Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I think everything that could be said and should be said has been said. I ask for the yeas and nays if they have not already been asked for.

Mr. SMITH. I request the yeas and nays on the Smith amendment.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, we yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President and colleagues, we have just voted for a sense of the Senate unanimously to do what the next amendment says we should do. And we should do it today. My mother used to always say: Son, never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. I say we should do today the following things with this next vote: make permanent the deduction for qualified tuition expenses; make permanent the employee exclusion from gross income of employer-provided education assistance; make permanent the enhancements to the Coverdell education savings accounts. Do it today. That helps working folks and families struggling to pay for education. Let's not put off until later what we can do right now. I urge an ``aye'' vote. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable portion of the Budget Act and urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I call up amendment numbered 113, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act. My amendment would make permanent existing education tax benefits that are set to expire in the near future. I am a big supporter of the Republican progrowth tax policies that have been implemented over the past few years. These policies have had a tremendous impact on our economy. Since August 2003, more than 7.2 million jobs have been created. Our unemployment rate remains low at 4.5 percent, which is well below the 5.1 percent average rate for 2005, and below the average of each of the past four decades. And thanks to our strong economic growth, tax revenues continue to pour in. Tax receipts in December were $18 billion higher than a year earlier. My amendment focuses on an important component of the Bush tax cuts-- education tax benefits. This amendment would make permanent a number of important tax provisions that make it easier for Americans to save for college and pay for their children's education expenses. Educating our citizens is critical if we want to remain competitive in the global economy. But as tuition costs continue to escalate, it has become more and more difficult for American families to cover these expenses on their own. The education tax benefits that have been enacted over the past few years will help American families meet these obligations. Therefore, it is important that we don't let these tax benefits expire. My amendment would make permanent the deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses which is set to expire at the end of 2007. The 2001 tax act created this new deduction which allows middle-income Americans to take a deduction for higher education expenses of up to $4,000. In 2004, over 4.5 million American families took advantage of this deduction. And in my home state of Oregon, almost 65,000 families used the deduction. In addition, if certain requirements are satisfied, an employee can exclude from gross income up to $5,250 annually of educational assistance provided by an employer. This exclusion applies to both graduate and undergraduate courses. Because of this favorable tax treatment, many employers provide their employees with educational assistance. However, the exclusion will not be available after December 31, 2010. My amendment would make this provision permanent. Coverdell education savings accounts are an important tool for Americans to save for future education expenses. The 2001 tax act made a number of reforms to enhance these accounts. For example, it increased the annual contribution limit to $2,000 from $500 and expanded the definition of qualified expenses to include elementary and secondary school expenses. However, like the exclusion for employer provided educational assistance, these enhancements expire after 2010. My amendment would make these enhancements permanent. Finally, the recently enacted tax extenders package extended the deduction for educator expenses through 2007. This provision provides a $250 per year above-the-line deduction for teachers for expenses paid for supplies, such as books and computer equipment. Teaching is one of the most important professions in our society. And this provision provides teachers with a little help in purchasing the supplies they need to be good teachers. In Oregon, over 33,000 teachers benefited from this deduction in 2003. And my amendment would make this provision permanent. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH. I thank my colleague, Mr. President. I join Senator Wyden in saying this is my No. 1 priority as well. It is an emergency. It is not a natural disaster, but it is related to natural resources. It is a disaster that has been in the making through the course of a decade and more of Congresses, courts, and, obviously, the effort of the Clinton administration to reduce timber harvest on public lands in the Pacific Northwest. That has created a circumstance in the Pacific Northwest that Senator Wyden and I seek to address. We do so because it is such an emergency. We have to look for every opportunity, every train that is leaving the station, to bring this to the attention of Congress and to get it to President Bush, who has said he will sign an extension. For the benefit of the record, let me indicate some of the history of this issue. All of this was done with the best of intentions as it relates to natural resources and the management of public lands. It was done to benefit the spotted owl, threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. I should add that after 15 years of negligible harvest on public lands, the owl is still not recovering and its habitat is being incinerated by catastrophic wildfire. Whether tacit or intentional, those management decisions have caused severe costs that are borne on the backs of those who can least afford it. These people and communities need relief as much as those burdened by other disasters, such as hurricanes or tidal waves. The timber war has had many casualties. It has been a catastrophe for rural communities. County governments, colleagues, receive a share of timber receipts from Federal lands--25 percent from the Forest Service and 50 percent from BLM. The State Senator Wyden and I represent is more than 50 percent owned by the Federal Government. What you have, therefore, is timber-locked communities. For generations, these timber receipts have provided funds to offset the fact that local communities cannot tax the Federal Government. It makes up the vast majority of their funds to operate their counties, their schools, public safety. When timber harvest evaporated, so did county budgets. In 1999, my colleague from Oregon, Senator Craig from Idaho, myself, and others came to this floor to describe what was happening to rural Oregon. Schools went to 4 days a week. They dropped sports and extracurricular activities and curtailed other