Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I wonder, Senator Lautenberg, if I could offer three amendments now--not speaking to them, but allowing them to be read.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with the comments of my friend from Wyoming and as a strong supporter of the Sessions amendment, a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, on the importance of at-home parents and the Government role in child care. I am a proud cosponsor of this amendment and thank Senator Sessions, the Senator from Alabama, for his leadership in this area. The Clinton child care policy is always a direct or indirect subsidy to the marketplace day care industry. The President only seeks to help a small portion of working parents, ruling out those who wish to stay at home and take care of a child and those who do not want to use the marketplace day care. Government policy ought not to discriminate against the best form of child care--where a child is taken care of by his or her parents or family. I believe that the Federal Government should subsidize the family, just as it subsidizes the workplace, giving money back to the family. The family can make the best choices in child care. At best, President Clinton's day care policy is only a subsidy of another workplace, the institutionalized day care industry. Mr. President, I will soon be introducing legislation to change the Tax Code to put stay-at-home parents on at least an equal footing with two-income families. My legislation will increase the current $500 per child tax credit to $1,500 per child for children up to 6 years of age. This credit would replace the current dependent-care tax credit with real money that directly benefits families and restores equality and fairness in child care. I think this is an important piece of legislation, Mr. President. And if, in fact, we go forward in this session of Congress and the President's idea comes forward--an idea that costs roughly $20 billion--then I suggest my bill ought to replace it. My bill ought to replace it because it does not discriminate between stay-at-home parents or those who choose to work. It affects each of them equally, because they all have children and needs with respect to those children. Mr. President, I thank again Senator Sessions for bringing this important issue to the floor as part of the budget resolution. I urge every Senator to strongly support his amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I happened to be sitting in the Presiding Officer's chair when the distinguished Senator from Texas came and spoke of her concerns about NATO expansion and expressed some of her regret that some of the debate had been cast in terms of, those who are opposed are somehow less than patriotic or pursuing appeasement. I want her to know that while I am a strong advocate for NATO expansion, I view with appreciation and respect all my colleagues who, for reasons of their conclusions and conscience, have decided that this is not appropriate. The Senator from Texas has made some points that I think are valid parts of this debate. I would like to respond to the point, however, that she made about the advisability of having a formal dispute resolution process in the NATO alliance. On the surface, I think this may strike some as a very good idea because within the alliance there are long and historic disputes between member countries. I note that it is a matter of historical record that NATO membership has been one of the primary ways in which longstanding enemies such as Germany and France have been able to resolve these historic enmities, I think in large part because of NATO. This is also occurring on a daily basis as Greece and Turkey--two NATO allies of ours--struggle to remain peaceful neighbors; also between the Spanish and the Portuguese, issues of borders and islands are being resolved; between the British and the Spanish there are ongoing discussions about the island of Gibraltar. All of this is occurring between NATO members. I believe there is a very informal process going on that because you are a NATO member you don't attack your allies. This is a powerful peer pressure, if you will, that exists in a nonformal way in the NATO alliance. Why shouldn't there be a formal process? I will tell you this: If it isn't broken, don't try to fix it. Moreover, what NATO does is have all of us who are members who have disparate national interests focus on one common theme, which is common security, a secure alliance, so that all of a sudden you get Germans and Frenchmen--hopefully Hungarians and Czechs--countries that have had disputes over the past--all of a sudden they will be working together for a common goal of mutual defense. Now, if all of a sudden we say we recognize you have these internal problems or national disputes and we want you to take those into NATO, then what have we done? We have all of a sudden taken a defensive alliance and turned it into a mini European United Nations. I suggest that is the wrong thing to do for NATO. NATO needs to keep its purpose as a defensive alliance and it must not become a vehicle, a formal vehicle, for resolving national disputes. It has been a way in which we cooperate and get along and focus on common purposes and solving common problems, not as a vehicle for bringing our national interests and resolving them within this alliance. I suggest, while on the surface this amendment sounds very good, it would operate in a very destructive fashion for NATO's well-being in the future. There are already institutions for resolving these kinds of differences, dispute resolutions. NATO must never be one of those. Now, I have said this with the greatest respect for the Senator from Texas. I know of few people who are more thoughtful and more dedicated to their task in the U.S. Senate than Senator Hutchison. She is a great woman by any measure. I say that even though I intend to vote and lobby against her amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Today I wish to speak from the heart about a decision we will make as U.S. Senators about one of the most solemn issues that we will face, and that is whether or not we will expand NATO to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. I would like to put some personal context into what I am about to say. Like you, Mr. President, I grew up in a time when we could accurately be described as children of the cold war. Unlike you, I did not serve in Vietnam, but grew up under the threat of nuclear annihilation. I remember as an elementary school child going through drills where the teacher would tell us to get under our desks and hope for the best. It was a time when, frankly, we were taught to be afraid. I was too young to remember the Hungarian uprising in 1956, but I was old enough to remember the Prague Spring of 1968. I remember holding my breath as I watched the Solidarity movement develop in Poland and wondering how long it would be until Soviet tanks snuffed out that breath of freedom. And I remember with amazement and with emotion the night when this Nation sat transfixed at the falling of the Berlin wall. I never thought that would happen in my lifetime, and yet it did. I remember how courageous I thought it was of President Ronald Reagan when he went there, like his predecessor, John Kennedy, and spoke about the wall and challenged Mr. Gorbachev to tear it down. As a child of the cold war, I now come, as a Senator from Oregon, to this decision about what we do in Europe, whether we now expand NATO. Though an Oregon Senator, I grew up fairly close to here in Bethesda, MD--my father and mother moved our family from Oregon to Maryland so my father could work for General Eisenhower, in his administration. At the beginning of the Kennedy administration, my cousin, Stewart Udall, was nominated as Secretary of the Interior. And I suppose because of that correlation between a Republican and a Democrat administration and family ties that went across the aisle, my family participated in a