Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise again, as I have earlier this month, to honor February as Black History Month. Each February since 1926, we have recognized the contributions of Black Americans to the Nation. This is no accident; February is a significant month in Black American history. Abolitionist Frederick Douglass, President Abraham Lincoln, and scholar and civil rights leader W.E.B. DuBois were born in the month of February. The 15th amendment to the Constitution was ratified 132 years ago this month, preventing race discrimination in the right to vote. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was founded in February in New York City. February 1 was the 45th anniversary of the Greensboro Four's historic sit-in. And on February 25, 1870, this body welcomed its first Black senator, Hiram R. Revels of Mississippi. In this important month, I have wanted to celebrate some of the contributions made by Black Americans in my home State of Oregon. Since Marcus Lopez, who sailed with Captain Robert Gray in 1788, became the first person of African descent known to set foot in Oregon, a great many Black Americans have helped shape the history of my State. Throughout this month, I have come to the floor to highlight some of their stories. Today, on the last day of Black History Month, I have come to honor one more. Louis A. Southworth was a blacksmith, fiddler, and farmer. Though a combination of his contagious personality, appealing fiddle playing, and an unwavering devotion to civic duty, he became one of Oregon's most respected and well-liked citizens of his time. Born into slavery in Tennessee in 1830, he later moved with his family to Oregon in 1851. Although slavery was officially banned in Oregon, it was still practiced with some frequency. While working in the gold mines, Southworth soon found that people greatly enjoyed his musical talents. He was able to parlay his talents on a fiddle into an extra source of income, and at age 28, bought his freedom for $1,000. The phrase ``fiddling for freedom'' soon caught on, and Louis Southworth become some what of a local hero. In 1879, he moved with his wife and adopted son to the south bank of the Alsea River. Southworth, with his family and his fiddle, soon won over this small community. He worked as a farmer, and ferried cargo and passengers across the bay to town. As more people began to move into the community, he donated some of his land to build a local school house and later served as chair of the school board. Along with his new life came a renewed sense of civic duty. Southworth became a dedicated political activist. During the elections of 1890, a strong storm ravaged his small town. Unafraid of the weather, Louis Southworth rigged two oil drums to his boat for buoyancy and rowed across the bay to the polling place. As it turns out, he was the only person to cast a vote in Waldport that day. Despite the chaotic times in which he lived, Louis Southworth was embraced by his community. Before he died in 1917, his neighbors raised the $300 needed to pay off his mortgage in Corvallis, OR. Louis Southworth provides one example of a man triumphing over seemingly insurmountable odds. As a Black man living in troubled times, his personality, compassion, work ethic, talents, generosity, and devotion to the community service allowed him to become a respected leader. He was accepted by many of his peers, of all races, religions, and ethnic backgrounds, long before this was common or expected. His legacy of service and kindness is one that lives on today, and one that should be remembered for years to come. On this last day of Black History Month, I believe it is only right to celebrate an Oregonian like Louis Southworth, whose contributions to race relations in Oregon, while great, have not yet received the attention they deserve.

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 of 2004, a gay man was attacked outside of his Kansas City home by two unknown assailants. Floyd Elliot reported to authorities that two men held him down, cut him with a knife, and used the knife to burn letters into his skin. It looks as if the assailants were attempting to ``brand'' a homosexual slur onto the victim's chest. The attack is being investigated as a 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 discuss a rare strain of HIV that is highly resistant to most antiretroviral drugs and causes a rapid onset of AIDS that was recently discovered in a patient in New York City. The strain, identified as 3-DCR HIV, is resistant to 3 of the 4 classes of antiretroviral drugs, which means that 19 of the 20 available antiretroviral drug combinations would be ineffective for a person with this HIV strain. Although drug-resistant HIV strains are common in patients who have been treated with antiretroviral drugs, multiple-drug-resistant HIV is extremely rare in patients who are newly diagnosed and previously untreated. Moreover, while HIV infection usually takes about 10 years to progress to AIDS, this patient apparently progressed to AIDS in a matter of months. Combination of a highly drug resistant HIV infection and rapid disease progression has the potential to become a very serious public health problem with global health implications. The ultimate significance of the new strain is still unknown. Only time will tell whether this was an isolated case or part of an outbreak of similar cases. It is imperative, however, that we take action to identify and halt the spread of aggressive, multiresistant HIV/AIDS strains. We must continue to build upon and fund existing prevention programs and to strengthen our infectious disease monitoring systems. The CDC, in collaboration with community, state, national, governmental and nongovernmental partners, employs a number of programs designed to prevent HIV infection and reduce the incidence of HIV-related illness and death. By providing financial and technical support for disease surveillance; risk-reduction counseling; street and community outreach; school-based education on AIDS; prevention case management; and prevention and treatment of other sexually transmitted diseases that can increase risks for HIV transmission, such programs have played a key role in reducing HIV transmission. Stopping the spread of this strain is also critical in order to preserve the effectiveness of existing HIV/AIDS therapies. Not only do such therapies prolong and improve the quality of life of those affected by HIV/AIDS, but they also play a vital role in preventing the spread of the disease. A recent study found that HIV therapies reduce infectiousness by 60 percent. Consequently, that is why I recently reintroduced S. 311, the Early Treatment for HIV Act, ETHA. Supported by a bipartisan group of 31 Senators, ETHA redresses a fundamental flaw under the current Medicaid system that provides access to care only after individuals have developed full blown AIDS. ETHA brings Medicaid eligibility rules in line with Federal Government guidelines on the standard of care for treating HIV. ETHA helps address the fact that increasingly, in many parts of the country, there are growing waiting lists for access to life-saving medications and limited access to comprehensive health care. Access to HIV therapies reduces the amount of HIV virus present in a person's bloodstream, viral load, a key factor in curbing infectiousness and reducing the ability to transmit HIV. Early access to HIV therapies as provided under ETHA would not only delay disease progression and increase life expectancy, but it would also reduce the need for more expensive treatment and costly hospital stays. According to a study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, ETHA would reduce gross Medicaid costs by 70 percent, saving the Federal Government approximately $1.5 billion over 10 years. With the administration looking for ways to reduce Medicaid costs, passing ETHA would be a good start. It's also the right thing to do.