Gordon Smith

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. In the early hours of October 19, 2007, a 28-year-old man was shot at allegedly because of his sexual orientation. The victim and a friend left a gay bar in Midtown Atlanta, GA, for a gas station down the street at about 3 a.m. At that time, a sport utility vehicle with three men inside pulled into the gas station's parking lot. One of the vehicle's passengers was allegedly intoxicated and complaining to customers about the number of gay people at the gas station, using antigay epithets. Some of the man's behavior is caught on surveillance tapes at the station. The victim and his friend began to walk back to the bar after a short stay at the gas station and were followed by the men in the vehicle. As they walked by the bar, the man who appeared intoxicated shot at them four or five times, grazing the victim with a bullet that had ricocheted off the building. While Georgia does not have a hate crime law, the shooting is being investigated as an antigay 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, as ranking member of Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, I rise to speak in the support of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007. This bill reflects several years of work by Senators Lautenberg, Lott, myself and many others to reform our Nation's passenger rail system. Over the 6-year life of the bill, Amtrak's operating subsidy is reduced by 40 percent through cost cutting, restructuring, and reform. This bill authorizes funding for Amtrak's capital and operating needs to maintain current operations, upgrade equipment, and return the Northeast Corridor to a state of good repair. While I know that there are some who argue that this bill does not go far enough, I do believe that it is a step in the right direction. In particular, I believe that the State-Amtrak partnerships outlined in this bill--with respect to both the cost allocation and capital match-- will be key to ensuring the long-term viability and growth in ridership of intercity passenger rail. I have long advocated for the establishment of an equitable system for States to pay their fair share toward the operating costs related to Amtrak corridor routes. In the Northwest, Amtrak operates the Amtrak Cascades, which provides daily service between Eugene, OR and Vancouver, British Columbia. This service is supported through operating funds provided by the States of Oregon and Washington. With almost 700,000 riders last year, the Amtrak Cascades is the seventh most heavily traveled corridor in the country and represents a model for partnership among States, Amtrak, freight railroads and local communities. Currently, however, Oregon is one of only 14 States that provide operating funds to support and maintain Amtrak's service. This bill would help change that. On the capital side, this bill encourages States to get more involved with our national passenger rail system by creating a new State Capital Grant program for intercity passenger rail capital projects. The program makes grants to a State, or a group of States, to pay for the capital costs of facilities and equipment necessary to provide new or improved intercity passenger rail. The Federal match is 80 percent. Providing States with this option will be a valuable tool to assist them in their transportation planning. Across the country and across all transportation modes, congestion is becoming more and more of a problem, and, unfortunately, it is only going to get worse. Increasing the use of passenger rail, particularly within more densely populated corridors such as the Cascades corridor I mentioned earlier, should be part of our national strategy to fight congestion. It should be noted that intercity and commuter passenger railroads are one of the cleanest forms of transportation. On a per passenger mile, Amtrak is 17 percent more energy efficient that domestic airline travel and 21 percent more efficient than auto travel. Finally, I want to talk quickly about ridership and financial performance. In fiscal year 2007, Amtrak ridership increased to 25,847,000, marking the fifth straight year of gains and setting a record for the most passengers using Amtrak since its creation in 1971. Additionally, total ticket revenue for the fiscal year topped $1.5 billion, up 11 percent over the previous fiscal year. More people are using Amtrak today than ever before, and given the transportation capacity constraints our country will face in the coming years, I believe it would be a mistake if we didn't make the investments now--in both time and money--to try to reform the system to ensure that passenger trains are a viable transportation alternative in the future. I don't believe that this is a perfect bill, but I do believe that it is a step in the right direction, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Community Health Center Employee Health Coverage Act of 2007, a bill that will help provide community health centers, or CHCs, better access to more affordable health insurance for their employees. I am pleased to have my colleagues Senators Bingaman, Salazar and Sanders join me as original cosponsors on this important proposal. CHCs form the backbone of the Nation's health care safety net. They provide essential medical services to some of our most vulnerable citizens, including the uninsured and Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries. In my home State of Oregon, health centers provide over 130 points of access, where upwards of 180,000 individuals receive care each year. Approximately 41 percent of those served are uninsured and 36 percent are on Medicaid, and most all reside in either a rural or economically depressed area. Clearly, CHCs have an important role in ensuring that those who otherwise might be unable to afford health coverage have access to the care they need. CHCs also serve their patients in a very efficient manner. Studies have shown that care provided Medicaid patients at CHCs costs 30 percent less than care provided in other settings. This is mainly due to a lower number of specialty referrals and fewer overall hospital admissions. CHCs effectively demonstrate how focusing on primary and preventive care can help keep individuals healthier, which ultimately enhances their lives and saves the broader health care system money. Above and beyond the efficiencies CHCs have achieved in service delivery, patients report overwhelming satisfaction for the treatment they are provided. Health care providers across the spectrum would be well-served by emulating CHCs' example of delivering affordable, high- quality health care in an efficient manner. Given the enormous value CHCs have to the U.S. health care system, I believe Congress should do all it can to support their mission. I commend President Bush's commitment to increasing funding for health center expansion in recent years. I am pleased the administration's request for $180 million in new funding in fiscal year 2007 was included in the Senate's version of the budget resolution. As the appropriations process continues to move forward, I hope that those much-needed funds are ultimately approved by Congress. The bill I am filing today will compliment the increased funding CHCs have received in recent years. Just like businesses across the nation, health centers are coping with the rising cost of providing health benefit to their employees. Premiums for private health insurance grew by 9.5 percent in 2005, the fifth consecutive year of increases over 9 percent. Because CHCs operate on very limited budgets, it has become more and more difficult for them to absorb these increased costs while continuing to provide affordable health care to their patients. It is important to note that CHCs rely upon the Federal Government for more than half of their operating revenues. Each year, health centers receive 26 percent of their funding from direct Federal grants and another 36 percent from the Medicaid Program. Because CHCs are predominantly a Federal enterprise, I believe it makes sense for them to be able to reap many of the same benefits of other Federal entities. That is why the bill I am filing today would allow CHCs to purchase more affordable health insurance coverage for their employees through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, FEHBP. Allowing federally funded entities to purchase health coverage through FEHBP is not unprecedented. Employees of Gallaudet University and certain U.S. Department of Agriculture grantees already are able to participate in FEHBP as if they were directly employed by the Federal Government. Considering that CHC providers are already deemed ``Federal employees'' for the purpose of receiving medical liability protection through the Federal Government, it is a logical next step to allow them to purchase health coverage through FEHBP. In doing so, we will be able to provide CHCs much needed security in knowing that their employees will have steady access to affordable health insurance. I believe that in the long run, CHCs will be able to achieve a great deal of savings by purchasing health coverage for their employees through FEHBP. Premiums for policies purchased through FEHBP consistently grow at a much slower rate than other commercial policies. Every dollar CHCs save in employee benefit costs can be redirected into medical care for the vulnerable populations they serve. Access to FEHBP coverage also may help some CHCs provide health benefits to their employees for the first time. This could help recruit much needed medical personnel in underserved and rural communities. I am hopeful health centers in rural parts of my State will be able to attract the physicians they so desperately need by offering them FEHBP coverage. There is wide support for CHCs in the Senate, as evidenced by the development of a number of CHC-related measures. Earlier this year, I joined a group of bipartisan Senators in filing the Community Health Center Reauthorization Act, to ensure that vulnerable populations have access to basic health care for the next several years. I hope the Senate's leadership will move these bills quickly through the process, as a sign of appreciation for the important role CHCs play in the U.S. health care system. I ask unanimous consent that full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, to introduce two bills, S. 2182 and S. 2183, that we hope will have a tremendous impact on the quality and accessibility of mental health care throughout the U.S. Our bills, the Community Mental Health Services Improvement Act and the Community- Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvement Act, support those programs that serve as an important line of defense against mental illnesses and suicide. Community mental health programs are the backbone of our mental health system by providing access to vital mental health care services to those in need. Unfortunately, community mental health centers are suffering under tremendous fiscal constraints to provide care in their communities. They operate, usually, on a small budget and with little resources to improve their facilities. Senator Reed and I are introducing these two bills to help community mental health centers obtain the resources necessary to meet their needs. The goal of the Community Mental Health Services Improvement Act is to provide funding to promote the provision of mental health services locally. The bill would establish a grant program for community mental health programs to provide health care services, screenings, referrals, information technology or facility improvements. The bill also establishes grants for programs that integrate