Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am proud to file the Medicare Part D Outreach and Enrollment Enhancement Act of 2006. This timely piece of legislation addresses two very targeted administrative issues that have come to light since Medicare's new prescription drug benefit became effective earlier this year. I am also pleased that Senator Bingaman is joining on this bill. With more than 30 million beneficiaries now receiving coverage through Medicare Part D, the program is well on its way to helping deliver much needed access to lower cost prescription drugs. And with the close of the initial enrollment period on May 15 looming, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and advocacy organizations across the country are working diligently to provide last minute assistance to those beneficiaries still wishing to enroll. However, even after the May 15 deadline passes, beneficiaries will still need counsel on the program's benefits, including the availability of the low-income subsidy. For instance, dual eligible beneficiaries and those who previously received assistance through a Medicare Savings Program have the ability to change their prescription drug plan monthly. This particularly vulnerable group of beneficiaries likely will need extra assistance in choosing a plan that more appropriately meets their medical and financial needs. There also are those beneficiaries who will age into Medicare throughout the year. They will be provided an initial enrollment period to choose a prescription drug plan once they turn age 65. And with the first regular enrollment cycle beginning in November, many beneficiaries will need advice as they evaluate new plan options or consider switching plans if their existing coverage has changed. We owe it to our seniors to provide them quality information so they can make the best possible prescription drug plan choice. That is why I am asking for increased Part D outreach and education funding in the bill I am filing today. State Health Insurance Programs (SHIPs), which provide a range of valuable services, help beneficiaries select quality prescription drug plans, identify additional financial help with their drug costs, and resolve general enrollment difficulties. This year, CMS supported the outreach work of SHIPs with a $30 million allotment. Despite this funding, there still remains a great need to raise further awareness about the new Part D benefit among beneficiaries and provide them assistance with selecting an appropriate prescription drug plan. The Outreach and Enrollment Enhancement Act would allocate SHIPs an additional $13.5 million, bringing their total funding to $43.5 million, or, one dollar per Medicare beneficiary. To assure that the work of SHIPs is sufficiently supported in future years, the bill also creates a new funding authorization that is set to increase as the number of Medicare beneficiaries grows. The legislation I am filing today also provides funding to the Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) and Native American aging programs that have absorbed an increased workload since the passage of the Medicare Modernization Act. In Oregon, the Multnomah County AAA has incurred $30,000 in expenses related to Medicare outreach since the beginning of this year, but they have received very little new funding in return. The bill recognizes the important role AAAs and Native American aging programs play in helping elderly Americans enroll in Medicare by providing new funding in the amount of $6.3 million this fiscal year. Apart from increased funding for outreach and education, the bill addresses a very targeted problem with the current enrollment process that has recently become apparent. Beneficiaries who believe their income and asset levels may qualify them for extra help with their prescription drug costs may apply for a low-income subsidy (LIS) at any point during the year. If they submit an application to the Social Security Administration (SSA) during an initial enrollment period but do not receive notification of their eligibility before the enrollment deadline, they have one of two options available to them. They could enroll into a prescription drug plan before the deadline not knowing whether they will have to pay all or part of the costs of the monthly premium. This could place a beneficiary in the awkward position if they choose a plan that they ultimately are unable to afford. Under a recent CMS administrative action, beneficiaries who have applied for the LIS subsidy could choose to delay their enrollment in the program until they receive notification of their eligibility for a subsidy. However, they still would be required to pay a late enrollment penalty. While enrolling late may allow a beneficiary to make a more informed decision regarding their prescription drug plan, it would not be fair to assess them a fee simply because there was administrative delay in processing their LIS application. Both of these scenarios place beneficiaries in an untenable position. For the enrollment process to be successful, beneficiaries need to have as much information available to them as possible so they may choose the prescription drug plan that best meets their preferences. The Outreach and Enrollment Enhancement Act provides a solution to this dilemma. The legislation creates a special 30-day enrollment period that begins on the day a beneficiary receives a decision regarding their LIS eligibility. Most importantly, the late enrollment penalty that would be imposed upon them under current law would be waived during the special enrollment period, in addition to the time it takes SSA to process their application. This small, yet significant, change to the existing enrollment process will allow LIS beneficiaries sufficient time to effectively consider and evaluate prescription drug plan options with all necessary information. We cannot afford to undermine seniors' trust in Medicare's prescription drug program by penalizing a certain group of beneficiaries for a problem that is created by the federal government. I understand that many of my colleagues prefer to address administrative issues with Medicare Part D at a later date, so that the initial implementation process can run its full course without undue interference from Congress. While I would agree with that argument in principle, there are a number of existing problems that only serve to tarnish Medicare's image if we allow them to linger much longer. I believe providing additional resources for outreach and educational services and correcting the LIS enrollment issue are two such problems that Congress should address immediately--before the May 15 deadline passes. The SSA has estimated that 80,000 beneficiaries might not have been notified of their LIS eligibility by the close of the first regular enrollment period. It would be entirely unfair to assess even one of these beneficiaries a late enrollment penalty, when by their understanding, they were playing by the rules CMS and SSA set forth regarding the low-income subsidy. I ask the Majority Leader and my colleagues to support my call for the Outreach and Enrollment Enhancement Act to be treated as an emergency measure and provide it quick passage in the Senate. By taking up this very targeted measure, Congress can demonstrate to America's seniors that we are committed to the continued success of the Medicare prescription drug program.