Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I further ask that the request be modified to reserve to Senator Kennedy and myself any time unused after his remarks.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, have we used all time on our side?

Mr. SMITH. I say to the Senator, I wonder, as you recounted some of these horrendous acts that have occurred, if you are familiar with the Wisconsin case that is called Wisconsin v. Todd Mitchell. It is the 1993 case in which Chief Justice William Rehnquist authored the decision upholding hate crimes legislation. As it says in this preamble: The question presented in this case is whether this penalty enhancement is prohibited by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We hold that it is not. Sir, this was a unanimous decision. And Justice Rehnquist--again, you would probably agree with me, I say to the Senator--is one of the more conservative justices. He wrote: Thus, although the statute punishes criminal conduct, it enhances the maximum penalty for conduct motivated for a discriminatory point of view more severely than the same conduct engaged in for some other reason or for no reason at all. Because the only reason for the enhancement is the defendant's discriminatory motive for selecting his victim. . . . And that was the man's race. Justice Rehnquist held it is entirely appropriate to look at the man's motive in ultimately ascribing the severity of the penalty that was handed down for this assault that was made by a White man on a Black man. It was prosecuted under the Federal Hate Crimes Act. I am sure the Senator is familiar with that. Maybe he can help me to explain to my conservative colleagues how it is that we are trying to legislate thought or punish thought and punish speaking. Would the Senator agree with me that Justice Rehnquist and I are both right in saying we are only punishing conduct and the evidence that comes from thought and speech that can be used legitimately, constitutionally to enhance penalties?

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I would accommodate any colleagues in any sense of comity that is appropriate to the Senate. I do want to vote. I do want to debate. We do not need to take a lot of time. This has overwhelming bipartisan support. We do not mean to gum up this bill. As I believe the chairman knows, this is offered in good faith. I know there are some objections to it. It is fine to air those. But let's discuss it quickly and vote on it so we can get on with the other defense issues.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I might bring up amendment 3183.

Mr. SMITH. I note that Senator Kennedy did not know I was coming here today, but I was told by good authority that if we wanted this included at all, we should include it today. I would very much like to make available a time--a time agreement can be short--that includes remarks by Senator Kennedy.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, if there were a Senator here objecting to laying aside an amendment, I apologize to him or her, but I make no apology for the amendment I am submitting. The Senate knows well the substance of this amendment because we have debated it in every Congress because it needs to be debated. But, more importantly, it needs to be passed; that is, the whole issue of hate crimes. People will wonder why it is on a defense authorization. The answer is simply: Because the military, as I will demonstrate, is not immune to the scourge of hate crimes in our country. Second, this is a piece of legislation that needs to pass, and this issue needs to get as far in the process as possible, and I hope to the desk of the President so it can be signed into law. It needs to be taken up as well because it has overwhelming support in the Senate. On this Defense authorization and in a previous Congress, 57 Senators voted in favor of this amendment. I believe it will have well over 60 this time. Unfortunately, despite the fact that a majority of Senators support the legislation, Senator Kennedy and I have felt we need to look for opportunities where there is an obvious nexus between this needed law and a piece of legislation that is likely to move. The last time, 13 Republicans voted in favor of this legislation. I urge more to do so at this time. It is no secret that with all the turmoil on the issue of gays and lesbians and their rights in this country, there are very strong feelings on both sides of this issue. I, for one, seek happiness for gays and lesbians in America. I believe in gay rights. But I also believe it is not right in the case of marriage for a few liberals to dictate to the rest of the country a new standard. Notwithstanding that, I have always felt before you get to marriage, you ought to get rid of hate. I say that as a man who has been married nearly 30 years now. And I think before we take up the issue of marriage we ought to deal with the issue of hate crimes. Back to the nexus between hate crimes and the defense of our Nation. Two obvious examples come to mind. In 1992, Navy Seaman Allen R. Schindler was brutally murdered by his shipmate Terry Helvey in Okinawa, Japan. Helvey beat and stomped Schindler to death simply because he was gay. He was attacked so viciously that he destroyed every organ in Schindler's body. He was so badly beaten that Schindler's own mother could not identify him except by the remains of the tattoo on his arm. The medical examiner compared Schindler's injuries to those sustained by victims of fatal airplane crashes. In another tragic case, PFC Barry Winchell was forced outside his barracks at Fort Campbell Army Base where he was stationed. In the early morning hours of July 5, 1999, Winchell was repeatedly beaten with a baseball bat by another Army private. He was beaten with such force and his injuries so severe that he died shortly thereafter. Barry was only 21, and he was murdered simply because he was gay. As a nation--a nation that serves as the beacon of freedom and liberty everywhere--we simply cannot tolerate violence against people based on their race, color, religion, or national origin. No matter how far our Nation has come and the progress we have made in protecting civil rights for all Americans, there is much work that remains. You cannot fight terror abroad and accept terror at home. We have had in this country hate crimes laws on our books for well over 30 years. They were contested as to their legitimacy all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. For conservatives who would argue we should not have this as a category of crime, I simply respond it is a category of crime. Motive has always been a category of crime and establishing whether a crime has occurred. William Rehnquist, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, now its Chief Justice, wrote the opinion. It is hard to think of a more conservative Justice than Justice Rehnquist. But he is the one who said hate crimes are not just legitimate, they are constitutional. So the question then becomes, if we have constitutional hate crimes laws on the Federal books that cover race and religion, why not sexual orientation? Is it because some hate them? Do some think it is not legitimate to include them? I simply say that America, if it is to live up to its motto, e pluribus unum, must include them. I think we all know too well the tragic story of James Byrd who was dragged to death