Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the residents of the City of Detroit, OR, to pay tribute and express by gratitude to the dedicated staff of the Detroit Ranger District of the United States Forest Service located in Detroit, OR--in particular the former District Ranger, Stephanie Phillips. The City of Detroit is a small community located on one of Oregon's most popular recreational lakes, nestled in the Santiam Canyon. Surrounded on all sides by federally managed lands, Detroit is a community whose residents rely a great deal on the cooperation and effectiveness of the Forest Service for any type of economic success. Despite a combination of natural and man-made disasters, the determined residents of Detroit and the dedicated public servants of the Detroit Ranger District, led by Ranger Phillips, mixed steely resolution with true grit to begin a process that will ensure the long- term sustainability of this small community. The level of appreciation for the staff of Forest Service can be best characterized by a certificate recently presented to the Detroit Ranger District which read: ``In appreciation and recognition of the Detroit Ranger District Staff for your contributions as a team of dedicated professionals in service to the general public, but especially to the local communities of Detroit and Idanha. We applaud your participation with the technical support for Detroit Lake area. We thank you for your advocacy in all of the Federal Lakes Recreation local projects.'' Mr. President, I would like to add my words of appreciation for those in the Detroit Ranger District for their dedication to the public good. The City of Detroit still faces many challenges. But I am confident that they will succeed. While the public servants of our Federal agencies are often faceless and nameless to us in Congress, many are considered friends and partners in the communities they serve.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. In the last Congress, 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 May 4, 2002 in Alexandria, VA. A man threw a brick through the window of an Afghan man's car. The incident began when 28 year-old Michael Woolls approached the victim on the street and demanded to know his national origin. When the man said he was from Afghanistan, Woolls hit his car with a stick and threw a brick through the window, striking a passenger. 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 rise today to speak about the significance of Black History Month. This week, I would like to discuss briefly an issue of great importance in African American history, and one that remains of vital importance still today--the problem of hate in our society and hate crimes. As most of my colleagues know, Senator Kennedy and I have introduced hate crimes legislation during the past two Congresses. I think it is important for my colleagues to know just some of the background behind hate crimes law, and have a full understanding of why expanding current hate crimes law is important today. We can find instances of hate crime throughout our Nation's history, but they drew increased national attention during the last century. Widespread lynchings in the South, the murders of Emmet Till in 1955, Medgar Evers in 1963, church bombings, and attacks on black protesters all contributed to fear in black communities around the country, and horror among Americans who understood those crimes to be nothing short of domestic acts of terrorism. Early hate crimes laws stem from such events--laws developed from efforts to prevent Ku Klux Klan violence against Black Americans during the Reconstruction era and then, at the Federal level, in the 60s, during the Civil Rights era. What we have today is a patchwork of state and local laws that have arisen over the years in response to bias crimes, and federal hate crimes law has not kept pace. Because federal law was initially designed to protect only certain special activities, we now have a situation in which the Federal Government's involvement is virtually limited to hate crimes committed in voting booths and national parks. The law is inadequate, and many Americans understand that. Just a few days ago, I made a statement on the floor of the Senate regarding a hate crime committed against Chad Debnam and others in Northeast Portland, in my home State of Oregon. On January 19, 2003, four young men went on a shooting spree through Northeast Portland because, according to police, they thought the neighborhood was predominantly African American. Shots were fired into cars and homes in that neighborhood, not 50 years ago, but just last month. But, unfortunately, just like 50 years ago, the Federal Government could not help investigate that crime, even if local law enforcement officials asked for it. We saw a similar problem when James Byrd was dragged behind a pick-up truck in Texas just a few years ago. Each day we are in session I come to the Senate floor to detail a hate crime that occurred somewhere in the country within the past few years. Local law enforcement officers would not have been able to seek Federal help in nearly all of those cases. Crimes against African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Muslim Americans, gay Americans, and others still occur with disturbing frequency today, but our Federal hate crimes law is stuck in the last century. The hate crimes legislation proposed by Senator Kennedy and myself would finally make it much easier for the Federal Government to respond to hate crimes. During Black History Month, I think it is important for us to remember that while we have made tremendous progress in many areas of civil rights law, we have a great deal more work to do. There is no more important civil right than the right to be free from violence, and we should remember the importance of expanded hate crimes law as we continue to celebrate Black History Month.