Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to enthusiastically support the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. I will speak to that issue, but with the permission of the leadership, following these remarks, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wyden and I be given a half an hour to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, every Congress and a number I have served in since 1997, nearly 10 years ago, Senator Wyden and I, my colleague from Oregon, have put forward a bipartisan agenda of things we could do as a Republican and Democrat to advance the interests of our Nation and specifically the interests of our State. It has been a genuine pleasure to work with him in achieving much good for Oregon and trying to set a better example of how Republicans and Democrats can function first as Americans and not as partisans. Today as part of our agenda for the 109th Congress, we introduce what was item No. 1 on our bipartisan agenda. We have entitled it the Catastrophic Health Coverage Promotion Act. It addresses one of the most difficult challenges facing Congress, that of rising health care costs. Getting to a solution on this is daunting. It is not easy to solve. Health care is the ultimate turf battle. But for decades health care costs have increased consistently and little has been done to slow them. While there are a number of factors driving this growth, the uninsured play a major role in driving those costs up. Last year 46 million Americans reported lacking health insurance coverage. In our State of Oregon, 600,000 individuals, 17 percent of the population, are uninsured. What some fail to realize is that the individuals without health insurance coverage nevertheless get health coverage. They do so through emergency rooms, even when they haven't the money to pay. The result is billions of dollars of uncompensated care incurred by State governments, community providers, physicians, and hospitals. In 2006 alone, Oregon's hospitals provided a total of $500 million in uncompensated care, a 262-percent increase since 1995. Americans absorb the impact of uncompensated care by having to pay higher prices for health services overall. They are simply passed on in the cost of our insurance policies. Small businesses have been hit hard by rising health care costs as well. Most report they would love to be able to offer health care, but most small businesses are trying to save their economic lives, not cover the health care of their employees. But they would like to. If we do our work right, Senator Wyden and I may have come up with a product that may help them to provide some coverage. If a small business had extra protection in the form of a catastrophic policy for their employees, it might be able to extend the most basic kind of care, the kind that says: If you lose your health, you don't lose your home; you don't penalize everyone else in the business. I know something of this, Mr. President, because having provided health care for hundreds of employees, it was the inexpensive comprehensive package that overlaid those that ultimately was tapped by one or two employees every year that helped us, in a way, to keep health care costs more manageable. The legislation Senator Wyden and I have developed will address the issue of catastrophic health costs on all fronts. The Catastrophic Health Coverage Promotion Act creates at least four State-based pilot projects that will provide basic coverage to uninsured, as well as additional protection for individuals with significant out-of-pocket health costs. One of these projects, we hope, will be located in Oregon. Certainly, it can be if it chooses. Two of the pilots will target the uninsured. States will be given the tools they need to offer hybrid health insurance plans that combine a primary and preventive health care benefit with high-deductible catastrophic coverage. Private insurance providers will market these plans to uninsured individuals and small businesses. Creating affordable basic coverage options for the uninsured is a much needed step to reduce the impact of uncompensated care on our health system. By doing this, we should be able to stabilize, if not reduce, overall health care costs. To help make this coverage more affordable for low-income workers and families, the bill provides a graduated subsidy to reduce the costs of premiums. Individuals with incomes at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level would be eligible for extra help with coverage costs. Many have asked why Senator Wyden and I would decide to focus on catastrophic health coverage, considering that similar policy options already exist and are made widely available. While that may be true, the Federal Government is often in a unique position to help to grow existing markets. I believe the targeted funding included in our bill will help make catastrophic coverage more affordable and more attractive to both individuals and small businesses. The solution in this case does not necessarily have to be as big as the problem. While our proposal may not seem to be the ``silver bullet,'' the kind of reform our system so desperately needs, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction. As is the case with many difficult problems, change is made incrementally. We are hopeful that the four pilot projects created in this bill will provide policymakers with much needed insight on how to better manage catastrophic health costs. At the end of the day, individuals should not lose their homes just because they lose their health. Anyone--whether they are uninsured or have generous comprehensive coverage--can fall victim to a serious health care problem. I am pleased that my colleague and I were able to work together in a bipartisan fashion to develop a modest yet workable solution to this longstanding and nagging problem. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I encourage the Senate's leadership to move it quickly through the process. With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I ask unanimous consent Barbara Quinones, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's debate.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SMITH. I yield back the remainder of that time.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. President. I am very grateful the Senate is considering the issue of stem cell research today. This debate marks the culmination of years of work by many of my colleagues and certainly by myself, and a host of dedicated advocates. I thank Senators Specter and Harkin for their leadership on this issue, as well as Senators Hatch, Feinstein, and Kennedy. The work the six of us have done since the House considered embryonic stem cell research last May has helped keep the issue alive in the Senate. I also would also like to recognize Senator Frist, who helped negotiate the package of bills before us. His willingness to take up this important, yet divisive issue is very much appreciated. While all three bills are important to the advancement of ethical stem cell research, there is one that stands apart from the others. That is H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act Simply, this bill would allow federal dollars to support research on stem cells derived from human embryos. The tension surrounding this issue, I believe, pits the benefits that all can see and the potential that may be derived against the ethical uncertainties or the religious convictions our colleagues have. I think it is very important to respect both perspectives--and I certainly do. But I believe their reservations are misplaced when a full understanding is made of this very important area of research. I think it is also important to point out as a show of respect for the differences of opinion that everyone in the Senate supports the bill's intent of furthering medical research--research that could possibly lead to a cure for a number of chronic diseases and debilitating health conditions. The promise of embryonic stem cell research is very real. But I think we must emphasis and admit it is but a promise. It has yet to be fully realized because of the current restrictions which we have placed on it. While I appreciate the President allowing research to move forward on existing stem cell lines, over time these lines have become degraded and we are in desperate need of new, uncontaminated lines. Stem cell science has the potential to cure dreadful illnesses such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and many cancers. But we can't expect scientists to make progress in developing treatments if we limit them to yesterday's science. I believe the Federal Government has a vital but a moral role to play in the development of stem cell science to ensure that the appropriate ethical guidelines are followed. To leave this to the private sector, with insufficient funding and no moral boundaries--we don't know where we will windup. But I do know the Federal Government can guide it in the right direction. I believe we will run into very serious problems if we do not as a Federal Government show up to work on this issue. The real issue that is troubling to so many of us in this Chamber is questions of morality. I am pro life and throughout my political career I have supported policies that respect the sanctity of all human beings. I realize that many pro-life advocates oppose embryonic stem cell research on the ground that it destroys a human life. But as I have consulted with scientists and reflected upon my own conscience, I have come to a different conclusion. I feel that embryonic stem cell research is a pro-life policy. The key question that looms over this debate is, When does life begin? For me it begins with mother, with the implantation of an embryo. I believe the Scriptures provide ample support showing that flesh and spirit become one with the mother. This is one of womankind's supernal gifts. I find these verses in the Old and the New Testaments--in Jeremiah, the Psalmist, Job, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and in the letters of Paul. All of these things lead me to feel comfortable with an ethical conclusion that life begins when flesh and spirit are united and not before. The embryos created as part of the in vitro fertilization process were intended to provide infertile couples the gift of life. Those embryos that go unused in fertility treatments should still have the opportunity to give the gift of life either by later implantation or to those living with debilitating diseases through this dramatic medical research. Without being implanted in a mother's womb, an IVF embryo is a group of cells growing in a petri dish. But if those cells are left there for thousands of years, they have no possibility of developing into anything. They remain a group of cells, the dust of the Earth, one of the building blocks leading to life. It is the act of implantation within the mother that gives them life. So instead of storing or discarding unused embryos, we have the opportunity to allow them to be used to derive stem cell lines to advance much needed medical research. I believe it would be a tremendous loss to science and to all humanity if we choose to hold back the key to unlocking the mysteries that have long puzzled scientists and physicians. That is why it is so important that my colleagues cast a vote in favor of H.R. 810, a very pro-life vote. Some of the bill's opponents may claim that you can equally support stem cell research by voting for Senator Santorum's bill which authorizes a number of research alternatives. I support Senator Santorum's bill and plan to vote for it today, but it is by no means a substitute for H.R. 810. Alternative forms of stem cell research are in their very early stages--just like embryonic stem cell research. Considering the enormous medical benefits that may come from these emerging fields of science, we cannot afford to promote some methods while restricting others. After years of