A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to revise the amount of minimum allotments under the Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness program.

Mr. President, today I am proud to join my colleague, Senator Bingaman, to introduce a package of four bills aimed at helping seniors get the assistance they need with their Medicare prescription drug costs. Thirty-nine million individuals now have access to affordable prescription drug therapies through Medicare Part D, many for the very first time. But low-income beneficiaries still are experiencing difficulties taking full advantage of the program's benefits. I believe the bipartisan package of legislation we have developed will go a long way to removing programmatic barriers that are limiting seniors from getting the help we intended them to have when we created Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program.

The low-income subsidy (LIS) is one of the best features of Medicare's new prescription drug benefit. Over the past few years, I have conducted extensive oversight of the program's implementation, especially through my work as Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Special Committee on Aging. Through hearings and staff-level investigations, I have identified a number of concerns with both the administration and the overall effectiveness of Medicare Part D's LIS. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) have made a great deal of progress to ensure that the benefit is working well for all beneficiaries. But their efforts can only go so far. Ultimately, it is Congress' responsibility to ensure that all low-income seniors who have difficulty paying their prescription drugs costs get the help they need.

Two of the four bills that Senator Bingaman and I are filing today are based upon initiatives that I introduced during the 109th Congress. The first is a measure that would create parity in the cost-sharing charged beneficiaries living in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Under current law, dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries, those who qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare coverage, receive a subsidy from the government to pay the benefit's required $250 deductible. These individuals also qualify for reduced copayments for both generic and brand named drugs in the amount of one and three dollars respectively. If a dual-eligible beneficiary receives long-term care services in an institutional setting, such as a nursing home, he or she is exempt from paying the required copayment. Congress decided to provide this assistance because dual-eligible beneficiaries residing in nursing homes live off of very limited incomes. For instance, in Oregon the personal needs allowance beneficiaries receive each month for incidentals, including medications, is only $30. As many institutionalized beneficiaries are on multiple medications, they would not be able to meet their share of drug costs.

This is the very reason Congress provided institutionalized dual- eligible beneficiaries with an exemption from all copayments under Medicare Part D. However, many dual-eligible beneficiaries choose to receive long-term care services in home or community-based settings, such as assisted living or resident care program facilities. Almost all states have chosen to establish Home and Community Based Services (HCS) Medicaid demonstration projects that have expanded access to community based alternatives to an even greater number of low-income elderly Americans. The State of Oregon operates one of the Nation's most successful HCS waivers, serving an average of 23,500 dual-eligible beneficiaries

each year. My state has a thriving community based care industry that has provided many dual-eligible Oregonians the freedom to choose the care setting that best meets their own physical and social needs.

While dual-eligible beneficiaries are exempted from prescription drug copayments under Medicare Part D, those choosing community-based alternatives are required to pay them. This is despite the fact that beneficiaries choosing community based care options typically live off of the same limited incomes as those residing in nursing homes. While some states provide HCS beneficiaries' a larger personal stipend each month, many may have greater financial demands. At the end of the day, they are in no better position to pay the costs of prescription drugs than those beneficiaries living in nursing homes.

I also should note that their less restrictive living environments may require them to take additional medications to support their daily routines. It is not uncommon for dual-eligible beneficiaries in community-based care settings to be on 8 to 10 medications at a given time. At that level, even minimal copayments create a significant financial burden to these individuals.

The current dual-eligible copayment exemption policy not only is creating inequity in Medicare Part D, it is potentially restricting access to life-saving medications. This is not what Congress intended. I believe we need to do everything possible to support choice in long- term care, and by applying the current institutional copayment exemption more uniformly, Congress will ensure the Medicare drug benefit does not adversely affect beneficiaries' choices.

The second measure I am introducing today is based upon a bill I filed last year. That legislation sought to provide beneficiaries applying for LIS extra time to enroll into Part D if they had not received notification of their eligibility status by the time an open enrollment period ended. The bill also would have also waived the late enrollment penalty assessed to all beneficiaries who enroll outside of an enrollment period. Fortunately, CMS enacted an administrative solution to this problem, and allowed all LIS eligible beneficiaries to enroll into Medicare Part D at any point during 2006, and later extended that policy into 2007.

Now that Medicare Part D is fully implemented and policymakers have had an opportunity to assess how well the program is working, I believe that the administrative actions taken by CMS last year to create a special enrollment period for LIS beneficiaries should be made permanent. The Medicare Part D Outreach Enrollment Enhancement Act of 2007 does just that. It would create a 90-day special enrollment period for any beneficiary who applies and is approved for the LIS at any point during the year. It also would allow them to undergo a facilitated enrollment process overseen by CMS, so they get the help they need to select a prescription drug plan that best meets their needs.