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a special group of young women, their coaches, and their fans, who show us the value of persistence, determination, and personal sacrifice. In December, the University of Portland women's soccer team gave the Pilots their first ever NCAA championship by beating the defending national champions, Santa Clara University, in double overtime. At 20- 4-1, the Pilots were the lowest seed in the Women's College Cup championship series, and their win makes them the lowest seeded team ever to win the national championship. It has been a long and bittersweet road to victory for the team and the University. The Pilots made it to the semi-finals six times in the last 8 years, coming close to a championship in 1995 only to lose in the finals to Notre Dame in triple overtime. Although never winning a collegiate championship, a number of University of Portland players went on to represent the United States in Olympic Competition, including Tiffeny Milbrett and Shannon MacMillan, who played on the U.S. Olympic gold medal-winning team. The Pilots' superior accomplishment this year marks the culmination of years of hard work put forth by the women who came before them, and the young women from this year's national champion Pilots, who are the cream of the crop of American youth, will serve as role models for the women who will follow them. It takes more than athletic prowess to succeed at this level. Winning a national championship takes intelligence, teamwork, dedication, and the willingness to rise above adversity and try just a little harder. The Pilots are an inspiration to us all, and they show today's youth how hard work and determination can lead to great successes. Clive Charles, the Pilots' head coach since 1989, also personifies the finest qualities demonstrated by his team, and it is for good reason that his team dedicated their championship to him. Coach Charles has battled prostate cancer for 2 years, and although his cancer is treatable, it is not curable. He continued weekly chemotherapy treatments throughout the season, and, despite challenges, led his team to the pinnacle of their sport. His next goal along with the returning players is to bring home another cup next year. NCAA Division 1 head coaches selected Coach Charles as National Coach of the Year, making him the first Western Collegiate Conference coach to earn that title. Sophomore striker Christine Sinclair was named National Player of the Year, becoming the first sophomore ever to be recognized with that honor. But it was all the players and their coaches, working as a team, who brought this honor back to Portland. I join the University of Portland and its alumni, the city of Portland, and state of Oregon in thanking these young women and their coaches for giving us all something to cheer about. I am pleased that they will be meeting with President Bush at the White House on February 24, and I am very proud to be able to honor the University of Portland women's soccer team today.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, as I rise today to speak before my colleagues in the 108th session of the US Congress, I have a sense of deja vu. While I have only been a member of the Senate since 1997, I have already seen the issues of prescription drugs for seniors and health care for the uninsured come and go--unresolved--a number of times. And while we continue to discuss the issues to death, people are dying. According to a recent report by the Institute of Medicine, an estimated 18,000 people die every year because they don't have health insurance, and don't get the care they need in a timely fashion. Eighteen thousand deaths a year. And millions more people suffer unnecessarily due to delays in care, or lack of access to care. We need to do something substantial, and we need to do it now. We have all heard the numbers, but they are so staggering that I have to mention them again. Today--right now as I speak--41 million Americans are living, working, and going to school without health insurance. That's one in every six Americans or 17 percent of our hard- working citizens who do not have health insurance. They are our friends, our neighbors, our children, our parents. Many--more than 35 million of these uninsured Americans -are in low- income working families. Many people who work in small businesses are not offered health insurance, and those who are often cannot afford the skyrocketing premiums. My family owns a business, and I know what small businesses go through. We want to provide health care to our hard working employees as much as they want us to offer it, but it is becoming so expensive and so bureaucratic, it grows more difficult every year. This Congress has its work cut out--strengthening the economy, fighting a war, creating a prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors. These are just a few of the important pieces of business before us this year. But the problem of the uninsured will not go away--to the contrary, the ranks of the uninsured are growing by millions every year. A crisis of this magnitude is going to require fundamental change, either through a series of incremental steps, such as helping lower income Americans buy insurance or by spreading insurance risk, or by adopting a bold new approach, such as that advocated by Senator Breaux. We in Congress should consider it a moral imperative to help everyone get access to affordable health coverage. The number of uninsured people in America is an outrage, and every unnecessary death is a tragedy. If 18,000 Americans died in terrorist incidents each year, there would be widespread outrage. Yet tens of thousands of uninsured Americans are at risk of dying each year from cancers diagnosed too late, or stroke from uncontrolled high blood pressure. These can be slow, painful deaths. They are preventable deaths. We can help prevent these deaths. We should help prevent these deaths. With the help of my colleagues, we will help prevent these deaths by committing ourselves to substantial reform this congress.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today to speak for a few moments about, what I feel, is a very important issue--regarding NATO and the deployment of great armed forces in Europe. I, like many of my colleagues, have watched and listened with concern to some of our European allies' thoughts and actions regarding the inspections in Iraq. It has caused many in this town, both in this Chamber and in the government to ponder the merits of some of our allies that are new members of NATO . . . and the fine job they have done in supporting this Nation on fledgling budgets but with the heart of gold and fervor of patriotism often found in new democracies. I believe that it is high time that we consider the merits of a limited redeployment of some U.S. forces either on a permanent or rotating basis from Germany to alternative locations in Eastern and Southern Europe. The current alignment of U.S. forces in Europe, particularly their concentration in Germany, reflects a geopolitical reality that no longer exists. There has not been significant enough realignment of capabilities and assets since the fall of the Berlin Wall. We no longer expect Soviet tanks to come rolling over the Folda Gap. Why are U.S. forces, therefore, still on a cold war footing? During the 1990s, America and its allies agonized over the future of NATO. Now that we have reaffirmed that NATO will continue to exist and grow, and that the U.S. will remain engaged in Europe, we