Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. On the night of September 1, 2007, Josie Smith-Malave, her sister Julie Smith, and her friend Emily Durwood, were attacked outside a Long Island bar for being gay. The three women had been at the bar that night, and, as they left, they were followed outside by three women and about nine men. The group of about a dozen young adults began to crowd around the three women, shouting antigay slurs, throwing sticks and cups at them and spitting on them. The group then began to punch and kick the three women. One of the victims suffered a head injury, another suffered a knee injury, and all three were badly bruised as a result of the attack. The attackers fled the scene before police arrived, but one man was arrested 4 days later for his alleged involvement in the assault, which included stealing a camera from and injuring one of the women. He is charged with a hate-biased crime. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Matthew Shepard Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, The Better Health for America's Children Act,'' with my esteemed colleague Senator Edward Kennedy that will serve to block implementation of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, guidance issued on August 17, 2007, which negatively impacts the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. I also am pleased to be joined by fellow Finance Committee members Senator Rockefeller and Senator Snowe as we introduce this important bill. If allowed to go forward, this new policy will have a devastating impact on our Nation's children's access to affordable health care coverage. The guidance, as set out in the August 17 letter to State Health Officials, sets unrealistic standards that will serve only to prevent States from covering children with incomes above 250 percent of the Federal poverty level, FPL, under SCHIP. While the agency has stated that it simply is trying to preserve coverage for low-income children, this policy will impede a State's ability to expand health insurance to children whose family income is above $42,925 for a family of three. With health care costs increasingly being priced out of working families' reach, this income limit is unrealistic. In July 2007, the U.S. Senate recognized this when it passed a bipartisan bill that would allow States to cover children with family incomes up to 300 percent FPL under SCHIP. As the recently released census data shows, the number of uninsured children grew to 9 million in 2006. The administration should be working with the U.S. Senate to reauthorize SCHIP and deliver to States the tools they need to enroll the 6 million children who are eligible for SCHIP but not enrolled. It shouldn't be wasting resources on putting up roadblocks intended to prevent coverage. I hope that the Senate can work together to advance this bipartisan proposal to ensure that the SCHIP program remains strong and low-income children have access the health care.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, The Better Health for America's Children Act,'' with my esteemed colleague Senator Edward Kennedy that will serve to block implementation of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, guidance issued on August 17, 2007, which negatively impacts the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. I also am pleased to be joined by fellow Finance Committee members Senator Rockefeller and Senator Snowe as we introduce this important bill. If allowed to go forward, this new policy will have a devastating impact on our Nation's children's access to affordable health care coverage. The guidance, as set out in the August 17 letter to State Health Officials, sets unrealistic standards that will serve only to prevent States from covering children with incomes above 250 percent of the Federal poverty level, FPL, under SCHIP. While the agency has stated that it simply is trying to preserve coverage for low-income children, this policy will impede a State's ability to expand health insurance to children whose family income is above $42,925 for a family of three. With health care costs increasingly being priced out of working families' reach, this income limit is unrealistic. In July 2007, the U.S. Senate recognized this when it passed a bipartisan bill that would allow States to cover children with family incomes up to 300 percent FPL under SCHIP. As the recently released census data shows, the number of uninsured children grew to 9 million in 2006. The administration should be working with the U.S. Senate to reauthorize SCHIP and deliver to States the tools they need to enroll the 6 million children who are eligible for SCHIP but not enrolled. It shouldn't be wasting resources on putting up roadblocks intended to prevent coverage. I hope that the Senate can work together to advance this bipartisan proposal to ensure that the SCHIP program remains strong and low-income children have access the health care.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today in remembrance of the 2,974 Americans who lost their lives on September 11, 2001. They were family, friends, and neighbors going about their everyday lives. They were airline passengers, office workers, emergency personnel, and public servants. They were men, women, and children of every age and color. Yet they were targeted all the same, as citizens of a nation upholding the principles of freedom and personal liberty. We did not invite this extreme act of violence, nor will we soon forget the heroes who gave their lives that day. My prayers are with their families and the survivors of this unprovoked, cold-blooded attack. Many brave Americans fought back that Tuesday morning, and many others have continued the fight these last 6 years. The United States has not suffered another 9/11 because we have pursued al-Qaida on our terms, attacking them where they plan and train before they can reach us at home. Many Oregonians have paid the ultimate price to protect their friends, family and country. For them, America is eternally grateful. September 11 exposed the vulnerability of free societies to acts of terrorism. In response, Congress acted to improve our intelligence gathering and law enforcement agencies. These improvements have protected this country from further attacks. Today, we are better prepared to face this ideological battle of the 21st century, but we must never become complacent. As today's ceremonies commemorate those fallen in New York City, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania, may we also remember those Americans on the battlefield fighting to protect us back at home. Their courage and dedication testifies to the endurance of free men against all adversaries. God bless liberty and all those devoted to its preservation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am in support of S. Res. 222, a resolution that recognizes November as National Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. This resolution represents a way to educate communities across the Nation about pancreatic cancer and the need for increased research funding, early detection methods, and effective treatments and educational programs. I am pleased to be joining my colleague, Senator Clinton, as the lead sponsor of this important measure. Like many Americans, I have seen the ramifications of cancer firsthand. I support this resolution in honor and loving memory of the millions of Americans who have been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and their families, and for my mother Jessica Udall Smith whom I lost to this killer. Pancreatic cancer is hard to detect in its early stages as it doesn't cause symptoms right away. Also, because the pancreas is hidden behind other organs, health care providers cannot see or feel the tumors during routine exams. Because there are no early detection methods, pancreatic cancer often is found late and spreads quickly. This year, more than 37,000 Americans will receive a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and for over 33,000 of them their diagnosis will ultimately end in their death. While overall cancer death rates have declined, the number of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer is increasing. It is projected that this year, 440 Oregonians will die from pancreatic cancer. That represents a 17 percent