Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleague Senator Kohl, to reintroduce this important piece of legislation. This legislation will work to ensure the United States government does not turn its back on political asylees or refugees who are the most vulnerable citizens seeking safety in this great country of ours. As many of you know, Congress modified the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program to include seven-year time limit on the receipt of benefits for refugees and asylees. This policy was intended to balance the desire to have people who emigrate to the United States to become citizens, with an understanding that the naturalization process also takes time to complete. To allow adequate time for asylees and refugees to become naturalized citizens, Congress provided the seven-year time limit before the expiration of SSI benefits. Unfortunately, the naturalization process often takes longer than seven years. Applicants are required to live in the United States for a minimum of five years prior to applying for citizenship. In addition to that time period, their application process often can take three or more years before resolution. Because of this time delay, many individuals are trapped in the system faced with the loss of their SSI benefits. Many of these individuals are elderly who fled persecution or torture in their home countries. They include Jews fleeing religious persecution in the former Soviet Union, Iraqi Kurds fleeing the Saddam Hussein regime, Cubans and Hmong people from the highlands of Laos who served on the side of the United States 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 seems unjust and inappropriate. The administration in its fiscal year 2008 budget acknowledged the necessity to correct this problem by dedicating funding to extend refugee eligibility for SSI beyond the seven-year limit. While I am pleased that they have taken the first step in correcting this problem, I am concerned the policy does not go far enough. Data shows that most people will need at least an additional two years to navigate and complete the naturalization process. Therefore, my colleagues and I have introduced this bill, which will provide a two-year extension. We believe this will provide the time necessary to complete the process. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill, and I look forward to working with Chairman Baucus and other members of the Finance Committee to secure these changes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, it is with great sorrow that I bring to the attention of the Senate the recent vandalism and desecration of Eugene, OR's only conservative synagogue, Ahavas Torah Synagogue, on February 22, 2007. The targets of this vile act were two sacred Torah scrolls and accompanying prayer books. Police officers responding to neighbors' calls found the building ransacked and a locked wooden chest containing the Torah scrolls pried open; the scrolls themselves were torn and damaged. This event comes as a shock to the dozen families who make up Eugene's small Orthodox community, but unfortunately is not an isolated event. In 2002, Temple Beth Israel Synagogue was vandalized during a Shabbat service; in 2001 the congregation received hundreds of hate- filled letters; and in 1994 the synagogue was fired upon with armor- piercing rifle rounds. I am compelled to speak out against this deplorable act of vandalism at the Ahavas Torah Synagogue, which proves that hate crimes still pose a serious threat to our Nation's security and values. All forms of hatred and intolerance should be combated with every available tool and America's leaders need to send a clear message that acts of violence targeted at individuals of any group will not be tolerated. For this reason, I have been a cosponsor and strong supporter of hate crimes prevention legislation. The Talmud teaches us that he ``who can protest an injustice, but does not, is an accomplice to the act.'' Even though the existence of hatred is foretold in the Torah, acts of anti-Semitism and hate must be stopped before anyone can truly worship safely and freely.

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 June 4, 2002, in Cortez, CO, 16-year-old Fred Martinez, described as a transsexual Navajo, was brutally beaten to death by Shaun Murphy. Murphy received a sentence of 40 years for his crime. According to affidavits filed in Montezuma County Court, Murphy bragged to friends in the days after Martinez's slaying that he had ``beat up a fag.'' 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 Local Law Enforcement Enhancement 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 February 21, 2007, in Boulder, CO, a Naropa University lesbian student was attacked by two men. These two men made sexual advances towards the student. When she informed them that she was a lesbian, they attacked her. She was kicked and punched several times and had to be treated for serious body injuries at a nearby hospital. The police are investigating this as a possible 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 Local Law Enforcement Enhancement 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 wish to recognize the more than 1,200 students from across the country who will visit Washington, DC, to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, the most extensive educational program in the country developed to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am proud to announce that the State of Oregon will be represented by Grant High School from Portland at this prestigious national event. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our Nation's Capital and compete at the national level. While in Washington, the students will participate in a 3-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which they ``testify'' before a panel of judges. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles as they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. With many reports and surveys indicating the lack of civic knowledge and civic participation I am pleased to support such a superb program that is producing an enlightened and engaged citizenry. Mr. President, the names of these outstanding students from Grant High School are: Phoebe Anderson-Dana, Alex Barbour, Rachael Bortin, Rachael Bosworth, Andrew Carlson, Alma Chapa, Daniel Cruse, Casey Daline, Camille Faulkner, Rebecca Fischer, Laura Harris, Tiffany Harrison, Kristin Ivie, Mark Johnston, Madeline Jones, Jennifer Kemp, Sally Larkins, Sarah Lazzeroni, Julia Liedel, Benjamin MacCormack-Gelles, Edward Maisha, Zachary Mayer, Eamon McMahon, Asumi Ohgushi, Phung Phan, Stephanie Phoutrides, Hugh Runyun, Riley Scheid, Emily Schorr, Cassidy Slaughter-Mason, Annie Soga, Jack Stephens, Annabelle Thomas, Annika Tohlen, and Kathleen Ward. I also commend the teacher of the class, Mr. Geoff Henderson, who is responsible for preparing these young constitutional experts for the national finals. Also worthy of special recognition is Ms. Marilyn Cover, the State coordinator, and Ms. Diane Thelen-Sager, the district coordinator, who are among those responsible for implementing the We the People program in my State. This group of students from Grant High School has brought pride to the State of Oregon, and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating them for their exceptional achievement.