should ask ourselves what it should look like and how it can best serve our national and common security interests. As attention turns to the Middle East, we should be thinking about where our troops should be stationed over the longer term. Given that the military flashpoints in the future are likely to revolve around the Caucuses, Iraq, the Middle East and North Africa, closer proximity of U.S. troops is of the utmost necessity. Since Berlin has long ceased to be the fault line for military conflict, I urge my colleagues and the Administration to consider redeploying U.S. troops from Germany in a direction, and in a manner, that reflects the challenges of the future rather than the past. I was proud to support the inclusion of Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland into NATO. I am also supportive of the aspiration of others to join that Alliance and to make the democratic and budgetary reforms necessary to bolster their candidacy. I am proud that seven other nations, including Bulgaria and Romania, are candidates for membership. By deploying U.S. forces to new locations to the East or South of Germany, to nations that enjoy new or prospective membership in NATO, we would demonstrate our firm commitment to those countries. Doing so would also reflect new geopolitical realities: first, we have cooperative and constructive relations with Russia, and secondly, points to the south of Europe will continue to require more of our attention. As Secretary Rumsfeld has noted, while ties between the people of Germany and America remain strong, on a governmental level, our bilateral relations are increasingly out of sync. I couldn't agree more. Well before Mr. Schroeder began his attacks on President Bush and before the incessant German criticism of the administration's efforts to combat terrorism and the threat posed by Iraq--Germany had imposed increasing and burdensome restrictions on the way the U.S. military could maneuver and train in Germany. Basing and operating costs in Germany one of the most industrialized and rich nations of Europe are high. Though start-up costs of relocating some U.S. forces to countries such as Poland or Romania might be high, over time such relocation would present savings. Some Eastern or Southern European countries would be keen to host U.S. forces, either permanently or on a rotating basis. They would welcome a U.S. military presence for the strategic and political dividends involved, and not least for the positive economic impact that this would entail. They would welcome us in the spirit of friendship. In particular, I think the administration should strongly consider redeploying NATO forces to Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. Poland has bases and training grounds well-suited for U.S. military training, while Romania and Bulgaria are both in the process of upgrading their bases under the terms of their NATO membership. Operating with fewer restrictions than on German bases will allow American troops to train more effectively, thus maintaining military readiness at the highest possible level. Redeployment of U.S. forces to Romania and/or Bulgaria would ease strategic pressure on Turkey, a vital American ally. With its location near the center of the world's least stable regions, we should not leave Ankara to stand as the sole pressure point when the U.S. projects forces eastward and southward from Europe. Someday the political situation might force even a generally friendly Turkish government to resist America using Turkey as a staging point. American bases in Bulgaria and Romania would shift some of the burden from this hard-pressed American friend. Likewise, bases in Bulgaria and Romania would provide the Turks, who will remain key partners in the new era, the diplomatic cover to continue to assist the U.S. Nations that have escaped the yoke of communism in Central and Southern Europe have been among the most active and outspoken supporters of U.S. policy particularly the global war on terrorism and U.S. efforts to contain Iraq and North Korea. Perhaps that is because these nations, unlike their continental neighbors to the West, know what it is like to live without security, freedom and democracy. As we move forward on this critical issue, Congress should authorize and the Administration should thoroughly study, the military and financial implications of European redeployment. It is also an issue to broach with the Russian Federation, as it may require renegotiation of the Treaty Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. We must emphasize that it is not directed at Moscow but rather can form the basis of a closer NATO-Russia relationship. I would note that a few days ago, Senators Shelby, Bunning, Allard, Collins, Sessions, Brownback, McCain, Kyl, Hutchinson, Craig, Ensign, Santorum, Warner and I sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld requesting that the Department of Defense undertake an immediate study of U.S. bases in Europe that should be geared to U.S. national interests. We asked that issues considered in such a study include, but not be limited to: force structure, length of deployment, infrastructure, dependents and dependent housing and services, and costs regardless of category. I believe that was a good first step toward thinking about the issue of deployment of our forces in Europe. I think that we should do more on this issue and I will work towards that end.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. In the last Congress 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 March 9, 2002 in Huntington Beach, CA. Aris Gaddvang, 25, a Filipino-American store manager, was beaten in a parking lot. The attackers, three teenagers, shouted racial slurs and ``white power'' before beating Gaddvang with metal pipes. After the attack, Gaddvang said he received a phone call from someone who identified himself as one of the attackers. Gaddvang said that the caller used racial slurs and threatened him. 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 wonder if the Senator from Utah could tell us about the internal memoranda our colleagues on the other side are seeking. It is my understanding Mr. Estrada wrote these memoranda when he served as Assistant Attorney General. It is also my understanding he has said he has no problem with their release. But it is my further understanding that every living Solicitor General, Republican and Democrat, has advised against their release; is that correct?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield for a question?

Mr. SMITH. A further question, Mr. President, isn't it true, though, he has said he has no problem with their release?

Mr. SMITH. And they are not his to release?