programs. Communities were forced to make heartbreaking decisions over whether to cut social service programs or school funding or to sharply reduce sheriffs' patrols and close jails. Fortunately, Congress created a safety net in the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. This provided funding to counties based on historic rather than current timber harvest levels, and it kept them afloat until the Federal timber program stabilized--a stabilization for which we are still awaiting. I realize other States may think Oregon receives too much assistance under this program; however, I would ask, what other Federal disaster assistance is not allocated based on the intensity and location of the disaster? You go where the problem exists. Between 1987 and 2002, Federal timber harvest in Oregon dropped 96 percent. That is an annual shortfall of enough wood to build over 235,000 homes. Without a county payment safety net, here is an example of what my county commissioners are facing. Curry County, located on the southern Oregon coast, has an annual general fund of $7.7 million. The safety net accounts for over $4 million of that $7 million. The county is not legally able to raise property taxes, but it is constitutionally bound to fund administrative and law enforcement functions. Curry County has 11,000 homes. To replace the safety net funding with new property taxes, it would need over 35,000 new homes valued at $345,000 each. That is not going to happen. With only 22,000 residents and 1.43 percent of its land available for development, this is simply an impossibility. But the safety net is not just about Oregon counties. In the life of the legislation, California received $308 million; Idaho, $102 million; Montana, $63.4 million. That program expired on our watch 4 months ago. Now rural counties across the Nation are dangling on an economic tightrope without a safety net to catch them. My colleague from Oregon and I have left no stone unturned to find money for an extension. Those efforts have been unsuccessful. We stand here with our timber-dependent counties at the mercy, once more, of the Federal Government. If we do not extend the safety net, many counties in my State stand to lose nearly 70 percent of their general and road funds. Preparations are already underway to close public libraries, pink slips to thousands of county employees will soon be in the mail, vital search-and-rescue operations will be curtailed. The Nation has seen these search-and-rescue operations go tragically in several cases recently on national TV. Oregon has lived with devastating Federal mandates on our forests, but we cannot live with an instant evisceration of our public services. That cannot be the rural legacy of this Congress. My colleague from Oregon and I have filed this amendment to the minimum wage bill to provide a 1-year extension of the safety net. It is only fitting that as we consider raising wages for workers in the private sector, we address the very future of jobs and services in the public sector. We are also introducing legislation for a full reauthorization, and we will make every attempt at every opportunity in this Congress to turn back the tide that is quickly approaching rural communities and counties across the Nation. We can prevent this natural disaster, a natural disaster that has a human component. I join with my colleague to express our determination and thank him for his leadership, his authorship of this in the first instance, and of our mutual determination for the sake of our State to right this wrong.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, it is always an exciting time when a new Congress takes its oath of office and the President comes to Capitol Hill to give his State of the Union Address. It is a time when our Nation takes its pulse and checks its health. As we contemplate what the President might say and the agenda that this Congress might pursue, it occurs to me that this is a good time to express what I hope will be a priority of this Congress, and it relates to health. I think, undoubtedly, the President will focus some of his remarks on Iraq. That continues as a major focus of public attention and a legitimate cause of its concern. But I think the American people would also very much appreciate our turning our focus to home, on things that affect the lives of everyday Americans and their families and on their individual concerns. There is probably no greater individual concern than health care. I do hope the President will address health care because I know moms and dads are addressing it every day. There are three issues I would like to speak to as it relates to health care, to what I hope will be a focus of the 110th Congress. When I think of health care in this Congress, the issues that come to mind are stem cells, mental health, and the uninsured. When I think of stem cells, I immediately think of some of the most loathesome diseases that affect humankind. Obviously, Parkinson's disease, which has certainly taken its toll in my family; Alzheimer's, which afflicts so many of our seniors and puts incredible burdens upon their caregivers; and diabetes. It is heartrending to meet with children afflicted with diabetes at an early age, that directs them down a path of lifelong suffering and dependence upon injections. I think of cardiovascular disease. Heart disease is probably our greatest killer as a people. Then, of course, there are those who, through accidents or other causes, suffer spinal cord injuries. All of these terrible afflictions have mystified our best and brightest minds in the scientific community, and yet stem cell research, in all of its forms--embryonic, adult stem cells, and some of the new breakthroughs that have been discovered through amniotic fluid--all hold great promise. It does seem to me that one of the first steps of this Congress ought to be to return to this debate. The time is now to make progress. The time is now for us as a people to have the vast majority view heard and enacted into law. It is important for the Federal Government to show up to work on this issue. It is important because the Federal Government can provide the seed money. The Federal Government can provide the moral boundaries. The Federal Government can help to provide world leadership on this important biomedical ethical issue. So as we enter this Congress, I do hope that by large majorities in the House and the Senate, we will pass embryonic stem cell research and further those other avenues in stem cell research that hold out so much promise. I have always believed that an ethic of life includes concern for the living as well. I believe it is time for us to unshackle the hands of our scientists so that we can unlock with the key of science these great mysteries. Next, Mr. President, I speak of mental health. It has always been troubling to me, but especially in light of my family's history, that physical health is held at one level but mental health has always occupied a subordinate level. Because of the embarrassment and then the shame that attends mental health, a great