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, each Congress I rise to honor February as Black History Month. Each February since 1926, our Nation has recognized the contributions of Black Americans to the history of our Nation. This is no accident; February is a significant month in Black American history. Abolitionist Frederick Douglass, President Abraham Lincoln, and scholar and civil rights leader W.E.B. DuBois were born in the month of February. The 15th amendment to the Constitution was ratified 136 years ago this month, preventing race discrimination in the right to vote. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was founded in February in New York City. And on February 25, 1870, this body welcomed its first Black Senator, Hiram R. Revels of Mississippi. In this important month I want to celebrate some of the contributions made by Black Americans in my home State of Oregon. Since Marcus Lopez, who sailed with Captain Robert Gray in 1788, became the first person of African descent known to set foot in Oregon, a great many Black Americans have helped shape the history of my State. This is the second time this month I have come to the floor to highlight some of their stories. Dr. DeNorval Unthank arrived in the Portland, OR, after completing medical school at Howard University in Washington, DC. Dr. Unthank was recruited to Portland in 1929 because the city needed a Black doctor. He was quickly tested as his White neighbors greeted his first attempt to move into a previously all White residential area with broken windows, threatening phone calls, and general harassment. Dr. Unthank had to move his family four times before finding a peaceful place to settle down. Throughout the 1930s, Dr. Unthank was Portland's only Black medical practitioner. He was a dedicated doctor and a friend to any minority group in the city. Black families could not receive treatment in hospitals at that time and house calls were necessary. Dr. Unthank made himself available day and night and served African Americans, Asians, as well as many Whites. Dr. Unthank was politically active and was outspoken in his support of civil rights and equal opportunity. In 1940, Dr. Unthank was elected head of the Advisory Council, an organization that hoped to pressure local leaders into providing equal access to economic opportunities related to WWII jobs. The Council documented incidents of discrimination in the workplace around Portland. During and after World War II, Dr. Unthank worked tirelessly to build his medical practice and promote civil rights. He became the first Black member of Portland's City Club in 1943. He encouraged the club to publish a significant 1945 study called ``The Negro in Portland,'' which opened the eyes of many citizens to ongoing discriminatory practices. Dr. Unthank also served as president of the local chapter of the NAACP and was a cofounder of the Portland Urban League. He played a strong role in the passing of Oregon's 1953 civil rights bill, which among many issues, overturned a law banning interracial marriages in the State. In 1958, the Oregon Medical Society named him Doctor of the Year. In recognition of his service to civil rights, grateful citizens pressed the city to dedicate DeNorval Unthank Park in North Portland in his honor in 1969. Dr. Unthank once said, ``A Negro may have a few more doors closed to him and he may find them a little harder to open, but he can open them. He must keep trying.'' Dr. Unthank is only one example of the Black men and women who changed the course of history in Oregon and in the United States. During the remainder of Black History Month, I will return to the floor to celebrate more Oregonians like Dr. DeNorval Unthank, whose contributions, while great, have not yet received the attention they deserve. black history month

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Eagle Parks Pass Act. This legislation would provide admission to any Federal park that charges an admissions fee by creating a ``Veterans Eagle Pass'' for honorably discharged veterans. I am pleased to continue the efforts of my colleague Congressman Thomas Reynolds, who performed yeoman's work to introduce and push forward this legislation in the House of Representatives. Currently, an annual America the Beautiful lands pass is available to anyone for eighty dollars. My legislation would allow honorably discharged veterans to buy an annual pass for only ten dollars. I feel very strongly that those who fought so hard to protect our great nation should have better and easier access to its public lands. It is only fitting to offer our veterans improved entrance to America's great public lands like Yosemite National Park in California, Fort Sumter National Monument in South Carolina, Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge in Florida, and Crater Lake National Park in my home State of Oregon. America's terrain is diverse, from flat plains to high mountains, raging rivers to still lakes. Our country is truly bountiful. Many veterans are avid outdoorsmen and understand the value and quality of our land. In a time of such turmoil abroad, I see no more appropriate opportunity to reward our veterans for their commitment and service to our nation. I am pleased that this legislation has received the support of the American Legion, AMVETS, and Veterans of Foreign Wars. We owe it to our veterans to provide them with this service.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, to introduce the Safe Babies Act of 2007. The safety and well-being of our nation's children, including its most vulnerable infants and toddlers, is very important and I am confident that this bill will take an important step forward in protecting them. Mr. President, in our Nation millions of children are reported abused or neglected each year. Of these, more than 900,000 are confirmed maltreated by child protective service organizations and our court systems. Abuse and neglect of children causes about 1,500 deaths each year. Children who are under the age of four are at the greatest risk for injury or death--making up nearly 80 percent of child maltreatment fatalities. We also know that shaken-baby syndrome, SBS, is a form of abuse that affects more than 1,200 babies each year. Studies also tell us that younger children who are abused or neglected are vulnerable to long-term challenges associated with their maltreatment. Their long-term outcomes show much higher rates for social, emotional and cognitive impairment. They also are more likely to adopt high risk behaviors and develop substance abuse and mental health problems than their peers who have not been abused. These numbers tell us very loudly that there is a problem in America. Our most vulnerable and innocent are being abused and need our help. Children who come through our Nation's court systems need more support. While the hardworking judges, attorneys, child welfare workers and volunteers do so much to help stop the child abuse and neglect they see every day, they too often see