Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred in January 1998 in Springfield, IL. A gay man was abducted, tortured, and robbed. The attacker, Thomas Goacher, 27, was charged with a hate crime, aggravated kidnapping, armed robbery and aggravated battery in connection with the incident. 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 of 2001 is now 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 of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I am pleased to rise today to honor an outstanding organization located in my home State of Oregon. I would like to congratulate Guide Dogs for the Blind on its 60th anniversary of providing exemplary service to the blind and visually impaired community in Oregon and across the country. Guide Dogs for the Blind is a nonprofit, charitable organization that provides guide dogs and training to the visually impaired community throughout the United States and Canada. With approximately 10 million Americans categorized as blind or visually impaired, Guide Dogs for the Blind performs an essential service that deserves to be recognized in this body on its 60th anniversary. The services provided by Guide Dogs for the Blind, and organizations like it, will only become more important in the coming decades. Statistics show that people 65 years and older are at high risk of suffering from poor vision. On average, 144 Oregonians benefit from guide dogs trained by Guide Dogs for the Blind every year, and as our population continues to grey, the need for guide dogs and organizations that train them will almost certainly grow. The use of guide dogs has been increasingly accepted over the course of the last century. Although guide dogs existed prior to World War II, most visually impaired people could not take full advantage of such services due to existing federal and state laws restricting animals from entering buildings. But only three days after the most devastating attack in American history, December 10, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a law finally requiring government buildings to admit seeing-eye dogs. Today, during these trying times, it is important for all of us to note that despite the turbulent political situation he faced after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt still prioritized the needs of the visually impaired community by signing that law. Sixty years later, the program instituted by Guide Dogs for the Blind served the nation on its darkest day since Pearl Harbor. During the horrific attacks against the United States on September 11, a blind man working on the 78th floor of the World Trade Center was led to safety by a guide dog that had graduated from the Guide Dogs for the Blind program. Guide dogs, now an essential part of so many lives, can be remembered along with the selfless firefighters, police officers, and rescue workers who sacrificed so much to help others that day. Each and every staff member and volunteer at Guide Dogs for the Blind is a hero to their communities and to the people who benefit from their services. I rise to salute those associated with the Guide Dogs for the Blind for their dedication and continued service to visually impaired people throughout the country. Even in this era of innovation, the blind and visually impaired would not have the same opportunities afforded to the rest of us without the commitment of citizens like those associated with Guide Dogs for the Blind.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred July 29, 2000 in Mahwah, NJ. Two gay men were beaten in an apartment complex parking lot. The assailant, William Courain, 26, was at an apartment complex party when he began making obscene remarks to several of the guests about their sexual orientation. He left the party and confronted two men in the parking lot, making derogatory comments about their sexual orientation before attacking them. Witnesses say he began punching and kicking the two victims, one of whom suffered bleeding from the mouth and eyes and was treated at a local hospital. Mr. Courain was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, bias harrassment and bias assault in connection with the incident. 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 of 2001 is now 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 of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred September 30, 2001 in San Diego County, CA. A 51 year-old Sikh woman was attacked by two men who stabbed her twice in the head and threatened to kill her. As she was sitting in her car, the two assailants pulled up next to her on a motorcycle, opened her door, and one of them yelled, ``This is what you get for what your people have done to us. I'm going to slash your throat.'' The attackers fled when another car approached the scene. 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 of 2001 is now 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 of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation 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 as he prepared to unload some merchandise. The assailants shouted racial slurs and yelled ``white power'' before beating him with metal pipes. 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 of 2001 is now 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 of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred April 27, 2001 at Kent State University in Ohio. Mikell Nagy, an openly gay university student, was eating breakfast with friends when he heard someone make an anti-gay comment toward another friend across the room. When Mr. Nagy went to see if his friend was okay, a man walked up behind him, called him ``faggot'' and punched him in the face. According to witnesses, blood was pouring from cuts above his left eye and his two front teeth were chipped during the incident. 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 of 2001 is now 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 of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred June 9, 2002 in Riverside, CA. An attack outside a popular gay bar left one gay man dead and another wounded. Jeffery Owens, 40, died of multiple stab wounds while coming to the aid of Michael Bussee, 48, who was being beaten and stabbed in the bar parking lot. Before stabbing Owens, one attacker was heard to yell ``You want some trouble . . . fag, here it is!'' Police are currently looking for the assailants, four men with shaved heads, and are investigating 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 of 2001 is now 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 of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred December 6, 2000 in Placer County, CA. A 37-year-old African American woman was attacked at a roadside rest stop. The perpetrators, two men, were hiding in a restroom stall when they attacked, bound and gagged the victim with duct tape, sexually assaulted her, and wrote racial slurs all over her body. Police investigated the assault 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 of 2001 is now 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 