increase in pancreatic cancer deaths in Oregon over the last 3 to 4 years. Pancreatic cancer has been forced into the national spotlight in recent weeks. On August 18, 2007, Michael Deaver, one of former President Ronald Reagan's closest advisers, succumbed to the disease at age 69. Just last week, famed opera singer Luciano Pavarotti died after a yearlong battle at age 71. Something that is striking about both of their cases is that despite their celebrity and contacts, neither man had much more than a fighting chance of overcoming this disease. There are simply no curative treatments--experimental or FDA approved--that currently are available to fight this disease, even when price is no object. Individuals fighting pancreatic cancer continue to face discouragingly low odds of survival. In 1975, the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer was 2 percent. Twenty-five years later, the survival rate remains at an unacceptably low level of 5 percent, making this cancer the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death. Indeed, pancreatic cancer is considered the deadliest cancer, of which 75 percent of patients diagnosed with this disease die within the first year and most within the first 3 to 6 months. Early detection tools, such as those that currently are available for ovarian, colon, breast and prostate cancer, would make a significant impact on pancreatic cancer, but those tools require a new investment in basic scientific research at the National Cancer Institute, NCI. I support biomedical research and the great promise it holds in the development of new treatments and possible cures for the many types of cancer, including pancreatic cancer. Past investments at the NCI have helped drive new discoveries that led to the decline in overall cancer deaths in the U.S. for the second consecutive year. Now is the time to expand our efforts in the fight against pancreatic cancer, but that will be impossible unless we find a way to secure more funding for the NCI. The Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Network is a national organization that is working to comprehensively address the problem of pancreatic cancer by providing patient support, advancing research, and creating hope. I support their efforts to raise awareness of this disease and believe that it is important that we recognize November as National Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. I ask my colleagues support this resolution, which will help increase research, education and awareness for pancreatic cancer.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. On the night of August 9, 2007, three friends with developmental disabilities were verbally assaulted by four teens as they left a Cheektowaga, NY, restaurant. Two of the friends, a 22-year-old local man and his 19-year-old girlfriend, got into their vehicle and began to drive away. The teens continued to taunt the couple with derogatory names for the developmentally disabled. The four youths drove after the couple in two cars, reportedly swerving repeatedly at the victims' car and nearly hitting it. The disabled couple's car crashed as they tried to turn onto the Cheektowaga Thruway, causing significant damage to their vehicle. According to witnesses, the crash happened after the victim sped up to get away from the attackers' vehicles. The teens sped away, but thanks to witnesses and restaurant surveillance tapes, the police were able to apprehend the teens. Three of them were charged with perpetrating a hate crime. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Matthew Shepard Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside, and I further ask to call up amendment No. 2552 and dispense with its reading.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, may I read this before he objects? I wonder if my colleagues would indulge me. Mr. President, this amendment is the outgrowth of a bill I introduced with Senator Kohl this year. As many of my colleagues know, Congress modified the Supplemental Security Income Program to include a 7-year time limit on receipt of benefits for disabled refugees and asylees. This policy was intended to balance a desire to have people who immigrate to the United States to become citizens, with an understanding that the naturalization process also takes time to complete. Unfortunately, the naturalization process often takes longer than 7 years. Applicants are required to live in the United States for a minimum of 5 years prior to applying for citizenship. In addition to that time period, their application process often can take 3 or more years before resolution. Because of this time delay, many individuals are trapped in the system and faced with the loss of their SSI benefits. In fact, we know that to date, more than 7,000 elderly and disabled refugees have lost their SSI benefits and another 16,000 are threatened to lose their benefits as well in the coming years. Many of these individuals are elderly refugees who fled persecution or torture in their home countries. They include Jews fleeing religious persecution from the former Soviet Union, Iraqi Kurds fleeing from Saddam Hussein's regime, Cubans, and Hmong people from the highlands of Laos who served on the side of the U.S. military during the Vietnam war. They are elderly and unable to work and have become reliant on their SSI benefits as their primary income. To penalize them because of delays encountered through the bureaucratic process is unjust and inappropriate. The Bush administration in its fiscal year 2008 budget acknowledged the necessity to correct this problem, this injustice, by dedicating funding to extend refugee eligibility for SSI beyond the 7-year limit. This legislation builds upon those efforts by allowing an additional 2 years of benefits for elderly and disabled refugees, asylees, and other qualified humanitarian immigrants, including those whose benefits have expired in the recent past. Additionally, benefits could be extended for a third year for those same refugees who are awaiting a decision on a pending naturalization application. These policies are limited to 2010 and are completely offset in cost by a provision that will work to recapture Federal Government funds due to unemployment insurance fraud. The offset that is provided was also taken from the President's own budget. By reducing fraud in the unemployment insurance system, the provision would effectively reduce taxes on employers by $326 million over the next 10 years, according to the CBO estimate. I thank my colleagues for listening. I hope for your support and ask that this amendment be accepted by unanimous consent.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Long-Term Care Quality and Modernization Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. As Ranking Member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I am committed to improving the financing and delivery of long-term care. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that national spending for long-term care was almost $160 billion in 2002, representing about 12 percent of all personal health care expenditures. While those numbers are already staggering, we also know that the need for long-term care is expected to grow significantly in coming decades. Almost two-thirds of people receiving long-term care services are over age 65, with this number expected to double by 2030. Providing quality long-term care services for America's frail, elderly and disabled is the priority of nursing homes and assisted living facilities. I applaud their work, but recognize we must do more to improve care and contain costs. When you consider that eight of ten nursing home residents rely on Medicare and Medicaid for their long- term care needs, it is apparent that Congress has a responsibility to improve these programs so they are sustainable for years to come. That is why I am introducing The Long-Term Care Quality and Modernization Act of 2007 with Senator Lincoln. This bill will address several problems nursing homes are experiencing with federal regulations, workforce shortages and taxes related to building depreciation. The issue of long-term care expenditures need not be an insurmountable task. It will require action and cooperation by public officials and private providers as we work to find ways to help Americans become better