families returning to the courts generation after generation. They see their workloads expand. They see too many families in strife. The Safe Babies Act will help these most vulnerable children. This bill puts into motion a proven model for helping infants and toddlers to recover from their abuse, and for families to stop the cycle of abuse and reunite. This model is made up of a judicial and mental health partnership, or ``court team,'' that provides the needed abuse and neglect prevention and early intervention services to children and their families. It is based on a model developed by the Honorable Cindy Lederman of the Miami-Dade Juvenile Court in Miami. Seeing the success she has had with this model. It has been replicated in courts across the nation. In my home State of Oregon, our Salem courts have developed the ``Foster Attachment'' program based on Judge Lederman's model. This program brings together the courts, local treatment providers, and child welfare agencies to provide substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment, as well as parenting intervention to help parents who have had their children removed due to methamphetamine use. I look forward to the passage of this important legislation and to working with my colleague Senator Harkin to ensure its passage. There is no issue of greater importance than the safety and welfare of our next generation. 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 Veterans Eagle Parks Pass Act. This legislation would provide admission to any Federal park that charges an admissions fee by creating a ``Veterans Eagle Pass'' for honorably discharged veterans. I am pleased to continue the efforts of my colleague Congressman Thomas Reynolds, who performed yeoman's work to introduce and push forward this legislation in the House of Representatives. Currently, an annual America the Beautiful lands pass is available to anyone for eighty dollars. My legislation would allow honorably discharged veterans to buy an annual pass for only ten dollars. I feel very strongly that those who fought so hard to protect our great nation should have better and easier access to its public lands. It is only fitting to offer our veterans improved entrance to America's great public lands like Yosemite National Park in California, Fort Sumter National Monument in South Carolina, Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge in Florida, and Crater Lake National Park in my home State of Oregon. America's terrain is diverse, from flat plains to high mountains, raging rivers to still lakes. Our country is truly bountiful. Many veterans are avid outdoorsmen and understand the value and quality of our land. In a time of such turmoil abroad, I see no more appropriate opportunity to reward our veterans for their commitment and service to our nation. I am pleased that this legislation has received the support of the American Legion, AMVETS, and Veterans of Foreign Wars. We owe it to our veterans to provide them with this service.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, to introduce the Safe Babies Act of 2007. The safety and well-being of our nation's children, including its most vulnerable infants and toddlers, is very important and I am confident that this bill will take an important step forward in protecting them. Mr. President, in our Nation millions of children are reported abused or neglected each year. Of these, more than 900,000 are confirmed maltreated by child protective service organizations and our court systems. Abuse and neglect of children causes about 1,500 deaths each year. Children who are under the age of four are at the greatest risk for injury or death--making up nearly 80 percent of child maltreatment fatalities. We also know that shaken-baby syndrome, SBS, is a form of abuse that affects more than 1,200 babies each year. Studies also tell us that younger children who are abused or neglected are vulnerable to long-term challenges associated with their maltreatment. Their long-term outcomes show much higher rates for social, emotional and cognitive impairment. They also are more likely to adopt high risk behaviors and develop substance abuse and mental health problems than their peers who have not been abused. These numbers tell us very loudly that there is a problem in America. Our most vulnerable and innocent are being abused and need our help. Children who come through our Nation's court systems need more support. While the hardworking judges, attorneys, child welfare workers and volunteers do so much to help stop the child abuse and neglect they see every day, they too often see families returning to the courts generation after generation. They see their workloads expand. They see too many families in strife. The Safe Babies Act will help these most vulnerable children. This bill puts into motion a proven model for helping infants and toddlers to recover from their abuse, and for families to stop the cycle of abuse and reunite. This model is made up of a judicial and mental health partnership, or ``court team,'' that provides the needed abuse and neglect prevention and early intervention services to children and their families. It is based on a model developed by the Honorable Cindy Lederman of the Miami-Dade Juvenile Court in Miami. Seeing the success she has had with this model. It has been replicated in courts across the nation. In my home State of Oregon, our Salem courts have developed the ``Foster Attachment'' program based on Judge Lederman's model. This program brings together the courts, local treatment providers, and child welfare agencies to provide substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment, as well as parenting intervention to help parents who have had their children removed due to methamphetamine use. I look forward to the passage of this important legislation and to working with my colleague Senator Harkin to ensure its passage. There is no issue of greater importance than the safety and welfare of our next generation. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important bill.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing the Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act of 2007. This legislation would reduce the tremendous economic and human losses that fire inflicts on the National economy and the quality of life. In 2005, fire departments responded to about 1.6 million fires. These fires resulted in about 3,500 deaths and almost 18,000 civilian injuries. Fire also caused over $10 billion in direct property damages in 2005. Fire sprinklers can dramatically decrease loss of life and injury as a result of fires. The National Fire Protection Association has no record of a fire killing more than two people in a completely sprinklered public assembly, educational, institutional, or residential building where the system was properly installed and fully operational. Fire sprinklers also mitigate economic losses resulting from fires. Fire sprinklers are responsible for a 70-percent reduction in property damage from fires in public assembly, educational, residential, commercial, industrial, and manufacturing buildings. The Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act will provide an incentive for businesses to protect their buildings with fire sprinklers. Under current law, the cost of retrofitting an existing building with automatic fire sprinklers generally would be depreciated over a 39-year period. Our legislation would reduce the depreciation period to 5 years, greatly reducing the economic burden of retrofitting a building. