Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I withhold. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would be willing to yield back my time. I was just asking, if necessary, for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. That would be fine.

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. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent it be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Frist to increase funding for International HIV/AIDS efforts. This amendment will increase by $200 million in fiscal year 2002 to help the neediest countries cope with the burgeoning costs of prevention, care and treatment of those affected by HIV/AIDS and associated diseases. AIDS is one of the most recent and most devastating infectious diseases facing the world today. Since the virus was first identified about 20 years ago, more than 50 million people have been infected--and at the current rate of infection that number will top 100 million within 6 years. Of those being infected with HIV, half are between the ages of 10 and 24. Five young people will contract HIV/AIDS as each minute passes as I stand here speaking to you on the Senate floor. These numbers are beyond belief--these youth are the future of the world and yet that future is being endangered as surely as those lives are being endangered. Last year many of us on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee joined forces to authorize a real boost in funding to fight HIV/AIDS abroad. Senator Boxer, Frist, Kerry and I--and many others including Chairman Helms--succeeded in authorizing increased funding to meet the challenges of HIV/AIDS infection. We did this without care about party politics, ideology or conviction, working together to somehow find solutions to a horrible health problem. I note that last year our focus was basically on Africa. This year our attention has unfortunately been turned to new continents and new countries that are being impacted by HIV/AIDS. In the Far East--in Thailand for instance, in the Near East-- threatening India and in some countries of Eastern Europe and in Russia, HIV/AIDS is spreading quickly. Asia will soon have more new HIV infections than any other region. In Russia more Russians are projected to be diagnosed with HIV/AIDS by the end of the year than all cases from previous years combined. I could go on--HIV/AIDS will be responsible for the deaths of more men, women and children than all the soldiers killed in the major wars and conflicts of the 20th Century. All these facts, again, cause the mind to numb and the imagination to stagger. Vocabulary fails to describe this. I simply ask my colleagues to join Senator Frist and me in helping to fight HIV/AIDS abroad. Time and lives are wasting, even as we speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I say to my friend, I am awaiting the arrival of the senior Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, who will be here momentarily. If the Senator won't be long, why doesn't he go ahead and we will wait.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise to make a statement on a matter that troubles me deeply. I do so with considerable reluctance. It concerns a good friend of the United States, a country that for twenty years has been one of the bedrocks upon which the search of peace in the Middle East has rested, here I speak about the Arab Republican of Egypt. I am loathe to bring to this floor anything that mars the image of the country that produced a leader of the courage and vision of Anwar Sadat. I am told that the time is never right for such a statement. This is, as the experts always say, a ``critical moment in the Middle East,'' a ``turning point,'' or a ``cross-roads.'' A wrong word here and a misplaced gesture there, I am told, and the pendulum may swing from tension to confrontation. Well, they may be correct. But then the time may never be right to speak out. The wrong that has been committed in Egypt on a daily basis is one with which we in the West sadly have far too much experience. Indeed, it is a wrong that mars our history at its very roots and is something that we can never work too hard to remove from our thoughts and our consciousness. But because I know how far we have come in ridding this curse from our minds and hearts, and because I have come to learn how much it has become daily fare in the newspapers, airwaves, and pulpits of Egypt, I have put aside my reluctance to speak out on this issue today. The issue is anti-Semitism. I am not speaking of critiques of Israeli policy, but a resurgence of acerbic anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. I am speaking of the coarsest sort of hatred of Jews as Jews, the kind of hatred that pollutes the mind, infects the soul and ensures that peace remains stone cold. Caricatures of Jews that could have been lifted directly from the pages of Der Sturmer seem to have been transplanted directly into the leading Egyptian newspapers; accusations of far-fetched Jewish conspiracies that are restricted to the radical fringe in our country are daily fare of the elite press in Cairo--cartoons that are grotesque, stories that are lurid, articles that are filled with nothing but hate, loathing and intolerance. I have a long catalogue of vile statements, pictures, cartoons, and articles, but I will not sully the reputation of this chamber in reciting them to you today. I will, however, request inclusion in the Congressional Record of selections from several major Egyptian newspapers in recent months. These media outlets are all state-owned, pro-government newspapers. It is a sad reality that anti-Semitism exists in many parts of the globe, alongside its first cousins of racism, sexism, xenophobia, and other forms of intolerance. And I am the first to admit that we as a nation do not have clean hands here. But