[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 26 (Monday, February 12, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1822-S1825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 2000

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I came here today knowing we were in 
morning business but looking to find a time to make a case of my State 
before the United States on an issue of great emergency. The clock is 
running out. I am speaking of the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000.
  I am pleased to state that in my conversation with my friend, the 
majority leader, he did indicate that he has become aware of this issue 
with some intensity through his conversations with Senator Wyden and 
now with me, and that Senator Wyden and I have little choice but to use 
all of our rights and privileges as Senators to focus the attention of 
the United States on this dire issue. I know many of my colleagues want 
to speak. I do not mean to disrupt their schedules, but as long as I 
can be allowed to speak today and at future opportunities, I intend to 
speak and to take a lot of time. I came prepared to speak for 5 hours 
today. I have a long speech, a lot of phonebooks in the cloakroom. I 
have a tale to tell that I believe America needs to hear about the 
Pacific Northwest and the people I am privileged to represent.

  I want Members to understand my position in the Senate, how a rural 
businessman from eastern Oregon was elected to the Senate, the first 
time someone with my profile has been elected in my State in over 70 
years. It is because my political base was heard and through my 
candidacy has tried to be heard. It is a political base the cornerstone 
of which consists of farmers, fishermen, and foresters.
  The rural people I live with in rural Oregon, my hometown of 
Pendleton, OR, are counting on me to do everything I can to bring to 
the attention of this Senate and to the Congress in general the dire 
situation in which our State finds itself.
  I talked about the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000. That program actually expired last December. 
Despite many efforts in this Senate and from my colleagues in the 
House, efforts to extend the safety net have simply failed. Senator 
Wyden is working the way I did with my leadership before when we were 
in the majority. I hope he finds something different from what I found. 
What I found was people willing to listen, your cause is just, but we 
can't do anything for you unless and until everyone is in agreement.
  The problem for this particular bill is that it isn't Republican and 
Democratic; it is the United States against the Pacific Northwest. It 
is State versus State. It is Idaho complaining about Oregon's formula 
allocation or Washington about Oregon or Montana or California or 
Mississippi or all the States in the Southeast that look for county 
funding from this act. It is really more parochial. It is more local. 
It is more about individual constituencies.
  The formula complained about was a formula derived from this bill 
that Senator Craig, Senator Wyden, and myself, as the original 
sponsors, authored. It is a formula based on historic harvest off of 
public lands. By that historical formula, Oregon got about half of the 
money allocated under this program. There is disgruntlement now with 
that formula. The problem is no one can agree on another formula 
without doing great damage to the historical position in which Oregon 
finds itself.
  As I speak today, thousands of layoff notices are being prepared by 
rural counties in my State. These include law enforcement officers, 
county road crews, surveyors, assessors, clerks, public health workers, 
district attorneys, among others. These are the basic units of our 
extended democracy. These services are required by the Oregon State 
Constitution to be provided by our counties. Now those units of 
government are in jeopardy.
  My amendment cannot be called up because the amendment tree has been 
filled by the majority, as is their right--a practice that is coming, 
though, under increased scrutiny. I will briefly describe the 
amendment. It provides a 1-year extension of the safety net. Literally, 
what we are talking in the totality of this budget is a .09 percent 
across-the-board cut to other programs funded in this bill. I realize 
the majority would prefer to have this Chamber acquiesce to the 
preexisting contents of the bill. The fact that we are only now 
considering it, just hours before the Federal Government shuts down, 
illustrates this point.
  Some have said to me: How can you try to look for opportunities to 
filibuster the continuing resolution? How can you do that, Senator, and 
shut down the Government? I believe this Senate should know my heart 
and feeling is the United States will shut down Oregon in many respects 
if the continuing resolution is allowed to go forward without, 
literally, $360 million. That is what we are talking about--in a $1.7 
trillion budget, $365 million. That is a lot of money to you and me 
individually; it is a rounding error in a $1.7 trillion continuing 
resolution. When that is translated to what it means to Oregon 
counties, it means shutdown.
  This is not a pure continuing resolution, though. The Committee on 
Appropriations of both the House and the Senate have shifted billions 
of dollars between accounts in support of their priorities. Many of 
those adjustments are laudable and reflect the Nation's priorities. But 
the fact that the county payments safety net was not addressed in this 
bill requires me to come to this floor and do what I can to change it. 
It may also reflect that many of my colleagues do not understand what 
this program means--not only to my State but to 8.5 million 
schoolchildren, 557,000 teachers, and 18,000 schools nationwide.