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to spur investment in and deployment of fuel cells and solar energy systems. I am joined today by my colleague, Senator Salazar, and eleven other Senators in introducing this important bill to encourage the development if these clean energy facilities. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created new commercial and residential investment tax credits that have helped stimulate market growth for these innovative technologies. Those tax credits, which were extended in 2006, are set to expire at the end of 2008. However, in order to drive down future production costs and encourage the development of these facilities, this bill provides for an eight-year extension of the investment tax credits for solar and fuel cell facilities. It also provides for the accelerated depreciation of commercial solar and fuel cell projects. The long-term extension is needed within these industries because these emerging energy technologies have longer planning horizons than traditional power plants. A long-term extension will also help developers secure the financing for these facilities. There are numerous benefits of extending these investment tax credits. It is estimated that an eight-year extension of the tax credits will displace over 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and save consumers over $32 billion. An estimated 70,000 new jobs will be created in the solar and fuel cell industries and over $50 billion in economic investment will be made in these industries. In addition, distributed generation facilities can serve remote sites and help address transmission congestion issues. Home-grown energy technologies and sources help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Moreover, both solar equipment and fuel cells provide zero emissions energy. I would urge my colleagues to join us in providing America's entrepreneurs and households with these important tax incentives. Together, we can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and restore our nation's leading role in these important industries.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today, I am honored to introduce the School Based Health Clinic Act of 2007. I developed this legislation in partnership with parents and healthcare advocates, all of whom are affiliated with Oregon's vibrant school based health center network. This important legislation will create a federal authorization to support the work of school based health centers (SBHCs) across the Nation. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Dodd, Snowe, Collins, Kennedy, Vitter and Bingaman. Currently, there are approximately 1700 SBHCs operating across the country, and Oregon is home to 44 of them. These special health clinics--with the input of parents, school personnel, healthcare providers and other youth advocate--provide vital primary and mental healthcare services to all children, regardless of their income or insurance status. Communities around the country are beginning to realize the enormous benefits of SBHCs, not only to the health of children, but to the broader healthcare system. Study after study show that SBHCs can help curtail inappropriate emergency room use, reduce Medicaid expenditures and prevent costly hospitalizations. Findings such as these have convinced me that Congress should be supporting programs like SBHCs that provide convenient points of access to basic healthcare services. Along with Community Health Centers, SBHCs serve as an invaluable component of the Nation's healthcare safety net. Sadly, more than nine million children in the U.S. still lack any form of health insurance coverage. As a consequence, they face enormous challenges in accessing primary, preventive and mental health services. Even those children who are fortunate to have consistent health coverage face access barriers, which may result in increased absences or undiagnosed health conditions. SBHCs help tear down those barriers so that all children-- regardless of insurance or socioeconomic status--have access to a comprehensive range of health services. What truly sets SBHCs apart is their unique model of delivering care. Working with parents, school personnel and other community based programs, they provide direct care in a manner that helps foster the development of positive behaviors and long-term healthy lifestyles. They also play an important role in helping students achieve their full academic potential. An Oregon survey found that 75 percent of SBHC users would have missed one or more classes if they had to seek treatment in a traditional care setting. Clearly, SBHCs play a vital role not only in keeping children healthy, but in supporting their long-term educational success. We cannot expect children to excel in the classroom if they are forced to miss school to seek treatment from a traditional healthcare provider. Despite the enormous value they add to our nation's educational and healthcare systems, SBHCs receive little to no federal support. Most of their funding comes from state and local resources, patient revenue and private contributions. However, as budgets tighten and deficits grow larger, SBHCs find themselves competing alongside other programs for limited public health dollars. Many have been forced to scale back services or close altogether. Some SBHCs have been fortunate to receive limited support through the Federal Community Health Center (CHC) program, if they are affiliated with or operated by a center. While this relationship has proven beneficial, over time it has placed an increasing demand on CHC's source of revenue and has limited the ability of SBHCs to cultivate the resources needed to expand into other vulnerable and underserved areas. To realize their full potential, the Federal Government needs to establish a separate authorization for SBHCs. Even a small amount of Federal support can serve as much needed seed money to attract funding from other sources. In Oregon, centers have been able to generate as much as $3 to $4 dollars in funding from other public and private sources with every $1 of State general revenue. This clearly underscores the value of the SBHC-model of service delivery to the government. My legislation is asking for only a $50 million annual appropriation to support the work of SBHCs--an investment that could lead to a return many times over. As Congress prepares to consider the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program this year, my colleagues and I have turned our attention to finding innovative and effective ways we can support the health and well-being of our Nation's children. I am hopeful that along with that important piece of legislation, we also can generate the support to pass the School Based Health Clinics Establishment Act. I believe we must support a variety of means of healthcare access so that all children are able to receive the care they need to stay healthy and well-prepared to excel in their educational pursuits.