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am proud to file the Medicare Part D Outreach and Enrollment Enhancement Act of 2006. This timely piece of legislation addresses two very targeted administrative issues that have come to light since Medicare's new prescription drug benefit became effective earlier this year. I am also pleased that Senator Bingaman is joining on this bill. With more than 30 million beneficiaries now receiving coverage through Medicare Part D, the program is well on its way to helping deliver much needed access to lower cost prescription drugs. And with the close of the initial enrollment period on May 15 looming, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and advocacy organizations across the country are working diligently to provide last minute assistance to those beneficiaries still wishing to enroll. However, even after the May 15 deadline passes, beneficiaries will still need counsel on the program's benefits, including the availability of the low-income subsidy. For instance, dual eligible beneficiaries and those who previously received assistance through a Medicare Savings Program have the ability to change their prescription drug plan monthly. This particularly vulnerable group of beneficiaries likely will need extra assistance in choosing a plan that more appropriately meets their medical and financial needs. There also are those beneficiaries who will age into Medicare throughout the year. They will be provided an initial enrollment period to choose a prescription drug plan once they turn age 65. And with the first regular enrollment cycle beginning in November, many beneficiaries will need advice as they evaluate new plan options or consider switching plans if their existing coverage has changed. We owe it to our seniors to provide them quality information so they can make the best possible prescription drug plan choice. That is why I am asking for increased Part D outreach and education funding in the bill I am filing today. State Health Insurance Programs (SHIPs), which provide a range of valuable services, help beneficiaries select quality prescription drug plans, identify additional financial help with their drug costs, and resolve general enrollment difficulties. This year, CMS supported the outreach work of SHIPs with a $30 million allotment. Despite this funding, there still remains a great need to raise further awareness about the new Part D benefit among beneficiaries and provide them assistance with selecting an appropriate prescription drug plan. The Outreach and Enrollment Enhancement Act would allocate SHIPs an additional $13.5 million, bringing their total funding to $43.5 million, or, one dollar per Medicare beneficiary. To assure that the work of SHIPs is sufficiently supported in future years, the bill also creates a new funding authorization that is set to increase as the number of Medicare beneficiaries grows. The legislation I am filing today also provides funding to the Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) and Native American aging programs that have absorbed an increased workload since the passage of the Medicare Modernization Act. In Oregon, the Multnomah County AAA has incurred $30,000 in expenses related to Medicare outreach since the beginning of this year, but they have received very little new funding in return. The bill recognizes the important role AAAs and Native American aging programs play in helping elderly Americans enroll in Medicare by providing new funding in the amount of $6.3 million this fiscal year. Apart from increased funding for outreach and education, the bill addresses a very targeted problem with the current enrollment process that has recently become apparent. Beneficiaries who believe their income and asset levels may qualify them for extra help with their prescription drug costs may apply for a low-income subsidy (LIS) at any point during the year. If they submit an application to the Social Security Administration (SSA) during an initial enrollment period but do not receive notification of their eligibility before the enrollment deadline, they have one of two options available to them. They could enroll into a prescription drug plan before the deadline not knowing whether they will have to pay all or part of the costs of the monthly premium. This could place a beneficiary in the awkward position if they choose a plan that they ultimately are unable to afford. Under a recent CMS administrative action, beneficiaries who have applied for the LIS subsidy could choose to delay their enrollment in the program until they receive notification of their eligibility for a subsidy. However, they still would be required to pay a late enrollment penalty. While enrolling late may allow a beneficiary to make a more informed decision regarding their prescription drug plan, it would not be fair to assess them a fee simply because there was administrative delay in processing their LIS application. Both of these scenarios place beneficiaries in an untenable position. For the enrollment process to be successful, beneficiaries need to have as much information available to them as possible so they may choose the prescription drug plan that best meets their preferences. The Outreach and Enrollment Enhancement Act provides a solution to this dilemma. The legislation creates a special 30-day enrollment period that begins on the day a beneficiary receives a decision regarding their LIS eligibility. Most importantly, the late enrollment penalty that would be imposed upon them under current law would be waived during the special enrollment period, in addition to the time it takes SSA to process their application. This small, yet significant, change to the existing enrollment process will allow LIS beneficiaries sufficient time to effectively consider and evaluate prescription drug plan options with all necessary information. We cannot afford to undermine seniors' trust in Medicare's prescription drug program by penalizing a certain group of beneficiaries for a problem that is created by the federal government. I understand that many of my colleagues prefer to address administrative issues with Medicare Part D at a later date, so that the initial implementation process can run its full course without undue interference from Congress. While I would agree with that argument in principle, there are a number of existing problems that only serve to tarnish Medicare's image if we allow them to linger much longer. I believe providing additional resources for outreach and educational services and correcting the LIS enrollment issue are two such problems that Congress should address immediately--before the May 15 deadline passes. The SSA has estimated that 80,000 beneficiaries might not have been notified of their LIS eligibility by the close of the first regular enrollment period. It would be entirely unfair to assess even one of these beneficiaries a late enrollment penalty, when by their understanding, they were playing by the rules CMS and SSA set forth regarding the low-income subsidy. I ask the Majority Leader and my colleagues to support my call for the Outreach and Enrollment Enhancement Act to be treated as an emergency measure and provide it quick passage in the Senate. By taking up this very targeted measure, Congress can demonstrate to America's seniors that we are committed to the continued success of the Medicare prescription drug program.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Chairman. I yield the floor. avian flu