treatment for individuals with a serious mental illness and a co-occurring substance abuse disorder. Grants also would be provided to mental health nonprofit organizations or accredited institutions to establish or expand accredited mental health education and training programs. Finally, this bill will provide grants to community mental health programs for tele-mental health in medically-underserved areas. The second bill that we are introducing today is one that is very important to mental health programs in my home State of Oregon. Currently, patients are waiting for important mental health care due to lack of building capacity. Our bill, the Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act, would provide funding for bricks and mortar infrastructure for mental health programs in our communities. There is no Federal funding currently available for construction of community mental health facilities. This bill ensures that individuals with mental illness are not turned away because a facility does not have the resources to keep their building up to code or because a building expansion could not occur to keep up with a growing population because no funds were available. In developing this legislation, I worked with the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, to determine how best to make funding available for community mental health programs. This bill would encourage a continuation of this important partnership between SAMHSA, HRSA and States to ensure that competitive grant funding is made available to community mental health programs throughout the country. We know that mental illness can affect people of any age, of any race and of any income. As a parent with a son who struggled with mental illness, I know all too well the indiscriminate nature of the illness and the frightening statistics of its regular occurrence for those we love. In any given year, more than a quarter of our Nation's adults, 60 million people, suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder, many of whom suffer in silence. Mental disorders are the leading cause of disability for those aged 15-44 in the U.S. and in Canada. Mental illness is just as deadly and serious as a physical illness. Suicide takes the lives of more than 30,000 people each year, with more than 700,000 attempts. Suicides outnumber homicides three to one each year. People who suffer from mental illness also suffer from much higher rates of other chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease. However, unlike heart attacks and strokes, mental illness is not something that we, as a Nation, want to talk about. In a 2004 report by the Oregon Governor's Mental Health Taskforce, they found that in any given year 175,000 adults and 75,000 children under the age of 18 are in need of mental health services in my home State. Effective treatment exists for most people suffering. Help is out there, and these bills will help ensure that this help can be accessed effectively. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the important work of community mental health centers by voting for these bills. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Community Health Center Employee Health Coverage Act of 2007, a bill that will help provide community health centers, or CHCs, better access to more affordable health insurance for their employees. I am pleased to have my colleagues Senators Bingaman, Salazar and Sanders join me as original cosponsors on this important proposal. CHCs form the backbone of the Nation's health care safety net. They provide essential medical services to some of our most vulnerable citizens, including the uninsured and Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries. In my home State of Oregon, health centers provide over 130 points of access, where upwards of 180,000 individuals receive care each year. Approximately 41 percent of those served are uninsured and 36 percent are on Medicaid, and most all reside in either a rural or economically depressed area. Clearly, CHCs have an important role in ensuring that those who otherwise might be unable to afford health coverage have access to the care they need. CHCs also serve their patients in a very efficient manner. Studies have shown that care provided Medicaid patients at CHCs costs 30 percent less than care provided in other settings. This is mainly due to a lower number of specialty referrals and fewer overall hospital admissions. CHCs effectively demonstrate how focusing on primary and preventive care can help keep individuals healthier, which ultimately enhances their lives and saves the broader health care system money. Above and beyond the efficiencies CHCs have achieved in service delivery, patients report overwhelming satisfaction for the treatment they are provided. Health care providers across the spectrum would be well-served by emulating CHCs' example of delivering affordable, high- quality health care in an efficient manner. Given the enormous value CHCs have to the U.S. health care system, I believe Congress should do all it can to support their mission. I commend President Bush's commitment to increasing funding for health center expansion in recent years. I am pleased the administration's request for $180 million in new funding in fiscal year 2007 was included in the Senate's version of the budget resolution. As the appropriations process continues to move forward, I hope that those much-needed funds are ultimately approved by Congress. The bill I am filing today will compliment the increased funding CHCs have received in recent years. Just like businesses across the nation, health centers are coping with the rising cost of providing health benefit to their employees. Premiums for private health insurance grew by 9.5 percent in 2005, the fifth consecutive year of increases over 9 percent. Because CHCs operate on very limited budgets, it has become more and more difficult for them to absorb these increased costs while continuing to provide affordable health care to their patients. It is important to note that CHCs rely upon the Federal Government for more than half of their operating revenues. Each year, health centers receive 26 percent of their funding from direct Federal grants and another 36 percent from the Medicaid Program. Because CHCs are predominantly a Federal enterprise, I believe it makes sense for them to be able to reap many of the same benefits of other Federal entities. That is why the bill I am filing today would allow CHCs to purchase more affordable health insurance coverage for their employees through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, FEHBP. Allowing federally funded entities to purchase health coverage through FEHBP is not unprecedented. Employees of Gallaudet University and certain U.S. Department of Agriculture grantees already are able to participate in FEHBP as if they were directly employed by the Federal Government. Considering that CHC providers are already deemed ``Federal employees'' for the purpose of receiving medical liability protection through the Federal Government, it is a logical next step to allow them to purchase health coverage through FEHBP. In doing so, we will be able to provide CHCs much needed security in knowing that their employees will have steady access to affordable health insurance. I believe that in the long run, CHCs will be able to achieve a great deal of savings by purchasing health coverage for their employees through FEHBP. Premiums for policies purchased through FEHBP consistently grow at a much slower rate than other commercial policies. Every dollar CHCs save in employee benefit costs can be redirected into medical care for the vulnerable populations they serve. Access to FEHBP coverage also may help some CHCs provide health benefits to their employees for the first time. This could help recruit much needed medical personnel in underserved and rural communities. I am hopeful health centers in rural parts of my State will be able to attract the physicians they so desperately need by offering them FEHBP coverage. There is wide support for CHCs in the Senate, as evidenced by the development of a number of CHC-related measures. Earlier this year, I joined a group of bipartisan Senators in filing the Community Health Center Reauthorization Act, to ensure that vulnerable populations have access to basic health care for the next several years. I hope the Senate's leadership will move these bills quickly through the process, as a sign of appreciation for the important role CHCs play in the U.S. health care system. I ask unanimous consent that full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, to introduce two bills, S. 2182 and S. 2183, that we hope will have a tremendous impact on the quality and accessibility of mental health care throughout the U.S. Our bills, the Community Mental Health Services Improvement Act and the Community- Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvement Act, support those programs that serve as an important line of defense against mental illnesses and suicide. Community mental health programs are the backbone of our mental health system by providing access to vital mental health care services to those in need. Unfortunately, community mental health centers are suffering under tremendous fiscal constraints to provide care in their communities. They operate, usually, on a small budget and with little resources to improve their facilities. Senator Reed and I are introducing these two bills to help community mental health centers obtain the resources necessary to meet their needs. The goal of the Community Mental Health Services Improvement Act is to provide funding to promote the provision of mental health services locally. The bill would establish a grant program for community mental health programs to provide health care services, screenings, referrals, information technology or facility improvements. The bill also establishes grants for programs that integrate treatment for individuals with a serious mental illness and a co-occurring substance abuse disorder. Grants also would be provided to mental health nonprofit organizations or accredited institutions to establish or expand accredited mental health education and training programs. Finally, this bill will provide grants to community mental health programs for tele-mental health in medically-underserved areas. The second bill that we are introducing today is one that is very important to mental health programs in my home State of Oregon. Currently, patients are waiting for important mental health care due to lack of building capacity. Our bill, the Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act, would provide funding for bricks and mortar infrastructure for mental health programs in our communities. There is no Federal funding currently available for construction of community mental health facilities. This bill ensures that individuals with mental illness are not turned away because a facility does not have the resources to keep their building up to code or because a building expansion could not occur to keep up with a growing population because no funds were available. In developing this legislation, I worked with the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, to determine how best to make funding available for community mental health programs. This bill would encourage a continuation of this important partnership between SAMHSA, HRSA and States to ensure that competitive grant funding is made available to community mental health programs throughout the country. We know that mental illness can affect people of any age, of any race and of any income. As a parent with a son who struggled with mental illness, I know all too well the indiscriminate nature of the illness and the frightening statistics of its regular occurrence for those we love. In any given year, more than a quarter of our Nation's adults, 60 million people, suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder, many of whom suffer in silence. Mental disorders are the leading cause of disability for those aged 15-44 in the U.S. and in Canada. Mental illness is just as deadly and serious as a physical illness. Suicide takes the lives of more than 30,000 people each year, with more than 700,000 attempts. Suicides outnumber homicides three to one each year. People who suffer from mental illness also suffer from much higher rates of other chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease. However, unlike heart attacks and strokes, mental illness is not something that we, as a Nation, want to talk about. In a 2004 report by the Oregon Governor's Mental Health Taskforce, they found that in any given year 175,000 adults and 75,000 children under the age of 18 are in need of mental health services in my home State. Effective treatment exists for most people suffering. Help is out there, and these bills will help ensure that this help can be accessed effectively. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the important work of community mental health centers by voting for these bills. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, next Sunday, October 14, dedicated residents of the Portland area will gather for the 21st annual AIDS Walk, an event that raises much needed funding to support the work of the Cascade AIDS Project, CAP. I would like to recognize the commitment of the more than 10,000 walkers who are expected to turn out for this year's walk. Their efforts will better enable CAP, as well as a number of its community partners, including Our House and Esther's Pantry, to continue gaining ground in Oregon's fight against HIV/AIDS. In over two decades, AIDS Walk Portland has generated over $2.8 million in funding for critical services provided to the 6,000 area- families who have a loved one living with HIV. I understand the challenges organizations like CAP face in securing steady funding to support their work. With State and Federal support declining in recent years, more and more is being asked of the community and the private sector. That is why I want to personally thank those participating in this year's AIDS Walk, as well as the generous corporate sponsors who have lent their support to ensure the event is a success. While community efforts such as AIDS Walk Portland are a key component in generating support for HIV/AIDS services, I believe we can and should do more at the Federal level. While participants will be ``taking a stand'' next Sunday in the fight against AIDS, I want to reaffirm my pledge to do the same in Congress. It is a cause I have fought for in my 11-year tenure, and it is a cause I will continue to fight for until we are successful in eradicating this terrible disease. When Congress returns from the Columbus Day recess, the Senate will be discussing funding levels for next year's health and human services programs. I will do my best to secure additional support for Ryan White initiatives, especially those that support the work of local cities and communities like Portland. When we combine our efforts--at the local, State and Federal levels--we are stronger and more capable of turning the tide against HIV/AIDS. In closing, I congratulate the Cascade AIDS Project on yet another successful AIDS Walk and wish all this year's participants a safe and enjoyable time.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to one of our most distinguished Senior Senators, and a personal friend of mine, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, who yesterday announced he will retire at the end of this Congress. The son of Italian immigrants, Senator Domenici has accomplished many things in his long and distinguished career. Growing up in Albuquerque, he worked in his father's wholesale grocery business. After earning a degree in education from the University of New Mexico in 1954, he pitched for the Albuquerque Dukes, a farm club of the old Brooklyn Dodgers. He left baseball to be a teacher, and then earned a law degree in 1958. Senator Domenici's life of public service began in 1966, when he was elected to the Albuquerque City Commission. In 1972, he was elected to the United States Senate, where he has served with dedication and distinction ever since. Pete Domenici was my home State Senator when I clerked for the New Mexico Supreme Court. At the time, I never thought that one day I would have the privilege of calling myself a colleague of Senator Domenici. Pete has been a tireless champion for the public land states of the West. He understands the challenges facing an arid climate, including water resources management in the face of drought and the conflicts over water allocation, as well as public lands management and issues relating to resource extraction, forest health and grazing. Pete has worked tirelessly to ensure that our Nation has the energy resources it will need to meet the growing demand well into the 21st century. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides the incentives and the Federal support required to meet these future energy needs. It also encourages energy efficiency and conservation, as well as the development of clean, non-emitting resources. When I was first elected to the Senate, I served on the Budget Committee, which was then chaired by Pete Domenici. I could not have asked for a better mentor on the complex issues related to the Federal budget process. I also served on the Energy Committee, where Pete has been both Chairman and Ranking Member. Senator Domenici has also been a stalwart leader and champion in the battle to provide persons with mental illness equal access to health care services. In 1996, Senator Domenici teamed with then-Senator Paul Wellstone to pass the first Federal law intended to help persons with mental illness acquire protections and access to care. Fortunately, Senator Domenici understood that more could and should be done. So it was with pleasure I was able to work with him to craft S. 558, the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007, which has passed the Senate. This bill will help ensure that insurance companies begin treating illnesses of the mind on the same level as illnesses of the body. I also want to acknowledge his work to help protect Federal programs serving our citizens who battle mental illness. He has, over the years, authored and supported policies improving Medicare and Medicaid for persons living with these diseases. His compassion and leadership will be greatly missed by the mental health community, and I personally will miss his insight and knowledge in the U.S. Senate. In closing, let me wish you and your wife Nancy the very best on your retirement and return to your beloved State, New Mexico.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American Indian Veteran Health Care Improvement Act, along with Senators Johnson and Dorgan. This legislation would encourage collaborations between the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, which would result in greater access to health care services for American Indian and Alaska Native, AI/AN, veterans of federally-recognized tribes. This legislation also would ensure that these AI/AN veterans eligible for VA health care benefits delivered by the Indian Health Service, IHS, an Indian tribe, or tribal organizations 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 their country at a higher percentage in all of Americas' 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 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, the HHS and the VA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, MOU, to encourage cooperation and resource sharing between the 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 the 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 the IHS, VA, and tribal governments to identify local needs and develop local solutions. These local needs may include VA enrollment, 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 Warms Springs Confederated Tribes have been instrumental in developing this agreement based on the needs of and by AI veterans on the Warm Springs Reservation. These veterans often are eligible for health benefits from both VA and IHS and it is their intended purpose to make care more seamless, thereby improving access and quality. Based on the Federal Government's trust responsibility for Indian tribes, eligible Indians receive free IHS health services regardless of their ability to pay. Unlike the IHS, the VA imposes cost-sharing on certain beneficiaries. This bill would alleviate eligible AI/AN veterans' responsibility for any VA-related expenses when care is delivered through the IHS. 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 the 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. I look forward to working with my colleagues, Senator Johnson and Senator Dorgan, and I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American Indian Veteran Health Care Improvement Act, along with Senators Johnson and Dorgan. This legislation would encourage collaborations between the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, which would result in greater access to health care services for American Indian and Alaska Native, AI/AN, veterans of federally-recognized tribes. This legislation also would ensure that these AI/AN veterans eligible for VA health care benefits delivered by the Indian Health Service, IHS, an Indian tribe, or tribal organizations 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 their country at a higher percentage in all of Americas' 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 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, the HHS and the VA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, MOU, to encourage cooperation and resource sharing between the 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 the 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 the IHS, VA, and tribal governments to identify local needs and develop local solutions. These local needs may include VA enrollment, 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 Warms Springs Confederated Tribes have been instrumental in developing this agreement based on the needs of and by AI veterans on the Warm Springs Reservation. These veterans often are eligible for health benefits from both VA and IHS and it is their intended purpose to make care more seamless, thereby improving access and quality. Based on the Federal Government's trust responsibility for Indian tribes, eligible Indians receive free IHS health services regardless of their ability to pay. Unlike the IHS, the VA imposes cost-sharing on certain beneficiaries. This bill would alleviate eligible AI/AN veterans' responsibility for any VA-related expenses when care is delivered through the IHS. 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 the 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. I look forward to working with my colleagues, Senator Johnson and Senator Dorgan, and I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with my good friend, the Senior Senator from Hawaii, chairman of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Inouye, ranking member of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, and my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, regarding the need for additional Stryker Brigade Combat Teams in our Army National Guard.