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be dispensed with, that the Senate resume consideration of H.J. Res. 20, the continuing resolution.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I came to the Senate yesterday to spend several hours speaking to the Senate to describe the loss of a program critical to rural counties in my State. The Secure Rural School and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 benefits more than Oregon. In fact, there are 38 other States and 700 counties nationwide that are affected. The safety net program it embodies protected 8.5 million schoolchildren, 557,000 teachers, and 18,000 schools from Washington State to California to Mississippi and West Virginia. That safety net was removed through expiration last September. Last week, I filed an amendment to the continuing resolution that would have extended the Secure Rural School and Community Self- Determination Act by 1 year. This time is needed to keep these 700 counties whole while Congress writes and enacts a longer term program. Yesterday, I was allowed to speak but not as long as I had hoped to speak. In fairness to other colleagues and at the request of the majority leader, I ended up only taking up a couple of hours. I thought it was necessary yesterday and, still, to describe fairly the severe impacts the expiration of the Secure Rural School Fund will have upon my State and upon many others. Likewise, the amendment tree has been filled to prevent the Senate from considering amendments such as mine. The CR is critical to my State and others to have this amendment on it simply because of the operation of time. There is one other vehicle coming up--the emergency supplemental--that could also serve to mitigate the damage which is being done. But that bill is not expected to pass until sometime in April. Between now and then, thousands of public employees will be laid off. Public libraries will be closed, public services curtailed, public safety put in jeopardy. While this bill will keep the Federal Government afloat, the most basic elements of our extended democracy in places such as Oregon will be in peril. That is not fair. It is not something I will condone or bless with my vote on this bill. I will continue to come to the Senate and speak to this, even after cloture is invoked, to try to appeal to my colleagues that this continuing resolution, which is the continued work product of the 109th Congress, should include this indispensable provision, this funding, that is so vital to the most basic services which Government is called upon to provide. Some may wonder why we are at this juncture, why it has taken so long, where there has been no action. As a former Member of the majority, I cannot begin to count the numbers of meetings I attended, pleading the case of my State, asking for consideration and being met with warm words but no commitments. My colleague now, Senator Wyden, is undertaking nobly to do the same thing as a Member of the current majority. Together, we are both committed to doing everything that is possible, that this business not be left undone because it is so critical to the State of Oregon and others. It affects Oregon disproportionately because the formula for the Secure Rural School and Community Self-Determination Act was based on historic timber levels. Many Americans do not realize that Oregon is over half owned by the Federal Government. The Federal Government created the western expansion in large measure because of the Railroad Act, incentivizing people to go and settle. California had the gold, but Oregon had the green gold in the form of timber, logs, raw material for building homes and structures throughout America and, frankly, throughout the world. The relationship that was developed between Oregon and the Federal Government was based upon timber. Because local and State governments are constitutionally prohibited from taxing the Federal Government, the Federal Government realized, as the greatest landowner, it had to provide some opportunity for local communities to have things such as schools, paved roads, police officers, and the like, the things which are normally in the general funds of counties. What it did, when the Federal Government would put up timber for sale, it would do it on a bid basis; 75 percent of the money received from bidding Federal timber would come to Washington, DC; 25 percent would go to the local communities. This was in lieu of property taxes because they had no other recourse to tax the Federal Government. This went on for well over 100 years and it worked wonderfully. But the ethic in the United States has changed as it relates to the harvesting of trees and the extraction of natural resources. The spotted owl was held up as an emblem that its survival was imperiled by the harvesting of trees. After 15 years of the Endangered Species Act listing of the spotted owl, it has now become clear the threat to the spotted owl was not logging; it was, in fact, the barred owl, which is not native to Oregon but which eats the spotted owl. In addition to that because timber harvest was ended on public lands, we now suffer extraordinary nonhistoriclike wildfires that consume millions of acres, destroying spotted owl habitat. But in all of this, through the decade of the 1990s, President Clinton generously recognized the forest policies he had implemented were doing great harm to rural communities, to timber-dependent towns, so we established the Secure Rural School and Community Self- Determination Act. In establishing that, it made up the difference, a bandaid, if you will, until we could write Federal timber policy in a way that would allow for these communities to survive in the interim. President Bush was elected to office. He has tried mightily, through the Healthy Forest Initiative, through supporting and, for the first time, funding the Northwest Forest Act, to try to free up timber so the funds are not necessary. But despite his best efforts, the courts and the laws of Congress have prevented that from occurring. So with the expiration of this act, we desperately need its continuance, its reenactment, as we continue to work to rebalance the environmental and economic equation. The irony is we are losing spotted owls through natural predation and through catastrophic wildfire. And all of the 30,000 jobs lost in my State--family wage jobs--those have not been replaced and Americans still need timber. So where do we get our timber? We get it from Canada. Canada has spotted owls as well. But what Canada does to fill the void America created for American consumers is to overcut its lands without near the environmental protections we have on our own forest lands. As a result of that, the question ought to be asked: Does the spotted owl know the difference between the border of the United States and the Canadian border? I believe the answer is no. As science and evidence is proving more all the time, the peril to the spotted owl is not humankind, it is its own kind, the barred owl, and then, of course, catastrophic wildfire. Congress needs to live up to this. This is an obligation that comes when the Federal Government, as the biggest land owner, has said you can't cut trees. But when it says you can't cut trees, that comes with a cost. It is a cost with a price, and it is a price which the Federal Treasury owes as a matter of a moral obligation. The time to act is now. Yes, we can wait for the emergency supplemental, but if we do, much of the damage will already have begun to take place. It is not necessary that we wait. It is necessary that we act now. That is my appeal. That is my message. That will continue to be the reason why I come to the Senate to inform my colleagues of this problem and of this moral obligation. If we can't have the resources in terms of dollars, then allow Oregonians to restore its timber industry so it can produce jobs, produce timber, produce the tax base so these communities can live. It is basic fairness. The time to show it is now on the continuing resolution, at this time and today. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be equally divided.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, each Congress I rise to honor February as Black History Month. Each February since 1926, our Nation has recognized the contributions of Black Americans to the history of our Nation. This is no accident; February is a significant month in Black American history. Abolitionist Frederick Douglass, President Abraham Lincoln, and scholar and civil rights leader W.E.B. DuBois were born in the month of February. The 15th amendment to the Constitution was ratified 136 years ago this month, preventing race discrimination in the right to vote. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was founded in February in New York City. And on February 25, 1870, this body welcomed its first Black Senator, Hiram R. Revels of Mississippi. In this important month I want to celebrate some of the contributions made by Black Americans in my home State of Oregon. Since Marcus Lopez, who sailed with Captain Robert Gray in 1788, became the first person of African descent known to set foot in Oregon, a great many Black Americans have helped shape the history of my State. Throughout this month, I will come to the floor to highlight some of their stories. Reverend Jesse James ``J.J.'' Clow was a beloved minister and a prominent figure in the struggle for civil rights in Portland, OR. In 1936, Reverend Clow began a service of ministry at Portland's Mount Olivet Baptist Church. Mount Olivet was the first African-American baptist church in the State of Oregon and during the 1940s and 1950s was also the largest Black church in the State. It was from this vantage point that Clow lived and preached a social gospel that contributed to the civil rights battles of Portland's WWII challenges and continued through the turbulent 60s. Clow was born in Hufsmith, TX, 1 of 15 children. Clow finished high school at Tuskegee Institute and received his B.A. from Virginia Union University. His first pulpit was in Virginia, a second in Georgia, before arriving in Portland. His experiences growing up in the South helped prepare him for a lifetime of activism for justice and civil rights. During the World War II years, Clow served as president of the local chapter of the NAACP. He was also deeply involved in the establishment of a Portland office of the Urban League. Along with these national organizations, Clow and other Portland area Black leaders worked tirelessly to improve housing and employment opportunities for African Americans. These efforts were largely responsible for ridding the city of many traditional economic and social segregation policies, including Oregon's first civil rights ordinance in 1953. Upon his retirement from Mount Olivet in 1963, Reverend Clow spoke warmly of the progress he had witnessed during his lifetime. He continued to believe that Christianity must be interpreted in terms of how men behave towards one another and not just to comfort them. Until his death, Clow encouraged the community of Portland to more fully embrace democratic ideals in its social, political, and economic sectors. Reverend Clow is only one example of the Black men and women who changed the course of history in Oregon and in the United States. During the remainder of Black History Month, I will return to the floor to celebrate more Oregonians like Rev. J.J. Clow, whose contributions, while great, have not yet received the attention they deserve.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I know we are in morning business. I will speak in such. I came from a meeting with the majority leader. He indicated a willingness to let me speak without interruption for 20 minutes. If there is no objection, I ask for that, then, by unanimous consent.

Mr. SMITH. After that, Mr. President, we will go as we can. I know other colleagues are coming. Senator Warner has an amendment he wants to speak to at 3:45.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I came here today knowing we were in morning business but looking to find a time to make a case of my State before the United States on an issue of great emergency. The clock is running out. I am speaking of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. I am pleased to state that in my conversation with my friend, the majority leader, he did indicate that he has become aware of this issue with some intensity through his conversations with Senator Wyden and now with me, and that Senator Wyden and I have little choice but to use all of our rights and privileges as Senators to focus the attention of the United States on this dire issue. I know many of my colleagues want to speak. I do not mean to disrupt their schedules, but as long as I can be allowed to speak today and at future opportunities, I intend to speak and to take a lot of time. I came prepared to speak for 5 hours today. I have a long speech, a lot of phonebooks in the cloakroom. I have a tale to tell that I believe America needs to hear about the Pacific Northwest and the people I am privileged to represent. I want Members to understand my position in the Senate, how a rural businessman from eastern Oregon was elected to the Senate, the first time someone with my profile has been elected in my State in over 70 years. It is because my political base was heard and through my candidacy has tried to be heard. It is a political base the cornerstone of which consists of farmers, fishermen, and foresters. The rural people I live with in rural Oregon, my hometown of Pendleton, OR, are counting on me to do everything I can to bring to the attention of this Senate and to the Congress in general the dire situation in which our State finds itself. I talked about the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act of 2000. That program actually expired last December. Despite many efforts in this Senate and from my colleagues in the House, efforts to extend the safety net have simply failed. Senator Wyden is working the way I did with my leadership before when we were in the majority. I hope he finds something different from what I found. What I found was people willing to listen, your cause is just, but we can't do anything