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, last week I proposed an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that would provide relief to individuals facing an unfolding economic crisis along the Oregon and California coast. For the third consecutive year, the number of naturally spawning Klamath River Chinook salmon is expected to fall below the conservation floor called for in the fishery management plan. As a result, the Pacific Fishery Management Council undertook a careful review of the stock status as well as the economic needs of local communities. After conducting its review, the Council voted to recommend to the Secretary of Commerce the use of an emergency rule to allow for a severely restricted salmon season along 700 miles of the Oregon and California coast. Last week, Secretary Gutierrez approved the council's recommendation for an emergency rule. While this limited season is helpful, it will not be enough to sustain Oregon's rural, fishery-dependent economies. It is estimated that the impact to Oregon and California coastal communities could exceed $100 million. Many of the communities affected by these fishery restrictions are still recovering from the devastation caused by the collapse of the timber economy in 1990s. The funding provided in my amendment would help fishermen and supporting businesses in Oregon weather what will certainly be a very trying year. However, because this crisis is the result of a regulatory action rather than a natural disaster, I have been told that my amendment is not germane to the bill that is before us now. This parliamentary hair-splitting is lost on my constituents. I would like to engage the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee in a brief colloquy. I realize that we are facing tight budgetary times and numerous disasters, many of which receive assistance under the current bill. Will you agree to work with me to secure funding or reprogram funds to address the pending crisis on the Oregon coast?

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. In December, 2004, a 30-year-old man was beaten outside a restaurant in downtown Seattle, WA. The man received a concussion, split lip, loose teeth, a black eye, and bruises from being kicked while on the ground. The victim believed his assailants beat him up because they thought that he was gay. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

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

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. In April 2006 the beatings of two gay men in separate attacks took place in northeast Fort Lauderdale, FL. The first attack involved a gay man who was riding his bicycle. When he passed a man on the sidewalk, the man yelled a gay slur and then beat him. Minutes after the first attack a group of men forced a gay man into their car, took him to a local park, then beat and robbed him. According to reports, both attacks appear to have been motivated by the victim's sexual orientation. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The 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 intended to speak in reference to an amendment I was to call up for the supplemental, but because we are in morning business I will speak in morning business. My amendment would be objected to as out of order, as being inconsistent with the supplemental emergency bill. However, I am here to talk about an emergency in rural Oregon in timber-dependent communities. For 100 years, there has been a relationship between the Federal Government and rural communities that has been absolutely indispensable to our country and to those communities. The deal was this: In those States where the Federal Government owns much of the land--in my State it owns more than half of the State of Oregon--there would be multiple uses of public lands. They would be managed as to their resources consistent with environmental law. In the case of the State of Oregon, there would be the result of timber products, wood products, to build countless millions of homes. There would be jobs for people and there would be the types of jobs that would create tax revenues that would allow local communities to have services. In addition to that, there is what are called timber receipts. Local communities would get 25 percent of the timber receipts from the harvest of public timber. This has been absolutely indispensable to the life of these rural communities. That deal changed in the 1990s. To show you how devastating this change was to my State, we had the listing of the spotted owl. We had the Endangered Species Act go into effect. President Clinton and Vice President Gore pursued a forest policy that took a harvest of roughly 8 billion board feet a year down to less than 1 percent of that in many national forests. As a consequence, by the end of the 1990s, our schools were closing. They operated 4 days a week. Counties had no money because many of them have lost up to 60 percent of their operating budgets. At the end of the Clinton administration, the Congress, with President Clinton, recognized the damage, the devastation, being done to these communities, so we passed, in 2000, the Secure Rural Schools Act to bridge the gap between what had been, the gridlock that existed, and the hope for a brighter day when there would be a predictable, sustainable level of forestry. President Bush and the Congress pursued the Healthy Forests Initiative and this President has fully funded the Northwest Forest Plan that was the product of President Clinton but never delivered on the timber that it promised in the hopes of bridging the gap for these communities. But still, after all of that effort, 6 years later, we find that only a small percent of what was done 20 years ago is available to these communities in terms of timber harvest. As a consequence, this secure rural schools fund is about to expire. I suggest this is a very real, present danger, even an emergency, that is appropriate to this supplemental. We ought to include it. These are Federal decisions that have been made. They have been made by an administration in the 1990s. They have been made by Federal