Additionally, the bill exempts low-income beneficiaries from Medicare Part D's late enrollment penalty. While an enrollment penalty can be an effective means of helping drug plans better assess their risk in a given period, it is not fair to ask our low-income seniors--many who struggle with a number of challenging healthcare problems--to pay a higher cost simply because they need additional time to enroll in the program. Selecting a prescription drug plan can be a challenging feat, and it can be even more complicated if you are trying to make your limited income stretch as far as it can. We need to guarantee that beneficiaries have sufficient time to choose the most affordable plan that also meets all their prescription drug needs.

The measure also would create a new authorization to support the valuable work of State Health Insurance Programs (SHIPs). SHIPs provide a range of services to our nation's seniors, such as help choosing a quality prescription drug plan, applying for financial assistance with their drug costs and resolving general problems experienced with the drug benefit. Unfortunately, funding for SHIPs has not kept pace with the number of beneficiaries that age into Medicare each year. To remedy that, my bill creates a new authorization that increases funding in conjunction with growth in enrollment. The bill also provides funding for the new National Center of Senior Benefits and Outreach, created in the Older Americans Act last year. The Center is charged with developing ways to assist organizations like SHIPs to better target their efforts so that all seniors are fully aware of the benefits that might be available to them.

The next bill in the package we are filing today addresses a problem low-income seniors encounter if and when they enter into the drug benefit's coverage gap. While beneficiaries still have access to medications through their drug plans during the coverage gap, they may have to pay more for them. For those living on fixed incomes, this could present a serious problem as the out-of-pocket cost of many common prescription drugs can be quite steep. Fortunately, many safety- net programs, like community health centers and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), provide assistance to eligible low-income beneficiaries during the coverage gap. Effectively, they fill the role of the drug plan in providing beneficiaries access to their medications at a heavily subsidized cost.

This scenario presently works well for a number of low-income beneficiaries, but it is simply unsustainable in the long-run for two key reasons. First, from the perspective of beneficiaries, it is not right to ask them to continue paying premiums to their drug plans during the coverage gap when they are unable to generate sufficient out-of-pocket expenses to qualify for the program's catastrophic benefit. Many low-income beneficiaries who get ``caught'' in the coverage gap struggle with significant health problems, such as cancer or HIV/AIDS. These conditions often require costly treatment that a low-income beneficiary would likely have to forge without the assistance of a safety-net provider.

Second, the current scenario is placing a disadvantageous strain on the safety-net programs that assist low-income beneficiaries with their drug costs during the coverage gap. One of the primary reasons Medicare Part D was created was to provide relief to states and other safety-net providers who bore a lion's share of the responsibility of providing access to drug therapies for the Nation's seniors. While Part D has gone a long way to fulfill that intention, there is still much that can be done to help our safety-net providers. It is not right that service providers like community health centers and ADAP have been forced to provide discounted medications to low-income beneficiaries during the coverage gap, especially when the beneficiary has no way of accruing enough out-of-pocket costs for their Part D coverage to resume.

The bill Senator Bingaman and I are filing today resolves both these problems. It would allow safety net providers' drug costs to count toward a beneficiary's out-of-pocket costs so they are able to reach Medicare Part D's catastrophic benefit at some point. This will ensure that low-income beneficiaries have access to the full range of coverage under the program and will provide much needed fiscal relief to already strained safety net providers. Congress intended for all beneficiaries--especially those with limited incomes--to have full access to the benefits through Medicare Part D. This bill will guarantee that happens.

Despite the progress we have made in providing low-income seniors access to affordable prescription drugs, I find it troubling that recent estimates still show that there may be at least three million seniors eligible for the low-income subsidy who have yet to apply for it. While CMS, SSA and their community partners continue their vital outreach to capture these seniors, I believe the existing LIS application is too complex and is preventing seniors from getting the help they need. We need a simpler process that better reflects the true levels of assets and resources held by low-income seniors.

The last bill in the package I am filing today does just that. The Part D Equity for Low-Income Seniors Act is the product of months of bipartisan collaboration with representatives of groups like AARP, the National Council on Aging and Families USA. It aims to help SSA better target potentially

eligible beneficiaries and make the application process much simpler to complete.

First, drawing from a recommendation from the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, SSA is given the authority to use select tax information to help determine which Medicare beneficiaries might be eligible for extra help with their drug costs. With this data, they would be able to more efficiently contact beneficiaries and prescreen them for potential eligibility. I realize that some of my colleagues might have privacy concerns with such an arrangement, but I want to make clear that my bill is not giving SSA access to any data that they already do not have. In order to implement the Part B subsidy adjustment, the Medicare Modernization Act requires that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) send tax data to the SSA--they are legally prohibited from using it for any other purpose than Part B. We simply are establishing the same process for data exchange that already exists between the IRS and SSA so that SSA can more efficiently conduct its outreach work for Medicare Part D's low-income subsidy.