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleagues, Senators Kohl, Lugar, Lieberman, Brownback, Clinton, Lautenberg, and Feingold, to introduce this important piece of legislation. Legislation that will ensure the United States government does not turn its back on political asylees or refugees who are the most vulnerable citizens seeking safety in this great country of ours. As many of you may know, Congress as part of Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, PRWORA, modified the SSI program to include a seven-year time limit on the receipt of benefits for refugees and asylees. This policy was intended to balance the desire to have people who emigrant to the United States to become citizens, with an understanding that the naturalization process also takes time to complete. To allow adequate time for asylees and refugees to become naturalized citizens Congress provided the 7-year time limit before the expiration of SSI benefits. Unfortunately, the naturalization process often takes longer than 7 years because applicants are requited to live in the United States for a minimum of 5 years prior to applying for citizenship and the INS often takes 3 or more years to process the application. Because of this time delay, many individuals are trapped in the system faced with the loss of their SSI benefits. If Congress does not act to change the law, reports show that over the next 4 years nearly 30,000 elderly and disabled refugees and asylees will lose their Supplemental Security Income, SSI, benefits because their 7-year time limit will expire before they become citizens. Many of these individuals are elderly who fled persecution or torture in their home countries. They include Jews fleeing religious persecution in the former Soviet Union, Iraqi Kurds fleeing the Saddam Hussein regime, Cubans and Hmong people from the highlands of Laos who served on the side of the United States military during the Vietnam War. They are elderly and unable to work, and have become reliant on their SSI benefits as their primary income. To penalize them because of delays encountered through the bureaucratic process seems unjust and inappropriate. The administration in its fiscal year 2006 budget acknowledged the necessity to correct this problem by dedicating funding to extend refugee eligibility for SSI beyond the 7-year limit. While I am pleased that they have taken the first step in correcting this problem, I am concerned the policy does not go far enough. Data shows that most people will need at least an additional 2 years to navigate and complete the naturalization process. Therefore, my colleagues and I have introduced this bill, which will provide a 2-year extension. We believe this will provide the time necessary to complete the process. . I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill, and I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley and other members of the Finance Committee to secure these changes during consideration of TANF reauthorization.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pathways to Independence Act of 2005, along with Senators Jeffords, Chafee, Rockefeller, and Collins. This bill includes two important provisions that we will work to include in TANF reauthorization. These provisions will help States work with TANF recipients who have disabilities to transition them into work. In July 2002, the General Accounting Office reported that as many as 44 percent of TANF families have a parent or child with a physical or mental impairment. This is almost three times as high as among the non- TANF population in the United States. In eight percent of TANF families, there is both a parent and a child with a disability; among non-TANF families, this figure is one percent. The GAO's work confirmed the findings of earlier studies, including work by the Urban Institute and the HHS Inspector General. These figures mean that we need to make sure that TANF reauthorization legislation gives States the ability and incentives to help families meet their current needs, while also helping them to move from welfare to work. This is the lesson that Oregon and many other States have already learned as they developed and refined their TANF programs. The first provision of my bill provides a pragmatic approach to helping parents with disabilities and substance abuse problems receive the treatment and other rehabilitative services they will need to succeed in a work setting. It is designed so that, over time, States can gradually increase the work activity requirements, while continuing to provide clients with rehabilitative services. Under this proposal, much like in other proposals under consideration, a person participating in rehabilitation can be counted as engaged in work activity for three months. After the first three months, if a person continues to need rehabilitative services, the State can continue to count participation in those activities for another three months, so long as that person is engaged in some number of work hours, to be determined by the State. The next step of my proposal builds on the concept of partial credit that is being considered in the Senate Finance Committee. If, after six months, a State determines that a person has a continuing need for rehabilitative services, the State may create a package that combines work activity with these services. The State will receive credit for the individual's efforts so long as at least one-half of the hours in which the individual participates are in core work activities. For example, if a State receives full credit for a person who works 30 hours per week, and the State has determined that an individual needs rehabilitative services beyond six months, that individual would need to be engaged in core work activities for at least 15 hours per week to get full credit, with the remaining 15 hours spent in rehabilitative services. Similarly, if partial credit is available for a person who works 24 hours per week, then a State could receive that same partial credit if the person was engaged in core work activities for at least 12 hours per week, with the remaining 12 hours spent in rehabilitative services. This approach is appealing for many reasons. First, it allows states to design a system in which a person can move progressively over time from rehabilitation toward work. Second, it gives states credit for the time and effort they will need to invest to help people move successfully from welfare to work by allowing States to use a range of strategies to help these families. Third, it creates a more realistic structure for individuals with disabilities and addictions who may otherwise fall out of the system either through sanction or discouragement, despite their need for financial support. Finally, this approach is appealing because it is designed to work within the structure of the final TANF reauthorization bill. I look forward to working with my co-sponsors, Senators Jeffords, Chafee, Rockefeller, and Collins, and with the Chairman of the Finance Committee on these important provisions in the upcoming months, and I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation. I also wish to thank all of the organizations that have expressed support for this bill. I have received support letters from those organizations, and I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleagues, Senators Kohl, Lugar, Lieberman, Brownback, Clinton, Lautenberg, and Feingold, to introduce this important piece of legislation. Legislation that will ensure the United States government does not turn its back on political asylees or refugees who are the most vulnerable citizens seeking safety in this great country of ours. As many of you may know, Congress as part of Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, PRWORA, modified the SSI program to include a seven-year time limit on the receipt of benefits for refugees and asylees. This policy was intended to balance the desire to have people who emigrant to the United States to become citizens, with an understanding that the naturalization process also takes time to complete. To allow adequate time for asylees and refugees to become naturalized citizens Congress provided the 7-year time limit before the expiration of SSI benefits. Unfortunately, the naturalization process often takes longer than 7 years because applicants are requited to live in the United States for a minimum of 5 years prior to applying for citizenship and the INS often takes 3 or more years to process the application. Because of this time delay, many individuals are trapped in the system faced with the loss of their SSI benefits. If Congress does not act to change the law, reports show that over the next 4 years nearly 30,000 elderly and disabled refugees and asylees will lose their Supplemental Security Income, SSI, benefits because