Gordon Smith

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 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. I would like to describe a series of terrible crimes that occurred in Ashton, MD. During September 2001, an Arab-American homemaker was attacked and her property vandalized by a female neighbor. The neighbor spread feces across the Arab Americans' porch three times, pelted the home with dead plants, and doused the woman with liquid. The neighbor doused the Arab-American woman a second time, this time with bleach, which burned the victim's skin and discolored her clothes. 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, today I rise in support of fairness for rural America and introduce the Rural Universal Service Equity Act of 2003. Universal service is a decades old Federal program intended to keep telephone service available and affordable across America. The Federal Universal Service Program has been a tremendous success. America's telephone network is the envy of the world. However, the program faces challenges, and it is imperfect. The Rural Universal Service Equity Act addresses an inequity in the way Universal Service support is distributed to rural customers served by larger phone companies. Under the program, only eight States receive funding. Three of those States receive more than 80 percent of the funds and one State receives more than half of all dollars available under the program. Yet many of the most rural States in America the very States the program was intended to assist--receive no funding at all. North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Iowa, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Nebraska and other rural States receive no funding under this program. My State of Oregon is an example of the unfairness of the program. Oregon has an average of 36 residents per square mile, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Oregon has many rural and remote areas but does not receive any funding under this program for larger carriers. However, States with between 60 and 101 residents per square mile or more than twice the density of Oregon--receive 90 percent of the funding. How could this happen? When the FCC created this program in 1999, it determined which States would be eligible for funding by comparing the average cost of providing telephone service per line in each State to a benchmark tied to the national average cost per line. If a State's average cost of service per line exceeded the benchmark, that State would be eligible for funding. If the average cost was below the national benchmark, it would not be eligible. This method is skewed, in part, because telephone service in a metropolitan area is less expensive to provide than service in a rural area. Customers in cities are closer to one another, and the same facilities can serve more people at a lower cost. As a consequence, if you are served by a larger carrier and you live in a State with a city--no matter how rural an area, or no matter how far from the city you live--your State probably receives no support. This problem is exacerbated because the FCC formula also doesn't fully account for the actual cost of providing service in rural areas with natural obstacles such as mountains, lakes and rivers. In short, the formula is flawed, and the result is unfair to millions in rural America: Three States that are not among the 15 least populated States--receive more than 80 percent of the fund. The Rural Universal Service Equity Act of 2003 would make this program fair. The Act directs the FCC to replace the current state-wide average formula with a new formula that distributes funds to telephone company wire centers with the highest cost. Wire centers are the telephone facilities where all of the telephone lines in a given area converge. And because funds would be directed to high-cost wire centers, as opposed to States with the highest average costs, rural residents would no longer be penalized if they lived in a State with a city hundreds of miles away. The Act also: directs the FCC to develop rules to implement a program that is equitable among States; delegates to the FCC the determination of what an appropriate benchmark for what a high cost wire center should be; directs the FCC to not increase the size of the current program for high cost carriers; ensures a minimum level of support for States that currently receive funding under the program; and requires GAO to study and report back to Congress on the need for comprehensive universal service reform. Finally, I am concerned that the Universal Service Program has challenges beyond the inequities of the program for larger carriers. I look forward to participating in the broader debate on how to reform the Universal Service Program and ensure its long term viability and effectiveness. This bill will help further that debate. However, broadly reforming the Universal Service Program is complex and divisive. It may take years. And I do not believe the inequities of the program for larger carriers should be allowed to continue while Congress grapples with the broader issues. Millions of rural Americans are being disserved, and we can solve this one problem today. I urge my colleagues to join me and support the Rural Universal Service Equity Act of 2003. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement 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. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred in Tulsa, OK. On September 11, 2001, a 29-year-old Pakistani was hospitalized after he was badly beaten and kicked by three men. The racially motivated attack happened outside of a service station as the victim was visiting a friend who worked there. The victim suffered a broken jaw and lost several teeth during the attack. He was hospitalized for several days in a Tulsa hospital. 