reflecting on this issue, it has become increasingly clear to me that being pro life requires protecting both the sanctity and the quality of life. By allowing research on stem cell lines derived from unused IVF embryos, we could forge a path that would one day lead to cures of some of mankind's most dreadful medical maladies. If only one life-improving application of stem cell science comes from this vote--from my vote--then I believe I have done my job and done it correctly, for on this issue I choose to err on the side of hope, healing, and health. I encourage all of my colleagues--even those who have some ethical reservations or religious feelings on this issue--to do the same. I heard on the radio last night a radio commentator describing embryonic stem cell research as a conflict between science and religion. I do not believe that religion and science are in conflict on this issue. I believe one of the great gifts of the United States--the best example of the United States to the world--is our pluralism, religious pluralism. It is something we see an absence of, tragically, in too many places of the world. You see blood running in the gutters of the Middle East as we speak because of sectarian views which are held to the point of murdering those with divergent views. Therefore, I do not believe we serve the public well by taking the narrowest theological position and trying to impose it on public policy. We should be open enough to include other considerations of ethical ideas, scriptural interpretations, and scientific hope. For me, as I consider issues of life and death, I often turn to the Good Book to try to discern wisdom that I do not have myself. What I find in the earliest pages of the Torah--or the Old Testament--is this statement. And I quote: The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. I am not a scientist, and I am not a theologian. But as I use my agency to interpret this early description of the sanctity of mankind's life, what I read is that we are made of dust. We ourselves are dust. Unto dust we will return. Then you come to the conjunction in this verse, the conjunction ``and.'' ``And breathed with his nostrils the breath of life.'' Then you come to another conjunction, ``and man became a living soul.'' I believe that pluripotent stem cells are one of the building blocks of life. Clearly they are. Even if you leave them in a petri dish for an eternity, they will remain cells, the dust of the Earth. I believe we are missing the understanding of the importance of the spirit, the breath of life--the spirit of mankind--as the essential ingredient as to when life begins. I do not find that religion and science are in conflict in the Senate today. I believe they are in harmony. I believe we should have a broad enough view to include the many views that comprise American pluralism. I urge President Bush not to veto H.R. 810. I believe it offers hope. It offers promise. We can't overpromise. But it opens the key to the future, to unlocking mysteries of science, to improve the quality of life now. What could be more pro life than that? Finally, my position is formed by my family history. My mother's name was Jessica Udall. I watched my grandmother, Lela Lee Udall, die of Parkinson's. I watched my uncle, Addison Udall, die of Parkinson's. I watched my cousin, former Democratic Presidential candidate and Arizona Congressman Morris K. Udall, die of Parkinson's. To watch people die of such a malady is to instill in one's heart a desire to err on the side of health, hope, and healing, to find the cure if a cure can be found. We will all die but no one should have to die as they died. I appeal to my friend President Bush in the memory of my Udall ancestry, please, do not veto this bill. Do not deny them, people such as the Udalls, the hope that can come from this research. I believe this is an important debate. If this bill is vetoed, another election will occur, another chapter of American democracy will be opened, and ultimately the will of the American people will be reflected in our policy. I believe the sooner, the better. So, to my pro-life friend, President Bush, I urge in the name of life to let this bill become law. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the majority yields 10 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana, and the Senator from Kansas will follow him.

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 15, 2006, in Chicago, IL, a gay man was attacked by Marquell Shepard after leaving a local bar. Shepard approached the man, berating him with sexually derogatory slurs. Shepard then physically assaulted him and fled the scene. He was soon picked up by police and charged with a felony hate crime. 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 May 26, 2003, in Lawrence, KY, Josh Graves, a 15-year-old boy who suffers from cerebral palsy, was attacked at a local park by four teenage boys. The four boys approached Graves, taunting him and asking him if he was retarded. They attacked Graves, knocking him to the ground before punching and kicking him. After the attack, Graves was left on the ground suffering multiple seizures. According to reports, the sole motivation for this attack was Grave's disability. 