their 7-year time limit will expire before they become citizens. Many of these individuals are elderly who fled persecution or torture in their home countries. They include Jews fleeing religious persecution in the former Soviet Union, Iraqi Kurds fleeing the Saddam Hussein regime, Cubans and Hmong people from the highlands of Laos who served on the side of the United States military during the Vietnam War. They are elderly and unable to work, and have become reliant on their SSI benefits as their primary income. To penalize them because of delays encountered through the bureaucratic process seems unjust and inappropriate. The administration in its fiscal year 2006 budget acknowledged the necessity to correct this problem by dedicating funding to extend refugee eligibility for SSI beyond the 7-year limit. While I am pleased that they have taken the first step in correcting this problem, I am concerned the policy does not go far enough. Data shows that most people will need at least an additional 2 years to navigate and complete the naturalization process. Therefore, my colleagues and I have introduced this bill, which will provide a 2-year extension. We believe this will provide the time necessary to complete the process. . I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill, and I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley and other members of the Finance Committee to secure these changes during consideration of TANF reauthorization.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pathways to Independence Act of 2005, along with Senators Jeffords, Chafee, Rockefeller, and Collins. This bill includes two important provisions that we will work to include in TANF reauthorization. These provisions will help States work with TANF recipients who have disabilities to transition them into work. In July 2002, the General Accounting Office reported that as many as 44 percent of TANF families have a parent or child with a physical or mental impairment. This is almost three times as high as among the non- TANF population in the United States. In eight percent of TANF families, there is both a parent and a child with a disability; among non-TANF families, this figure is one percent. The GAO's work confirmed the findings of earlier studies, including work by the Urban Institute and the HHS Inspector General. These figures mean that we need to make sure that TANF reauthorization legislation gives States the ability and incentives to help families meet their current needs, while also helping them to move from welfare to work. This is the lesson that Oregon and many other States have already learned as they developed and refined their TANF programs. The first provision of my bill provides a pragmatic approach to helping parents with disabilities and substance abuse problems receive the treatment and other rehabilitative services they will need to succeed in a work setting. It is designed so that, over time, States can gradually increase the work activity requirements, while continuing to provide clients with rehabilitative services. Under this proposal, much like in other proposals under consideration, a person participating in rehabilitation can be counted as engaged in work activity for three months. After the first three months, if a person continues to need rehabilitative services, the State can continue to count participation in those activities for another three months, so long as that person is engaged in some number of work hours, to be determined by the State. The next step of my proposal builds on the concept of partial credit that is being considered in the Senate Finance Committee. If, after six months, a State determines that a person has a continuing need for rehabilitative services, the State may create a package that combines work activity with these services. The State will receive credit for the individual's efforts so long as at least one-half of the hours in which the individual participates are in core work activities. For example, if a State receives full credit for a person who works 30 hours per week, and the State has determined that an individual needs rehabilitative services beyond six months, that individual would need to be engaged in core work activities for at least 15 hours per week to get full credit, with the remaining 15 hours spent in rehabilitative services. Similarly, if partial credit is available for a person who works 24 hours per week, then a State could receive that same partial credit if the person was engaged in core work activities for at least 12 hours per week, with the remaining 12 hours spent in rehabilitative services. This approach is appealing for many reasons. First, it allows states to design a system in which a person can move progressively over time from rehabilitation toward work. Second, it gives states credit for the time and effort they will need to invest to help people move successfully from welfare to work by allowing States to use a range of strategies to help these families. Third, it creates a more realistic structure for individuals with disabilities and addictions who may otherwise fall out of the system either through sanction or discouragement, despite their need for financial support. Finally, this approach is appealing because it is designed to work within the structure of the final TANF reauthorization bill. I look forward to working with my co-sponsors, Senators Jeffords, Chafee, Rockefeller, and Collins, and with the Chairman of the Finance Committee on these important provisions in the upcoming months, and I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation. I also wish to thank all of the organizations that have expressed support for this bill. I have received support letters from those organizations, and I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. In September of 2004, two transgender women were attacked by a group of six or seven teenagers in Washington, DC. One of the women, Kerri Kellerman, suffered two broken ribs, a fractured skull, and a facial wound requiring 40 stitches after being beaten with a brick and a metal padlock. The other woman, a 25-year-old named Jaimie Fischer, reports that the assailants yelled slurs about the victim's sexual orientation during 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 submit a resolution on the European Union's expressed intent to lift its arms embargo against China. During the EU-China summit meeting last December, the European Union indicated that it is likely to lift the arms embargo it imposed against China after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Evidently, the ``strategic partnership'' the EU seeks with China and base economic interests trump the human rights considerations that were the reason for instituting the embargo in the first place. How the EU proceeds on this issue will reveal a great deal about the role it seeks to play in the world. In helping the Chinese develop their military capabilities, the Europeans see two principal benefits. China's enhanced military prowess would serve as a more effective counterweight to American power, theoretically strengthening the EU's hand in international political and strategic decisions. Additionally, European defense industries stand to gain billions of euros in Chinese contracts which, for EU leaders, seems too good to resist. Sadly, the EU seems to be giving in to Chinese blackmail. Because China views the continued arms embargo as an international black eye and an embarrassing reminder of the Tiananmen crackdown, it has aggressively lobbied the Europeans to lift it, even saying that their trade relationship will be jeopardized if the embargo remains in place. It is important to remember the reason for imposing the embargo: China's brutal reaction to the democratic movement in 1989 that resulted in the death of hundreds of Chinese and the imprisonment of thousands more. So, when we consider the future of the embargo it seems self-evident to evaluate the current state of human rights in China today. Though the government's methods may be more refined than we saw in June 1989, the situation remains bleak. Chinese citizens who attempt to exercise basic rights are dealt with harshly. People are jailed for writing essays. Priests are beaten and abused. Churches are closed, their leaders detained. Birth planning policies are cruelly implemented. The Chinese people are still unable