stigma has attached to this issue, and because stigma attaches to it, society has caused those who suffer debilitating mental health issues not to seek treatment or to hide their afflictions. Yet it seems to me obvious that such issues as schizophrenia, bipolar condition, postpartum depression--it is hard to imagine anyone in this modern day and age who says these are not legitimate afflictions of humankind. And if they are legitimate, then the Congress of the United States should begin to treat them as legitimate. It seems to me that in all of its manifestations, these biases against mental health need to be removed. We find them in our statutes relative to Medicaid and Medicare. When it comes to copays, when it comes to reimbursement, the Federal Government has a prejudice against mental health. Why would that be? If you do not have mental health but you have physical health, you do not have health. The mind and body interact in a very direct way, and both are necessary if the American people are to have health. I do believe the Congress needs to address the biases against mental health. I do believe we should enact mental health parity in insurance law. It is a source of pride to me that my own State of Oregon this past legislative session enacted mental health parity, so that on January 1 of this year, all Oregonians woke up to know that as a matter of law their health care covers mental health as well. And we should do no less as the Federal Government. We need to change this aspect. We need to change it in Medicaid, Medicare, in insurance law, in teaching parity in our medical schools, in our pharmaceutical policies--all of these things must elevate mental health to the same level as physical health. Another part of mental health, in my own calculation, is a very personal passion of mine; that is, the reauthorization and full funding of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. There is a plague in this country, an epidemic, if you will, of youth suicide. It begins as depression and sometimes leads to the most tragic of results. It is my hope that this 110th Congress, the House and the Senate, united, will reauthorize and fully fund this great and important act. It is not the whole answer, but it is an important beginning because it incentivizes States to enact prevention and intervention programs--not just States but tribes, colleges, universities--to be able to respond to this issue which is costing the lives of over 3,000 young people a year. I hope we will do that. It is one of the actions the Congress before took which was truly bipartisan, which truly has made a difference in saving hundreds, perhaps thousands, of lives. Finally, let me speak to access. I think it is a source of some national shame that 46 million Americans are uninsured. It is true that probably half of that number are uninsured by choice. They tend to be young people who would want to spend their money in other ways. But of that 46 million, 9 million of these are children, and that is a national shame. I believe we need to reauthorize the SCHIP program. SCHIP, along with Medicaid, is one of the central strands in our public safety net. I believe we need to do this because of the 6 million children who are insured by this, some 3 million more are eligible but are not enrolled. I believe, in addition to this, we need to look at all the good ideas we can find in this Congress to provide insurance coverage for the uninsured. Senator Wyden of Oregon and I have a proposal for universal catastrophic coverage. We believe that, at least in America, if you lose your health, you should not lose your home. Mr. President, I believe my time is up. I thank you for the time, and I focus our Nation's attention on a most pressing and urgent family and national urgency, which is health care. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about World Trade Month. I have always been a free trader, and I am very proud of the many Oregon companies that are active in international trade and are pioneers in breaking into new markets and tearing down ancient barriers to commerce and cooperation. As advances in technology and transportation shrink our world, the international trade of goods and ideas becomes more and more vital to our economy. In May 2006, the Commerce Department's Office of Export Assistance organized a very timely and useful program that focused on Asian markets beyond China. Oregonians who pay attention to trade realize the importance of China as a market for goods and services from the Pacific Northwest, but we also have a long and robust history of trade relations elsewhere in Pacific Rim Asia. As a result of this, I have led the Senate's effort to normalize our trade relations with Vietnam and increase trade with the least developed countries in the Asia- Pacific region. As a businessman, I have seen how trade can raise standards of living both in America and around the world. International commerce creates new growth opportunities for our manufacturers and agricultural producers, and WTO membership for Vietnam will help ensure that everyone's playing by the same rules. It will also mean that Oregon farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and service providers will enjoy greater access to a market of more than 83 million new customers. During the Commerce Department's conference, Deputy Assistant USTR Jeri Jensen provided a very insightful keynote address, which, without objection, I would like to have printed in the Record. I believe this speech is worth examination by my colleagues interested in trade policy and export markets for U.S. goods and services. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the speech be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I rise on the Senate floor today to lament a state of emergency in the rural parts of my State. The emergency we face is related to natural resources but different from those of drought and hurricane that the Senate has discussed and responded to. The disasters in Oregon are not acts of God but of an infinitely more fallible entity--the Federal Government. Adverse decisions on forest and fisheries management are imperiling entire communities and entire ways of life. I am not seeking, at this time, to reverse those management decisions. Although they deserve intense scrutiny. What I am seeking is that this Government recognize that its decisions have a cost--one that is borne on the backs of those who can least afford It. These people and communities need relief as much as those burdened by other disasters not of their creation. Over a decade ago, the Federal Government sought fit to bring tens of thousands of loggers and mill workers to their knees by stopping timber harvest on Federal lands in Oregon. It did so in the name of the spotted owl, a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. I should add that after 15 years of negligible harvest on these lands, the owl is still not recovering and its habitat is being incinerated in catastrophic wildfire. That timber war had more casualties than just jobs in the woods. County governments