Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, many Americans are becoming familiar with a part of my State and a part of California known as the Klamath Basin because of the coverage of a tragic situation that has developed there in a contest between suckerfish and farmers. If I may be permitted, I will put some context to this conflict. I am the first Senator to be elected from Oregon who comes from its rural parts--eastern Oregon--in 70 years. I represent all of my State, but I have a special passion to represent those rural parts that I have watched be devastated for too long by Federal action. I believe the Endangered Species Act is a noble act with noble purposes, but I believe it is being used by some to very ignoble ends. My actions today are not to subvert the Endangered Species Act. This is not reform. This is an act asking that its terms be implemented in a way that will relieve genuine human suffering in a way that may prevent the violence that has already been visited upon Federal property in a contest between farmers and the Bureau of Reclamation for the essential ingredient to life in the West, and that is water. What has happened to the community of Klamath Falls, by conservative estimates, will cost that county $200 million. I thank the Senator from West Virginia, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and others, who helped me to get $20 million of relief to these people. Obviously, it is 10 percent of what is needed, even by conservative estimates. What I propose to do today is to try to go back to a biological opinion that was in place just last April that would have permitted this drought to be managed as were the droughts in 1992 and in 1994, in which the suckerfish survived, as did the agricultural community around it. When I speak of the agricultural community, I have to also mention the wildlife refuges that get their water from this basin but which are now drying up. So farmers and fowl are left with nothing under the new biological opinion. I do this because, in 1993, the Fish and Wildlife Service laid out a plan of action for what it could do to save the suckerfish, so that 200,000 acres of land continue to receive water and that fish could survive. But none of these proposed action plans were pursued. For example, it recommended the removal of the Sprague River Dam, which would have made available tremendous spawning areas for the suckerfish. But that wasn't done. And there were many other actions that could have been taken to provide aeration, to improve the condition of this lake, so that the suckerfish could survive and the farmers along with it. But now what we are doing is we are raising this lake 3 feet--it is a very big lake, very shallow, but it is being raised 3 feet--and cutting off all the water to farmers and fowl. It is being done to save the suckerfish, and now, while it is being saved, it is warming up. So the coho salmon that will soon be returning expecting to receive the cool waters of the Klamath will receive waters the temperature of a swimming pool. So, potentially, even the coho salmon--which is also a listed species--could be adversely affected by this biological opinion. Well, there are two agencies of the Federal Government that are competing. One biological opinion is Fish and Wildlife with regard to the suckerfish. The other is the biological opinion of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Commerce Department that affects the coho salmon. Both biological opinions essentially ask for 100 percent of the water which means cutting off 100 percent of the people. The point I want to make is that would not be necessary if the Federal Government over the last 8 years would have kept its part of the bargain and done what it could to mitigate the impact to the sucker so that farmers would not be victimized. What I do is simply reinstate the previous biological opinions that were in effect before this spring until the Federal Government can complete action on numerous recommendations of its 1993 recovery plan. Again, they were not acted upon over the last 8 years. Why? They say budgetary reasons. I want this to be a priority. I want the budget to fix this problem. I do not want the whole budget burden thrown on the backs of rural people, but that is what was decided to be done. I want to put some other context to this. This is a current farm family in Klamath Falls. These are the human faces being affected by what is being done. Foreclosure notices are already going out. Let me tell my colleagues about their parents. These are the parents. This is the front cover of Life magazine, January 20, 1947. This is a veteran of the Second World War. These are people who came home, having saved liberty, having defended democracy, having made the United States the power in the world that it is today, the force for good that it is today. In his wisdom, Franklin Roosevelt, even before the war, began to open up this land so that people would have a way to escape the Great Depression, coming home from the war, and a place to go to work. This is the land, the valley. I do not know whether my colleagues can see it, but this couple is overlooking the Klamath Basin--farms being developed, hay being raised, corn being raised, potatoes being raised that fill our shelves today. Look at the hopes and dreams in the faces of these people. This is a little girl at an assembly of people at a rally a few weeks ago. Her sign says: ``Mommy says I can't eat, but fish can.'' That is what we are driving them to, and it is not right because they are being told they are of lesser value under our law than the shortnosed sucker. This is a picture of the shortnosed sucker. It is a bottom-feeding fish. It lives in this shallow lake. It has gone through many droughts along with the farmers. It has survived, stressed, I am sure, just as humans are stressed in conditions of drought. I am not saying this fish has no value. I have never thought the suckerfish is very good looking, but it has a mother, and that mother, I am sure, loves this fish. I know the Native Americans in this area value this fish, and I am not suggesting in any way that we are not interested in saving this fish. I am saying the purpose of the Endangered Species Act was not to engage in a process of rural cleansing, of throwing off their property people who had been given great promise and hope for the future. They are meeting the mailmen with foreclosure notices because the Federal Government decided it is going to breach its promise. Let me show you, Mr. President, the deeds of the lands they were