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 to join Senator Schumer in offering legislation that will help maintain our Nation's affordable housing inventory. Our country's stock of affordable rental housing is shrinking. Every day, we lose affordable units to rent increases, deterioration, and conversions to market-rate housing or commercial use. For millions of Americans, this means that it is getting harder to put a roof over their family's heads and food on the table. In 2000--recognizing that we had a looming crisis--Congress established the bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission. The Commission was tasked with studying the importance of affordable housing to the infrastructure of the United States as well as the various methods to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the private sector's role in providing affordable housing. The bill Senator Schumer and I are introducing is based on a recommendation by the Millennial Housing Commission. Our bill would waive the depreciation recapture tax liability if investors sell their property to owners who will preserve the property as affordable housing for 30 years. Through a simple change in the Tax Code, our bill will help preserve the federally assisted affordable housing stock of the United States at a minimal cost to the Federal Government. This proposal is supported by a broad coalition of affordable housing advocates, including the National Housing Conference, the National Housing Trust, the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, and the National Council of State Housing Agencies. According to Oregon Housing and Community Services, OHCS, there are approximately 4,000 households at risk of losing their homes in the OHCS portfolio alone. There are another 6,000 households at risk in section 8 projects not currently in the OHCS portfolio. All of these properties could benefit from the change Senator Schumer and I are proposing. The Neighborhood Partnership Fund of Portland estimates that an additional 215 Rural Housing Service properties with more than 6,000 units in Oregon could also benefit. I thank the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for working with me on this bill. I believe this is important legislation and will help stem affordable housing losses in the United States. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see the legislation passed and signed into law.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Schumer in offering legislation that will help maintain our Nation's affordable housing inventory. Our country's stock of affordable rental housing is shrinking. Every day, we lose affordable units to rent increases, deterioration, and conversions to market-rate housing or commercial use. For millions of Americans, this means that it is getting harder to put a roof over their family's heads and food on the table. In 2000--recognizing that we had a looming crisis--Congress established the bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission. The Commission was tasked with studying the importance of affordable housing to the infrastructure of the United States as well as the various methods to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the private sector's role in providing affordable housing. The bill Senator Schumer and I are introducing is based on a recommendation by the Millennial Housing Commission. Our bill would waive the depreciation recapture tax liability if investors sell their property to owners who will preserve the property as affordable housing for 30 years. Through a simple change in the Tax Code, our bill will help preserve the federally assisted affordable housing stock of the United States at a minimal cost to the Federal Government. This proposal is supported by a broad coalition of affordable housing advocates, including the National Housing Conference, the National Housing Trust, the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, and the National Council of State Housing Agencies. According to Oregon Housing and Community Services, OHCS, there are approximately 4,000 households at risk of losing their homes in the OHCS portfolio alone. There are another 6,000 households at risk in section 8 projects not currently in the OHCS portfolio. All of these properties could benefit from the change Senator Schumer and I are proposing. The Neighborhood Partnership Fund of Portland estimates that an additional 215 Rural Housing Service properties with more than 6,000 units in Oregon could also benefit. I thank the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for working with me on this bill. I believe this is important legislation and will help stem affordable housing losses in the United States. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see the legislation passed and signed into law.

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 June 10, 2006, Queens, NY, three gay men were out walking when a group of eight men began shouting antigay slurs at them. The group then surrounded and attacked them, striking one victim in the head with a baseball bat. 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. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise proudly with my colleague, Senator Wyden. We are proud Oregonians every day but especially this day as we celebrate the great accomplishments of the Beavers of our State. I suppose we are honorary members, neither of us having attended Oregon State, to be now members of ``Beaver Nation,'' as it is known locally. These great players, these great young men, overcame all the odds to win the college world series and become the NCAA Division I Baseball Champions. In doing so, the Beavers not only brought home to OSU its first NCAA championship in any sport since 1916, they also became the first northern climate team to win the college world series. We are very proud of them. They did it with a team full of young men from the greater Pacific Northwest, many of them from Oregon. Under the leadership of their coach, Pat Casey, OSU made ``Beaver believers'' of many people--virtually all of Oregon. I think all of Oregon was tuned in yesterday to see their thrilling 3-to-2 victory. While at the college world series in Omaha, they played eight games, and in six of those games they knew if they lost they went home. Well, they kept winning against all odds, and they come home to Corvallis, OR, champions of this great sport. I suppose one of the things I look forward to is every year it seems as if an Oregon team gets to participate in what has become a White House tradition. That is when they meet with the President of the United States. I look forward especially this year to being able to not just congratulate the Oregon State University Beavers for this remarkable accomplishment, I look forward to escorting them with my colleague, Senator Wyden, to the White House to meet America's No. 1 baseball fan, President Bush, for this great traditional ceremony of honoring the NCAA champs. I stand before you, Mr. President, a ``Beaver Believer'' and thankful for the good job they did in bringing such distinction to our State.