receive a share of timber receipts from Federal land--25 percent from the Forest Service and 50 percent from the BLM. For generations these funds have offset the inability to tax Federal property--which makes up the vast majority of most counties in my State. When timber harvest evaporated, so did county budgets. In 1999, I came to this floor to describe to my colleagues what was happening in rural Oregon. Schools went to 4-day weeks, dropped sports and extracurricular activities, and curtailed other programs. Communities were forced to make heart-breaking decisions over whether to cut back social service programs or school funding--or to sharply reduce sheriffs' patrols and close jails or to cut out all extracurricular activities at their schools. Fortunately, Congress created a safety net in the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. This provided funding to counties based on historic rather than current timber harvest levels. And not just Oregon counties. In the life of that legislation, California received California received $308 million; Idaho, $102 million; and Montana, $63.4 million. That program expired, on our watch, 2 months ago. My colleague from Oregon and I have left no stone unturned to find money for an extension. Those efforts have been unsuccessful and we stand here, with our timber dependent counties, at the mercy of the Government. Their plight is compounded by a second Federally created disaster in Oregon's commercial salmon fishing industry, delivering a double blow to many of the same counties. Commercial salmon fishing remained this season along more than 400 nautical miles, stretching from Florence, OR to Pigeon Point, CA. Estimates put the impact of this closure to Oregon and California fishing communities around $60 million. This year marked the first time in history that there was no commercial salmon harvest in Curry and Coos counties in Oregon. Curry County also stands to lose $6,591,993 or 62.3 percent of its road and general discretionary funds with the failure of Congress to extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. Mr. President, the clock is winding down on the 109th and soon Members of Congress will leave town to return to their districts or States. We will be leaving without extending this important safety net for our rural counties and without completing action on the annual appropriations bills to fund the Government. I can only tell my counties and Oregon's fishermen that the fire will not die on these issues, it will only grow more intense when the 110th Congress convenes.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I am aware of the concerns, and I want to thank the senior Senator from California for her leadership on this issue. The apparel industry is a very important segment of Oregon's economy, and my constituents back home are watching this issue very closely. There is a great deal at stake here for Oregon companies such as Nike, Inc., and Columbia Sportswear that source apparel from Vietnam. These companies provide thousands of well-paying jobs to workers in my State and infuse billions of dollars into Oregon's economy. I have heard from them and other U.S. retailers about the impact the proposed monitoring program will have on their businesses as unilateral actions such as this can have a significant chilling effect on companies' sourcing strategies. Unfortunately, the administration did not give the apparel and retail industry due consideration in its decision to monitor textile and apparel products from Vietnam. I am disappointed that the administration chose to use our trade remedy laws as a tool in the legislative process and not consult with other Members of Congress or the retail industry before agreeing to create a new monitoring process. I share the concerns of my constituents that this program will burden and discriminate against trade in textiles and apparel from Vietnam. I was pleased that the senior Senator from California agreed to send a letter with me to USTR and Commerce asking for assurances that the program would be implemented in a manner fully consistent with U.S. law and our obligations in the World Trade Organization, WTO, and that no new precedent would be set; the program would not establish any additional burdens for importers and exporters of Vietnamese textiles and apparel; and U.S. textile and apparel importers and retailers will have the opportunity to review and comment on how the program is developed.

Mr. SMITH. It is my understanding that lawyers from USTR and Commerce have advised Ambassador Schwab and Secretary Gutierrez that because a notice has been placed in the Federal Register announcing the creation of the import monitoring program and soliciting public comment, they cannot provide a substantive written response to our letter. Nevertheless, Ambassador Schwab and Assistant Secretary of Commerce Spooner graciously agreed to meet with the Senator from California and me to provide us with more information about the import monitoring program and how it will be implemented.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the Senator from California is correct. Specifically, USTR and Commerce told us that it is their intention that any investigation would only cover those textile and apparel products imported from Vietnam which are like or identical to a product also produced in the United States. This also means that, consistent with U.S. law, the domestic producer will have to request monitoring and supply information about their employment levels and production. This makes sense to me because why would the U.S. Government monitor a product from Vietnam that is not produced in the United States or that the U.S. domestic industry is not interested in being monitored in the first place? It is also my understanding that according to U.S. law, any finding of critical circumstance, which would trigger preliminary antidumping duties, would only be made during the course of an investigation and not in advance of an investigation.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I agree with the senior Senator from California, and I would like to thank her for standing with me on this important matter. I too will support PNTR for Vietnam. Both of us are committed to a strong and mutually beneficial United States-Vietnam trade relationship. Both of us understand how important the vibrant and growing Vietnam market is to our constituents. I look forward to working with the senior Senator from California to provide effective oversight of the monitoring program and ensure that the voice of retailers across the country are heard in the discussion of U.S. trade policy. I trust Ambassador Schwab when she told us that she intends to have this monitoring process work in the way we discussed in our meeting. As the senior Senator from California knows, we have many difficult trade initiatives that we will consider next year. I, for one, will measure my willingness to work with the administration on these upcoming initiatives, in part, based on the good faith of the administration in implementing this monitoring process in a fair and normal way.