care providers can often become too much of a burden to bear. That is why we have, for the first time, focused Federal funding on improving the support structures available at our colleges and universities. I simply say with emphasis to my colleagues, we have a suicide epidemic on American university campuses because kids leave their homes and need support structures. As in the case of our son, when you are not there and they do not have someone to fall back on, sometimes the most innocent kinds of disappointments for you and me can be life ending to them. These are the kinds of situations which we hope to better predict. I say in conclusion, the components of this bill will ensure that we begin to address the staggering problem of youth suicide. I am pleased to be a champion of this cause, not because I volunteered for it but because I have suffered over it. This bill, with the support of my colleagues, will be a marvelous beginning to say to the American mothers and fathers, we care about you, we know your struggles, we know your suffering, and we are trying to help. Where you cannot be there, we are going to do our level best to make sure there are professionals, there are people to help, so we can put an end to this epidemic and let our youth know that mental illness is not something from which they should shrink but something about which they should seek help. If we do this, my colleagues, I assure you, whatever else we may or may not accomplish in this Congress, we can leave here with pride that we did a very good thing for the young men and women of the United States of America. I urge the passage of this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I received a note from Senator Hillary Clinton asking that she be added as an original cosponsor to the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. So on her behalf, I ask unanimous consent that she be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be added as an original cosponsor of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, along with Senator Corzine and my colleague Senator Wyden, from Oregon, and Senator Hatch, who have also requested they be added as original cosponsors.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the Senator from New Mexico, in the darkest of hours after my son's death, his call was one of the most important that I received because he has struggled with his daughter. He has now spoken here with a passion on mental health issues so that I think all America better understands, if they listened to him. Pete Domenici of New Mexico was the first person who said to me that my son had an illness that I could not fix. My son had an illness not unlike leukemia or cancer or congestive heart failure; that it was, in fact, a lethal illness and not to beat myself up about it. I beat myself up, anyway--I still do--wondering, would have, could have, should have, but Pete Domenici helped this Senator to go back to work, to find joy again in living, and to share with him the passion that comes from suffering and the understanding that comes from a loved one who is beyond rational reach. I have come to believe that it is true, what Pete Domenici taught me in my darkest hour; that is, that mental health is just as real a problem as physical health and that we need to learn more about it. We need more professionals trained about it; we need more focus on it. It has ramifications for business that result in lost worktime, no-shows, layoffs, family tragedies. With a little bit of intervention, a little more compassion, we can get ahead of this and begin to treat it as we might other diseases. I admit, we have a lot more to learn. My bill, our bill, does not include parity. My bill is a start. My bill is a slice of the problem. The Senator from New Mexico is right. His bill takes on the whole problem in a way that ultimately we need to resolve as a Congress and as a country. I thank Senator Domenici for listening to me, for putting his clothes back on, for coming back on down here, sharing with me, with all of America who care about this issue, that this problem is bigger than my bill addresses, our bill addresses, but it is legislating within the realm of the possible. It is a good beginning, an important beginning. Perhaps it is aimed at just the most vulnerable among us, and that is our youth who need a little more help than we have been giving as a country. I thank the Senator. I turn back his time to him.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleagues, Senators Kohl and Lugar to introduce this important piece of legislation. Legislation that will 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 may know, Congress as part of Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) modified the SSI program to include a 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 because applicants are required to live in the United States for a minimum of five years prior to applying for citizenship and the INS often takes three or more years to process the application. Because of this time delay, many individuals are trapped in the system faced with the loss of their SSI benefits. If Congress does not act to change the law, reports show that over the next four years nearly 30,000 elderly and disabled refugees and asylees will lose their Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits because their seven-year time limit will expire before they become citizens. 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. I would like to share the story of Yelena, a victim of religious persecution in the former Soviet Union who sought refuge in the United States seven years ago and is currently living in Portland, Oregon. At the age of 82, Yelena relies on SSI and other public benefits programs to buy food and pay her monthly bills. Yelena is now stuck in a multi- year backlog waiting for her green card, the first step toward citizenship. She was raised in a small village in the Soviet Union where she had little access to formal education and never learned English. She has struggled to grasp the language since arriving in the US and as a result, her seven-year anniversary arrived before she was able to naturalize. Yelena is now without her SSI benefits and still fighting to become a citizen. We must help Yelena and others like her. The Administration in its fiscal year 2005 budget acknowledged the necessity to correct this problem by dedicating funding in its budget 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 Grassley and other members of the Finance Committee to secure these changes.