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 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. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred in West Chester, OH. On September 11, 2001, a member of the West Chester's Islamic Center was brutally attacked in the mosque's parking lot. After the beating, members of the Islamic Center received a series of physical threats and the mosque was forced to close its doors. 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. Madam 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 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. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred in New York, NY. On September 12, 2001, a 66-year-old Sikh was savagely attacked by three white teenagers. The man was shot with a pellet gun and chased down by the teens who battered him with a baseball bat. The victim was hospitalized with head, back and wrist injuries. 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, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Mr. Kohl of Wisconsin, Mrs. Boxer of California, Mr. Cornyn of Texas, Mr. Feingold of Wisconsin, Mrs. Hutchison of Texas, Ms. Murkowski of Alaska, and Mr. Wyden of Oregon, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the ``Veterans American Dream Home Ownership Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which would deal with a real problem facing our Nation, the decline of our U.S.-owned shipping fleet. A U.S. owned shipping fleet is essential as a matter of national and economic security. My bill would help make U.S. based shipping companies more competitive in the global market. This is important to our country and to my state. Oregon plays a key role as a facilitator of international commerce. The Port of Portland is one of the most active ports in the world. It is a key link for trade between the United States and the Pacific Rim. In addition to its key role enabling global commerce, Portland is home to U.S. owned shipping companies, shipyards, and numerous support businesses. As a result of tax-law changes enacted in 1975 and 1986, U.S. shipping companies must pay tax on income earned by subsidiaries overseas immediately rather than when such income is later brought back to the United States. This treatment represents a sharp departure from the generally applicable income tax principle of ``deferral'' and places U.S.-based owners of international fleets at a distinct tax disadvantage compared to their foreign-based competitors. Controlled foreign corporations engaged in ocean transport are one of the only active businesses that are not eligible for general rule of deferral. My bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow U.S. companies that own foreign-flagged ships to treat income earned by their controlled foreign corporations in the same manner as all other U.S. companies. In short, it would allow American shipping companies to defer the payment of tax on income that they derive from shipping activities outside the United States until that income is repatriated to the United States. Most foreign-based carriers pay no home-country taxes on income they earn abroad from international shipping. As a result of this competitive imbalance, U.S. companies now hold precious little share of the world shipping marketplace. Indeed, U.S. ownership of international shipping trades dropped precipitously in the aftermath of the 1975 and 1986 tax-law changes. Before 1975, the U.S.-owned share of the world's open-registry shipping fleet stood at 26 percent. By 1986, the U.S. share had dropped to 14 percent. By 1996, the U.S. share had dropped to 5 percent. Other security concerns also are raised by the decline in U.S. ownership of the international shipping trade. The U.S. military, in times of emergency, relies on the ability to requisition U.S.-owned foreign-flagged tankers, bulk carriers, and other vessels to carry oil, gasoline, and other materials in defense of U.S. interests overseas. These vessels comprise the Effective United States Control, EUSC, fleet. The sharp decline in the EUSC fleet since the 1975 and 1986 tax- law changes, and the resulting adverse strategic consequences, have been confirmed in a recent MIT study conducted for the Navy Department. The study recommended that in the short term, the most practical and cost-effective means of reversing this trend would be to ``revise legislation to reflect tax deferment of income for some or all EUSC vessels.'' U.S. security also depends in no small part on our ability to maintain adequate domestic oil supplies in times of emergency. The United States consumes approximately 19.6 million barrels of oil per day, of which roughly 55 percent, mostly crude, is imported into the United States. It is estimated that 95 percent of all oil imported into the United States by sea is now imported on foreign-owned tankers. This means that one half of every gallon of oil consumed in the United States is carried on foreign-owned vessels. This growing dependence on foreign parties--who may not be sympathetic to U.S. interests--to deliver our oil in times of global crisis is cause for potential alarm. In recent years, two of the largest American shipping companies have been purchased by foreign companies, thereby making their shipping operations more competitive than the remaining American companies. The time has come for us to make changes in the tax law that will allow our domestic companies to compete fairly in the global marketplace. I urge my colleagues to join me to enact this needed legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Mr. Kohl of Wisconsin, Mrs. Boxer of California, Mr. Cornyn of Texas, Mr. Feingold of