Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of reauthorizing the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I begin by thanking Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Murkowski for their leadership and for building on the momentum from the last Congress to reauthorize this very important and overdue reauthorization of this act. Like most of my colleagues, I feel that passing this legislation is critical and it is about time. Since passage of the act in 1976, this legislation has provided the framework for carrying out responsibility to provide Native Americans with adequate health care. As we know, the act has not been updated in 16 years despite the growing needs among Native Americans. We cannot allow the health of this population to remain in jeopardy any longer. Today, funding levels meet only 60 percent of the demand for services each year which requires the Indian Health Services tribal health facilities and urban Indian health care providers to ration care, resulting in tragic denials of needed services. Speaking of the urban Indian health programs, reauthorization of the act will facilitate the modernization of the systems, such as prevention and behavioral health programs, for approximately 1.8 million Native Americans. I sincerely hope we can pass this legislation and send it to the President for his signature. Although this bill makes vast and necessary improvements upon existing law, it is not perfect. Currently, the vast majority of Federal funding for construction and modernization of tribal health care facilities goes to tribes in less than 10 States. Unfortunately, this bill maintains that inequity among tribes by favoring construction in those few States. I offered today an amendment with Senator Cantwell that will correct this problem and instill equity among all of the Native American tribes. This concern is particularly relevant in my home State of Oregon which is 1 of over 40 States that have never--I repeat, never--received funding to build an Indian Health Service hospital. Since the beginning of last year, I have worked with my colleagues to find a compromise to resolve this issue in a way that is not detrimental to any region of the country. I believe my amendment is just that: a good-faith compromise that will provide equity to the health facility system. It does so by providing the Indian Health Service the authority to use an area distribution fund which would allocate a portion of health facility construction funds to all 12 Indian Health Service areas to improve, expand, or replace existing health care facilities. This area distribution fund is not the idea of a single Senator or a single region of the country. It is the product of years of work and compromise by the Indian Health Service and tribes and after Congress recognized the need to create a more equitable facilities construction system. The current system has been locked into place since 1991, and it will be over 20 or 30 years before funding will go to new projects. I do not see how that is fair and equitable if we have an obligation to all. Sadly, this has resulted in wide disparities in the level of health services provided to tribal communities across the country. I believe this amendment represents a rational middle ground on this issue. I also want to highlight that this compromise language is supported by regions of the country with nearly 400 of the 561 federally recognized tribes that reside in 23 States. Those folks are out if this does not pass. I also want to add that it is not my intention to rob one IHS area to pay another. I believe that an area distribution fund works best when and if funding for IHS is expanded. We simply have to enlarge this pie so we are not disadvantaging any tribes in the Southwest of our country, but we must not abandon, as we have been, the tribes all over the rest of the country. That is why I asked my colleagues to join me in sending a letter to the administration seeking a 15 percent increase in IHS funding for fiscal year 2009. I hope we are successful in this effort. But regardless, we must take steps through this bill to establish a fairer system--just a fairer system--to distribute Federal funding. If we are sincere about the title of the legislation at hand--of better meeting our statutory, our treaty, and our moral obligations to improve the health care of all Native Americans--then my amendment should be adopted. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure that all Native American Indians receive the health care they need, they deserve, and what we have promised. I close with a quote from Morning Dove, the literary name of Christine Quintasket, a Sa-lish tribal woman from the Pacific Northwest, now recognized as the first Native American woman to publish a novel. She wrote: Everything on the earth has a purpose, every disease an herb to cure it, and every person a mission . . . this is the Indian theory of existence. There are, indeed, cures and treatment for the maladies that disproportionately affect Native Americans--diabetes, alcoholism, suicides that result from mental disorders, and so many others. The purpose and the mission of this bill is to connect those cures with those who need it most, those who have sought it longest, and through the dismal chapters of our Nation's history have a unique claim to those cures and treatments. I urge the adoption of this amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, each Congress I rise to honor February as Black History Month. Each February since 1926, we have recognized the contributions of Black Americans to the history of our Nation. This month I want to celebrate some of the contributions made by Black Americans in my home State of Oregon. The story of Abner Hunt Francis, a merchant from Buffalo, NY, is particularly moving. Francis, a man who gravitated to leadership, co- founded the Buffalo City Anti-Slavery Society in 1838 and organized local colored conventions throughout the 1830s and '40s in his native state. In 1851 he left the East Coast for the City of Portland in the Oregon Territory, expecting to encounter freer country on the American frontier. Francis was disappointed to discover that despite the progressive attitude of its settlers, racist laws still encumbered Oregon Territory. It was not long after opening a boardinghouse that Francis's brother, O. H. Francis, was arrested. O. H. was detained in Portland on the grounds that men and women of color were not legally allowed in Oregon Territory, pursuant to an existing ``exclusion'' law. The case went immediately before a lower court, where it was decided that O. H. would have 6 months to vacate the territory. Unsatisfied that the judge had given O. H. ample time to leave, the complainant in the case appealed and the matter was elevated to the Territorial Supreme Court. Abner Francis was incensed by the fact that such a law existed in the so-called free territory of Oregon. He described the plight of his brother and detailed the case made before the Supreme Court in a letter to his friend and fellow civil rights advocate, Frederick Douglass. When Judge Orville Pratt ruled against the defense, giving O. H. 4 months to leave the territory, Abner engaged Col. William M. King, then the representative of Portland's district in the State legislature. Representative King agreed to try to repeal the law outright. The law was not repealed until 1926, but a group of outraged Portlanders, led by Abner, successfully petitioned for an exemption for O. H. Douglass wasted no time in publishing Francis's letter. Many abolitionists and civil rights leaders were learning of racial injustices in the undeveloped West for the first time when they read of O. H. Francis's case. Outspoken men and women like Abner Francis forced Oregonians and the Nation to acknowledge that the bitter struggle for equality was to be fought not just in the East, but also in the farthest reaches of the American West. Francis must be recognized as one of the first vocal advocates for racial equality in Oregon. Today, I honor Abner Hunt Francis for his contributions.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey to introduce a resolution condemning the comments made by Iranian President Ahmadinejad on Israel and the Holocaust. For too long, the civilized world has remained silent while the leader of Iran has threatened Israel's survival and denied the existence of the Holocaust. Since the inception of his term in office in 2005, President Ahmadinejad has continually been the mouthpiece for the vilest, most base examples of anti-Semitism and hate. Standing against this ceaselessly hostile rhetoric and threats, the State of Israel should be afforded the full support of the United States and the international community. President Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust--one of the most appalling crimes against humanity the world has ever known--is likewise unacceptable and outrageous. My colleagues and I condemn these comments in the strongest possible terms, and call for all the civilized nations of the world to do likewise.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would strengthen and add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. In the early morning of February 2, 2008, a gay couple, Thomas Colonna and Brad Crelia, were walking in the Capitol Hill area of Seattle, when they were nearly struck by a vehicle. The car then screeched to a halt, and several men exited, yelling anti-gay slurs. The couple attempted to run away, but Crelia, who had a broken foot, was unable to move quickly. The attackers descended upon the two men, still hurling epithets as they began to hit them. One assailant snatched the cane Crelia had been using to support his weight and began to beat him around the head and face with it. Crelia and Colonna both suffered cuts, bruises and broken bones as a result of the attack. Police have not yet made any arrests, but witnesses have provided descriptions and a license plate for the attackers. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. Federal laws intended to protect individuals from heinous and violent crimes motivated by hate are woefully inadequate. This legislation would better equip the Government to fulfill its most important obligation by protecting new groups of people as well as better protecting citizens already covered under deficient laws. 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 on the work of the Helsinki Commission. The Helsinki Commission yesterday held an important hearing on combating anti-Semitism in the OSCE region. I would like to commend the two panelists who testified, Professor Gert Weisskirchen, MP and Dr. Kathrin Meyer. Professor Weisskirchen serves as the OSCE's chair-in- office personal representative on anti-Semitism, and Dr. Meyer serves as the advisor on anti-Semitism issues in the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and human rights. Both of these scholars have been fighting against anti-Semitism for years, and their good work should be recognized. Modern anti-Semitism is an appalling relic of a past horror; and though it is not yet as acceptable as in ages past, its resurgence today is no less troubling. We forget, sometimes, just how much the world is indebted to the Jewish community. The world's culture has been immeasurably enriched by Jewish writers, scientists, artists, philosophers, and medical pioneers. All those contributions, however, mattered little when the shadow of fascism fell across Europe, and European nations began to destroy some of their most valuable sons and daughters. We may have thought that the horrors of World War Two and the Holocaust had finally cauterized the old festering sore of anti- Semitism. And indeed, for some years, that seemed to be the case. Europe committed itself to ensuring that never again would its states do violence against their Jewish minority, to which it owed so much. But time is a powerful sedative. Today, much of the same toxic nationalism is again on the rise. One of the most troubling aspects to me of the past two decades has been the reemergence of virulently nationalist and xenophobic political parties. These groups have often drawn on the iconography and ideology of Axis powers during the Nazi period, with some going so far as to hold public rallies and marches. Others resort to violence, both openly and in the shadows. These gangs are not acceptable within European political society--not yet--but their emergence is a sign that once again, all is not well on the continent. Economic turmoil has combined with age-old anti-Semitism to offer a tiny sliver of legitimacy to burgeoning neo-fascist parties. In some of the newly free states of Eastern Europe, social turmoil has often provided opportunistic politicians the chance of blaming national problems on an ancient scapegoat--the Jews. But this problem is not limited to the East. In much of Europe, in the highest centers of learning and culture, a new phenomenon serves to buttress these old prejudices. The Middle East, where the world's only Jewish state faces a sea of hostile terrorists, is particularly ripe for anti-Semitic propagandists. The world today sees much anti-Semitism masquerading as criticism of Israel. August world bodies, dedicated to forging peace, have seen some of their instruments twisted almost beyond recognition. When great institutions cannot rouse themselves to end appalling human rights abuses in virtually every corner of the world, but instead focus again and again and again on a tiny nation, liberal and democratic, alone in a hostile region--then the instruments of those institutions may well be broken. Anti-Semitism is a scourge from which we are still not free, not so long as radical agitators and tacit bigotry alike have a vested interest in blaming the ills of many on the perceived sins of a few. Because too often, in Europe, the few are the Jews. The active steps to combat anti-Semitism proposed yesterday by Professor Weisskirchen and Dr. Meyer could prove exceptionally useful in rolling back today's creeping advance of radicalism and anti- Semitism. Only through vigorous and proactive measures can we identify the seedlings of hate and discrimination, and uproot them, and ensure that never again would Europe or the world fall prey to the ancient base ugliness of the mob.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would strengthen and add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. On January 14, 2008, 63-year-old Baljeet Singh was parking his car outside a Sikh temple in Queens, NY, when David Wood, 36, approached him. Wood reportedly shouted: ``Arab, go back to your country'' before physically attacking Singh. Wood continued to hurl epithets as he beat Singh, allegedly without provocation. Singh, whose family has attended the temple--known as a gurdwara--for over 12 years, sustained a broken nose and jaw, both of which may require surgery. Wood, who lives near the temple and allegedly has a history of harassing its members, has been charged with second-degree assault as a hate crime, second and third degree assault, and second-degree aggravated harassment. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. Federal laws intended to protect individuals from heinous and violent crimes motivated by hate are woefully inadequate. This legislation would better equip the Government to fulfill its most important obligation by protecting new groups of people as well as better protecting citizens already covered under deficient laws. 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 to speak about justice. Today, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, in coordination with the Targum Shlishi Foundation, is conducting Operation: Last Chance, a final effort to bring the most guilty Nazis to justice before they die. The perpetrators of the Holocaust must not be allowed to cheat their deserved fate. The uniqueness of the Holocaust crime lies not wholly in its number of victims, though that number was horrifyingly large. Its singularity is also the reality of a modern government's methodically executed plan to annihilate an entire race, an effort that is now one of the greatest crimes against humanity the world has ever seen. Even in a century where so much blood was shed--in China, Russia, Africa, and the Middle East--the Holocaust stands alone. For the victims of the Holocaust were chosen not based on any threat to the state, real or imaginary. Indeed, some victims had served with distinction in the German Army during the First World War, and many had then given their lives for their country. They were chosen instead simply for who they were, one of the most ancient peoples to grace this Earth, and one which has never before come so perilously close to utter oblivion. Historians have argued for years about why and how the Holocaust occurred. But for the survivors, and even more for victims, that question is entirely secondary. There is only the reality of the crime and the ongoing quest for justice. We can argue about which Nazi organizations are the most culpable and which were relatively ignorant. As the Nuremburg war crimes trials showed, all Germans are not guilty, and not all are innocent. In some cases, the line blurs slightly. But that does not mean the line does not exist because some--many, perhaps all--are certainly guilty. The Einsatzgruppen. The concentration camp guards. The SS. The bureaucrats who signed off on orders with little thought of the immense crime which they were committing. For these people, there can be no amnesty. There can be no looking away. There must be justice. Unfortunately, after the war, many of the guilty scattered to the four corners of the earth. Some, like Klaus Barbie, fled to South America. Others remained in Germany, Austria, and the Balkans, where successor governments to the Axis gradually lost interest in prosecution. Many fled to the United States, which had only finished fighting the Nazi threat when it faced a resurgent Soviet threat. The Cold War diverted, partially, the Western governments from bringing Nazi killers to justice. Living in homes across the United States and Europe, working at normal jobs and raising families, the most culpable killers may have thought they escaped a reckoning. And, for a time, they did. The Government was certainly not looking for them. But one man was. One man had himself been a prisoner in those terrible camps and had seen firsthand the horrors perpetrated there. Simon Wiesenthal began searching for Nazis and documenting the crimes of them after World War II, and continued for many years. The Simon Wiesenthal Center was founded in 1977 and has an impressive track record of combating modern bigotry and antisemitism, promoting human rights, and ensuring the safety of Jews worldwide. These efforts complement Simon Wiesenthal's life's work in hunting Nazi fugitives and trying to repair, in part, the damage of the Holocaust. Today, however, the hour grows late. It is now almost 63 years since the end of World War II. Every week, Nazi criminals are passing away, 80 and 90-year-old men escaping the long arm of justice. Many of the host countries in which they reside are grateful for this quiet end, avoiding uncomfortable legal proceedings and revisiting old specters from the past. But the easy way is almost never the right