  But to fully understand the safety net and this Government's moral 
obligation to rural counties, a history lesson is in order. My 
colleagues need to understand why Federal forest management decisions 
make or break my State and why the consequences of these decisions have 
moral implications for this Chamber to consider and to act upon.
  The Oregon story is a history of trees and timber, of boom and bust. 
The Federal Government plays a central role in this account, both as 
protagonist and antagonist.
  Alexis de Tocqueville, writing about democracy in America in the 
1830s, believed that any history--of men and nations alike--must begin 
at infancy. He wrote:

       A man has come into the world; his early years are spent 
     without notice in the pleasures and activities of childhood. 
     As he grows up, the world receives him when his manhood 
     begins, and he enters into contact with his fellows. He is 
     then studied for the first time, and it is imagined that the 
     germ of the vices and the virtues of his maturer years is 
     then formed.
       This, if I am not mistaken, is a great error. We must begin 
     higher up; we must watch the infant in his mother's arms; we 
     must see the first images which the external world casts upon 
     the dark mirror of his mind, the first occurrences that he 
     witnesses, we must hear the first words which awaken the 
     sleeping powers of thought, and stand by his earliest efforts 
     if we would understand the prejudices, the habits, and the 
     passions which will rule his life. The entire man is, so to 
     speak, to be seen in the cradle of the child.

  Like Alexis de Tocqueville's America, the Oregon story must be told 
from the beginning.
  Many of my colleagues are familiar with the slogan ``54-40 or 
fight!'' This referred to the territorial dispute between Great Britain 
and the United States over the Northwest Territory, lying south of the 
parallel 54 degrees, 40 minutes.
  In 1846, Great Britain conceded absolute jurisdiction to the United 
States, and in 1848, Congress formally declared this land ``the Oregon 
Territory,'' albeit below the 49th parallel.
  Joseph Lane, of Roseburg, OR, became the first territorial Governor 
of Oregon Territory. Soon thereafter, the Columbia River divided it 
into two territories, with Washington Territory demarcated north of the 
river.
  Two days from now will mark the 148th anniversary of a great act of 
this body. By the way, Oregon's birthday is Valentines Day every year.

[[Page S1823]]

  Let me read from the Congressional Record--then called the Journal of 
the Senate--from February 14, 1859:

       Mr. President: The House of Representatives has passed the 
     bill of the Senate (S. 239) for the admission of Oregon into 
     the Union.
       Mr. Jones reported from the committee that they had 
     examined and found duly enrolled the bill (S. 239) for the 
     admission of Oregon into the Union.
       A message from the President of the United States by Mr. 
     Henry, his secretary:
       Mr. President: The President of the United States this day 
     approved and signed an act (S. 239) for the admission of 
     Oregon into the Union.
       Mr. Pugh presented the credentials of the honorable Joseph 
     Lane, elected a senator by the legislature of the State of 
     Oregon.
       The credentials were read; and the oath prescribed by law 
     was administered to Mr. Lane and he took his seat in the 
     Senate.
       Mr. Gwin presented the credentials of the honorable Delazon 
     Smith, elected a senator by the legislature of the State of 
     Oregon.
       The credentials were read; and the oath prescribed by law 
     was administered to Mr. Smith and he took his seat in the 
     Senate.