The bill also seeks to make the LIS application easier for seniors to complete. I have heard a number of complaints that the current form uses confusing verbiage and is overly burdensome in its reporting requirements. As a remedy, we eliminate the reporting of retirement account balances, the face value of life savings policies and in-kind contributions. This not only will make the form easier to complete, it will prevent seniors from the pressure of having to determine whether they should sacrifice their retirement income or long-term risk protection in order to pay their healthcare bills. I believe we need to be encouraging seniors to save for their later years in life, not requiring them to liquidate their futures to fill their prescriptions.

In order to make the LIS benefit more accurately reflect the assets and resources low-income seniors possess, our bill also proposes raising the current asset test limit to $27,500 for an individual and $55,000 for a couple. According to data from the SSA, this increase should help capture almost 40 percent of the individuals who are ineligible for the LIS benefit due to excess resources, and 50 percent of the couples. I realize this can be a sensitive issue for some of my colleagues--especially on my side of the aisle. We want to ensure that only those beneficiaries who truly are in need of help with their drug are eligible for government assistance. But, I also believe that we can be too heavyhanded and prevent those with legitimate need from getting it. The new asset/resource limits Senator Bingaman and I have proposed represent a good, bipartisan solution to the problem. I know many would like to see the full asset test repealed, but this year that may be a difficult feat to accomplish politically and financially. This is a reasonable step forward, one the advocates support. I hope my colleagues will as well.

I believe that the Medicare Prescription Drug Program is working for America's seniors and that we should not undertake a significant overhaul of the new benefit in this Congress. However, there is room for improvement, especially in regard to making the program work better for America's low-income seniors. I firmly believe that if Congress does not address some of these lingering problems this year, Medicare's long-term public image could be severely tarnished in the eyes of the very people it was created to serve.

One can learn a great deal about the character of a society by looking at how well it cares for its poor and vulnerable citizens. I believe my four bills that improve upon how Medicare Part D serves low- income beneficiaries will help cement the United States as a country that looks out for its citizens in need. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the full package and assist me in moving it through the process.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, hate crimes violate everything our country stands for. They send the poisonous message that certain Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of who they are. These are crimes committed against entire communities, the Nation as a whole and the very ideals upon which our country was founded.

The vast majority of Congress agrees. In 2000, 57 Senators voted in support of this bill. In 2002, 54 Senators voted with us, and, in 2004, we had 65 votes. Today, we are re-introducing this bicameral, bipartisan bill with the support of 39 original cosponsors, and we have the

votes to get cloture. We have the votes in the House too. This year, we are going to get it done.

Our legislation is supported by a broad coalition of over 210 law enforcement, civic, religious and civil rights groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, the Anti-Defamation League, the Interfaith Alliance, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National District Attorneys Association, and the National Center for Victims of Crime.

Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey are especially disturbing because they indicate that a large number of hate crimes go unreported. The data indicates that an average of 191,000 hate crimes take place every year, but only a small percentage are reported to the police.

We obviously need to strengthen the ability of Federal, State and local governments to investigate and prosecute these vicious and senseless crimes. The existing Federal hate crime statute was passed in 1968, soon after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It was such an important step forward at the time, but it is now a generation out of date.

The absence of effective legislation has undoubtedly resulted in the failure to solve many hate-motivated crimes. The recent action of the Justice Department in reopening 40 civil-rights-era murders demonstrates the need for adequate laws. Many of the victims in these cases have been denied justice for decades, and for some, justice will never come.

This bill corrects two major deficiencies in current law--one, the excessive restrictions requiring proof that victims were attacked because they were engaged in certain ``federally protected activities,'' and, two, the limited scope of the law, which covers only hate crimes based on race, religion, or ethnic background, excluding violence committed against persons because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.

The federally protected activity requirement is outdated, unwise and unnecessary, particularly when we consider the unjust outcomes that result from this requirement. Hate crimes can occur in a variety of circumstances, and citizens are often targeted during routine activities that should be protected.

For example, in June 2003, six Latino teenagers went to a family restaurant on Long Island. They knew one another from their involvement in community activities and were together to celebrate one of their birthdays. As the group entered the restaurant, three men who were leaving the bar assaulted them, pummeling one boy and severing a tendon in his hand with a sharp weapon. During the attack, the men yelled racial slurs and one identified himself as a skinhead.

Two of the men were tried under the current Federal law for committing a hate crime and were acquitted. The jurors said the government failed to prove that the attack took place because the victims were engaged in a federally protected activity--using the restaurant. The result in this case is only one example of the inadequate protection under current law. The bill we introduce today will eliminate the federally protected activity requirement. Under this bill, the defendants who left the courtroom as free men would almost certainly have left in handcuffs through a different door.

The bill also recognizes that hate crimes are also committed against people because of their sexual orientation, their gender, their gender identity, or their disability. It's up to Congress to make sure that tough Federal penalties also apply to those who commit such crimes as well. Passing this bill will send a loud and clear message. All hate crimes will face Federal prosecution. Action is long overdue.