Wisconsin, Mrs. Hutchison of Texas, Ms. Murkowski of Alaska, and Mr. Wyden of Oregon, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the ``Veterans American Dream Home Ownership Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President. I would like to urge my colleagues to support the Harkin/Smith Money Follows the Person Amendment pending before the Senate. This amendment would authorize the 2004 Money Follows the Person initiative in Medicaid, a part of the President's New Freedom Initiative to integrate people with disabilities into the communities where they live. This amendment would create a 5-year program to help States move people with disabilities out of institutional settings and into their communities. For example, under this legislation, Oregon's effort to help an individual move out of an institutional care facility and into a community home would be 100-percent federally funded for 1 year. After that first year, the Federal Government would pay its usual rate. Under the provisions of this amendment, states like Oregon can take advantage of $350 million dollars of Federal assistance for 5 years for a total of $1.75 billion. This amendment is important to the disabled community for many reasons. First, by supporting States' efforts to help Americans who have been needlessly placed in institutional settings move into community settings, this amendment will help States increase access to home and community-based support for people with disabilities. Second, by assisting the movement of people who are not best served by an institution into a community care facility, this amendment gives them the freedom to make choices. Too often, Americans with disabilities are unable to take advantage of opportunities others take for granted--to choose where they want to live, when to visit family and friends, and to be active members of their communities. Third, this amendment helps honor those veterans whose disabilities resulted from noble and selfless service to this Nation. This morning, I heard from the head of the Oregon Chapter of the Paralyzed Veterans of America. He confirmed that this amendment would benefit countless disabled veterans in Oregon alone. I would ask unanimous consent that the letter that I received from the Paralyzed Veterans of America in support of this amendment be printed in the Record. I likewise ask unanimous consent that a letter I received from United Cerebral Palsy and The Arc of the United States in support of this amendment be printed in the Record. Finally, this amendment would help States comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. As my colleagues in the Senate are well aware, we are nearing the 13th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act and of the Olmstead Supreme Court decision. That decision ruled that needless institutionalization of Americans with disabilities constitutes discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important amendment and to support the freedom of choice for Americans with disabilities.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with great concern. As you are aware, President Bush named June National Homeownership Month 2003. I am proud that our President has seen fit to promote an aggressive homeownership campaign, and I support this administration's efforts to see more Americans reach the American Dream of homeownership. As a member of the Finance Committee, I have had the opportunity to learn of important ways that we can make that a reality. In January I introduced the New Homestead Economic Opportunity Act, better known as the Homeownership Tax Credit. This legislation will create a single-family housing tax credit for developers who build in low income areas, and allow more Americans to reach their dreams of homeownership. It will also encourage developers of single family units to invest in low income areas and improve our communities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has stated that one of its goals is to allow every citizen--regardless of race, creed, color, or place of birth--the opportunity to own their own home. To reach this goal, there must be affordable homes to purchase. In his testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Arrairs earlier this month, James Rayburn, the Vice President of the National Association of Home Builders stated that the Homeownership Tax Credit proposal seeks to close the gap in homeownership rates among Americans. While 82 percent of households earning 100 percent or more of the national median income now own homes, only 53 percent of households earning less than the national median are homeowners. The homeownership rate for families earning 80 percent or less of the national median is only 40 percent to 45 percent. Homeownership for whites is 75 percent, while the ownership rate for African Americans is just below 48 percent and 48 percent for Hispanics. We can all agree that the quality of life in distressed neighborhoods can be improved dramatically by increasing home ownership. Existing buildings in these neighborhoods often need extensive renovation before they can provide decent owner-occupied housing. It is also difficult for renovations to occur because the costs involved exceed the prices at which the housing units could be sold. Similarly, the costs of new construction may exceed its market value. Properties sit vacant and neighborhoods remain devastated. The New Homestead Economic Opportunity Act bridges the gap between development costs and market prices and will revitalize these areas. I would like to see every American given the opportunity to succeed at the goal of owning their own home. I am proud to be the sponsor of this legislation, and I plan to continue to work to see it become law. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the American Dream by supporting S. 198.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which would deal with a real problem facing our Nation, the decline of our U.S.-owned shipping fleet. A U.S. owned shipping fleet is essential as a matter of national and economic security. My bill would help make U.S. based shipping companies more competitive in the global market. This is important to our country and to my state. Oregon plays a key role as a facilitator of international commerce. The Port of Portland is one of the most active ports in the world. It is a key link for trade between the United States and the Pacific Rim. In addition to its key role enabling global commerce, Portland is home to U.S. owned shipping companies, shipyards, and numerous support businesses. As a result of tax-law changes enacted in 1975 and 1986, U.S. shipping companies must pay tax on income earned by subsidiaries overseas immediately rather than when such income is later brought back to the United States. This treatment represents a sharp departure from the generally applicable income tax principle of ``deferral'' and places U.S.-based owners of international fleets at a distinct tax disadvantage compared to their foreign-based competitors. Controlled foreign corporations engaged in ocean transport are one of the only active businesses that are not eligible for general rule of deferral. My bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow U.S. companies that own foreign-flagged ships to treat income earned by their controlled foreign corporations in the same manner as all other U.S. companies. In short, it would allow American shipping companies to defer the payment of tax on income that they derive from shipping activities outside the United States until that income is repatriated to the United States. Most foreign-based carriers pay no home-country taxes on income they earn abroad from international shipping. As a result of this competitive imbalance, U.S. companies now hold precious little share of the world shipping marketplace. Indeed, U.S. ownership of international shipping trades dropped precipitously in the aftermath of the 1975 and 1986 tax-law changes. Before 1975, the U.S.-owned share of the world's open-registry shipping fleet stood at 26 percent. By 1986, the U.S. share had dropped to 14 percent. By 1996, the U.S. share had dropped to 5 percent. Other security concerns also are raised by the decline in U.S. ownership of the international shipping trade. The U.S. military, in times of emergency, relies on the ability to requisition U.S.-owned foreign-flagged tankers, bulk carriers, and other vessels to carry oil, gasoline, and other materials in defense of U.S. interests overseas. These vessels comprise the Effective United States Control, EUSC, fleet. The sharp decline in the EUSC fleet since the 1975 and 1986 tax- law changes, and the resulting adverse strategic consequences, have been confirmed in a recent MIT study conducted for the Navy Department. The study recommended that in the short term, the most practical and cost-effective means of reversing this trend would be to ``revise legislation to reflect tax deferment of income for some or all EUSC vessels.'' U.S. security also depends in no small part on our ability to maintain adequate domestic oil supplies in times of emergency. The United States consumes approximately 19.6 million barrels of oil per day, of which roughly 55 percent, mostly crude, is imported into the United States. It is estimated that 95 percent of all oil imported into the United States by sea is now imported on foreign-owned tankers. This means that one half of every gallon of oil consumed in the United States is carried on foreign-owned vessels. This growing dependence on foreign parties--who may not be sympathetic to U.S. interests--to deliver our oil in times of global crisis is cause for potential alarm. In recent years, two of the largest American shipping companies have been purchased by foreign companies, thereby making their shipping operations more competitive than the remaining American companies. The time has come for us to make changes in the tax law that will allow our domestic companies to compete fairly in the global marketplace. I urge my colleagues to join me to enact this needed legislation. 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. On May 1, 2003, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement 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. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred in New Bedford, MA. On June 22, 2003, Saurabh Bhalerao, a 24-year-old graduate student, was ambushed by four men and savagely beaten when the assailants mistook the student for a Muslim. Mr. Bhalerao, a Hindu Indian, works part-time as a pizza delivery man. One of the suspects placed a phone order at the local pizzeria where Mr. Bhalerao is employed. When Mr. Bhalerao arrived with the order, two men shoved him into the apartment and pushed him to the floor. After Mr. Bahlerao was lying on the floor, the attackers kicked and beat him. At one point, one suspect hit him with a kitchen chair. The perpetrators also burned Mr. Bhalerao's body with lit cigarettes. According to court documents, one of the attackers told Mr. Bhalerao to ``Go back to your own country.'' Mr. Bhalerao eventually escaped from the trunk of an assailant's car after he managed to loosen the fisherman's rope binding his hands and feet. He is currently in the intensive care unit at a local hospital. 