  I note that my colleague, Senator Wyden, is on the floor. As a matter 
of interest to him and me, I sit in the seat of, I suppose 
appropriately, Delazon Smith. Senator Wyden sits in the seat of Joseph 
Lane.
  Mr. President, as an aside, I have always thought the best movie I 
had ever seen as a little boy was ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' 
Apparently, I am going to be denied that opportunity today, but I do 
want to begin this 5-hour speech which the Senate will hear in its 
entirety eventually and on other pieces of legislation inevitably.

       Mr. Gwin submitted the following resolutions; which were 
     considered, by unanimous consent, and agreed to:
       Resolved, That the Senate proceed to ascertain the classes 
     in which the senators from the State of Oregon shall be 
     inserted, in conformity with the resolution of the 14th of 
     May, 1879, and as the Constitution requires.
       Resolved, That the Secretary put into the ballot box two 
     papers of equal size, one of which shall be numbered one, and 
     the other shall be numbered two, and each senator shall draw 
     out one paper; that the senator who shall draw the paper 
     numbered one shall be inserted in the class of senators whose 
     term of service will expire the 3d day of March, 1859, and 
     the senator who shall draw the paper numbered two shall be 
     inserted in the class of senators whose term of service will 
     expire the 3d day of March, 1861.
       Whereupon--The papers above mentioned, being put by the 
     Secretary into the ballot box, the honorable Joseph Lane drew 
     the paper numbered two, and is accordingly in the class of 
     senators whose term of service will expire the third day of 
     March, 1861. The honorable Delazon Smith drew the paper 
     numbered one, and is accordingly in the class of senators 
     whose term of service will expire the third of March, 1859.

  That is the end of the citation.
  This is how Oregon entered the Union and its first two U.S. Senators 
were welcomed into this great deliberative body--148 years ago this 
Wednesday.
  On February 14, 1859, Oregon had a population of 52,465 people. 
Congress passed and President Lincoln signed into law the Homestead Act 
in 1862. That law offered 160 acres to any citizen who would live on 
frontier land for 5 years. By 1866, Oregon's population was nearly 
doubled by those answering the Federal Government's call into the 
fertile valleys and along the fish-filled rivers of Oregon. Even when 
the land in the valleys and along the rivers was all taken, there was 
another wave of pioneers ready to head into the mountains.
  One such story is recounted by Jessie Wright in her book ``How High 
the Bounty.'' Jessie and Perry Wright were granted the first of five 
homesteads in the Umpqua National Forest. This story--as were thousands 
of others--was a call to the Manifest Destiny, embodied in our State 
song, ``Oregon, My Oregon.'' By the way, if I get a chance to get back 
at this, eventually I will read the whole book, ``How High the 
Bounty,'' here in the Senate. But our State song embodies this Manifest 
Destiny. It sings like this. I will not sing it to you, Mr. President.

     Land of the Empire Builders,
     Land of the Golden West;
     Conquered and held by free men,
     Fairest and the best.
     Onward and upward ever,
     Forward and on, and on;
     Hail to thee, Land of Heroes,
     My Oregon.

     Land of the rose and sunshine,
     Land of the summer's breeze;
     Laden with health and vigor,
     Fresh from the Western seas.
     Blest by the blood of martyrs,
     Land of the setting sun;
     Hail to thee, Land of Promise,
     My Oregon.