law, the law that passed by this Congress. They have been made by courts that have enforced that law and have locked up our forests and now have us in a bind that is truly an emergency. This is a Federal obligation. I need to use every tool as a Senator that I have available to me to try to remind this Senate, this Congress, of the obligation it has. We cannot abandon these communities. We cannot abandon these people. We have to find a way to continue to get back to a management level that is consistent with environmental law, that allows for multiple uses of the land, the harvest of timber, the employment of our people, the production of wood products, the receipt of timber taxes, so that schools can remain open, streets can remain paved, counties can be safe because they have police protection. This is not inexpensive. The annual cost of what we did to bridge this gap was $500 million a year. Oregon is responsible for 20 percent of the merchantable timber in this country. We are not alone in terms of the benefit that came from this secure rural schools fund. California received $380 million over the last 6 years; Montana, $63 million; Mississippi received $38.8 million to keep their rural timber- dependent communities together body and soul. We cannot walk away from this until we find a day where we can get back to a deal that is sustainable in terms of environmental policy, timber production, and the employment of our people. Heaven knows we need the timber. We are now a net importer of timber in this country. Yet what do we do with our own timber? Our policies are in gridlock and our forests are burning. Three years ago, there were 500,000 acres burned in southern Oregon, larger than the State, I am told, of Rhode Island. Yet that timber still stands rotting, a moonscape that, frankly, ought to be allowed to at least be salvaged in some degree. Until we come to a day where we have a policy that we in the Federal Government agree upon, we cannot abandon these rural communities. I will at the appropriate time propose my amendment and hope it is not ruled out of order. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Securing America's Energy Independence Act of 2006. This bill is designed to extend the investment tax credits for fuel cells and solar energy systems in the 2005 Energy Policy Act through 2015. Having reliable, clean energy is fundamental to economic prosperity, our national security, and protecting the environment. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 encourages homeowners and businesses to invest in solar energy and fuel cell technologies through investment tax credits. That law established a tax credit of 30 percent for investments in fuel cells, capped at $1,000, and a tax credit of 30 percent for investments in solar systems, capped at $2,000. However, these credits will expire after 2 years, and therefore are too short lived to encourage significant market penetration or to stimulate expansion of manufacturing for solar energy or fuel cell technologies. Installations of solar energy or fuel cell systems require lead times of a year or more, and manufacturing expansion requires a development schedule of 3 to 4 years, similar to conventional powerplants. Financing of new projects is also more complex than for conventional powerplants because the lending industry is less familiar with these technologies. Accordingly, I have proposed to extend the tax credits for an additional 8 years. My legislation also would alter the cap on residential solar credits to be based on system power, as opposed to cost, and would allow the credits to be taken against the alternative minimum tax. As the market for fuel cell and solar technologies continues to grow overseas, long-term incentives are an essential tool to spur domestic investment and job creation. Extending these incentives for residential and business investments in fuel cell and solar energy technologies will generate quality American jobs in manufacturing, construction, and installation across the United States. Our legislation addresses energy independence and environmental concerns, as well as job creation, with the power of American technology and ingenuity. I am pleased that Senators Menendez, Lieberman, Snowe, Jeffords, Kerry, Cantwell, Salazar, and Clinton have joined me as original cosponsors of this legislation. In light of increasing concerns about the security and affordability of energy supplies, I urge favorable consideration of this bill.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. In March 2006, Gregory Pisarcik was sentenced to life in prison in Santa Ana, CA for the murder of Narciso Leggs, a gay man. During the attack, Pisarcik repeatedly hit Leggs over the head with a champagne bottle. When police later found his body one ear had been cut off and anti-gay slurs were written all over his body. According to sources, police feel that sexual orientation was a motivation for 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.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize John W. Keys III, an extraordinary public servant who will be retiring on April 15, 2006, as the Commissioner of Reclamation. John is a truly dedicated Federal official who has worked tirelessly throughout his career on behalf of the Bureau of Reclamation and the water users it serves. John has served as the Commissioner of Reclamation since July 2001. Prior to that, he spent 34 years as a career employee with the Bureau, starting as a civil and hydraulic engineer. He spent many years in my part of the country, serving as the Pacific-Northwest regional director for 12 years prior to his retirement in 1998. John's tenure as Commissioner coincided with the worst five years of drought in the past 5 centuries. John had to deal with growing, often conflicting, demands for water in the arid West. He initiated the Water 2025 program to help States and water districts address these competing needs. He is a consensus builder who helped craft a historic agreement on the use of Colorado River water. Throughout his tenure, he made resolving water conflicts in the Klamath Basin, on the Oregon- California border, a top priority for the Bureau. John is a commercial airline pilot and a white water enthusiast. He used to average about 300 flight hours a year, often flying for organizations like Angel Flight, Air LifeLine, and County Search and Rescue, based out of Moab, UT. He also used to officiate high school and college football games. It is my understanding that John intends to spend time with his family after he retires. John's wife Dell is a family practice physician and Airman Medical Examiner, and is also a pilot. While I wish John well as he returns to the family and the activities he loves, I want him to know that he will be missed. His leadership and his understanding of western water issues have been invaluable over these last 5 years. I wish John and his wife Dell well as they enjoy their family and their golden years.