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two of my interns, Evan Mueller and Dana Dryer, be granted the privilege of the floor during this discussion.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On November 20, 1995, a young transsexual woman named Chanelle Picket was beaten severely and then strangled to death after leaving a gay bar in downtown Boston. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleagues, Senators Kohl and Lugar to introduce this important piece of legislation. Legislation that will 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 may know, Congress as part of Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) modified the SSI program to include a 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 because applicants are required to live in the United States for a minimum of five years prior to applying for citizenship and the INS often takes three or more years to process the application. Because of this time delay, many individuals are trapped in the system faced with the loss of their SSI benefits. If Congress does not act to change the law, reports show that over the next four years nearly 30,000 elderly and disabled refugees and asylees will lose their Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits because their seven-year time limit will expire before they become citizens. 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. I would like to share the story of Yelena, a victim of religious persecution in the former Soviet Union who sought refuge in the United States seven years ago and is currently living in Portland, Oregon. At the age of 82, Yelena relies on SSI and other public benefits programs to buy food and pay her monthly bills. Yelena is now stuck in a multi- year backlog waiting for her green card, the first step toward citizenship. She was raised in a small village in the Soviet Union where she had little access to formal education and never learned English. She has struggled to grasp the language since arriving in the US and as a result, her seven-year anniversary arrived before she was able to naturalize. Yelena is now without her SSI benefits and still fighting to become a citizen. We must help Yelena and others like her. The Administration in its fiscal year 2005 budget acknowledged the necessity to correct this problem by dedicating funding in its budget 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 Grassley and other members of the Finance Committee to secure these changes.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Mr. Wyden, to introduce the ``Friends of the Children National Demonstration Act'' to authorize funding for Friends of the Children. Friends of the Children is a promising early intervention program established in Portland, Oregon, in 1993. The program identifies the most disadvantaged children at the kindergarten or first grade level and matches those children with ``professional mentors'' (also known as ``Friends''). Once matched, professional mentors work with children for a period of up to 12 years. Started over a decade ago with just three Friends serving as mentors to 24 children, Friends of the Children has grown to serve over 600 children in 11 communities throughout the United States. The mission of Friends of the Children is to help our Nation's most disadvantaged children to develop the relationships, goals, and skills necessary to break the cycles of poverty, abuse, and violence in order to become a contributing member of society. Extensive research has shown that the single most important factor that fosters resiliency in children is having a long-term relationship with a caring, supportive adult. Friends of the Children is a unique program that provides just such a relationship for disadvantaged children. In 1993, Friends of the Children welcomed T.R., a first grader, into the Portland program. At home, T.R. was routinely exposed to drug use, gang activity, and violence. Through the program, T.R. was matched with his mentor, Jerrell, to help maintain a support system in T.R.'s life. Jerrell tutors, counsels, advises and is a companion to T.R. whether it is discussing T.R.'s plans for the future or dealing with his family relationships. Without the help of someone like Jerrell, T.R. believes that he would probably have dropped out of school or joined a gang. Now, T.R. is giving back to his community by working for Self Enhancement, Inc., an organization that teaches leadership skills to middle school students. T.R. has overcome great adversity to mature into a responsible young adult. T.R. aspires to pursue a career in business and would like to run his own company one day. Last week, T.R. became one of the first students to graduate from the Friends of the Children program. Along with his classmates, T.R. was identified by the program over a decade ago. He was part of a group of children identified as the most in danger of abuse, neglect, juvenile delinquency, gang and drug involvement, school failure, and teenage pregnancy. Today, these children have grown into young adults. They have positive values and show great potential to become healthy, productive members of their communities. ``The Friends of the Children National Demonstration Act'' will establish a national demonstration project to promote learning about successful early and sustained childhood intervention programs. This bill would authorize funding for Friends of the Children activities and local program operations at existing sites including ongoing evaluation, and dissemination of findings for the benefit of policy makers and other youth programs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this bill and make a commitment to improving the lives of disadvantaged children and youth.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On October 14, 1995, a 9-year-old boy named Steven Wilson was found brutally raped, beaten, and drowned in a muddy ditch one mile from his house. Around the town, little Steven was known as a kid who liked to play with dolls. Other kids teased him and called him ``fag.'' Nonetheless, Lamont Harden, a 15-year-old neighbor of Wilson, confessed to this horrific murder on the basis that he was trying to ``humble the fag'' that allegedly got into a scuffle with his brother. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.