to speak freely, to meet without interference, or to worship in peace. Although respect for basic human rights is one of the values that define the Euro-Atlantic tradition, the EU seems ready to discard it at will. It is foolish for them to call on China to improve its human rights record and then talk of rewarding them by lifting the embargo. I cringe to think of the message that sends to the brave Chinese dissidents fighting for democracy. The EU claims that lifting the embargo will not change the status quo. Its argument is based on the EU's 'Code of Conduct' that lays out minimal standards (including respect for human rights and preservation of regional peace) for EU nations to consider before approving arms sales. There would be no explosion of military sales to China if the embargo is lifted, EU leaders say. But not only is the Code of Conduct ineffective, it is purely voluntary. And if its terms are violated, it is not legally enforceable. Even if the EU were to strengthen the code of conduct and improve its transparency, I am confident that EU members would ignore its provisions if they deem it economically advantageous. Otherwise, I doubt their defense industries would be as enthusiastic about access to the Chinese marketplace. There are serious consequences if the EU proceeds down this road. By giving China access to advanced military systems, including surveillance and communication equipment, the EU would be directly responsible for modernizing the Chinese military. On a regional basis, the delicate strategic balance in the Taiwan straits will be altered, and as one Pentagon official states, China will be able to kill Americans more effectively. China's recent threatening moves against Japan will be seen as more dangerous. And whether the EU admits it or not, China will have a greater capability to suppress internal dissent. This may not matter to Europe. But they should carefully consider the impact this move would have on the transatlantic relationship that they claim to value. I can guarantee that if the EU lifts its arms embargo against China, the Congress will reassess the close defense and intelligence cooperation that the United States has with Europe and work to reverse the liberalization of technology transfers to our European partners. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. If we share advanced technology with the EU which then allows China even limited access to it, our forces in the Pacific are more vulnerable to Chinese misadventure. Last November, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw told me that the United Kingdom did not want to jeopardize its close defense relationship with the U.S. over the arms embargo issue. Yet, apparently the British believe that this is an instance where it can play the role of a good European, rather than an American partner. I take heart that there are some EU members that still believe in the importance of taking a stand on human rights grounds. Unfortunately, I am not certain their views can prevail in Brussels. I am pleased that my distinguished colleague, Senator Biden, has joined me in submitting this resolution today, along with Senators Brownback, Kyl, Chambliss, and Ensign. President Bush will be traveling to Europe next week, where he will meet with senior European and EU leaders. This resolution states our strong support of the United States arms embargo on China and urges the European Union to maintain its embargo as well. It also urges the President to raise our objections to the EU lifting its embargo and to engage the Europeans during his meetings next week in a discussion on how doing so could adversely affect the transatlantic relationship. It encourages the EU to examine its current arms control policies, close any loopholes, and examine their trade with China in light of serious human rights concerns. I believe, and it is expressed in the resolution, that this situation presents us with an opportunity to work with the EU to strengthen the transatlantic relationship. By working together actively on a common strategy to improve human rights in China, end the Chinese military build-up against Taiwan, improve Chinese export control practices, and bring an end to the ongoing proliferation by state-sponsored entities in China of technology related to weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, we are more likely to achieve our common goal. But I am concerned that the strident competitiveness of some senior European leaders and their obsession with hampering America's ability to operate in the world is impacting U.S. national security interests, rather than purely economic or commercial ones. Multipolarity is not a policy goal, it's a recipe for disaster. At what cost is the EU trying to counter American power? In order to play a greater role in the world, they are willing to risk one that is more dangerous.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Professor Russ Dondero of Pacific University in Forest Grove, OR. Professor Dondero is retiring from a full-time teaching load in the Department of Politics and Government at the end of this school year. He is being honored this week by his current and former students and friends during events leading up to the annual Pacific University Tom McCall Forum in Portland, OR on February 17. The Tom McCall Forum may be Professor Dondero's most visible accomplishment. Now in its 23rd year, the forum has become the premier public affairs event in the Pacific Northwest, drawing national political figures each year for a spirited debate between a liberal and a conservative of national interest. The driving force throughout the Forum's history has been Professor Dondero. He has taken the event from the small confines of a basement room on campus to an event that attracts over 1,000 people and the cameras of C-SPAN. While the forum gives a public face to Professor Dondero's work, his ties to and influence on our State of Oregon runs much deeper. A 1960 graduate of Roseburg High School, Professor Dondero left Oregon to pursue his academic calling at Whitman College, the University of Minnesota and Dickinson College. He returned home with his wife, Ann, to raise their sons, Tony and Jason. During his 31 years of teaching at Pacific, Professor Dondero acted as teacher, mentor and friend to students past and present. Like a successful coach, Professor Dondero has always known which lever to pull to draw the best possible performance out of those with whom he worked. He has an instinct that can't be taught--how to inspire his students to succeed by deploying the appropriate tactic at the right moment. Outside of the classroom, Professor Dondero has been relentless in seeking out opportunities for his students so they could apply in the field the lessons they learned. I have been proud to put some of his students to work in my office. It is fitting that many of his former students and Pacific University have established the Russell A. Dondero Fellowship. In the future, fellowship recipients at Pacific will receive a small stipend to offset the cost of living while pursuing an internship as part of their academic program--which will certainly make it possible for more students to take advantage of this important experience. His academic work is only part of Russ Dondero's story. It would be hard to locate a more passionate, talented and effective advocate for affordable housing in the State of Oregon. I am confident he will continue to use his talents and energies for this important cause, and that he and Ann will continue to shape the lives of his students and his community. W. B. Yeats once wrote, ``Education is not the filling of a bucket, but the lighting of a fire.'' I am proud to join with the Pacific University community in thanking Russ Dondero for lighting fires that will continue to burn for many years to come.