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two interns from my office, Marissa Kimball and Anna Butler, be given floor privileges.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, since the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2,808 American men and women have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Of that number, 63 are Oregonians, or those who have Oregon ties. There are 63 patriots among that total. I rise today to honor them, but I also feel compelled to come here this afternoon to pay particular honor to Tom Tucker who recently lost his life and to do what I can through my words to assuage in some possible way, if possible, the grief of his parents, Wes and Meg Tucker of Madras, OR. Army PVT Thomas Tucker was born in Pineville, OR, in central Oregon, in the beautiful rimrock country of that part of our State. He grew up in Madras and graduated from Madras High School in 1999. He worked in a variety of jobs before feeling the call to serve his country and enlisted in the U.S. Army in July of 2005. He was attached to the First Battalion of the 502nd Infantry Regiment of the Second Brigade, 101st Airborne Division. He has been in Iraq since February of 2006. When word came through that he had been taken hostage by al-Qaida fighters in Iraq, I called his father Wes. I wasn't very far into the conversation when it was clear to me that I was talking to a dad who was also a patriot, was proud of his son and fearful for the consequences that may befall him. The worst-of-all news came out when the whole country, and particularly my State, learned not only that Thomas had given his life but that he had been tortured, that his body had been defiled and had been booby-trapped to take the lives of other American soldiers. I have no words sufficient to tell the Tucker family how truly sorry I am for the extent of their loss. Yet I stand in awe and amazement that this morning on the NBC ``Today'' program there came Wes Tucker's face. And he said: ``Our son, as far as we are concerned, has died for the freedom of everyone in the United States.'' I could not agree with him more. Wes and Meg Tucker are made of sterner stuff. They did not blame the President. They did not blame the military. They simply acknowledged that their son was in the service of his country knowing the risk and willing to sacrifice it all. I salute them, and I will never forget them or their son. I am told by news accounts that Madras, OR, a town of 6,000 people, has now become a family of 6,000 people, gathering around the Tucker family, to offer whatever consolation they can and the support that is required, to let the Tucker family know that their son is an American hero now and forever. Many wonder, what did Tom die for? I believe, as his father said, that he died for his country, that he died for freedom's sake, and the cause of freedom is one that comes with a very high price. It has hit home hard in Oregon today. Al-Qaida is a serpent with many heads. It found Tom, and in finding him revealed the ugliness, the barbarity, the brutality of the enemy that we face. Understand, al-Qaida's words in this war, their purposes, their intentions, their objectives are to create--these are not George Bush's words, these are their words--a new califate in the Middle East such as existed for several centuries, ranging from Spain as far as Pakistan, to establish sharia law. If you want to know what sharia law is, look at the governments of the Taliban and the brutality that attended their government. It is for the extermination of the state of Israel, and it is for the holding hostage of western civilization. I believe Tom Tucker died in opposition to these hideous aims of our enemies on Earth today. Anyone who believes that America does not have a stake in this is deeply mistaking themselves. During my first term in the U.S. Senate I served on the Foreign Relations Committee. I wasn't on that committee long until I was simply amazed and overwhelmed in terms of my schedule by the number of foreign leaders who sought out an audience in my office seeking trade, aid, and military alliance with the United States. I used to wonder, why do they come to us? Why must we solve their problems? It was evident because they knew America had values for which it was willing to pay a high price. So I have to ask, why us? And history's answer is, why not us? In the 20th century, the United States of America and a number of our stalwart friends--the British come quickly to mind--have filled the void to stop tyranny when our defense, first, our interests, our values and our allies required our help. It is no different now in 21st century. We all want our kids to come home. I pray for that daily. And I am thankful that their numbers are declining and that they are coming home. What this debate is about and the difference we share with our friends on the other side of the aisle is simply the wisdom of announcing a date for withdrawal. As I have studied history, I have never found an instance whereby victory is won by announcing retreat. Wisdom counsels, I believe, that we hold our cards closer to our vest. Al-Qaida is counting on us to go home just as they cite in their Web sites our retreat from Beirut, our inaction in the face of innumerable, outrageous terrorist attacks during the 1990s--and they took it all for weakness. I want our kids to come home. But I want us to see the ugly face of al-Qaida and understand the deadliness and earnestness of their purposes and how antithetical they are to the future of this Nation and to the future of our children and to the civilization