in Texas because of his race. We all know the tragically heartrending story of Matthew Shepard who was beaten to death along a lonely stretch of Wyoming fence because he was hated--not because they wanted his watch or his wallet; they didn't like him because he was gay. So they beat him to death. Why Federal hate crimes laws? Wyoming does not have them, but many States do have hate crimes laws. Why isn't that enough? Look at what happened in Wyoming. When this little town of Laramie began to pursue the issue, it took on national ramifications. They could have used the help of the Federal Government and its resources. But because of the nature of this hate crime--because it would involve sexual orientation and not race--the Federal authorities were not able to be of any assistance to this case in Wyoming. A Republican sheriff from Wyoming told me they could have used the help, and that he supported this legislation based on his experience. These last two Congresses, I have entered into the Record everyday statements on hate crimes, actual hate crimes committed in our country. I have entered countless hate crime statements into the Record--over 300 in the last 300 days we have been in session. I do it to raise awareness, not only about the severity of these crimes but to show the frequency of these crimes. As the Nobel laureate Eli Wiesel once said: ``To hate is to deny another person's humanity.'' So I do it to remember the victims of these hate crimes and to give a human face to this violence--to the murderers of these men, the Navy man, the Army private, to Matthew Shepard, to James Byrd. These murders have shocked the Nation. To think that such virulent hatred of another person's skin or sexual orientation drove another to commit such a heinous act is truly unthinkable, yet it has happened. Hate crimes tear at the very fabric of our Nation. They seek to intimidate entire groups of Americans and as such divide our Nation. These kinds of crimes do more than harm the victims. They terrorize our entire society and send a message of hate and intolerance to millions of Americans. What can we do? We can pass this legislation. This legislation, known as the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, is a symbol that can become substance. The law is a teacher, and we should teach our fellow Americans that bigotry will not be tolerated. The Federal Government must have the power to persuade, to pursue, and to prosecute when hate is the motive of violence against an American, no matter their race, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or gender. By changing the law, we can change hearts and minds as well. I urge my colleagues to do so, to change hearts and minds, and in some cases to change their vote, and to vote in favor of this amendment. Don't go to marriage until we have gotten rid of hate. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On July 23, 2003, Gregory Johnson, a 17-year-old gay man, and his female friend Brandie Coleman were shot in the front of the head at point-blank range. The gunman was angry because his sexuality was threatened after an intimate encounter with the cross-dressing Johnson. The bodies were found in the back seat of a burned-out automobile. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, in the elections of 1980 and 1984, the State of Oregon sent its electors to the electoral college to vote for Ronald Reagan. He was the last Republican to win the State of Oregon in a Presidential election, and he did so at a time of great peril both for my State and our country. When that occurred, America was in economic malaise, communism seemed to be in its ascendency, and America was struggling for leadership. Winston Churchill once said of a predecessor as British Prime Minister, ``He had had the misfortune to live in a time of great men and small events.'' When you think of where America was and where it ended after 8 years of the administration of Ronald Reagan, truly it can be said that all free men and women are better and freer, more prosperous and more at peace because Ronald Reagan was a great man called to a great time. As I contemplated what I could do in my small way to add some measure of tribute to the life of Ronald Reagan and to express to Nancy Reagan and her family my heartfelt condolences, I thought I should keep my words to a minimum and focus, instead, on the warm and wise words of President Reagan in his farewell address. It has been the practice of the Senate for the last 140 years that on or around the birthday of George Washington, a Senator is selected to read Washington's farewell address. I thought I would begin that tradition this day, with President Reagan's great speech, to come to the floor on or around President Reagan's birthday, and share his speech--or if one of my colleagues would like to do so, I would offer them the opportunity. I believe that this new tradition would be a fitting tribute to Ronald Reagan, to let Ronald Reagan's words speak again to the American people, far more eloquently than I could on an occasion when we all struggle to find the right superlatives to say thank you to him. So with the Chair's indulgence, I will read the farewell address of President Ronald Reagan, given shortly before he left the Oval Office and George Herbert Walker Bush became the President. The words of President Reagan: This is the 34th time I'll speak to you from the Oval Office and the last. We've been together 8 years now, and soon it'll be time for me to go. But before I do, I wanted to share some thoughts, some of which I've been saving for a long time. It's been the honor of my life to be your President. So many of you have written the past few weeks to say thanks, but I could say as much to you. Nancy and I are grateful for the opportunity you gave us to serve. One of the things about the Presidency is that you're always somewhat apart. You spent a lot of time going by too fast in a car someone else is driving, and seeing the people through tinted glass--the parents holding up a child, and the wave you saw too late and couldn't return. And so many times I wanted to stop and reach out from behind the glass, and connect. Well, maybe I can do a little of that tonight. People ask how I feel about leaving. And the fact is, ``parting is such sweet sorrow.'' The sweet part is California and the ranch and freedom. The sorrow--the goodbyes, of course, and leaving this beautiful place. You know, down the hall and up the stairs from this office is the part of the White House where the President and his family live. There are a few favorite windows I have up there that I like to stand and look out of early in the morning. The view is over the grounds here to the Washington Monument, and then the Mall and the Jefferson Memorial. But on mornings when the humidity is low, you can see past the Jefferson to the river, the Potomac, and the Virginia shore. Someone said that's the view Lincoln had when he saw the smoke rising from the Battle of Bull Run. I see more prosaic things: the grass on the banks, the morning traffic as people make their way to work, now and then a sailboat on the river. I've been thinking a bit at that window. I've been reflecting on what the past 8 years have meant and mean. And the image that comes to mind like a refrain is a nautical one--a small story about a big ship, and a refugee, and a sailor. It was back in the early eighties, at