  When Oregon entered the Union in 1859, the State itself was given 
roughly 3.5 million acres of the 62 million acres lying within its 
boundaries. The remaining 95 percent of the land base was retained by 
the Federal Government as national public domain lands. Think of that, 
Mr. President. Just like your State, I suspect, the Federal Government 
owns most of it.
  Over a period of 75 years, following Oregon's statehood, the U.S. 
General Land Office sold, exchanged, donated, or otherwise disposed of 
23 million acres of Oregon's land--reducing Federal ownership from 91 
percent to 52 percent.
  The Federal Government continues to hold ownership to 33 million 
acres of Oregon land, wielding autocratic control over a majority of my 
State--a practice exercised only against Western States, holding them 
in what can only be described as a form of economic bondage. Neither 
the State of Oregon nor its counties can tax federally controlled land 
or exercise any control whatsoever over them. But since 1908, with the 
passage of the 25 Percent Act, the Federal Government has paid counties 
25 percent of the income generated from timber, mining rights, grazing 
leases, and other benefits from the land it owns in Oregon. Twenty-five 
percent; that is what we are talking about. That is what has gone away 
through timber law changes and court decisions and administrative 
Executive orders.
  Since 1937, the Bureau of Land Management has shared 75 percent--and 
more recently 50 percent--of its timber receipts with affected 
counties.
  It was out of the 33 million acres of Federal land that were created, 
first, the forest reserves and then the national forests. The General 
Revision Act in 1891 allowed Presidential withdrawal of forest 
reserves. The Organic Act and the Forest Reserve Act followed, 
expanding the National Forest System and Federal assertion over the 
management of these forests.
  In creating these Federal forests, President Teddy Roosevelt had a 
clear policy. This is what Teddy Roosevelt said:

       And now, first and foremost, you can never afford to forget 
     for one moment what is the object of our forest policy. That 
     object is not to preserve the forests because they are 
     beautiful, though that is good in itself; nor because they 
     are refuges for wild creatures of the wilderness, though 
     that, too, is good in itself; but the primary object of our 
     forest policy in the United States, is the making of 
     prosperous homes. Every other consideration comes as 
     secondary.

  Unlike other Western States with national forests, Oregon has a 
unique tract of Federal forestland. Its official name is the Revested 
Oregon and California Land Grant and the Reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road 
grant lands, or O&C for short. These forests have a fascinating history 
of their own. To capture this history, I will borrow from the book 
``Saving Oregon's Golden Goose,'' interviews with Joe Miller. It reads 
as follows:

       Think of railroads as the internet of America's Gilded Age. 
     . . .

  Am I done, Mr. President? I am just getting to the good part. You 
would really enjoy this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 20 minutes. It has 
been good.
  Mr. SMITH. I thank the Presiding Officer for the time and the 
majority leader for his courtesy. I was informed by the majority leader 
that after Senator Wyden and other Senators who have reserved time 
speak, I could again ask for time, and would indicate that being my 
intention because I do not want you to miss this. This is really 
getting good, Mr. President. There is about 4\1/2\ hours to go of it.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I believe the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia has time reserved at about 3:45. I ask unanimous consent to be 
able to speak up until 3:45, when the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia has his time allotted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me tell my 
colleague from Oregon that I very much appreciate his comments with 
respect to the county payments legislation. The top priority--the top 
priority--for Oregon's congressional delegation in

[[Page S1824]]

