Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I want to do this in concert with the majority. But I am asking for the yeas and nays and am anxious to know at what point either Senator can get a vote.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. The Senator is correct. My point is simply that is not enough time to do much more than buy a few typewriters or rugs for the front office. You can't make a serious business plan in that amount of time and represent to the American people that we are actually helping to reemploy people. We need to rebuild some railroad beds. We need to retool some plants. We need to allow businesses the time necessary to do the engineering, to do the environmental studies, and to make the plans that can take advantage of it. And they will do it if they are given time sufficient to get the job done.

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, this amendment is really very simple. It does address in a meaningful way the stimulus side of our effort. I think we are all deeply concerned when we go home and we meet the unemployed who need extensions on unemployment benefits and health care insurance benefits from COBRA. I would like to help. What they really need long term is a job. What we need to do is remember there is a supply side to this economic equation as well. We have to do something meaningful in order to help businesses retool, reinvest, restart, and reemploy the citizens of this country. There is a proposal--I believe well-intentioned--that is improving on the other side. Originally, it was a 10-percent depreciation bonus over 1 year's time. Now it is up to 30 percent over 1 year's time with eligibility. I believe 30 percent is the right number for this bonus depreciation, but as a person of business prior to politics I can tell you it takes more than what is remaining in the year of eligibility. We have already used up 4 months. By the time the President might see this, there may be 5 months used up. Seven months to make a business plan in capital equipment in order to restart plants is simply inadequate to be meaningful to have the economic test that our country requires. My amendment will actually help stimulate the economy. We have heard this from experts such as Alan Greenspan, such as Secretary Rubin of the Clinton administration, and others who have said this is one meaningful thing you can do that will actually help stimulate the economy in the short run and reemploy people quickly. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It is critical. Whether you are talking about the silicon forest of the high-tech industry in Oregon or the timber industry of the forests in Oregon, they need this bill. They need it desperately if we are serious about restarting plants and reemploying our people. I hope tomorrow morning when we vote on this there will be 60 colleagues and more who will understand that while we are going to do much on the demand side to help with unemployment benefits and to help with health care benefits, we are also going to do something to help on the supply side and actually help to stimulate jobs and reemployment. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, while we have this moment, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. While we are waiting for the next speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Republican High Tech Task Force to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee and the chairman and ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee dated November 30, 2001.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I thank the Chair for the time. I am going to withhold offering an amendment. I understand the leaders are working out an agreement between mine and Senator Baucus's amendment. With respect to their efforts, I will not offer this amendment now, but I would like to talk about it. The Presiding Officer and I were privileged to be in a hearing this morning with Chairman Greenspan and heard his very insightful views on the economy and what we can do. I noted in his testimony this paragraph: The retrenchment in capital spending over the past year was central to the sharp slowing we experienced in overall activity. The steep rise in high-tech spending that occurred in the early post Y2K months was clearly not sustainable. The demand for many of the newer technologies was growing rapidly, but capacity was expanding even faster, exerting severe pressure on prices and profits. New orders for equipment and software hesitated in the middle of 2000 and then fell sharply as firms reevaluated their capital investment programs. Uncertainty about economic prospects boosted risk premiums significantly, and this rise in turn propelled, required or hurdled rates of return to markedly elevated levels. In most cases, businesses required that new investments pay off much more rapidly than they had previously. That is the sentence that I think is so significant: In most cases, businesses required that new investments pay off much more rapidly than they had previously. If that is, as the chairman indicated, central to the sharp slowing in our economy, then it seems to me if we are going to do a stimulus package, we ought to do something that is meaningful, something that has economic heft to it, enough weight to actually stimulate our economy. I have said for a long time that I support the ideas on health care, the ideas on extending unemployment benefits. In fact, I am cosponsor of one of them. I think getting cash into the hands of consumers, as Senator Torricelli just indicated, is very important to the demand side of getting our economy moving. I think it is important that we also look at the supply side. If we want employers to employ people again in large numbers, then we ought to do something to help with the retooling of industry, getting enough of a stimulus so that business and planners can make a difference in ordering and redoing their plants and reemploying their people. I don't question the sincerity of some of the proposals, but as I evaluate