the height of the boat people. And the sailor was hard at work on the carrier Midway, which was patrolling the South China Sea. The sailor, like most American servicemen, was young, smart, and fiercely observant. The crew spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. And crammed inside were refugees from Indochina hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and safety. As the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spied the sailor on deck, and stood up, and called out to him. He yelled, ``Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man.'' A small moment with a big meaning, a moment the sailor, who wrote it in a letter, couldn't get out of his mind. And, when I saw it, neither could I. Because that's what it was to be an American in the 1980's. We stood, again, for freedom. I know we always have, but in the past few years the world again--and in a way, we ourselves--rediscovered it. It's been quite a journey this decade, and we held together through some stormy seas. And at the end, together, we are reaching our destination. The fact is, from Grenada to the Washington and Moscow summits, from the recession of '81 to '82, to the expansion that began in late '82 and continues to this day, we've made a difference. The way I see it, there were two great triumphs, two things that I'm proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people of America created-- and filled--19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership. Something that happened to me a few years ago reflects some of this. It was back in 1981, and I was attending my first economic summit, which was held that year in Canada. The meeting place rotates among the member countries. The opening meeting was a formal dinner of the heads of government of the seven industrialized nations. Now, I sat there like the new kid in school and listened, and it was all Francois this and Helmut that. They dropped titles and spoke to one another on a first-name basis. Well, at one point I sort of leaned in and said, `My name's Ron.' Well, in that same year, we began the actions we felt would ignite an economic comeback--cut taxes and regulation, started to cut spending. And soon the recovery began. Two years later, another economic summit with pretty much the same cast. At the big opening meeting we all got together, and all of a sudden, just for a moment, I saw that everyone was just sitting there looking at me. And then one of them broke the silence. `Tell us about the American miracle,' he said. Well, back in 1980, when I was running for President, it was all so different. Some pundits said our programs would result in catastrophe. Our views on foreign affairs would cause war. Our plans for the economy would cause inflation to soar and bring about economic collapse. I even remember one highly respected economist saying, back in 1982, that `The engines of economic growth have shut down here, and they're likely to stay that way for years to come.' Well, he and the other opinion leaders were wrong. The fact is what they call `radical' was really `right.' What they called `dangerous' was just `desperately needed.' And in all of that time I won a nickname, `The Great Communicator.' But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: it was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation--from our experience, or wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I'll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense. Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So, we cut the people's tax rates, and the people produced more than ever before. The economy bloomed like a plant that had been cut back and could now grow quicker and stronger. Our economic program brought about the longest peacetime expansion in our history: real family income up, the poverty rate down, entrepreneurship booming, and an explosion in research and new technology. We're exporting more than ever because American industry became more competitive and at the same time, we summoned the national will to knock down protectionist walls abroad instead of erecting them at home. Common sense also told us that to preserve the peace, we'd have to become strong again after years of weakness and confusion. So, we rebuilt our defenses, and this New Year we toasted the new peacefulness around the globe. Not only have the superpowers actually begun to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons--and hope for even more progress is bright-- but the regional conflicts that rack the globe are also beginning to cease. The Persian Gulf is no longer a war zone. The Soviets are leaving Afghanistan. The Vietnamese are preparing to pull out of Cambodia, and an American-mediated accord will soon send 50,000 Cuban troops home from Angola. The lesson of all this was, of course, that because we're a great nation, our challenges seem complex. It will always be this way. But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world. Countries across the globe are turning to free markets and free speech and turning away from the ideologies of the past. For them, the great rediscovery of the 1980's has been that, lo and behold, the moral way of government is the practical way of government: Democracy, the profoundly good, is also the profoundly productive. When you've got to the point when you can celebrate the anniversaries of your 39th birthday you can sit back sometimes, review your life, and see it flowing before you. For me there was a fork in the river, and it was right in the middle of my life. I never meant to go into politics. It wasn't my intention when I was young. But I was raised to believe you had to pay your way for the blessings bestowed on you. I was happy with my career in the entertainment world, but I ultimately went into politics because I wanted to protect something precious. Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: `We the People.' `We the People' tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. `We the People' are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which `We the People' tell the government what it is allowed to do. `We the People' are free. This belief has been the underyling basis for everything I've tried to do these past 8 years. But back in the 1960's, when I began, it seemed to me that we'd begun reversing the order of things--that through more and more rules and regulations and confiscatory taxes, the government was taking more of our money, more of our options, and more of our freedom. I went into politics in part to put up my hand and say, `Stop.' I was a citizen politician, and it seemed the right thing for a citizen to do. I think we have stopped a lot of what needed stopping. And I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts. Nothing is less free than pure communism--and yet we have, the past few years, forged a satisfying new closeness with the Soviet Union. I've been asked if this isn't a gamble, and my answer is no because we're basing our actions not on words but deeds. The detente of the 1970's was based not on actions but promises. They'd promise to treat their own people and the people of the world better. But the gulag was still the gulag, and the state was still expansionist, and they still waged proxy wars in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Well, this time, so far, it's different. President Gorbachev has brought about some internal