Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the State Hunger Assistance in Response to Emergency or SHARE Act of 2001. I introduce this bill because it is a tragedy, that in this land of plenty, people across America go to bed hungry. It is high time that Congress do something to combat this tragedy. Over the past few years, my home State of Oregon has seen an unprecedented economic boom--as has much of the country. Our silicon forest has grown by leaps and bounds; unemployment has dropped, and our welfare rolls have been reduced by half. But this prosperity has not reached all Oregonians. Oregon has the appalling distinction of having the highest rate of hunger in the nation, according to the USDA. That means that per capita, more people in Oregon go without meals than in any other State. I think that it may surprise some of my colleagues to learn that many of their home States suffer from severe hunger problems as well. Perhaps the most tragic aspect of America's hunger problem is that it can be prevented. Federal programs, like Food Stamps and WIC, can help families fill the gap between the size of their food bill and the size of their paycheck, but too many people don't know that they qualify for the help available to them through these programs. This is especially true in the rural areas of Oregon, which is also home to most of my State's hungry citizens. Help exists for hungry people, and I want to make sure every American knows about the resources the Federal Government has already made available to them. The Food Stamp Act of 1977 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to provide states with up to 50 percent of the costs of informational activities related to program outreach; however, because the remaining 50 percent of the funds for these limited outreach activities must be supplied by the State, most States do not participate. To ensure that more Oregonians and hungry people across the country take advantage of the resources available to them, the SHARE Act will provide additional funds to the 10 hungriest states, as named by the USDA, to help those in need learn about and sign up for federal food assistance programs. The SHARE bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants of up to $1 million to these states for 3 years. States can use these flexible funds for outreach--anything from distributing informational flyers at community health clinics to funding staff to help people fill out application forms. In addition, the bill will allow the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants available to States with particularly innovative outreach demonstration projects, so that we can find the best ways to combat hunger. In a country as blessed with abundance as ours, no family should go hungry simply because they lack the information they need to get help. When passed, the SHARE Act will give Oregon and other states an opportunity to devise new and innovative programs that will allow the needy in our states to get the help they so desperately need. The idea behind this legislation is not very complicated--I simply want to make people aware of the food assistance already available to them--but I believe that this bill is as important as any we will consider in the Senate this year. With the help of my colleagues, we can stem the tide of this very preventable tragedy.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the State Hunger Assistance in Response to Emergency or SHARE Act of 2001. I introduce this bill because it is a tragedy, that in this land of plenty, people across America go to bed hungry. It is high time that Congress do something to combat this tragedy. Over the past few years, my home State of Oregon has seen an unprecedented economic boom--as has much of the country. Our silicon forest has grown by leaps and bounds; unemployment has dropped, and our welfare rolls have been reduced by half. But this prosperity has not reached all Oregonians. Oregon has the appalling distinction of having the highest rate of hunger in the nation, according to the USDA. That means that per capita, more people in Oregon go without meals than in any other State. I think that it may surprise some of my colleagues to learn that many of their home States suffer from severe hunger problems as well. Perhaps the most tragic aspect of America's hunger problem is that it can be prevented. Federal programs, like Food Stamps and WIC, can help families fill the gap between the size of their food bill and the size of their paycheck, but too many people don't know that they qualify for the help available to them through these programs. This is especially true in the rural areas of Oregon, which is also home to most of my State's hungry citizens. Help exists for hungry people, and I want to make sure every American knows about the resources the Federal Government has already made available to them. The Food Stamp Act of 1977 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to provide states with up to 50 percent of the costs of informational activities related to program outreach; however, because the remaining 50 percent of the funds for these limited outreach activities must be supplied by the State, most States do not participate. To ensure that more Oregonians and hungry people across the country take advantage of the resources available to them, the SHARE Act will provide additional funds to the 10 hungriest states, as named by the USDA, to help those in need learn about and sign up for federal food assistance programs. The SHARE bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants of up to $1 million to these states for 3 years. States can use these flexible funds for outreach--anything from distributing informational flyers at community health clinics to funding staff to help people fill out application forms. In addition, the bill will allow the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants available to States with particularly innovative outreach demonstration projects, so that we can find the best ways to combat hunger. In a country as blessed with abundance as ours, no family should go hungry simply because they lack the information they need to get help. When passed, the SHARE Act will give Oregon and other states an opportunity to devise new and innovative programs that will allow the needy in our states to get the help they so desperately need. The idea behind this legislation is not very complicated--I simply want to make people aware of the food assistance already available to them--but I believe that this bill is as important as any we will consider in the Senate this year. With the help of my colleagues, we can stem the tide of this very preventable tragedy.