Examples of the problem abound. Two years ago, a 52-year-old Alabama man was beaten on the head with a hammer because he was gay. Still waiting for justice, the man lies in a coma as a result of that attack.

In 1993, a 21-year-old transgender man, Brandon Teena was raped and beaten in Humboldt, NE, by two male friends. The local sheriff refused to arrest the offenders, and they later shot and stabbed Brandon to death.

In 1999, four women in Yosemite National Park were targeted by a man who admitted to having fantasized about killing women for most of his life. The current hate crime law did not apply to this horrific crime because enjoyment of a Federal park is not a federally protected right.

In 2001, Fred C. Martinez, Jr., a Navajo, openly gay, transgender youth, was murdered while walking home from a party in Cortez, CO. The perpetrator, Shaun Murphy, had traveled from New Mexico to Colorado with a friend in order to sell illegal drugs. He met Fred at a carnival that night, and the next morning, while driving, he saw Fred walking down the street. Shaun and his friend offered Fred a ride and dropped him off close to home. Shortly thereafter, Shaun attacked Fred and beat him to death with a large rock. His body was discovered several days later. The attackers bragged about this vicious crime, describing the victim with vulgar epithets.

The perpetrator could not be charged with a hate crime because no State or Federal law protecting gender identity existed. He received a 40-year sentence under a plea agreement and he will be eligible for parole in 25 years. His victim did not live long enough to see his 20th birthday. If the defendant had been charged with a Federal hate crime, he could have received a life sentence. If the prosecutor had greater aid for his investigation under the proposed legislation, he could have had a stronger case against the defendant and prosecuted him more effectively.

In October 2002, two deaf girls in Somerville, MA--one of whom was wheelchair bound due to cerebral palsy--were harassed and sexually assaulted by four suspected gang members in a local park. Although the alleged perpetrators were charged in the incident, the assaults could not be charged as hate crimes because there is no Federal protection for hate crimes against disabled individuals.

These examples graphically illustrate the senseless brutality that our fellow citizens face simply for being who they are. They also highlight the importance of passing this legislation, which is long overdue.The vast majority of us in Congress have recognized the importance of this legislation since it was first introduced--nearly 10 years ago. This year, we have an opportunity to pass it in both the Senate and the House, and enact it into law. Let's make the most of this opportunity, and do all we can to end these senseless crimes.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record this list of organizations who support the Matthew Shepard bill.

There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed as follows:

1. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

2. American Association of University Women.

3. American Civil Liberties Union.

4. American Jewish Committee.

5. American Psychological Association.

6. Anti-Defamation League.

7. Asian American Justice Center.

8. Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism.

9. Human Rights Campaign.

10. Interfaith Alliance.

11. International Association of Chiefs of Police.

12. Japanese American Citizens League.

13. Jewish Council for Public Affairs.

14. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

15. Matthew Shepard Foundation.

16. National Association for the Advancement of Colored

People.

17. National Council of Jewish Women.

18. National District Attorneys Association.

19. National Sheriffs' Association.

20. People for the American Way.

21. Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

22. SALDEF (Sikh American Legal Defense and Education

Fund).

23. Unitarian Universalist Association.

24. The United States Conference of Mayors.

25. Group Letter: Religious Organizations: African American

Ministers in Action, American Jewish Committee. Anti-

defamation League, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Catholics for a

Free Choice, Church Women United, The Episcopal Church,

Hadassah, Hindu American Foundation, The Interfaith Alliance,

Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Women

International, Muslim Public Affairs Council, NA'AMAT USA,

National Council of Churches of Christ, National Council of

Jewish Women, North American Federation of Temple Youth,

Presbyterian Church USA, Sikh Council on Religion and

Education, United Church of Christ Justice and Witness

Ministries, Union for Reform Judaism, United Methodist Church

General Board of Church and Society, Unitarian Universalist

Association of Congregations,

United Synagogues of Conservative Judaism and Women of Reform

Judaism.

26. Group Letter: Consortium for Citizens with

Disabilities: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf

and Hard of Hearing, American Association on Health and

Disability, American Association on Intellectual and

Developmental Disabilities, American Association on Mental

Retardation, American Association of People with

Disabilities, American Council of the Blind, American

Counseling Association, American Dance Therapy Association,

American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association,

American Music Therapy Association, American Network of

Community Options and Resources, American Occupational

Therapy Association, American Psychological Association,

American Therapeutic Recreation Association, American

Rehabilitation Association, Association of Tech Act Projects,

Association of University Centers of Disabilities, Autism

Society of America, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law,

Council for Learning Disabilities, Council of State

Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation, Easter Seals,

Epilepsy Foundation, Hellen Keller National Center, Learning

Disabilities Association of America, National Alliance on

Mental Illness, National Association of Councils on

Developmental Disabilities, National Coalition on Deaf-

Blindness, National Disability Rights Network, National Down

Syndrome Society, National Fragile X Foundation, National

Rehabilitation Association, National Respite Coalition,

National Structured Settlement Trade Association, NISH,

Paralyzed Veterans of America, Research Institute for

Independent Living, School Social Work Association of

America, Spina Bifida Association, The Arc of the United

States, United Cerebral Palsy, United Spinal Association,

World Institute on Disability.