that we enjoy in such abundance in this blessed land. Al-Qaida is counting on us to set a date. It is for that reason that I will vote against any amendment that sets a date. I want to express to my colleagues on the other side that the rhetoric is too heated. When I hear things like ``Bush lied, kids died,'' or even on our side, ``retreat''--and whatever the mantra is-- my soul cries out for something more dignified. I don't believe their dissent is unpatriotic. I simply believe it to be unwise. It is a tactical mistake of monumental proportions. I do not know how long the war on terror will go. But I do know that we have an interest in it. We learned that interest on 9/11. We learn that interest with the death of every soldier. I yield the floor with a plea that we keep our tactics to ourselves and that we understand that America will not be defeated but that we can defeat ourselves. I urge opposition to the Levin amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a great man, Roger Meier. The late Oregon Governor Tom McCall once said, ``Heroes are not giant statues framed against a red sky. They are people who say, `This is my community and it is my responsibility to make it better.' '' When Roger Meier passed away on June 5, I lost a trusted friend and Oregon lost a true hero. Through leadership, vision, and generosity, Roger made his community of Portland and his State of Oregon a better place in which to live, work, and raise a family. Roger was a fourth-generation Oregonian and a descendant of the founders of the Meier and Frank Company, one of Oregon's most beloved institutions. Roger spent 13 years working in the family business before venturing out on his own and serving as president and CEO of a privately owned investment company for more than 30 years. Roger earned a reputation as a savvy analyst of the business and financial scene. He put his intelligence and knowledge to work for all Oregonians, serving for 13 years as chairman of the Oregon Investment Council, which helps to manage pension funds for Oregon's public employees. Under his stewardship, Oregon's portfolio of investments grew from $400 million to $7 billion. Roger was also a tireless advocate for and a generous philanthropist to countless worthy causes and charitable organizations, including the Oregon Health Sciences University, Good Samaritan Hospital, and the Oregon Historical Society. Roger and his wonderful and gracious wife of 54 years, Laura, also had a special love of art. Along with their good friends, Pete and Mary Mark, Roger and Laura's generosity has helped to make the Portland Art Museum into a world-class institution. It was fitting that a memorial tribute to Roger was held at the Portland Art Museum on June 11. My predecessor, Senator Mark Hatfield, spoke at the service and said that there was one word he believed best summed up Roger: gentleman. Senator Hatfield was right. A man of courtesy, kindness, honesty and integrity, Roger Meier was a true gentleman. He will be greatly missed by Laura, by his daughters Alix and Jill and their families, by his friends, and by the community and State he served so ably.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to join the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, in offering legislation that would grant Vietnam permanent normalized trade relations treatment and help to pave the way for Vietnam's accession to the World Trade Organization. I am proud to also be joined in this effort by Senators McCain, Kerry, Hagel, Lugar, Murkowski, and Carper. Last December, I was privileged to lead a delegation of U.S. Senators to Vietnam. During our visit, we met with President Luong and other Vietnamese officials to discuss the importance of our bilateral relationship and the need to get a good market access agreement between the United States and Vietnam that will help cement that relationship. I congratulate Ambassadors Rob Portman and Susan Schwab and the USTR team for their work to get this agreement. This is a great achievement. Over the last decade, our relationship with Vietnam has been characterized by increased cooperation and engagement. The passage of our legislation will enhance those ties and create new economic opportunities for U.S. businesses. In recent years, Vietnam has undertaken a number of market-based economic reforms, including the reduction of government subsidies, tariffs, and non-tariff barriers, and extensive legal reforms. These reforms have spurred dramatic economic growth. Vietnam is now the fastest growing economy in Southeast Asia and a growing market for U.S. exporters. In 2000, the United States and Vietnam concluded a bilateral trade agreement. Since that agreement entered into force, U.S. exports to Vietnam have increased by 150 percent. Last year alone, U.S. exports to Vietnam rose by 24 percent. The recently negotiated market access agreement will build upon that success by further lowering trade barriers to a wide range of U.S. industrial and agricultural products and services. Upon Vietnam's accession to the WTO, U.S. businesses will enjoy greater access to a market of more than 83 million people. Agricultural producers will benefit from immediate tariff reductions on U.S. exports as well as new commitments by Vietnam to improve implementation of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Oregon growers will benefit as tariffs on apples and pears are cut from 40 percent to 10 percent over the next 5 years and tariffs on frozen French fries are reduced from 50 percent to 13 percent over the next 6 years. Oregon manufacturing and branding companies have long had a presence in Vietnam. These companies will immediately benefit from increased market access and greater regulatory transparency. Having Vietnam within the rules-based global trading system will be good for U.S. businesses. This accession agreement will be key to ensuring that Vietnam follows global trade rules. It will also ensure that the Vietnamese people will be able to realize the benefits of trade liberalization. By increasing transparency and implementing market-based reforms, Vietnam is essentially opening itself to international commerce. Countries that open themselves to trade attract investment, which in turn creates jobs and enhances individual welfare. The passage of PNTR legislation will mark the final step toward normalizing our relationship with Vietnam. This bill represents a historic moment in our relationship with Vietnam and a definitive statement of how we have moved beyond our past divisions. I am especially pleased with the strong bipartisan support that we have received for this bill. I am hopeful that we will be able to move this bill before Congress leaves for the August recess, so that it can be signed into law before President Bush's visit to Vietnam in November.