democratic reforms and begun the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He has also freed prisoners whose names I've given him every time we've met. But life has a way of reminding you of big things through small incidents. Once, during the heady days of the Moscow summit, Nancy and I decided to break off from the entourage one afternoon to visit the shops on Arbat Street--that's a little street just off Moscow's main shopping area. Even though our visit was a surprise, every Russian there immediately recognized us and called out our names and reached for our hands. We were just about swept away by the warmth. You could almost feel the possibilities in all that joy. But within seconds, a KGB detail pushed their way toward us and began pushing and shoving the people in the crowd. It was an interesting moment. It reminded me that while the man on the street in the Soviet Union yearns for peace, the government is Communist. And those who run it are Communists, and that means we and they view such issues as freedom and human rights very differently. We must keep up our guard, but we must also continue to work together to lessen and eliminate tension and mistrust. My view is that President Gorbachev is different from previous Soviet leaders. I think he knows some of the things wrong with his society and is trying to fix them. We wish him well. And we'll continue to work to make sure that the Soviet Union that eventually emerges from this process is a less threatening one. What it all boils down to is this: I want the new closeness to continue. And it will, as long as we make it clear that we will continue to act in a certain way as long as they continue to act in a helpful manner. If and when they don't, at first pull your punches. If they persist, pull the plug. It's still trust by verify. It's still play, but cut the cards. It's still watch closely. And don't be afraid to see what you see. I've been asked if I have any regrets. Well, I do. The deficit is one. I've been talking a great deal about that lately, but tonight isn't for arguments, and I'm going to hold my tongue. But an observation: I've had my share of victories in the Congress, but what few people noticed is that I never won anything you didn't win for me. They never saw my troops, they never saw Reagan's regiments, the American people. You won every battle with every call you made and letter you wrote demanding action. Well, action is still needed. If we're to finish the job. Reagan's regiments will have to become the Bush brigades. Soon he'll be the chief, and he'll need you every bit as much as I did. Finally, there is a great tradition of warnings in Presidential farewells, and I've got one that's been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I'm proudest of in the past 8 years: the resurgence of national pride that I called the new patriotism. This national feeling is good, but it won't count for much, and it won't last unless it's grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge. An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-sixties. But now, we're about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile it needs production [protection]. So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important--why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, 4 years ago on the 40th anniversary of D- day, I read a letter from a young woman writing to her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, `we will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did.' Well, let's help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual. And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do. And that's about all I have to say tonight, except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the `shining city upon a hill.' The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free. I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still. And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was 8 years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home. We've done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for 8 years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all. And so, goodbye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. I would only add, God bless Ronald and Nancy Reagan, and God bless the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. One such crime occurred on November 18, 2001 in Huntington, WV. Michael Fife, 28, was beaten, robbed of $20 and left in an alley for dead while walking home from a gay nightclub. Mr. Fife suffered a fractured skull and internal bleeding. Due to a rash of hate crimes biased against gays in the area, some believe that Mr. Fife may have been attacked because the alleged perpetrators thought he was gay. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On May 10, 2001, in North Richland Hills, TX, David Israel Avery, 17, was charged with criminal mischief for allegedly attacking two gay teens. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. David Blair, also known as Steve Perry, was found dead by the Ketchikan, AK, police department on July 26, 2001. Terry Simpson, Jr., 19, and Joshua Anderson, 20, were arrested in response to a tip in which the informant said he overhead the two men bragging that they were planning to ``beat up and rob Blair because he is a fag.'' I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. By passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President. I rise today to speak about a problem impacting communities across the United States and throughout the world. As many of my colleagues know, today is National Hunger Awareness Day. It is a day meant to focus our attention on our friends, coworkers, classmates, and neighbors for whom putting food on the table continues to be a daily struggle. Sadly, for the nearly 35 million Americans who are ``hungry'' or ``food insecure,'' hunger is more than a statistic, it is an insomnia within the American dream. This is a reality that the people of my home State of Oregon know far too well. For the last several years, Oregon has been at or near the top of repeated nationwide studies of hunger and food insecurity in the United States. And I can tell you that as a member of this chamber and an Oregonian, the statistics on hunger and food insecurity continue to confound me. Despite all of our advances in agriculture technology and food distribution, children and families in my State and around the country will go to bed hungry tonight. The sad irony is that many of the communities most affected by hunger are the very ones that grow the food upon which the rest of us rely. On the horizon, Oregon's economy appears to be brightening. While there are no quick fixes, I believe that solving hunger is within our grasp. Later today, Senator Lincoln and I will be announcing the creation of the Senate Hunger Caucus. This caucus will serve as a forum to raise awareness and foster cooperation among business interests, community leaders, and local, State, and national non-profits to work with Congress to address hunger. As policymakers, our job is to take the pieces of this puzzle and put them together in a way that leaves our communities whole and healthy. Government cannot act alone to solve the problem but must work in concert with those who are best able to help. I believe the creation of the Senate caucus is an important step in focusing on this problem. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress and groups back in Oregon to address these issues. In Oregon, we have been blessed with a number of organizations and individuals who have taken it upon themselves to help in this effort and assist their neighbors in need. Groups such as Birch Community Services and the Oregon Food Bank have shown themselves to be true assets to their communities. As an Oregonian, I can tell you that I am especially proud of how they have responded to what has been a difficult last couple of years in our State, and I look forward to continuing to work with them in the fight against hunger.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, it is hard to turn on the television without seeing the stirring images of the Allied landings on D-Day. I think in the heart of every American there swells a pride in these scenes, and what was accomplished on that day truly stands as one of the most historic achievements in recorded history. I think what was on display on D-Day with our Allies was a commitment to freedom, a commitment to the rule of law, a commitment to humankind that has made this world a better place in which to live. As I reflect on these images, which we will share with our European allies, I am also, unfortunately, reminded of what I experienced this last weekend in Bratislava, Slovakia, at the NATO Parliamentary. It has been my privilege since being a U.S. Senator to participate in many NATO Parliamentaries. This time, the majority leader, Senator Frist, asked me to chair our trip to this important meeting. It is the first time I have gone when I have been the only Senator in attendance. I hope that does not mean there is less of an interest in security. I think, unfortunately, what it means is the many claims on the time of Senators begin to compete with what is increasingly becoming regarded as an institution of diminishing value. I think that is unfortunate. Before I left, I read a book by Robert Kagan. It is a small book, but its message is powerful and important. The title is ``Of Paradise And Power: America and Europe in the New World Order.'' Basically, the message is that the values that bring NATO together in the first place, the values that have held it together through the cold war, are values that are changing now and stressing NATO in ways that many are unwilling to face up to. For the Record, I would like to read the first paragraph. I think it says very clearly the problem. Says Mr. Kagan: It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power--the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power--American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Immanuel Kant's ``perpetual peace.'' Meanwhile, the United States remains mired in history, exercising power in a anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable, and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might. That is why on major strategic and international questions today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus: They agree on little and understand one another less and less. And this state of affairs is not transitory--the product of one American election or one catastrophic event. The reasons for the transatlantic divide are deep, long in development, and likely to endure. When it comes to setting national priorities, determining threats, defining challenges, and fashioning and implementing foreign and defense policies, the United States and Europe have parted ways. What we don't realize at an official level is how badly we have parted ways. But what Mr. Kagan wrote, I observed in starkest and tragic relief in Bratislava, Slovakia. It was not all bad. I would describe what I saw, in the language of that great Clint Eastwood western--I think the Europeans would hate a reference to a western in a speech like this-- but that title was ``The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly.'' There was much good. Let me tell you, for me, first and foremost was the good that the British representatives did. I say thank God for the Brits and for a strong leader like Mr. Blair. They continue to provide a bridge between an America and a Europe going in different directions. It is sometimes difficult for them, but their hearts are stout and their backs are strong and they are great Allies. They were on D-Day and they are still on this day. Second, another good: The first meeting I attended was about the NATO-Russia relationship. The Russians made a presentation. It was great to be in a room where we were talking about issues in which Russia, though out of NATO, was able to communicate with NATO, express its feelings, its concerns. But then, after they made their presentation, some of the things they said caused me to wince. I was about to make a comment to contest a few of the points they had made, but I didn't need to. An Estonian did it for me, then a Latvian, then a Pole. They contested as equals--equals of Russia--things which they said were not the truth, not factual, not real, and certainly not the whole story. It was thrilling to see. I asked myself as I watched this, Why is this happening? Why can an Estonian stand on equal ground with a Russian and debate as an equal? It occurred to me with great clarity: Because of the U.S. military's marriage to NATO and because the U.S. military continues today what it did from the founding, that visionary founding by Congress and Harry Truman; that is, to put actual bullets in our budgets to provide an umbrella of security for Europe that was credible to the Soviet Union. It was a thrilling thing to see. I remember when I first came to the Senate and I was on the Foreign Relations Committee. I was given an assignment to help pass the first expansion of NATO, postfall of the Berlin Wall. Many of the questions raised were: What will this do to Russia coming out of communism, trying to come into the Western world? What will it do to a fragile democracy they are trying to build? Isn't this just cold war? And yet some of us said, while we respect those concerns, these new members-- the Poles, the Czechs, the Hungarians--are needed for new blood in NATO because we were getting stale and we needed their input. We needed someone in membership to understand what the boot of tyranny on the back of the neck was like, and they did, as we all know. We won that debate. The vote was large. It was lopsided. But it took a lot of work to make that argument successful. We did succeed and NATO was expanded indeed through these countries, each of which had suffered greatly under the Soviet Union at various times when they had uprises. But now I have to say that what we promised would happen in these countries has actually occurred. You have Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Romania. These are not perfect democracies. But guess what they are. They are now democracies. They are pursuing the rule of law. They are allowing free enterprise. They are developing emerging middle classes. They have become job magnets for European capital. They are joining the European Union. They are now part of the free world. And the lever was NATO. But that is the good. Now I have to tell you what I thought was bad. Two reports were given on Saturday. They were not my reports. One was made by a German and one was made by a Frenchman. The first report was about the post-9/11 commitment that NATO had made with respect to