Mr. SMITH. I believe the Washington Post and others have described this.

Mr. SMITH. If I could rephrase my question, hasn't the Washington Post opined this is out of bounds, not fair game, a fishing expedition?

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from Utah.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I believe Senator Schumer is scheduled to speak. I understand he is not now going to claim his time. If I may, I would like to speak about Miguel Estrada. I appreciate the Senator from West Virginia and his effort to present his perspective. I find myself wanting not to be silent, though, in response. He has a perspective that is not one I share with respect to President Bush and the job he is doing as our Commander in Chief and as the leader of the free world. So before I speak about Miguel Estrada, I would like to remain not silent. When I was elected to this body in 1996 I was given membership on the Senate Budget Committee. Being given membership on that committee, I remember President Clinton presented his first budget. We were coming through a period of great deficits and President Clinton projected deficits for as far as the eye could see. But something happened to our economy, something entirely unrelated to Government, something entirely unrelated to the Clinton administration. We saw what has happened periodically in the great civilizations, and that is a speculative bubble, irrational exuberance, and we saw the stock market surge with stock values wholly unrelated to their book values. We began to witness a great bubble. That is when Alan Greenspan and others said there is irrational exuberance. We have a problem. They began pulling back on the money supply, and by the time George W. Bush took his oath of office, this country was in a full blown recession. He inherited this. For a colleague to suggest that this President has run this economy into the ground is belied by the facts and it is belied by the common sense of the American people who do not blame this President for the condition of this economy that he inherited and they, in fact, appreciate the fact that he is doing something about it and trying to do what the Federal Government can, with the levers available to it, to help put people back to work, to grow the economy, to say to the country, to say to the Congress: You know, the economy is tough. When the economy is tough, families have to tighten their belts, and Congress should do the same with the Government budget so we can leave more money at home so people can spend it to pursue their dreams, to balance their economies because when they do that, we are more likely to see employers reemploying people. I must tell you, like my friend from Wisconsin, before I came to this body I was in the business of meeting a payroll. It was always a source of frustration to me to hear politicians from mighty places say that they were responsible for creating jobs, that they were somehow responsible for the condition of the private sector economy. We are citizens of a nation that has a free market economy, not centrally planned. I have always been upset, whether from Republican or Democratic politicians, when there is the claim that somehow we in the public sector create jobs. It is false. It is a lie. So when I hear speeches saying that President Clinton is to blame for it, or President Bush is to blame for it, I say baloney because, as long as I have been in public life, I have seen us do various things with the levers available to us to try to help the economy, to take credit for it. But you know what. We can't. And may we never be able to because if we do, we will have adopted the ways of western socialist societies, of Western Europe, and these are failing models. These are not models designed to reemploy people and to give them opportunity and hope. I sit on this side of the aisle for, frankly, one major reason. I believe in free enterprise. I do not believe in creeping socialism. I believe if you are interested in social justice you will pursue those policies that leave more money at home and give people a chance to reemploy folks and to produce products, to provide services that other people want to buy. So when I hear a statement like I have just heard, with all due respect to a great man in this Chamber, I think it simply disregards the nature of the economic system we are in. I say that as a businessman before I was a Senator. So I thank President Clinton for doing the best job he could. I thank President Bush for doing the best job he could. But in the middle of the administration there was a stock market bubble that neither of them created for which we are now trying to deal with the consequences of the bursting of that bubble.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. In the last Congress 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 November 24, 2001, in Cincinnati, OH. Theodore Jenkins, 43, was savagely beaten and stabbed. Jenkins told police that he was attacked by five men who beat him with a nightstick and stabbed him four times in the back. The attackers used racial slurs during the beating, and police investigated the incident as a hate crime. 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 rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. In the last Congress 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 September 2, 2001 in Athens, GA. Christopher Gregory, 20, was attacked while leaving a gay bar. Gregory was walking with friends when a group of people started shouting anti-gay epithets at them. After Gregory turned and yelled ``Leave us alone!'' an attacker punched him, knocking him to the ground. As the attacker walked away he directed another anti-gay slur toward Gregory. 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 rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. In the last Congress 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 July 4, 2000, in Grant Town, WV. Arthur ``J.R.'' Carl Warren, Jr., 26, an openly gay African-American man, was brutally murdered. The two 17-year-old boys who killed Warren beat him and repeatedly kicked him with steel-toed boots. They threw him in a car and drove across town where they beat him further and drove back and forth over his body, ultimately killing him. The attackers were known to describe Warren using racial epithets and antigay slurs. 