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to join the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, in offering legislation that would grant Vietnam permanent normalized trade relations treatment and help to pave the way for Vietnam's accession to the World Trade Organization. I am proud to also be joined in this effort by Senators McCain, Kerry, Hagel, Lugar, Murkowski, and Carper. Last December, I was privileged to lead a delegation of U.S. Senators to Vietnam. During our visit, we met with President Luong and other Vietnamese officials to discuss the importance of our bilateral relationship and the need to get a good market access agreement between the United States and Vietnam that will help cement that relationship. I congratulate Ambassadors Rob Portman and Susan Schwab and the USTR team for their work to get this agreement. This is a great achievement. Over the last decade, our relationship with Vietnam has been characterized by increased cooperation and engagement. The passage of our legislation will enhance those ties and create new economic opportunities for U.S. businesses. In recent years, Vietnam has undertaken a number of market-based economic reforms, including the reduction of government subsidies, tariffs, and non-tariff barriers, and extensive legal reforms. These reforms have spurred dramatic economic growth. Vietnam is now the fastest growing economy in Southeast Asia and a growing market for U.S. exporters. In 2000, the United States and Vietnam concluded a bilateral trade agreement. Since that agreement entered into force, U.S. exports to Vietnam have increased by 150 percent. Last year alone, U.S. exports to Vietnam rose by 24 percent. The recently negotiated market access agreement will build upon that success by further lowering trade barriers to a wide range of U.S. industrial and agricultural products and services. Upon Vietnam's accession to the WTO, U.S. businesses will enjoy greater access to a market of more than 83 million people. Agricultural producers will benefit from immediate tariff reductions on U.S. exports as well as new commitments by Vietnam to improve implementation of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Oregon growers will benefit as tariffs on apples and pears are cut from 40 percent to 10 percent over the next 5 years and tariffs on frozen French fries are reduced from 50 percent to 13 percent over the next 6 years. Oregon manufacturing and branding companies have long had a presence in Vietnam. These companies will immediately benefit from increased market access and greater regulatory transparency. Having Vietnam within the rules-based global trading system will be good for U.S. businesses. This accession agreement will be key to ensuring that Vietnam follows global trade rules. It will also ensure that the Vietnamese people will be able to realize the benefits of trade liberalization. By increasing transparency and implementing market-based reforms, Vietnam is essentially opening itself to international commerce. Countries that open themselves to trade attract investment, which in turn creates jobs and enhances individual welfare. The passage of PNTR legislation will mark the final step toward normalizing our relationship with Vietnam. This bill represents a historic moment in our relationship with Vietnam and a definitive statement of how we have moved beyond our past divisions. I am especially pleased with the strong bipartisan support that we have received for this bill. I am hopeful that we will be able to move this bill before Congress leaves for the August recess, so that it can be signed into law before President Bush's visit to Vietnam in November.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matt Goodman and Jonathan Price, interns in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, it is a privilege to come to the Chamber and speak of Bob Dole and also his distinguished wife, our colleague, Elizabeth Dole, both great public servants. While that is my intention, to speak about them--specifically, Senator Bob Dole--I would like to join all Senators, Democrats who yesterday spoke of Senator Byrd, I know many Republicans did as well. I, not being in town, wanted to take an occasion to salute Senator Byrd for a remarkable career in the Senate. I was touched, however, recently by the recognition given to his wife, who recently passed away, in which Senator Byrd essentially said that this would be a bittersweet day for him in that he now is the record holder for service in the Senate because Erma would not be here to share it with him. I know how much Senator Byrd values the Senate, but I think that comment of his, that reflection, was evidence that he values his marriage and family even more. As a Republican Senator, I salute Senator Byrd for his remarkably long and distinguished career.