of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I rise today to commend my friends at the Community Action Program East Central Oregon, CAPECO. CAPECO was formed in October 1987 to support the economic development efforts of Morrow, Umatilla, Gilliam, and Wheeler Counties through its worker training services. Located in my home town of Pendleton, OR, CAPECO works with the Oregon Workforce Alliance to offer employment and training services to employers and citizens of Morrow and Umatilla counties. CAPECO is an active Work-Links partner, offering services to help job seekers, workers, and employers. The Program has been active since the inception of the Workforce Investment Act and has been a tremendous help to hundreds of displaced workers trying to get back on their feet. This important program not only provides up to fifty percent of displaced workers' wages, but it offers skill assessments and retraining, and help with job applications, interviewing techniques, and stress management. I have heard from many constituents about how important this service has been in getting back to work or gaining skills for a new job. Ms. Mary Paige Rose recently contacted me to tell me how CAPECO changed her career. Ms. Rose writes: ``I was classified as a displaced worker by Oregon's Employment Department. They directed me to go to CAPECO and attend their classes called Choices and Options. This class was instructed by Mary Kinsch who became my work force counselor and confident. In less than a year, I have opened my own business due to the services I received from CAPECO . . . When I was fired from my account executive sales position . . . it devastated me. I had never been fired before and never had needed to use these types of social services. I am forever grateful for CAPECO and for the Oregon Employment Department for assisting me. I would not be where I am today without the aid. . . . With the help of programs like CAPECO, I am not a liability to Umatilla County or the State of Oregon, I am an asset. I appreciate all the help that Mary Kinsch and CAPECO were able to give me through the Workforce Investment Act. Please know that programs like CAPECO are very needed especially in such a distressed area as Umatilla County.'' Madam President, I am proud of CAPECO's important contribution to the Oregon economy and proud of constituents like Ms. Rose who have taken advantage of these services and also contributed to job growth in the state. They are a credit to my state of Oregon and to this country.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of last year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred June 1, 2001 in Modesto, CA. The home of an inter-racial couple and the couple's two children were threatened when someone threw a Molotov cocktail at the couple's home. Police believe it was a hate crime, citing other evidence such as a watermelon thrown on the driveway, a box of grits, a frozen bag of black-eyed peas, and a 40-oz. King Cobra beer. 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 of 2001 is now 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 of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I agree with the Senator. We are in a war on terrorism in this world. It is entirely appropriate to focus on the war on terrorism at home. President Bush has proposed a more seamless process by which we backstop as a Federal Government local and State police and all law enforcement in our ability to protect the American people. I believe government should help Americans as it finds them. Where there is a clearly demonstrated need, particularly as to gays and lesbians, we should show up to help. I believe the Senator would agree with me that in the case of James Byrd, where this African-American brother was dragged to death in a hate crime, the Federal Government, because the statute permits the category of race, was helpful. It did not subvert the local pursuit and prosecution of the murderers of James Byrd. We backstopped it. We brought the good offices and the resources and the expertise to be helpful to Texas in that case. Come with me to Wyoming, sir, and you will talk to officers that introduced themselves to me as Republican police officers. They did not need to identity their party but their point to this Republican Senator was that this is not a partisan issue. They could have used the help. This became a case that so consumed Laramie, WY, that their limited resources were simply exhausted by one case. They would love to have had the Federal Government show up to work but the Federal Government was statutorily prohibited from coming to help.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I am happy to yield.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, each day I have detailed in the Senate Record another hate crime. Again, these are always violent, they are always sickening, but they always happen to an American citizen. These citizens are not different from you and me. They are Americans. They may be black, they may be gay, they may be disabled, female or of Middle Eastern descent, and yet they are all Americans. We are all, in that important aspect, the same. I will detail a heinous crime that occurred in the State of Oregon in 1995. I have spoken about this horrible crime before in this Chamber. A 27-year-old Stockton, CA, man murdered a Medford, OR, couple: Roxanne Ellis, 53, and Michelle Abdill, 42. The women, who ran a property management business together, disappeared on December 4, 1995, after showing a man an apartment for rent. He shot them both in the head. The bodies were left bound and gagged in the truck bed. The Stockton man later confessed, saying he had targeted the women because they were lesbians, and he figured they would not have families that would miss them. I believe the government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harm that comes out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substantive. I believe that by passing this legislation we can change hearts and we can change minds. I have noted, starting Friday, continuing most of the day Monday and today as well, that the opponents of this bill, I think, truly have an argument against the larger category of hate crimes. Their argument should not be the inclusion of these new categories of Americans whose minority subjects them to greater vulnerability. This is easy to demonstrate in crime statistics. An argument can be made that hate crimes are inappropriate, that all crime is hateful. This is an argument that has been made many times and in several cases that have reached the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court has upheld the category of hate crimes. So the question for us then becomes: Why not extend them to new categories of Americans who are demonstrably more vulnerable to crime? I argue once again that we should vote in the affirmative to include these new categories. I call on my colleagues to support it. I have heard many arguments being propounded as to why we should not proceed. I believe we