Mr. SMITH. Sir, we have all watched with pride the bravery of our men and women in uniform as they defend freedom around the world. We are particularly proud of the members of the National Guard, who fight side-by-side with active duty forces. These guards men and women deserve the same protection and equipment as the active force with which they stand shoulder to shoulder. In combat operations, the Stryker vehicle has performed exceptionally and proven itself to be a superior fighting vehicle that protects the precious lives of our servicemembers. I would like to express my strong support for our guards men and women and ask that the Army ensure that funding for additional Stryker vehicles with the intent of forming a second Stryker Bridge Combat Team for the National Guard figures prominently in immediate planning.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, famed educator Henry Adams once said, ``a teacher affects eternity. They never know where their influence will stop.'' I wish to pay tribute to Dr. Martha Anne Dow, who passed away on September 29 after a courageous battle with breast cancer. Martha Anne had served for the past 9 years as president of the Oregon Institute of Technology in Klamath Falls, OR. In that position-- and throughout her career--she had a positive impact on countless lives. Her influence will truly continue for generations and generations to come. Martha Anne came to the Oregon Institute of Technology after teaching for more than a quarter century in the fields of biology, microbiology, environmental science, and water quality. She served for 6 years as provost and vice president for Academic Affairs at OIT and moved into the president's office in May of 1998. I had the privilege of meeting President Dow on several occasions and was always impressed with her intelligence, enthusiasm, and vision for OIT. Her leadership transformed the institute, expanding the engineering, computer science, and renewable energy programs. President Dow's greatest passion was, perhaps, for the health care field. She realized the shortage of health care professionals in Oregon and across our country, and she believed that OIT could help. Through her leadership, OIT expanded their health care training programs with the goal of doubling the number of students in training for health care professions. Included in this expansion was the construction of a new center showcasing the most modern, technologically advanced equipment available. The first wing of the new facility opened on September 12 in Klamath Falls. In her honor, the building was officially named the ``Martha Anne Dow Oregon Center for Health Professions.'' As she battled breast cancer, President Dow would often ask medical technicians providing her treatment where they had received their training. She was very proud to hear that many had been trained at OIT, in the very programs she helped to expand. Those professionals, and countless more to follow, are Martha Anne Dow's legacy. And I am proud to say her legacy will truly affect eternity.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I wish today to denounce the savage actions of Burma's military government. During this past week, a familiar pageantry of riot police and soldiers deployed to stop the peaceful demonstrations of Burmese monks and citizens. These protestors demanded an end to the dictatorship which has governed Burma for most of the past 4\1/2\ decades. They carried no weapons, incited no violence, and made no demands beyond those which constitute basic human freedoms. Their military junta reacted as that government always has: with silence, with threats, and then at last with violence. I had hoped that the course of these protests would not conform to Burma's old pattern of repression. So often in this decade we have seen the forces of peaceful revolution triumph over the institutional relics of an earlier, more brutal age. In Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan the old regime was toppled with barely a hint of violence. Elsewhere, like Lebanon, strident democratic blows were struck against the ruling order. I remember not two decades ago, when the Soviet Union peacefully dissolved, its citizens having had finally enough of communism, misery, and the KGB. Sadly, these bloodless successes are not always the norm. Events in Uzbekistan and Belarus have shown us--as did Tiananmen Square 18 years ago--that governments which are serious about holding power do not topple easily. They draw on their full arsenal of modern repression, from electronic surveillance and torture to indiscriminate beatings and murder. This is what has happened in Burma. We hoped for a bloodless success, and we are rewarded with a bloody failure. For me, this is particularly hard to bear. I have been involved with Burmese political issues throughout my tenure in the Senate. I have cosponsored numerous bills and resolutions condemning Burma's military tyranny and its human rights record. Congress after Congress, session after session, I have pushed for stricter sanctions on the Burmese regime. In 2003, I was a cosponsor of S. 1215, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which cut off all imports to the United States from Burma and authorized support for Burmese democratic activists. I likewise supported H.R. 2330, the House version of that act which was eventually passed into law. Just this past summer, as I have done repeatedly before, I cosponsored a bill renewing the sanctions of the Freedom and Democracy Act. In October 2001, I voted for S.A. 1933 to the Foreign Operations bill, denying Burma outside aid unless Rangoon changed its behavior. And in March 2005, I introduced S. Res. 91, which urged China to stop enabling Burma with military support. It is clear, however, that there is a limit to what my colleagues and I can effect from our seats in Washington. The regime which rules Burma is nearly impervious to outside pressure. The true wielders of influence--such as China and India--have been effectively silent thus far on the junta's latest brutalities. And so today, the Burmese protests have ended much the way I feared they would. There has been no peaceful overthrow of the government. There is now only the sight of thousands of soldiers patrolling the streets, the monks locked in their monasteries, Internet and broadcast communication nearly cut off. We will probably never know how many dissidents were thrown into jail over the past week. We have only the haziest idea of how many Burmese were killed. A regime deserter--a government intelligence officer--claims that thousands were killed. We do know that Japan has confirmed the death of one of its nationals, a photographer who was caught up in last week's events. And we also know that Burma's emblem of democracy, the activist Aung San Suu Kyi, remains under house arrest. She was allowed to speak with the U.N.'s special envoy last Sunday, the first foreigner she has met in 10 months. She has languished under house arrest for the past 4 years, and under severe travel restrictions before then. Her father, Aung San, was another famous Burmese leader and revolutionary who was murdered before his dream of an independent Burma realized. I can only pray that history does not repeat itself. I imagine that Aung San Suu Kyi herself, however, would have more mixed feelings. Her father fell shortly before achieving a free nation. I imagine that such is her dedication, his daughter might readily accept the same bargain. Ten years ago, when her husband was dying of cancer in London, Suu Kyi was offered the opportunity to go visit him. It was an agonizing choice. On the one hand, she was compelled to be with her husband in the last days of his life, a man she had been prevented from seeing for years. On the other, she had absolutely no doubt that once she left the country the regime would not allow her to return. It is not inappropriate to acknowledge here that the generals ruling Burma are clever, having survived many threats to their rule. But their semblance of cleverness does not detract from their barbarity. There was much of both in their offer to Suu Kyi. They dangled her dying husband in front of her as incentive to leave Burma, possibly the cruelest bait imaginable. She declined. I cannot begin to imagine how heartrending that decision was. Aung San Suu Kyi has sacrificed almost everything for her country. I have little doubt that at some point, perhaps not far in the future, the regime will decide to take her life as well. As long as the military junta is in power, Suu Kyi and other brave Burmese who dream of freedom face a bleak fate. Watching the monks' showdown with police over the past week, she must have hoped against hope that this time would be different. It would not be like 1988. Today there is the Internet, satellite television, and digital cameras to shame the generals into restraining their response. Sadly, and perhaps predictably, they did not. In a few more weeks, the world will go back to its other interests. The U.N. envoy will make desultory progress in achieving his political solution, and he will go home. But the Burmese people know, as I do, that a political solution is unlikely. The military junta has stayed in power through brute force, though it sought legitimacy from Burma's monasteries. After last week's beatings and killings of those monks, that relationship is shattered. Stripped of its last veneer of legitimacy, the government will fall back on its guns. But for its weapons, and its will to rule, this regime would long ago have gone the way of other bunker regimes, and today be little missed. The one weapon it does not have, however, is time. Sooner or later, all tyrannies collapse. The effort of repression is ultimately self- immolating; and then the regime's only lasting historical legacy will be the misery it has inflicted. For the Burmese people, who suffer through this misery and resist the best they can, life will be unbearably harsh. I believe they will continue to resist regardless. My colleagues and I will assist them however we can, in whatever small way is open to us. And one day, when the orange robes of the monks line the streets once more and the troops are nowhere to be found, we shall have victory, and a new day will break over Burma. They--and I--await that day.