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. Last summer, a gay man was attacked outside of a club in Seattle, WA. Micah Painter was leaving for the night when he was beaten and stabbed with a broken bottle. His attackers shouted anti-gay slurs at him and demanded to know if he was gay. The incident is being investigated as a 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, America will soon be facing a new and serious retirement challenge. Americans are living longer. Yet, recent economic and demographic shifts will put the retirement security of many retirees at risk. Current projections regarding the solvency of the Social Security program are not favorable. And, with 77 million baby boomers set to begin retiring in 2008, the number of retirees in the Social Security program is expected to double. In addition, fewer retirees in the future will be able to depend on monthly pension checks that many employers once paid. A growing number of retirees will be facing the difficult challenge of managing their own savings. In response to these trends, I am offering legislation aimed at assisting Americans maintain their financial independence and their standard of living throughout their retirement by making it easier for them to secure a steady income for life. Under the Retirement Security for Life Act that Senator Conrad and I are introducing today, a tax incentive would be enacted that encourages retirees to provide themselves with a guaranteed lifetime income. Specifically, the proposal would exclude from federal taxes one-half of the income payments from an annuity purchased with after tax dollars, a so- called non-qualified annuity. Importantly, we have proposed a cap on the exclusion so that no more that $20,000 could be excluded in a year. For a typical American in the 25 percent tax bracket, this would provide an annual maximum tax savings of up to $5,000. I believe that this modest tax incentive will enable some retirees to consider annuitizing a portion of their nest egg so that they have a guaranteed lifetime of income. In recent years, the ``retirement security'' debate in Congress has almost entirely focused on the need to accumulate a nest egg prior to retirement. And, Congress is doing much to encourage personal saving and employer-provided retirement plans. I am proud of both our successes and our continuing efforts in these areas. Encouraging more savings is an important step, but it is not enough. What has received little attention is the retirement income or ``payout'' phase of the retirement security equation. That is, we need to be thinking about the management of market and longevity risk so that a life's savings can provide a secure retirement. Longevity risk--the risk of outliving one's savings--is one of the biggest risks facing retirees. While we have some control over when we retire, we have very little control over how long we will live. It is my goal that Americans will be able to enjoy a lifetime of income from their hard-earned savings long after they have put their years in the workforce behind them. Please join me in supporting our proposal as a crucial step in providing a secure retirement for all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Collins and Senator Pryor, in introducing the ``Keeping Families Together Act''. This bill will expand Medicaid's home and community based services waiver to cover children and adolescents in residential treatment facilities. Currently, most state Medicaid agencies, including Oregon, do not cover this intensive treatment. In 2001, 101 Oregon children and adolescents were placed in State custody because this was the only way they could get the mental health treatment they need. This situation occurs most often in middle-income families, where the family's employer-based insurance does not cover intensive treatment for serious mental illness, but the family income is too high for them to qualify for Medicaid services. With no other way to get their child treatment, parents are forced to choose between custody and care. Passage of this legislation is urgently needed so that thousands of parents are not forced to relinquish their custody rights to State child welfare or juvenile agencies in order to obtain mental health care for their seriously mentally ill children. In Oregon, children with serious mental illnesses are being taken away from their families at a time when they most need to be close to home. The availability of family support services, community-based services and other effective interventions will help reduce the need for costly residential care and consequently reduce the need to place children in a setting away from their homes, families and communities. Keeping Families Together Act will also establish a Federal interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems so that we can hopefully see an end to this practice, not just in Oregon, but in every State in our nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this critical legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Collins and Senator Pryor, in introducing the ``Keeping Families Together Act''. This bill will expand Medicaid's home and community based services waiver to cover children and adolescents in residential treatment facilities. Currently, most state Medicaid agencies, including Oregon, do not cover this intensive treatment. In 2001, 101 Oregon children and adolescents were placed in State custody because this was the only way they could get the mental health treatment they need. This situation occurs most often in middle-income families, where the family's employer-based insurance does not cover intensive treatment for serious mental illness, but the family income is too high for them to qualify for Medicaid services. With no other way to get their child treatment, parents are forced to choose between custody and care. Passage of this legislation is urgently needed so that thousands of parents are not forced to relinquish their custody rights to State child welfare or juvenile agencies in order to obtain mental health care for their seriously mentally ill children. In Oregon, children with serious mental illnesses are being taken away from their families at a time when they most need to be close to home. The availability of family support services, community-based services and other effective interventions will help reduce the need for costly residential care and consequently reduce the need to place children in a setting away from their homes, families and communities. Keeping Families Together Act will also establish a Federal interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems so that we can hopefully see an end to this practice, not just in Oregon, but in every State in our nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this critical legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today 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. Last summer, a young man and two of his gay friends were on their way to a bar. A 38-year-old male confronted one of the gay men and began to harass him. When the victim's friend tried to intervene, the assailant struck him in the head multiple times with a baseball bat believing that he was also gay. He was treated for skull fractures, cranial bleeding, and a blood clot in the brain. 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. By passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, America will soon be facing a new and serious retirement challenge. Americans are living longer. Yet, recent economic and demographic shifts will put the retirement security of many retirees at risk. Current projections regarding the solvency of the Social Security program are not favorable. And, with 77 million baby boomers set to begin retiring in 2008, the number of retirees in the Social Security program is expected to double. In addition, fewer retirees in the future will be able to depend on monthly pension checks that many employers once paid. A growing number of retirees will be facing the difficult challenge of managing their own savings. In response to these trends, I am offering legislation aimed at assisting Americans maintain their financial independence and their standard of living throughout their retirement by making it easier for them to secure a steady income for life. Under the Retirement Security for Life Act that Senator Conrad and I are introducing today, a tax incentive would be enacted that encourages retirees to provide themselves with a guaranteed lifetime income. Specifically, the proposal would exclude from federal taxes one-half of the income payments from an annuity purchased with after tax dollars, a so- called non-qualified annuity. Importantly, we have proposed a cap on the exclusion so that no more that $20,000 could be excluded in a year. For a typical American in the 25 percent tax bracket, this would provide an annual maximum tax savings of up to $5,000. I