given. These are veterans. I doubt you can see it, but this is a deed assigned to a veteran of the Second World War to go to Klamath. The veteran's name goes in this space, and it is signed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. My point is that when we proceed to engage in environmental restoration, we must not forget that we have a human concern as well. We can do both, I am absolutely convinced of it, but we cannot do both under this condition. This Klamath circumstance is different than other endangered species conflicts that always seem to pit the man against the beast. This is different. This is about something that is possible, where we can save the fish and we do not sacrifice the people. I want to keep Franklin Roosevelt's promise alive today because these reclamation projects were greatly expanded under his leadership and an inland empire was built of rural people, but now those people are being told they are of lesser value than the suckerfish. I do not think Franklin Roosevelt would agree. I do not agree. Mr. President, I plead for my colleagues to remember the human faces in this picture, to remember the promises made, and to help me help these people. This is not about a fish versus a farmer, unless we go down the road of these current biological opinions which have not been peer reviewed, in which the people there have no confidence. They are biological opinions that began with a determined outcome, and all of the activities that were said would be pursued--to provide off-stream impoundment, take out a dam, provide some aeration--none of those things was done. The only way I am going to get the Interior Department to understand that it cannot forget its human stewardship, that the Bureau's promises still ought to matter, is to go back to the old opinion and tell them that the new one cannot happen until they keep the promises made in 1993. In the meantime, this fish will survive, but my farmers will not if we do not begin to reverse course. It is too late for this year's crops, I grant you that, but it is turning into a dust bowl that existed prior to Franklin Roosevelt's vision, and foreclosure notices are going out. At least now we can offer some hope that we, on our watch, will not permit this to be repeated. We need to give them some more money to make sure that no farm is lost to foreclosure because of Government inaction and then this action. But we have to help. We have to say this will not happen again. I do not know how to plead this in as personal terms as I can for the help of this body to head off a disaster. This is not fish versus farmers. It does not have to be that. But it is that now under what has happened over the last 8 years. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I would like to discuss with my distinguished colleagues, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and the ranking member on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, the need for judicial training in the Pacific Islands. I have been working over the past year with the judges of the ninth circuit, the circuit charged with overseeing the judiciary in the Pacific Islands, to help them secure the funds to conduct a needs assessment for the training of judges in the United States territories and Freely Associated States in the Pacific. That assessment has been completed, and has identified the need for more training programs for nonlawyer and legally trained judges. The judges of the ninth circuit have worked with the National Judicial College to design two separate one-year training programs for judges in the Pacific Islands. One is aimed at nonlawyer judges, and would be conducted in Pohnpei, the capital of the Federated States of Micronesia, in order to be the most cost effective. The second program would be conducted in the United States, and would be geared toward chief justices or presiding judges. These training programs are necessary to help Pacific Islands facing burgeoning populations and judicial systems that are not fully developed. The need for further training of these judges has long been recognized by the ninth circuit. This program has the full support of the judiciaries in American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. If we are to expect these areas to be able fully and effectively enforce applicable laws, including traditional laws, then we must ensure that the persons who serve in the local judiciaries are fully trained. Of all the technical assistance programs that we provide to improve the operations of government, this particular program has the greatest potential for improving society and the quality of life in these islands. The cost of this 1-year program would only be approximately $100,000. I ask my colleagues' support in encouraging the Secretary of the Interior to support this effort.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank the majority whip and the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for offering to have a hearing. I hope we have a hearing. But, frankly, I need the people of Klamath Falls to know where we are, so I am asking that we proceed with the unanimous consent agreement that is already in place, that we have a vote. And I know I may lose this vote. But I say to my colleagues, these are Federal projects. These were Federal promises. This is a Federal action now that is crushing people, some of whom have been there for 100 years or more. I think it is deplorable that this Government would have had a biological opinion and a whole list of actions they said they would take, and 8 years later there is nothing done except a new opinion that says no water for people, no water for farms. It is time for us to start caring about rural folks who are increasingly powerless. I ask for a vote on their behalf. I yield back my time. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