prepared for their long-term care needs. However, we cannot do it alone. Individuals must take responsibility and begin planning for their long-term care needs. With our national savings rate in steady decline, I fear the American middle class is woefully unprepared to meet this coming challenges. As we move forward in our effort to help individuals stay financially stable in their later years, we must encourage them to purchase long-term care insurance and save for long-term care services. Today, millions of Americans are receiving or are in need of long- term care services and supports. Surprisingly, more than 40 percent of persons receiving long-term care are between the ages of 18 and 64. Some were born with disabilities; others came to be disabled through accident or illness. No one can predict their future long-term health care needs. Therefore, everyone needs to be prepared. Included in the bill I am introducing today is The Long-Term Care Trust Account Act of 2007. My legislation will create a new type of savings vehicle for the purpose of preparing for the costs associated with long-term care services and purchasing long-term care insurance. An individual who establishes a long-term care trust account can contribute up to $5,000 per year to their account and receive a refundable 10 percent tax credit on that contribution. Interest accrued on these accounts will be tax free, and funds can be withdrawn for the purchase of long-term care insurance or to pay for long-term care services. The bill also will allow an individual to make contributions to another family members' Long-Term Care Trust Account. This will help many people in our country who want to help their parents or a loved one prepare for their health care needs. It is my hope that this legislation will help all Americans save for their long-term care needs. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important bill.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Long-Term Care Quality and Modernization Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. As Ranking Member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I am committed to improving the financing and delivery of long-term care. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that national spending for long-term care was almost $160 billion in 2002, representing about 12 percent of all personal health care expenditures. While those numbers are already staggering, we also know that the need for long-term care is expected to grow significantly in coming decades. Almost two-thirds of people receiving long-term care services are over age 65, with this number expected to double by 2030. Providing quality long-term care services for America's frail, elderly and disabled is the priority of nursing homes and assisted living facilities. I applaud their work, but recognize we must do more to improve care and contain costs. When you consider that eight of ten nursing home residents rely on Medicare and Medicaid for their long- term care needs, it is apparent that Congress has a responsibility to improve these programs so they are sustainable for years to come. That is why I am introducing The Long-Term Care Quality and Modernization Act of 2007 with Senator Lincoln. This bill will address several problems nursing homes are experiencing with federal regulations, workforce shortages and taxes related to building depreciation. The issue of long-term care expenditures need not be an insurmountable task. It will require action and cooperation by public officials and private providers as we work to find ways to help Americans become better prepared for their long-term care needs. However, we cannot do it alone. Individuals must take responsibility and begin planning for their long-term care needs. With our national savings rate in steady decline, I fear the American middle class is woefully unprepared to meet this coming challenges. As we move forward in our effort to help individuals stay financially stable in their later years, we must encourage them to purchase long-term care insurance and save for long-term care services. Today, millions of Americans are receiving or are in need of long- term care services and supports. Surprisingly, more than 40 percent of persons receiving long-term care are between the ages of 18 and 64. Some were born with disabilities; others came to be disabled through accident or illness. No one can predict their future long-term health care needs. Therefore, everyone needs to be prepared. Included in the bill I am introducing today is The Long-Term Care Trust Account Act of 2007. My legislation will create a new type of savings vehicle for the purpose of preparing for the costs associated with long-term care services and purchasing long-term care insurance. An individual who establishes a long-term care trust account can contribute up to $5,000 per year to their account and receive a refundable 10 percent tax credit on that contribution. Interest accrued on these accounts will be tax free, and funds can be withdrawn for the purchase of long-term care insurance or to pay for long-term care services. The bill also will allow an individual to make contributions to another family members' Long-Term Care Trust Account. This will help many people in our country who want to help their parents or a loved one prepare for their health care needs. It is my hope that this legislation will help all Americans save for their long-term care needs. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important bill.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I wish to assure the manager of the bill that I will be as brief as I can on this big issue. All of us who are parents know that the health of a child is critically important in ensuring they have the opportunity to reach their full potential. Yet today in America there are approximately 6 million children who are eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP who are going without health care nevertheless. In Oregon alone, there are approximately 60,000 kids eligible for assistance who are not getting the help they need. Therefore, the debate before us is about whether we as a country will invest in our young people by providing access to health coverage or whether we will leave these children without the essential building blocks of health care upon which they can build successful lives. I believe in the promise that SCHIP represented in 1997. It was one of the first bills I worked on, with an amendment in the Budget Committee. I urge my colleagues to support the bill the Finance Committee has now produced which sees this whole promise of CHIP one step closer to fulfillment. This bill will allow States to cover an additional 3.3 million children, and in Oregon that would allow an additional 100,000 children to receive health care coverage. When thinking about our response to the children, I often like to quote one of our Nation's health care leaders, the former Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, who said: Life affords no greater responsibility, no greater privilege than the raising of the next generation. The reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program fulfills the Government's responsibility to take care of our Nation's children. It also lives up to the expectations of the American public-- we the people--who want Congress to pass this bill and extend health care coverage to America's underprivileged children. This bill is also a testament to a bipartisan legacy of the Finance Committee. It contains less money and benefits than some desire, while more than others have indicated they will support. Yet when you look at the actual policy, I believe you will find that it deserves the full support of the Senate. My colleagues and the American public should know that this bill is not, as some have claimed, an expansion, and it is not the federalization of health care. In fact, it simply takes a step, a reasonable step, toward achieving the original objective, the original vision for SCHIP. It will provide adequate funding and make some programmatic enhancements to help an additional 3.3 million children currently eligible to enroll in the program. I wish to emphasize that these children are currently eligible. This just makes the program available to them. This package which many of us have worked to craft