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, this Congress will address a number of very serious issues this year, but there is perhaps no issue we will discuss with greater long-term implications than health care. Last year, my colleagues and I came to the Senate floor to talk about and debate the pressing need for an affordable, universal, and voluntary prescription drug benefit for America's seniors. Unfortunately, our efforts were not successful, and our Nation's seniors continue to live in fear that the loss of their health could lead to the loss of their homes. For the past several years, I have also tried to address the growing problem of the uninsured: Every day, 41 million Americans live, work, and go to school without health coverage. While the economic downturn this past year has caused many families to tighten their belts, it has had more serious results for almost 2 million men, women, and children who have lost their health insurance along with their jobs. Last year, the Senate Budget Committee chairman's mark included a $500 billion health fund, to be used to modernize Medicare with the addition of a prescription drug benefit, and to reduce the number of uninsured in this country. With annual prescription drug cost inflation, any legislation to address the long-neglected need of Medicare seniors for an affordable prescription drug benefit this year will consume at least as much. Additionally, growing State fiscal woes coupled with the increase in the number of uninsured Americans will require a substantial Federal response. With the threat of war and ongoing economic downturn, it may be difficult to consider new initiatives this year. But we must. The current economic climate is all the more reason to focus attention and resources on covering the uninsured now, when the need is great. In addition, every year that passes without adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, seniors continue to suffer, and the cost of adding such a benefit increases substantially. We must make every effort to provide a very real benefit for our Nation's seniors and uninsured, and I urge my colleagues to support a sufficient sum to make these goals a reality this year.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, each year I come to the floor during the month of February to celebrate Black History Month and to discuss many of the contributions made by Black Americans to my home State of Oregon. Today, at the beginning of this year's celebration of Black History Month, I would like to begin another series of floor statements with a short discussion of a significant event in Oregon's history, the Vanport flood. In 1929, Dr. DeNorval Unthank moved to Portland, OR from Pennsylvania, becoming one of the city's first black physicians. When he moved into a segregated, nearly all-White neighborhood, he and his family were greeted by rocks thrown through the windows of his home. When he replaced those windows, more rocks were thrown. Phone calls threatening his family were also common. Ultimately, Dr. Unthank was forced to move to another part of town. The city of Portland was highly segregated in its early history, and, although experiences like Dr. Unthank's were not uncommon, there were very few Black Portlanders. World War II changed all that. Between 1941 and 1943, the African-American population in Portland increased tenfold, from roughly 2,000 to over 20,000. People came from all over the country to work in Portland's shipyards, and to accommodate this influx of labor, the city of Vanport--a combination of the names Vancouver and Portland--was built. At the time, it was the largest public housing project in the Nation, and it became home to thousands of Black Oregonians. Due to the housing shortage in Portland after the war, the temporary housing at Vanport was allowed to linger on long past its original intended purpose. Restrictive policies of the local real estate industry, as well the hostility to be found in Portland's White neighborhoods, kept Black residents largely confined to Vanport. On Memorial Day 1948, the Columbia River overflowed its banks and washed away Vanport City, leaving behind a large lake and thousands of homeless people. White residents of Vanport could be fairly easily absorbed into the larger fabric of the White community with minimal disruption; however, the response to the plight of Vanport's Black residents presented a dramatic challenge to the previous patterns of racial thought and action in the city. According to Dr. Darrell Millner, professor at Portland State University, Portland generally rose to meet the challenge of the flood in a display of admirable humanitarianism. While some distinctions related to color were made in the aftermath of the disaster, other new interracial dynamics emerged from the event that, in the long term, helped change the course of Portland race relations. H.J. Belton Hamilton, a former chair of the Urban League of Portland's board, recalls, ``A lot of people got to know each other then.'' Many White families took displaced Vanport Blacks into their homes after the flood, and the old artificial boundaries of the African-American community were stretched to accommodate the relocation of residents. ``The Vanport flood had a major impact on Portland,'' said Bobbie Nunn, and early activist in the NAACP and Urban League. The city of Portland had to accommodate its Black citizens, and the movement for positive racial change was on the rise. We can see the changes in Portland by looking back again on the life of Dr. Unthank. Not only did Dr. Unthank cofound the Urban League of Portland, but by 1958, the Oregon State Medical Society named him Doctor of the Year. Four years later, he was named Citizen of the Year by the Portland Chapter of the National Conference of Christians and Jews. In 1969, DeNorval Unthank Park was dedicated in Portland. Forty years before, rocks had been thrown through the windows of his Portland home. Portland and the entire State of Oregon went through as many changes in the middle part of the 20th century as did most other parts of our country. In the case of Portland, it was a major catastrophe, the Vanport flood, that served as one of the major catalysts for positive change. During Black History Month, I think it is important that we remember the people and events, like Dr. Unthank and the Vanport flood, that helped shape the history of Oregon. I will come back to the floor each week this month to talk more about why Black History Month is important to Oregonians.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. In the last Congress, 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 April 26, 2001, in Los Angeles, CA. A college student assaulted a police officer outside a fraternity. The student, Adam Guerrero, 23, threw objects and shouted racial slurs at a Black traffic officer who was standing outside the fraternity house. The student was charged with counts of committing a hate crime, battery on a peace officer, and assault on a peace officer. 