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.

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 September 26, 1992 in Salem, Oregon. A black lesbian and a gay man died after a firebomb was thrown into their apartment. Philip Bruce Wilson Jr., 20; Sean Robert Edwards, 21; Yolanda Renee Cotton, 19; and Leon L. Tucker, 22, were charged in connection with the murders. 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. Madam 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 1, 1991 in Staten Island, New York. An attacker called 53-year-old Frank Kovarik ``fag'' before striking him repeatedly with a baseball bat, breaking his right ankle, fracturing his right leg, breaking a kneecap and wrist, and causing a concussion. The attacker and an accomplice also stole $400 and the keys to Kovarik's car. 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 July 26, 1990 in New York City. A gang of men shouting anti-gay slurs attacked three men. Seven men were arrested in the attack. One victim was slashed on the face and another was cut. The assailants picked up the third and threatened to throw him in the Hudson River. 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 September 28, 1994 in Las Vegas, NV. A gay man, Scott Grundy, 30, was shot to death. Aaron Vandaele, 19, was charged with murder, robbery, burglary, and grand larceny after he allegedly said he planned to visit a gay bar to rob a homosexual. 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 November 7, 1998 in Easton, MA. An Easton teenager threw a large rock at a 17-year- old boy he thought was gay, kicked him in the head and yelled, swore, and called the victim a ``fag.'' The victim suffered a broken nose and a concussion. A week before the assault, the perpetrator told friends he hated gay people and thought they should be beaten up. 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 distinguished colleagues to support the reauthorization of the Drug- Free Communities Support Program. Drug-Free Community grants have had an extremely positive impact on my home State of Oregon, and I know that the program has benefitted a great number of communities all across this country. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important bill. Federal Drug-Free Community grants serve programs in 14 Oregon communities in urban, suburban, and rural areas alike. All Drug-Free Community grants go directly to communities to support a wide variety of innovative drug-abuse prevention programs, ranging from community education programs and after-school programs to parenting classes and youth camps. Communities are invested in the process through a dollar- for-dollar match requirement, ensuring their interest in getting results, and they are getting results. With help from Federal Drug-Free Community dollars, Oregon drug abuse prevention groups are increasing citizen participation and they have produced a measurable decrease in both adult and youth substance abuse. Portland's Regional Drug Initiative, RDI, for example, has promoted the establishment of drug-free workplaces among the city's large and small employers. Over 3,000 employers have attended an RDI training session, and of those, 92 percent have instituted drug-free workplace policies, resulting in a 5.5 percent decrease in positive workplace drug tests. At the Southern Oregon Drug Awareness program in Medford, OR, 320 young people have participated in its violence prevention course, and upon completion, two-thirds of those students report having no additional discipline referrals in school. These are two fine examples of how the Drug-Free Communities Support Program is directly responsible for positively impacting lives in Oregon and all across our Nation. This bill will reauthorize the Drug-Free Communities Support Program to provide grants for an additional five years. The bill will also authorize the creation of a National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute, which will serve as a valuable information clearing house for programs seeking to improve themselves by using the best practices of other successful community programs. The bill also establishes a new coalition mentoring program which will enable established coalitions like the Oregon Partnership to help communities develop their own local drug prevention coalitions. Substance prevention works, and drug abuse is becoming less common through community prevention efforts, but this is no time to rest on our laurels. Over the next fifteen years, the youth population in the United States will grow by 21 percent, and we must ensure that the programs are in place to prevent these youths from succumbing to drug- related problems, such as academic failure, drug-related violence, and HIV infection. The Drug-Free Communities Support Program is an important partner in local efforts to prevent these problems, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its reauthorization.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished colleagues to support the reauthorization of the Drug- Free Communities Support Program. Drug-Free Community grants have had an extremely positive impact on my home State of Oregon, and I know that the program has benefitted a great number of communities all across this country. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important bill. Federal Drug-Free Community grants serve programs in 14 Oregon communities in urban, suburban, and rural areas alike. All Drug-Free Community grants go directly to communities to support a wide variety of innovative drug-abuse prevention programs, ranging from community education programs and after-school programs to parenting classes and youth camps. Communities are invested in the process through a dollar- for-dollar match requirement, ensuring their interest in getting results, and they are getting results. With help from Federal Drug-Free Community dollars, Oregon drug abuse prevention groups are increasing citizen participation and they have produced a measurable decrease in both adult and youth substance abuse. Portland's Regional Drug Initiative, RDI, for example, has promoted the establishment of drug-free workplaces among the city's large and small employers. Over 3,000 employers have attended an RDI training session, and of those, 92 percent have instituted drug-free workplace policies, resulting in a 5.5 percent decrease in positive workplace drug tests. At the Southern Oregon Drug Awareness program in Medford, OR, 320 young people have participated in its violence prevention course, and upon completion, two-thirds of those students report having no additional discipline referrals in school. These are two fine examples of how the Drug-Free Communities Support Program is directly responsible for positively impacting lives in Oregon and all across our Nation. This bill will reauthorize the Drug-Free Communities Support Program to provide grants for an additional five years. The bill will also authorize the creation of a National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute, which will serve as a valuable information clearing house for programs seeking to improve themselves by using the best practices of other successful community programs. The bill also establishes a new coalition mentoring program which will enable established coalitions like the Oregon Partnership to help communities develop their own local drug prevention coalitions. Substance prevention works, and drug abuse is becoming less common through community prevention efforts, but this is no time to rest on our laurels. Over the next fifteen years, the youth population in the United States will grow by 21 percent, and we must ensure that the programs are in place to prevent these youths from succumbing to drug- related problems, such as academic failure, drug-related violence, and HIV infection. The Drug-Free Communities Support Program is an important partner in local efforts to prevent these problems, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its reauthorization.

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 West Palm Beach, FL. Two teenagers admitted they beat a homosexual man to death last year, alleging the attack was provoked when the 118- pound victim called one of the young men ``beautiful.'' 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 last month. The Local law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred July 24, 1999 in San Diego, California. Hundreds of gay-pride marchers and spectators were tear-gassed when someone threw a military-issue tear-gas grenade near the Family Matters contingent during the 25th annual Pride Parade. Family Matters is a social and educational group for gay and lesbian parents and their families. The 70-person contingent included small children and babies in strollers. 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 move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If the manager will yield, I join the Senator from West Virginia in asking for a clarification because I think it is very important that we know what we are talking about. I am here standing for the proposition that tolerance is a two-way street; that we should tolerate the gays and lesbians in our community, but we should also tolerate the Boy Scouts in our community. Clearly, there are some groups that have national charters that this Government recognizes, such as the Boy Scouts, and there are groups that do not. That kind of a distinction perhaps ought to be made because I think we all want to be voting for the right thing. There are some groups, such as the skinheads, that I don't want to be voting for today. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his question.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I think I am going to come at this issue more differently than any of my colleagues who have spoken so far. I stand here as an Eagle Scout. I stand here as an Oregon Senator. I stand here as one who believes that gays and lesbians are due equal rights. I have tried to demonstrate that in the way I have conducted my service in the Senate, by supporting Jim Hormel's nomination to be an Ambassador for our country, by being the cosponsor, with Senator Kennedy, of hate crimes legislation, and by now endorsing a new version of ENDA that has a broader religious exemption. I believe I stand here with some credibility when I come to the issue of tolerance. One of my core values is that if we are to be true disciples, we should love one another. I try actively not to discriminate. But I believe I just heard the majority leader and the Senator from New York say that the Boy Scouts have a right to be in the schools but we can discriminate against them. And that is what impels me to this Chamber this morning. This amendment of Senator Helms is not raised in a vacuum. It hurts me personally, as one of five sons of my parents to have the Eagle badge, and the father of another Eagle, and another son on the way to Eagle, to see the values of that organization held up to ridicule by some on the left who I believe are terribly intolerant and who do discriminate against people of faith whenever they can. I will tell you that in my working with the Human Rights Campaign, the folks there with whom I have worked have been very respectful of religious faith and have worked with me regarding religious organizations under the proposed ENDA law. I think that was a tolerant thing for them to do. My great frustration is trying to say to the right and to the left: Toleration is a two-way street. What I have heard back and forth this morning is intolerance on both sides. I will tell you, as a Republican, how disappointed I was to see from the Republican Steering Committee this morning chapter and verse of instances where a homosexual man and Scout leader was also a pedophile. The inference they are trying to draw is that if you are a homosexual, ergo, you are a pedophile and cannot be a Scout leader. That is no more true than the proposition that a man who coaches a girl's soccer team will necessarily sexually abuse the girls. We have to get beyond these stereotypes. This is wrong; this is intolerant; and it goes both ways. So I believe Senator Helms is here in good faith. I