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 this 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 13, 1998 in San Francisco, California. A gay man, Brian Wilmes, 45, was beaten to death allegedly by another man who yelled anti-gay epithets and then fled with a woman. Edgar Mora, 25, was charged with murder. 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, 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 this 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 January 14, 1999 in El Dorado, AR. Thomas Gary, 38, was run over by a truck he owned after he suffered a blow to the head and shotgun injuries that killed him. Chuck Bennett, 17, who has been charged with the crime, claimed that Gray made a sexual advance toward him. I believe that government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, 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 this 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 20, 1991 in Russian River, CA. A 45-year-old gay man, Joseph Mitchell, was stabbed to death along Highway 116 by a hitchhiker. Paul Daniel Huyck, 19, was arrested in Springfield, Oregon the first week of January 1992 in connection with the crime. He was charged with murder and violation of parole. 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, 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 this 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 2, 1999 in Greenfield, MA. Jonathan Shapiro, 18, and Matthew Rogers, 20, used a pocketknife to cut an anti-gay slur into the back of a high school classmate. 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, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Electric Bike Safety Act of 2001. This bill will encourage and provide more opportunities for Americans to enjoy the leisure and healthful benefits of riding bicycles. This legislation would amend the Consumer Product Safety Act CPSA, to provide that low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products subject to such Act. As the CPSA is now written, low-speed electric bicycles are not considered consumer products, but rather a motorized vehicle subject to all regulations set by the National Transportation Safety Administration, NTSA, which regulates automobiles and motorcycles. As a result of low-speed electric bicycles being treated as motorcycles, they are required to meet burdensome and unnecessary standards, making low-speed electric bicycles much more costly than they need to be. Subjecting electric bicycles to motor vehicle requirements would mean the addition of a large array of costly and unnecessary equipment, brake lights, turn signals, automotive grade headlights, and rearview mirrors. Making electric bicycles accessible for more Americans will benefit the lives of thousands of Americans. Electric bicycles provide disabled riders the freedom of mobility without the cost or stigma of an electric wheelchair. Electric bicycles provide older riders with increased lifestyle flexibility due to increased mobility that electric bicycles allow them. Electric bicycles provide law enforcement officers a practical way to patrol neighborhoods and towns in a manner consistent with the highly successful emphasis on ``Community Policing''. Electric bicycles provide short and medium distance commuters an environmentally friendly and healthy way to get to work. In short, this bill is pro-Americans with disabilities, pro-elderly, pro-safety, and pro-environment. Electric bicycles will prove beneficial to many more Americans if we in Congress do our part to make electric bicycles affordable. In my home State of Oregon, there are thousands of people who ride bicycles each day, whether as a means of transportation, exercise, or recreation. The City of Corvallis, OR, has 63 miles of bike lanes and paths and as a result has a very high number of people who commute to work on their bicycles. Area companies such as Hewlett-Packard and CH2M-Hill even offer changing areas and showers as a way to encourage their employees to ride bicycles to work. The Corvallis Police Department is also able to utilize electric bikes as a community friendly way to patrol the city. I believe that placing electric bicycles under the regulation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission will be only ensure the safety of electric bicycles, but will promote their use by making electric bicycles an affordable alternative form of transportation to millions of Americans.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Electric Bike Safety Act of 2001. This bill will encourage and provide more opportunities for Americans to enjoy the leisure and healthful benefits of riding bicycles. This legislation would amend the Consumer Product Safety Act CPSA, to provide that low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products subject to such Act. As the CPSA is now written, low-speed electric bicycles are not considered consumer products, but rather a motorized vehicle subject to all regulations set by the National Transportation Safety Administration, NTSA, which regulates automobiles and motorcycles. As a result of low-speed electric bicycles being treated as motorcycles, they are required to meet burdensome and unnecessary standards, making low-speed electric bicycles much more costly than they need to be. Subjecting electric bicycles to motor vehicle requirements would mean the addition of a large array of costly and unnecessary equipment, brake lights, turn signals, automotive grade headlights, and rearview mirrors. Making electric bicycles accessible for more Americans will benefit the lives of thousands of Americans. Electric bicycles provide disabled riders the freedom of mobility without the cost or stigma of an electric wheelchair. Electric bicycles provide older riders with increased lifestyle flexibility due to increased mobility that electric bicycles allow them. Electric bicycles provide law enforcement officers a practical way to patrol neighborhoods and towns in a manner consistent with the highly successful emphasis on ``Community Policing''. Electric bicycles provide short and medium distance commuters an environmentally friendly and healthy way to get to work. In short, this bill is pro-Americans with disabilities, pro-elderly, pro-safety, and pro-environment. Electric bicycles will prove beneficial to many more Americans if we in Congress do our part to make electric bicycles affordable. In my home State of Oregon, there are thousands of people who ride bicycles each day, whether as a means of transportation, exercise, or recreation. The City of Corvallis, OR, has 63 miles of bike lanes and paths and as a result has a very high number of people who commute to work on their bicycles. Area companies such as Hewlett-Packard and CH2M-Hill even offer changing areas and showers as a way to encourage their employees to ride bicycles to work. The Corvallis Police Department is also able to utilize electric bikes as a community friendly way to patrol the city. I believe that placing electric bicycles under the regulation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission will be only ensure the safety of electric bicycles, but will promote their use by making electric bicycles an affordable alternative form of transportation to millions of Americans.