Afghanistan. You will remember the only time article V has ever been invoked was after 9/11. We had been attacked. Article V says if member countries are attacked, it is an attack on all. In response to that attack and the issuance of article V, NATO was supposed to go to work. And they made commitments, according to this report, of things they would do in Afghanistan. According to the report which I listened to, it was readily admitted that a reasonable attempt was made at the first commitment and that the other three were not even attempted and were utter failures. That is what their report said. That is what I heard. They went on to cite the fact that helicopters were needed. Lift was needed so their soldiers could actually participate, but that the member countries of NATO wouldn't send any helicopters. The troops they were sending came with such operational restrictions by their governments that all they could do was defensive work. They couldn't help in the war. They were restricted by their governments from making a contribution. Let us say the Americans were fired upon. They couldn't help. If they were fired upon, they could fire back. That is what the report said. I was stunned to hear it. But that is what I heard--four commitments; three were utter failures and one attempt. The next report was made by a Frenchman who talked about the exciting development in the European Union to develop a European defense initiative in which they would develop rapid response forces that could do what he described as ``St. Petersburg tasks.'' Lipservice was given that this could be done with NATO. But when you consider what was supposed to be done with NATO in fulfilling the earlier commitments, these St. Petersburg tasks had nothing to do with that and were completely unrelated to what NATO needed them to do. What I heard bad was there was soaring rhetoric, everybody there talked about their superpower, and everybody knew their budgets. While this rhetoric was going north, their budgets were heading south. It was scary. I made the comment that if they were going to fail in their first responsibility and divert limited resources to a new initiative connected to the EU and leave NATO hollow, that would have a serious negative impact on America's commitment to NATO--and it certainly would to this Senator's commitment to NATO. There was just quiet when I responded in that fashion. The French reporter who was making this report about the new European defense initiative noted how critically poor America was at peacekeeping, and what a poor job we do at rebuilding a country. I never thought that was true with Japan or Germany. Then a Brit responded to him. She said she had recently been in Bosnia and it is fact that NATO is going to turn over its operational responsibilities in Bosnia to this European force. She said she heard the Kosovars said, We don't trust the EU, we trust the Americans, which certainly flies in the face of the charge that we are no good at peacekeeping. I thanked her for noting what I did not have to say. The Kosovars and the Albanians believed their freedom came from American efforts--not European Union efforts. Those are the bad things. Let me tell you about the ugly things. When I left on Sunday to fly home, I reflected upon 9/11 and the article V guarantee that had been issued and how the European Union had not been able to, or our members in Europe had not able to, fulfill their Afghan responsibilities. I thought about how unfair it was to mothers of American troops, and we as a government have said credibly so that Estonians can talk to Russians as equals that if they are attacked we will go to war--thermonuclear war, if necessary. But if the United States is attacked, the response in Afghanistan--a NATO commitment--has been we will apply defense for ourselves, and we will fall short of fulfilling our promises. That is the first ugly thing--the first ugly realization I left with. The second was this: I heard from country after country in Central and Eastern Europe how they were being pressured as new members of the European Union not to be cooperative with America on security issues. That makes me angry. I think that is really ugly. I was reminded of the Commissar about a year ago when these new NATO members put an article in the Wall Street Journal saying they stood with America on the war on terrorism and the President of the French Republic fearing these new countries would be a Trojan horse for the Americans and a challenge to the Franco-German leadership of Europe that was opposing the American effort--that somehow they had not acted ``well-born.'' Those are his words. He went on to add, warning: I was sad to learn, that is being administered in subtle but powerful ways to these new EU members. He said it could cost them membership in the EU. It has not done that. Then Chirac said: Beyond the somewhat amusing or childish aspects of the matter [the matter being the letter of support in the Wall Street Journal] . . . it was dangerous. It should not be forgotten that a number of the EU countries will have to ratify enlargement by referendum. And we already know that public opinion, as always when it's a matter of something new, have reservations about an enlargement, not really seeing exactly what their interest is in approving it. Obviously, then, [what the central Europeans have done] can only reinforce hostile public opinion sentiments among the 15 and especially those who will hold a referendum. Remember that all it takes is for one country not to ratify the referendum for [enlargement] not to happen. Thus, I would say that these countries have been, let's be frank, both not very well brought up and rather unconscious about the dangers that too quick an alignment with the American position could have for them. I conclude with the words of Edmund Burke, that nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests. I also remember the words of Isaiah to ancient Israel, not to lean on a weak reed. I say to the American people, NATO is not dead, but it is in trouble. As politicians promise you relief through internationalization, I ask the American people to consider reality, deeds, not words and empty budgets. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On May 26, 2001, in Manteca, CA, Linell Reese was charged with a hate crime for allegedly attacking a man while yelling antigay epithets. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that adds new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On Long Island, NY, in November 2000, Michael Ashley was charged with allegedly assaulting his roommate. Ashley believed he was gay. 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, today I speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On July 24, 2001, in Greeley, CO, Salvador Rivera, 24, was charged with beating his gay cousin. He was sentenced to 45 days in jail on work release and was also placed on 2 years of unsupervised probation and ordered to pay court costs and restitution. 