believe he is going to amend his amendment. I believe we can narrow it in a way to exclude those groups who do not have national charters with this Government or in some way to say that, yes, we do feel a need to stand up for the Boy Scouts of America. Assuming we find that language, I intend to vote with Senator Helms because, I will tell you, what I learned as a Scout is an ideal that I want to see preserved for our country. And I don't want them excluded from the national parks; I don't want them excluded from our public places; because I believe what I learned as a Boy Scout is as invaluable and as enduring today as it was when I learned it as a 12- year-old boy. Madam President, we are doing a school bill here because we want to help our kids. Let me tell you what I learned as a Scout. We memorized it. I have to use these glasses now. I didn't then. But these are the qualities I would like taught in school: A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. Then you come to the Scout oath. The last phrase is what everybody focuses on anymore. I didn't even know what it meant in a modern context when I learned it as a boy. It is: On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country And to obey the Scout law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, Mentally awake, and morally straight. Do you know what I knew as a boy about ``morally straight''? I didn't know anything about gays or lesbians or ``straight.'' What I was taught that meant was that as a boy and a young man I should be sexually abstinent and that as an adult and a married man I should be sexually faithful to my spouse. Is that wrong? I know that that is a tough standard, but I say the U.S. Senate should keep that ideal high. And we can do it by supporting the Boy Scouts of America. So while we are working out the language on the Helms amendment, I thank the Senator from North Carolina for the spirit of the amendment that says these ideals, these values are valuable still. Madam President, I think what is often lost in this debate about the Boy Scouts is how it is even organized. The Boy Scouts is a national institution with a national charter with this Government, and it is put out for any group that wants to sponsor it. They are called chartering institutions. Most of the chartering institutions are churches and synagogues. Some are police stations. Some may even be a school district. But I tell you, we ought to understand the spirit of religious accommodation. It ought to apply to the Boy Scouts as well. But in many cities in our country, this organization is being singled out for discrimination, and it is wrong because this is a standard. These are values that I want taught in public school. And these are values that when I live them, my life is better for it and my pursuit of happiness is more full. So I hope we can find the right language because this Eagle Scout feels a need to vote for the Boy Scouts of America on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I withdraw my request.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment of Senator Helms that just passed be allowed to be amended as Senator Byrd has explained it and as some Members lobbied to have it changed. I think it will be a better amendment. If it is not done here, it ought to be done in the conference committee. We all understand that. No one wants this opened up to skinheads, Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, or any other hate group, but we want to say the standards of the Boy Scouts of America are standards and values that are valuable still.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I say to Senator Murray, I don't cast aspersions on anyone. But I have heard a few say that the Boy Scouts are discriminators and therefore should be discriminated. I have heard that in several remarks. I am only making reference to that. I believe some legitimate concerns about the amendment have been raised. I am hearing from some that the Boy Scouts are out of date and old-fashioned. I am saying they ought to remain in fashion.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy last month. 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 want to describe a terrible crime that occurred June 20, 1993 in Everett, Washington. A gay man was stabbed to death by a hitchhiker who allegedly told friends he committed the crime because he hated homosexuals. Isaiah Clarence Enault, 24, was charged with murder and is a suspect in a stabbing assault of another gay man. 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 commend the exceptional achievement of 8 schools in Portland, OR: Humboldt, Marysville, Chief Joseph, Woodmere, Clark, Grout, Kenton and Vestal Elementary Schools. We have spent 8 weeks in this Chamber talking about education. We have debated the best ways to educate America's children, to raise academic achievement of disadvantaged students, and change failing schools into successes. While we have been busy talking, schools in my home State have been working hard to educate our children. I want to make special mention of eight schools in the Portland Public School District. Over the past 3 years, these remarkable schools--where more than half of the students come from low income families--made greater strides in raising student test scores than all others in the school district. Due to the hard work of students, parents, teachers, and principals, reading and math scores have significantly improved, the achievement gap between poor and minority students and white students narrowed, and parents, including those new to our country, became part of the fabric of the school community. Today, I commend the principals and teachers of these great schools. These educators represent an ideal. They are dedicated; they are creative; and they transform children into scholars. They will do anything for their students, even work extra jobs to earn money to buy books for their students. Their hard work has helped their students achieve record academic improvement today and it has set the stage for these children's success for years to come. I thank them