what separates our experience from the terrible form of anti-Semitism that we see in Egypt today is that we denounce it from the secular and religious pulpits of our society. We give it no sanction and no sanctuary in our public life. And we fight it wherever it rears its ugly head. Unfortunately, in Egypt the opposite seems to be the rule. Some of the vilest forms of anti-Semitic literature are published not in the sensationalist opposition press but in the major newspapers owned and operated by the Egyptian leaders who either dismiss the numerous examples of anti-Semitism as the stuff of far-left or far-right fringe groups or rush to hide behind the four word safe haven of ``freedom of the press.'' It is disappointing that Egyptian leaders do not take to the airwaves, opinion pages or pulpits of their country to denounce anti-Semitism and condemn those who would traffic in hate. It is particularly disappointing that Egyptian leaders do not take a stand against this hatred because of its history and its role. Egypt is a leader in the Arab world, which affords her enormous influence. Egypt has been a brave leader in the pursuit of a peace that, on this issue, has sadly lost its moral compass. Two generations after the Holocaust and the founding of Israel, I, for one, can no longer sit idly by as I watch a new generation of Middle Easterners grow up inheriting an ideology of hate. Nor can I sit idly by as we Americans annually funnel close to 2 billion dollars to Egypt, some of which subsidizes a government-owned press which promulgates hatred and corrupts the minds of its readers. Therefore, I believe that there needs to be a clear, unequivocal and systematic effort by the Government of Egypt to repudiate the purveyors of anti-Semitic hatred, to build a culture of tolerance on which the prospect of real peace can flourish. As I said at the outset, I rise today with extreme reluctance. I want to be clear that this is not an issue regarding the freedom of the press in Egypt; rather, it is a call to action. I hope my colleagues will join me in sending a message to our friends in Egypt that such ugly and despicable anti-Semitism rhetoric must be repudiated officially and strongly at every level.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and that I be allowed to speak briefly as in morning business.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, the great Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, ``To live fully is to be engaged in the passions of one's time.'' Few Oregonians--and few Americans--have lived a life as full as Alan ``Punch'' Green's. Alan Green was known to us who loved him as ``Punch.'' I say that few have lived a life as full as Punch's because few have made such a positive difference in the passions of our time. Punch passed away last Friday at the age of 75. And as his many friends--myself included--struggle to get used to the fact that we can no longer call Punch for his straightforward advice, I would like to pay tribute here on the Senate floor to this remarkable Oregonian. Punch was a member of what has been termed ``The Greatest Generation.'' Like so many others of that generation, Punch willingly risked his life for our country, as he served with distinction in the Pacific theater during World War II. And when he returned to Oregon following the war, Punch dedicated much of his life to making Oregon and America a better place in which to live, work, and raise a family. He founded and ran a number of businesses, where he earned a reputation as a caring and fair manager. He became active in the Republican Party, serving as chair of campaigns for Presidents Ford, Reagan, and Bush, and serving as a trusted mentor to countless other candidates, myself included. Indeed, when I began my campaign for the Senate, one of the first people I sought out for advice and support was Punch Green, and I could not have asked for a more loyal friend. Punch loved his home city, the city of Portland, OR, and he understood the importance of ensuring that Portland remained true to its name. As a commissioner and as President of the Port of Portland, Punch skillfully guided the port through an era of major growth and expansion. Punch's leadership on these issues came to the attention of President Reagan, who chose Punch to serve as chair of the Federal Maritime Commission, a post he filled with great skill for 4 years. Punch was nearing what many consider ``retirement age'' in the 1980s, and he certainly had earned the right to take it easy and spend time with his family. But Punch was always willing to answer the call of his country, and former President Bush was calling. In 1989, Punch packed his bags and accepted President Bush's request to serve as United States Ambassador to Romania. Punch arrived at the embassy in Bucharest just 2 weeks before the fall of the Ceausescu dictatorship. As tensions mounted in that country and explosions could be heard in the distance, Punch evacuated women and children from the embassy, and slept on his office couch for 10 days. Punch would later tell me that one of the highlights of his life was waving an American flag from the embassy window to the thunderous applause and cheers of thousands of Romanian citizens who were celebrating the end of Ceausescu's bloody reign. Punch's leadership in Romania at this critical time was recognized in 1992, when he received the State Department's Distinguished Honor Award. When his assignment in Romania came to its conclusion, Punch returned to Portland, where he continued to provide his inimitable leadership to a variety of worthy causes. One which was especially close to his heart was that of the Oregon Humane Society, which now has a beautiful new facility in Portland, thanks, in no small part, to Punch's vision and generosity. My thoughts today are with Punch's wife, Joan, his three daughters, and eight grandchildren. The Greek poet Sophocles once wrote that ``One must wait until the evening to see how splendid the day has been.'' Although Punch left us much too early, it is my prayer that those who loved him will take solace in the fact that as he neared the evening of his time here on Earth, Punch could look back at a life rich with family, rich with friends, and rich with making a difference in the passions of our time, and he could say that the day has indeed been splendid.