believe that this modest tax incentive will enable some retirees to consider annuitizing a portion of their nest egg so that they have a guaranteed lifetime of income. In recent years, the ``retirement security'' debate in Congress has almost entirely focused on the need to accumulate a nest egg prior to retirement. And, Congress is doing much to encourage personal saving and employer-provided retirement plans. I am proud of both our successes and our continuing efforts in these areas. Encouraging more savings is an important step, but it is not enough. What has received little attention is the retirement income or ``payout'' phase of the retirement security equation. That is, we need to be thinking about the management of market and longevity risk so that a life's savings can provide a secure retirement. Longevity risk--the risk of outliving one's savings--is one of the biggest risks facing retirees. While we have some control over when we retire, we have very little control over how long we will live. It is my goal that Americans will be able to enjoy a lifetime of income from their hard-earned savings long after they have put their years in the workforce behind them. Please join me in supporting our proposal as a crucial step in providing a secure retirement for all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. Last July, an 18-year-old Alabama man was bound, beaten, strangled, cut, and set on fire by his housemates. His decomposed body was found in the woods along a dirt road 4 days after the savage attack. The nature of the wounds suggests that the motive behind the murder was the fact that the victim 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 rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. On July 17, 2004, Donald Brockman, Darren Gay, Shawn Regan and an unidentified 16-year-old boy accompanied another man home after leaving a bar in Austin, TX. After arriving, the four men allegedly punched and kicked the victim as well as forced him to violate himself because they believed he was gay. The four attackers described themselves as Aryan Nazis and later bragged about ``beating up a gay man.'' 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. Late last summer, a man was beaten, robbed, and sexually assaulted by a group of three men and one teenager. The alleged motivation behind the assault was the sexual orientation of the victim. The group of assailants met the victim at a gay bar, and he was allegedly targeted because 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, first, let me thank the twenty-or-so organizations that have offered their support for our bill which creates a Medicaid Commission. I ask unanimous consent that the full list of groups and their letters of support be printed in the Record. The importance of this bill, I believe, is demonstrated by the outpouring of support expressed by such a diverse group of people representing state and local elected officials, providers and advocates. It is truly impressive. With the debate growing over the President's budget proposal for the Medicaid program, Senator Bingaman and I are joining together with many of our colleagues to introduce this bill that calls for the creation of a Medicaid Commission. We are joined by Senators Snowe, Lincoln, Santorum, Ben Nelson, DeWine, Jeffords, Collins, Durbin, Chafee and Kerry in introducing the bill today. For too long Medicaid has gone unnoticed by policy makers. Over the past few decades Congress has spent a great deal of time and effort modernizing the Medicare program, developing ideas to fund Social Security, reforming our intelligence gathering apparatus, and enacting legislation that stimulates the economy. Yet, through it all Medicaid has gone unnoticed, even though it recently became the nation's largest health care program. As the former President of the Oregon Senate, I have long championed Medicaid and worked to protect the vulnerable populations who are helped by it. As a new member of the Finance Committee in 2003, I helped lead the effort to provide $20 billion in short-term fiscal assistance. However, since that time it has become clear that Medicaid requires more than band-aide fixes. Medicaid requires a thorough review that should be performed by all key stakeholders working together to evaluate the program. We need to consider its pluses and minuses, and then chart a new path for the future. Our proposed Medicaid Commission will do just that. As I have discussed with Governors, Secretary Leavitt and Administrator McClellan, we have a unique opportunity in the history of the Medicaid program. For once, everyone seems to be focused on protecting and improving the program. The challenge lies in bringing everyone together. It certainly won't be easy, but accomplishing great things never is. It will require both parties to work together. It will require Congress to reach out to the Administration, Governors, State Legislators, providers and advocates to determine how best to improve such a vital program. And it will require advocates and providers to be willing to listen to new ideas that may help improve the program by creating efficiencies, improving quality and expanding access to care. This can't be accomplished working against each other or only with select partners--it can only be accomplished when everyone works together. I have never argued that this Commission is necessary because Medicaid is broken. I truly believe in this program because I have seen the difference it makes in Americans' lives. It helps support poor children so they can go to school healthy and ready to learn. It helps a poor expectant-mother receive the prenatal care necessary for her new child to be born healthy and able to live a fulfilling life, it helps a family manage the care of a disabled child, and it helps an elderly person spend their last few years living with dignity. However, this program is not perfect; improvements can and should be made. I don't have to look any further than my home State of Oregon to see that change can be beneficial. In Oregon, most people who live with a disability or who are elderly are served in their home or community. It seems appropriate that this would happen, but Oregon actually had to apply for a waiver to care for people in this way. That's because under Medicaid States receive incentives to care for people in nursing homes, it's called an institutional bias. On the other hand, extreme reforms should be instituted simply to save money. Medicaid is expensive, but so is private health care coverage in this country. And in comparison, Medicaid is a pretty good deal. On a per-capita basis, Medicaid has only grown at a little more than four percent while private sector health care costs have grown at over 12 percent. The problem with Medicaid is that enrollment is growing and a lot more money is being spent on long-term care compared to years past. Much work is ahead of us. And one of the best ways to keep Medicaid on the right path and ensure its long-term sustainability is to enact this bill right now. If this Commission were made law today, we could have its recommendations in time to inform Congress' deliberations next year. We have a short window of opportunity before us. I urge my colleagues, the President and all supporters to embrace this bill today and call for its passage so the Medicaid Commission can get to work.