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 recognizing National Tourette Syndrome Awareness Month. This resolution recognizes the importance of an early and accurate diagnosis, proper treatment for Tourette Syndrome and is intended to raise public awareness about the disorder. I am pleased to be joined today by my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, in offering this resolution. Tourette Syndrome, or TS, is an inherited, neurobiological disorder that affects children of all racial and ethnic groups. The symptoms of TS are rapid, repeated, involuntary movements, and sounds called tics. In a large percentage of cases, TS is accompanied by other disorders, the most common of which are Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and nonverbal Learning Disabilities. An estimated 200,000 Americans have substantially impairing TS and many more have milder symptoms of the disorder. Many endure the stigma, isolation, and psychological impact associated with this chronic disorder. There is, unfortunately, no cure for TS, although some individuals benefit from a reduction in symptoms from medication or other clinical treatments. In my State of Oregon, approximately 600 individuals are affected by Tourette Syndrome. While the Oregon chapter of the Tourette Syndrome Association, TSA, serves as an outstanding resource for information, it constantly faces the challenge of fulfilling its mission in a large, mostly rural State. TSA of Oregon currently operates a support group in the Portland area, and it is emerging as a useful source for families and provides leadership within the community. I would like to commend TSA of Oregon and thank them for their outstanding work. Designating the month of June as the National Tourette Syndrome Awareness Month gives everyone an opportunity to familiarize themselves with TS and to better understand the impact that TS has on people living with the disorder. Additionally, it recognizes the importance of early diagnosis and receiving proper treatment. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On June 1, 2000, Gary William Mick, 25, pleaded guilty to first- degree murder, attempted murder, and armed robbery after admitting that he murdered a gay man and tried to kill another because he believed gay men were ``evil.'' In the first attack, a New Jersey man was bludgeoned to death with a claw hammer. Mick met his second victim, a dentist, at a bar. There, he had dinner with him and went home with him. Mick later attacked the man with a knife, a struggle ensued, and the victim escaped. Mick told police that a childhood incident caused him to hate homosexuals. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

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

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, yesterday I had the privilege to sit in that chair during much of the morning hour and I heard many of the speeches of our colleagues and friends on the other side. The theme of the day was, Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago? Those are the words of Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. Now they are being applied to George W. Bush. I can say as an Oregonian that the answer in my State is yes, we are now better off than we were 4 years ago. When I watched George W. Bush take his oath of office on a cold and rainy January day 3\1/2\ years ago, I was very mindful that Oregon was not going into recession; we were deep into recession. We had spent 8 years of the Clinton administration watching the dismantling of 70,000 family-wage jobs in many of the natural resource industries in my State, specifically, timber industry, fishing, farming, and others. We were told we did not need low tech, we had high tech. But the bubble of high tech had already popped in Oregon. Billions of high-tech values, equities, were disappearing because they were no more than the blue sky in the end than they were in the beginning. Then we should have known it, but the tourism industry that we were told would take the place of our basic industries was in risk of peril that maybe we could not have imagined. When September 11 occurred, tourism evaporated, as well. And my State, because of the policy of the 1990s, coupled with the incredible shocks of the high-tech bubble popping, September 11, corporate scandals, began to register some of the highest unemployment rates in America. Today those rates are falling and falling fast in Oregon. They are nowhere near as good as they ought to be, but with lower taxes, healthy forest initiative, an effort to preserve our hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest, Oregon is coming back, tourists are coming back, high-tech is being restabilized, and trade is being advanced. These are all issues that will be and are part of the Presidential election. As one Oregonian, I ask, Are we better off than we were 4 years ago? By most indicators, the answer is emphatically, yes. The rule of thumb is it takes 6 months between the kind of economic news we are beginning to enjoy now before that news is fully understood by the American people. If that holds true this time, a majority of Oregonians will be able to answer with me that, yes, we are better off now than we were 4 years ago. It is not perfect. Gas prices, as my colleague from Oregon, Ron Wyden, pointed out, are too high. There are many reasons for that. I don't know that they will ever come down to what they were. But I do know the contender for the Presidency does not have the answer on this. The truth is, we have to explore for more and we have to conserve more. It is not all one and it is not all the other. It is both. I understand he is complaining he does not see the President jawboning down the prices. Yet I think what Mr. Woodward said, that the President was talking to Prince Bandar, the men and women would not stand for it. You cannot have it both ways all the time. The other half of the equation of, Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago, is the whole issue of our foreign policy and our domestic security. Having spent 6 years on the Foreign Relations Committee, I watched President Clinton, well motivated in foreign policy, trying to reconcile what to do with American power in a world in which we were the only superpower. I learned a great lesson from him as it relates to Kosovo. I was one of the few Republican Senators who voted with him on Kosovo, consistently believing it was in American interests because it was consistent with an American value that we end genocide in Europe's back door. But for our intervention, at the urging and pleading of our NATO allies, they would have lost Kosovo to Mr. Milosevic without American power, President Clinton's leadership, and the support of this Congress that ultimately turned around that policy of genocide toward a European Muslim majority. I remember asking President Clinton, Mr. President, can't you go get a Security Council resolution in support of this? He responded, Senator, I cannot because Russia and China have promised to veto. I learned then how wise is now-President Bush's policy that you do not go to the Security Council of the United Nations in pursuit of the security of the American people. You do not get a permission slip from an institution that in its very makeup is not democratic. It is a very interesting and historical observation that of the 191 countries of the U.N. members, only 89 would be described today as free and democratic countries. I guess a little more than half of them would be counted as liberal democratic democracies that ensure political competition, respect for civil liberties, significant independence, civic life, and independent medias. This is the same institution that puts Cuba at the head of its human rights commission and Iran at the