does not create a new Government-run health care system. In fact, 48 States, including my State of Oregon, utilize private health insurers to deliver the SCHIP benefit package. Like Medicare Part D, it is a highly successful melding of Government and private sector care. I also believe it important to note that SCHIP is an efficient and cost-effective health care program. Its overhead ranges from about 5 percent, compared to the commercial market, which is over 10 percent. Perhaps most importantly, this bill returns the focus of the State Children's Health Insurance Program to children. Many on both sides of the political aisle were amazed and disappointed to learn that the administration has allowed States to extend coverage under SCHIP to adults. This proposal puts the brakes on that practice and says: Enough is enough. Upon enactment of the bill, the administration no longer will be able to extend waivers to States to cover any adult. Further, by the end of 2009, those States which currently cover childless adults will be required to move those people into Medicaid, and any parent currently covered will be moved into a separate block grant starting in 2010. This represents a bipartisan agreement. For those of us who have battled over the years to ensure mental health parity, I am pleased to report that the committee accepted an amendment from me and Senator Kerry, and this bill now delivers a victory to those who advocate for mental health parity. It requires States that offer access to mental health care to provide coverage that is on par with coverage for physical illnesses. As a parent whose child battled a mental illness, I know how important it is for our young people to have timely access to mental health care treatments. Each year in the United States, 30,000 people die by suicide. That is more deaths than by drunk driving and homicides combined. Yet, with proper treatment, these deaths are preventable. Our Nation and our Government simply cannot continue to ignore this problem. That is why this amendment was included, so that we will now begin to reverse this Federal discrimination as it relates to mental health care. I believe that by ensuring equity among mental and physical illnesses, this bill takes the first step toward eliminating the discrimination against persons with mental illnesses that has existed in our Federal and State health care programs for generations. It is an important first step and fulfills the promise of SCHIP for all children, including those children with a mental illness. For those who believe SCHIP will erode health care coverage through employers, do not believe it. This bill takes a significant step toward offering access to privately delivered options and helps small businesses gain access to affordable health care coverage for all of their employees. I authored a provision that allows States to create an employer purchasing pool under the premium assistance section of SCHIP. My provision will allow small businesses with less than 250 employees to buy health insurance coverage through a State-sponsored employer purchasing pool. Employers that participate will have access to a choice of privately delivered, quality health insurance products for all of their employees and will receive reimbursement for those employees or their children who are eligible for SCHIP. It is a win-win arrangement that I hope will lead to more extensive coverage among employees and small- and medium-sized businesses. Finally, this package rightly utilizes the 61-cent increase in the tobacco products excise tax, which I proposed during the Senate's budget debate, to pay for the cost of reauthorizing SCHIP. Increasing the cost of tobacco products not only puts real dollars on the table to pay for SCHIP, but over time it will lower the cost of tobacco-related illnesses for all Federal and State health care programs and will deter young people from smoking. Why is this important? My State of Oregon was the first in the Nation in 1987 to begin tracking the number of deaths that were related to the use of tobacco. In 2005, the most recent year for which data is available, there were a total of nearly 7,000 deaths in Oregon due to tobacco. This means that tobacco contributed to 22 percent of all deaths in the State of Oregon. In fact, from 1996 to 2005, tobacco use has consistently contributed to more than one-fifth of all Oregon deaths, ranging from 21 percent to 23 percent of the total deaths per year. Officials in my State explain to me that to determine the death rate in the State, they often look at it in terms of the number of deaths per 100,000 Oregonians. In 2005, the death rate due to tobacco was about 13 times the rate of death from the following causes: alcohol- induced deaths, drug-induced deaths, motor vehicle accidents, and deaths from an infection or parasitic disease. What is more, the State estimates that an additional 800 deaths were attributable to secondhand smoke in 2005. That means in 1 year, 7,721 Oregonians needlessly died because of the use of tobacco. So for those who question raising the rate of the Federal tobacco excise tax, I say: Look at these numbers. Look at the 7,000 deaths from tobacco in the State of Oregon in 2005 alone and understand that this Federal rate increase could dramatically lower the death rate from tobacco. That is why this bill rightly includes a 61-cent increase in the excise tax. In closing, Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley have a long working tradition of tackling challenging issues and developing bipartisan solutions. The development of the Children's Health Improvement Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 is no different. Many hurdles were encountered, and many are yet to come, but if the Senate can follow the example set by Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley, I am confident we will see SCHIP reauthorized by the end of September. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank the Chair for the time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Treasury Secretary Paulson and his staff at the Treasury Department for convening the Treasury Conference on Business Taxation and Global Taxation. The purpose of this conference is to examine ways our current business tax system affects economic growth, job creation, and competitiveness. This is a very important issue that requires our immediate attention. Today American companies compete in a global market. In the 1960s, trade in goods to and from the United States represented just over 6 percent of GDP. Today, it represents over 20 percent of GDP, a threefold increase. The U.S. role in the global economy also is quite different. Forty years ago, the United States was dominant, accounting for over half of all multinational investment in the world. Yet, today the United States economy represents 20 percent of global GDP. However, our Tax Code has not kept up with the globalization of the U.S. economy. The rules are outdated and penalize U.S. economic interests by hindering American businesses' ability to effectively compete in our global economy. The most significant demonstration of our Tax Code's inadequacies is the corporate tax rate. As Treasury stated in its conference materials, since 1980, the United States has gone from a high corporate tax-rate country to a low-rate country and back again to a high-rate country today. According to research done by the Tax Foundation, the United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the OECD. The only country with a higher corporate tax rate is Japan. The U.S. corporate tax rate is higher than the rate in all European Union countries. Furthermore, the United States is one of only two OECD countries that has not reduced rates since 1994--and one of only six OECD countries that have not reduced rates since 2000. According to KPMG, the average corporate tax rate in the European Union has fallen from 38 percent in 1996 to 24 percent in 2007. The United States has an average corporate tax rate of about 39 percent, including State level corporate taxes. The U.S. rate has not dropped recently. In fact, the last time Congress acted on the corporate tax rate, we actually raised it. According to a recent Treasury study, a country with a tax rate 1 percentage point lower than another country's attracts 3 percent more capital. Therefore, this international trend of lower corporate tax rates is not surprising, and it is critical that the United States follow suit. A high corporate tax rate is not good for American businesses--or our economy. A high rate deters corporate investment in the United States. It also incentivizes companies to shift their profits to lower tax jurisdictions. To attract businesses and profits to America, we need to lower our corporate tax rate. This fall I plan to introduce legislation that will lower our corporate tax rate. I look forward to working with the administration and Congress in enacting this important reform. And I once again applaud the Treasury Department for examining our broken corporate tax code.