way. In these later days, it is incumbent on all of us to help finish the task Simon Wiesenthal began decades ago. In view of the dwindling time available, the center launched Operation Last Chance in 2002, which is aimed at finding Nazi fugitives in the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Germany, Austria, Croatia, and Hungary. There is much work to do: the opening of the Soviet archives since 1991 offers a magnificent opportunity to identify some of the most guilty Nazis, previously hidden behind the Iron Curtain. Operation Last Chance is fittingly named, after a final opportunity to bring those remaining Nazis to earthly justice before they meet eternal justice. To date Wiesenthal Center has identified nearly 500 war crimes suspects, 99 of whom have been turned over to prosecutors. Operation Last Chance primarily focuses on offering rewards for the location and arrest of such criminals as Dr. Sandor Kepiro, a Hungarian police official; Milivoj Asner, a police chief in fascist Croatia; Charles--Karoly--Zentai, a fascist Croatian city governor; Erna Wallisch, a German concentration camp guard; and many others; and Dr. Aribeit Heim was nicknamed ``Dr. Death'' for the medical murders and torture he inflicted on hundreds of concentration camp inmates. He is at large, and his whereabouts unknown. Finding him, and prosecuting all of the wanted Nazi criminals, is a task of the utmost moral importance. The roadblocks are many, and the shortcuts few. This late hour demands that the U.S. Government make every effort to help with Operation Last Chance. I call upon the President and Secretary Rice to make it clear to our European and South American allies that we will not tolerate footdragging on extradition orders, deportation, and criminal indictments. We will not tolerate the easy way. We demand that they commit the resources of the U.S. Government to this cause that our descendents will not look back on us and say: In the end, they did too little. In the end, they turned away.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. On September 22, 2007, Matthew Shetima was walking through an alley in Farmington, NM, when he encountered three men. Shetima, a gay man, claims that Scott Thompson, 21, Jerry Paul, 40, and Craig Yazzie, 37, all from New Mexico, called him over as he walked by the men. According to the police report, the three men began to hit Shetima, all of them calling him derogatory names as they struck him. According to the police report, when he fell to the ground, at least one of the men asked him if he wanted to die as they continued to kick him. Shetima was then pulled into the hotel room the three men were staying in, where the assault continued. Fortunately, Shetima was able to escape. The district attorney prosecuting the case is seeking sentencing enhancements for all three men under New Mexico's hate crime law. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Matthew Shepard 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 in favor of reauthorizing the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, IHCIA, of which I am a cosponsor. Like many of my colleagues, I feel that passing this legislation is long overdue. Since its enactment in 1976, the IHCIA has provided the framework for carrying out our responsibility to provide Native Americans with adequate health care. As we know, the act has not been updated in more than 16 years, despite the growing need among Native Americans. We cannot allow the health of Native Americans to remain in jeopardy for yet another year. The reauthorization legislation is a major step in addressing the growing health disparities that Native Americans face. The act makes much needed changes to the way the Indian Health Service, IHS, delivers health care to Native Americans and is the product of significant consultation and cooperation with Tribes and health care providers. I would like to thank Chairman Dorgan and Vice Chair Murkowski for their leadership and for building on the momentum from the last Congress to reauthorize this act. The IHCIA was last reauthorized in 1992. Now 16 years later, another reauthorization is necessary to modernize Indian health care services and delivery and improve the health status of Native American people to the highest level possible. A September 2004 report released by the United States Commission on Civil Rights gives us a snapshot of the health crises Native Americans face. Native Americans are 770 percent more likely to die from alcoholism, 650 percent more likely to die from tuberculosis, 420 percent more likely to die from diabetes, 52 percent more likely to die from pneumonia or influenza, and 60 percent more likely to die of suicide. Also, according to the CDC, American Indians and Alaska Natives, AI/ AN, also have the highest rate of suicide in the 15- to 24-year-old age group, and suicide is the second leading cause of death among Native American youth aged 10 to 24. The overall rate of suicide for American Indians and Alaska Natives is 20.2 per 100,000, or approximately double the rate for all other racial groups in the United States. Given these circumstances, the life expectancy for Native Americans is 71 years of age, nearly 5 years less than the rest of the U.S population. Many serious health issues affect our Native American population. Yet, today, funding levels meet only 60 percent of demand for services each year, which requires IHS, tribal health facilities and organizations, and urban Indian clinics to ration care, resulting in tragic denials of needed services. Reauthorization of the act will facilitate the modernization of the systems, such as prevention and behavioral health programs for the approximately 1.8 million Native Americans who rely upon the system. I sincerely hope that we can pass this legislation and send it to the President for his signature. Although this bill makes vast and necessary improvements upon current law, it is not perfect. In my home State of Oregon, as well as in many other States across the country, there is concern that the current bill creates inequities among the tribes related to the distribution of health care facilities funding. Senator Cantwell and I intend to offer an amendment that we are hopeful can resolve this issue because, ultimately we must ensure that all tribes are treated equitably. The current priority system outlined in S. 1200 seems to favor health facility construction in a few States and will harm Oregon's tribes as well as many others across the country. Since the original bill was drafted, the IHS and tribes have worked together to develop a new and more equitable construction priority system that more fairly allocates funds across Indian Country. This priority system includes the development of an area distribution methodology. This proposed methodology would provide for a portion of facility construction funds to be used to build health facilities that are not part of the current facilities priority system. Unfortunately, the language in S. 1200 does not explicitly account for this agreement made between the tribes and IHS through the National Steering Committee. Many tribes in Oregon and around the country have never received any construction funding and are concerned that the proposed language is outdated and will continue to cause their facilities to lose priority to the extent that it could be 20 to 30 years until facility upgrades would occur. I offered an amendment during the May 2007 Senate Committee on Indian Affairs markup of S. 1200 that would have allowed for a portion of health facility construction funds to be distributed equitably among all of the IHS areas for local health facilities projects. I withdrew my amendment because Chairman Dorgan assured me that he would work with me to find a suitable compromise before the bill went to the floor. Since then, I have been working with my colleagues and national tribal organizations to develop compromise language. Yet, given all of this effort, some Senators are unwilling to compromise. Therefore, Senator Cantwell and I intend to offer our amendment which represents an appropriate middle ground for all tribes. I hope my colleagues will vote in favor of this amendment, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to explore other creative ways to identify approaches that address everyone's interest and ensures that all Native American Indians receive the health care they need and deserve. I am pleased to see that the bill contains my legislation, the American Indian Veteran Health Care Improvement Act. This legislation would encourage collaborations between the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, resulting in greater access to health care services for American Indian and Alaska Native, veterans of federally recognized tribes. This legislation also would ensure that these AI/AN veterans eligible for VA health care benefits delivered by IHS, an Indian tribe, or tribal organization will not be liable for any out of pocket expenses. American Indians and Alaska Natives have a long history of exemplary military service to the United States. They have volunteered to serve our country at a higher percentage in all of America's wars and conflicts than any other ethnic group on a per capita basis. As a result, they have a wide range of combat related health care needs. AI/ AN veterans may be eligible for health care from the Veterans Health Administration, VHA, or from IHS or both. Despite this dual eligibility, AI/AN veterans report the highest rate of unmet health care needs among veterans and exhibit high rates of disease risk factors. On February 25, 2003, HHS and the VA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, MOU, to