number of the inaugural events for President John F. Kennedy. I remember it was a very cold January day. I remember, with my family, hearing words that struck me then as important. John F. Kennedy called out to my generation--our generation, Mr. President--of Americans to accept the torch of liberty. At least that is what I heard. I was only 8 years old, but even though that young, I felt his words' impact. I would like to begin by quoting some of his words that he spoke that day just outside of this building. We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge--and more. Well, that set a standard for this country, a high water mark, if you will. And many criticized this as imperialistic rhetoric. But neither that President nor any since him have suggested that we aspire to territory--what we do aspire to is freedom. Prior to winning the cold war, a hot one had ended. And then we won the Cold War. As World War II ended, an agreement called Yalta was struck, signed by Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt. It promised newly liberated countries of Eastern and Central Europe that they would have a chance at freedom and free elections. Mr. Stalin broke his agreement and the countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and many more were denied the promise offered at Yalta. I suggest one of many reasons that we should expand NATO is that we have a moral obligation to live up to the terms that were made at Yalta but went unfulfilled, especially with these three countries, as I said, which openly rebelled against Soviet domination. Whether you agree with expanding NATO or not, I believe the crux of the issue is two questions. As we stand at the end of this century I ask you, has human nature fundamentally changed from this century's beginning to its end? I ask you the second question: Is the world better because of the standing and position of the United States in the world as a leader of the free world? I suggest the answer to the first question is, human nature has not fundamentally changed but that the world is a better place because the United States of America has lived up to its international responsibilities. I have been throughout my life a student of history. I have particularly enjoyed European history. As I look at the Balkans today and I see the turmoil and the terror that rage between the Balkans, the Croats and the Serbs, I am reminded that the Balkans are but a microcosm of Europe as a whole throughout its history. As I look at this century and European history, I see the United States of America as having twice been drawn into European civil wars over the first 50 years. But for the last 50 years we have been waging peace. And we have done it through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. And lest you think this does not matter anymore and it is over and we can go home, I remind you, looking further back in history, you will see since the 1600s when Europeans began to settle in America establishing colonies in Virginia, Massachusetts, and throughout the eastern seaboard--since that time there have been nine major European wars. In every one of them, Americans died. We were drawn into them. America has a role in European history. We have come out of Europe; we are even a European power. I suggest to you that Europe has been at peace for 50 years because America did not retreat and become isolationist. NATO has been called the most successful military alliance in history, and so it is. I believe that all the discussion about the costs of NATO expansion-- we have heard wild estimates that are undoubtedly false, and we have heard other estimates that are as low as saying that over 10 years America will pay $400 million to participate in this portion of NATO expansion. I believe the latter. I have to say, if history teaches us anything, it is that nature abhors a vacuum and we can either fill that vacuum with our values or leave it there for the mischief of others. How can we morally say to the Hungarians, the Czechs, and the Poles that even though we won the cold war and they were at play throughout it, that we now want to walk away from this victory without leaving our values, democratic institutions, the spreading of private property, of free elections, and great dreams for these nations? I don't believe we can. I do know that history teaches us that waging peace, or peacekeeping, is always less expensive than war. So when a mother in Oregon asks me, why should we expand NATO and put at risk the life of a son or daughter to die for a Czech, a Hungarian or a Pole, my answer to her is that in order that your son or daughter not die in that cause, we should expand NATO. Now, where does this leave Russia? I am not anti-Russia; I am hopeful for Russia. But as part of NATO expansion, the Clinton administration has held out to Russia, along with our NATO allies, the Russia-NATO Founding Act. I happened to be present in Paris when this was signed. Now, there are parts of this that give me heartburn, but there are parts that give me great hope, because with this Founding Act I think what we have done is held out to Russia the opportunity to develop in the best of ways and to become a part of the Western community of European nations. But if it does not develop that way, what we are doing by expanding NATO is hedging against the worst kinds of developments there. I think we must do that. I think we owe it to our friends, the Czechs, the Hungarians, and the Poles. But more, we owe it to ourselves, as defenders of peace and liberty in the world. I began with the words of John F. Kennedy and I will end with them, also, again from his inaugural address. I will say it is my view that America is the indispensable nation. Europe needs what we bring in its history. They need us in Bosnia to help keep the peace. They need us in NATO in order that they not begin fighting again. I believe NATO is really responsible for the Franco-Prussian rapprochement that has occurred since the founding of NATO. I believe NATO's existence has helped to settle disputes between the British and the Spanish. It is helping to settle disputes between the Hungarians, who are offered membership, and the Romanians, who still want membership in NATO. In instance after instance, you will see where NATO membership provides a vehicle for these kinds of differences to be worked out. And they are long-lasting cultural, ethnic, religious kinds of differences which have manifested themselves throughout European history in bloodshed. NATO means that those things don't occur. Again, waging peace is always less expensive than waging war, either in terms of treasure or especially in terms of human life. So we are, I think, the keeper of the peace, and it is in our interest that we remain so. In America, we often talk about the American dream. But really it isn't America's dream, it is a human dream. It is a dream that all people aspire to. It is just that we enjoy it in great abundance--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And we must continue to keep that dream and to defend it in the world for our sakes, not just theirs. So said President John F. Kennedy in 1961, ``To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view, but we shall always hope to find them supporting their own freedom. I believe we should expand NATO for that reason, because these people deserve freedom. They can secure it with our help. With that security will come capital and investment so that their labor can be busy, so that their dreams can be realized, and so that American opportunity there can also be expanded. Security goes before economic investment. It always has, and it always will. Capital is something like a river. It will take the course of least resistance to seek the highest rate of progress. I don't believe our option is to expand NATO or to leave it as it is. I believe NATO desperately needs new blood. We desperately need the new voice of freedom that Poles, Hungarians, and Czechs will bring because they