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as a native and resident of Pendleton, OR, I have enjoyed a lifelong affection for the Pendleton Round-Up, which is quite simply America's finest rodeo. Pendleton Woolen Mills locally based and family owned for more than 140 years has sponsored the Round-Up both financially and with merchandise for as long as I can remember. A great deal of credit for the continuing success of both the Round-Up and Woolen Mills is owed to the leadership and vision of C.M. ``Mort'' Bishop, Jr. This remarkable Oregonian passed away on July 11 at the age of 82. I wish to pay tribute to his life and legacy. Mort was a proud member of what has been termed the ``greatest generation'' and, like so many of that generation, he wore our country's uniform into battle during World War II. As a U.S. marine, Mort served with the 5th and 14th Battalions in the Pacific theater and participated in the liberation of Guam in July 1944. After returning home from the war, Mort joined the family business: Pendleton Woolen Mills. Mort helped guide this iconic Oregon company for nearly 50 years, eventually succeeding his father as company president. Most recently, Mort served next to his brother, `Brot,' as co-vice chairman. Even while managing a demanding business, Mort always found time to give back to his community and his State. From the Oregon Historical Society to the Boy Scouts of America, from Willamette University to the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation and the University of Oregon Foundation, Mort generously gave his time, talent, and treasure to countless worthy causes. But let there be no doubt, the cause held closest to Mort's heart was the Pendleton Round Up. I knew that every September I could count on seeing Mort and his wonderful family enjoying the nearly 100-year-old rodeo. Mort also held a close friendship with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, who have played an integral role in the annual Round-Up. Indeed, the design inspirations for Pendleton Woolen Mills blankets originate on the Umatilla reservation. In 2001, Mort was honored as the grand marshall for the Round-Up's Westward Ho! Parade. The Umatilla and Nez Perce Indian tribes have also honored him with the Indian name ``Caacaa Kuta,'' which means ``just right doer of things.'' And just 2 months ago, Mort was inducted into the Pendleton Round-Up Hall of Fame. Mr. President, I am proud to have had Mort Bishop as a friend. I join with many other Oregonians in extending our condolences to Mort's family. Mort is survived by four children, nine grandchildren, two great-grandchildren, and his brother- and sister-in-law. As long as there is a Pendleton Round-Up and as long as there is a Pendleton Woolen Mills, Mort Bishop, Jr., will always be remembered as a ``just right doer of things.''

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the accomplishments of Chairman Allen Foreman, who has recently retired as chairman of the Klamath tribes in Klamath County, OR. During Chairman Foreman's 8-year tenure leading the tribe, he was instrumental in furthering the goals and aspirations of the Klamath tribal members. His leadership and vision were critical in the development of the new tribal headquarters in Chiloquin as well as a new dental, medical clinic and pharmacy and the construction of many new homes for tribal members. Chairman Foreman has shown his dedication to the tribe and to the people of Klamath County in many ways. His focus on rural economic development and his respect for our natural resources have earned him high respect in the community. Chairman Foreman is known as a man who can be trusted and a man who will work with anyone to accomplish a common goal for the good of the community. His devotion to the Klamath tribes is evident in the fact that while he has recently retired as chairman of the tribes, he will remain a member of the Tribal Council at large to continue his service to the tribes. Mr. President, I am extremely proud of the successes being exhibited by the Klamath tribes and I have thoroughly enjoyed working with Chairman Foreman. The Klamath tribes have a saying that proclaims, ``The Klamath Tribes. . . . Respecting the Past. . . . Living the Present. . . . And Together we can work to build a brighter future!'' Chairman Allen Foreman has epitomized this mantra, and I am confident that his successor, Chairman Joseph Kirk, will follow in his footsteps and follow the path laid out by their Klamath tribes forefathers.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. On July 21, 2007, in Hoboken, NJ, two men assaulted a gay couple near a well-known nightclub. They knock the two victims to the ground, beat them, and shouted antigay slurs. After noticing the attack, a bouncer at a nearby nightclub chased the two men down the street and held them until police arrived. The attackers now face charges of assault and bias intimidation. Police Captain Anthony Romano confirmed for reporters that the attackers hit the two men because they were gay. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Matthew Shepard Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. On June 4, 2007, in Pearland, TX, Terry Mark Mangum brutally murdered Kenneth Cummings, Jr., for being gay. Mangum says the two had drinks at a Montrose-area club before returning to Cummings' home in Pearland. Mangum confessed to having stabbed Cummings to death with a six-inch knife at Cummings' residence that night. He then burned the body and buried it at a 50-acre ranch owned by his grandfather. Mangum says he believed that Cummings was gay and allegedly had planned the killing for 6 months prior to the murder. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Matthew Shepard Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I have submitted an amendment that would help tackle an alarming problem with our men and women who serve in the Armed Forces, the Heroes Helping Heroes Act. I have introduced the Heroes Helping Heroes Act in the Senate this year to provide funding for peer support programs so that trained veterans can help returning veterans navigate the sometimes perilous transition to civilian life. My intention is to expand the use of peer-support approaches to assist the reintegration of America's veterans as they return from active duty to their homes and communities. We hope that this legislation will demonstrate the effectiveness of peer-support approaches and ease the burden of the social, economic, medical and psychological struggles our veterans face. Fortunately, ``peer-support'' approaches offer a low cost and effective adjunct to traditional services by allowing the heroes of our country to help each other. Veteran peer-support offers two things that no kind of professionalized service can ever hope to: the support of someone who has had the same kinds of experiences and truly understands what the veteran is going through; and the potential of a large pool of experienced volunteers who can assist and support returning veterans at very little cost. Last week I held a hearing on the issues surrounding older veterans in my home State of Oregon. I also held a series of roundtables in both Portland and White City to discuss how we can improve the current mental health system, be it through the VA, Department of Defense, or within the community mental health structure. What we now refer to as post-traumatic stress disorder was once described as ``soldier's heart'' in the Civil War, ``shell shock'' in World War I, and ``combat fatigue'' in World War II. Whatever the name, it is a serious mental illness and deserves the same type of attention and care provided for a physical wound. In recent reports, we have heard that 20 to 40 servicemen and women are evacuated each month from Iraq due to mental health problems. In addition to those who are identified, there are many more who will return home after their service to face re-adjustment challenges. Some will need appropriate mental heath care to help them adjust back to ``normal'' life. While others will need medical assistance to heal more serious PTSD issues. Yet others will need help to mentally cope with their physical wounds. The effectiveness of these approaches has been documented in a variety of domains. Specifically, for mental health disorders like PTSD and depression, peer-support programs have shown that participation yields improvement in psychiatric symptoms and decreased hospitalizations, the development of larger social support networks, enhanced self-esteem and social functioning, as well as lower services costs. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, SAMHSA, and even the President's new Freedom Commission on Mental Health, have recognized peer-support approaches as an emerging practice that is helping people recover from traumatic events. So many of our veterans from previous conflicts, such as World War II and the Korean and Vietnam Wars, needed similar programs once they returned home. Yet I fear that we didn't do enough to help them. With proper and early supports systems in place, we can work to prevent the more serious and chronic mental health issues that come from a lack of intervention. As our country faces new waves of veterans with mental health illnesses, many of whose issues arise from combat stress, we must ensure that we learn from the lessons of the past. We must ensure that they are cared for, and we must not leave behind those who fought for Nation in previous generations. I ask my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I wish to say to the senior Senator from Arizona how much I admire him. In recent days, because of my difference with Senator McCain on the way forward in Iraq, many members of the press, particularly in my home State, have asked me how can I continue to support Senator McCain. I would like to answer that publicly for the Senate Record. I support Senator McCain for more than just the fact that he is a colleague, for more than just the fact that he is a genuine American hero, for more than the fact that he is a man of unbreakable principle. I support him still because he is my friend. When friends have differences, you don't walk away from a friend. I don't. You weather the bumps in the road, and you do what Senator McCain has done with me; and that is to talk civilly and to counsel, and when there is a disagreement, that it is discussed as gentlemen, that it is discussed as friends. But I come to the floor to speak for the Levin-Reed amendment. I am the original Republican cosponsor of this proposal. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment because it calls for what I have been stating for 7 months. It sets up a timetable to draw down our troops. The amendment instructs the Secretary of Defense to transition U.S. forces starting approximately 4 months from the enactment of this legislation through the spring of 2008. Further, this amendment explicitly outlines the role of the U.S. military in Iraq as threefold. An appropriate amount of troops will remain to protect our diplomats, our military installations, and infrastructure. We will continue to train, equip, and provide logistical and intelligence support to the Iraqi security forces, sharing intelligence with them. Then, the third and most important point: We will be there to turn over every rock, every crevice, and seek out every al-Qaida killer who wishes to harm Americans. Al-Qaida is our mortal foe. This is the war on terror, for want of a better term. It is a war from which we cannot retreat. Over the past 7 months, when I spoke out pleading for a new course in Iraq, there has been a great cacophony of noise about how to go forward. Some of my colleagues have said to just cut off the funding. I have believed that to be dangerous and dishonorable. President Bush has said stay the course, and I find that troubling. What ``stay the course'' means is, we will continue to spend $12 billion a month. We will lose roughly three American soldiers a day. In addition to that, there will be countless wounded and maimed for life, for which I don't have a number. Underpinning the current course and the argument of many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle is the hope, the predicate, that at the end of the road there will be an Iraqi government that will govern effectively and democratically. I believe President Bush's formulation, that we will stand down when they can stand up, is backwards. I come to that conclusion, based on numerous trips to Iraq, that they will not stand up until we begin standing down. Like Senator McCain and many of my colleagues, I recently was in Iraq. To be with our troops is to be inspired, to be humbled in their presence because of the remarkable work they are doing and the cause for which they are fighting. As inspiring as that is, it is equally depressing, then, to meet with Iraqi political leaders, democratically elected, whom we think ought to be focused on reconciliation. What I have found is they are focused on revenge. What I have learned firsthand is that Americans have no comprehension of the complexity, the factionalism, and the intensity of hatred that exists in some parts of the Middle East. On top of the factionalism, there are ancient sectarian strifes which produced a low-grade civil war that we cannot win, and which is not ours to win. It is theirs to win. As I said 7 months ago, there is no good option for how we come home, but it does seem to me that Senator Levin and Senator Reed best express my own conclusions. That is why I cosponsored their amendment, and that is to recognize al-Qaida is our mortal foe. We must take them on where we can. But, ultimately, we have to get capable and effective Iraqi political leaders, too, so that they are pressured to do the most basic kinds of governing: establishing an oil revenue-sharing law, debaathification, setting up local elections, allowing the processes of democracy to work, establishing a rule of law that gives people confidence, spending their oil revenue money for the restructuring and rebuilding of their own country. All of the money from the oil we are helping them pump sits in bank accounts, stuck by their Parliament. My fear is that what our presence and current posture are doing is simply keeping a civil war at a low-grade level. Civil wars end in one of two ways: one side wins and the other loses, or they fight it out until they figure it out. My fear is that we delay the day for them figuring it out with our current posture. I would love to be proven wrong. I pray that President Bush is right. But I believe it is our obligation to have this debate to help change the course and the policy of the U.S. Government and to help change the course and policy of the Iraqi Government. We cannot want democracy more for them than they want it for themselves, and what they seem bent on is an ethnic cleansing of their neighborhoods, a religious division. Ultimately, those are their decisions, not ours. But as long as we say we will take the bullet first, they will let us. I believe the Levin amendment provides a way forward with a responsible division of labor. Let the Iraqi forces that we have trained and equipped handle their security in Baghdad and in other communities. Let us help them by taking on al-Qaida. The amendment envisions a much smaller American footprint. Our forces are trained and equipped in a way to handle that kind of mission, but as we speak, we are straining our military capacities and our personnel to a breaking point. I don't believe we should just abandon it, irrespective of consequences. That is why I urge my colleagues to look seriously at the Levin amendment, to consider it as the way forward that is both responsible as it relates to the Middle East and effective as it relates to the defense of the American people. So as a Republican, I am for the Levin amendment. I urge its adoption. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. Early in the morning of June 2, 2007, in Lowell, MA, three men severely beat 22-year-old James Nickola for being gay. Nickola, a transsexual, was walking alone on his way home from a nightclub when the three men began to follow him. When the men started to yell homophobic epithets, Nickola says he quickened his pace, but the men were able to catch up to him about 200 feet from a police substation. The men then attacked, hitting Nickola repeatedly in the face, knocking him down, and continuing to beat him. The assailants, whose attack partially severed Nickola's lip, allegedly continued to utter homophobic slurs and told him, ``we don't want your kind in this neighborhood.'' I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Matthew Shepard Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. On July 1, 2007, while picnicking near Lake Natoma outside Folsom, CA, Satendar Singh, a 26-year-old from Fiji, was attacked by a man hurling racist and homophobic insults. Singh and his friends, each of either Indian or Fijian descent, were harassed repeatedly for several hours by a nearby group of Russian-speaking men and women. That evening, about six men from that group approached Singh, again insulting Singh and his friends. One of the men struck Singh, causing him to fall to the ground and hit his head. Bleeding profusely, Singh was taken to the hospital. He died 4 days later on July 5, 2007, after his relatives and doctors agreed to take him off of life support. According to his friends, Singh was not gay, but officials maintain that the attack was motivated by the belief on the part of the assailant that he was. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Matthew Shepard Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce Pathways to Independence Act of 2007, along with Senators Conrad, Stabenow, Snowe, and Collins. This legislation includes two important provisions that will help States transition Temporary Assistance for Needy Fami1ies, TANF, recipients who have disabilities into work. States currently face a conflict between the new Federal TANF requirements, as reauthorized by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006, DRA, and the nondiscrimination requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In order to comply with the ADA, States must make modifications to the work requirements they impose on TANF recipients with disabilities to ensure that they can participate in the program and move toward gainful employment. However, under new Federal TANF rules, States only get credit when recipients participate in a narrow set of activities for a specific number of hours each week, with limited flexibility for people with disabilities. Our legislation would allow States to create modified employability plans for people with disabilities and get credit toward the TANF participation rate if recipients comply with the requirements in those plans. This would encourage States to engage people with disabilities in appropriate employment-focused activities without fear of facing Federal penalties for not meeting their TANF work rates. The bill also would allow states To exclude people with pending SSI applications and severe temporary disabilities from the work rates. This legislation allows states to receive full credit when a modified employability plan is developed for a family that includes a person with a disability. The bill requires States that receive credit for families on their caseload with modified employability plans to submit annual reports to the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, on the types of modifications made and disabled populations served. It also requires HHS to compile this information and send an annual report to Congress. This approach is appealing to States for many reasons. It allows States to design a system and receive credit for moving a person progressively over time from rehabilitation toward work. It also creates a more realistic work structure for individuals with disabilities and/or addictions who otherwise may fall out of the system either through sanction or discouragement, despite their need for financial assistance. In July 2002, the General Accounting Office reported that as many as 44 percent of TANF families have a parent or child with a physical or mental impairment. This is almost three times higher than the rate among the non-TANF population in the United States. In 8 percent of TANF families, there is both a parent and a child with a disability; among non-TANF families, this figure is 1 percent. The GAO's work confirmed the findings of earlier studies, including work by the Urban Institute and the HHS Inspector General. These figures mean that we need to make sure that the TANF program gives States the ability and incentives to serve families in their TANF programs and help them to move from welfare to work. This is the lesson that Oregon and many other States already have learned when they developed and refined their TANF programs. Most individuals with disabilities who receive TANF are able to engage in work activities and move toward employment, and many will either need no modifications to standard work activities or only minor modifications. Those with more serious conditions may need more intensive services and more significant adjustment to the basic work requirements. Under the bill, a qualified professional must make a determination that an individual has a disability and the state must document the types of modifications, if any, that the individual needs to succeed in moving toward employment. Our bill proposes the creation of a more appropriate path for those who have disabling conditions, both short- and long-term, recognizing the barriers many of these families face both financially and emotionally. The current strategy of rapid employment for all TANF recipients is not always feasible. This bill will help families with disabilities achieve and maintain stability during the transition from welfare to becoming more financially secure and independent of Government assistance. Over 20 individual States, including Oregon, and the National Governors Association, representing all 50 States and five territories have identified problems with how the current rules affect their ability to serve individuals with disabilities appropriately and meet the TANF work requirements. They have asked for modifications to the new TANF requirements like the ones proposed in our bill. I look forward to working with my cosponsors, Senators Conrad, Stabenow, Snowe, and Collins on these important provisions, and I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce Pathways to Independence Act of 2007, along with Senators Conrad, Stabenow, Snowe, and Collins. This legislation includes two important provisions that will help States transition Temporary Assistance for Needy Fami1ies, TANF, recipients who have disabilities into work. States currently face a conflict between the new Federal TANF requirements, as reauthorized by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006, DRA, and the nondiscrimination requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In order to comply with the ADA, States must make modifications to the work requirements they impose on TANF recipients with disabilities to ensure that they can participate in the program and move toward gainful employment. However, under new Federal TANF rules, States only get credit when recipients participate in a narrow set of activities for a specific number of hours each week, with limited flexibility for people with disabilities. Our legislation would allow States to create modified employability plans for people with disabilities and get credit toward the TANF participation rate if recipients comply with the requirements in those plans. This would encourage States to engage people with disabilities in appropriate employment-focused activities without fear of facing Federal penalties for not meeting their TANF work rates. The bill also would allow states To exclude people with pending SSI applications and severe temporary disabilities from the work rates. This legislation allows states to receive full credit when a modified employability plan is developed for a family that includes a person with a disability. The bill requires States that receive credit for families on their caseload with modified employability plans to submit annual reports to