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. America's service men and women continue to make the ultimate sacrifices for our Nation. In the tragic cases where brave soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors lose their lives in support of Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom, we must honor their service by ensuring that their families are not forced to shoulder undue financial strain. Therefore, I am honored to introduce the Fallen Heroes Family Savings Act. This legislation will increase the flexibility given to families while managing the death gratuity payment to the survivors of fallen service men and women. This bill will provide these families expanded financial options to invest the $100,000 death gratuity payment in health, education, and retirement savings accounts. Allowing families to transfer these funds will help them save money for a college education, medical expenses, or to finance a future retirement. Allowing military families increased financial flexibility is the least we can do to honor the legacy our troops have worked so hard to create. It is my hope that this legislation will assist the families of fallen service men and women in their time of grief and allow them to plan for their future. I ask for unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following letter from the Military Officers Association of America in support of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. America's service men and women continue to make the ultimate sacrifices for our Nation. In the tragic cases where brave soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors lose their lives in support of Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom, we must honor their service by ensuring that their families are not forced to shoulder undue financial strain. Therefore, I am honored to introduce the Fallen Heroes Family Savings Act. This legislation will increase the flexibility given to families while managing the death gratuity payment to the survivors of fallen service men and women. This bill will provide these families expanded financial options to invest the $100,000 death gratuity payment in health, education, and retirement savings accounts. Allowing families to transfer these funds will help them save money for a college education, medical expenses, or to finance a future retirement. Allowing military families increased financial flexibility is the least we can do to honor the legacy our troops have worked so hard to create. It is my hope that this legislation will assist the families of fallen service men and women in their time of grief and allow them to plan for their future. I ask for unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following letter from the Military Officers Association of America in support of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide a win-win for the environment and for the farmers and ranchers who receive their irrigation water from the North Unit Irrigation District in central Oregon. My colleague, Senator Ron Wyden, joins me in cosponsoring this bill. Companion legislation is also being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Congressman Greg Walden. This legislation represents an opportunity to benefit nearly nine hundred farm and ranch families as well as the fish and wildlife resources of the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers. It will do so by removing a limitation in North Unit's Federal water contract with the Bureau of Reclamation. This limitation prevents the Distict and its patrons from participating in a conserved water project pursuant to the laws of the State of Oregon. Removing this contract restriction will enable North Unit to conserve its water supplies further through the implementation of conserved water projects. In order to comply with State law, the District would return a specific percentage of the ``conserved'' water back to the Deschutes River permanently as instream flows for fish, wildlife, or other purposes. A related change would enable the District to use Deschutes Project water on acreage in its service area that is currently irrigated with Crooked River water. The savings from these two changes could ultimately allow the District to reduce its reliance on its privately developed Crooked River supplies. Located in central Oregon's Deschutes Basin, the farm and ranch families of the North Unit Irrigation District are the embodiment of the Federal Reclamation program. Working small and medium parcels of land, they raise grass seed, carrot seed, and alfalfa hay, as well as cattle, sheep, and horses. The overriding limitation to their ability to compete successfully in the international marketplace is a shortage or water. For these families, conservation is the most efficient means to alleviate their shortage and succeed in the market. After self-financing over eight million dollars in canal lining and other measures to increase the efficiency of their limited water supplies, North Unit would like to participate in a state water conservation program. Unfortunately, the District's Federal contract prevents it from doing so. This point has been confirmed to me by officials with the Bureau of Reclamation, an agency of the Department of the Interior. Therefore, North Unit's contract must be amended. Since Congress actually legislatively executed the District's contract in a 1954 statute, it is Congress, and not the Department of the Interior, that must remove this contract restriction. These targeted contract changes are specific to the North Unit Irrigation District's contract. For the landowners served by the District, these changes will enable them to use their water resources more efficiently, maintain their competitiveness in the market, and benefit the fish and wildlife resources of both the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers. Our efforts are supported by the Oregon Water Resources Department, which has jurisdiction over State water rights issues. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I will press for its timely consideration.