have known the opposite of freedom for too long. Some of us become complacent as to what that means. We need their blood, we need their spirit, we need their sense of freedom, so that we can keep NATO fresh and alive. Our option in the end isn't expanding NATO or not. But ultimately, if we don't expand, I believe we will disband, and that will leave a vacuum that will be filled by the values of others when history calls us to fill it on the basis of ours. I believe America is a better world because we are not isolationist but because we are internationalists who care not for territory or treasure but for freedom and liberty. Mr. President, the United States is engaged in an ambitious effort to reshape the political and security structures of post-cold-war Europe. The goal is to build strong states, stable democracies, prosperous economies, and friendly governments across the breadth of Europe. We are joined in this endeavor by our NATO allies and by newly democratic people yearning for the opportunity to pursue political freedom and economic prosperity. This effort should fulfill the stolen promise of Yalta, and provide the formerly captive nations of Central and Eastern Europe with the opportunity to pursue democratic institutions and economic development of their own choice. This is accomplished first and foremost through the enlargement of NATO to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. NATO has proven its value over the past half century as a mechanism through which the United States has been able to exercise leadership in Europe. By its unequivocal commitment to the collective defense of its members, NATO successfully withstood the communist threat posed by the former Soviet Union during the cold war. Though confronting communism is no longer NATO's primary purpose, a secondary function--the cementing of relationships between former adversaries in Europe--is equally as relevant in the post-cold-war period as it was after World War II. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, as well as other countries in Central and Eastern Europe that aspire to join NATO, have worked to alleviate historical grievances and build relationships with their neighbors based on mutual trust, respect, and cooperation. In doing so, stability in Europe has been enhanced and the likelihood that European nations will return to the competitive policies that led to two World Wars in the first part of this century is greatly reduced. It is in the interests of the United States to encourage and foster these developments. Last May, I travelled with President Clinton to Paris for the signing of the NATO-Russia Founding Act. After witnessing this historic event, I was left with a profound feeling that NATO was holding out a hand to Russia, and that addressing legitimate issues, such as international terrorism and drug trafficking, could be well served by NATO and Russia acting together. However, it is incumbent upon Russia to use this opportunity in a responsible manner. The consultative mechanism established by the Founding Act should be one that furthers the interests of both NATO and Russia, and is not used to infringe upon internal Alliance matters. It is also imperative that the goals of the Founding Act are implemented in a manner that does not weaken the principal function of the Alliance or threaten the interests of Central and Eastern European countries that aspire to NATO membership. Mr. President, I take this opportunity not to simply state my support for the inclusion of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO, but also to address the issue of imposing a pause on NATO enlargement for several years. Before I do so, however, I emphasize that neither NATO, nor the United States, has invited any country other than Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to join the Alliance. Proceeding with future rounds of enlargement is a decision that all members of NATO will certainly face, but is a question that is not before the United States Senate today. In Article 10, the North Atlantic Treaty clearly lays out the process by which NATO may invite additional countries to join the Alliance. This provision states ``The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty''. Of course, any such revision to the North Atlantic Treaty requires the advice and consent of the United States Senate, which is what brings us here today. I wholeheartedly agree with my colleagues who want to ensure that NATO remains a strong, military alliance of democratic nations. However, I firmly believe that Article 10 of the Treaty sets a high standard for the inclusion of new members--not only must a country be in a position to further the principles of democracy, but must be a contributor, not just a beneficiary, of security. The possibility of Alliance membership has been a source of hope to countries in Central and Eastern Europe and an important incentive for democratic and economic reform. Were the United States to impose an artificial time period when NATO's door will be shut--despite the qualifications of a country for membership--would send a signal to these countries emerging from communist domination that their historical affiliation is more important to NATO than their ability to contribute to security and stability in Europe. History awaits American leadership at this propitious moment. We cannot be certain what the European security environment will look like in three, five, or ten years, but if we act now, we will be better prepared for any outcome. We should not be overly consumed with the picture of Europe as it looked during the last century. It is up to the United States to outline a vision of what we want Europe to look like in the next century. That vision is a democratic, undivided, Europe safe for American commerce and friendly to American values. That vision includes Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in NATO. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today we have an opportunity to confirm the nomination of an outstanding judicial nominee to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The fact that Susan Graber is scheduled today for a floor vote is a great honor, but one that does not surprise me. Justice Graber has earned an excellent reputation among her colleagues on the Oregon Supreme Court and throughout the Oregon Bar. She has earned this outstanding reputation not only because of her legal scholarship, but also because of the high professional standards she has consistently displayed in her advocacy in private practice and during the years she has served on the bench. I am confident that Justice Susan Graber will bring to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the same dedication, professionalism, and integrity that has been the hallmark of her legal career. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this outstanding judicial nominee.