for you unless and until everyone is in agreement. The problem for this particular bill is that it isn't Republican and Democratic; it is the United States against the Pacific Northwest. It is State versus State. It is Idaho complaining about Oregon's formula allocation or Washington about Oregon or Montana or California or Mississippi or all the States in the Southeast that look for county funding from this act. It is really more parochial. It is more local. It is more about individual constituencies. The formula complained about was a formula derived from this bill that Senator Craig, Senator Wyden, and myself, as the original sponsors, authored. It is a formula based on historic harvest off of public lands. By that historical formula, Oregon got about half of the money allocated under this program. There is disgruntlement now with that formula. The problem is no one can agree on another formula without doing great damage to the historical position in which Oregon finds itself. As I speak today, thousands of layoff notices are being prepared by rural counties in my State. These include law enforcement officers, county road crews, surveyors, assessors, clerks, public health workers, district attorneys, among others. These are the basic units of our extended democracy. These services are required by the Oregon State Constitution to be provided by our counties. Now those units of government are in jeopardy. My amendment cannot be called up because the amendment tree has been filled by the majority, as is their right--a practice that is coming, though, under increased scrutiny. I will briefly describe the amendment. It provides a 1-year extension of the safety net. Literally, what we are talking in the totality of this budget is a .09 percent across-the-board cut to other programs funded in this bill. I realize the majority would prefer to have this Chamber acquiesce to the preexisting contents of the bill. The fact that we are only now considering it, just hours before the Federal Government shuts down, illustrates this point. Some have said to me: How can you try to look for opportunities to filibuster the continuing resolution? How can you do that, Senator, and shut down the Government? I believe this Senate should know my heart and feeling is the United States will shut down Oregon in many respects if the continuing resolution is allowed to go forward without, literally, $360 million. That is what we are talking about--in a $1.7 trillion budget, $365 million. That is a lot of money to you and me individually; it is a rounding error in a $1.7 trillion continuing resolution. When that is translated to what it means to Oregon counties, it means shutdown. This is not a pure continuing resolution, though. The Committee on Appropriations of both the House and the Senate have shifted billions of dollars between accounts in support of their priorities. Many of those adjustments are laudable and reflect the Nation's priorities. But the fact that the county payments safety net was not addressed in this bill requires me to come to this floor and do what I can to change it. It may also reflect that many of my colleagues do not understand what this program means--not only to my State but to 8.5 million schoolchildren, 557,000 teachers, and 18,000 schools nationwide. But to fully understand the safety net and this Government's moral obligation to rural counties, a history lesson is in order. My colleagues need to understand why Federal forest management decisions make or break my State and why the consequences of these decisions have moral implications for this Chamber to consider and to act upon. The Oregon story is a history of trees and timber, of boom and bust. The Federal Government plays a central role in this account, both as protagonist and antagonist. Alexis de Tocqueville, writing about democracy in America in the 1830s, believed that any history--of men and nations alike--must begin at infancy. He wrote: A man has come into the world; his early years are spent without notice in the pleasures and activities of childhood. As he grows up, the world receives him when his manhood begins, and he enters into contact with his fellows. He is then studied for the first time, and it is imagined that the germ of the vices and the virtues of his maturer years is then formed. This, if I am not mistaken, is a great error. We must begin higher up; we must watch the infant in his mother's arms; we must see the first images which the external world casts upon the dark mirror of his mind, the first occurrences that he witnesses, we must hear the first words which awaken the sleeping powers of thought, and stand by his earliest efforts if we would understand the prejudices, the habits, and the passions which will rule his life. The entire man is, so to speak, to be seen in the cradle of the child. Like Alexis de Tocqueville's America, the Oregon story must be told from the beginning. Many of my colleagues are familiar with the slogan ``54-40 or fight!'' This referred to the territorial dispute between Great Britain and the United States over the Northwest Territory, lying south of the parallel 54 degrees, 40 minutes. In 1846, Great Britain conceded absolute jurisdiction to the United States, and in 1848, Congress formally declared this land ``the Oregon Territory,'' albeit below the 49th parallel. Joseph Lane, of Roseburg, OR, became the first territorial Governor of Oregon Territory. Soon thereafter, the Columbia River divided it into two territories, with Washington Territory demarcated north of the river. Two days from now will mark the 148th anniversary of a great act of this body. By the way, Oregon's birthday is Valentines Day every year. Let me read from the Congressional Record--then called the Journal of the Senate--from February 14, 1859: Mr. President: The House of Representatives has passed the bill of the Senate (S. 239) for the admission of Oregon into the Union. Mr. Jones reported from the committee that they had examined and found duly enrolled the bill (S. 239) for the admission of Oregon into the Union. A message from the President of the United States by Mr. Henry, his secretary: Mr. President: The President of the United States this day approved and signed an act (S. 239) for the admission of Oregon into the Union. Mr. Pugh presented the credentials of the honorable Joseph Lane, elected a senator by the legislature of the State of Oregon. The credentials were read; and the oath prescribed by law was administered to Mr. Lane and he took his seat in the Senate. Mr. Gwin presented the credentials of the honorable Delazon Smith, elected a senator by the legislature of the State of Oregon. The credentials were read; and the oath prescribed by law was administered to Mr. Smith and he took his seat in the Senate. I note that my colleague, Senator Wyden, is on the floor. As a matter of interest to him and me, I sit in the seat of, I suppose appropriately, Delazon Smith. Senator Wyden sits in the seat of Joseph Lane. Mr. President, as an aside, I have always thought the best movie I had ever seen as a little boy was ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' Apparently, I am going to be denied that opportunity today, but