27. Group Letter: National Partnership for Women and

Families: 9to5 Bay Area, 9to5 Colorado, 9to5 Poverty Network

Initiative (Wisconsin), 9to5 National Association of Working

Women, AFL-CIO Department of Civil, Human and Women's Rights,

American Association of University Women, Atlanta 9to5, Break

the Cycle, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Colorado Coalition

Against Sexual Assault (CCASA), Communications Workers of

America AFL-CIO, Democrats.com, Equal Rights Advocates,

Feminist Majority, Gender Public Advocacy Coalition, Gender

Watchers, Hadassah the Women's Zionist Organization of

America, Legal Momentum, Los Angeles 9to5, NA'AMAT USA,

National Abortion Federation, National Asian Pacific American

Women's Forum, National Association of Social Workers,

National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Congress of

Black Women, National Council of Jewish Women, National

Council of Women's Organizations, National Organization for

Women, National Partnership for Women and Families, National

Women's Conference, National Women's Committee, National

Women's Law Center, Northwest Women's Law Center, Sargent

Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, The Women's Institute

for Freedom of the Press, Washington Teachers Union, Women

Employed, Women's Law Center of Maryland, Women's Research

and Education Institute, YWCA USA.

28. Excerpts of Support for the Hate Crime Prevention Act

of 2007.

29. General List of Supporting Organizations 2007.

Mr. President, for the past several months, our Nation has focused on the tragic stories of the shameful conditions our wounded soldiers have faced as outpatients in Building 18 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and the stories of the difficulty they faced as they tried to navigate the military and veterans health care and benefits systems following their return from Afghanistan and Iraq.

This morning, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the ranking member--the committee on which I serve--as well as the Veterans' Affairs Committee had further hearings and detailed the work we have to do to bring down another wall, and that is the wall that separates our wounded warriors from the benefits they have earned by their noble service.

Today I introduce the Veterans Housing Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007 that will provide immediate and tangible assistance to our wounded servicemembers and their families by strengthening our current law.

This legislation provides explicit VA housing and automobile grant eligibility to servicemembers and veterans with burn injuries, enhanced eligibility for grant assistance during the Department of Defense-to- Veterans' Administration transition, and requires the Secretary of the Veterans' Administration to report on possible improvements to the current law that would cover others with special disabilities, such as those with traumatic brain injuries.

I am pleased to say the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Danny Akaka, and the ranking member, Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, have joined me as original cosponsors of this legislation, as well as my senior Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.

I grew up in a military family. My dad served for 31 years in the Air Force. I saw firsthand the importance of treating our veterans in a fair and equitable manner. The sacrifices our men and women in uniform make every day must not be forgotten when they take that uniform off or when they leave their active-duty military service. No veteran should ever be left behind. The fundamental agreement--I would say even sacred covenant--between our men and women in uniform and our Government does not end when a servicemember is wounded or separates from the active- duty military service and becomes a veteran.

Let there be no question about it, the conditions of these outpatient housing facilities at Walter Reed were absolutely unacceptable. But perhaps the story of that unacceptable condition has led us to finding a way to serve our wounded warriors and their families better. The U.S. military and the Department of Veterans Affairs must conduct a top-to- bottom investigation of our entire military health system and take immediate steps to address any and all problems that might exist.

It is sobering to know--as Senator Craig quoted during this morning's hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee and Veterans' Affairs Committee--that the conclusions reached by GEN Omar Bradley some five decades ago were not fundamentally different from those that are tentative conclusions today about how we can improve that transition, and still we know problems exist.

The President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Veterans, led by Senator Bob Dole and Secretary Donna Shalala, is an important component of this ongoing effort, which will not be a task for the short-winded. We have an obligation and a duty to ensure that the men and women who are serving and who have served in our military are receiving the very best treatment and benefits for themselves and their families. We cannot and we should not tolerate anything less. We have to do whatever it takes, including providing both the necessary resources and cutting the bureaucratic redtape, to best meet the medical and other needs of those who have so nobly defended our Nation's freedom.

In my State of Texas, my home of San Antonio, Brooke Army Medical Center stands at the forefront of modern army medicine, second to none in

the world. Without a doubt--and this is a personal judgment, and I know my colleagues will indulge me--it is Brooke Army Medical Center that is the crown jewel of modern military medicine. I have seen firsthand the magnificent job our men and women are doing at Brooke Army Medical Center to care for our servicemembers, and they deserve all the credit and our firm support.