them, compared to the amendment I will offer, I think they lack the weight that our economy needs at this critical hour. In fact, I think it is important to note that while Chairman Greenspan is not in a position to endorse anybody's particular idea or amendment, he and former Secretary Rubin have both uniformly stated their support for stimulus ideas with respect to depreciation, accelerated depreciation, or a bonus depreciation, however you want to term it--that these things would increase cash flow, add to asset values, and would have an immediate stimulating effect on our economy. What I am going to be proposing is that we have a 30-percent depreciation bonus that lasts for 3 years. One of the competing proposals is that it be for 1 year. This is better than the 10 percent, 1-year proposal that was earlier offered. However, it still falls very short because if you figure that it only lasts for 1 year, much of this year is already gone. What can a business reasonably prepare for, plan for, employ for, if they have only a few months left in the year, literally, between now and September, when it would end, to take advantage of it? They may get a few copiers and a few new rugs for the front office, but this is not what our country needs if we are serious about reemploying people. So my proposal, conversely, will give companies the time to do major projects which would generate thousands of jobs. It will allow us to build heavy equipment, modernize a lumber mill, repair a rail bed, revamp a management information system for a factory, or even construct an airplane. We say a lot about airplanes right now. I know Boeing is suffering greatly, and an accelerated depreciation program that will last for 9 months will not be very helpful to them at all. Certainly, the high-tech community, whether you are talking about the Silicon Forest in Oregon or the actual forest in Oregon, needs something with enough teeth in it, enough time to it that will allow them to make the plans and the investments that are necessary. Then I think about the farm community. It may not be until 2002 that farmers see much improvement in their economy, and I hope it is sooner. But if it is not, I would like to have this in place when their cashflows improve and they can replace old, unreliable, or dilapidated equipment and get the advantage of this bonus depreciation. Madam President, I appreciate this time. I will come back later to talk again about it and specifically offer this amendment when we work out an agreement between ours and Senator Baucus's. I truly hope this meaningful depreciation amendment can be adopted by over 60 of our colleagues. I think it is critical that we do that because I think we need to marry the best ideas of the Democratic Party and the best ideas of the Republican Party. We need to work on the supply side and the demand side. There is a human side and there is a business side. There is a very nice marriage to be had in a stimulus package that will truly leave our country better because it has the economic weight that is required for this critical hour. So in doing that, we will sooner throw off the shackles of recession and leave our country the better for it. Madam President, I yield my time and simply say I will return as soon as our leaders have worked out the agreement and specifically offer the amendment, hoping it can be voted on tonight or tomorrow.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, we all come back having experienced different things and having heard different messages in our States. But as the Budget Committee took up its duties this morning and began hearing economic reports, it was clear to me on the committee that there is overwhelming bipartisan support for winning the war abroad and for better homeland defense here. Then differences begin to emerge as to how best to strengthen America's economic security. Clearly, the economic stimulus package is a priority for many, and certainly for the State of Oregon which I am privileged to represent. When we list all of those priorities, we wonder what is left to help with the other priorities this Nation has. I rise to speak of a priority I have, that I began working on in the last session of this Congress, with my colleague, Ron Wyden, the issue of the burgeoning ranks of the uninsured. I rise to talk about that subject. I stand to say that health insurance is something about which we should all be concerned. Living without health insurance can result in bankruptcy, unnecessary delays in treatment, and, in some tragic circumstances, even death itself. We need to be concerned about it, not just because we all may at some point in our lives become uninsured. We need to be concerned about the uninsured because it is a moral outrage that so many Americans have no health coverage even as they live and work in the wealthiest nation on Earth. We have heard the statistics: Over 40 million Americans do not have health insurance. We have heard the number so many times that it seems to have lost its impact, in this place at least. Let's look at the number more closely: 40 million Americans is one in six people in our country who do not qualify for Medicare. That number includes citizens from every conceivable walk of life: children, pregnant women, parents, single adults, full-time workers, self-employed individuals, and students. The 40 million people include those who have lost their jobs as the economy has worsened. It includes people who have worked hard for small companies that cannot afford to offer health benefits to employees. It includes people who work for companies that offer health benefits, but who cannot afford their share of the premium. Most Americans would be surprised to know more than 80 percent of all uninsured children and adults live in families who have at least one adult working. This week the country celebrated the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. More than 30 years after his death, it seems incredible that the racial disparity in health care is still so evident. More than any other