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank Senator McConnell for his leadership on this issue. I also thank Senator Feingold and Senator McCain. I would like to point out to the American people, this is not a debate between good people and bad people. I note, however, that many who are for this bill have stated that those who are against it are hiding behind the first amendment. I don't propose to hide behind it. I propose to stand up today and defend it. Let me read to you, for the Record, what the first amendment to the Constitution says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. We are talking about the whole second half of this amendment, about how people petition Government for the redress of grievances, how they speak about Government. It is amazing to me that some of those who are for this bill point out how money is buying offices. My friend, the Senator from Washington, pointed out how she was outspent 3 to 1, but she is here! I notice Senator Feinstein is here. She had an opponent who spent, I think, nearly $30 million of his own money! I do not yet know of a President Ross Perot, though he's one of the biggest advocates of this and spent millions of his own trying to make his case. The point is, this is a legitimate issue for the people to decide. Then the attack is made on soft money, and PACs have become a very bad word. Do people remember that PACs were created as an outgrowth of Watergate, to clean up campaign finance? This is a product of Watergate. If you break down what it is a PAC is--some of them I don't really like because they stand for things I don't like. But some of them I do like; for example, the National Right to Life PAC. They talk about wealthy people? I look at that organization and I see humble folks who are defending a principle that is sacred to them. These are not wealthy people, but they are enjoying their right to speak. I want to make one other candid admission to the American people. Republicans spend an awful lot of time attacking the Democrat use of union money, compulsory union dues that are used in attacks on Republicans. We attack their major asset. The Democrats attack the Republicans' major asset, which is in some cases the use of PACs, or soft money. Any campaign finance reform that does not include both of these elements will disserve the American people and I will not vote for those things, because at the end of the day what will happen to America is what happened to Oregon in a recent election cycle. We had a well-meaning public interest group that, through our initiative system, instituted a campaign finance law not unlike McCain- Feingold. It applied to State candidates. Let me tell you what happened. Contributions to candidates directly, were severely restricted and, in a nutshell, candidates could not raise enough money to communicate with the people whose attention they were trying to get. But the money wasn't taken out of politics; it simply left direct democracy, which is disclosable to the public, and it went back into the smoke-filled rooms. Then various groups colluded and figured out how they could influence elections, not with a candidate, but about a candidate. And they did it with the luxury of knowing that they were not accountable to the American people, they could not be held accountable, so they could say or do anything they wanted. So what we went through in Oregon, before our State supreme court declared it all a violation of the first amendment, was a cycle whereby candidates, were terribly frustrated, and so were our citizens. In the end, I have to say, what we should be encouraging is not a return to the smoke-filled rooms; we should be encouraging people to contribute directly to candidates and to fully disclose it. I have to say that I have experienced this also on a personal level; I have run for the U.S. Senate twice. The first time I ran, I put a lot of my own money into the race. And, folks, I didn't win. And then I ran again, and I did win, and I won with the contributions of perhaps more individual contributions than have ever been raised by an Oregon candidate for Federal office in our history. So you cannot buy elections. During my first election I had one conservative PAC director tell me that during January of 1996 it was the best time he could remember in Washington because there were no liberals here. They were all in Oregon, beating the stuffings out of me. They said horrible things about me. I didn't like it. It wasn't fun. But you know what, I am standing here today defending their right to say it. But don't tie my hands and say I can't respond to it, because you, the people of this country, will then be the ones disserved by all of this. So, if you really have concluded that we have too much political speech in this country, insist that this Chamber disenfranchise soft money and unions, and then you are talking about something. But before you do that, ask yourself the question, do we talk too much about politics in this country? Is it a bad thing that we are doing? I believe the answer to that is no. And if you want the proof of it, open up Newsweek or Time or U.S. News & World Report on any given day in any week and you will see the bodies of people in other countries in the gutters of their streets, because they have not learned how to fight with words and not with bullets. So, let's be careful as we talk about amending the most important document that we have. Don't fall for the easy way out, that somehow we are not affecting speech. We are. I have seen it in Oregon and we will see it in this country if this passes in this form. So I stand today proudly, not to hide behind the first amendment but to defend it, and thank the leader for this time, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment in its current form.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, in recognition of Black History Month I come to the floor to honor a little-known member of the Lewis and Clark expedition that explored the Oregon territory. Expedition historians tell us that an African-American by the name of York accompanied Lewis, Clark and the Shoshoni woman, Sacagawea on the long journey ending in the area of what is now Fort Clatsop, OR. Throughout the Lewis and Clark expedition, York served as a valuable translator, helped to strengthen Native-American relations, and guided several successful trading ventures. It has been said that on numerous occasions, York risked his life so that the expedition could continue. York's contributions were numerous, and according to the Lewis and Clark Heritage Foundation, when the party reached the Columbia River, a decision had to be made whether to head to the north shore of the Columbia--Washington State--or cross the river to the south side-- Oregon--where Indians had said that game could be found. An actual vote of the members was recorded, representing the first American democratically held election west of the Rockies that included the vote of a woman, Sacagawea, and a black man, York. Today, a mural in the southwest corner of the Rotunda of Oregon State Capital in Salem depicts the expedition that Merriwether Lewis and William Clark, Sacagawea and York made through the Louisiana and Oregon Territories. I want to join all Oregonians today in celebrating Black History Month and celebrate the contributions that African-Americans have made to American history.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, the people of the United States revere the American flag as a unique symbol of our great nation. It symbolizes the national unity that exists among diverse people, the common bond that binds us and makes us Americans. We are a nation that is defined by democracy. The flag symbolizes this democracy not only to ourselves, but to all other nations. It is through this democratic process that we feel free to exercise and enjoy the many liberties guaranteed to us. Over the years, Congress has reflected respect and devotion to the American flag. In 1931, it declared the Star Spangled Banner to be our national anthem, and in 1949, established June 14 as Flag Day. In 1987, Congress designated John Philip Sousa's `The Stars and Stripes Forever' as the national march. Congress also has established detailed rules for the design and the proper display of the flag. Today, we have an opportunity to add one more important gesture of support for our national symbol, to pass an amendment that prohibits the physical desecration of the Flag of the United States. Since 1990, 49 states have passed memorializing resolutions calling on Congress to pass a flag desecration amendment for consideration by the states. Public opinion surveys have consistently shown that nearly 80 percent of all Americans support a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag desecration and do not believe that freedom of speech is jeopardized by this protection. Among the grassroots groups that endorse this legislation is the Citizens Flag Alliance, an alliance comprised of 119 civic, patriotic and veterans organizations, including The American Legion, AMVETS, the Knights of Columbus, the National Grange, the Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, and the African-American Women's Clergy Association. This amendment, grants Congress and the states the power to prohibit physical desecration of the flag, but does not amend the First Amendment. If we want to embrace the will of the American people, if we want to reserve the flag's unique status as our nation's most revered and profound symbol, and if we believe the flag is important enough to protect from physical desecration, then we should pass this Constitutional amendment. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, the people of the United States revere the American flag as a unique symbol of our great nation. It symbolizes the national unity that exists among diverse people, the common bond that binds us and makes us Americans. We are a nation that is defined by democracy. The flag symbolizes this democracy not only to ourselves, but to all other nations. It is through this democratic process that we feel free to exercise and enjoy the many liberties guaranteed to us. Over the years, Congress has reflected respect and devotion to the American flag. In 1931, it declared the Star Spangled Banner to be our national anthem, and in 1949, established June 14 as Flag Day. In 1987, Congress designated John Philip Sousa's `The Stars and Stripes Forever' as the national march. Congress also has established detailed rules for the design and the proper display of the flag. Today, we have an opportunity to add one more important gesture of support for our national symbol, to pass an amendment that prohibits the physical desecration of the Flag of the United States. Since 1990, 49 states have passed memorializing resolutions calling on Congress to pass a flag desecration amendment for consideration by the states. Public opinion surveys have consistently shown that nearly 80 percent of all Americans support a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag desecration and do not believe that freedom of speech is jeopardized by this protection. Among the grassroots groups that endorse this legislation is the Citizens Flag Alliance, an alliance comprised of 119 civic, patriotic and veterans organizations, including The American Legion, AMVETS, the Knights of Columbus, the National Grange, the Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, and the African-American Women's Clergy Association. This amendment, grants Congress and the states the power to prohibit physical desecration of the flag, but does not amend the First Amendment. If we want to embrace the will of the American people, if we want to reserve the flag's unique status as our nation's most revered and profound symbol, and if we believe the flag is important enough to protect from physical desecration, then we should pass this Constitutional amendment. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, colleagues, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge Ann Aiken to the Federal district bench in Oregon. Before I comment on her nomination, though, I would like to thank and compliment my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. I have gone to him repeatedly about the three vacancies in the State of Oregon and the challenges they create in our judicial process. Since my time here, against some opposition, Senator Hatch has in every instance acted responsibly, and helped me to move the Oregon nominees along so we can fill these vacancies and get rid of a considerable backlog that we have in our State. I would also like to thank the majority leader for scheduling a vote today so we can vote up or down on this and other nominations. And I would like to thank my colleague, Ron Wyden, who, before my admission to this body, was laboring here on behalf of Judge Aiken. To my colleagues on the Republican side, those who may have a question about the qualifications or the decisions or the political leanings of Judge Aiken, I would like to point out to you the impressive list of letters and phone calls I have received from both Democrats and Republicans on her behalf. They include Senator Mark O. Hatfield; Senator Wyden; Deanna Smith, chair of the Oregon Republican Party; Mark Abrams, the chairman of the Oregon Democratic Party; John Kitzhaber, the Governor of Oregon; Hardy Meyers, Oregon Attorney General; Jack Roberts, Oregon Republican State Labor Commissioner; five former Governors of both parties; 20 former presidents of the Oregon Bar Association; the Oregon Association of District Attorneys; the Oregon State Police Officers Association; the Lane County Peace Officers Association; the Eugene Police Employees' Association; and all the presiding judges under whom Judge Aiken has served. It is an impressive list of people, all attesting to her worthiness and qualification to be a Federal judge. I believe that they based their decision to support Judge Aiken for the very reason I based mine--on her very impressive record of public service. She has served the people of Oregon both on and off the bench through her dedication to the health and safety of children in Oregon and throughout our country. She has served on numerous councils and boards of directors. To note a few, she was recently elected to the board of the National Network of Child Advocacy Centers. She is a current member of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. She is a current member of the Relief Nursery board of directors. This charitable institution is particularly near and dear to my heart and is a private organization that provides preschool classes, parent education and respite care for families at risk for child abuse. This organization reaches out to all at risk children and families in our communities, and Judge Ann Aiken is a champion of this private-public partnership. In addition, since 1993 she has been a member of the Task Force on Child Fatalities and Critical Injuries, and a member of the Lane County Domestic Violence Council. While I have not served on these councils with Judge Aiken, I would like to take a moment to explain why I believe that she is an excellent nominee for the U.S. District Court for Oregon. I first came to know Judge Aiken in 1994. We were both appointed by a Democratic Governor to serve on the Governor's Commission on Juvenile Justice when I was the Senate Minority Leader in our State legislature. I worked with her on this commission to address the issue of juvenile crime. Among a handful of appointees, she stood out as a superstar. I was impressed with her fairness, her experience, and her insight as to how we can work to help the people of our state, particularly our young children. Over the course of the next election cycle, I became the Oregon State Senate President. And with her involvement, and the work of this commission, we produced a bill called Senate bill 1. It produced some of the toughest juvenile crime laws in this country. Since that time, Oregon has revisited the whole issue of crime in a dramatic way through a number of ballot initiatives and legislative actions--and crime is falling in my State. Although these initiatives occurred after 1995, Judge Aiken has been tough on crime throughout her career, and I would encourage my colleagues to review her record of strict sentencing practices. In 1993, Judge Aiken sentenced a 28-year-old woman who was involved with a brutal beating and murder of a 70-year-old man to 20 years in prison--twice the amount of time as was called for by the Oregon state sentencing guidelines. In 1995, Judge Aiken sentenced a repeat child molester to the maximum sentence of 58 years in prison. In 1995, Judge Aiken sentenced a 43-year-old man to 31 years for felony sex abuse crimes involving two girls aged 7 and 9, invoking a law that permits judges to double the prison term normally afforded by State sentencing guidelines in cases with aggravating circumstances. Before our recess, my friend and colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, raised some concern about one particular