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide a win-win for the environment and for the farmers and ranchers who receive their irrigation water from the North Unit Irrigation District in central Oregon. My colleague, Senator Ron Wyden, joins me in cosponsoring this bill. Companion legislation is also being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Congressman Greg Walden. This legislation represents an opportunity to benefit nearly nine hundred farm and ranch families as well as the fish and wildlife resources of the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers. It will do so by removing a limitation in North Unit's Federal water contract with the Bureau of Reclamation. This limitation prevents the Distict and its patrons from participating in a conserved water project pursuant to the laws of the State of Oregon. Removing this contract restriction will enable North Unit to conserve its water supplies further through the implementation of conserved water projects. In order to comply with State law, the District would return a specific percentage of the ``conserved'' water back to the Deschutes River permanently as instream flows for fish, wildlife, or other purposes. A related change would enable the District to use Deschutes Project water on acreage in its service area that is currently irrigated with Crooked River water. The savings from these two changes could ultimately allow the District to reduce its reliance on its privately developed Crooked River supplies. Located in central Oregon's Deschutes Basin, the farm and ranch families of the North Unit Irrigation District are the embodiment of the Federal Reclamation program. Working small and medium parcels of land, they raise grass seed, carrot seed, and alfalfa hay, as well as cattle, sheep, and horses. The overriding limitation to their ability to compete successfully in the international marketplace is a shortage or water. For these families, conservation is the most efficient means to alleviate their shortage and succeed in the market. After self-financing over eight million dollars in canal lining and other measures to increase the efficiency of their limited water supplies, North Unit would like to participate in a state water conservation program. Unfortunately, the District's Federal contract prevents it from doing so. This point has been confirmed to me by officials with the Bureau of Reclamation, an agency of the Department of the Interior. Therefore, North Unit's contract must be amended. Since Congress actually legislatively executed the District's contract in a 1954 statute, it is Congress, and not the Department of the Interior, that must remove this contract restriction. These targeted contract changes are specific to the North Unit Irrigation District's contract. For the landowners served by the District, these changes will enable them to use their water resources more efficiently, maintain their competitiveness in the market, and benefit the fish and wildlife resources of both the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers. Our efforts are supported by the Oregon Water Resources Department, which has jurisdiction over State water rights issues. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I will press for its timely consideration.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. On March 18, 2006, in Savannah, GA, Travis McLain, was beaten by Charles Pickett in what appears to be a crime motivated by hate. McLain suffered a concussion and lost several teeth when he was attacked in a local parking garage. McLain has stated that Pickett used anti-gay language while attacking him. Georgia Equality, the state's largest gay rights organization is calling this attack an anti-gay 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 November 14, 2001, Pablo Parrilla was charged with first-degree intentional homicide in the shooting death of his sister's girlfriend, Juana Vega. Parilla confronted Vega outside her Milwaukee, WI, house and shot her repeatedly. According to reports, Parrilla was shouting sexually derogatory slurs toward Vega throughout the attack. I would note that recently in the House, hate crimes legislation was passed in a bipartisan vote. I strongly believe that we must also move similar legislation in the Senate. In the months ahead, I look forward to working with Senator Kennedy as we continue our work in passing a hate crimes bill.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. On February 13, 2002, Paul Chmiel was murdered in a Michigan prison by Michael Keep. According to reports, Keep confronted Chmiel after he had made a sexual advance toward him. During the altercation, Keep slapped Chmiel, crushed his ribs, and strangled him to death. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that are born 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, with reluctance I rise in opposition to this particular provision, but my reluctance vanishes when I consider the programs this would automatically affect--not just Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare but the farm program, county payments, Indian water rights, all the things that are dealt with under entitlements. I think we need to deal with those eventually as Republicans and Democrats and as Americans. We should not do it on the basis of this particular formula.

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 3, 2005, Galo Garcia was walking on the Harvard University campus in Cambridge, MA, when a passing driver began yelling sexually derogatory terms at him and his companion. Garcia confronted the driver, who then allegedly beat Garcia. Garcia received cuts, bruises, and a severe concussion during the attack. According to reports, Garcia claims he was verbally and then physically assaulted because he was walking with his arm around another man. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that are born 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, today I am proud to join with my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Clinton and Nelson, to introduce the Home and Community Based Services Copayment Equity Act of 2006. This important piece of legislation addresses a significant oversight in the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. While nearly 22 million seniors now have access to affordable prescription drug coverage under the program, many of the most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries are being charged unnecessary copayments simply based upon how they choose to receive their long-term care services. Under current law, dual eligible Medicare beneficiaries, those who qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare coverage, receive a subsidy from the government to pay the benefit's required $250 deductible. These individuals also qualify for reduced copayments for both generic and brand named drugs in the amount of one and three dollars respectively. If a dual-eligible beneficiary receives long-term care services in an institutional setting, such as a nursing home, he or she is exempt from paying the required copayment. Congress decided to provide this assistance because dual-eligible beneficiaries residing in nursing homes live off of very limited incomes. For instance, in Oregon the personal needs allowance beneficiaries receive each month for incidentals, including medications, is only $30. As many institutionalized beneficiaries are on multiple medications, they would not be able to meet their share of drug costs. This is the very reason Congress provided institutionalized dual- eligible beneficiaries with an exemption from all copayments under Medicare Part D. However, many dual eligible beneficiaries choose to receive long-term care services in home or community-based settings, such as assisted living or resident care program facilities. Almost all states have chosen to establish Home and Community Based Services Medicaid demonstration projects that have expanded access to community based