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 rise today to introduce a bill that will make Medicare's Social Health Maintenance Organization, SHMO, demonstration a permanent part of the Medicare+Choice program. In this effort, I am joined by my colleagues from Oregon, New York, Arizona, California, and Washington. The Social HMO demonstration was authorized 18 years ago to test models for improving health care for frail seniors, expanding access to social and supportive services, and integrating these expanded benefits with medical services better. My colleagues and I feel that an eighteen-year test is long enough, it is time for this successful program to become a permanent choice for Medicare beneficiaries. Close to 80 percent of national health care expenditures are for people with chronic conditions. Medicare beneficiaries are disproportionately affected by chronic illness. About 85 percent of people who are 65 and older have one chronic condition, and two thirds have two or more. Fully a third of Medicare beneficiaries have four or more chronic conditions. This group accounts for more than three quarters of all Medicare spending. Yet, despite the predominance of chronic illness among seniors, Medicare continues to operate as an acute care model. So many of the services that are central to the health care needs of seniors are not covered by Medicare, including a number of preventive services, care coordination and disease management services, and home and community-based support services. Social HMOs provide the care coordination and disease management services so critically important to frail and at-risk seniors with multiple chronic conditions and complex care needs. Social HMOs are required to provide expanded care benefits such as prescription drugs, ancillary services such as eyeglasses and hearing aids, and community- based services such as personal care, homemaker services, adult day care, meals, and transportation. These services meet the chronic health care needs of seniors, helping them remain independent, while reducing Medicaid expenditures by avoiding or delaying nursing home placement. Several recent studies have shown that Social HMO members are 40 percent to 50 percent less likely to have long-term nursing home placements than similar seniors. Further, in a recent survey of Social HMO beneficiaries, over three-quarters of respondents indicated that the special services offered by their Social HMO were critical in allowing them to continue living at home. Enhanced Social HMO services, such as early detection of illness, development of coordinated care plans to address problems identified during routine assessments, screening, and ongoing monitoring of care, has paid off in improved health outcomes for beneficiaries. One study submitted to CMS by the University of California at San Francisco and the University of Minnesota showed that the Social HMO chronic care interventions decreased inpatient hospital and emergency room use up to 57 percent and 47 percent, respectively, while improving beneficiaries' functional capacity. Last year, Medicaid spending increased by over 13 percent. More than half of this growth was in programs serving the elderly and disabled. At a time when the Federal deficit is increasing and States are facing unprecedented budget shortfalls, it is incumbent upon us to take measures to reduce, not increase, the Medicaid burden, which constitutes a major component of State expenditures. My legislation provides a critical opportunity to address the States' large and growing fiscal crises. In the short-term we can prevent an exacerbation of States' budget woes by making the Social HMOs permanent. Preliminary estimates of first year costs for terminating the Social HMO program range from about $100 to $300 million for increased nursing home and home care expenditures under Medicaid. Remember that these estimates relate to only four existing plans serving about 110,000 beneficiaries and do not even include prescription drugs and other ancillary services provided by the plans. Long-term cost savings associated with reduced health care expenditures and keeping enrollees from spending down to Medicaid would be even more significant--especially if the MedPAC study required by our bill validates that these programs are cost-effective and recommends to Congress that we expand this option. For states facing huge shortfalls, the cost to absorb these SHMO beneficiaries if the program were to terminate would be substantial. I am fortunate that one of the four original Social HMOs is in Oregon. Senior Advantage II, offered by Kaiser Permanente's Northwest Division, currently serves about 4,300 Medicare beneficiaries from Salem, OR to Longview, Washington, with its primary service area in Portland, OR. Since Kaiser opened its Social HMO program, it has served close to 15,000 beneficiaries with its enhanced benefits and special geriatric programs, which have led to fewer overall nursing home care days and a more consumer-oriented approach to care for frail or ill seniors. The legislation I am introducing with my distinguished colleagues today would make permanent the existing Social HMO plans, like Kaiser, and would lay the ground work for evaluating whether to expand and replicate this model. Our bill requires the Secretary to conduct a comparative study of beneficiary and family member satisfaction to see how Social HMOs compare to Medicare + Choice and fee-for-service Medicare. It also requires MedPAC to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Social HMOs with respect to reduced nursing home admissions, reduced incidence of Medicaid spend-down, and other aspects of the model that represent potential cost-savings. If MedPAC finds that Social HMOs are cost-effective, it must make recommendations to Congress on expanding and replicating this model. To ensure that beneficiaries continue to receive the value added they have come to enjoy under this program, the Social HMOs must continue to provide the expanded benefit package currently offered under this legislation. Further, this benefit could not be changed by the Secretary without notification of Congress. Finally, to ensure that Social HMOs can continue to finance a high level of benefits, any changes in plans' existing payments would need to go through a formal rulemaking process. The Social HMO demonstration project has been re-validated by six acts of Congress since its creation. It is time to make this program permanent and lend a measure of stability to the plans and beneficiaries served by this innovative model. This program represents a fiscally sound approach to helping manage the chronic health care needs of our nation's seniors, and I urge all of my colleagues to join with me and the rest of this bill's cosponsors in support of this important legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will make Medicare's Social Health Maintenance Organization, SHMO, demonstration a permanent part of the Medicare+Choice program. In this effort, I am joined by my colleagues from Oregon, New York, Arizona, California, and Washington. The Social HMO demonstration was authorized 18 years ago to test models for improving health care for frail seniors, expanding access to social and supportive services, and integrating these expanded benefits with medical services better. My colleagues and I feel that an eighteen-year test is long enough, it is time for this successful program to become a permanent choice for Medicare beneficiaries. Close to 80 percent of national health care expenditures are for people with chronic conditions. Medicare beneficiaries are disproportionately affected by chronic illness. About 85 percent of people who are 65 and older have one chronic condition, and two thirds have two or more. Fully a third of Medicare beneficiaries have four or more chronic conditions. This group accounts for more than three quarters of all Medicare spending. Yet, despite the predominance of chronic illness among seniors, Medicare continues to operate as an acute care model. So many of the services that are central to the health care needs of seniors are not covered by Medicare, including a number of preventive services, care coordination and disease management services, and home and community-based support services. Social HMOs provide the care coordination and disease management services so critically important to frail and at-risk seniors with multiple chronic conditions and complex care needs. Social HMOs are required to provide expanded care benefits such as prescription drugs, ancillary services such as eyeglasses and hearing aids, and community- based services such as personal care, homemaker services, adult day care, meals, and transportation. These services meet the chronic health care needs of seniors, helping them remain independent, while reducing Medicaid expenditures by avoiding or delaying nursing home placement. Several recent studies have shown that Social HMO members are 40 percent to 50 percent less likely to have long-term nursing home placements than similar seniors. Further, in a recent survey of Social HMO beneficiaries, over three-quarters of respondents indicated that the special services offered by their Social HMO were critical in allowing them to continue living at home. Enhanced Social HMO services, such as early detection of illness, development of coordinated care plans to address problems identified during routine assessments, screening, and ongoing monitoring of care, has paid off in improved health outcomes for beneficiaries. One study submitted to CMS by the University of California at San Francisco and the University of Minnesota showed that the Social HMO chronic care interventions decreased inpatient hospital and emergency room use up to 57 percent and 47 percent, respectively, while improving beneficiaries' functional capacity. Last year, Medicaid spending increased by over 13 percent. More than half of this growth was in programs serving the elderly and disabled. At a time when the Federal deficit is increasing and States are facing unprecedented budget shortfalls, it is incumbent upon us to take measures to reduce, not increase, the Medicaid burden, which constitutes a major component of State expenditures. My legislation provides a critical opportunity to address the States' large and growing fiscal crises. In the short-term we can prevent an exacerbation of States' budget woes by making the Social HMOs permanent. Preliminary estimates of first year costs for terminating the Social HMO program range from about $100 to $300 million for increased nursing home and home care expenditures under Medicaid. Remember that these estimates relate to only four existing plans serving about 110,000 beneficiaries and do not even include prescription drugs and other ancillary services provided by the plans. Long-term cost savings associated with reduced health care expenditures and keeping enrollees from spending down to Medicaid would be even more significant--especially if the MedPAC study required by our bill validates that these programs are cost-effective and recommends to Congress that we expand this option. For states facing huge shortfalls, the cost to absorb these SHMO beneficiaries if the program were to terminate would be substantial. I am fortunate that one of the four original Social HMOs is in Oregon. Senior Advantage II, offered by Kaiser Permanente's Northwest Division, currently serves about 4,300 Medicare beneficiaries from Salem, OR to Longview, Washington, with its primary service area in Portland, OR. Since Kaiser opened its Social HMO program, it has served close to 15,000 beneficiaries with its enhanced benefits and special geriatric programs, which have led to fewer overall nursing home care days and a more consumer-oriented approach to care for frail or ill seniors. The legislation I am introducing with my distinguished colleagues today would make permanent the existing Social HMO plans, like Kaiser, and would lay the ground work for evaluating whether to expand and replicate this model. Our bill requires the Secretary to conduct a comparative study of beneficiary and family member satisfaction to see how Social HMOs compare to Medicare + Choice and fee-for-service Medicare. It also requires MedPAC to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Social HMOs with respect to reduced nursing home admissions, reduced incidence of Medicaid spend-down, and other aspects of the model that represent potential cost-savings. If MedPAC finds that Social HMOs are cost-effective, it must make recommendations to Congress on expanding and replicating this model. To ensure that beneficiaries continue to receive the value added they have come to enjoy under this program, the Social HMOs must continue to provide the expanded benefit package currently offered under this legislation. Further, this benefit could not be changed by the Secretary without notification of Congress. Finally, to ensure that Social HMOs can continue to finance a high level of benefits, any changes in plans' existing payments would need to go through a formal rulemaking process. The Social HMO demonstration project has been re-validated by six acts of Congress since its creation. It is time to make this program permanent and lend a measure of stability to the plans and beneficiaries served by this innovative model. This program represents a fiscally sound approach to helping manage the chronic health care needs of our nation's seniors, and I urge all of my colleagues to join with me and the rest of this bill's cosponsors in support of this important legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my friend Chad Debnam and the need for hate crimes legislation. In the last Congress Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a bill that would expand current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Each day since the introduction of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, I have detailed for the Record a hate crime that has affected our fellow citizens. Today, I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred very recently, on January 19, 2003, in my home State of Oregon. Four young men went on a shooting spree through Northeast Portland because, according to police, they thought the neighborhood was predominantly African American. The four fired shots into cars and homes as they drove down the street. Although no one was physically injured, the incident opened painful wounds in a community that, like so many others, has seen hate crimes before. For Chad Debnam, the shooting was particularly difficult. 23 years earlier, his brother, Clarence Debnam, an African American college student, was shot through the back by a white sailor. The shooting ``affected us so deeply, our family was never the same,'' Chad, now 52, said. ``And then it comes to visit me again.'' As Chad and his neighbors understand all too well, hate crimes cause harm above and beyond the effects produced by random acts of violence, because when such a wrong is perpetrated, the intended victim is not just a single person, but an entire community. And it creates within that community a sense of alienation, and the very real fear that other members may be future targets of similar violence. This weekend, Chad Debnam and others will be marching down the streets of Northeast Portland in a united front against hate. The Federal Government should be there with them. Passing the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act will demonstrate to our fellow citizens that, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' The victims of hate, in Portland and elsewhere, need to know that their Federal Government stands with them, and will help them create a nationwide community of hope and healing, where intolerance has no place. I believe that by passing the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act we will not only change the law, but hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I express admiration for Senator Leahy's words and for the contribution that many of our colleagues will make in this Chamber to try to give expression to their own feelings and, more importantly, to the feelings of those who reside in our respective States. I am mindful that in each one's own way and on one's own terms, every American--every Oregonian, suffers from the Columbia tragedy. All I can do is reflect on what I feel, but I think that in saying what I will today, it is similar to what many also feel. As an American citizen, as someone who is 50 years old, I have always taken particular pride that we are descended from Pilgrims and pioneers. We have a history, a heritage, a legacy that stretches from Columbus to Columbia. We are the children of an American spirit that believes in discovery, in development, in pioneering new ways, and exploring new frontiers. I remember, as a young boy, the experience of hearing about the Russian launch of Sputnik, and seeing the satellite in the sky as it made its way over the American continent. With particular wonder, I remember, as an elementary school boy, how Weekly Reader--which was something we would always spend time learning from--began to fill with stories of our own space program. I remember, like many of my colleagues, taking inspiration from the leadership of John F. Kennedy challenging us in pursuit of the new frontier and in a man landing on the moon and his safe return. I remember, with great pride, the launch of Alan Shepherd as part of the Mercury program, just to see if man could live in outer space. I remember, as an elementary school boy, attending the parade that was held in Washington, DC for John Glenn. Little did I realize that one day I would have the privilege of serving with John Glenn in the U.S. Senate. I remember his parade down Pennsylvania Avenue and how we, as a new generation of Americans, celebrated the renewing of the American spirit of exploration. I remember following with great interest the Apollo program and being inspired by the remarkable realization that two Americans were on the Moon. Neil Armstrong is a hero, the first to make that small step for man but that giant leap for mankind. I remember the pride I felt when the Apollo program was merged with the Soyuz program and began to break down the cold war barriers with Russia. Then, of course, the space shuttle came and we watched with awe as this new configuration of the space program inspired us all in the new possibilities of learning and discovery. I don't think any of us will forget that day that Challenger went down and the heartache we felt as it exploded upon its launch. Now we add the memory of watching Columbia disintegrate as it reemerged into the Earth's atmosphere. Where do we go from here? As we stand on the verge of a foreign conflict and struggle with our economy, it is entirely appropriate for Congress to look at the space program and, with our President, set new goals. I hope they will include a space station, even a Moon station, and eventually a landing on the planet of Mars. That reflects the highest standards of American leadership. This demonstrates America's courage and it will firmly fix, in the firmament of heaven, America's place among the leadership of nations. My final thoughts are to the families. As we witnessed the ceremony today, we all grieve for the parents and the children of these astronauts who have lost their parent or their child. I am reminded of an admonition that the only way to take sorrow out of death is to take love out of life. Death often looms as the ultimate calamity, but it need not be if we keep it in perspective of eternity. Some time ago, I was attracted to a monument I saw in England. Its words seem appropriate at this occasion. They were about time. As I looked at these families who are suffering and saw how tragic death loomed for them, I am sure they wondered how they could endure time without their loved one. This monument said: Time is too slow for those who wait, too swift for those who fear, too long for those who grieve, too short for those who rejoice, but for those who love, time is eternity. I add my voice to those of my colleagues here today to say God bless the memory of Rick Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David Brown, Laurel Clark, and Ilan Ramon of Israel. To them I say: Godspeed.