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I was not in the Chamber 10 years ago when Senator Dole resigned his seat. I was, in fact, on the campaign trail in the midst of an election campaign that he had helped to recruit me to run. I remember watching those proceedings and seeing the bipartisan affection in which Senator Dole was held. I later met him many times on the campaign trail as he pursued the Presidency and was impressed by his courage in the face of very discouraging poll numbers and the high probability that he would not win and how hard he fought for us and others who were running to fill seats in the U.S. Senate. Elizabeth was at his side, and together they made a tremendous campaign and did honor to our country and to the Republican Party by the way in which they prosecuted a very difficult campaign cycle. It reflected honor upon our country. It is important that as we celebrate his resignation and his career that ended 10 years ago, we take occasion to reflect on his remarkable accomplishments. He served 27 years in this body, 11 of those as Senate Republican leader. Bob Dole's remarkable record of accomplishment as a Senator is well known. It is not an exaggeration to say that his fingerprints could be found on nearly every major piece of legislation that passed Congress during the 1980s and the first half of 1990s. It was Bob Dole who reached across party lines to work with Senator George McGovern to create the Food Stamp Program. It was Bob Dole who worked with Senators Harkin and Kennedy to bring about the Americans with Disabilities Act. It was Bob Dole who worked with the late Senator Pat Moynihan to save the Social Security Program. I rise today not just to pay tribute to Bob Dole's legislative accomplishments; rather, I rise on this occasion to celebrate what he has done in the decade since he left this body. There can be no question that over those 10 years, Bob Dole has continued his lifelong commitment to serving his country, a commitment that began as a young soldier in the hills of Italy during the Second World War. Indeed, for many Americans, Bob Dole is the living symbol of what Tom Brokaw has termed ``America's greatest generation,'' the generation of Americans who saved freedom during World War II. My generation is the beneficiary of Bob Dole's generation, the world we inherited, a world in which America assumed world leadership. My generation has been greatly blessed by patriots such as Bob Dole. Perhaps Bob Dole's greatest contribution to the past decade was his chairmanship of the National World War II Memorial. Quite simply, that beautiful memorial would not grace our National Mall now had it not been for the persistence and leadership of Bob Dole. Bob Dole also volunteered for service after the attacks on September 11, when he joined with former President Bill Clinton to serve as cochair of the Families of Freedom Scholarship Fund, which assists the educational needs of families of those who lost their lives in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and United flight 93. During this time in this Chamber, no Senator spoke more loudly and more eloquently about atrocities occurring around the world-- specifically in Bosnia--than did Bob Dole, who raised his voice loudly. He has continued his vigilance by serving as Chairman of the International Commission on Missing Persons, traveling to the Balkans to provide closure to families of those who were victims of the genocide that occurred under Slobodon Milosevic. In January of 2003, President Bush appointed Bob Dole as honorary Cochair of the President's Council on Service and Civic Participation. He has worked to connect countless Americans with service opportunities in communities, schools, and workplaces. Bob Dole has also continued his commitment to ending the scourge of hunger, working with his former colleague, George McGovern, to advocate the expansion of school breakfast programs in the United States. They have also teamed to promote the expansion of the School Lunch Programs across the world through their Global School Feeding Initiative. Bob Dole has also devoted a great deal of his time and energy to the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics, which is located at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, KS. The institute is one of America's premier university-based political science and international affairs research institutes, dedicated to reestablishing politics as an honorable profession and to promoting greater student and civic involvement in the democratic process. Along with all of these activities, Bob Dole is one of America's most popular public speakers, inspiring audiences with his courage, his humor, his love of America, and always with that trademark wit. He has also authored three books since leaving the Senate--two on political humor, and the most recent, ``One Soldier's Story,'' which tells the remarkable story of his recovery from the wounds he suffered during the Second World War. Mr. President, Bob Dole has often said that he takes inspiration in the State motto of his beloved Kansas, which is: ``To the stars through difficulties.'' There can be no doubt that Bob Dole reached those stars in serving his country as a soldier and as a public servant. He has proved time and again over the past decade that he continues to reach for the stars as a private citizen. I know all Senators join me in saluting Bob Dole and thanking him for the positive difference he has made over these past 10 years. Part of that difference was supporting his wife Elizabeth and her campaign to win a seat in the Senate. Together, they are a remarkable American couple and have made a remarkable difference for the betterment of our country and even the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 June 10, 2006, gay performance artist Kevin Aviance was severely beaten in New York City. According to reports, Aviance was walking home from a local bar when four teens began shouting obscenities and attacked him from behind. During the attack Aviance was kicked and punched while the attackers yelled sexually derogatory slurs at him. An officer with New York's Hate Crimes Taskforce reported that four men were arrested and charged with a hate crime in connection to the attack. 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.