this session is getting this program reauthorized.
  I wrote this law in 2000 with Senator Craig because it was my view in 
2000 that without this program, Oregon's rural communities would not 
survive. I am here today to tell the Senate that if this program is not 
reauthorized, there is a serious question today whether these rural 
communities will be able to survive. Now, I want to bring the Senate up 
to date on three developments with respect to the reauthorization of 
this critically needed program.
  The distinguished Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, Mr. Reid, 
has been the majority leader for just over 1 month.
  I have had many conversations with the majority leader about this 
program. He vacationed in our beautiful State this summer. He saw the 
importance of our bountiful forests. I explained to him that the 
Federal Government owns more than half of our State. He has told me 
that he is determined to work with me until our State gets a fair shake 
with respect to this critically important program.
  Second--and this is something that the distinguished Senator from 
Montana knows something about--we have a good bipartisan group of 
Senators on the legislation I have authored to reauthorize the program. 
Both Senators from Oregon, both Senators from Washington, and both 
Senators from California, the distinguished Senator from Montana, and 
the distinguished Senator from Alaska have all joined us in the effort 
to reauthorize this program.
  Third, as the chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee, I would like to 
announce that the first hearing we are going to have in the Forestry 
Subcommittee is to reauthorize this program. Because it is so 
important, because it is a lifeline to rural communities across our 
State, we are making this the subject of the first hearing. We have 
pink slips going out now, county commissions trying to make decisions 
about schools and law enforcement. These programs involved are not 
extras. They are not the kind of thing that you consider something you 
would like to have. These are programs that involve law enforcement, 
that raise the question of whether we are going to have school in our 
State other than three times a week in some of these rural communities. 
I am committed to making sure that doesn't happen. Senator Smith is 
committed to it. The whole Oregon congressional delegation is committed 
to it.
  In Curry County, for example, on the Oregon coast, they are looking 
at the prospect of laying off all nonessential workers, including 
patrol officers, some of whom would be left to perform only their 
mandated correction duties. In a few months, they will have laid off 20 
percent of their county workforce. My judgment is--and this comes 
directly from those folks in Curry County--there is a real question 
about whether they are going to be able to continue as a county without 
this essential program.
  We have seen similar cuts put on the table all through the rural part 
of our State. A lot of Senators--I know the Senator from Montana knows 
a little bit about it--can't identify with something like this. In most 
of the East, they don't have half of their land in public ownership. 
They essentially have private property. A piece of private property is 
sold, revenue is generated, taxes are paid. That is how they pay for 
services. We have not been able to do that in our State because the 
Federal Government owns more than half of our land.
  People ask: How is it--and Senator Smith has touched on this this 
afternoon--that Oregon depends on these revenues for essential 
services? Well, God made a judgment that what we ought to do in Oregon 
is grow these beautiful trees. And, by God, we delivered. That is what 
we do. And we do it better than anybody else. So we didn't come up with 
some arbitrary figure back in 2000 and say, well, let's just give the 
State of Oregon a whole bunch of money because we decided to exercise 
raw political muscle. It was essentially based on a formula that is 
decades old, built around the proposition that where the Federal 
Government owns most of the land, we ought to make it possible for 
those communities to get help, at least at that time, through timber 
receipts. But when the environmental laws changed, suddenly those 
counties were high and dry.
  So I went to the Clinton administration. Frankly, I was pretty blunt. 
I have been blunt with the Bush administration, but I was even more 
blunt with the Clinton administration.
  I said: You don't pass this program, you might as well not come to 
our State because you are not going to be able to make a case for 
cutting off this program when those communities are getting hammered 
through no fault of their own. They did nothing wrong.
  What happened in this country is that values changed. Environmental 
priorities changed. All of a sudden those counties had nowhere to turn. 
So you are seeing that in Montana, in Oregon, throughout these small 
communities.
  Senator Smith has seen this as well. You can't go to a small 
community in rural Oregon, such as John Day, and tell them they ought 
to set up a biotechnology company in the next few months. They are 
making a big push right now to diversify and get into other industries. 
But these resource-dependent communities, communities that are looking 
at the axe falling on them, not in 6 months, not in a year, but coming 
up in a matter of weeks, they have nowhere to turn. So we consider 
ourselves the last line of defense.
  What we are asking for is what I and Senator Reid, the majority 
leader, have been talking about. And that is a fair shake for our 
State, not a death warrant for rural communities in our State, not a 
program that, in effect, has them shrivel up and disappear. We want a 
fair shake.
  This is an extraordinarily important issue. I just had a big round of 
townhall meetings across my State. We are all going home for the 
recess. I will start another round of those townhall meetings in rural 
Oregon this weekend. What happens at these meetings is you have law 
enforcement people. I had Sheriff Mike Winter from southern Oregon--I 
am sure Senator Smith knows Mike Winter--talking to us about what the 
cuts would mean in law enforcement in rural areas. We are talking about 
law enforcement, the fight against methamphetamines, which I know the 
Senator from Montana knows something about. It is a scourge that is 
clobbering the whole West. We can't leave our communities defenseless. 
We can't leave our communities without the resources they need to fight 
meth and these other critical problems.
  I have open meetings, one in every county every year. I am sure the 
Senator from Montana will be starting something like that. Folks in 
these rural school districts used to come up and say: Ron, we are not 
going to have school but for 3 days a week if we don't have this 
program. So what we are talking about is any serious semblance of 
public instruction in rural communities in our State. We don't see how 
we are going to be able to achieve it without this particular program.
  The consequences here are very real. The consequences are tragic. 
This is not a question of the Oregon congressional delegation, Senator 
Smith and myself, crying wolf and coming out and just being alarmists 
on the floor of the Senate. This is what we hear from our constituents. 
I heard it at town meetings a little bit ago, just a little over a 
week. I am going to hear it again this weekend. Suffice it to say, over 
700 counties in 39 States are involved. Many of them are in parts of 
the country where the Federal Government owns most of the land. That is 
certainly the case in Oregon where we have many rural communities where 
significantly over half of the land is owned by the Federal Government.