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, first, let me thank the twenty-or-so organizations that have offered their support for our bill which creates a Medicaid Commission. I ask unanimous consent that the full list of groups and their letters of support be printed in the Record. The importance of this bill, I believe, is demonstrated by the outpouring of support expressed by such a diverse group of people representing state and local elected officials, providers and advocates. It is truly impressive. With the debate growing over the President's budget proposal for the Medicaid program, Senator Bingaman and I are joining together with many of our colleagues to introduce this bill that calls for the creation of a Medicaid Commission. We are joined by Senators Snowe, Lincoln, Santorum, Ben Nelson, DeWine, Jeffords, Collins, Durbin, Chafee and Kerry in introducing the bill today. For too long Medicaid has gone unnoticed by policy makers. Over the past few decades Congress has spent a great deal of time and effort modernizing the Medicare program, developing ideas to fund Social Security, reforming our intelligence gathering apparatus, and enacting legislation that stimulates the economy. Yet, through it all Medicaid has gone unnoticed, even though it recently became the nation's largest health care program. As the former President of the Oregon Senate, I have long championed Medicaid and worked to protect the vulnerable populations who are helped by it. As a new member of the Finance Committee in 2003, I helped lead the effort to provide $20 billion in short-term fiscal assistance. However, since that time it has become clear that Medicaid requires more than band-aide fixes. Medicaid requires a thorough review that should be performed by all key stakeholders working together to evaluate the program. We need to consider its pluses and minuses, and then chart a new path for the future. Our proposed Medicaid Commission will do just that. As I have discussed with Governors, Secretary Leavitt and Administrator McClellan, we have a unique opportunity in the history of the Medicaid program. For once, everyone seems to be focused on protecting and improving the program. The challenge lies in bringing everyone together. It certainly won't be easy, but accomplishing great things never is. It will require both parties to work together. It will require Congress to reach out to the Administration, Governors, State Legislators, providers and advocates to determine how best to improve such a vital program. And it will require advocates and providers to be willing to listen to new ideas that may help improve the program by creating efficiencies, improving quality and expanding access to care. This can't be accomplished working against each other or only with select partners--it can only be accomplished when everyone works together. I have never argued that this Commission is necessary because Medicaid is broken. I truly believe in this program because I have seen the difference it makes in Americans' lives. It helps support poor children so they can go to school healthy and ready to learn. It helps a poor expectant-mother receive the prenatal care necessary for her new child to be born healthy and able to live a fulfilling life, it helps a family manage the care of a disabled child, and it helps an elderly person spend their last few years living with dignity. However, this program is not perfect; improvements can and should be made. I don't have to look any further than my home State of Oregon to see that change can be beneficial. In Oregon, most people who live with a disability or who are elderly are served in their home or community. It seems appropriate that this would happen, but Oregon actually had to apply for a waiver to care for people in this way. That's because under Medicaid States receive incentives to care for people in nursing homes, it's called an institutional bias. On the other hand, extreme reforms should be instituted simply to save money. Medicaid is expensive, but so is private health care coverage in this country. And in comparison, Medicaid is a pretty good deal. On a per-capita basis, Medicaid has only grown at a little more than four percent while private sector health care costs have grown at over 12 percent. The problem with Medicaid is that enrollment is growing and a lot more money is being spent on long-term care compared to years past. Much work is ahead of us. And one of the best ways to keep Medicaid on the right path and ensure its long-term sustainability is to enact this bill right now. If this Commission were made law today, we could have its recommendations in time to inform Congress' deliberations next year. We have a short window of opportunity before us. I urge my colleagues, the President and all supporters to embrace this bill today and call for its passage so the Medicaid Commission can get to work.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early Treatment for HIV Act, ETHA, of 2005. Senator Clinton joins me in introducing this bill, and I want to thank her for her steadfast support for people living with HIV. HIV knows no party affiliation, and I am pleased to say that ETHA cosponsors sit on both sides of the aisle. Simply stated, ETHA gives States the opportunity to extend Medicaid coverage to low-income, HIV-positive individuals before they develop full-blown AIDS. Today, the unfortunate reality is that most patients must become disabled before they can qualify for Medicaid coverage. Nearly 50 percent of people living with AIDS who know their status lack ongoing access to treatment. In my home State of Oregon, there are approximately 4,500 persons living with HIV/AIDS. It is estimated that approximately 40 percent of these Oregonians are not receiving care for their HIV disease. Not being in care puts these people's own health at risk, and also makes them more infectious. We can do better, and we should do everything possible to ensure that all people living with HIV can get early, effective medical care. Oregon's Ryan White funded AIDS Drug Assistance Program is nearing maximum enrollment and may need to wait list eligible clients in the near future. The fact of the matter is that safety net programs all over the country are running out of money, and are generally unable to cover all of the people who need assistance paying for their medical care. As other programs are failing, ETHA gives States another way to reach out to low-income, HIV-positive individuals. With approximately 150 newly detected HIV infections in Oregon annually, my state desperately needs to provide early treatment to these individuals. It has been shown that current HIV treatments are very successful in delaying the progression from HIV infection to AIDS, and help improve the health and quality of life for millions of people living with the disease. Studies conducted by Pricewaterhouse Cooper have found that providing early intervention care significantly delays the progression of HIV and is highly cost-effective. ETHA reduces by 60 percent the death rate of persons living with HIV who received coverage under Medicaid. Disease progression is significantly slowed and health outcomes improved. Medicaid offsets alone reduce gross Medicaid costs by approximately 70 percent due to the prevention of avoidable high cost medical interventions. Research determined that over 5 years the true cost of ETHA is $55.2 million. Over 10 years, ETHA saves $31.7 million. It shows that preventing the health of people living with HIV, preventing opportunistic infections, and slowing the progression to AIDS, will save taxpayers dollars. Ultimately, its clear that in implementing ETHA, the United States will take an important step toward ensuring that all Americans living with HIV can get the medical care they need to stay healthy and productive for as long as possible. Importantly, ETHA also offers States an enhanced Federal Medicaid match, which means more money for States that invest in treatments for HIV. This provision models the successful Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act of 2000, which allows States to provide early Medicaid intervention to women with breast and cervical cancer. Even in these difficult times, 45 States are now offering early Medicaid coverage to women with breast and cervical cancer. We can build upon this success by passing ETHA and extending similar early intervention treatments to people with HIV. HIV/AIDS touches the lives of millions of people living in every State in the Union. Some get the proper medications, but too many do not. This is literally a life and death issue, and ETHA can help many more Americans enjoy long, healthy lives. I want to thank Senators Clinton, Collins, Bingaman, Coleman, Cantwell, Snowe, Corzine, Feinstein, Murray, Wyden, DeWine, Bayh, Reed, Kerry, Dayton, Schumer, Lincoln, Lieberman, Mikulski, Nelson, Stabenow, Johnson, Sarbanes, Leahy, Kennedy, Feingold and Lautenberg for joining us as cosponsors of ETHA. I also wish to thank all of the organizations around the country that have expressed support for this bill. I have received numerous support letters from those organizations, and I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record. In particular, I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign, The AIDS Institute, ADAP Working Group and the Treatment Access Expansion Project, for helping bring so much attention to ETHA. I hope all of my colleagues will join us in supporting this critical, life-saving legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. On September 24, 2004, a young man was attacked outside of a club in Davis, CA. The attack on the victim was apparently due to a case of mistaken identity. The victim in the case resembled a gay man known by the assailant, and the attack was motivated by the attacker's belief that the victim was gay. During the attack, the victim suffered a broken nose and was knocked unconscious by his assailant. The attacker repeatedly yelled slurs regarding the victim's sexual orientation during the assault. 