the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, on the types of modifications made and disabled populations served. It also requires HHS to compile this information and send an annual report to Congress. This approach is appealing to States for many reasons. It allows States to design a system and receive credit for moving a person progressively over time from rehabilitation toward work. It also creates a more realistic work structure for individuals with disabilities and/or addictions who otherwise may fall out of the system either through sanction or discouragement, despite their need for financial assistance. In July 2002, the General Accounting Office reported that as many as 44 percent of TANF families have a parent or child with a physical or mental impairment. This is almost three times higher than the rate among the non-TANF population in the United States. In 8 percent of TANF families, there is both a parent and a child with a disability; among non-TANF families, this figure is 1 percent. The GAO's work confirmed the findings of earlier studies, including work by the Urban Institute and the HHS Inspector General. These figures mean that we need to make sure that the TANF program gives States the ability and incentives to serve families in their TANF programs and help them to move from welfare to work. This is the lesson that Oregon and many other States already have learned when they developed and refined their TANF programs. Most individuals with disabilities who receive TANF are able to engage in work activities and move toward employment, and many will either need no modifications to standard work activities or only minor modifications. Those with more serious conditions may need more intensive services and more significant adjustment to the basic work requirements. Under the bill, a qualified professional must make a determination that an individual has a disability and the state must document the types of modifications, if any, that the individual needs to succeed in moving toward employment. Our bill proposes the creation of a more appropriate path for those who have disabling conditions, both short- and long-term, recognizing the barriers many of these families face both financially and emotionally. The current strategy of rapid employment for all TANF recipients is not always feasible. This bill will help families with disabilities achieve and maintain stability during the transition from welfare to becoming more financially secure and independent of Government assistance. Over 20 individual States, including Oregon, and the National Governors Association, representing all 50 States and five territories have identified problems with how the current rules affect their ability to serve individuals with disabilities appropriately and meet the TANF work requirements. They have asked for modifications to the new TANF requirements like the ones proposed in our bill. I look forward to working with my cosponsors, Senators Conrad, Stabenow, Snowe, and Collins on these important provisions, and I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. On April 12, 2007, in Crothersville, IN, Coleman King and Garrett Gray beat a man to death for allegedly making a sexual proposition to one of them. As the two young men were returning to Gray's house from an errand that day, they picked up 35-year-old Aaron Hall. The two men told police that Hall had propositioned King; in retaliation, King and Gray began to beat Hall. The two men allegedly struck Hall until his eyes were swollen shut and he was spitting blood. They then carted him off to a ditch, continued to beat him and left him for dead. The two men drove back to the ditch with a shotgun later that day in order to make sure Hall was dead, but found him instead several days later dead in a nearby field, where he had apparently crawled. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Matthew Shepard Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, there is a word Senators traditionally use when referring to one of our male colleagues on the floor of the Senate. That word is ``gentleman.'' It is a word that you don't hear often in today's society, as many consider it too old- fashioned. I disagree. Calling someone a gentleman is one of the highest compliments one can give. I pay tribute to the career and accomplishments of a truly outstanding gentleman--the former Governor of Oregon Vic Atiyeh. Anyone involved in the Oregon political arena over the past several decades, Republican or Democrat, will tell you about Vic Atiyeh's kind and courteous nature, his personal integrity, and his civility in a business that is all too often uncivil. On Wednesday, July 18, 2007, Oregonians will gather at the Portland International Airport to officially dedicate the international concourse as the ``Governor Victor G. Atiyeh International Concourse.'' This is an outstanding and truly fitting honor. During his eight years as Oregon's Governor, Vic Atiyeh implemented policies that transformed Oregon into a hub for international commerce. Long before the term ``global economy'' was part of our lexicon, Vic understood the importance of opening Oregon's doors to international commerce, tourism, and cultural exchange programs. Vic Atiyeh's leadership in transforming Oregon's economy was critical as his swearing-in came just as Oregon entered an economic nosedive the likes of which unseen since the Great Depression. How bad was the situation? His first year in office, Governor Atiyeh called a special legislative session to deal with a $242 million budgetary shortfall. Just as he and the legislature agreed on a package of budget cuts, they were presented with new estimates increasing the shortfall by nearly $100 million. Several months later, the deficit jumped again by another $100 million. Tough and unpleasant decisions had to be made. Vic Atiyeh rolled up his sleeves and made them. One of Oregon's most respected journalists, Brent Walth, wrote: Quietly, diligently, without whining or badgering or a single ``I told you so,'' Atiyeh demonstrated how to manage a state through a crisis. As a tribute to Vic's leadership, and the wisdom of Oregonians, in the darkest days of the recession he was reelected Governor by one of the largest margins in our State's history. I can't help but think that at the naming of the international concourse, Vic Atiyeh will be thinking of his parents. Both Vic's father and mother were immigrants from the Middle East. They made their way first to Ellis Island, and then on to Oregon where in 1900 they started a family-owned carpet business--a business that continues to thrive today. I also know that Vic will be thinking about his wonderful wife Delores, who from the beginning has helped Vic to remember his priorities as a public servant, dedicated father, and husband. A few years ago I invited a small contingent of Oregon leaders to join me for a breakfast to discuss issues important to our State. Vic called to say he would like to attend, but had a prior engagement: attending his granddaughter's soccer game. I assured Vic that I agreed, he was making exactly the right decision. Mr. President, I am proud to call Vic Atiyeh my friend, and I am delighted the International Concourse at Portland International Airport will soon bear his name. While I will be here in Washington at the Senate on July 18, my thoughts and best wishes will be with one of Oregon's truly great gentlemen--Governor Vic Atiyeh.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country. On February 7, 2006 in San Diego, CA, James Hardy strangled Raymund Catolico, a gay man, to death in the victim's apartment. Allegedly, the two men met at a bus station and went to Catolico's apartment to have drinks and play video games. At some point Hardy attacked Catolico strangling him to death. Following the murder, Hardy went out for food and brought it back to the apartment to finish playing his computer game. According to Deputy District Attorney Dan Link, Catolico's sexuality was, ``a substantial motivation'' for the killing. Hardy is charged with a hate crime and is being held without bail. I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens, to defend them against the harms that come out of hate. The Matthew Shepard Act is a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we can change hearts and minds as well.