should proceed. I believe we should invoke cloture and get on with a final vote on this bill. I will say, in defense of my colleagues, particularly our Republican leader, Trent Lott, in the rare case when he would invoke cloture early on a bill, he was roundly criticized by our friends on the other side. I wish cloture had not been invoked as quickly in this case so we might have a better chance of winning this vote. I say to my colleagues, this may be their only vote. I am given to understand that this bill will be pulled down if cloture is not invoked, and I think that is a very unfortunate development, because the time to do this is now, and the time to have effectively argued this is beginning Friday, Monday, today, and this week. So I will be very disappointed, as one who has been present each of these days making this case, if this bill is pulled down because cloture is not invoked. There may well be some good ideas that could be brought forward, but I think personally it is easy to distinguish between the meritorious arguments that can be made, such as some that Senator Hatch has been making, versus those that are designed to create political TV ads and to pull down this bill. It takes courage in the Senate to push the case, to make the case, and to stay with the case until this body has had time to work its will, but I fear that may not be allowed to occur now, which I regret. I wish more Senators had come the last 3 days to argue on the merits of this bill. Every day I have entered a hate crime in the Congressional Record to demonstrate the need for this legislation. If by having a hate crimes law that covered James Byrd, the Federal Government was able to be helpful to the officials of Texas, why not have a hate crimes law that could have helped the police officers of Wyoming to pursue and prosecute the case against Matthew Shepard? This is about permitting the Federal Government to show up to work. This is about the Federal Government standing with the American people and saying, as to these values, as to opposing crimes so horrible and callous, we will stand united with law enforcement at every level, locally and federally. This is not an effort on the part of the Federal Government to subvert State law or local police processes. This is an ability to enhance them, to backstop them, to make sure we get the job done. It is a law that is 30 years old. It is a law that ought to be expanded because of our experience. It is a law that we ought to vote on in its final form when this week's work comes to an end.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. As I contemplate the conclusion of this debate, my own judgment is that it has been one of the poorer debates I have witnessed in the Senate. Until this moment, there has been very little participation in it. Frankly, I find that disappointing because, as the Senator from Minnesota pointed out, this is an emergency. I have to think of all of our gay brothers and sisters who may be watching, who cannot follow the confusion of Senate procedure, who will be very disappointed that once again we are thwarted from proceeding on a matter that is, in fact, very important. This is about domestic terrorism and about the Federal Government showing up to work. On a positive note, I say, as Senator Kennedy has said, we will be back and we will find another vehicle and another opportunity to proceed. I hope in the meantime we will reach out to Senator Hatch and others who have legitimate concerns to find ways to incorporate their concerns in an even better bill, and I hope we will do that in the spirit of the great example set in the New Testament. When confronted with a woman who had committed adultery, Christ himself was able to say in the public square he did not condemn, he did not endorse the lifestyle, but he did save a life. I think we ought to do the same as the Federal Government. It is in that spirit I intend to vote to invoke cloture. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. It has the same interest in defending the American people regardless of their minority, their race, religion, their culture, their sexual orientation, their disability, their agenda. It seems to me the government's business is not to pick between who among its citizens it will defend, but that under the banner of equal protection and due process we defend all citizens. As our founding documents make clear, we are created equally.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask that an article written by the U.S. Ambassador to Estonia, Joseph M. DeThomas, be printed in the Record. Ambassador DeThomas outlines important steps for the Estonian government to undertake to address Estonia's role in the Holocaust. The article follows. Past, Present and Future (By Ambassador Joseph M. DeThomas) In every interview I have had with the press since I arrived in Tallinn, I have been asked in one form or another, ``What has surprised you about Estonia?'' I have always answered by noting that some aspect or another about Estonia was even more positive than I expected. Early May, however, I was surprised in a different way. A report in a Russian weekly claiming that Simon Wiesenthal advocated a boycott of the Baltic States and Ukraine produced a firestorm of comment from the press, political circles, and some members of the public. The comments were angry, defensive, and--with regard to my government's position--erroneous. The Wiesenthal Center has categorically denied that Mr. Wiesenthal ever even gave this interview. I did not intervene in this discussion. Since arriving here, I have learned a very useful Estonian proverb, ``Think nine times, speak once.'' I have used the intervening days since the story broke to think nine times about the past and what would be useful to do about it in the present. I would like to share my views. First, let me make clear my own government's position. We believe there is more for all of us to do to deal with the crimes of the past, and the Holocaust is a crime of unique proportions. A prominent political leader here implied last week that the United States is satisfied that Estonia has done all it needs to do to deal with the Holocaust. Just last month, however, Heather Conley, the Department of State's senior official responsible for the Baltic States called on the Baltic States to do more to deal with the damage from the Holocaust. The same is the case for the U.S. Senate. For example, recently, Senator Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made a very strong statement about his concern about the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe and called on all countries aspiring to NATO membership to ensure that ``the very ugly remnants of war- time fascism . . . be totally and permanently suppressed.'' Estonia's World War II past was uniquely painful. The country and its people were not given the freedom to choose between good and evil. Terrible choices had to be made. Estonia suffered terribly under two periods of Soviet occupation as well as the Nazi German occupation. The fact that the Soviet