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I would like to recognize Pat Farr for his service as the executive director of FOOD for Lane County. A veteran of the Oregon State legislature, the Eugene City Council, and the Oregon Commission for Child Care, Mr. Farr has dedicated himself to bettering the lives of Oregonians. Mr. Farr accepted his position at FOOD for Lane County with three goals in mind: create financial stability, develop a strong staff, and restore the agency's public image. During Mr. Farr's tenure, all of these goals were accomplished. The agency has been lifted out of debt and into financial sustainability; a base of reserves has been created to increase long-term stability and improve donor confidence; and both the number of volunteers and the amount of distribution have been increased. FOOD for Lane County is an important member of the community, providing food assistance to the many Lane County residents who are still unsure when their next meal will be. The organization distributes more than 7 million pounds of food each year, enough for 22 emergency food pantries and more than 70 hunger relief centers. The agency also plays a critical role assisting our youth, as one out of three children in Lane County will eat from an emergency food box or a subsidized meal program. Mr. Farr recently left FOOD for Lane County to work as a consultant for nonprofits. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Mr. Farr for his distinguished work and unwavering commitment to serving his community.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, like Senator Kennedy, I feel it appropriate to respond very respectfully to a dear friend of mine from Texas. I have great affection for him. I have only been in this body for 11 years. For 11 years, I have been working on this piece of legislation. For 11 years, it has often been put on the Defense authorization bill-- passed several times by the Senate. You might wonder why is it appropriate to put on the Defense authorization bill. Let me put a human face on it. This photo depicts a Navy seaman who was a gay man serving lawfully under ``don't ask, don't tell.'' Somehow it was discovered that he was a gay man. He was beaten to death so brutally that his mother was only able to recognize his body because of a tattoo that she was able to recognize. The U.S. military is not immune from hate crimes. It is utterly and entirely appropriate that this be on the Defense authorization bill--if not for this man's reason, for the fact that we are engaged in a war on terrorism, utilizing our U.S. military. They are fighting terrorism abroad. Surely we have the stuff in the Senate to fight terrorism at home and within the military. If you need a human face for why this is entirely appropriate, look at Allen Schindler, whose mother was only able to identify him because of a tattoo she knew he had. In terms of doing this in haste, I am not on the Judiciary Committee, but I know there have been many hearings in Congress after Congress and debates in the past 11 years in which I have participated. This is not done in haste. This is done thoughtfully and deliberately in Senate fashion. I don't think that charge sticks, and I think it is high time we pass this legislation and that we fight terrorism at home and abroad and even within the military. I have made it a practice, since becoming aware that the Federal Government did not have a backstop law to State law, of a need to have the Federal Government to have authority to show up to work, to be able to be a backstop to State and local law--not preempt them but to help them and to let Americans know that at every level of their Government, we care about public safety, we care about fighting terrorism. Some will say this law is symbolism, it will not do anything. Ever since the Ten Commandments came down off Mount Sinai, the law has also been a teacher. We all fall short of the law. But the truth of the matter is, it does set a societal standard. I believe the Federal Government should join the States in setting this standard so this law can go from symbol to substance because it can, over time, change hearts and minds. When one does what I have done, and that is enter into the Congressional Record a hate crime committed in the United States almost every day I have served in the Senate, I think it is apparent we have a problem, and I think it is apparent the Federal Government ought to have a role. This law, symbolic as it is, can change hearts and minds and can be real substance. We are neglecting our role in this fight against hatred at home in living up to our national motto: ``E Pluribus Unum''; out of many one. So irrespective of one's race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, we get equal protection under the law, and this is a glaring omission in the standard of equal protection, as I see it. When I went to law school, I learned that to establish a crime, one of the first elements you have to determine is motive and intent. Some have said this is thought speech. The truth is, no thoughts are punished here. There is nothing in this amendment that prevents one from saying and thinking anything. The first amendment is unaffected by this legislation. But what this says is, if you think it, you speak it, and you act on it, you come under the jurisdiction of local, State, and I hope Federal hate crimes laws. It is an element in a crime. Some argue it is unconstitutional. This very issue, as it related to sexual orientation in a Wisconsin case, was tried all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. A unanimous decision was written affirming the inclusion of sexual orientation and the constitutionality of the Wisconsin State law. I have it in my hand. It is called Wisconsin v. Mitchell. It was written by William Rehnquist, not exactly a liberal, who made it very clear that hate crimes laws are constitutional because it goes to action, criminal behavior, and the speech, the thought, all of those are mere elements in proving a crime. Many of my brothers and sisters in the religious community are now saying on national television even that this will limit the free exercise of religion, it will limit their ability to preach and interpret the Bible any way they want. If it did that, I would not be here. But if it did that, they would already be in jail because most States in the United States already have these laws. They are constitutional. They go to the elements of establishing the commission of a crime. It is high time we passed this legislation. We have passed it as a Senate many times. We now have an opportunity to get it to the next step. I hope and pray the President does not veto it. We are not doing this in haste. We are not doing this because it is inappropriate on the Defense authorization bill. We are doing it because it is high time the Federal Government be able to show up to work in rural places such as Laramie, WY, where this young man was brutally beaten to death. This is Matthew Shepard. Matthew's mother Judy is a friend of mine. The sheriff in Laramie, WY, is one of the individuals who persuaded me they needed the help of the Federal Government. They were overwhelmed with what happened in the case of this young man, a 21-year-old college student whose life was taken on this lonely fence. His life was taken not because they wanted his money or they wanted something else from him. They knew he was gay, and they beat him and left him to die on this fence in Wyoming. With Matthew's mother's permission, Senator Kennedy and I have named this amendment the Matthew Shepard Act. What happened to Matthew should happen to no one, no matter their religion, no matter their race, no matter their ethnicity, no matter their sexual orientation, because in the public square, we are all imperfect people. In the public square, we have a duty to provide public safety for all Americans, no matter their transgressions or whatever we think of their lifestyles. This is a glaring omission in Federal law. I hope we are about to right it, and I hope as we do, we will remember the sacrifice and the commitment and the advocacy of Judy Shepard on behalf of her son and his memory. Let us enshrine this act in his name in our law because it is the right thing to do, and it is about time we do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today is a momentous day. We have the opportunity to extend health insurance coverage to 10 million low- income children, 