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 this 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 November 6, 1998 in Seattle, Washington. A gay man was severely beaten with rocks and broken bottles in his neighborhood by a gang of youths shouting ``faggot.'' The victim sustained a broken nose and swollen jaw. When he reported the incident to police two days later, the officer refused to take the report. 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, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. We yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. It is simply to comply with the Parliamentarian's request to be consistent with Senate requirements.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Montana, I want to put this on whatever moves. I know it does not expire until 2004. I also know President Bush did include this in his original tax bill, but that was moved down then. It was unfortunate it was moved down. I want to see us do it as quickly as we can for the simple reason that businesses need to make planning and expenditures that last an awful long time. The year 2004 does not fit with some of those plans that need to be made. This is not unrelated to medicine and patients' health. Part of the technological development we are hoping to continue to provide to our people is in the pharmaceutical and biotechnological areas which do have a direct bearing on patients' health. The best right a patient can have is good health. This will facilitate that a great deal, perhaps as much as anything else in the bill. I ask unanimous consent to send a modification of my motion to the desk.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, for myself, Senator Hatch, Senator Allen, and others, I have sent to the desk a motion to commit S. 1052 to the Finance Committee with instructions to make permanent the research and development tax credit. We are joined in this also by Senators Crapo, Craig, Bennett, Brownback, Burns, Hutchinson, Allen, and Enzi. As a Member of the Senate high-tech task force, I believe that the R&D tax credit is essential to the technology community, and also to the pharmaceutical community. This credit encourages investment in basic research that, over the long term, can lead to the development of new, cheaper, and better technology products and services. The research and development is certainly essential for long-term economic growth. Innovations in science and technology has fueled the massive economic expansion we have witnessed over the course of the 20th century. These achievements have improved the standard of living for nearly every American. Simply put, the research tax credit is an investment in economic growth, new jobs, and the important new products and processes that we need in our lives. The R&D tax credit must be made permanent. This credit, which was originally enacted in 1981, has only been temporarily extended 10 times. Permanent extension is long overdue. Because this vital credit isn't permanent, it offers businesses less value than it should. Businesses, unlike Congress, must plan and budget in a multiyear process. Scientific enterprise does not neatly fit into calendar or fiscal years. R&D development projects typically take a number of years, and may even last longer than a decade. As our business leaders plan these projects, they need to know whether or not they can count on this tax credit. The current uncertainty surrounding the credit has induced businesses to allocate significantly less to research than they otherwise would if they knew the tax credit would be available in future years. This uncertainty undermines the entire purpose of the credit. Investment in R&D is important because it spurs innovation and economic growth. Information technology, for example, was responsible for more than one-third of the real economic growth in 1995 through 1998. Information technology industries account for more than $500 billion of the annual U.S. economy. R&D is widely seen as a cornerstone of technological innovations which, in turn, serves as a primary engine of long-term economic growth. The tax credit will drive wages higher. Findings from a study, for example, conducted by Coopers & Lybrand show that workers in every State will benefit from higher wages if the research credit is made permanent. Payroll increases as a result of gains in productivity stemming from the credit have been estimated to exceed $60 billion over the next 12 years. Furthermore, greater productivity from additional research and development will increase overall economic growth in every state in the Union. Research and development is essential for long-term economic growth. The tax credit is cost-effective. The R&D tax credit appears to be a cost-effective policy instrument for increasing business R&D investment. Some recent studies suggest that one dollar of the credit's revenue cost leads to a one dollar increase in business R&D spending. There is broad support among Republicans for the credit, and President Bush included the credit in the $1.6 trillion tax relief plan. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Allen, the chief cosponsors, for providing us with the opportunity of increasing the size of the tax cut to include this important priority but which, unfortunately, was left out of the tax bill that we recently passed. Before I yield to Senator Allen for his comments, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Boxer to introduce the ``Global AIDS Research and Relief Act of 2001.'' This important legislation increases the authorization for USAID to carry out its prevention, treatment and care programs to $600 million for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. These additional resources will help prevent human suffering through the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of HIV/AIDS. The world is facing a global health problem of disastrous proportions in the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. In the past year, this issue has received much needed attention from the international community and the U.S. Government. But, unfortunately, our efforts and the efforts of other governments, the private sector, and foundations have not been enough and the pandemic continues to wreak havoc on the lives of millions of people around the world. The United States plays a key role in the global effort and our bill seeks to strengthen those efforts. Over 58 million people have already been infected with HIV/AIDS and 36 million people are living today with HIV/AIDS. Of those living with the disease, over 95 percent live in the developing world where the economic and social structures in those countries are being destroyed. Sub-Saharan Africa is truly an epicenter for this disease, but increasingly, people are becoming infected in Asia, the Caribbean, and Eastern Europe. Soon, HIV/AIDS will become the worst infectious disease epidemic in recorded history, causing more deaths than both the bubonic plague of the 1930s and the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919. Young adults and children have been particularly hard hit by the pandemic. Among children under the age of 15, more than 4.3 million have died of AIDS and more than 1.4 million are living with AIDS. Just last year, 600,000 young people became infected and over 90 percent were babies born to HIV-positive mothers. HIV/AIDS is also hitting those between the ages of 15--24. In some sub-Saharan African countries, the infection rates are more than 40 percent in this population. These high infection rates will have a significant impact on the social and economic health of developing nations. The United States Census Bureau has found the life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa has fallen almost 30 years within a decade. By 2010, it is estimated that the average life expectancy in Botswana will be 29 years of age, 30 years in Swaziland, 33 years in Namibia, and 36 years in South Africa. Millions of young adults are losing their lives and this will significantly impact the economic and political viability of these Nations. Some Nations are estimated to have a reduced GDP of at least 20 percent or more by 2010 due to decreased productivity of its workers. Over the past thirty years, the United States has invested millions of dollars in democracy building programs and economic stabilization programs. HIV/AIDS has quickly erased much of this progress. As we look to the future of the world, we are also confronted by the problem of AIDS orphans. USAID estimates that there will be 44 million orphans by 2010. Without a parent or family to care for them, many will be drawn into prostitution, crime, substance abuse or child soldiery. Furthermore, without stability many of these children will not seek help when they are sick. AIDS threatens to reverse years of steady progress of child survival in developing countries. The prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the young will have a significant impact on the economic future of the world. The pandemic is contributing to economic decay, social fragmentation, and political destabilization in already strained and volatile societies. These factors are of particular concern in South and Southeast Asia, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union where the pandemic is just beginning to become a problem. It is estimated that there are more than 5.8 million cases in South and Southeast Asia and the rate of HIV infection in the Caribbean is second only to sub- Saharan Africa. Russia is the new ``hot spot'' for HIV/AIDS. More Russians are expected to be diagnosed with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2001 than all cases from previous years combined. Many of these countries do not yet have prevention, treatment and care programs in place and we must equip our federal agencies with the resources and flexibility needed to address the pandemic in all of these areas. The United States is seen as a leader in efforts to address the epidemic. We contributed almost $500 million to fight HIV/AIDS in fiscal year 2001. Through programs at the U.S. Agency for International Development, we have instituted prevention, care and treatment programs in some of the worst hit countries in sub-Saharan Africa. At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we have worked with partners in other countries to expand treatment and home-based care programs. Other agencies, including the Department of Labor, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Agriculture have contributed in their areas of expertise. This legislation recognizes the growing problems encountered by children around the world and instructs USAID to make efforts to prevent mother-to-child transmission and orphan programs a major objective of their program. Through coordination with UN agencies, national and local governments, non-governmental organizations and foundations, the U.S. government shall implement effective strategies to prevent vertical transmission of HIV. Further, the bill states that the agency must strengthen and expand all of its primary prevention and education programs. This bill also calls on USAID to continue to provide support to research that will help the world to understand the causes associated with HIV/AIDS in developing countries and assist in the development of an effective AIDS vaccine. I believe the ``Global AIDS Research and Relief Act of 2001'' can make a profound difference in the lives of millions of people facing the HIV/AIDS epidemic. I ask all my colleagues to join us and support this legislation at this critical moment in the spread of the disease.