occupation did more direct harm in Estonia, however, does not negate the fact that the Holocaust happened here too. As the conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity demonstrated, some Estonians bear responsibility for participating in this evil. I believe all countries that lived through the nightmare of the last century need to deal with their crimes honestly and completely so that they cannot be repeated in the future. We must face history, not hide from it. What does this mean with regard to Estonia's approach to the Holocaust? I suggest the following very modest steps: 1. Do justice where justice is needed. Since reindependence, no Estonian has been prosecuted for crimes committed during the Holocaust. In part, that may be because many were prosecuted during the Soviet period. But, there are still Estonian candidates for prosecution. These individuals should be pursued with the same vigor with which the state still pursues those suspected of Soviet crimes. And the time for this is now. The World War II generation is passing from the scene. Witnesses to the crimes are dying. Both the victims and the victimizers should see justice done before it is too late. 2. Recognize the Holocaust is part of Estonia's history. Compared to the other Baltic States, the states of Central Europe and even some neutral states during World War II, the Holocaust is less recognized as a part of the national history in Estonia. The Holocaust took place here. About one thousand Estonian Jews and even more non-Estonian Jews were murdered in this country. Yet, the day of remembrance for the Holocaust, Yom Hashoah, receives almost no notice in this country. Many sites involving Holocaust crimes here are not marked or remembered. A few sites have recently been commemorated. This should continue. 3. Teach our children about the past. I have been told Estonian school textbooks treat the Holocaust in about one- and-a-half pages. If this is true for most of Estonia, I would suggest that history texts on this subject already in other states in this region be translated into Estonian for use here. I understand such a step is already under consideration by the government. I hope that the Estonian Government follows the call of some Estonian NGO's to be more involved in the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research, to which 11 nations belong. The evil of racism and anti-Semitism does not grow again and again because the decent majority advocates it actively. It returns because it is ignored or trivialized by the majority until it reemerges in a new generation. Estonia has emerged from a desolate past into a present full of promise, thanks to the work of its people. But, to ensure a positive future, I believe it essential that the country address all aspects of the past soberly, respectfully, honestly and with justice.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I have every day put into the Congressional Record the details of a hate crime. These are always violent, they are always sickening, but they also happen to an American citizen. They happen sometimes because the victim is black, gay, disabled, female, or even of Middle Eastern descent. And yet they are all Americans. So they ought to have the concern of all in the Senate. I wish to speak again on the Senate floor about another crime. It is gruesome. It happened just a year ago, and it involved a young Navajo boy by the name of Fred Martinez, Jr. He had gone to a local rodeo. He was openly gay; apparently also transgender; again, of Navajo descent. He was found south of Cortez, CO. He had died after being repeatedly hit on his head with a rock and left in a small canyon, possibly suffering for an extended period of time before dying. Police investigated this murder as a hate crime. The perpetrator of this crime, who was recently sentenced, allegedly bragged he ``bug- smashed a fag.'' The victim's mother told the press that she believes her son was killed because he identified himself as transgender. He occasionally dressed as a girl. In the mind of his murderer, Fred deserved to die for such conduct. I believe the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens against hatred, against the harms that flow from a hate-filled heart. I stand in support of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001 to make sure that should it ever happen again to a Fred Martinez, or anyone else, it will not go unresponded to by law enforcement at every level. That is really what this bill is about. I have listened to my colleagues and their concerns about this legislation, and I stand to express my disagreement with parts of what they say. What is the role of the Federal Government? Some have suggested that we have no place here, that this is the role of the local and State law enforcement. I believe the role of the Federal Government is whatever is necessary to make sure that justice is done, not to overtake local and State authorities but to help, to contribute, to backstop, to provide resources, to provide skills that sometimes are uniquely had by the Federal Government. I just came from a press conference with Sheriff David O'Malley from the State of Wyoming. He was the local law enforcement official who pursued and ultimately helped in the prosecution of the murderers of Matthew Shepard. It was, frankly, his visit to my office, with the mother of Matthew Shepard, Judy Shepard, that persuaded me to take another look at this issue. Sheriff O'Malley made clear to me that he was a conservative Republican, but he was for Federal hate crimes legislation because he could have used the help. The horror of that young man's murder so galvanized national opinion and the focus of the media that their little Laramie, WY, law enforcement was overwhelmed by the national scope of this tragedy. Frankly, they did end up prosecuting it well, doing it right, convicting these murderers, but his point was the Federal Government should have been able to show up: We could have used the help. In the case of James Byrd in Texas, another hideous case, where a black man was dragged to death, in that case, because our Federal hate crimes law already covered issues of race, the Federal Government was able to show up to work and were exceptionally helpful in the pursuit and the prosecution of the murderers of James Byrd. My response then is, what role is there for the Federal Government? Whatever role is necessary to assure that justice is done. I would like to see the Federal Government show up to work and express the great heart and the values of the American people. As I listen to some of my colleagues' complaints, I frankly think they make, on occasion, some very valid points. But their point should not be against including gays, gender, and the disabled. Their argument is really against the whole category of hate crimes, this Federal law we have had for over 30 years. Since 1968, we have had Federal hate crimes legislation. As I pointed out, it helped in the case of pursuing the murderers of James Byrd. It did not help in the case of Matthew Shepard. My point to them is, why oppose its expansion? Why don't they go after race, religion, and national origin? If it is good for those categories, why is it not good for these new categories? That is a question I simply have not yet had answered. Questions as to constitutionality have been raised, and there may be a point I am missing, but this issue has been fully vetted by the U.S. Supreme Court. In two cases, RBA v. The City of St. Paul, and Wisconsin v. Mitchell, these cases clearly demonstrate that a hate crimes statute may consider bias motivation when that motivation is directly connected to a defendant's criminal conduct. We are not going after speech. We are not going after thought. We are going after conduct. As with any criminal law, in any criminal act there are elements of the crime. This is yet another element. It is not the crime, but it is an element in making up the category of the crime. By requiring this connection to criminal activity, these statutes do not chill protected speech and do not violate the first amendment. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court made clear that: The First Amendment does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent. So it seems clear to me that one can say whatever they want about gays, transgenders, and women. They are not prohibited from doing that. If they act on it, that can be an element in determining whether this falls under the Federal hate crimes law. So those who oppose this, I really think their argument is not towards its expansion but against the law as a category itself. So their amendment should be to get rid of this as a category. I will not be voting for that. I would not suggest anyone do that because I believe our hate crimes law truly does reflect the big heart of the American people. All crime is hateful. That is a given. We grant that. But when an attack is made on a Navajo homosexual boy, and he is thereby a part of a crime which victimizes a much larger community, what is wrong with our saying, as a people, we want every level of government--the local, the State and the Federal Government--to help to pursue and prosecute such crime? I cannot see the problem with it. I think the argument that is being made is against the whole statute of hate crimes. It should not be made against gays and lesbians, but it is. I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the case of Mark Bangerter from Boise, ID. He was the victim of a brutal attack, and he wrote the Justice Department and asked for help in pursuing those who had been hurtful to him. The Justice Department writes back to him saying: Dear Mr. Bangerter: This letter is in response to your report that on April 15, 1998, you were the victim of a vicious attack by an unidentified individual who apparently believed that you were homosexual. According to the information you provided Special Agent Joseph W. Hess, Jr., on May 12, 1998, the attack caused you severe facial injuries and total blindness in your left eye. Your case was thoroughly discussed with the United States Attorney's office in Boise, Idaho, in an effort to explore prosecutive possibilities under existing Federal hate crime laws. I must regrettably inform you that as a result of those discussions, it was determined that sexual orientation does not fall within the listed elements of hate crimes. Therefore, the Federal Bureau of Investigation lacks the statutory authority to investigate the attacks against you. I strongly encourage you to recontact the Boise Police Department and request that an investigation be fully conducted. Sincerely yours. Had Mr. Bangerter said, please pursue these criminals because I am black, they would have been able to do that. He said, please pursue them because I am gay, and the Federal Government was not able to do that. I think that is wrong, and the overwhelming heart of the American people calls upon us to expand an existing constitutional law and to cover these people who, because of their minority status, are more likely victims of crime. Again, if there is a problem with this, it says to the whole category of crime it should not be a problem just because we would include these newly identified minority groups in America; they are certainly deserving of the protection of this law, the values behind this law, which frankly are denied to them now and ought not to be any longer. I am sorry I have to bring our attention to yet another hate crime in this country, but I suggest it is another reason we ought to act and we ought to do so quickly. Senator Hatch raises a valid point. I am loathe to see this legislation slowed up. I hope the House will take it up. Perhaps the point he is raising can be resolved then. It is important for this Senate to act this week on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I would like to state for the record my belief that there is not a Senator in the Senate with a bigger heart or better heart than Orrin Hatch. It is a great privilege to serve with him. He and I just differ about the appropriateness of the Federal involvement. I think the Federal involvement in the statute we proposed will be minimal, but it will be allowable. It will be rare that the Federal Government is brought in. But, again, it took a Republican from Wyoming, Laramie, WY, the sheriff, to come and tell me, just in a practical way, how helpful it would have been if Federal resources and involvement had been included in the prosecution of the Matthew Shepard case. If in the case of James Byrd it was appropriate, why not in the case of Matthew Shepard? Moreover, why should we not, at this time in our Nation's history, say to the gay and lesbian community: We care. We do have a big heart. We have a way to include you. And this is the barest of minimums that we ought to do in their behalf. I think if you are a Navajo gay boy in a lonely Colorado canyon near a small town where local law enforcement is ill-equipped to assure justice is done, that it is entirely appropriate for us now to make available the law enforcement arm and resource and authority of the U.S. Government. I do not wish to subvert in any way the local law enforcement that is the bulwark against crime in this country. Indeed, that is why we call this the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act. We are simply trying to enhance the pursuit and prosecution and punishment of those who would commit the most malignant kinds of crime in America. At a time when this Nation is in a war against terrorism abroad, it is not inappropriate for us to focus as a Congress upon terrorism committed at home. What happened to Matthew Shepard was terrorism. I think it is appropriate for the Federal Government to say it can help in this instance as well. So if there are flaws in this bill, let's fix them in conference. But let's advance this bill because it is the right time and it is the right way in which to do it. Again, I deeply respect the motives of the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I know his heart. It is as good a heart as there is in the place. I know he feels as I do when people are victimized. I think he is genuinely trying to find the right procedural way to get the Federal Government involved in helping. But all you have to do is go to small town America where many of these horrible acts are committed and ask them if they couldn't use the helping hand of the Federal Government. I think they will tell you overwhelmingly: Yes, and it is about time you showed up to help. So I urge my colleagues to vote for S. 625. Now is the time and it is about time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the Chair and ask I be allowed such time as I may consume.