When I made my most recent visit to Brooke Army Medical Center, on March 10, I had the chance to not only visit soldiers and their families but I chaired a roundtable of hospital administrators, veterans service organizations, and veterans themselves because I wanted to learn from them what we needed to do here in Washington, DC to craft the laws and policies of this Nation to serve them better. I appreciate the strong opinions and advice expressed by these people who participated in the roundtable, and others who have been a source of information and feedback to me as I try to do what I can in my capacity as their elected representative to accomplish these goals. The care and support our Nation provides to these wounded warriors is a direct reflection of the level of respect we have for both our military, our military families, and our veterans, and will, in many ways, shape the armed services, the all-volunteer services, for many years to come. They depend not only on recruitment but retention.

In conjunction with my most recent visit to Brooke Army Medical Center, I heard from many soldiers, families, and veterans about their individual experiences, as I know the current occupant of the chair has when he has traveled back to Colorado, and as all of us have when we go back to learn more from our constituents about how we can improve our response. I learned in particular of challenges that burn victims and their families have faced because they have not received enough special care and assistance for that particular type of injury in the area of VA housing grants and automobile enhancements.

In particular, I want to recognize two women, heroes in my eyes, and I am sure in the eyes of their families, people such as Christy Patton, whose husband, U.S. Army SSG Everett Patton, is undergoing treatment at Brooke Army Medical Center. He was wounded and badly burned by an IED, an improvised explosive device, in Iraq while with the 172nd Stryker Brigade from Alaska. The Pattons have five children.

Then there is Rosie Babin, whose son Alan, a corporal, a medic, was shot while serving in the 82nd Airborne combat team in 2003, now medically retired and living at home with his parents outside Austin, TX. These two women--Christy Patton, who sought me out and explained to me the difficult challenges that her husband and her family of five children are having transitioning and dealing with these wounds and transitioning from the military medical care into retirement and the veterans system; as well as Rosie Babin, on behalf of her son Alan--are the most fervent and effective advocates anyone could ever want to have on your side. They have helped me a great deal as I have tried to craft legislation which I have introduced today to help not only them, because I know they didn't come to me advocating just for a solution for their husband or their son, they came to me because they thought we could craft a solution for wounded warriors and their families yet to come. These families, though, are facing unique challenges as they deal with the injuries of their loved ones, and we have a responsibility to ensure they do not go it alone and that they get all the resources and assistance our country can offer them so they can recover to the maximum degree possible.

The intent of the legislation which I have introduced today, along with my cosponsors, is pretty straightforward. Let me describe briefly what it does.

It would strengthen the present code to provide for the specific needs of burn victims for housing and automobile grants. It would ensure that wounded servicemembers and veterans with other specific needs, such as traumatic brain injuries, are also covered by these kinds of grants, if required. It would further strengthen the Department of Defense-to-Veterans' Administration transition.

As the occupant of the chair knows, that has been one of the real problems we have identified early on, is transitioning people from active-duty military service into the Veterans' Administration, with the duplicate bureaucracies and redtape and the different standards for disability determination and the like. But this bill, in particular, would strengthen the Department of Defense-to-Veterans Administration transition by providing partial housing grants for those veterans residing with a family member to cover servicemembers still on active duty awaiting their final VA disability rating.

I have to say a word here about the family members. When I have been to Walter Reed and when I have been to Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, I have seen young spouses, mostly women, who are attending to their injured warrior husbands, or in the case of Rosie Babin, a mother, a loving mother attending to the needs of her son, who was also injured in 2003. It was brought home to me on a very human level what these wounds mean not just to those who receive them but to the family members, who basically sacrifice everything in order to attend to and care for their loved ones. So we ought to do everything we can for our warriors, such as Alan Babin, who are living in their parents' home, to make sure these housing grants will cover servicemembers still on active duty who are awaiting their Veterans' Administration disability rating.

This legislation will also require the Veterans' Administration to report on the need for a permanent housing grant for wounded veterans who reside with family members; and, finally, it will adjust current law to provide home improvements and structural alteration housing grants to Department of Defense servicemembers who are awaiting final VA disability ratings.

As a direct result of the care and concern of military family members, such as Christy Patton and Rosie Babin, we now have a concrete response to the very real concerns they have raised and ways that we can, working together, strengthen the current law. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation so we can work together on a bipartisan basis, in unison, to support our wounded servicemembers and their families better, particularly people such as the Babins and the Pattons. With continued attention to our veterans, we can fashion a revised system that best supports them and their families. I know we all agree that they deserve nothing less. They are the very finest our Nation has to offer.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Smith to introduce two pieces of vitally important, bipartisan legislation that will ensure that low-income seniors have full access to the benefits available to them under the Medicare Drug Benefit. The first piece of legislation makes critical improvements in the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy (LIS) available to assist these individuals in meeting cost sharing, premium, and deductible requirements under Part D. The second will ensure that low-income seniors don't get caught in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, or ``doughnut hole,'' simply because of where they purchase their Part D pharmaceuticals.