for their efforts. I also thank the parents of these children. They have made a real difference in their children's education by volunteering at school, reading with their children, and encouraging their students to devote their best efforts to their studies. Above all, I salute the students of these outstanding schools. The countless hours they have spent inside and outside the classroom practicing their reading and writing, working math problems, and conducting science experiments have not been in vain. They have paid off in a remarkable way. Many of these students don't speak English as their first language; many come from low income families; and all are from areas of the city which had never expected to see such success. Yet these very students have realized this extraordinary accomplishment. The improvements in the test scores of these children are incredible. The Oregonian newspaper reports the following: At Humboldt [Elementary], 71 percent of fifth graders in 2000 met or exceeded math benchmarks. Only 31 percent of those students met math standards as third graders in 1998. At Marysville Elementary in Southeast Portland, 78 percent of fifth-graders met math benchmarks in 2000. Thirty-two percent of those students passed the State math test as third graders. But even more important than these significant gains in test scores, these dedicated students have cultivated a love of learning that will last the rest of their lives. This thirst for knowledge guarantees that this is just the first of many successes to come. A study by the Portland Public Schools Foundation attributed the advances of these schools to the same principles we have been discussing here: strong principals, high parent involvement, and professional development opportunities for teachers. I share the achievement of these students with my colleagues because it reminds every member of the U.S. Senate that better education is becoming a reality across America. Our work here is important, but the true source of academic achievement is the dedication, the dreams, and the hard work of students, teachers, and principals like these in Portland. The best we can do is to give them the tools they need to succeed. In closing, allow me to commend, once again, the students, parents, and educators in these schools for this great accomplishment, for the hope they give us, and for the high standard they set for all of us.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague from Oregon in reintroducing the Conquering Pain Act. He and I have worked long and hard together to expand access to effective pain and symptom management for chronic pain and terminally ill patients, and I believe that this legislation is an important step toward accomplishing that goal. This is an issue of great importance to my home state of Oregon, and a matter of personal significance to me. Prior to my service in elected office, I served as a volunteer for my church. In this capacity, I found my professional work as a food processor in a constant, but blessed, state of interruption. On a weekly basis and at the oddest of hours, I found myself making continual rounds at St. Anthony's Hospital in Pendleton, Oregon. On many occasions I shared with parents the unspeakable joy of welcoming newborn babies into this world. On others, I suffered in heartbreaking sorrow as I tried to comfort the critically ill, or hold the hands of those who lay at the brink of eternity. On too many of these occasions, patients suffered intense pain and discomfort during their final hours; sometimes as a result of inadequate pain management techniques, and sometimes as a result of our medical focus on curing illness and prolonging life at any cost. I have seen many beloved friends suffer unnecessarily and I believe that all Americans have been touched at some point by a friend or family member struggling to cope with chronic or acute pain. We all deserve a health care system committed to adequately addressing the comfort of ailing patients. The legislation we reintroduce today, the Conquering Pain Act, is consistent with my belief that the practice of medicine must place greater emphasis on helping people who are experiencing chronic and acute pain. The Conquering Pain Act of 2001 will take a number of steps to ensure that patients have greater access to effective pain management. This legislation will commission studies by the Surgeon General's office, the General Accounting Office, the Institute of Medicine, and MedPac to examine the state of pain and symptom management in the United States, and to review regulatory obstacles that stifle effective pain management in our health care system. The Act will establish demonstration projects at the Department of Health and Human Services and other institutions to provide advanced pain management care and to research effective methods to measure improvement in the skills, knowledge, and attitudes of health care personnel in pain and symptom management. In addition, this bill will make important and timely information related to pain management available to patients and health care professionals over the Internet. The Conquering Pain Act of 2001 will do something that should have been done many years ago; it will finally establish a coordinated Federal agenda regarding pain and symptom management. For better or for worse, our health care system has focused intensely on curing disease but has never adequately addressed the need to provide effective pain management. Americans should expect their health care providers to attend to their comfort as well as their health, and I believe that this legislation will go a long way toward addressing this long- standing deficiency.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy last month. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred in St. Louis, MO in 1998. A gay man was allegedly assaulted by a male neighbor who came into the victim's garage and hit him 12 times with a baseball bat saying, ``You are a faggot motherf---er who needs to move [out of this neighborhood]. If you don't move, you're gonna die.'' The victim required 70 stitches and sustained a permanent head injury. 