case that troubled him. I will admit to you that it troubles me. But I want Senator Enzi and all of my colleagues to know that their criticism of Judge Aiken in this case should not be of her but of the Oregon law that applied at that time, because she followed the law. And some of my colleagues, frankly, appropriately, criticize judges who become frustrated legislators and use their judicial robes to write new law. Judge Aiken simply did not do that. She followed the Oregon law. It involved a very horrible case. It involved a circumstance where a man, 26 years old, Ronny Lee Dye, was convicted of first-degree rape of a 5-year-old child and was sentenced to 90 days in jail and 5 years of probation plus the payment of a $2,000 fine. With the judicial guidelines that she had to operate within, she had a choice to make. She could send him directly to prison to serve out a 5-year sentence or she could put him in a county facility where he would receive sex-offender treatment. She made a judgment. Her judgment was that the society of Oregon would be better served if this man had treatment. You can call that into question now, but she followed the law. Later, this man was arrested for drunk driving and ultimately served a 5-year term in prison. I ask myself in this case, however, would I have made that call? Maybe not. But she did. And she did it according to the direction of the Oregon guidelines that were given to her. But my complaint was with the law that allowed that, not with her discretion in trying to establish what was in the best interests of society and justice. Finally, Mr. President, I note that one of the reasons that Judge Aiken appeals to me as a person and as a judge is a reason very personal. As I have come to know this woman, I have come to know this mother of five sons, and she is a good mother. I am one of 10 children. My mother has five sons. And while my mother did not always act perfectly on the issues of justice and mercy, she acted nearly so. And it seems to me that what I see in her are some of the qualities that I would want on the Federal bench. Because a mother of five sons knows how to arbitrate family difficulties and what it means to raise honorable citizens to serve in our society. So I ask my colleagues to see this woman's record in its totality--- not by the outcome of one case. I would never come to this floor and advocate for anyone who was soft on crime. And if this woman's record indicated that, I would not support her in this effort today. But it does not. It represents a person who is tough on crime, who has served to make her State's laws tougher and who has a record of putting away violent people for a long time. I wish that one case were different, but it is not. But the man has served prison time and has received sex-offender treatment. And now the issue is, should we confirm Ann L. Aiken to the United States district court? I say affirmatively and with conviction, yes. I ask for your support of her and thank the President for this time. I yield the floor. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank my colleague from Wyoming for this exchange this morning, and appreciate the genuineness of his concern. I simply rise to say that Judge Aiken has admitted that early in her career that was a judgment she made, under the statute and within the guidelines, and that in hindsight she would have made a different decision. I simply say that to judge her entire career on the basis of this one case would not be fair. It would not be fair to her, would not be fair to my State, and I think would not be fair to the judicial system of the United States. I think Caren Tracy, who has served as a local prosecutor in many cases in Judge Aiken's courtroom best describes her strict sentencing practices by stating, ``With regard to crimes of violence, violations of trust relationships, and crimes against children, Judge Aiken delivers sentences that include periods of incarceration that are significantly longer than any other judge on the Lane County Circuit Court Bench. She has a mastery of the Oregon sentencing guidelines which enables her to ensure maximum incarceration for individuals deserving of such sentence. Sentences of thirty to forty years for child sex offenders and criminals who commit acts of violence are the norm for her courtroom. I never have any concerns, as a prosecutor, coming before her for sentencings on significant crimes. The bottom line is she is not a light hitter.'' I believe that statement reflects Judge Aiken's career in its totality and reflects her commitment to serving justice. I encourage my colleagues to support her nomination and am confident that she will reflect credit upon this country and reflect credit on the criminal justice system. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I will.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Temporary Agricultural Worker Act of 1997. I am joined by Senators Craig, Gorton, and Roberts. Our bill would create a streamlined guest worker pilot program which would allow for a reliable supply of legal, temporary, agricultural immigrant workers. Mr. President, we are facing a crisis in agriculture--a crisis born of an inadequate labor supply, bureaucratic red tape, and burdensome regulations. For many years, farmers and nurserymen have struggled to hire enough legal agricultural labor to harvest their produce and plants. This issue is not new to Congress. In the past, Congress has introduced legislation to address this urgency, but no workable solution has been implemented. The agriculture industry cannot survive without a reliable and legal supply of agricultural workers. The labor pool is tight and shortages are developing because of the limited domestic workers willing to work in agricultural fields. The United States has historically been faced with a need to supplement the domestic work force, especially during peak harvesting periods. Since domestic workers prefer the security of full-time employment in year-round agriculture-related jobs, the shorter term seasonal jobs are often left unfilled by domestic workers. These domestic workers also prefer the working conditions involved in packing and processing jobs, which are generally performed indoors and do not involve the degree of strenuous physical labor associated with field work. Labor intensive agriculture is one of the most rapidly growing areas of agricultural production in this country. Its growth not only creates many production and harvest jobs, but also creates many more jobs outside of agriculture. Approximately three off-farm jobs are directly dependent upon each on-farm job. Currently, the H-2A program is the only legal temporary foreign agricultural worker program in the United States. This program is not practicable for the agriculture and horticulture industry because it is loaded with burdensome regulations, excessive paperwork, a bureaucratic certification process, untimely and inconsistent decision-making by the U.S. Department of Labor, and costly housing requirements. The H-2A program has also been very small in relation to the total number of U.S. farm workers. It is estimated that out of the 2.5 million farm workers in the United States, only 23,496 H-2A job certifications have been issued by the Department of Labor this year. In my State of Oregon, only 12 sheepshearers and 62 sheepherders are currently using the H-2A program. It is time we address the shortfalls of current policy, and I believe that our bill is a meaningful step in that direction. Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today would not replace or interfere with the current H-2A program, but would supplement the H-2A program with a two-year pilot program that examines an alternative approach to recruiting agricultural workers. The pilot program will be limited to 25,000 participants per fiscal year and would protect the domestic workers' rights and living standards. Mr. President, let me briefly summarize the provisions of our bill. The bill would establish a procedure by which an agricultural employer anticipating a shortage of temporary or seasonal agricultural workers may file a labor condition statement, or attestation, with the state employment security agency. The attestation would provide specified terms and conditions of employment in the occupation in which a shortage is anticipated. Employers would also be required to file a job order with the local job service and give preference to all qualified U.S. domestic workers. The Department of Labor would enforce compliance with the labor condition requirements of the program and could impose back pay, civil monetary penalties, and debarment from the program for violators. The alien guest workers are issued an identification card, which is counterfeit- and tamper-resistant, with biometric identifiers to assure program integrity. A portion of the alien guest workers' earnings would be paid into an interest-bearing trust fund that would be rebated to the workers upon evidence of timely return to their home country. This would ensure that the aliens return to their countries of origin after the temporary job is completed. The alien guest workers could also be debarred from future participation in the program for violating the conditions of their admission. Our bill is endorsed by over 50 agriculture-related associations including the National Council of Agricultural Employers, American Farm Bureau, and the American Association of Nurserymen. I urge my fellow colleagues to join Senators Craig, Gorton, Roberts, and me as we introduce this important legislation today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Temporary Agricultural Worker Act of 1997. I am joined by Senators Craig, Gorton, and Roberts. Our bill would create a streamlined guest worker pilot program which would allow for a reliable supply of legal, temporary, agricultural immigrant workers. Mr. President, we are facing a crisis in agriculture--a crisis born of an inadequate labor supply, bureaucratic red tape, and burdensome regulations. For many years, farmers and nurserymen have struggled to hire enough legal agricultural labor to harvest their produce and plants. This issue is not new to Congress. In the past, Congress has introduced legislation to address this urgency, but no workable solution has been implemented. The agriculture industry cannot survive without a reliable and legal supply of agricultural workers. The labor pool is tight and shortages are developing because of the limited domestic workers willing to work in agricultural fields. The United States has historically been faced with a need to supplement the domestic work force, especially during peak harvesting periods. Since domestic workers prefer the security of full-time employment in year-round agriculture-related jobs, the shorter term seasonal jobs are often left unfilled by domestic workers. These domestic workers also prefer the working conditions involved in packing and processing jobs, which are generally performed indoors and do not involve the degree of strenuous physical labor associated with field work. Labor intensive agriculture is one of the most rapidly growing areas of agricultural production in this country. Its growth not only creates many production and harvest jobs, but also creates many more jobs outside of agriculture. Approximately three off-farm jobs are directly dependent upon each on-farm job. Currently, the H-2A program is the only legal temporary foreign agricultural worker program in the United States. This program is not practicable for the agriculture and horticulture industry because it is loaded with burdensome regulations, excessive paperwork, a bureaucratic certification process, untimely and inconsistent decision-making by the U.S. Department of Labor, and costly housing requirements. The H-2A program has also been very small in relation to the total number of U.S. farm workers. It is estimated that out of the 2.5 million farm workers in the United States, only 23,496 H-2A job certifications have been issued by the Department of Labor this year. In my State of Oregon, only 12 sheepshearers and 62 sheepherders are currently using the H-2A program. It is time we address the shortfalls of current policy, and I believe that our bill is a meaningful step in that direction. Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today would not replace or interfere with the current H-2A program, but would supplement the H-2A program with a two-year pilot program that examines an alternative approach to recruiting agricultural workers. The pilot program will be limited to 25,000 participants per fiscal year and would protect the domestic workers' rights and living standards. Mr. President, let me briefly summarize the provisions of our bill. The bill would establish a procedure by which an agricultural employer anticipating a shortage of temporary or seasonal agricultural workers may file a labor condition statement, or attestation, with the state employment security agency. The attestation would provide specified terms and conditions of employment in the occupation in which a shortage is anticipated. Employers would also be required to file a job order with the local job service and give preference to all qualified U.S. domestic workers. The Department of Labor would enforce compliance with the labor condition requirements of the program and could impose back pay, civil monetary penalties, and debarment from the program for violators. The alien guest workers are issued an identification card, which is counterfeit- and tamper-resistant, with biometric identifiers to assure program integrity. A portion of the alien guest workers' earnings would be paid into an interest-bearing trust fund that would be rebated to the workers upon evidence of timely return to their home country. This would ensure that the aliens return to their countries of origin after the temporary job is completed. The alien guest workers could also be debarred from future participation in the program for violating the conditions of their admission. Our bill is endorsed by over 50 agriculture-related associations including the National Council of Agricultural Employers, American Farm Bureau, and the American Association of Nurserymen. I urge my fellow colleagues to join Senators Craig, Gorton, Roberts, and me as we introduce this important legislation today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Senate companion bill to H.R. 2515, the Forest Recovery and Protection Act introduced by my good friend and colleague, Congressman Bob Smith. My bill focuses on the western forest and Bureau of Land Management lands where there has been the most fire and disease damage. Let me tell you what the forest lands are like in Oregon. On the eastside of my State, disease and bug infestation have ravaged forests, creating dangerous conditions for catastrophic fires. In 1996, I witnessed firsthand fires that burned vast acres of forest land and threatened many homes. This was a situation that didn't have to happen. And yet, the political beliefs of a few have seemed to guide forest policy back in Washington, DC--where bureaucrats with personal agendas seem to rule the roost and sound public policy fails to get heard. Teddy Roosevelt said: ``The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value.'' This legislation is a thoughtful approach to forest management--it includes accountability through reports to Congress, performance standards for forest inventory and analysis, and calls for the elimination of bureaucratic red tape and unnecessary delay that prevents on-the-ground results. Concerns that environmentalists have about cutting of timber are addressed by ensuring that all forest health activities are carried out in compliance with existing forest plans. The legislation also prohibits entry into wilderness areas or other areas protected by law, court order, or forest plan. And finally, the bill provides for priority treatment of areas of greatest risk of