alternatives to an even greater number of low-income elderly Americans. The State of Oregon operates one of the Nation's most successful HCS waivers, serving approximately 23,500 dual eligible beneficiaries this year. My State has a thriving community based care industry that has provided many dual eligible Oregonians the freedom to choose the care setting that best meets their own physical and social needs. While dual eligible beneficiaries are exempted from prescription drug copayments under Medicare Part D, those choosing community based alternatives are required to pay them. This is despite the fact that beneficiaries choosing community based care options typically live off of the same limited incomes as those residing in nursing homes. Despite the fact that some States provide HCS beneficiaries a larger personal stipend each month, they may have greater financial demands. At the end of the day, they are in no better position to pay the costs of prescription drugs than those beneficiaries living in nursing homes. I should also note that their less restrictive living environments may require them to take additional medications to support their daily routines. It is not uncommon for dual eligible beneficiaries in community-based care settings to be on 8 to 10 medications at a given time. At that level, even minimal copayments create a significant financial burden to these individuals. The current dual-eligible copayment exemption policy is not only creating inequity in Medicare Part D, it is potentially restricting access to life-saving medications. This is certainly not what Congress intended when it created the new prescription drug benefit, especially for this incredibly vulnerable population. If Congress does not act quickly to extend the exemption to dual eligible beneficiaries in community based care, individuals may begin to gravitate toward institutional options simply because they can have their drugs costs paid in those settings. I believe we need to do everything possible to support choice in long-term care, and by applying the current institutional copayment exemption more uniformly, Congress will ensure the Medicare drug benefit does not adversely affect beneficiaries choices. I ask my colleagues to improve the fairness of the Medicare prescription drug benefit for all dual eligible beneficiaries by supporting the Home and Community Based Copayment Equity Act. I hope you will join me in calling for its quick passage in the Senate.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am proud to join with my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Clinton and Nelson, to introduce the Home and Community Based Services Copayment Equity Act of 2006. This important piece of legislation addresses a significant oversight in the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. While nearly 22 million seniors now have access to affordable prescription drug coverage under the program, many of the most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries are being charged unnecessary copayments simply based upon how they choose to receive their long-term care services. Under current law, dual eligible Medicare beneficiaries, those who qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare coverage, receive a subsidy from the government to pay the benefit's required $250 deductible. These individuals also qualify for reduced copayments for both generic and brand named drugs in the amount of one and three dollars respectively. If a dual-eligible beneficiary receives long-term care services in an institutional setting, such as a nursing home, he or she is exempt from paying the required copayment. Congress decided to provide this assistance because dual-eligible beneficiaries residing in nursing homes live off of very limited incomes. For instance, in Oregon the personal needs allowance beneficiaries receive each month for incidentals, including medications, is only $30. As many institutionalized beneficiaries are on multiple medications, they would not be able to meet their share of drug costs. This is the very reason Congress provided institutionalized dual- eligible beneficiaries with an exemption from all copayments under Medicare Part D. However, many dual eligible beneficiaries choose to receive long-term care services in home or community-based settings, such as assisted living or resident care program facilities. Almost all states have chosen to establish Home and Community Based Services Medicaid demonstration projects that have expanded access to community based alternatives to an even greater number of low-income elderly Americans. The State of Oregon operates one of the Nation's most successful HCS waivers, serving approximately 23,500 dual eligible beneficiaries this year. My State has a thriving community based care industry that has provided many dual eligible Oregonians the freedom to choose the care setting that best meets their own physical and social needs. While dual eligible beneficiaries are exempted from prescription drug copayments under Medicare Part D, those choosing community based alternatives are required to pay them. This is despite the fact that beneficiaries choosing community based care options typically live off of the same limited incomes as those residing in nursing homes. Despite the fact that some States provide HCS beneficiaries a larger personal stipend each month, they may have greater financial demands. At the end of the day, they are in no better position to pay the costs of prescription drugs than those beneficiaries living in nursing homes. I should also note that their less restrictive living environments may require them to take additional medications to support their daily routines. It is not uncommon for dual eligible beneficiaries in community-based care settings to be on 8 to 10 medications at a given time. At that level, even minimal copayments create a significant financial burden to these individuals. The current dual-eligible copayment exemption policy is not only creating inequity in Medicare Part D, it is potentially restricting access to life-saving medications. This is certainly not what Congress intended when it created the new prescription drug benefit, especially for this incredibly vulnerable population. If Congress does not act quickly to extend the exemption to dual eligible beneficiaries in community based care, individuals may begin to gravitate toward institutional options simply because they can have their drugs costs paid in those settings. I believe we need to do everything possible to support choice in long-term care, and by applying the current institutional copayment exemption more uniformly, Congress will ensure the Medicare drug benefit does not adversely affect beneficiaries choices. I ask my colleagues to improve the fairness of the Medicare prescription drug benefit for all dual eligible beneficiaries by supporting the Home and Community Based Copayment Equity Act. I hope you will join me in calling for its quick passage in the Senate.