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to speak today on the issue of the Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001. It is the hate crimes bill that we are now taking up. It is a bill I am pleased to coauthor with Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts. It is a bill that is appropriately taken up now. I know some of my colleagues, partisans on my side of the aisle, may say that we should not take up something like this at a time of war, a war on terrorism. But I searched my memory. Whenever America has been at war before, we have not abandoned domestic issues. Immediately following Pearl Harbor, we dealt with all kinds of things, from tax rates to civil rights, and the war proceeded. It is not inappropriate that in a time of war on terrorism we focus on domestic terrorism. The President gave a great speech last night. He talked about how we can better create, for our Nation's protection, a more seamless way to provide for the common defense. I look forward to supporting him in that. But I say that hate crimes legislation is part and parcel of that same effort. It is a part of our war on terrorism. It is a part of the discharge of our responsibility to take care of our citizens. I have always believed government's first duty is to provide security against violence to its citizens. We are doing that abroad, and we are doing it perhaps as never before at home. But I think it is very appropriate that for a day or 2 the Senate turn its attention to this law, which was created, in its initial form, more than 30 years ago. Hate crimes legislation is not a new concept. Hate crimes legislation, as I understand its history, was created to give the Federal Government the ability to enforce civil rights, in Southern States in particular, where lynching laws were not enforced and where much violence was committed against our African American brothers and sisters. It gave the Federal Government the right, the ability, to show up to work, to provide for the common defense. And that law, which covers race, religion, and national origin, is in effect. It has been fully vetted in the United States Supreme Court. It is constitutional. And it truly, as the Court has held, simply adds an element, as we do to all crimes, as to how you consider them, what penalties you apply, and what prosecution and vigor you employ. It is entirely appropriate that we now add to this list of race, religion, and national origin, other identified minority groups in this country who, because of their status, are demonstrably more vulnerable to violence, to crime. I have made, for more than a year, the practice of entering in the Congressional Record a tragic chronology, a catalog of hate crimes committed throughout our country. On these charts I have in the Chamber--perhaps you cannot read them because of the small print--but each of them represents a day in which I have identified a hate crime that has been committed in our country. They are committed against African Americans. They are committed against the disabled. They are committed against women. And they are committed against gays and lesbians. All of these crimes have one thing in common: they are committed against a minority community, and they have, at their heart, a malignant heart that hates. And that is the impelling force for committing violence against a minority person. And the crime is visited on a minority, on that American, because that is the common thread in all of this. They are committed against American citizens. The common thread in this crime against Americans is that it is visited upon an individual, but it terrorizes an entire minority community. And we have said, since hate crimes were established back in the 1960s, there are just some things that are so heinous, so at odds with America's best values, that we are just going to say, as a matter of law, this is a new category of crime, and we are going to pursue it, and we are going to allow all branches of government, all levels of government--local, State, and now Federal--to participate in the pursuit and the prosecution of those who would commit these kinds of terrorist activities against a whole community. And that is what we are doing. Today, I am going to add another one to this sad chronology. It occurred in Honolulu, HI, in May of last year--a year ago. Two teens were charged with attempted murder after allegedly dousing the tents of gay campers with flammable liquid while those campers were inside, setting one on fire in Polihale State Park. Victims in the attack said the perpetrators threw rocks and shouted slurs relating to the sexual orientation of the victims prior to setting the tent on fire. Two men were sentenced, then, to 5 years each in prison. We all know of the heinous murder committed on James Byrd, who was dragged to death on a lonely, dusty Texas road. That shocked America. But in the case of Mr. Byrd, the Federal Government showed up to work because the Federal hate crimes law applies to issues of race. And the law enforcement folks in Texas will tell you that the Federal Government was very helpful in the pursuit, the prosecution, and the conviction of the murderers of James Byrd. I think in that same year all of us felt horrified by the murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. But in that case, because sexual orientation was not an allowed category under Federal law, the Federal Government was prohibited from showing up for work. I wish all Americans could have been with me in my office when I was visited by Wyoming State Troopers--Republicans--advocating to me please support this because they were overwhelmed with the national focus that this case brought. They really could have used the help of the Federal Government. That is the whole point of this. I personally changed my mind on this subject because of the murder of Matthew Shepard. Frankly, I was chagrined that more of my partisans were not at his vigil. I observed it in a hotel room on CNN in Oregon. I was disappointed that more of my folks weren't there. Hatred doesn't care if you are a Republican or a Democrat. As Americans, we all ought to be willing to stand up and say: Gosh--at every level of government, local, State, and Federal--let us show up for work and prosecute these most heinous kinds of crimes and murders. I know there are some good, faithful, religious people who believe they should oppose this law because of this one category--the category