These bills were developed in close collaboration with Senator Smith, who also will be introducing two bills today to achieve other, critical improvements in the Medicare program for low-income seniors. Together, we believe this package of four bills will provide the reforms necessary to ensure that the Medicare program and the LIS function as they were intended, to ensure access to life-saving drug coverage for some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

Data indicates that a shockingly low number of seniors eligible for the LIS benefit are actually receiving the benefit. According to the January 2007 report by the National Council on Aging (NCOA), The Next Steps: Strategies to Improve the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy, only 35 percent to 42 percent of beneficiaries who could have successfully applied for the LIS in 2006 were actually receiving it. Exacerbating this problem, NCOA also reports that overall LIS enrollment rates are slowing. In total for 2007, NCOA estimates that between 3.4 and 4.4 million beneficiaries still must be identified and enrolled in the LIS. Furthermore, data indicates that certain LIS requirements result in many low-income seniors that should be eligible for the benefit being denied enrollment in LIS. I believe the modest policy changes created by the legislation I and Senator Smith are introducing will ensure that all low-income beneficiaries have access to the LIS.

The single most significant barrier to LIS eligibility is the asset test, which accounts for approximately 41 percent of LIS denials. As reported by NCOA, the asset test penalizes low income retirees who may have very modest savings. For example, approximately half of the people that failed the asset test have excess assets of $35,000 or less. These people tend to be older, female, widowed, and living alone. In addition the asset test is inherently discriminatory against certain categories of people, e.g., people who rent their homes.

My legislation, the Part D Equity for Low-Income Seniors Act, will dramatically improve this inequity by raising the asset test limits to $27,500 for an individual and $55,000 for a couple. This will capture about half of individuals and two-thirds of couples who have been denied LIS because of excess resources.

As recommended by OIG in fall 2006, this legislation also allows the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to transfer tax filing information to the Social Security Administration (SSA) so they can better target beneficiaries who might be eligible for the LIS. In addition, this legislation creates an expedited LIS application process for pre- screened beneficiaries, prohibits the reporting of retirement account balances, life-insurance policies and in-kind contributions when determining a beneficiary's resource level, and prohibits LIS benefits from being counted as resources for the purposes of determining eligibility for other federal programs.

I also am introducing the Low-Income True Out-Of Pocket (TrOOP) Expense under Part D Assistance bill, which ensures that low-income Americans do not get ``stuck'' in the Part D ``doughnut hole'' simply because of where they choose to purchase Part D pharmaceuticals.

Unbelievably, under current regulation and guidance, individuals who are in the doughnut hole and receive Part D drugs from commercial pharmacies are permitted to count waivers or reductions in Part D cost- sharing to count towards their TrOOP. However, low-income individuals who tend to receive Part D drugs from safety-net pharmacies and other safety-net providers are not permitted to count similar waivers or reductions in Part D cost-sharing by safety-net providers towards their TrOOP. Thus, current law penalizes low-income individuals and makes it easier for them to get stuck in the doughnut hole--never accessing the catastrophic coverage to which they are entitled.

My legislation would undo this inequity and permit waivers and reductions for beneficiaries receiving care from safety-net providers to count towards beneficiaries' TrOOP. Specifically, the legislation will count waivers and reductions by certain safety-net hospitals and pharmacies, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs), Pharmacy Assistance Programs (PAPs), and the Indian Health Service (IRS) toward TrOOP.

In closing, I would also like to offer my strong support for the two bills on which we worked very closely with Senator Smith and that he is introducing today. The first is the Medicare Part D Outreach and Enrollment Enhancement Act, which creates a permanent 90-day special enrollment period for any beneficiary who becomes eligible for the LIS. It also requires CMS to provide such beneficiaries facilitated enrollment into the plans allowing, within 90 days, the beneficiary to be enrolled into the most appropriate plan for his or her needs. The legislation also waives the late enrollment penalty for LIS beneficiaries, provides a $1 per beneficiary authorization for State Health Insurance Programs, and funds the National Center on Senior Benefits and Outreach, which was created last year in the Older Americans Act.

The second piece of legislation creates important equity between institutionalized Part D beneficiaries dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and those dual eligibles who avoid initialization through a Home and Community Based Waiver (HCBW). Currently under Federal law, Part D cost-sharing requirements are waived for dual-eligible individuals that are institutionalized but are not waived for individuals in HCBWs. Senator Smith's legislation would make an important change to Federal law to all allow cost sharing under Part D to be waived for dual eligibles regardless of whether they are institutionalized or receiving care through HCBWs.