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 introduce the Early Treatment for HIV Act, ETHA, of 2005. Senator Clinton joins me in introducing this bill, and I want to thank her for her steadfast support for people living with HIV. HIV knows no party affiliation, and I am pleased to say that ETHA cosponsors sit on both sides of the aisle. Simply stated, ETHA gives States the opportunity to extend Medicaid coverage to low-income, HIV-positive individuals before they develop full-blown AIDS. Today, the unfortunate reality is that most patients must become disabled before they can qualify for Medicaid coverage. Nearly 50 percent of people living with AIDS who know their status lack ongoing access to treatment. In my home State of Oregon, there are approximately 4,500 persons living with HIV/AIDS. It is estimated that approximately 40 percent of these Oregonians are not receiving care for their HIV disease. Not being in care puts these people's own health at risk, and also makes them more infectious. We can do better, and we should do everything possible to ensure that all people living with HIV can get early, effective medical care. Oregon's Ryan White funded AIDS Drug Assistance Program is nearing maximum enrollment and may need to wait list eligible clients in the near future. The fact of the matter is that safety net programs all over the country are running out of money, and are generally unable to cover all of the people who need assistance paying for their medical care. As other programs are failing, ETHA gives States another way to reach out to low-income, HIV-positive individuals. With approximately 150 newly detected HIV infections in Oregon annually, my state desperately needs to provide early treatment to these individuals. It has been shown that current HIV treatments are very successful in delaying the progression from HIV infection to AIDS, and help improve the health and quality of life for millions of people living with the disease. Studies conducted by Pricewaterhouse Cooper have found that providing early intervention care significantly delays the progression of HIV and is highly cost-effective. ETHA reduces by 60 percent the death rate of persons living with HIV who received coverage under Medicaid. Disease progression is significantly slowed and health outcomes improved. Medicaid offsets alone reduce gross Medicaid costs by approximately 70 percent due to the prevention of avoidable high cost medical interventions. Research determined that over 5 years the true cost of ETHA is $55.2 million. Over 10 years, ETHA saves $31.7 million. It shows that preventing the health of people living with HIV, preventing opportunistic infections, and slowing the progression to AIDS, will save taxpayers dollars. Ultimately, its clear that in implementing ETHA, the United States will take an important step toward ensuring that all Americans living with HIV can get the medical care they need to stay healthy and productive for as long as possible. Importantly, ETHA also offers States an enhanced Federal Medicaid match, which means more money for States that invest in treatments for HIV. This provision models the successful Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act of 2000, which allows States to provide early Medicaid intervention to women with breast and cervical cancer. Even in these difficult times, 45 States are now offering early Medicaid coverage to women with breast and cervical cancer. We can build upon this success by passing ETHA and extending similar early intervention treatments to people with HIV. HIV/AIDS touches the lives of millions of people living in every State in the Union. Some get the proper medications, but too many do not. This is literally a life and death issue, and ETHA can help many more Americans enjoy long, healthy lives. I want to thank Senators Clinton, Collins, Bingaman, Coleman, Cantwell, Snowe, Corzine, Feinstein, Murray, Wyden, DeWine, Bayh, Reed, Kerry, Dayton, Schumer, Lincoln, Lieberman, Mikulski, Nelson, Stabenow, Johnson, Sarbanes, Leahy, Kennedy, Feingold and Lautenberg for joining us as cosponsors of ETHA. I also wish to thank all of the organizations around the country that have expressed support for this bill. I have received numerous support letters from those organizations, and I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record. In particular, I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign, The AIDS Institute, ADAP Working Group and the Treatment Access Expansion Project, for helping bring so much attention to ETHA. I hope all of my colleagues will join us in supporting this critical, life-saving legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, each Congress I rise to honor February as Black History Month. Each February since 1926, our Nation has recognized the contributions of Black Americans to the history of our Nation. This is no accident; February is a significant month in Black American history. Abolitionist Frederick Douglass, President Abraham Lincoln, and scholar and civil rights leader W.E.B. DuBois were born in the month of February. The 15th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified 132 years ago this month, preventing race discrimination in the right to vote. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was founded in February in New York City. Last Tuesday, February 1, was the 45th anniversary of the Greensboro Four's historic sit-in. And on February 25, 1870, this body welcomed its first black Senator, Hiram R. Revels of Mississippi. In this important month I want to celebrate some of the contributions made by Black Americans in my home State of Oregon. Since Marcus Lopez, who sailed with Captain Robert Gray in 1788, became the first person of African descent known to set foot in Oregon, a great many Black Americans have helped shape the history of my State. Throughout this month, I will come to the floor to highlight some of their stories. Beatrice Cannady moved to Oregon in 1910. Soon thereafter she married E.D. Cannady, who was the founder of the Advocate, Portland's only African-American newspaper at the time. Beatrice Cannady quickly became one of the most important civil rights activists in Oregon. Just 4 years after her arrival, she helped found Portland's chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP. She eventually became the chief editor of the Advocate, and often used the newspaper as a pulpit from which to protest the State's discriminatory policies. In 1922, Beatrice Cannady became the first African-American woman to be admitted to the Oregon Bar. She helped craft Oregon's first civil- rights legislation providing full access to public accommodations regardless of race or color. Although this legislation was ultimately defeated, she was successful in leading a drive to repeal the ``Black Laws'' of Oregon which excluded African-Americans from residing in the State. Through the NAACP, Beatrice Cannady was instrumental in ending school segregation in Vernonia, OR and Longview, WA. She traveled throughout Oregon to give lectures in schools about African-American history, and hosted parties in an attempt to alleviate tensions between white and black members of communities. In 1932, she launched a campaign to represent Oregon's 5th Congressional District in Congress. Although Beatrice Cannady moved away from Oregon in 1934, she will be remembered as one of Oregon's most influential civil rights pioneers. She is only one example of the black men and women who changed the course of history in Oregon and in the United States. During the remainder of Black History Month, I will return to the floor to celebrate more Oregonians like Beatrice Cannady, whose contributions, while great, have not yet received the attention they deserve.