group, the people who are living without health insurance in the United States are Hispanic and African American. Thirty-two percent of all Hispanics in this country had no health insurance coverage last year; the number is even worse for low- income Hispanics, 43 percent of whom live without insurance. This situation should no longer be tolerated. As the Senate convenes for the second session of the 107th Congress, there has never been a better time to address the issues of the uninsured. Americans are losing their jobs as the recession continues, without the benefit of any economic stimulus legislation from this Congress. In addition, the brief era of stability in health insurance premiums seem to have ended. In 2001, the average cost of employer-sponsored health insurance coverage rose 11 percent. Those who work in small firms saw increases substantially higher than that. There can be no doubt what will happen this year. It has already begun. Through no fault of their own, many employers will have to raise copayments and premiums, while reducing benefits, if they are able to continue to offer insurance to their employees at all. The bottom line is that more people than ever will lose their health insurance. These numbers are truly startling. But behind every one of those, every single case of those 40 million people, there is an American face and a human story. As I travel around Oregon visiting community health centers, I meet more and more people who live without health insurance. I hear their stories. There are many ways we can help shrink that gap between the insured and the uninsured. We should pursue that goal with the policy we begin formulating in the Budget Committee. While the stories of all of the people I meet are different, they are, in most cases, quite tragic, and the circumstances that have brought them to these places are often similar. The loss of a job. An increase in insurance premiums. A serious illness. These are unavoidable circumstances that could happen to any American. While I understand the looming budget deficit this year will make new initiatives difficult, the current economic climate is all the more reason to focus attention and resources on covering the uninsured this year. In the immortal word of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: ``The time is always right to do what is right.'' I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes in morning business.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of this year. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred November 21, 1995 in West Hollywood, CA. A male transvestite was beaten by several men yelling anti-gay epithets. The assailants, Agaron Guylbkyan, 21, Harutun Pagaryan, 18, and Vahagn Arutyunyan, 19, were charged with civil rights violations in connection with the incident. I believe that 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 of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce with Senator Clinton, the Holocaust Victims' Assets Restitution Policy and Remembrance Act. This legislation will create a public/private Foundation dedicated to educating and to completing the necessary research in the area of Holocaust-era assets and restitution policy and to promote innovative solutions to restitution issues. The Foundation is authorized for ten years at a cost of $100 million, after which it will sunset and ``spin off'' its research results and materials to private entities. It is able to accept private funds as well as public dollars. The need for the Foundation comes from the work of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States. I was proud to have served as a Commissioner along with several of my colleagues in the Senate. The Commission identified a number of policy initiatives that require U.S. leadership, including: further research and review of Holocaust-era assets in the United States and world-wide; providing for the dissemination of information about restitution programs; creating a simple mechanism to assist claimants in obtaining resolution of claims; and, supporting a modern database of Holocaust victims' claims for the restitution of personal property. The Commission determined that ``our government performed in an unprecedented and exemplary manner in attempting to ensure the restitution of assets to victims of the Holocaust. However, even the best intentioned and most comprehensive policies were unable, given the unique circumstances of the time, to ensure that all victims' assets were restituted.'' I believe this Foundation will provide a focal point for work between Federal and State governments to cross-match property records with lists of Holocaust victims. It will work with the museum community to further stimulate provenance research into European paintings and Judaica. It will promote and monitor the implementation by major banking institutions of the agreement developed in conjunction with the New York Bankers Association. Finally, it will work with the private sector to develop and promote common standards and best practices for research on Holocaust-era assets. I look forward to working with my colleagues in creating this Foundation to finish the work of the Holocaust Assets Commission. I urge all my colleagues to co-sponsor this important legislation that will solve restitution issues and engender needed research on Holocaust assets in the United States.