4 million of whom, without this bill, simply would continue to be a statistic in the ranks of the uninsured. In Oregon alone, we estimate that at least 60,000 new young people will receive health insurance and possibly even more. Because of the outstanding work of my colleagues, Senators Baucus, Grassley, Hatch, and Rockefeller, and because of their work, we have before us a proposal that will garner wide, bipartisan support. I commend them for their efforts and thank them for their willingness to work with me to incorporate a number of important policies not only to Oregon but to millions of young Americans across this country. When I first arrived in the Senate in 1997, I had the opportunity to learn about an outstanding idea launched by two great colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Hatch. That idea was known as the State Children's Health Insurance Program. When they described the details to me, I recognized in it many of the features I had worked on as an Oregon State Senator in the development of the Oregon health plan. I told them to sign me up and let me know how a junior Senator on the Budget Committee could help them. It was my privilege to do that with an amendment on that year's budget. But here we are, 11 years later; now I serve on the Finance Committee, and I have had the opportunity to help craft a bill that will provide the authority and funding needed to continue SCHIP for another 5 years. It is a responsibility I took seriously then and still. I am pleased to have an opportunity today to renew it and improve it. As I think of the work we have done to advance this bill, I wish to take a moment to highlight a number of critical policies I have worked hard to advance and which are now included in the bill before us. First, and perhaps most important, I am pleased we will continue to utilize a 60 cent increase in the tobacco products excise tax to pay for SCHIP reauthorization. Looking back on the debate over the budget this past March, I didn't know, but I hoped at the time, my amendment to do this would garner the support necessary. It has done so. That support has held, and it is now the funding source for keeping the promise of SCHIP. However, in my opinion, there is no better means to provide funding for children's health care. I know some don't like this. It is, frankly, the only tax increase I enthusiastically support and for which I have ever consciously voted. Not only can we extend health insurance to 10 million low-income children, we can do so while discouraging other young people from smoking. Studies show America's youth is strongly discouraged from smoking if the price of the tobacco product is increased. I am hopeful we will discourage thousands of kids from smoking, which will improve and perhaps save their lives. I see it as a ``twofer,'' to discourage smoking, and you can connect the habit of tobacco with all the public health care costs it imposes. It is a sad statistic that 20 percent of Oregonians who die each year die from tobacco-related illnesses. I am also pleased to have been able to secure mental health parity in SCHIP. According to a report by the Urban Institute entitled ``Access to Children's Mental Health Services Under Medicaid and SCHIP,'' the highest prevalence of mental health problems among all children, ages 6 to 17, is observed among Medicaid and SCHIP-eligible children at a rate significantly higher than for other insured children and uninsured children. Now, today, the Senate has taken a remarkable step forward to ensuring that SCHIP treats ailments of the mind on the same level as it treats ailments of the body. That is a notable achievement. We are, as a Senate body, advancing the cause of mental health care as it has needed to be for some time but now hopefully soon. In this bill, and in the mental health parity bill earlier passed, we put mental health on parity with physical health. This bill also reverses the harmful policy recently implemented by the administration. While I understand the President has some authority to help guide the development of Federal programs, in this instance, the policy released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to restrict coverage of children with incomes over 250 percent of poverty simply goes too far. Therefore, I strongly support the language in the bill that reinforces the Senate's position that States will be allowed to cover children with family incomes up to 300 percent of poverty. I also support the proposal to create a tracking system to more accurately determine who does and doesn't have insurance. This is vital as we continue to work to extend health insurance to all Americans. Finally, I wish to note how pleased I am to see that States will be able to extend coverage to pregnant women through SCHIP. This makes sense. Prenatal care, when you are talking about children, is truly the point at which they can get the healthier start. Their mothers deserve this if we are serious about the children they bear. According to the National Committee for Quality Assurance, every dollar spent on prenatal care results in a 300-percent savings in postnatal care costs and an almost 500-percent savings in long-term morbidity costs. This is an investment we need to make, and it is well worth making. Ten years after SCHIP became law, we now have a chance to support a bill that will cover 4 million new children who are already eligible for this program. This is not an expansion, though. This is simply keeping the promise of SCHIP with those children who are currently eligible but for whom we have not had the resources, the dollars, to fully fund this program. While some have alleged we are expanding the program, expanding government-run health care, that rhetoric could not be further from the truth. We are not expanding the program, we are simply putting our money where our mouths have been. We are taking a step forward to give States the money they need to cover the children who already are qualified for SCHIP but, for one reason or another, are not enrolled. We also are not expanding government-run health care. SCHIP is a program that is delivered by private insurance companies. It is a program that requires families to pay premiums and copayments based on their income levels. It is for these reasons that SCHIP will garner strong, bipartisan support today. In closing, I know there has been a great deal of rhetoric back and forth between the White House and the Hill. In this instance, with health care for millions of American children on the line, I urge my friend, President Bush, to take a fresh look at the details of this package and realize it is worthy of his support. I urge him to put aside the differences of this debate and sign this bill into law for the sake of our children, America's children. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I believe the pending amendment is the hate crimes amendment to the national Defense authorization bill. I rise today to once again discuss the need to enact hate crimes legislation. For the fifth consecutive Congress, I have introduced this legislation with my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. The Senate knows well the substance of what we have debated. We have done it in every Congress of my tenure. A majority of Senators have repeatedly supported this legislation. Two years ago, under a Republican-controlled Senate, we overwhelmingly passed hate crimes legislation on the National Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 65 to 33. In 2000, the Senate voted 57 to 42 in favor of the bill. In 2002, we had 54 votes. Hate crimes legislation, in my view, is the most important civil rights issue before this Congress. The House has already passed this legislation. They have done so and we will do so, I hope, because America needs it. America is one of the most diverse societies on the planet, and I can think of no other country in world history that has achieved the same degree of diversity as the United States of America. Our diversity is, in part, our Nation's heritage. It is part of our political and social fabric. It is a source of our strength, and it should be protected from those who try to systematically victimize whole classes of individuals based on their beliefs, their practices, or their race. The bedrock of our civil rights laws is founded on our collective belief that minorities should be protected from discrimination. But the civil rights struggle is far from over. Every election brings a new chapter in our efforts to get it better. As we fight the war on terrorism abroad, we must not forget that we continue to have injustices on our home shores. Americans continue to be harassed, victimized, and denied equal opportunities simply because of their race, religion, color, disabilities, or sexual orientation. As a nation that serves as a beacon of freedom and liberty throughout the world, we simply cannot tolerate violence against our own citizens simply because of their differences. We cannot fight terror abroad and accept terror at home. For the last 7 years, I have entered into the Congressional Record a hate crime almost every day. I have entered hundreds upon hundreds of individual hate crimes into the Record to demonstrate the need for this legislation. Many of these crimes are extremely brutal, some even resulting in the death of the victim. I do this to raise awareness. I