I do want to begin this 5-hour speech which the Senate will hear in its entirety eventually and on other pieces of legislation inevitably. Mr. Gwin submitted the following resolutions; which were considered, by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That the Senate proceed to ascertain the classes in which the senators from the State of Oregon shall be inserted, in conformity with the resolution of the 14th of May, 1879, and as the Constitution requires. Resolved, That the Secretary put into the ballot box two papers of equal size, one of which shall be numbered one, and the other shall be numbered two, and each senator shall draw out one paper; that the senator who shall draw the paper numbered one shall be inserted in the class of senators whose term of service will expire the 3d day of March, 1859, and the senator who shall draw the paper numbered two shall be inserted in the class of senators whose term of service will expire the 3d day of March, 1861. Whereupon--The papers above mentioned, being put by the Secretary into the ballot box, the honorable Joseph Lane drew the paper numbered two, and is accordingly in the class of senators whose term of service will expire the third day of March, 1861. The honorable Delazon Smith drew the paper numbered one, and is accordingly in the class of senators whose term of service will expire the third of March, 1859. That is the end of the citation. This is how Oregon entered the Union and its first two U.S. Senators were welcomed into this great deliberative body--148 years ago this Wednesday. On February 14, 1859, Oregon had a population of 52,465 people. Congress passed and President Lincoln signed into law the Homestead Act in 1862. That law offered 160 acres to any citizen who would live on frontier land for 5 years. By 1866, Oregon's population was nearly doubled by those answering the Federal Government's call into the fertile valleys and along the fish-filled rivers of Oregon. Even when the land in the valleys and along the rivers was all taken, there was another wave of pioneers ready to head into the mountains. One such story is recounted by Jessie Wright in her book ``How High the Bounty.'' Jessie and Perry Wright were granted the first of five homesteads in the Umpqua National Forest. This story--as were thousands of others--was a call to the Manifest Destiny, embodied in our State song, ``Oregon, My Oregon.'' By the way, if I get a chance to get back at this, eventually I will read the whole book, ``How High the Bounty,'' here in the Senate. But our State song embodies this Manifest Destiny. It sings like this. I will not sing it to you, Mr. President. Land of the Empire Builders, Land of the Golden West; Conquered and held by free men, Fairest and the best. Onward and upward ever, Forward and on, and on; Hail to thee, Land of Heroes, My Oregon. Land of the rose and sunshine, Land of the summer's breeze; Laden with health and vigor, Fresh from the Western seas. Blest by the blood of martyrs, Land of the setting sun; Hail to thee, Land of Promise, My Oregon. When Oregon entered the Union in 1859, the State itself was given roughly 3.5 million acres of the 62 million acres lying within its boundaries. The remaining 95 percent of the land base was retained by the Federal Government as national public domain lands. Think of that, Mr. President. Just like your State, I suspect, the Federal Government owns most of it. Over a period of 75 years, following Oregon's statehood, the U.S. General Land Office sold, exchanged, donated, or otherwise disposed of 23 million acres of Oregon's land--reducing Federal ownership from 91 percent to 52 percent. The Federal Government continues to hold ownership to 33 million acres of Oregon land, wielding autocratic control over a majority of my State--a practice exercised only against Western States, holding them in what can only be described as a form of economic bondage. Neither the State of Oregon nor its counties can tax federally controlled land or exercise any control whatsoever over them. But since 1908, with the passage of the 25 Percent Act, the Federal Government has paid counties 25 percent of the income generated from timber, mining rights, grazing leases, and other benefits from the land it owns in Oregon. Twenty-five percent; that is what we are talking about. That is what has gone away through timber law changes and court decisions and administrative Executive orders. Since 1937, the Bureau of Land Management has shared 75 percent--and more recently 50 percent--of its timber receipts with affected counties. It was out of the 33 million acres of Federal land that were created, first, the forest reserves and then the national forests. The General Revision Act in 1891 allowed Presidential withdrawal of forest reserves. The Organic Act and the Forest Reserve Act followed, expanding the National Forest System and Federal assertion over the management of these forests. In creating these Federal forests, President Teddy Roosevelt had a clear policy. This is what Teddy Roosevelt said: And now, first and foremost, you can never afford to forget for one moment what is the object of our forest policy. That object is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful, though that is good in itself; nor because they are refuges for wild creatures of the wilderness, though that, too, is good in itself; but the primary object of our forest policy in the United States, is the making of prosperous homes. Every other consideration comes as secondary. Unlike other Western States with national forests, Oregon has a unique tract of Federal forestland. Its official name is the Revested Oregon and California Land Grant and the Reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands, or O&C for short. These forests have a fascinating history of their own. To capture this history, I will borrow from the book ``Saving Oregon's Golden Goose,'' interviews with Joe Miller. It reads as follows: Think of railroads as the internet of America's Gilded Age. . . . Am I done, Mr. President? I am just getting to the good part. You would really enjoy this.

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Presiding Officer for the time and the majority leader for his courtesy. I was informed by the majority leader that after Senator Wyden and other Senators who have reserved time speak, I could again ask for time, and would indicate that being my intention because I do not want you to miss this. This is really getting good, Mr. President. There is about 4\1/2\ hours to go of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague will yield for a question.

Mr. SMITH. My colleague is the author of this legislation. As he has worked in the 109th Congress from the minority side, and I worked the majority side, I suppose he found, as I did, that many people said: Well, the cause is just, but just work it out. There weren't a lot of folks who wanted to work it out. Now, as we come to the final business of the last Congress in this Congress, in a congressional resolution, is it not true that we only have this piece of legislation and the emergency supplemental that we have to attach this to? And if we don't, the pink slips are for real?