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. I join Senator Wyden in expressing deep pride in Oregon's TANF program and in thanking the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, on which I serve, for their cooperation. I share his assessment that this letter will enable Oregon to maintain its TANF program without penalty until the program is reauthorized. I also express my appreciaiton to Senators Grassley and Baucus for their efforts on TANF reauthorization. We have been working together for months to ensure that all TANF proposals, including those elements which have made Oregon's TANF program so successful, are carefully considered as we move toward TANF reauthorization. Oregon's TANF program, often called the Oregon Option, works because it recognizes local barriers to work and works with individuals to asses their needs and get them onto a path toward independence. For example, Oregon allows individuals with severe substance abuse problems to seek treatment. This helps people address the root of their problems--not just the symptons. The Oregon Option has put people into real work situations--not just make work--and this has helped Oregon move people off the welfare rolls and into real, sustainable jobs. I believe the Senate can learn from the lessons of Oregon's program, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that all state TANF programs have the flexibility they need to operate successfully.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Keeping seniors out of nursing homes by managing their health better while saving money is a win-win situation. Despite this, these specialized programs only exist in several States. My amendment will further improve Medicare through the development of specialized programs that manage the care of Medicare's most medically complex and expensive beneficiaries more effectively, leading to improved quality of care and ultimately life for seniors with multiple conditions, while helping control Medicare costs. It is not often that we see a proposal in the Senate that will simultaneously improve quality of health care while saving the government money, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is compassionate and it is cost effective. Amendment No. 994

Mr. SMITH. Senator Feingold and I have designed this amendment to help frail Medicare beneficiaries with special health care needs. This is truly one of those times when doing the compassionate thing is in harmony with what is cost-effective. It is a fact that chronic illness is the highest cost, the fastest growing segment of health care. Seniors are disproportionately affected by multiple chronic conditions that require a wide array of services. More than half of all seniors have two or more chronic conditions. Further, one in five Medicare beneficiaries has five or more chronic health conditions. These seniors account for two thirds of total Medicare expenditures. They also see, on average, 14 different physicians annually and fill an average of 50 prescriptions per year. These seniors require routine monitoring, treatment and coordination of care among multiple providers to prevent or delay a decline in their health. And yet traditional Medicare does not include a care coordination benefit. However, a limited group of Medicare+Choice plans do. ``Specialized Medicare + Choice plans'' focus on frail and chronically ill Medicare beneficiaries with special needs--such as nursing home residents, nursing home certifiable beneficiaries who live in the community, and low income seniors who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. These plans provide important services absent from original Medicare such as care coordination, disease management and supportive services. The Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003 takes an important step toward providing a ``home'' for such plans to transition into mainstream Medicare by creating a designation for ``Specialized Medicare Advantage Plans for Special Needs Beneficiaries.'' The amendment I am offering today would also allow the Secretary of HHS to permit plans that disproportionately serve special needs beneficiaries to offer specialized Medicare Advantage plans. For example, under my amendment, health plans serving a large number of seniors whose poor health places them at risk for entering nursing homes could become a specialized Medicare+Choice provider. These are known as social HMO's or SHMO's. The Social HMO demonstration is an example of one such program that assists frail elderly with special needs but serves a mix of well and frail seniors. One of the four Social HMO demonstrations--Kaiser's Senior Advantage II--is in my home State of Oregon. This program is extremely popular with the seniors it serves--those with the most complex medical needs--while saving the state of Oregon millions of dollars in Medicaid costs that would have been incurred had these seniors required nursing home care. I have several letters of support for my amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH. I come to the floor on behalf of myself and Senator Feingold and ask unanimous consent to add Senator Cantwell as a cosponsor.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SMITH. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1073.