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I know it is probably appropriate to speak of our colleagues, and I will do that on the record. I rise tonight, however, to speak about a subject heavy on my mind. It is the subject of the war in Iraq. I have never worn the uniform of my country. I am not a soldier or a veteran. I regret that fact. It is one of the regrets of my life. But I am a student of history, particularly military history, and it is that perspective which I brought to the Senate 10 years ago as a newly elected Member of this Chamber. When we came to the vote on Iraq, it was an issue of great moment for me. No issue is more difficult to vote on than war and peace, because it involves the lives of our soldiers, our young men and women. It involves the expenditure of our treasure, putting on the line the prestige of our country. It is not a vote taken lightly. I have tried to be a good soldier in this Chamber. I have tried to support our President, believing at the time of the vote on the war in Iraq that we had been given good intelligence and knowing that Saddam Hussein was a menace to the world, a brutal dictator, a tyrant by any standard, and one who threatened our country in many different ways, through the financing and fomenting of terrorism. For those reasons and believing that we would find weapons of mass destruction, I voted aye. I have been rather silent on this question ever since. I have been rather quiet because, when I was visiting Oregon troops in Kirkuk in the Kurdish area, the soldiers said to me: Senator, don't tell me you support the troops and not our mission. That gave me pause. But since that time, there have been 2,899 American casualties. There have been over 22,000 American men and women wounded. There has been an expenditure of $290 billion a figure that approaches the expenditure we have every year on an issue as important as Medicare. We have paid a price in blood and treasure that is beyond calculation by my estimation. Now, as I witness the slow undoing of our efforts there, I rise to speak from my heart. I was greatly disturbed recently to read a comment by a man I admire in history, one Winston Churchill, who after the British mandate extended to the peoples of Iraq for 5 years, wrote to David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of England: At present we are paying 8 millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano. When I read that, I thought, not much has changed. We have to learn the lessons of history and sometimes they are painful because we have made mistakes. Even though I have not worn the uniform of my country, I, with other colleagues here, love this Nation. I came into politics because I believed in some things. I am unusually proud of the fact of our recent history, the history of our Nation since my own birth. At the end of the Second World War, there were 15 nations on earth that could be counted as democracies that you and I would recognize. Today there are 150 nations on earth that are democratic and free. That would not have happened had the United States been insular and returned to our isolationist roots, had we laid down the mantle of world leadership, had we not seen the importance of propounding and encouraging the spread of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and the values of our Bill of Rights. It is a better world because of the United States of America, and the price we have paid is one of blood and treasure. Now we come to a great crossroads. A commission has just done some, I suppose, good work. I am still evaluating it. I welcome any ideas now because where we are leaves me feeling much like Churchill, that we are paying the price to sit on a mountain that is little more than a volcano of ingratitude. Yet as I feel that, I remember the pride I felt when the statue of Saddam Hussein came down. I remember the thrill I felt when three times Iraqis risked their own lives to vote democratically in a way that was internationally verifiable as well as legitimate and important. Now all of those memories seem much like ashes to me. The Iraq Study Group has given us some ideas. I don't know if they are good or not. It does seem to me that it is a recipe for retreat. It is not cut and run, but it is cut and walk. I don't know that that is any more honorable than cutting and running, because cutting and walking involves greater expenditure of our treasure, greater loss of American lives. Many things have been attributed to George Bush. I have heard him on this floor blamed for every ill, even the weather. But I do not believe him to be a liar. I do not believe him to be a traitor, nor do I believe all the bravado and the statements and the accusations made against him. I believe him to be a very idealistic man. I believe him to have a stubborn backbone. He is not guilty of perfidy, but I do believe he is guilty of believing bad intelligence and giving us the same. I can't tell you how devastated I was to learn that in fact we were not going to find weapons of mass destruction. But remembering the words of the soldier--don't tell me you support the troops but you don't support my mission--I felt the duty to continue my support. Yet I believe the President is guilty of trying to win a short war and not understanding fully the nature of the ancient hatreds of the Middle East. Iraq is a European creation. At the Treaty of Versailles, the victorious powers put together Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia tribes that had been killing each other for time immemorial. I would like to think there is an Iraqi identity. I would like to remember the purple fingers raised high. But we can not want democracy for Iraq more than they want it for themselves. And what I find now is that our tactics there have failed. Again, I am not a soldier, but I do know something about military history. And what that tells me is when you are engaged in a war of insurgency, you can't clear and leave. With few exceptions, throughout Iraq that is what we have done. To fight an insurgency often takes a decade or more. It takes more troops than we have committed. It takes clearing, holding, and building so that the people there see the value of what we are doing. They become the source of intelligence, and they weed out the insurgents. But we have not cleared and held and built. We have cleared and left, and the insurgents have come back. I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore. I believe we need to figure out how to fight the war on terror and to do it right. So either we clear and hold and build, or let's go home. There are no good options, as the Iraq Study Group has mentioned in their report. I am not sure cutting and walking is any better. I have little confidence that the Syrians and the Iranians are going to be serious about helping us to build a stable and democratic Iraq. I am at a crossroads as well. I want my constituents to know what is in my heart, what has guided my votes. What will continue to guide the way I vote is simply this: I do not believe we can retreat from the greater war on terror. Iraq is a battlefield in that larger war. But I do believe we need a presence there on the near horizon at least that allows us to provide intelligence, interdiction, logistics, but mostly a presence to say to the murderers that come across the border: We are here, and we will deal with you. But we have no business being a policeman in someone else's civil war. I welcome the Iraq Study Group's report, but if we are ultimately going to retreat, I would rather do it sooner than later. I am looking for answers, but the current course is unacceptable to this Senator. I suppose if the President is guilty of one other thing, I find it also in the words of Winston Churchill. He said: After the First World War, let us learn our lessons. Never, never believe that any war will be smooth and easy or that anyone who embarks on this strange voyage can measure the tides and the hurricanes. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. That is a lesson we are learning again. I am afraid, rather than leveling with the American people and saying this was going to be a decade-long conflict because of the angst and hatred that exists in that part of the world, that we tried to win it with too few troops in too fast a time. Lest anyone thinks I believe we have failed militarily, please understand I believe when President Bush stood in front of ``mission accomplished'' on an aircraft carrier that, in purely military terms, the mission was accomplished in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But winning a battle, winning a war, is different than winning a peace. We were not prepared to win the peace by clearing, holding, and building. You don't do that fast and you don't do it with too few troops. I believe now that we must either determine to do that, or we must redeploy in a way that allows us to continue to prosecute the larger war on terror. It will not be pretty. We will pay a price in world opinion. But I, for one, am tired of paying the price of 10 or more of our troops dying a day. So let's cut and run, or cut and walk, or let us fight the war on terror more intelligently than we have, because we have fought this war in a very lamentable way. Those are my feelings. I regret them. I would have never voted for this conflict had I reason to believe that the intelligence we had was not accurate. It was not accurate, but that is history. Now we must find a way to make the best of a terrible situation, at a minimum of loss of life for our brave fighting men and women. So I will be looking for every opportunity to clear, build, hold, and win or how to bring our troops home. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide for credit rate parity under section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code for electricity from eligible renewable resources produced and sold after December 31, 2006. Currently, certain renewable resources such as wind and closed-loop biomass receive a credit of 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour produced. For other renewables, such as open-loop biomass and incremental hydropower, the amount of the credit is reduced by half. I have been a longtime supporter of the production tax credit. There are significant wind facilities in Oregon, where we have over 335 megawatts of installed wind capacity. These facilities provide clean energy as well as important revenues to farmers and rural counties in Eastern Oregon. My bill does not reduce the credit rate for wind but, rather, increases the rate for those renewables that are currently eligible only for the reduced credit rate. I have also heard from those industries that receive the reduced credit rate about the disadvantage this creates for them in the marketplace. Often, when bidding to provide green power, the difference in the credit rate makes the difference in being outbid. We should provide a level playing field for all eligible renewables. I applaud and support the current efforts to extend the existing section 45 tax credits for renewables for another year. I hope that can be accomplished before we adjourn sine die. In introducing this legislation today, I want to begin the discussion that will lead to parity for all of the important new renewable technologies that can help us meet growing demands for electricity with clean, sustainable resources. As a member of the Finance Committee, this is an issue which I will pursue next Congress, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort to encourage the development of renewable energy resources.

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 October 11, 2006, in New York, NY, Michael Sandy, a gay man, was attacked by four men. During the attack, Sandy was struck by a car while trying to flee. According to police, Sandy went to meet a man that had contacted him through a singles website. They drove to a parking lot where three other men were waiting, the group subsequently attacked and beat Sandy. Police believe that these men have used the Internet to find victims numerous times in the past. 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 recognize my home State of Oregon and the city of Portland. Thanks to the visionary leadership of Portland city officials and their plan to ``Unwire Portland,'' the forecast in Portland today is ``overcast, with free broadband access for everyone.'' You see, there is a new cloud covering the city--a Wi- Fi broadband cloud. Residents, businesses, and city officials will be able to access the Internet anywhere under the 134 square mile Wi-Fi cloud, download content as quickly as 1 megabyte per second, and upload at speeds reaching 256 kilobits per second. And they will be able to do it all for free. The Wi-Fi network will not only offer city residents and businesses a new affordable choice for broadband access, but will also improve the efficiency of city government operations. Public safety and other field-based employees will now be able to wirelessly download and upload reports and data from the field. The public / private partnership that was struck by the city to realize this accomplishment perfectly illustrates how municipalities, free of State restrictions, can improve access to broadband opportunities for its citizens while improving city services. The Wi-Fi cloud over Portland also reminds us that the future competitiveness of our country depends upon ubiquitous broadband deployment. Congress must enact legislation that clearly articulates a national broadband policy and provides affordable broadband access for all Americans. I look forward to working with each of you, my colleagues, toward this endeavor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, it is my sincere pleasure to congratulate the Southern Oregon Rehabilitation Center and Clinics on being awarded the 15th Annual Secretary Robert W. Carey Performance Excellence Award. On November 16, 2006, the SORCC was honored with the Carey Award, an award given by the Department of Veterans Affairs acknowledging those VA organizations which exhibit performance and organizational excellence. Nearly 400,000 