I also would like to express my gratitude for the assistance of several key senior citizen advocates in crafting all four important pieces of legislation, including: Paul Cotton and Kristen Sloan from the American Association of Retired Persons, Howard Bedlin and Sara Duda from the National Council on Aging, Lena O'Rourke and Marc Steinberg from Families USA, Patricia Nemore and Vicki Gottlich from the Center for Medicare Advocacy and Paul Precht, from the Medicare Rights Center. I would also like to thank the Staff at the Social Security Administration (SSA) for their prompt feedback and invaluable assistance.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these important pieces of legislation, which will ensure that life saving pharmaceuticals are available to low-income Americans.

I ask unanimous consent that the National Council on Aging Report, and the text of these bills to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, and I commend my friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, for his leadership and determination on this issue. We have tried for the better half of a decade to get this legislation passed, signed, and enacted into law. Today represents our strongest effort to date, and it is long past time that crimes based on hate be recognized and criminalized under Federal law. The need for Federal hate crimes legislation has been apparent for years as hate crimes know no State borders and--in part because their impacts often affect the very fabric of our society--they are a problem that affects all Americans.

This act sends the message that we will not tolerate acts of aggression and violence towards targeted communities or individuals who become victims of violence merely for being themselves. Perpetrators of this type of violence will now be subject to Federal prosecution under this act. Before we had to rely on the States to act, and some simply have failed to do enough to stem this type of criminal behavior. This act recognizes that hate crimes have national consequences and are not mere localized occurrences.

Put simply, a hate crime tends to impact an entire community, as opposed to being limited to the victim or the victim's family. It is a crime against a particular group, and must be treated as such. In essence, there are two crimes--one against he victim, and one against the victim's group or community. Some have asked, ``But aren't all crimes based on hate?'' No, they are not. Hate crimes are unique because they cut at the very fabric of our national values; they undermine shared

principles like tolerance and equal protection under the law, and in so doing, harm us all. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to address this issue and arm prosecutors with the tools they need to seek justice, promote order and provide all American with equal protection under the law.

The framework of the Constitution provides a sound basis for our actions today--both the Commerce Clause and the Thirteenth Amendment are implicated by these crimes. The effects of hate crimes do not end at a State's border, but rather transcend those borders. These crimes implicate a citizen's ability to move and travel freely. Additionally, violence based on someone's race, religion, sexual orientation, or the other characteristics noted in the act are reminiscent of the ultimate hate crime--slavery. As such, the 13th Amendment allows for Federal action to remedy this problem. The courts have ruled time and time again that discrimination in housing and discrimination in contractual agreements could be remedied through Federal statutes promulgated under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. It matters not what the discrimination is based on, what matters is the, discrimination itself. In an attempt to rid the last vestiges of slavery from our society, the courts have allowed the 13th Amendment to be the basis of such legislation.

Let us be very clear, we are not criminalizing speech. Violent acts against an African American, a woman, or a Sikh because of who they are do not constitute free expression. Nor are we are criminalizing evil thoughts. We are only criminalizing action--harmful and violent action that cuts against our society and against the very meaning of what it is to be an American. Congress and local law enforcement are not becoming the ``thought-police.'' Rather, we are criminalizing the violent actions of closed-minded and hateful individuals.

In today's society, we see all too frequently violence based on the person's race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. We must act to address these injustices. This is not about special rights to any particular group. Actually, it is quite the contrary. This is about equal rights. This is about going after those individuals who act on their harmful beliefs. By committing hate crimes, they are attempting to relegate certain people to second-class citizenship. They think they can do this through violence. But they are wrong, and this legislation is a forceful statement that this country will not tolerate this behavior.

The victims of these crimes have done nothing to bring on this violence. Because of these crimes, the victims' communities frequently live in fear. Unfortunately, these crimes are not few and far between. These crimes are all too common, and when committed, they send a shockwave that can be felt across the country. Matthew Shepard and James Byrd are just two of the many thousands of victims of hate crimes whose deaths horrified this country. Additionally, we mustn't forget the thousands of loyal and patriotic Americans, who after 9/11, were attacked by ruthless thugs, all because they ``looked'' like--or were-- Muslims or Arab Americans. We saw many of these attacks in New York, and let me say, those attacks were not just a New York problem, they were an American problem. Every State experienced similar violence in the months after 9/11, and that is one reason why Federal legislation is appropriate.

The Act not only makes hate crimes a Federal crime, but it also serves to benefit local police departments as well, considering they are the front line of defense and prevention. This Act delivers much needed financial assistance to local police departments who may be struggling to deal with the crimes. It will also assist them in helping the community which they protect.

The point is, that we should be protecting communities who are targets of this shameful violence, and this Act today marks a great step in that direction. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this Act and look forward to working with you all to see this Act gets passed and signed into law.