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am delighted to congratulate an Oregon citizen and former intern in my office, Bryanna Hocking, of Eugene, OR, on her selection as a recipient of a George J. Mitchell Scholarship to study in Ireland beginning in the fall. This competitive, national scholarship enables American university graduates to pursue a year of study at institutions of higher learning in Ireland and Northern Ireland. These scholarships are awarded to individuals between the ages of 18 and 30 who have shown academic distinction, commitment to service, and potential for leadership. Bryanna will be an excellent student ambassador to Ireland. In May 2000, she received a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University's Walsh School of Foreign Service. An active member of her community, she was founder and co-chair of the Georgetown Women's Guild, which organized forums and discussions at the University on women's issues and served on the executive board of the Georgetown College Republicans. Bryanna is an aspiring journalist, an ambition sparked by her concerns about how the media dealt with the Balkans, Rwanda, and other areas where ethnic strife led to genocide. Bryanna hopes that she can combine her passion for journalism and international affairs in a career in which she contributes to increased harmony among the world's peoples. I congratulate her and wish her luck in her peace and development studies at the University of Limerick.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Kennedy the Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001, legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law. I want to keep my remarks brief, so I speak to you from the heart about hate crimes. Many of you know I am a Republican, a conservative man of faith from a religious minority. I have known firsthand persecution and discrimination because of my faith. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have taken great interest in religious freedom and fighting anti-Semitism abroad. I found that all of my colleagues have joined me in that goal in many ways. We have all asked other countries to stop hate, to stop ethnic violence and persecution of minorities. Today, I ask every Senator to take the same stand in our own country. If it were easy to speak out against hate thousands of miles away, then it must be easy to speak out against hate in your own backyard. Backyards in Wyoming--where Matthew Shepard was brutally beaten and left to die tied to a cattle fence off a lonely road. Backyards in Texas, where James Byrd, Jr. was dragged to death behind a pick-up truck. Backyards in Virginia, where Roanoke native Danny Lee Overstreet was brutally shot down in a hate crime last fall. Backyards in Alabama, where Jack Gaither was bludgeoned to death and set on fire. And backyards in Oregon, my state, where two women, Roxanne Ellis and Michelle Abdill of Medford, were killed in late 1995 because of their sexual orientation. This hate crimes legislation sends a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable. I look to my party and look for inclusion--a big tent approach to this issue. I hope that the President can join in this effort, I believe that given the opportunity, the White House can participate in this effort and play a significant role in the outcome. Further, I am committed to making sure that partisan rhetoric stays out of this issue and together we can work on both sides of the aisle to make this legislation public law. I fear any strain of hate or homophobia, any isolationism or xenophobia in politics today, and I believe that all my colleagues share this fear. Taking a stand against hate crimes isn't a liberal or a conservative issue--it's something we should all do. I believe that government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate, to defend them regardless of their status, be they female, disabled or gay. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. By changing this law we can change hearts and minds as well. The law is a teacher and we should teach our fellow citizens that all crime is hateful. But we can also teach that some crime is so odious that an extra measure of prosecution is demanded by us, so that it will never again be repeated among us.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Kennedy the Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001, legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law. I want to keep my remarks brief, so I speak to you from the heart about hate crimes. Many of you know I am a Republican, a conservative man of faith from a religious minority. I have known firsthand persecution and discrimination because of my faith. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have taken great interest in religious freedom and fighting anti-Semitism abroad. I found that all of my colleagues have joined me in that goal in many ways. We have all asked other countries to stop hate, to stop ethnic violence and persecution of minorities. Today, I ask every Senator to take the same stand in our own country. If it were easy to speak out against hate thousands of miles away, then it must be easy to speak out against hate in your own backyard. Backyards in Wyoming--where Matthew Shepard was brutally beaten and left to die tied to a cattle fence off a lonely road. Backyards in Texas, where James Byrd, Jr. was dragged to death behind a pick-up truck. Backyards in Virginia, where Roanoke native Danny Lee Overstreet was brutally shot down in a hate crime last fall. Backyards in Alabama, where Jack Gaither was bludgeoned to death and set on fire. And backyards in Oregon, my state, where two women, Roxanne Ellis and Michelle Abdill of Medford, were killed in late 1995 because of their sexual orientation. This hate crimes legislation sends a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable. I look to my party and look for inclusion--a big tent approach to this issue. I hope that the President can join in this effort, I believe that given the opportunity, the White House can participate in this effort and play a significant role in the outcome. Further, I am committed to making sure that partisan rhetoric stays out of this issue and together we can work on both sides of the aisle to make this legislation public law. I fear any strain of hate or homophobia, any isolationism or xenophobia in politics today, and I believe that all my colleagues share this fear. Taking a stand against hate crimes isn't a liberal or a conservative issue--it's something we should all do. I believe that government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate, to defend them regardless of their status, be they female, disabled or gay. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. By changing this law we can change hearts and minds as well. The law is a teacher and we should teach our fellow citizens that all crime is hateful. But we can also teach that some crime is so odious that an extra measure of prosecution is demanded by us, so that it will never again be repeated among us.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I agree with the Senator. Let me read the exact wording of the Fourth Circuit's response to that very question. A unanimous Fourth Circuit found the restriction was narrowly tailored and served the compelling interest. The restrictions are limited to lobbyists and the political committees that employ them, the two most ubiquitous and powerful players in the political arena. They found the restrictions cover only that period during which the risk of an actual quid pro quo or the appearance of one runs the highest risk. Again, it is a time-and-place regulation. I suspect people in North Carolina, just as the people of Oregon, have a lot more confidence in hearings going on in the morning and know there is not a fundraiser going on in the evening.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Would it be appropriate to call for a quorum call to work it out? Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I guess my question is, Would the Senator like to amend the amendment to include the prohibition of these kinds of solicitations?

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If you wanted to tighten up the bill even more on that account, I would be happy with an amendment you might offer to that effect. I am trying to go as far as I can constitutionally and say there can be no exchange of cash when you are in a legislative session because it does not look good. It does not smell good. We ought to change it, and a lot of States are cleaning up their State governments with this very kind of law. We should do no less in this Congress.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. We have tailored this amendment after the North Carolina one in order to make sure it passes judicial muster. I believe it does. I am willing to put it as part of a nonseverability clause. I say to the Senator, my concern about the absence of nonseverability is not to every component of this bill. It is the banning of soft money, whereas I would limit it, as the Hagel proposal. It is the banning of soft money if you do not also include these outside groups. The Senator knows firsthand, I am sure, as a Republican, when it comes time that you are under attack, you have some very powerful and effective groups against you. You have the Sierra Club; you have the trial lawyers; you have labor unions, and on and on. They are very good at what they do. They hit and they run and are accountable to no one. They do not even have to tell the truth. But the only rescue for a Republican is the Republican Senate Campaign Committee. Just in fairness, if you are going to empower such groups, if you are not going to include them, then, frankly, I think we do great damage. To Democrats who may say this is to our advantage, let me say what will happen. The day this is enacted and soft money is banned and held constitutional, every Republican dollar flowing to that Senate committee is going to find its way immediately into a Republican Sierra Club, and all of this will not be disclosable, it will not be accountable, and we will have dumbed down America's democracy. That is the point I am trying to make. That is why those two components, soft money versus regulating outside groups, have to be tied together if we are to make our country better instead of worse.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. It doesn't prohibit that. I don't know how to prohibit that constitutionally, but I do know how to constitutionally prohibit the time and place in which these activities are engaged. But the Senator, in his earlier point, said: What does this mean to a Member of Congress? You don't have to be a millionaire to have an advantage by being a Member of Congress. You probably have a large campaign war chest already carried over from your last campaign, if you are a safe incumbent. So these are just the facts of life. I don't know how I can make it perfect, but I know this amendment makes it better.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. It bans accepting them.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. It does.