head of its disarmament commission. I say we should stay in it in a realistic way, even a skeptical way, using it as it serves America's interests because that is how other members of the U.N. use the U.N. But do not subject our security to a veto by the Security Council. So when I hear our colleague on the other side run television ads in my State saying the first thing he will do as President of the United States is to return American foreign policy to the international community, I wonder what he means. And then he clarifies, he will go back to the Security Council. I want the American people to know--I plead with Oregonians to know-- that there is no security in that. Understand that permanent members of the Council--France in particular; Russia as well; China; occasionally Germany is a member--these were the primary creditors of Saddam Hussein, and they were also significant beneficiaries of the food for fraud--I am sorry--the Food for Oil Program which enabled Saddam Hussein to rearm and to execute tens of thousands of his countrymen and to build palaces of great austerity and wastefulness. Regardless of the motives of other countries, the President did the right thing by going into Iraq and removing Saddam's murderous regime from power. We must remember that. He did the right thing for the people of Iraq, and he did the right thing for the American people as well. By liberating the Iraqi people, we have provided hope to people not only in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East, that democracy is an option available to them. Civic movements throughout the region have emerged calling for political change, even in countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The Washington Post has reported that the individuals involved in these movements have widely credited President Bush's democratization policy for allowing them the opportunity to operate in a climate that, up to now, has been unfriendly to their aspirations. This is a real accomplishment, one that is not often touted, but that serves as a harbinger of what is to come if the United States continues to press for democratic change in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the shameful images being broadcast around the world of a few American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners undermine the hard work and dedication of so many Americans who are serving honorably in Iraq. These abuses are abhorrent, and those who are responsible for them must be punished. But in no way should we equate the actions of a few Americans with the widespread, government-endorsed terror inflicted by Saddam upon his own people. The prisoner abuse was wrong, but the United States has laws and military codes that these soldiers violated--and under which they will be held accountable. You can hardly say the same thing about Saddam's Iraq. The tragic murder of Nick Berg should remind the American people of the kind of world in which we are living. People who are willing to brutally decapitate an innocent man for the crime of being an American citizen are not individuals who respect international law, or the founding principles of the United Nations. They respect force, and power, and resolve, and determination. President Bush understands this critical fact, and is willing to deal with these evil men in those terms, not under conditions that we wish existed but do not. I understand that to some, the burden of responsibility we have in the world may seem too much to bear. ``Internationalizing'' conflicts seems, on the surface, to be an appropriate way to reduce our commitments abroad. I disagree. The answer is not to abdicate our responsibilities, but to embrace them. Next week I am traveling to Madrid, Athens, and Bratislava to discuss these very issues with our NATO allies. It is my preference that we act in conjunction with them, but let me reiterate, we should act consistent with our principles. If in doing so we are at odds with our allies, that is a price I am willing to pay. I would simply say, as the Presiding Officer has noted, there is bad news, but there is much good news, and many of us would sure like a little equality of treatment because our goals in Iraq, our goals in the war on terrorism, are noble. Short of those goals, we are left with a more moderate tyrant in the Middle East governing Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On August 25, 2000, in Baton Rouge, LA, a jury convicted Quincy Powell of second-degree murder for the beating and stomping death of Michael Fleming, a gay man, in June 1999. Prosecutors said that Powell killed the victim because he was gay and subsequently referred to the victim at ``faggot Mike'' when he recounted the murder. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am proud to pay tribute today to a remarkable woman who is one of Oregon's true health care heroes. For the past 40 years, Sister Geraldine Bernards has devoted herself to the work of Maryville Nursing Home in Beaverton, OR. First as a nurse, then as director of nurses, and for the last 10 years as Administrator, Sister Geraldine has made a positive difference in the lives of countless Oregonians. Sister Geraldine will be retiring this summer, and before she does, I wanted to take the opportunity to share her inspiring story. Founded in 1963, Maryville Nursing Home is owned and operated by the Sisters of St. Mary of Oregon, and offers ``service with love'' to the elderly. During the four decades of Sister Geraldine's service, Maryville has expanded to include an Alzheimer's unit, a physical therapy unit, an eye clinic, a dental clinic, an activities center, and a multi-purpose gathering center. In her 10 years as Maryville's administrator, Sister Geraldine has initiated many valuable programs to guarantee quality health care and safety for the residents. Two courtyards have been enclosed, making them attractive and safe places for the residents to enjoy the outdoors with their families. A wireless phone system was introduced which enables nurses to be contacted immediately anywhere in the facility. A security system has been installed. New patient lifts were purchased. The volunteer program has seen a tripling in the number of participants, and a full time director of volunteers has been hired. Some of the most inspiring words about Sister Geraldine come from those who know her best. Activity Director Hilee Jackson says that Sister Geraldine is ``consumed by making sure that others' needs are met.'' Terry Shrum, Quality Assurance Director, says ``Sister Geraldine would do anything for anyone.'' It is a fitting tribute to her lifetime of service that a Sister Geraldine Bernards Continuing Education Fund is being established to provide financial resources for on-going career education in the fields of health care and early childhood development. I am proud to join with many other Oregonians in saluting the work of this true health care hero, and I wish her many more years of health and happiness.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. On January 15, 2001, a man was killed in a ninja-like stabbing in Prospect Park, NY, near a popular area for gay men. The victim was slashed across the throat and stabbed in the chest and back. Because nothing was stolen from the victim, police believe he was killed because he was believed to be gay. I believe that Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.