do it to demonstrate the severity of these attacks and to show the frequency of these violent crimes. I also do it to remember these often nameless victims and to give a human face to these senseless acts of violence. Let me tell my colleagues about the horror of these attacks. Opponents of this measure will say every crime should be treated equally. But those who perpetrate crimes out of bias, against sexual orientation, are unusually and especially savage. One rarely, if ever, reads about a hate crime resulting from a single bullet or errant punch. Hate crime victims will be beaten dozens of times with an iron crowbar, they will be stabbed over and over, or they will be stomped to death. These prolonged, vicious beatings are more akin to punishment and torture and manifest themselves in ways that are most evil. This year, Senator Kennedy and I have decided to rename our legislation the Matthew Shepard Act. We do so with the permission of his mother. We do so to put a human face on the issue of hate crimes legislation. In addition, we did it in remembrance of a young hate crime victim who has left an indelible mark upon our Nation's conscience. His name is Matthew Shepard. Judy Shepard, Matthew's mother, is a dear friend of mine. Judy experienced a parent's single worst tragedy: the loss of her child. But instead of retreating into her own pain for solace, Judy has brought to national attention the need for hate crimes legislation. She is our Nation's strongest advocate for this issue. For those of you who do not know Matthew Shepard's story, it is truly heartbreaking. Matthew was a 21-year-old college student at the University of Wyoming when he was attacked. Shortly after midnight on October 7, 1998, Matthew was kidnapped, beaten, pistol whipped, lashed to a lonely stretch of fence, and left to die alone. Almost 18 hours later, Matthew was found alive but unconscious. His injuries were deemed too severe for surgery, and Matthew died on October 12. Matthew was murdered by two men simply for who he was, because he was gay. To think that such virulent hatred of another person's sexual orientation drove another to commit such a heinous act is truly unthinkable. Sadly, this case is not isolated. One may ask why Senator Kennedy and I have offered this legislation again on the Defense authorization bill. As I have said in the past, the military is not immune to the scourge of hate crimes in our country. In 1992, Navy seaman Allen Schindler was brutally murdered by his shipmate Terry Helvey in Okinawa, Japan. Schindler was beaten and stomped to death simply because he was gay. His attack was so vicious that almost every organ in his body was destroyed. His own mother could not have identified him but for the remains of a tattoo on his arm. In another tragic case, PFC Barry Winchell was beaten by another army private with a baseball bat. He was beaten with such force and his injuries were so severe that he died shortly thereafter. He was only 21, the same age as Matthew Shepard. To those who say we don't need a Federal hate crimes bill, I say they are wrong. This is a national problem that deserves national attention. Our hate crimes legislation would strengthen the ability of the Federal, State, and local governments to investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on race, ethnic background, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity. Furthermore, it would strengthen State and local efforts by enabling Justice to assist them in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes and assist in funding of these prosecutions. The legislation would also allow the Federal Government to step in, if needed, but only after the Department has certified that a Federal prosecution is necessary. If this can be done locally or at the State level, it should be, but hate crimes should be prosecuted. Current law does not provide any authority for Federal involvement in these types of hate crimes, even when State or local law enforcement is inadequate because relevant law is nonexistent or resources are insufficient. Without this legislation, the tools for battling hate crimes at the Federal level will remain limited. I have also heard it argued that we shouldn't punish a hate crime any differently than any other crime. I believe that is flat wrong. Hate crimes tear at the very fabric of our Nation. They seek to intimidate entire groups of Americans and, as such, divide our people. Hate crimes do more than harm one victim; they terrorize an entire society. They send an ominous message of hate and intolerance to all Americans. Those crimes must be punished proportionately. As to the constitutionality of hate crimes statutes, which is questioned by some, it shouldn't be. The Supreme Court has already responded to their legitimacy. Motive has always been a factor in determining whether a crime has in fact occurred. Mr. President, when you and I went to law school, took a class in crimes, one of the first things we learned you have to do to establish the commission of a crime is intent and motive, and speech is one of those legitimate areas of inquiry. This was made very clear by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, not exactly a liberal, who wrote the majority opinion in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, where the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of a Wisconsin hate crimes statute. Statutes which provide for an enhanced sentence, where the defendant is intentionally selected because of his race, his religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry, does not violate the first amendment, the Court found. Rehnquist wrote in Mitchell: The first amendment does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent. In fact, you can't have a crime unless you prove motive and intent, and speech is one of the legitimate areas of inquiry. Lastly, I have heard concerns from my religious brothers and sisters who fear passage of hate crimes legislation will have a chilling effect on our Nation's churches and pulpits. This is unfounded. I find it disconcerting that many ministers of religion, for whom I have the utmost respect, would preach such messages from the radio, from television, and from sacred church pulpits. A hate crime does not criminalize thoughts, moral views, and religious beliefs. What it does say is we cannot go out and do violence to our fellow Americans simply because we find another's mere existence offends our beliefs. You have to act. Thought and speech are insufficient to prove a hate crime, and it is disingenuous and fallacious to say otherwise. And I would say, as an aside, that if I believed what they charge, I would not be here in support of this amendment in Congress after Congress. I know the law, however, and I know what is being said about this amendment is simply wrong. I accuse no one, but what I find of great comfort is a story from the New Testament on this issue, and I think it is applicable. It is a story from the Book of John, and I will share it with you, because I think it teaches us all how we should behave toward one another, sinners all, in the public square. It reads as follows, from Chapter 8: And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. That occurred in the public square. Jesus risked his life to save her life. He didn't excuse it nor did he condemn her. He saved her life and risked his own. I don't believe Federal law should do any less than that, and I believe it is high time for us to do what many States, most of the States in America have done, and that is add the category of sexual orientation to our Federal statutes. No churchman, no preacher, no adherent of religious faith need fear this, but they ought to follow that and understand that what we are not trying to do here is to somehow inhibit the free exercise of religion. We are trying to protect people, American people, from the most brutal kinds of terrorist acts on our own shores. Finally, there is a memorial in Casper, WY, sculpted by Chris Navarro, dedicated to the memory of Matthew Shepard. It is named the Ring of Peace. The circular design of the ring symbolizes both the individual and the ideals of social unity. The bell, supported by a ring, stands for liberty, and the ring for the promise of tomorrow. White doves flying out of the bell are a symbol of peace. They are flying as a unified group and their wings symbolize hope and freedom. At the base of the sculpture there is a simple poem that reads: If you believe in hope, and the need for peace, step up and ring the bell, for it will sing, for a promise of tomorrow. With that, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, as many as have done so in the past, to vote in favor of this amendment. We cannot be complacent or tolerate such acts of hatred. We all need to step up and vote for legislation that promises all Americans a better tomorrow. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today as the lead Republican on the Levin-Reed amendment. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment because it calls for what I have been stating all year. It sets up a timetable--a timetable we all know is inevitable--to draw down our troops. Last week General Petraeus's testimony highlighted what I consider to be the remaining primary function of American troops in Iraq: to defeat al- Qaida, our mortal enemy. The organization which attacked us on 9/11 is being hounded from its refuge in Anbar, fleeing from a lethal mix of American forces and their own destructive ideology. American troops should by all means continue this assault on al-Qaida. But Anbar Province is not all of Iraq. In past years supporters of the war have pointed to areas other than Anbar, such as the Shia and Kurdish provinces, to show that things are not going as badly as they were in Fallujah and Ramadi. Today they point to Anbar to show that things are not going as badly as the violence in Baghdad. I have visited Iraq numerous times; and wherever I am with our troops, I am inspired by them. I have also become increasingly conscious of the fact that I am in the eye of the hurricane. Relative peace wherever our troops are, but outside of us are swirling the winds of hatred and violence such of which the American people can scarcely imagine. This amendment explicitly defines the role of the U.S. military in Iraq as threefold. An appropriate amount of troops will remain to protect our diplomats, our military installations, and our infrastructure. We will continue to train, equip, and provide logistical and intelligence support to Iraqi security forces, sharing intelligence with them. Thirdly, and most importantly, we will be there to turn over every rock, every crevice, and seek out every al-Qaida killer who wishes to harm Americans. As I have spoken out pleading for a new course in Iraq, there has been a great cacophony of noise about how to go forward. Some of my colleagues have wanted to cut off funding. In fact, we voted that plan down resoundingly. Such a course, in my view, would be more than dishonorable; it would be dangerous. Some, on the other hand, say: Let's stay the course. I find that troubling as well. What ``stay the course'' means is, we will continue to spend $12 billion a month. We will lose roughly three American soldiers a day, some of them Oregonians. In addition, there will be countless traumatized, wounded, and maimed for life, for which I cannot find a number. Underpinning the current course and the argument of many of my colleagues is the hope, the predicate, that at the end of the road there will be an Iraqi Government that will govern effectively and democratically. I believe President Bush's formulation that we will stand down when they can stand up has it backwards. I have come to the reluctant conclusion that based on my numerous trips to Iraq, they will not stand up politically until we begin standing down militarily. Like many of my colleagues, I have been to Iraq repeatedly. To be with the troops, again, is to be inspired, to be humbled in their presence because of the remarkable work they are doing and the cause for which they are fighting. As inspiring as that is, it is equally depressing to meet with Iraqi political leaders, democratically elected, who we think ought to be focused on reconciliation. What I have found is they are focused on revenge. In Iraq there is ancient sectarian strife which has produced a low- grade civil war, a war which is not ours to win and not one we can win. It is theirs to win. We won the first war--Saddam was overthrown. Iraqis must now win the peace. Civil wars end in one of two ways: One side wins and the other loses, or they fight it out until they figure it out. My belief is that we delay the day for them figuring it out with our current posture. I would love to be proven wrong. I pray President Bush is right. But I believe it is our obligation to have this debate to help change the course in the policy of the United States Government, and more importantly, to help change also the course in the policy of the Iraqi Government. I intend to use all my leverage as a Senator to change that course in Iraq, to get their Government to govern. My fear is that what our presence and current posture are doing is simply keeping their civil war at a low-grade level, a no-win situation for American troops in Iraq. There is no good option for how we come home, but it does seem to me this amendment best expresses my own conclusions. That is why I cosponsored the amendment, to recognize al- Qaida as our mortal foe. We must take them on wherever we can, even now in Iraq, but ultimately we have to get capable and effective Iraqi political leaders, too, to do the most basic kinds of governing: debaathification, setting up of local elections, allowing the processes of democracy to work, establishing a rule of law that gives people confidence, spending their oil revenue money for the restructuring and the rebuilding of their own country. We cannot want functioning democracy for Iraqis more than they want it for themselves. What they seem bent on now is ethnic cleansing of their neighborhoods and religious division. Ultimately, those are their decisions, not ours. As long as we say--we will take the bullet, we will take it first--they will let us. The Reed-Levin amendment provides a different way forward with a responsible division of labor. Let the Iraqi forces we have trained and equipped handle their security in Baghdad and in other communities. Let us help them and ourselves by taking on al-Qaida as we find it in Iraq. This should not be a Republican-Democratic debate. I do not want to sling mud around this Chamber and point fingers at which parties and which voters and which Government branch got us where we are. That should not be the focus of our discussion today. But for the sake of the American people, we should be discussing the way forward, a way that includes a United States victory over al-Qaida. Therefore, I rise as a Republican from Oregon to support the amendment. I believe this legislation strikes the right balance between the same old stay the course policy and a panicked flight to the exit. Do we have moral and strategic interests in Iraq? Of course, we do. Will we have those interests in the future? Of course, we will. Should we ignore those interests? Of course not. This language addresses those concerns, the language of the Reed-Levin amendment. I believe this legislation is the best, most effective, most responsible way forward. I urge the amendment's adoption and yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Webb-Hagel dwell time amendment. Our service men and women are under constant strain, spending more time in theater than they have with their families. These men and women are risking their lives to protect this country, some on their fourth tour in Iraq. Their bodies are aching and their minds are stressed, but by the time they become acclimated to home life, they are sent back into combat. Something must be done to prevent the breakdown of our military and the men and women who serve. This amendment would provide our troops ample rest and recuperation, time to visit with family, and an opportunity to extract our troops from the stress of war. The Oregon National Guard has served admirably since we began combat operations in 2001. I could not be more proud of their contributions to the war on terror while still serving as the foundation of their families and communities. Many citizen-soldiers have been on multiple deployments for over a year at a time, placing a significant strain on their families, employers, and communities. The amendment will give our soldiers predictability by preventing surprise deployments. Providing a consistent schedule allows them to plan for this disruption. Often, these men and women are the core of the community, the major breadwinner of their family or a needed caregiver and require advanced notice to plan for such a major disruption in their lives. If current enlistment levels do not allow us to provide our troops with the rest and recuperation needed to protect our Nation, then we must examine increasing the number of volunteer troops, both Active Duty and Reserve. For the past 10 years, we have shrunk the National Guard and ignored their call for needed resources. As a country, we are finally realizing the importance of our citizen-soldiers. They serve admirably in combat operations overseas, they provide help at home in the face of a natural disaster or emergency, and they are the bedrock of our community. Giving them some stability in their lives is the least we can do. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in supporting the Webb-Hagel dwell time amendment.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, last year the Senate enacted legislation that stripped the courts of jurisdiction to hear pending habeas claims brought by unlawful enemy combatants. It was with sadness then, as it is now, that the Senate failed to restore and protect this great writ. The writ of habeas corpus is a cornerstone of the rule of law. The right of an individual to learn of his or her detention by the government in a court of law is fundamental to our Constitution. Permanent detention of foreigners, without reason or charges, undermines our moral integrity in the world and does violence to our Constitution. It troubles me greatly that we have limited the ability of the judicial branch to ensure that detainees are being held fairly and justly by the American Government. It is my sincere hope that we will take up this amendment again in the near future.

Mr. SMITH

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

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 2067.

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Chair.