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce with Senator Clinton, the Holocaust Victims' Assets Restitution Policy and Remembrance Act. This legislation will create a public/private Foundation dedicated to educating and to completing the necessary research in the area of Holocaust-era assets and restitution policy and to promote innovative solutions to restitution issues. The Foundation is authorized for ten years at a cost of $100 million, after which it will sunset and ``spin off'' its research results and materials to private entities. It is able to accept private funds as well as public dollars. The need for the Foundation comes from the work of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States. I was proud to have served as a Commissioner along with several of my colleagues in the Senate. The Commission identified a number of policy initiatives that require U.S. leadership, including: further research and review of Holocaust-era assets in the United States and world-wide; providing for the dissemination of information about restitution programs; creating a simple mechanism to assist claimants in obtaining resolution of claims; and, supporting a modern database of Holocaust victims' claims for the restitution of personal property. The Commission determined that ``our government performed in an unprecedented and exemplary manner in attempting to ensure the restitution of assets to victims of the Holocaust. However, even the best intentioned and most comprehensive policies were unable, given the unique circumstances of the time, to ensure that all victims' assets were restituted.'' I believe this Foundation will provide a focal point for work between Federal and State governments to cross-match property records with lists of Holocaust victims. It will work with the museum community to further stimulate provenance research into European paintings and Judaica. It will promote and monitor the implementation by major banking institutions of the agreement developed in conjunction with the New York Bankers Association. Finally, it will work with the private sector to develop and promote common standards and best practices for research on Holocaust-era assets. I look forward to working with my colleagues in creating this Foundation to finish the work of the Holocaust Assets Commission. I urge all my colleagues to co-sponsor this important legislation that will solve restitution issues and engender needed research on Holocaust assets in the United States.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of this year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred in May 1995 in West Palm Beach, FL. A gay man was robbed and brutally murdered. The attacker, Ronald Knight, 27, was convicted of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and a hate crime in connection with the incident. I believe that 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 of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of this year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred October 7, 1998 in Traverse City, MI. A gay man was attacked by two men yelling anti-gay epithets. The assailants, Jeremy Jamrog, 21, and James Johnson, 24, were charged with aggravated assault in connection with the incident. I believe that 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 of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of this year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred in November 1996 in Charlottesville, VA. Three men abducted, robbed, and beat a gay man. One of the assailants, Billy Ray McKethan, 19, pleaded guilty to charges brought against him in connection with the incident, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison without parole. I believe that 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 of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of this year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred August 14, 1991, in St. Petersburg, FL. Two gay men were shot with buckshot fired from a 12-gauge shotgun. The attacker, Christopher Scott Morris, was charged with two counts of aggravated battery in connection with the incident. I believe that 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 of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about hate crimes legislation I introduced with Senator Kennedy in March of this year. The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001 would add new categories to current hate crimes legislation sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred January 14, 1993 in Macon, GA. Elizabeth Davidson, a 25-year-old lesbian, was fatally shot in a bar. The attacker, Deion N. Felton was charged with murder in connection with the crime. An accomplice, Shawn Hightower, 16, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit aggravated assault. Felton and Hightower allegedly were engaged in a plan to rob homosexuals at the time of the killing. I believe that 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 of 2001 is now a symbol that can become substance. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can change hearts and minds as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the McCain amendment. This amendment will effectively repeal a ban on catfish imports which was quietly tucked into the most recent Agriculture appropriations bill. It may seem on the face of it that a ban on catfish imports is of little consequence if you are not from a state that produces catfish. However, put in the larger context of the multi-billion-dollar U.S. seafood industry, the implications are clear. If this ban on catfish imports were allowed to stand, it would pull the rug right out from under our own U.S. Trade Representative who is trying to fight similar protectionist actions against the U.S. seafood industry by our trading partners. Regardless of the intentions of proponents of this catfish ban, it has significant impacts for other U.S. fisheries and deserves greater scrutiny than was afforded during the consideration of the Agriculture Appropriations bill earlier this year. The specific reason why I have come to the floor to speak on this matter is because of its implications for the Oregon pink shrimp fishery. The pink shrimp fishery in Oregon has become increasingly significant to Oregon fishers in recent years as the groundfish fishery has declined. Pink shrimp, along with West Coast groundfish and Dungeness crab form the foundation of the commercial fishing industry in my state. Unfortunately, the successful development of the Oregon pink shrimp fishery will always be handicapped as long as we are unable to get fair treatment in the European market for the variety of pink shrimp harvested in the