encourage cooperation and resource sharing between IHS and the VHA. The goal of the MOU is to use the strengths and expertise of both organizations to increase access, deliver quality health care services, and enhance the health status of AI/AN veterans. These collaborations are designed to improve communication between the agencies and tribal governments and to create opportunities to develop strategies for sharing information services and technology. The technology sharing includes the VA's electronic medical record system, bar code medication administration, and telemedicine. Also, the VA and IHS cosponsor continuing medical training for their health care staffs. The MOU encourages VA, tribal, and IHS programs to collaborate in numerous ways at the local level. These services may include referrals for specialty care at a VA facility, prescriptions offered by the VA, and testing not offered by IHS. At the local level, many partnerships are being formed among IHS, the VA, and tribal governments to identify local needs and develop local solutions. These may include outreach and enrollment for the VA's health system, initial screenings, and other health care services. The anticipated product of these collaborations is to ensure that quality health care is provided to all eligible AI/AN veterans. In my State, the Portland VA Medical Center and the Portland Area Office-IHS are working on a local MOU for the purpose of improving access to VA health care services for eligible AI/AN veterans. The Warm Springs Confederated Tribes have been instrumental in developing this agreement based on the needs of AI veterans on the Warm Springs Reservation. These veterans often are eligible for health benefits from both the VA and IHS, and it is their intended purpose to make care more seamless, thereby improving access and quality. In November 2001, President George W. Bush proclaimed National American Indian Heritage Month by celebrating the role of the indigenous peoples of North America in shaping our Nation's history and culture. He said, ``American Indian and Alaska Native cultures have made remarkable contributions to our national identity. Their unique spiritual, artistic, and literary contributions, together with their vibrant customs and celebrations, enliven and enrich our land.'' An important part of the overall contribution of AI/AN peoples to our Nation is the part they play in protecting and preserving our freedoms. Their contributions to our Armed Forces have been made throughout our history. I am hopeful that the VA and IHS will continue to work together to deliver health care services to our Nation's AI/AN veterans that they so deserve. I look forward to hearing about more of these partnership projects, and to learn of their successes. As I mentioned earlier, Native Americans have some of the highest suicide rates in our Nation. That is why it is so critical that we increase physical and mental health services to this population and, ultimately, that we pass this bill. I am proud to have cosponsored the telemental health language in this bill. The bill would authorize a demonstration project to use telemental health services for suicide prevention and for the treatment of Indian youth in Indian communities. The Indian Health Service would carry out a 4-year demonstration program under which five tribes, tribal organizations or urban Indian organizations with telehealth capabilities could use telemental health services in youth suicide prevention and treatment. I also would like to speak to my support of the Urban Indian Health Program, UIHP. It constitutes only 1 percent of IHS's budget; however, 34 UIH centers provide care for nearly 70 percent of the Native American population residing in cities. According to the 2000 Census, nearly 70 percent of Americans identifying themselves as having American Indian or Alaska Native heritage live in urban areas. In my home State of Oregon, the Native American Rehabilitation Association of the Northwest, NARA, an urban Indian health provider, has been in existence for over 37 years and provides education, physical and mental health services, and substance abuse prevention and treatment that is culturally appropriate to Native Americans and other vulnerable people. NARA is an Indian-owned and operated nonprofit urban Indian health clinic that annually serves over 4,000 people including 257 tribes and bands, of which 25 percent are from Oregon. NARA's health clinic delivers health care services to tribal members from over half of the federally recognized tribes that reside in about 30 States. Notably, NARA is a grant recipient of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, which it uses to serve Oregon's tribes. The UIHP has been a fixture of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act since its initial passage in 1976, principally serving urban Indian communities in those cities where the Federal Government relocated Indians during the 1960s and 1970s. Notably, the Federal Government relocated thousands of tribal members to Portland at that time. Although the UIHP overwhelmingly serves citizens of federally recognized tribes, it has the authority to serve other Native Americans, largely those who have descended from the Federal relocatees. S. 1200 provides a modest expansion of authority for the UIHP to engage in a wider array of health related programs, consistent with the many changes that have occurred in health delivery in the United States since the IHCIA was last reauthorized 16 years ago. Proposals to eliminate or even limit the UIHP within the IHS would have far-reaching and devastating consequences. Urban Indian health clinics report that the elimination of Federal support would result in bankruptcies, lease defaults, elimination of services to tens of thousands of Indians who may not seek care elsewhere, an increase in the health care disparity for American Indians and Alaska Natives, and the near annihilation of a body of medical and cultural knowledge addressing the unique cultural and medical needs of the urban Indian population held almost exclusively by these programs. Notably, Urban Indian health clinics typically leverage IHS funding 2:1 from other sources. Urban Indian health clinics provide unique and nonduplicable assistance to urban Indians who face extraordinary barriers to accessing mainstream health care. Many Native Americans are reluctant to go to health care providers who are unfamiliar with and insensitive to Native cultures. Urban Indian programs not only enjoy the confidence of their clients but also play a vital role in educating other health care providers in the community to the unique needs and cultural conditions of the urban Indian population. Urban Indian health clinics also save costs and improve medical care by getting urban Indians to seek medical attention earlier; Provide care to the large population of uninsured urban Indians who otherwise might go without care; and reduce costs to other parts of the Indian Health Service system by reducing their patient load. More than 30 years ago, President Ford saw the great need and had the wisdom to sign into law the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. His signature was a promise made to American Indians that the Federal Government would work to improve their health status. That promise is one that we must not back away from. Reauthorizing this act is a reaffirmation of that commitment and proves that we understand there is work yet to be done to further improve Indian health. Again, I am thankful to Chairman Dorgan and Vice Chair Murkowski for their leadership and for building on the momentum from the last Congress to reauthorize the act. I hope that we can swiftly resolve any remaining issues and get this long-overdue bill signed into law. I would like to close my statement with a quote from Mourning Dove, the literary name of Christine Quintasket, a Salish tribal woman from the Pacific Northwest now recognized as the first Native American woman to publish a novel (1888-1936). ``Everything on the earth has a purpose, every disease an herb to cure it, and every person a mission . . . this is the Indian theory of existence.'' There are indeed cures and treatments for the maladies that disproportionately afflict Native Americans: diabetes, alcoholism, and suicide. The purpose and the mission of this bill is to connect those cures with those who need it the most--those who have sought it the longest--and through chapters of our history, have a unique claim to those cures and treatment.