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 am pleased to come to the floor with Senator Kerry today and am grateful that the manager of this bill has accepted our amendments. I will speak to No. 423. This is something Senator Kerry and I worked on for some time because of our fundamental belief that principals shape the environment in which teachers and students ultimately succeed or fail. We believe improving the quality of school is the most effective way to make systematic improvements in our educational system. The school principal of today is more than a manager. Today's principal needs to be an effective instructional leader. Instructional leaders develop and implement strategies for improving teaching and learning; they develop a vision and establish clear goals for student performance. School principals provide direction in achieving state goals; encourage others to contribute to goal achievement; secure commitment to a course of action from individuals and groups in the school and community. They are instrumental to the success of a school, and we have a responsibility to help them succeed in this role. To be effective, principals need more than workshops or other one- time professional development ``events.'' They need high quality, ongoing professional development focused on student achievement. There is no doubt that teacher quality is important, but it is the collection of teachers working with a unified purpose that transforms a school. That critical development comes only with a skilled effective leader at the helm. A 1999 report issued by the National Association of State Boards of Education characterized effective principals as the ``lynchpins of school improvement'' and the ``gatekeepers of change.'' The National Association of State Boards of Education views principals as impacting both the implementation and sustainability of reforms focused on student achievement. Principals have a powerful effect on the culture of a school: Teachers will model the behavior of a principal whom they trust and who has knowledge about good instruction. Currently, professional development funding is available to teachers, but far too few principals receive similar professional development options because school districts often decide to devote limited funding to teacher programs first. That is why this amendment allows principals to access federal professional development funds. Not only do we need to help our current principals be more effective, we also need to address the critical shortage of school administrators. Too many schools opened this fall without a principal. Although the teacher shortage is well known, discussions about the lack of qualified school leaders to fill the position of principal have just begun, and they have begun with this amendment. In Vermont, one of every five principals has retired or resigned since the end of the last school year. In Washington State, 15 percent of principals did the same last year. In 1999, New York City had 200 schools that opened with temporary leaders. School districts face a monumental task of finding effective leaders for our nation's schools. Cities and states nationwide report principal vacancies and only a trickle of qualified applicants, if any, willing to fill the positions. A recent study by the Educational Research Service estimates that more than 40 percent of public school principals will retire over the next ten years. Our school leaders are graying and we are not replacing them with enough qualified candidates. Leadership plays a pivotal role in all spheres of our national life, but we have not yet made it a priority in schools. The business and corporate community has long considered enlightened leadership a prerequisite for successful change. It cultivates young leaders and provides extraordinary resources for their development. The commitment to developing and ensuring strong leadership extends to the armed forces, where we provide officer-training programs and service academies for preparing leaders for all military services. We need to do the same for the potential leaders of our schools. This amendment does exactly that, by allowing funds to be used for mentoring aspiring principals and recruiting leadership candidates. There are excellent programs around the country, like Portland State University's Graduate School of Education, ready to help train administrators, if necessary funds are made available. The role of the principal must be recognized if schools are going to improve on a national level. The new policies being implemented here in Congress will, for the most part, have to be implemented at the school level by principals. We have a responsibility to equip principals to carry out the achievement goals we have set for them. I am asking my colleagues along with Senator Kennedy and others to support our Principals amendment. This amendment will allow states to use Teacher Quality funds to improve the quality of elementary and secondary principals and assistant principals. This could include such state options as reforming principal certification, ensuring that principals have the instructional skills to help educators teach, and mentoring principals. These functions could help states ensure that enough high quality principals are ready to lead our children and our schools into the 21st century. I would also like to address the need for alternative education in our children's schools. Senator Kerry and I have been working together for several years to address the problem of educating troubled and chronically disruptive children in schools. Today we offer an amendment, number 455, which will allow states to use Title VI Safe and Drug Free Schools money for alternative education, when it relates to drug and violence prevention, and to try to prevent these students from dropping out of school. Alternative education options need to exist for the benefit of all students--both the disruptive students and their classmates. Removing potentially violent or chronically disruptive children from the classroom can leave