destruction or degradation by severe natural disturbance. The bill has a local component which gives the local community and concerned citizens the ability to identify Federal forest lands in need of recovery and allows them to petition the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct forest recovery projects in the identified areas. In addition, money is provided to those agencies responsible for the forests at the local level with the necessary tools and incentives to address forest health problems in pro-active ways. Furthermore, this legislation requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to commence a 5-year national program to restore and protect the health of forests located on Federal forest lands. The program includes the following components: Within 1 year of enactment, standards and criteria must be established for designating and assigning priority ranking to forest lands in need of recovery or protection; a requirement that the Secretary to publish in the Federal Register the proposed decisions on lands to be recovered or protected. The bill also calls for no new forest management plans, but instead enhances existing ones. The bill requires that all forest health plans be carried out in compliance with existing forest plans; sets up an independent Scientific Advisory Panel, consisting of experts in forest management, to evaluate the Advance Recovery Projects which are basically pilot projects in areas of significant recovery or protection need as identified by the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture. And finally, one of the most important components of this legislation is the inclusion of local citizens and the prioritization that directs more money on the ground. This component allows local citizens to petition the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture in identifying problems in forests, such as dead and diseased timber; provides more money to the local levels of the agencies responsible for the forests. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise to introduce with Senator Feinstein legislation that will provide incentives to taxpayers to use their wealth for charitable causes. In this era of ever-tightening fiscal constraints placed on congressional ability to authorize discretionary funding, we have asked our communities to do more and more for those less fortunate. Charitable organizations in our communities have become an integral part of the safety net for the poor and homeless and significant sources of assistance for education in every community. To help charities take advantage of those donors who wish to contribute significant wealth for charitable purposes, we are introducing the Charitable Giving Incentive Act. This legislation will change current tax law to encourage prospective donors to contribute a controlling interest in a closely-held corporation to charity. When a donor is willing to make a gift of a controlling interest in a company, a tax is imposed on the corporation upon its liquidation, reducing the gift that the charity receives by 35 percent. The Smith/ Feinstein bill would eliminate this egregious tax that is levied upon the value of these qualifying corporations. We sincerely hope that this will directly encourage meaningful contributions to charitable organizations that help a variety of causes. I ask that my colleagues support this legislation and look forward to its being considered by the Finance Committee in the near future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I thank the Chair for this opportunity to recognize the month of November as National Adoption Month and to speak on this very important issue--one that is very close to my heart--and is at the very heart of my own family. As legislators, we work to enact laws to improve and protect the lives of the American people. However, there are occasions when our policies can hurt the very people we are trying to protect. In this instance, it is our children. Last year, in my State of Oregon, 221 parents adopted children from foreign countries, including China, Romania, Korea, India, and Thailand. During that same year, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act that included a provision which, until now, seemed rather innocuous. But for parents like Gary and Laurie Hunter from Myrtle Creek, OR, who are adopting a daughter from China, it has become a bitter pill in the adoption process. Simply, the provision requires that all incoming immigrants receive certain immunizations before entering the United States. While this may seem like a logical public health law, it raises serious concerns about the health and safety of children receiving vaccinations under substandard conditions in foreign countries. Many of these countries do not practice the same sanitary health conditions as the United States. For example, some countries lack adequate medical records for children living in orphanages and do not have access to sufficient supplies of sterile needles, creating an even greater risk to the health of young adoptive children entering the United States. Today, I am proud to be a part of a Senate which has passed legislation, H.R. 2464, to repeal the provision requiring immunizations prior to entry into the United States, and protect the children who have yet to become citizens of this country. This bill will exempt internationally adopted children 10 years of age or younger from the immunization requirement, and allow parents 30 days to immunize their children. Importantly, immunization will not occur overseas in an orphanage, or in an immigration office, but upon entering the United States, under the supervision of a family physician in a safe environment. There is a tradition in the Senate, to begin the day with a prayer from the Senate Chaplain. Today, I would like to take a moment to end my statement with a short phrase from the Common Book of Prayer, a phrase that I hope will encourage and inspire my colleagues in these last few days of the 105th Congress to continue the work which we have been charged to do by the American people: We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; and we have done those things which we ought not to have done. Madam President, I am proud to stand before my colleagues today to say that with the passage of this important legislation, we have done those things which we ought to have done. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Smith of Oregon pertaining to the introduction of S. 1406 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jim Ahlgrimm, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of my remarks.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to our veterans as we prepare to celebrate Veterans Day on Tuesday. Each day as I drive to work to the U.S. Senate, I cannot help but notice all the beautiful monuments of our Nation's Capital. These monuments were built to honor great people and great events, and each has its own inspirational story to tell. What you will find in each of these stories is that the greatness of our country and of its leaders was founded in the willingness of common men and women, our veterans, to risk their lives defending the principles of right and democracy. Serving both at home and on foreign soil, their service must always be remembered. Working in Washington in this great institution of the U.S. Senate and among these beautiful monuments frequently reminds me of the sacrifices of our veterans. Even outside of Washington, in almost every town across America, there are monuments dedicated to our veterans. I urge each American to discover their story, not only from a historical perspective, but also through the eyes of the veterans living in their communities where you will find common men and women who simply did the right thing when called upon to do so by their country. Because of them, we live in a world where there is more peace than ever before. They deserve our thanks. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.