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I join my colleague, the senior Senator from Arkansas, in supporting the need to enact the timber tax provisions--also known as the Timber Revitalization and Economic Enhancement Act, TREE Act--in a timely manner. This tax policy is as important to Oregon as it is to other timber- growing regions of the United States. The forest products industry is a cornerstone of Oregon's economy and culture. Oregon is home to more than 9.5 million acres of privately owned forests and more than 75,000 people earn their living working for the forest products industry. In fact, Oregon is the No. 1 producer of lumber in the United States. While disappointed that the TREE Act was a part of the tax title removed from the version of the energy bill passed by the Senate, I am pleased the Senate was able to include the TREE Act provisions in the farm bill passed last week. It is crucial for Congress to enact early next year the TREE Act. I will work with my colleagues to see the TREE Act enacted in early 2008. It matters to all who grow trees--companies of all sizes and small tree farmers as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, during this holiday season, my thoughts are with the countless nonprofit organizations in my State of Oregon that provide assistance to those in need. Ever since the days of the pioneers, when folks from miles around would gather for community ``barn raisings,'' the spirit of neighbor helping neighbor has been an important part of the Oregon story. I rise today to pay tribute to the Family Resource Center in the south coast community of Reedsport, which, over the past decade, has gained a reputation as one of Oregon's most innovative and successful community organizations. Jointly supported by Lower Umpqua Hospital and the Reedsport School District, the Family Resource Center resulted from a community brainstorming meeting to identify ways to help Reedsport area families better access services. A decade after that session, the Family Resource Center averages 550 contacts a month and serves as a model of how entities can work cooperatively for the betterment of the community, and how an entire community can get information and services in a nonstigmatizing environment. Through a series of generous grants and donations, the Family Resource Center has been able to supply a tremendous number of services, including acting as an outreach office and an information clearinghouse for many government and nonprofit agencies; providing space for an alternative school and an infant care center; offering a ``connections'' program that matches up people in need of household furniture and appliances with those who have those items to give away; spearheading a school supply drive; providing mental health counseling and drug and alcohol evaluation; offering Red Cross babysitting courses and Oregon Child Care Basics workshops; offering victims' services, including women's support and sexual assault support groups, offering legal aid and paralegal services, and the list goes on and on. Mr. President, the late Oregon Governor Tom McCall once said, ``Heroes are not giant statues framed against a red sky. They are individuals who say, ``This is my community and it is my responsibility to make it better.'' I am confident that all those who--through their time, talents, and treasure--have helped to write the remarkable 10 year history of the Family Resource Center are true heroes because they have truly made Reedsport a better place in which to live, work, and raise a family.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague, Senator Lieberman, today to introduce legislation that will entitle Federal employees with same-sex domestic partners to the same employment benefits that are available to married Federal employees and their spouses and families. Under the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007, employees and their domestic partners would have similar access to employee health benefits, retirement, and disability plans, family medical and emergency leave, group life and long-term care insurance, compensation for work injuries, death and disability benefits, and relocation and travel expenses. More and more American corporations, as well as State and local governments, are offering domestic partner benefits. Approximately half of Fortune 500 companies now offer health benefits to employees' domestic partners. That is up from 25 percent in 2000. In all, more than 9,700 private companies as well as several hundred State and local government and universities and colleges offer these benefits. Private and governmental employers are offering domestic partner benefits for a variety of reasons. Chief among these reasons are recruitment and retention of employees. To be competitive, companies want to attract and retain the best and the brightest in the workforce regardless of their family status. Offering work-life benefits has been an important tool to retain valuable employees. In addition, more employers providing domestic partner benefits may result in a more stable workforce. If an employee's domestic partner has access to preventative health care, the employee is less likely to take prolonged absences from the job to care for their partner. While all these reasons are meritorious, we introduced this legislation as a matter of equality. It is just the right thing to do. The Federal Government should lead by example and that should start with equal treatment of all employees. Recently, a top State Department employee and former Ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest, announced his decision to leave Government service. At his retirement ceremony, Ambassador Guest stated, ``Most departing ambassadors use these events to talk about their successes . . . But I want to talk about my single failure, the failure that in fact is causing me to leave the career that I love.'' The failure which Mike spoke of was his inability to convince the Federal Government to extend employee benefits to same-sex couples. Because the Federal Government does not offer domestic partner benefits, Ambassador Guest explained that he ``felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner--who is my family--and service to my country.'' This legislation will help to ensure that no other Federal employee, like Ambassador Guest, will be faced with a similar dilemma--that is, a choice between one's family or service to their country.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague, Senator Lieberman, today to introduce legislation that will entitle Federal employees with same-sex domestic partners to the same employment benefits that are available to married Federal employees and their spouses and families. Under the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007, employees and their domestic partners would have similar access to employee health benefits, retirement, and disability plans, family medical and emergency leave, group life and long-term care insurance, compensation for work injuries, death and disability benefits, and relocation and travel expenses. More and more American corporations, as well as State and local governments, are offering domestic partner benefits. Approximately half of Fortune 500 companies now offer health benefits to employees' domestic partners. That is up from 25 percent in 2000. In all, more than 9,700 private companies as well as several hundred State and local government and universities and colleges offer these benefits. Private and governmental employers are offering domestic partner benefits for a variety of reasons. Chief among these reasons are recruitment and retention of employees. To be competitive, companies want to attract and retain the best and the brightest in the workforce regardless of their family status. Offering work-life benefits has been an important tool to retain valuable employees. In addition, more employers providing domestic partner benefits may result in a more stable workforce. If an employee's domestic partner has access to preventative health care, the employee is less likely to take prolonged absences from the job to care for their partner. While all these reasons are meritorious, we introduced this legislation as a matter of equality. It is just the right thing to do. The Federal Government should lead by example and that should start with equal treatment of all employees. Recently, a top State Department employee and former Ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest, announced his decision to leave Government service. At his retirement ceremony, Ambassador Guest stated, ``Most departing ambassadors use these events to talk about their successes . . . But I want to talk about my single failure, the failure that in fact is causing me to leave the career that I love.'' The failure which Mike spoke of was his inability to convince the Federal Government to extend employee benefits to same-sex couples. Because the Federal Government does not offer domestic partner benefits, Ambassador Guest explained that he ``felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner--who is my family--and service to my country.'' This legislation will help to ensure that no other Federal employee, like Ambassador Guest, will be faced with a similar dilemma--that is, a choice between one's family or service to their country.