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 this 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 18, 1998 in New York City. A man who used anti-gay epithets allegedly slashed a gay man in the face with a knife. Eric Rodriguez, 22, was charged with attempted murder, assault, and criminal possession of a weapon. 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, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Boxer to introduce the ``Global AIDS Research and Relief Act of 2001.'' This important legislation increases the authorization for USAID to carry out its prevention, treatment and care programs to $600 million for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. These additional resources will help prevent human suffering through the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of HIV/AIDS. The world is facing a global health problem of disastrous proportions in the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. In the past year, this issue has received much needed attention from the international community and the U.S. Government. But, unfortunately, our efforts and the efforts of other governments, the private sector, and foundations have not been enough and the pandemic continues to wreak havoc on the lives of millions of people around the world. The United States plays a key role in the global effort and our bill seeks to strengthen those efforts. Over 58 million people have already been infected with HIV/AIDS and 36 million people are living today with HIV/AIDS. Of those living with the disease, over 95 percent live in the developing world where the economic and social structures in those countries are being destroyed. Sub-Saharan Africa is truly an epicenter for this disease, but increasingly, people are becoming infected in Asia, the Caribbean, and Eastern Europe. Soon, HIV/AIDS will become the worst infectious disease epidemic in recorded history, causing more deaths than both the bubonic plague of the 1930s and the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919. Young adults and children have been particularly hard hit by the pandemic. Among children under the age of 15, more than 4.3 million have died of AIDS and more than 1.4 million are living with AIDS. Just last year, 600,000 young people became infected and over 90 percent were babies born to HIV-positive mothers. HIV/AIDS is also hitting those between the ages of 15--24. In some sub-Saharan African countries, the infection rates are more than 40 percent in this population. These high infection rates will have a significant impact on the social and economic health of developing nations. The United States Census Bureau has found the life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa has fallen almost 30 years within a decade. By 2010, it is estimated that the average life expectancy in Botswana will be 29 years of age, 30 years in Swaziland, 33 years in Namibia, and 36 years in South Africa. Millions of young adults are losing their lives and this will significantly impact the economic and political viability of these Nations. Some Nations are estimated to have a reduced GDP of at least 20 percent or more by 2010 due to decreased productivity of its workers. Over the past thirty years, the United States has invested millions of dollars in democracy building programs and economic stabilization programs. HIV/AIDS has quickly erased much of this progress. As we look to the future of the world, we are also confronted by the problem of AIDS orphans. USAID estimates that there will be 44 million orphans by 2010. Without a parent or family to care for them, many will be drawn into prostitution, crime, substance abuse or child soldiery. Furthermore, without stability many of these children will not seek help when they are sick. AIDS threatens to reverse years of steady progress of child survival in developing countries. The prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the young will have a significant impact on the economic future of the world. The pandemic is contributing to economic decay, social fragmentation, and political destabilization in already strained and volatile societies. These factors are of particular concern in South and Southeast Asia, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union where the pandemic is just beginning to become a problem. It is estimated that there are more than 5.8 million cases in South and Southeast Asia and the rate of HIV infection in the Caribbean is second only to sub- Saharan Africa. Russia is the new ``hot spot'' for HIV/AIDS. More Russians are expected to be diagnosed with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2001 than all cases from previous years combined. Many of these countries do not yet have prevention, treatment and care programs in place and we must equip our federal agencies with the resources and flexibility needed to address the pandemic in all of these areas. The United States is seen as a leader in efforts to address the epidemic. We contributed almost $500 million to fight HIV/AIDS in fiscal year 2001. Through programs at the U.S. Agency for International Development, we have instituted prevention, care and treatment programs in some of the worst hit countries in sub-Saharan Africa. At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we have worked with partners in other countries to expand treatment and home-based care programs. Other agencies, including the Department of Labor, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Agriculture have contributed in their areas of expertise. This legislation recognizes the growing problems encountered by children around the world and instructs USAID to make efforts to prevent mother-to-child transmission and orphan programs a major objective of their program. Through coordination with UN agencies, national and local governments, non-governmental organizations and foundations, the U.S. government shall implement effective strategies to prevent vertical transmission of HIV. Further, the bill states that the agency must strengthen and expand all of its primary prevention and education programs. This bill also calls on USAID to continue to provide support to research that will help the world to understand the causes associated with HIV/AIDS in developing countries and assist in the development of an effective AIDS vaccine. I believe the ``Global AIDS Research and Relief Act of 2001'' can make a profound difference in the lives of millions of people facing the HIV/AIDS epidemic. I ask all my colleagues to join us and support this legislation at this critical moment in the spread of the disease.