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from North Dakota in support of critical drug coverage for beneficiaries who contend with the debilitating effects of multiple sclerosis. This amendment would provide transitional coverage for the four FDA- approved therapies in the 2-year interim until 2006, when the prescription drug plan will take effect. Approximately 400,000 Americans have MS. In my home State of Oregon, it is estimated that there are 5,800 people living with MS. Currently, Medicare covers only one of the four FDA-approved MS therapies and only when administered by a physician. This amendment would cover all four MS therapies, including when they are administered by the patients themselves, providing better coverage and better care for Americans with multiple sclerosis. While these therapies do not cure MS, they can slow its course, and have provided great benefit to MS patients. It is critical that MS patients have access to all approved drugs because some MS patients do not respond well to, or cannot tolerate, the one MS therapy that is currently covered. Currently, many Medicare beneficiaries with MS are forced to take the less effective therapy, to pay the costs out of pocket or forgo treatment. Equally, this amendment is important to rural Medicare beneficiaries with MS. By administering drugs themselves, rural beneficiaries can avoid the costs and hassles of traveling long distances to health care facilities to receive their MS therapy. In the spirit of providing all Medicare beneficiaries with increased choice, MS patients need and deserve the full range of treatment choices currently available and self-administration helps ensure access to needed medications. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in support of this amendment and to provide adequate and comprehensive drug coverage for MS patients.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Safe, Efficient, Automobile Travel to Better Ensure Lives in Transit, SEAT BELT, Act of 2003. This bill will establish an incentive grant program that rewards States that have enacted or will enact primary seat belt laws. The bill also gives a premium to those States that increase seat belt usage. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, motor vehicle crashes are responsible for 95 percent of all transportation-related deaths and 99 percent of all transportation- related injuries. It is estimated that in 2002, 42,850 people were killed in vehicle crashes and roughly 3 million more were injured. Motor vehicle crashes are ranked as the leading cause of death for Americans ages 1 to 34. In addition to the thousands of transportation-related deaths and injuries, the economic costs associated with vehicle crashes constitute a serious public health problem and significant fiscal burden to the Nation. The total annual economic cost to the U.S. economy of all motor vehicle crashes is an astonishing $230.6 billion, or 2.3 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. This translates into an average of $820 for every person living in the United States. Increasing seat belt usage is a guaranteed and proven way to lower the number of transportation-related deaths and costs associated with vehicle crashes. In 2002, 59 percent of vehicle occupants killed were not restrained by seat belts or child safety seats. Safety experts agree that the best short-term and most immediate way to reduce traffic crash fatalities and serious injuries is to increase seat belt use. Experience in the United States and other countries has shown that sound laws coupled with high-visibility enforcement are the keys to high seat belt use. Currently, the effectiveness of most State seat belt laws is reduced by secondary enforcement provisions that preclude law enforcement from stopping an unbelted motorist unless another traffic law violation is also observed. Primary enforcement seat belt laws are significantly correlated with higher seat belt usage levels. States with primary enforcement laws have an average of 80 percent belt usage, compared to just 69 percent in States having secondary enforcement laws. Currently, only 19 jurisdictions have primary seat belt laws. Nearly 4000 lives would be saved each year if seat belt use were to increase from the national average of 75 percent to 90 percent. The SEAT BELT Act creates two grant programs to encourage seat belt use. The first grant program rewards States that have or will have primary seat belt enforcement. Forty percent of the available funds for this program will be applied to the first grant category. Every State that enacts a primary seat belt law or currently has one will receive two times their Section 402 allotment. Those States that enact a primary seat belt law sooner will receive their incentive grant sooner. Any funds not obligated by the end of FY 2008 will be made available to States qualified to receive funds under the second grant category. The second grant program would reward States that increase their seat belt usage. Sixty percent of the available funds for this program will be applied to the second grant category. The Secretary of Transportation shall carry out this program which is designed to maximize the effectiveness of the awarded funds and the fairness of the distribution of such funds; increase the national seat belt usage rate as expeditiously as possible; reward States that maintain a seat belt usage rate above 85 percent, as determined by NHTSA; and reward States that demonstrate an increase in their seat belt usage rates. The SEAT BELT Act will ensure that funds are distributed fairly by rewarding the 19 jurisdictions, including my home state of Oregon, which took an early lead to enact a primary seat belt law. The Act also provides sufficient financial incentives to persuade the States that have not enacted a primary seat belt law to do so. And lastly, the Act provides continuing incentives to States to encourage them to have high seat belt usage rates and rewards them for their persistence in striving towards higher usage rates. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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 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. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred on September 22, 2000. A man looking to ``waste some faggots'' entered a gay bar in Roanoke, VA, and opened fire, killing Danny Overstreet, and injuring six others. Overstreet, sitting at a table closest to the gunman, dropped when a shot hit him in the chest. The 43-year-old gay man died within minutes, despite efforts to help him. The other six victims eventually recovered. A witness told police that the gunman--a vocal antigay advocate--had asked directions earlier in the evening to gay bars in the Roanoke area. 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. Senator Bingaman and I are convinced that this amendment goes a long way toward answering the concerns of health centers about how the Medicare Advantage Program will impact their ability to continue to provide high-quality health care services to their patients. I thank my distinguished colleague from New Mexico for his efforts and his cosponsorship of this amendment and I urge all our colleagues to support it. 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 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. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred on October 8, 2001. In Hyannis, MA, a 31-year-old man attacked two convenience store clerks from Pakistan. The suspect walked into the store, approached the two clerks and asked them if they were from Pakistan. The two men responded affirmatively, which further enraged the suspect. The perpetrator began cursing and accusing the pair for ``almost killing'' his family and attacking the United States. One of the clerks attempted to calm the man down and led him outside. Once outside, the man punched the clerk, sending him to the ground. The attacker proceeded to kick him until the second clerk rushed outside to halt the attack. The man was later arrested by police. 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 would like to join my distinguished colleague from Iowa as a cosponsor of the ``Money Follows the Person Amendment'' to the Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003. This amendment would authorize the 2004 ``Money Follows the Person'' initiative in Medicaid, a part of the President's New Freedom Initiative to integrate people with disabilities into the communities where they live. This amendment would create a 5-year program to help States move people with disabilities out of institutional settings and into their communities. For example, under this legislation, Oregon's effort to help an individual move out of an institutional care facility and into a community home would be 100 percent federally funded for 1 year. After that first year, the Federal Government would pay its usual rate. Under the provisions of this amendment, States like Oregon can take advantage of $350 million dollars of Federal assistance for 5 years for a total of $1.75 billion. This amendment is important to the disabled community for several reasons. First, by supporting States' efforts to help Americans who have been needlessly placed in institutional settings move into community settings, this amendment will help States increase access to home and community-based support for people with disabilities. Second, by assisting the movement of people who are not best served by an institution into a community care facility, this amendment gives them the freedom to make choices. Too often, Americans with disabilities are unable to take advantage of opportunities others take for granted--to choose where they want to live, when to visit family and friends, and to be active members of their communities. Finally, this amendment would help States comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. As my colleagues in the Senate are well aware, we are nearing the 13th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act and of the Olmstead Supreme Court decision. That decision ruled that needless institutionalization of Americans with disabilities constitutes discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important amendment and to support the freedom of choice for Americans with disabilities. Amendment No. 974

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from North Dakota in support of critical drug coverage for beneficiaries who contend with the debilitating effects of Multiple Sclerosis. This amendment would provide transitional coverage for the four FDA-approved therapies in the 2-year interim until 2006, when the prescription drug plan will take effect. Approximately 400,000 Americans have MS. In my home State of Oregon, it is estimated that there are 5,800 people living with MS. Currently, Medicare covers only one of the four FDA-approved MS therapies and only when administered by a physician. This amendment would cover all four MS therapies, including when they are administered by the patients themselves, providing better coverage and better care for Americans with Multiple Sclerosis. While these therapies do not cure MS, they can slow its course, and have provided great benefit to MS patients. It is critical that MS patients have access to all approved drugs because some MS patients do not respond well to, or cannot tolerate, the one MS therapy that is currently covered. Currently, many Medicare beneficiaries with MS are forced to take the less effective therapy, to pay the costs out of pocket, or forgo treatment. Equally, this amendment is important to rural Medicare beneficiaries with MS. By administering drugs themselves, rural beneficiaries can avoid the costs and hassles of traveling long distances to health care facilities to receive their MS therapy. In the spirit of providing all Medicare beneficiaries with increased choice, MS patients need and deserve the full range of treatment choices currently available and self-administration helps ensure access to needed medications. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in support of this amendment and to provide adequate and comprehensive drug coverage for MS patients.