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I have been privileged to serve as a U.S. Senator now going into the 12th year of a second term. In all 12 of those years, it has been for me a great privilege and a high honor to serve as a colleague of Trent Lott. Over the course of those 12 years, Trent Lott has told me many times that he has visited every State in the Union except Oregon. Notwithstanding that, this Oregonian feels great pride today in speaking for Trent Lott. I hope Trent will come to Oregon someday, and when he comes to Oregon, there is a place I would like to take him. We have in Oregon many groves of very ancient trees. It is tall timber. These trees go back 2,000 and 3,000 years. But because they are old, occasionally one of these sequoias will fall. And when they fall, a hole in the huge canopy in the sky is opened. When you are in one of these groves, you feel something of the presence of the sacred, a sanctuary. That is a feeling that I often have when I come to the floor of the U.S. Senate. Occasionally, some tall timber leaves our presence--through retirement or death or from other causes--and when that happens, a great hole is left in the Senate. That is the feeling I have as I contemplate the retirement of Trent Lott. In this sanctuary, a great hole in the canopy will be opened. Madam President, when I think of the men I have known, the women I have known in the Senate, they are people of extraordinary ability, but one stands apart in my mind as how to get things done, and that is Trent Lott. I have never seen his equal in the cloakroom. We have all felt his warm slap on our back, a steely look in his eye, and a strong urging to vote this way or that. But it was always done with understanding that we represent not just a party but our country and our States, and that is where our obligation lies. It was because Trent was so good, in my mind, that he is still, and will forever be, something of an ideal because he was my first leader. What I saw in him was someone who knew this institution deeply, who worked relentlessly, who could define differences and help us to reach honorable compromises so that when we went home, we could look back on something of an accomplishment. I am proud of the example my first leader set for me. It is a high standard. I thank you, Trent, for that standard. It is the gold standard, in my mind. I was halfway around the world when an event befell Trent Lott that shook me deeply. I was celebrating my reelection and on vacation. I watched over international news as his words were misconstrued--words which we had heard him utter many times in his big warm-heartedness, trying to make one of our colleagues, Strom Thurmond, feel good at 100 years old. We knew what he meant, but the wolf pack of the press circled around him, sensed blood in the water, and the exigencies of politics caused a great injustice to be done to him and to Tricia. It was a wrong, but it was a wrong that was righted. I was privileged to be asked by Trent Lott to speak for him when he ran for whip. On that occasion, as I thought of Trent, I thought of more than my leader, my first leader. I thought of him as something much more. I thought of him as a friend and as a father figure. I recalled on that occasion words I spoke regarding my own father at his funeral that seemed to define the man--the man I called dad and the man I called my leader. They are words that were put into the mouth of the character Anthony by the great writer Shakespeare. Shakespeare said of Caesar, when Caesar had fallen, these words: His life was gentle and the elements so mixed in him that nature might stand up and say to all the world: this was a man. I am privileged to call this man my friend. May God bless Trent and Tricia Lott and thank God for their service to Mississippi and even to Oregon and to the United States of America.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. Early in the morning of December 8, 2007, 25-year-old Nathaniel Salerno was attacked by five to seven men on a Washington, DC, Metro subway train. Salerno, a gay man, had been at several clubs prior to returning home. Shortly after boarding the train, the men approached him and allegedly demanded that Salerno give them his wallet and BlackBerry. When he stood up, the attackers snatched the items and began to punch and kick him, screaming antigay slurs. Salerno received stitches for the lacerations he received to his face during the attack. Washington's Metro police are investigating the assault as a bias- related violent crime. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Matthew Shepard 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. Yes, I concur with Senator Cardin; it was indeed our intent that Iraqi SIVs receive the full array of admissions and resettlement assistance offered to refugees. I also want to thank the conferees for including this important provision.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. Steven Domer, an Oklahoma City, OK, resident, went missing on October 26, 2007. The following day, police found his torched car and his body was found in a nearby ravine days later. On November 7, 2007, Darrell Madden was arrested for the shooting death of his friend Bradley Qualls. Both men were seen with the 62-year-old Domer the day of his disappearance and are believed to have been involved in his murder. Madden has been charged with murder for allegedly strangling Domer to death. Investigations have uncovered that Madden was a sergeant in a White supremacist group and targeted Domer because he was gay. Domer's murder was allegedly a rite of passage for Qualls to rise to the next level within the organization. The district attorney prosecuting the case will present evidence to prove that Domer was targeted because he was gay. Oklahoma is one of seventeen States whose hate crime laws do not cover those targeted based on sexual orientation. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Matthew Shepard 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 speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. Early in the morning of May 8, 2007, 51-year-old Stevenpaul Richey was severely beaten by two men inside his Missoula, MT, apartment. The previous night, Richey had been at a bar in downtown Missoula where he met Michael Daniel Lemay and Christopher Lance Newrider, both 20 years old. The three men reportedly headed back to Richey's apartment at about 1 a.m., stopping on the way to buy beer. At that point, Richey assumed that the trio would have drinks and listen to music. He was wrong. According to Richey, once inside the apartment, one of the men stated that he did not like gay people while the other hit him suddenly from behind. Richey fell to the ground. Newrider and Lemay tied his ankles and wrists, continuing to batter him and yelling anti-gay epithets. The attackers left Richey bound with a punctured lung, two broken ribs, and shattered bones in his face. Although investigators examined the possibility that the beating was bias-motivated, Montana bias-crime laws currently do not cover crimes motivated by sexual orientation. The two assailants were charged with kidnapping and aggravated assault. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Matthew Shepard 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 thank my colleague for being here with me today. Moments ago, we phoned Secretary Chertoff to discuss how we, as Oregon Senators, can best help those of our State who have been devastated by this storm. Both Senator Wyden and I wish we could be with them now. On Monday, Senator Wyden and I hosted our sixth annual economic forum in Portland. We rushed to the airport after the event in the midst of this incredible storm to find that our outgoing flight was unable land in such horrendous conditions. We fortunate enough to find another flight to Washington so we could be present for Tuesday's vote. Again, we would both like to be with the citizens of our State. We are instead using what leverage we have in Washington to ensure the Federal Government responds to the best of its ability. We have called upon the President to declare this event a major disaster and free up Federal resources to begin rebuilding this devastated area. We would like in particular to commend FEMA and the U.S. Coast Guard. FEMA took a lot of criticism as a result of Hurricane Katrina, but their response in Oregon has been spectacular. We thank them on behalf of all Oregonians. We also thank the Coast Guard. Within the first 24 hours, the Coast Guard responded to well over 600 emergency calls and was able to save a tremendous number of lives. For this, we thank them. As I consider our country, our values and the kinds of catastrophes that have beset our country, we understand that we cannot stop Mother Nature. But these catastrophes cannot and will not break the spirit of the American people. I look at the great motto above your desk, sir, E pluribus unum--out of many, one. I am reminded that when events like this occur, the many show up and become one. They risk their own lives to save others. This is a tremendous act of selflessness and I applaud the heros fighting to save our fellow Oregonians. I thank our Federal responders, and I urge a disaster declaration as soon as possible. In the Northwest, we have natural disasters ranging from earthquakes to volcanoes. And there are storms that barrel in off the Pacific which can do an unbelievable amount of damage. They cause landslides, tear the roofs off our homes, and swell our rivers to record-breaking levels. Near the town of Tillamook, a river rose literally 20.5 feet within just a few hours, sweeping away livestock, homes, and tragically, unsuspecting residents. But the response from all types of government and nongovernment organizations, including the Red Cross, has been magnificent. Many church communities are coming to the rescue. Communications have been lost. Amateur radio operators have filled the airwaves, connecting rescuers to those in need of rescue. We thank them and pledge that--as united Oregon Senators--we will do whatever we can for the sake of our State. We thank the Federal Government for their swift response and again urge an immediate disaster declaration to strengthen our ability to heal the psychological and physical wound left by this storm. We will begin to repair the damage that has afflicted so many counties in Oregon. I assure the people of our State that we in the Federal Government will do our part. We will stay on this job until it is done and until Oregon has fully recovered. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, on Iran's nuclear program. Yesterday, a copy of the IAEA's upcoming report on Iran was released. It is troubling. The IAEA gives an interesting description of Iran's nuclear development over the past 20 years. What is more relevant, however, is its report on Iranian nuclear proliferation in the present day. According to this latest document, Iran has continued to enrich uranium in violation of two U.N. Security Council resolutions passed under Chapter Seven of the U.N. Charter. The resolutions, which are binding, were enacted specifically to prevent Iran from completing the nuclear fuel cycle. To ensure multilateral support at the U.N., they were made as soft as possible. Resolution 1737, passed in December 2006, only targeted items related to Iran's nuclear enrichment cycle. When that failed to have any impact, the UNSC passed Resolution 1747, which targeted specific members of the Iranian regime and made certain commitments related to Iranian arms sales. At the time, the United States was applauded for taking the multilateral route. Withering contrasts were made to our approach to Iraq. If I am not mistaken, we received these same accolades in 2003, when we allowed the EU-3--Germany, France, and the United Kingdom--to handle nuclear negotiations with Iran. And like then, these same accolades and multilateral approach have accomplished little. Instead, Iran's uranium enrichment program has greatly expanded, to the point where--as the IAEA notes--uranium hexafluoride has been fed into each of the 18 centrifuge cascades. There is almost no doubt at this point that Iran will ultimately have enough enriched uranium to create a nuclear weapon. There have been so many red lines broached during the past 5 years, it is almost hopeless to begin creating new ones. I will not try. What I will say, however, is that the issue of Iran creating highly enriched uranium has now become almost moot. Centrifuge technology is technologically difficult; of that, there is no question. The Iranians have failed to spend the usual time needed to test and measure their first centrifuge cascade before building new ones. But resolution of this potential problem is just a matter of time. The equipment is there. The necessary uranium and uranium gas are there. Thanks to Pakistan's A.Q. Khan network, the knowledge is there. Sometime in the future--not immediately but sometime not too far off--we will be approaching the endgame of this situation. I do not know what form the endgame will take. I hope and pray it is short of military confrontation; after all, that is why we have pursued the diplomatic track as long as we have. That is why I still believe diplomacy is the only answer. But we should remember that we in the United States have a luxury of sitting thousands of miles away from a nuclear-armed Iran. That is a reassuring expanse of mountains, plains, and oceans. Others do not have this luxury. Israel, one of our closest allies, is much closer, easily within Iran's missile range and certainly within Hezbollah's. Israel's decisionmaking process is certain to take this vulnerability into account. So how do we move forward from the IAEA's report? Over the next several months, our focus must be in securing a third U.N. Security Council resolution on Iran. The Russians and Chinese may well point to this recent report and drag their heels on further sanctions. They are excellent at that, on issues from Darfur to Burma to North Korea. But the point of the first two resolutions was to halt Iran's uranium enrichment, not to receive more documentation from the IAEA. Iranian uranium enrichment is still continuing. Therefore, I think it weighs heavily on the U.N. and the Security Council in particular to pass a third set of sanctions on Iran. These would need to be stronger than the past two resolutions; ideally, they would include serious prohibitions on military and energy-related items, as well as nuclear equipment. The time for foot-dragging is over. Every day that passes, that uranium hexafluoride becomes more enriched and the Islamic Republic draws nearer to a nuclear weapons capability. I believe that diplomacy is the best and only effective response to this growing threat. Therefore, Mr. President, it is time to pass the Iran Counter- Proliferation Act of 2007, to complement America's recent sanctions, and to pave the way for further U.N. sanctions. I was proud to introduce this bill with my colleague Mr. Durbin, and I hope for quick passage.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. In the early morning of November 4, 2007, in Austin, TX, a man was beaten by a group of college-aged men screaming antigay slurs. Tony Baker, 29, was riding his bike home when three men called to him from a sidewalk. He stopped to engage them since he hadn't understood what they were saying, and the men approached him. When it became apparent to him that the men were shouting antigay insults and that they were hostile, he began to ride off. But it was too late. The men were already upon him and began punching and kicking him in the head, still allegedly shouting slurs. The beating reportedly lasted about a minute, and Baker ended up in the hospital with minor injuries. The police are investigating the incident. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Matthew Shepard 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 want to express my support for the tribal forestry provisions in title VIII of S. 2302, the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007, also referred to as the 2007 farm bill. These tribal provisions make important and needed improvements in the U.S. Forest Service by authorizing direct tribal governmental participation in State and private forestry conservation and support activities, and by providing the Secretary with flexible authority to enhance and facilitate tribal relations with the Forest Service and activities on National Forest System lands. The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry is to be commended for its bipartisan development and adoption of these provisions. There are nine federally recognized tribes within my home State of Oregon, and it is my pleasure to serve on the Committee on Indian Affairs. Indian tribal governments are separate sovereigns that have a unique government-to-government relationship with the United States. That relationship embraces special duties to tribes that extend throughout the Federal Government, including the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service. Within the Forest Service, State and private forestry programs authorized by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act are intended to conserve and strengthen America's non-Federal forest resources across the landscape. However, the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 does not authorize direct support to tribal governments, and the Forest Service has found that tribal forest land participation is inconsistent and low. The new authorities in title VIII will help rectify these matters by establishing a more appropriate and equitable relationship between tribal government and the Forest Service. In so doing, it will also enable State and private forestry to better meet its mission among all stakeholders across the landscape. The tribal provisions in title VIII authorize direct tribal governmental participation in a new Community Forest and Open Space Conservation program and in the established forest legacy conservation easement program. The title also authorizes Forest Service support directly to tribal governments for consultation and coordination, for conservation activities, and for technical assistance for tribal forest resources. Additional tribal provisions in title VIII facilitate the Forest Service's interaction with tribal governments on National Forest System lands. In Oregon, all nine of the tribes in the State have deep historical ties and active current interests in the National Forests around the State. From time immemorial, the tribes have drawn physical and spiritual sustenance from what are today Oregon's national forests, and they continue those activities to this day. Of course, the modern conduct of those activities involves both the tribes and the Forest Service, and the Senate's farm bill provides the Secretary and the Forest Service new authorities that will enable these two stewards of our forests--one ancient and one contemporary--to work in closer cooperation. The bill gives clear authority for the reburial of tribal remains and cultural items on National Forest System land, and it allows free tribal access to forest products from the national forests for cultural and traditional purposes. It also allows the Secretary to temporarily close National Forest System land for the tribal conduct of cultural and traditional activities. Finally, it enables the Secretary to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive tribal information that has come into the possession of the Forest Service in the course of its collaborating with tribes. The tribal forestry authorities in title VIII of S. 2302 are a historic step forward for the Forest Service and tribal governments. They are supported by Oregon tribes and I am pleased they are in the bill. Once again, I want to express my support, and I urge the support of all my colleagues as well. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today, on behalf of all Oregonians, I recognize the recent accomplishments of Madras, Oregon's own Jacoby Ellsbury of the World Champion Boston Red Sox. As a child growing up, I followed the Boston Red Sox closer than any other team. I recall my father telling me stories of the four west coast boys who were members of the Boston Red Sox in the 1940s. He told me about how they put their baseball careers on hold to defend our Nation at war. Two of those west coast boys, Johnny Pesky and Hall of Famer Bobby Doerr, had connections to Oregon and the Pacific Coast League. The story of these four young men from the west coast who became members of the Boston Red Sox was highlighted in the late David Halberstam's book ``The Teammates--A Portrait of Friendship.'' For the four friends, Ted Williams, Bobby Doerr, Johnny Pesky and Dominic DiMaggio, it was about more than baseball. Their story is about the American dream and the bonds of friendship. I recall Williams, Pesky, Doerr, and DiMaggio when I see Jacoby Ellsbury on the field with his teammates: Dustin Pedroia and Jon Lester. Dustin, the Red Sox second baseman, hails from California and Arizona State University and pitcher Jon Lester grew up in Tacoma, WA. Jacoby hails from the small town of Madras, OR, in the central part of the State and was a first team All-American at Oregon State University in 2005 when he led his team to the College World Series for the first time since 1952. Jacoby's career has blossomed on and off the field since joining the Boston Red Sox organization, and he is considered by many to be one of the game's future superstars. Jacoby exhibits many of the qualities a young man should emulate. It is apparent that his work ethic, sportsmanship, and dedication to the game he loves have propelled him to the top of the baseball world. I praise his Mom and Dad, Margie and Jim, for a job well done. Oregonians and the Red Sox Nation are very proud of Jacoby Ellsbury. Finally, I wish to note how proud I am to recognize Jacoby, not only as an American and an Oregonian representing the Boston Red Sox so proudly, but I am equally proud to recognize him as a man of Native American descent, particularly the first of Navajo descent to play in the Major Leagues. The members of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs in Oregon should be extremely proud of Jacoby. I congratulate Jacoby Ellsbury and his teammates on winning the 2007 World Series and wish him the best of luck as he continues his professional career in Boston.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. (for himself, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Coleman) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 373 Whereas the people of the United States have sincere appreciation and respect for the individuals who serve in the Armed Forces; Whereas in order to recognize their sacrifices, including time out from their civilian careers while serving in the Armed Forces, Congress enacted the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944 to restore veterans to a more favorable competitive position for Federal Government employment; Whereas, although veterans acquire skills and qualities during their military service that make them ideal candidates for employment, some veterans need assistance in readjusting to civilian life, including some young veterans who experience high unemployment rates; Whereas it is acknowledged that the dignity, pride, and satisfaction of a civilian job are essential to the smooth and full reintegration into civilian life of those who have answered our Nation's call to arms; and Whereas all citizens and all employers benefit from the service of members of the Armed Forces and thus bear some responsibility to assist in the reintegration of former servicemembers into civilian life: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) urges all employers, private sector as well as State, county, and local government, to target veterans for recruitment and to afford qualified veterans hiring preference similar to the benefits provided by chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code, to preference eligibles, as defined in section 2108 of such title; and

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I attended a hearing of the Helsinki Commission on the increase in anti-Semitism and extremist political parties in Europe. I take a deep interest in hate crimes, bigotry, and anti-Semitism. In our society, these issues are mostly restricted to the political fringe. Nobody in this country would gain widespread electoral support for the formation of an explicitly racist party. We are perhaps unique in that respect. In Europe, these parties are not only formed--they are prospering. Today's hearing did much to highlight the rise of bigotry and discrimination in Europe. A number of experienced witnesses from the U.N., executive branch, and nonprofit sector described the political situation in Europe today, and it is alarming. Across the continent, extremist groups are parading openly and gaining support. In Russia, two thousand supporters of a fascist organization rallied on November 4, the country's National Day, to shout xenophobic and anti-Semitic slogans. Many gave the Hitler salute. This in Russia, which suffered more from the aggression of Nazism than perhaps any other nation in the world. In Hungary last month, 600 people were sworn in as new members of the extremist, paramilitary ``Hungarian Guard,'' wearing uniforms similar to those of the World War II fascist government. By its own account, the Guard has thousands of applications to join its ranks, at a time when the elected Hungarian government is already unpopular because of its previous deceptive election campaign. This criticism led to widespread street violence last year, creating a tense environment ripe for radicalization. The Hungarian Guard is supported by the rightwing political party Jobbik, which is small but virulent. The Prime Minister of Hungary likened the formation of the Hungarian Guard to the increasing influence of Brownshirts in Hitler's Germany, a comparison which seems to me--at least at an early stage--to be apt. The Jewish community in Hungary is understandably wary of its new Guard, and I feel it is incumbent upon all of us to watch future events in that country closely. But it is not just the fringe organizations which are growing in popularity; inch by inch, more moderate groups with the similar tenets are moving to the mainstream. Last month, the somewhat xenophobic Swiss People's Party, SVP, romped to significant success in Switzerland's national election. Perhaps this should not be cause for excessive alarm. After all, Switzerland has a highly developed political system, with a republican tradition dating back hundreds of years. These people are also not marginalized discontents with a perennial grudge on their shoulder; indeed, they seem to address several issues about which the average Swiss citizen is concerned. But if there is not cause for alarm, there is certainly cause for unease. One reason is an election poster used by the SVP, depicting a white sheep kicking a black sheep off of the flag of Switzerland. Because of its racial overtones, the U.N. has already condemned the poster, though the SVP claimed during the campaign the poster was not racist. Perhaps. I do not believe that the SVP are a fascist party, as some of its critics allege. However, its success is indicative of a potentially ugly mood across the Atlantic, as Europeans born into welfare state luxury are unsure how globalization and the mobility of capital will affect their economic birthright. In uncertain economic times, opprobrium then falls easily on traditional scapegoats; Jews, gypsies, and other minorities. It is critical for the Europeans to remember that these minorities are no less citizens for being different. They lead law-abiding lives, pay their taxes, and serve in the military. It does not thus stand to reason that European societies can treat them eternally as second-class citizens. Groups like the Hungarian Guard would likely protest that their rigid stance is only aimed at those who become illegal, who commit crimes or threaten Hungary's law-and-order. But given the heated rhetoric on this issue, and the current torrid geopolitical climate, the status of minorities, particularly Jews and Muslims, in Western countries is an issue which needs to be tackled carefully. Many of the current challenges facing the world are rooted in the Middle Eastern and Islamic nations, and it would be foolish to place lives in jeopardy over election-day rhetoric. Coincidental with rise of the Hungarian Guard and its ilk, there is another factor I find particularly troubling: the increase in overall anti-Semitism in Europe. This has several possible causes, and I certainly do not want to lay the blame solely on the shoulders of rightwing extremists. Passions arising from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict surely play a part, especially considering the large Muslim population in these countries. But it does seem true that there is still a strain of the old European anti-Semitism running through the Hungarian Guard, Russian fascists, and their like, a disturbing taint which has never quite vanished from European political culture. Anti-Semitic violence was one of the terrible specters of the last century. After the Second World War, Europeans made a solemn commitment never to let such hatred loose again on their citizens of Jewish faith. Despite neo-Nazi movements in several countries, the European commitment to this resolution has been impressive. It is equally important to remember, however, just how recently was the Holocaust. The slaughter was ended 62 years ago, and many still live who were caught in its vice. In the breadth of human existence, 62 years is barely a lifetime. So I strongly believe it is necessary, even as extremist parties become increasingly visible, that responsible leaders recommit themselves to the eradication of anti-Semitism in their realms. Uncertain times often lead men to seek the simplest solutions, the elements of their national culture with which they are the most comfortable. Two of these traditions are, unfortunately, extremist nationalism and anti-Semitism. Given the history of Europe, each nation should redouble its efforts to make peace with those in their ranks who are different. And it is also up to Europe to ensure that when they say ``never again,'' they mean it.