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 this 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 15, 1998 in Boise, Idaho. Mark Bangerter was brutally beaten because of his perceived sexual orientation. As a result of this attack, Mr. Bangerter was left with severe facial injuries and blindness in one eye. 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, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Senator Byrd does not have a bigger fan in this Chamber than I when it comes to the way he defends the people of West Virginia. I am one of those who would like not to be holding up this bill, but I am looking at a situation in the Klamath Basin of Oregon and California that is in a drought condition. Drought is typical in the western United States. It is regular. You can count on it. Unlike past droughts, the people of Klamath Basin have had the Government magnify their drought by cutting off every drop of water. There are probably 1,500 farm families who have no income because of a Government policy which has exalted a bottom-feeding sucker fish above their welfare. That is the Government's choice, if it wants to save the sucker fish, but my plea is that in this bill, as the President has asked, that at least the $20 million he has asked for be included or else I can't get out of the way. I do this in the spirit of Robert Byrd and the way I have seen him operate. I admire it so much because I can't go home and look into the faces of these desperate people who are without now because of the Federal Government. The truth is, they need $200 million, if we want to be right by them. But the President only asked for 20. I am asking that we do at least that much. I thank the Senator for his consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, one of the important tasks we have in Congress is to ensure that our laws effectively deter violence and provide protection to those whose careers are dedicated to protecting our families and also our communities. With this in mind, today I rise to reintroduce the Federal Judiciary Protection Act with my esteemed colleague, Senator Leahy. This bill will provide greater protection to Federal law enforcement officials and their families. Under current law, a person who assaults, attempts to assault, or who threatens to kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family of a U.S. official, a U.S. judge, or a Federal law enforcement official, is subject to a punishment of a fine or imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both. This legislation seeks to expand these penalties in instances of assault with a weapon and a prior criminal history. In such cases, an individual could face up to 20 years in prison. This legislation would also strengthen the penalties for individuals who communicate threats through the mail. Currently, individuals who knowingly use the U.S. Postal Service to deliver any communication containing any threat are subject to a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to 5 years. Under this legislation, anyone who communicates a threat could face imprisonment of up to 10 years. Briefly, I would like to share several examples illustrating the need for this legislation. In my State of Oregon, Chief Judge Michael Hogan and his family were subjected to frightening, threatening phone calls, letters, and messages from an individual who had been convicted of previous crimes in Judge Hogan's courtroom. For months, he and his family lived with the fear that these threats to the lives of his wife and children could become reality, and, equally disturbing, that the individual could be back out on the street again in a matter of a few months, or a few years. Judge Hogan and his family are not alone. In 1995, Mr. Melvin Lee Davis threatened two judges in Oregon, one judge in Nevada, and the Clerk of the Court in Oregon. The threat was carried out to the point that the front door of the residence of a Mr. John Cooney was shot up in a drive-by shooting. Unfortunately for Mr. Cooney, he had the same name as one of the Oregon judges who was threatened. In September 1996, Lawrence County Judge Dominick Motto was stalked, harassed, and subjected to terrorist threats by Milton C. Reiguert, who was upset by a verdict in a case that Judge Motto had heard in his courtroom. After hearing the verdict, Reiguert stated his intention to ``point a rifle at his head and get what he wanted.'' These are just several examples of vicious acts focused at our Federal law enforcement officials. As a member of the legislative branch, I believe it is our responsibility to provide adequate protection to all Americans who serve to protect the life and liberty of every citizen in this Nation. I encourage my colleagues to join us in sponsoring this important legislation.