other students free to learn. But more than that, just removing these difficult students from the classroom without providing alternative placements simply leaves them unsupervised. It also leaves them without opportunities to learn the skills they will need in life. This puts the students at even higher risk for failure later in life. What these children need is appropriate, intensive assistance that can only be provided outside the regular classroom. Alternative education can meet their needs for supervision, remediation of behavior, maintenance of academic progress, and it can help prevent them from dropping out. Clearly, alternative education will not be a ``magic bullet''; however, it can serve a number of very important purposes. First, it can improve safety in schools, by working with students who may be a danger to themselves, other children, and staff. Second, alternative education can also prevent disruptions to learning for the overwhelming majority of students who come to school to learn. Third, as I have already mentioned, it can provide appropriate help to chronically disruptive and violent students. According to administrators in Multnomah County's Department of Community Justice, half the youth who are on probation or parole are also enrolled in alternative schools. Just think of the implications for society and these individuals and their families later in life if these troubled youngsters are denied the support they need to grow both academically and behaviorally. Finally, alternative education options can prevent high risk students from dropping out of school. This gives them a much better chance of becoming contributing members of society. Research from the Northwest Regional Education Laboratory, based in my home state of Oregon, has shown that at least two thirds of the students in community based alternative schools--all former dropouts-- have found academic and social success after being enrolled in the program. Last winter, I talked with 150 Oregon educators about the best ways to prevent students from dropping out. Among the solutions, they recommended alternative education as a critical tool for keeping kids in school. Despite the fact that we know that alternative education is so critical, there are simply not enough dollars available to reach all the students who need it. I am holding letters from educators in my home state telling me of their great need for federal help to fund alternative school options. I know this need for funds exists across the country as well. Therefore, I ask you to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Kerry, and me in support of our alternative education amendment. Allowing states to use Safe and Drug Free Schools funds for alternative education will help ensure that no children, even the ones at highest risk, are left behind. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague from Oregon in reintroducing the Conquering Pain Act. He and I have worked long and hard together to expand access to effective pain and symptom management for chronic pain and terminally ill patients, and I believe that this legislation is an important step toward accomplishing that goal. This is an issue of great importance to my home state of Oregon, and a matter of personal significance to me. Prior to my service in elected office, I served as a volunteer for my church. In this capacity, I found my professional work as a food processor in a constant, but blessed, state of interruption. On a weekly basis and at the oddest of hours, I found myself making continual rounds at St. Anthony's Hospital in Pendleton, Oregon. On many occasions I shared with parents the unspeakable joy of welcoming newborn babies into this world. On others, I suffered in heartbreaking sorrow as I tried to comfort the critically ill, or hold the hands of those who lay at the brink of eternity. On too many of these occasions, patients suffered intense pain and discomfort during their final hours; sometimes as a result of inadequate pain management techniques, and sometimes as a result of our medical focus on curing illness and prolonging life at any cost. I have seen many beloved friends suffer unnecessarily and I believe that all Americans have been touched at some point by a friend or family member struggling to cope with chronic or acute pain. We all deserve a health care system committed to adequately addressing the comfort of ailing patients. The legislation we reintroduce today, the Conquering Pain Act, is consistent with my belief that the practice of medicine must place greater emphasis on helping people who are experiencing chronic and acute pain. The Conquering Pain Act of 2001 will take a number of steps to ensure that patients have greater access to effective pain management. This legislation will commission studies by the Surgeon General's office, the General Accounting Office, the Institute of Medicine, and MedPac to examine the state of pain and symptom management in the United States, and to review regulatory obstacles that stifle effective pain management in our health care system. The Act will establish demonstration projects at the Department of Health and Human Services and other institutions to provide advanced pain management care and to research effective methods to measure improvement in the skills, knowledge, and attitudes of health care personnel in pain and symptom management. In addition, this bill will make important and timely information related to pain management available to patients and health care professionals over the Internet. The Conquering Pain Act of 2001 will do something that should have been done many years ago; it will finally establish a coordinated Federal agenda regarding pain and symptom management. For better or for worse, our health care system has focused intensely on curing disease but has never adequately addressed the need to provide effective pain management. Americans should expect their health care providers to attend to their comfort as well as their health, and I believe that this legislation will go a long way toward addressing this long- standing deficiency.