of sexual orientation. They believe that because of their faith and their religion they cannot support this. But I say you should support this not in spite of your faith, you ought to support it because of your faith. The example that I find in the Scripture which is so compelling is that of Christ. When confronted with a woman who was about to be stoned because of adultery--he didn't endorse her lifestyle--he saved her life. Should we do any less? I say to people of faith that I don't care how you pray. But if that story inspires you like it does me, because of your faith support this. That reflects the best values of the human heart, and the highest values of the American people. We ought to say as a matter of law--law isn't a teacher, and, no, we can't enforce morality--but we can hold up the law and say this is what we believe. The Ten Commandants are a great example of a law to the children of Israel. They didn't always obey. But it reflected their highest values and caused them to live up, in many cases, to the highest of ideals. We should not do any less. I am proud to stand here as a supporter of this expansion of an old law that reflects our best values. I call upon Republicans, Independents, and Democrats to understand the spirit behind what it is we are doing. Since I have been a U.S. Senator, I have been privileged to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Every time I leave the shores of this blessed land and confront conflicts in Europe, conflicts in Eurasia, and conflicts in Asia, I am astounded at the tribal angst and hatred that besets most parts of this world. I thank God that we live in a land where we have two oceans, two centuries with two relatively peaceful neighbors, and a long time to avoid the development of these kinds of racial, cultural, and other kinds of differences that cause us to want to commit crime, violence, and murder against people because of their differences. That reflects the worst of humankind. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have decried hate crimes--however you want to describe them--on many continents on this planet. As a Republican, I believe I cannot be silent about hate crimes committed at home. I think we all ought to step up to the high ideals that this law represents. When I chaired the Subcommittee on Europe, we held a hearing about anti-Semitism. We were privileged to have Eli Wiesel come and speak to us. In that hearing, he said something about what motivates the kinds of angst and hatred that have beset the Jewish people for a millennia of time. I want to share with you his words. He said to this committee: To hate is to deny the other person's humanity. It is to see in ``the other'' a reason to inspire not pride, but disdain; not solidarity, but exclusion. It is to choose simplistic phraseology instead of ideas. It is to allow its carrier to feel stronger than ``the other,'' and thus superior to ``the other.'' The hater . . . is vain, arrogant. He believes that he alone possesses the key to truth and justice. He alone has God's ear. This law that we will be privileged to vote on in a few days makes it clear that we include--that we not exclude--what are called hate crimes. Why wouldn't we extend them to other Americans because they are demonstrably more vulnerable? Gays and lesbians--why wouldn't you extend the protection to them? Do you hate them? I don't. I believe it is possible on a principled ground to oppose some things that the gay community wants. I am not for gay marriage. But when it comes to public safety, the dignity of a job, the right to have a roof over your head, how can we withhold our help because we don't share a lifestyle? I withhold those judgments. I say we should help because we are Americans, and because we aspire to the highest ideals of our Constitution and the highest ideals of the religious traditions--as varied as they are--that we hold in this country. We are privileged to live in a land where we separate church and state. I have said to people who are opposed to my support of this law, if you want to talk about sin, then go with me to church. If you want to talk about public policy, let us go together to the Senate, and figure out how to protect all people, because that is what our Constitution provides for. I say to folks on my side, this shouldn't be a Republican-Democrat issue. This is an issue about the heart. In is an issue entirely appropriate to take up in a time and in a war on terrorism. Whether terrorism comes from a bin Laden, or whether terrorism comes from a couple of murderers in Wyoming, it is terror, nonetheless, foreign and domestic. Our Constitution calls upon us in its Preamble to provide for the common defense, and to ensure domestic tranquility. Hate crime laws, since their origin, have helped us to do that. It hasn't stopped it. You can't legislate people to change their hearts. But you can help them to by putting up the law, and saying these are our highest values. We will enforce them with the force of law. By holding them up and setting the example, we can help change hearts and minds. While this law to many is just symbolism, I tell you it can become substantive, if we all show up for work and live up to our best ideals and not fall to the lowest of traits of humankind. I call upon all our colleagues to support this legislation. Let's do it with an enormous majority, and let's do it regardless of party affiliation. Let's do it because with all of these victims, we share the common thread that we are Americans. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Are we in morning business now?

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I inquire as to the pending business.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I salute a community leader in my home State of Oregon. Today, I want to recognize the efforts of Susan Abravanel, Education Coordinator at SOLV, a non-profit organization in Oregon, in advocating for service-learning, one of the most exciting educational initiatives taking hold in our nation today. Service-learning gives students the opportunity to learn through community service, but it is important to note that it is much more than just community service, Mr. President--it is a method of classroom instruction that engages a student's intellect through hands-on work outside the classroom that benefits the community at large. Research shows that students participating in service-learning make gains on achievement tests, complete their homework more often, and increase their grade point averages. In addition to producing academic gains, service-learning is also associated with both increased attendance and reduced dropout rates. It is clear to educators across the country that service-learning helps students feel more connected to their own education while strengthening their connection to their community as well. It is for all of these reasons that Susan Abravanel is working so hard to advocate for service-learning in classrooms in Oregon and across the nation. Ms. Abravanel is working closely with my office and with education leaders in Oregon to ensure that my home state remains a national leader in service-learning. Just two months ago, I introduced a bill with my colleague, Senator Edwards, to strengthen our nation's commitment to service-learning. I feel confident that this bill will soon become law and that with Ms. Abravanel's continued efforts both here in Washington, D.C. and at home in Oregon, students will continue to benefit from an education tied to civic engagement. Ms. Abravanel exemplifies the type of engaged citizen our schools must endeavor to produce, and her persistence will ensure that future generations of Americans will give back to their communities just as she has. I would also like to note that Susan isn't just concerned about education--her interests and efforts in Portland's Jewish community are well known and highly appreciated--she is the new President of the Oregon chapter of the American Jewish Committee. I look forward to working with Susan in her new role at the AJC and thank her for her continuing devotion to service-learning.