waters of the Pacific Northwest. The Europeans have been able to shut Oregon pink shrimp out of their market through a tariff policy that is biased in favor of the shrimp varieties found in their waters. With that tariff regime in place, Oregon pink shrimp effectively cannot compete in the European Union. As a result, the situation has had negative impacts on the price paid to Oregon pink shrimp fishers. Recently, it has been brought to my attention that there may be a similar problem in getting access to the European market for Oregon sardines. The recent reappearance of sardines off of Oregon has been attributed to a significant ocean regime change. In any case, I want to make sure that this resurgent Oregon sardine fishery has fair access to foreign markets as well. Given time, I hope that the United States Trade Representative will be able to resolve some of these issues with our friends in the European Union. However, that simply cannot happen when we in the United States Senate invoke protectionist measures of our own to keep foreign seafood products from competing here. That is what happened with this attempt to bar Vietnamese catfish from the U.S. market. It is prudent for us to act today to repeal this catfish ban. At the very least, a proposal of such significance should have been subjected to a full debate in the Senate during consideration of the Agriculture Appropriations bill. I thank the Senator from Arizona for putting forward this amendment. I hope that the Senate will act today to repeal the catfish ban and allow all the issues involved to be considered by the appropriate committees of jurisdiction.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the importance of the Food Stamp Program addressed in the farm bill. I was recently surprised and dismayed to discover that a recent USDA study found Oregon to have the highest rate of hunger in the nation. I think my colleagues would also be surprised to discover how many people in their own home States go to bed hungry. I have long been concerned that in many cases, children across the country are going to bed hungry simply because America's families do not know about the resources available to them through the Food Stamp Program. It is astounding to note that among persons eligible for this important program, participation rates dropped from 74 percent in 1994 to 57 percent in 1999. More worrying is the fact that participation rates are also low among working poor families with children and the elderly. With additional outreach and targeting, the Food Stamp Program can make it easier for families to access the food support they need with dignity. I am pleased that improvements to this vital program are currently being addressed on the Senate floor as part of the reauthorization of the farm bill. I would also like to take this opportunity today to recognize the other side of nutrition support: our Nation's network of food banks. Places like the Oregon Food Bank in my home State are filling the plates of America. The Oregon Food Bank and its coalition partners have been working overtime to identify and address the root causes of hunger. Today, I would like to salute them for their hard work and dedication, which has come to fruition in the recent opening of a statewide food recovery and distribution center, all under one roof. Food banks are a vital component of the safety net for America's families, but they alone cannot meet every need. They are straining under the growing demand for emergency food, but we can help them by maintaining a strong Food Stamp Program. In a country as blessed with abundance as ours, no family should go hungry, and I encourage my colleagues to support improvements to the Food Bank Program in the farm bill.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of both Senator Bob Smith's and Senator Torricelli's amendments regarding the Cuban Government. These amendments are simple and straight-forward Senator Smith's amendment provides for Presidential certification that Cuba is not involved in acts of international terrorism as a condition precedent to agricultural trade with Cuba. Senator Torricelli's amendment would provide similar certification that all convicted felons living as fugitives in Cuba be returned to the United States prior to the amendments relating to agricultural trade with Cuba. The pattern of refuge and support that Cuba provides for fugitives wanted in other countries is quite troubling--many of these fugitives are members of outlawed terrorist groups. History is quite clear regarding Castro's links to international terrorist groups--these include Colombian and Salvadoran guerilla groups, the Chilean MIR and even the PLO. Our own State Department has presented irrefutable evidence that Castro has been involved in drug trafficking to provide arms and cash to support guerilla movements. Due to the closed and repressive nature of Castro's Cuba, the transit of international criminals and terrorists is difficult to track. I strongly believe that this Nation needs to have some certification regarding terrorists in Cuba and the harboring of fugitives in Cuba. As we advance our Nation's war on terrorism, it is interesting to note Fidel Castro's speech in Tehran, Iran, recently. Castro told Iranian students that the United States was an imperialist king that would fall just as the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran fell in the 1979 revolution. He said: you destroyed the strongest gendarme of the region . . . and the people of the region should thank you for that . . . However this Imperialist King will finally fall, just as your King was overthrown. I urge all my colleagues to support these amendments and look forward to a day when democratic values reign in a free and democratic Cuba. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I don't intend to object, but I wonder if I may be included on two amendments that are very important in my State with respect to crop insurance and the Klamath Falls.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the leader.