of our Nation's veterans reside in the State of Oregon. The service of these men and women makes me proud to be an Oregonian. Unfortunately, oftentimes with great heroism comes great risk. Mental impairments, along with a variety of contributing factors, have led to a large concentration of homeless veterans in Oregon, totaling roughly one-third of Oregon's homeless population. The SORCC in White City, Oregon directly focuses on the needs of the homeless, mentally ill, and substance abusers. Serving for over 56 years, the SORCC is the VA's only freestanding rehabilitation center, carefully tailored to treat debilitating problems unaddressed by standard VA medical centers and clinics. White City pays special attention to Oregon's substantial Veterans homeless population, with 75 percent of all applicants stating that they are without a home. While about one-fourth of the Veterans living within the general proximity of the facility receive some type of care from the SORCC, its exclusivity in Veteran specialty care has attracted patients from over 35 States. Potential patients are likely persuaded not solely by the specialized treatment and expertise of the staff, but because of the time invested in each patient's recovery. White City offers a variety of community activities which expedite patient development and growth, while forming valuable relationships with staffers. Perhaps most impressive of all, the SORCC retains consistently high outpatient scores between 80 and 90 percent. Referred to by many as ``The Dom,'' in reference to its history and present role as a domiciliary, the SORCC is an important facility for Oregon veterans who need treatment outside of the home. Just over two years ago, the VA considered closing the White City facility. I was strongly against the potential closure and worked to ensure that its doors remained opened to our Nation's veterans. After careful deliberation, the Department of Veterans Affairs concluded that its success in treating difficult addiction cases is unheralded, and immediately implemented plans to repair and expand the existing facility. The SORCC continues to operate and serve Oregon's veterans with high levels of professionalism and success. The population served by White City continues to expand, including more than 120 returning veterans from the global war on terrorism. I am privileged today to offer my congratulations to the SORCC. Their continued commitment to safety, compassion, and growth will serve as a model for VA organizations nationwide.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of National Employ Older Workers Week, celebrated September 24-30, 2006. All too often we concentrate only on the social and economic challenges that the rapidly increasing numbers of older Americans present this Nation. This week's designation provides the opportunity to highlight the vital role that older workers can and do play in fostering a competitive economy through their workplace contributions. As the baby boomer generation has begun to reach traditional retirement age, this mature workforce is breaking down the negative stereotypes that cast older workers as frail, unproductive, and resistant to technological advances. Today's older generation of Americans has persevered through economic hard times and flourished in prosperity, endured war and enjoyed peace, and embraced more dramatic technological advances in science, medicine, transportation and communications than any other generation in our history. This breadth of experience should be viewed as a valuable asset bridging this country's past and future. National Employ Older Workers Week is our opportunity to recognize the wealth of experience older Americans have acquired and can contribute to the 21st century workplace, as well as the importance of work in helping seniors maintain their independence, health, and well--being. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognition of National Employ Older Workers Week. As chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I look forward to working with my colleagues to encourage the hiring and retention of older workers. We honor these workers for their experience and the contributions they have made throughout their lifetimes, and look forward to their continued contributions to our country's prosperity. .

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will further our Nation's energy independence, and provide for sustainable electricity generation. This bill, which is cosponsored by my colleague from Oregon Senator Wyden, will make facilities that generate electricity using kinetic hydropower eligible for a production tax credit. Under this bill, kinetic hydropower is defined as: ocean free flowing water derived from flows from tidal currents, ocean currents, waves, or estuary currents; ocean thermal energy; or free flowing water in rivers, lakes, man-made channels, or streams. These innovative technologies are renewable, non-emitting resources that can help meet our Nation's growing demand for electricity. In Oregon, it would be possible to produce and transmit over two hundred megawatts of wave energy without any upgrades to the existing transmission system on the coast. Already a number of preliminary permits have been filed at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for wave energy facilities off the Oregon coast. These facilities would be virtually invisible from shore, and could provide predictable generation that could be easily integrated with other electricity resources. In addition, according to a January 2005 report issued by the Electric Power Research Institute, ``with proper siting, converting ocean wave energy to electricity is believed to be one of the most environmentally benign ways to generate electricity.'' As with many emerging renewable technologies, wave and tidal energy are more costly than traditional generation using fossil fuels. Yet, for our environment and our energy security, we must provide incentives that will encourage the development and commercialization of these resources. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and to provide this production tax credit.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will further our Nation's energy independence, and provide for sustainable electricity generation. This bill, which is cosponsored by my colleague from Oregon Senator Wyden, will make facilities that generate electricity using kinetic hydropower eligible for a production tax credit. Under this bill, kinetic hydropower is defined as: ocean free flowing water derived from flows from tidal currents, ocean currents, waves, or estuary currents; ocean thermal energy; or free flowing water in rivers, lakes, man-made channels, or streams. These innovative technologies are renewable, non-emitting resources that can help meet our Nation's growing demand for electricity. In Oregon, it would be possible to produce and transmit over two hundred megawatts of wave energy without any upgrades to the existing transmission system on the coast. Already a number of preliminary permits have been filed at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for wave energy facilities off the Oregon coast. These facilities would be virtually invisible from shore, and could provide predictable generation that could be easily integrated with other electricity resources. In addition, according to a January 2005 report issued by the Electric Power Research Institute, ``with proper siting, converting ocean wave energy to electricity is believed to be one of the most environmentally benign ways to generate electricity.'' As with many emerging renewable technologies, wave and tidal energy are more costly than traditional generation using fossil fuels. Yet, for our environment and our energy security, we must provide incentives that will encourage the development and commercialization of these resources. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and to provide this production tax credit.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this is a most difficult issue we are engaged in. We are arguing about what I believe is a cornerstone principle of the rule of law, and that is the issue of habeas corpus. I know this is an unusual war, and I don't know its duration. No one fully does. But I do know if we are going to be true to our Constitution and to the rule of law, we have to be true to that law. I have traveled as a Senator all over this globe and have spoken with great pride about our rule of law and the superiority of democracy to other means of government. While I support this bill in providing due process for these detainees, I rise because I am concerned about the provisions relating to habeas corpus. I am reminded of the words of Thomas Jefferson who once said: The habeas corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume. On another occasion he said: I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. What we are talking about is section 7 of this bill, which will further strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction to hear pending Gitmo cases as it applies to all pending and future cases. Had this proposal been law earlier this year, the Supreme Court may not have had jurisdiction to hear the Hamdan case, which is what brings us here today. At the heart of the habeas issue is whether the President should have the sole authority to indefinitely detain unlawful enemy combatants without any judicial restraints. Congress will provide the President with this unilateral authority by enacting legal restrictions aimed at stripping courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas claims. In doing so, the President does not have to show any cause for detaining an individual labeled an ``unlawful enemy combatant.'' Stripped of jurisdiction by recent legislation, U.S. courts will not have the ability to hear an individual's request to learn why he is even being detained. Providing detainees with the right to ask a court to evaluate the legality of their detention I believe would not cost U.S. lives. However, it will test American laws. Claims have been made that providing detainees the right to hear why they are being detained necessitates providing them with classified information. I do not believe this to be true. Similar to the military commission legislation, it would only allow a judge or an attorney with security clearance to see the evidence against the defendant to evaluate its reliability and probative value. Permanent detention of foreigners without reason damages our moral integrity regarding international rule of law issues. To quote: ``History shows that in the wrong hands, the power to jail people without showing cause is a tool of despotism.'' A responsibility this Nation has always assumed is to ensure that no one is held prisoner unjustly. Stripping courts of their authority to hear habeas claims is a frontal attack on our judiciary and its institutions, as well as our civil rights laws. Habeas corpus is a cornerstone of our constitutional order, and a suspension of that right, whether for U.S. citizens or foreigners under U.S. control, ought to trouble us all. It certainly gives me pause. The right to judicial appeal is enshrined in our Constitution. It is part and parcel of the rule of law. The Supreme Court has described the writ of habeas corpus as ``the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless State action.'' Some of the darkest hours in our Nation's history have resulted from the suspension of habeas corpus, notably the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Obviously, I am not here to question the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln. We have had no wiser President. But one of the most controversial decisions of his administration was the suspension of habeas corpus for all military-related cases, ignoring the ruling of a U.S. circuit court against this order. He, in fact, I believe, if my memory of history serves me, imprisoned the entire Maryland Legislature because of their attempts to secede from the Union. He did it. It happened. It is not necessarily the proudest moment of his administration. But it is something that has been raging with controversy ever since. Habeas petitions are not clogging the courts and are not frivolous. The administration claims that the approximately 200 pending habeas claims are clogging our courts and are for the most part frivolous. These petitions are not an undue administrative burden. Judges always have the discretion to dismiss frivolous claims, and indefinite detainment of a foreigner without showing cause, Mr. President, is not frivolous. I suppose what brings me to the floor today is my memory of my study of the law. While I was in law school, I was particularly taken with the study of the Nuremberg trials. The words of Justice Robert H. Jackson inspired me then and inspire me still. He was our chief counsel for the allied powers. What he said on that occasion in his closing address to the international military tribunal is an inspiration. Said he: That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason. On the fairness of the Nuremberg proceedings, he said in his closing statement: Of one thing we may be sure. The future will never have to ask with misgiving, what could the Nazis have said in their favor. History will know that whatever could be said, they were allowed to say. They have been given the kind of a Trial which they, in the days of their pomp and power, never gave to any man. But fairness is not weakness. The extraordinary fairness of these hearings is an attribute to our strength. I simply feel this particular provision in this bill ought to be taken out. We ought not to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. We should go the extra mile, not as a sign of weakness, but as evidence of our strength. I intend to vote for the underlying bill and ultimately will leave the judgment of its constitutionality without habeas to the judgment of the judiciary, but I believe we are called upon to go the extra mile to show our strength and not our weakness, and ultimately our Nation will be stronger if we stand by the rule of law. I yield the floor.