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment with Senator Wyden to preserve a truly invaluable search and rescue capability in the Pacific Northwest. On May 30, all eyes in Oregon and across the Nation watched as brave Oregonians put themselves in harms way to rescue climbers on Mt. Hood. The rescuers included members of the Oregon National Guard, the Portland Mountain Rescue, and the Air Force Reserve 939th Air Rescue Wing, whose members have been lauded for scores of rescues on Mt. Hood and the Oregon Coast, not to mention rescues in our neighboring state of Washington. Last week, nine climbers were swept into a 20-foot deep crevasse on Mt. Hood. Tragically three of the climbers did not survive, but the stills of the rescuers ensured that others would survive. The rescue last week highlighted the skills of the Rescue Wing and the importance Oregonians placed on the Wing's capabilities in the region. While adverse wind conditions most likely sent one of the helicopters into an inevitable crash, the highly skilled pilot of the 939th ensured that the crew survived and that all on the ground were unharmed. This happened just one week after the 939th rescued a sick climber from Mt. Hood's Sandy Glacier. I believe this rescue highlights the Wing's capabilities. Late in the evening, the 304th Rescue Squadron used it night vision capabilities to spot the climber at an elevation of 8,750 feet. The Pave Hawk, equipped with a hoist, lowered down Steve Rollins of Portland Mountain Rescue onto the Glacier to assess the climber. After being secured to the hoist, the climber and rescuer were raised into the helicopter and transported to safety. Oregonians were devastated to hear of Air Force plans to take away the 939th Search and Rescue Wing out of the State to move it to Florida. Oregonians realize that the 939th's mission is to rescue our brave men in combat. In fact, we believe that the members of the 939th are among the very best trained in the Nation. We know this because we know the Oregon terrain and we have witnessed first-hand their skill under most challenging conditions. The decision to move the 939th came about in December 2000--ten months prior to a day that has changed our understanding of national security and defense needs. We have been at war since September 11. We need to keep the highly trained combat search and rescuers who are ready to serve at a moment's notice. A new active duty wing would neither be ready today nor tomorrow, not next week nor next month. It would take two years to stand up a new active duty rescue wing. We not only need assets in places abroad where al Quaeda members train, but we need a capability at home to support homeland security needs. I have not seen enough evidence to make me believe that changing the mission of a CSAR Wing would be advantageous to the United States in wartime. In the wake of September 11, the President established the White House Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council to ensure that our Federal response and protection efforts are coordinated and effective. The President also directed Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge to determine if the current government structure allows us to meet the threats of today while anticipating the unknown threats of tomorrow. I question why the Air Force has not done the same. I understand that my original amendment was not considered germane. This amendment would have prevented any funds from being made available for this conversion. The amendment the managers accepted requires the Secretary of the Air Force to certify that a comparable search and rescue capability is available in the 939th Combat Search and Rescue Wing's area of responsibility and that any new aircraft assigned to the unit will comply with local environmental and noise standards, and that the Air Force has developed a plan for the transition of personnel currently assigned to the unit. I appreciate the assistance from Senators Stevens, Inouye, and Byrd and look forward to working with them on this important issue. Let me close by illustrating why this is so important to me and all Oregonians. The pioneer spirit of the Oregon Trail did not end with the settlement of the valleys of Oregon. That spirit and bravery is very much still alive in my state. But Oregonians cannot go any further west. They can only go up, into the skies and into the mountains. It is there that the modern-day pioneers meet with both triumph and tragedy, and their lessons are learned. The lessons of last week on Mt. Hood are harsh ones that remind us of human frailty and the unbending forces of nature. Not unlike the tragic events of the last year, what I saw in the recovery on Mt. Hood also illustrates the bravery and compassion inherent in us all, and I want that spirit to continue in Oregon. This is the spirit that is the bedrock of America's Armed Forces. It is clear to me that removing the 939th from Oregon would truly be a tragedy without a lesson.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank Senator Lott. Mr. President, a lot of Members went the route of the managers' amendment because we like to accommodate the requests of our appropriators, and to be accommodating to them we did not bring it up. Frankly, I have just learned a lesson here: I have to force a vote during the course of this bill. I have relied upon the good faith of Ted Stevens--and his faith is good. He stood by me the whole time. Ron Wyden and I are talking about a national emergency that we think exists in our area. You saw on national TV an Air Force Reserve helicopter crash trying to save nine people, all but three of whom lost their lives. The day before, they saved a person on Mount Rainier. This is almost a daily occurrence. The Air Force proposes to move away from the Northwest. We need it there. We need it there. When we have the chance to bring this issue up again in another context, I hope you will remember us. It is one of the few military assets the State of Oregon has at all.