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Long-Term Care Trust Account Act of 2006. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Blanche Lincoln. In the past few years the notion of estate planning has taken on a negative connotation. I am here to introduce a bill that will focus on the positive side of planning for one's future. As the Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I am committed to improving the financing and delivery of long-term care. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that national spending for long-term care was almost $160 billion in 2002, representing about 12 percent of all personal health care expenditures. While those numbers are already staggering we also know that the need for long-term care is expected to grow significantly in coming decades. Almost two-thirds of people receiving long-term care are over age 65, with this number expected to double by 2030. For many individuals it will be necessary to find a way to either save for the care needed or purchase long-term care insurance. Long- term care insurance protects assets and income from the devastating financial consequences of long-term health care costs. Today's comprehensive long-term care insurance policies allow consumers to choose from a variety of benefits and offer a wide range of coverage choices. They allow individuals to receive care in a variety of settings including nursing homes, home care, assisted living facilities and adult day care. Some of the most recent policies also provide a cash benefit that a consumer can spend in the manner he or she chooses. Lastly, long-term care insurance allows individuals to take personal responsibility for their long-term health care needs and reduces the strain on state Medicaid budgets. Unfortunately, for many the struggle to pay the immediate costs of long-term care insurance sometimes outweighs the security these products provide. With our national savings rate in steady decline I fear the American middle class is woefully unprepared to meet the coming challenges of their long-term care needs. As we move forward in our effort to help individuals stay financially stable in their later years, we must encourage them to purchase long-term care insurance and save for long- term care services. The Long-Term Care Trust Account Act of 2006 achieves both goals. My legislation will create a new type of savings vehicle for the purpose of preparing for the costs associated with long-term care services and purchasing long-term care insurance. An individual who establishes a long-term care trust account can contribute up to $5,000 per year to their account and receive a refundable ten percent tax credit on that contribution. Interest accrued on these accounts will be tax free, and funds can be withdrawn for the purchase of long-term care insurance or to pay for long-term care services. The bill will also allow an individual to make contributions to another person's Long-Term Care Trust Account. This will help many relatives in our country that want to help their parents or a loved one prepare for their health care needs. It is my hope that this legislation will help all Americans save for their long-term care needs. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important bill. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Long-Term Care Trust Account Act of 2006. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Blanche Lincoln. In the past few years the notion of estate planning has taken on a negative connotation. I am here to introduce a bill that will focus on the positive side of planning for one's future. As the Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I am committed to improving the financing and delivery of long-term care. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that national spending for long-term care was almost $160 billion in 2002, representing about 12 percent of all personal health care expenditures. While those numbers are already staggering we also know that the need for long-term care is expected to grow significantly in coming decades. Almost two-thirds of people receiving long-term care are over age 65, with this number expected to double by 2030. For many individuals it will be necessary to find a way to either save for the care needed or purchase long-term care insurance. Long- term care insurance protects assets and income from the devastating financial consequences of long-term health care costs. Today's comprehensive long-term care insurance policies allow consumers to choose from a variety of benefits and offer a wide range of coverage choices. They allow individuals to receive care in a variety of settings including nursing homes, home care, assisted living facilities and adult day care. Some of the most recent policies also provide a cash benefit that a consumer can spend in the manner he or she chooses. Lastly, long-term care insurance allows individuals to take personal responsibility for their long-term health care needs and reduces the strain on state Medicaid budgets. Unfortunately, for many the struggle to pay the immediate costs of long-term care insurance sometimes outweighs the security these products provide. With our national savings rate in steady decline I fear the American middle class is woefully unprepared to meet the coming challenges of their long-term care needs. As we move forward in our effort to help individuals stay financially stable in their later years, we must encourage them to purchase long-term care insurance and save for long- term care services. The Long-Term Care Trust Account Act of 2006 achieves both goals. My legislation will create a new type of savings vehicle for the purpose of preparing for the costs associated with long-term care services and purchasing long-term care insurance. An individual who establishes a long-term care trust account can contribute up to $5,000 per year to their account and receive a refundable ten percent tax credit on that contribution. Interest accrued on these accounts will be tax free, and funds can be withdrawn for the purchase of long-term care insurance or to pay for long-term care services. The bill will also allow an individual to make contributions to another person's Long-Term Care Trust Account. This will help many relatives in our country that want to help their parents or a loved one prepare for their health care needs. It is my hope that this legislation will help all Americans save for their long-term care needs. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important bill. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. On March 30, 1999, Tracey Thompson was murdered in Wilcox County, GA. Thompson was a transgender person that was found bleeding from a head wound after walking a half-mile to a local farmhouse. According to police, she was beaten with a baseball bat, and desecrated in a way that made the attack an apparent hate crime. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that are born 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.