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

[[Page S1825]]

  Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is right with respect to how critical this 
question is. As he knows, because he and I have made this a top 
priority now for quite some time, we didn't get a fair shake in the 
last session of Congress. I put a hold on several appointments from the 
Bush administration because I wanted to make sure that they got the 
wake-up call. I lifted that hold and, frankly, I wish I hadn't because 
I think they have never put the effort into trying to get this 
warranted program reauthorized. So Senator Smith is correct in terms of 
saying that this program should have been reauthorized some time ago. 
He and I have put it at the top of our priority list.
  This is not an abstract question. Decisions are being made by rural 
school officials, by county commissions at this time. They are looking 
at cuts that are going to affect our ability to protect the communities 
from serious matters as it relates to criminal justice, to adequate 
public education. And we are not talking about extras. We are talking 
about basics, as Sheriff Mike Winter from southwestern Oregon has 
noted, and local school officials as well. We want to make it clear 
just what the consequences are going to be.
  I mentioned Curry County on the Oregon coast, for example. A number 
of our other communities--Douglas County, Lane County, in particular--
are going to see direct and painful consequences as a result of this 
program and the failure of this program to be reauthorized. County 
payments legislation is supported by a diverse coalition. We are 
pleased to see that this is a top priority of the National Association 
of Counties. A number of labor organizations have also said that they 
believe this is critically important.
  I will just wrap it up by saying that I believe these cuts in 
payments to rural counties are going to hit the rural part of my State 
and rural America like a wrecking ball. They are going to pound these 
communities. And it doesn't have to happen. Senator Smith has made that 
point. I have made that point. The whole Oregon congressional 
delegation, every member of our House delegation, we don't have 50 
Members representing us in the House of Representatives like 
California, but we are going to be heard.
  I have been gratified that Senator Reid, our majority leader, has 
been willing to spend so much time with me. He is a westerner. He knows 
what the impact is in a public lands State. He was in our State. He saw 
what the forests mean to us. He is an honorable man and a man of his 
word. He said he would work with me to make sure that our State gets a 
fair shake. We are going to make sure that message is heard loudly and 
clearly when we have the hearing in the Forestry Subcommittee. We will 
make sure the legislation that the Senator from Montana has joined me 
on will get a thorough hearing at that particular discussion.
  I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer for being a cosponsor of 
this bill. We are glad to have him in our bipartisan coalition.
  I wanted to wrap up by saying I appreciate Senator Smith's remarks 
here on the floor. He is going to hear from the Oregon congressional 
delegation and Oregon Senators again and again and again, until this 
critical program is reauthorized.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to calling off the quorum?
  Mr. WARNER. No. Before the Senator begins to speak, I want to make 
this clear. I ask the Presiding Officer, am I not to be recognized for 
the time between 3:45 and 4:30?
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, I 
think, will be pleased with my request.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner be recognized at this 
time for up to 60 minutes and, following that, Senator Murray be 
recognized for 15 minutes, a Republican Senator be recognized next for 
10 minutes, then Senator McCaskill be recognized for 10 minutes, and 
then Senator Smith be recognized for up to 75 minutes. I will be 
joining Senator Smith during his 75 minutes. That is my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Virginia is recognized.

                          ____________________