Adrian Corleonis, Klamath Falls, asks:

What would you do to stop the detaining of citizens without impartial application of due process, including warrantless surveillance, arbitrary imprisonment, torture and reasserting Constitutional guarantees of individual liberty?

Gordon Smith: I believe the government can and must do everything within its power to keep the people of this country safe. However, we can and must do so within the confines of the Constitution. I fully support prosecuting the war on terrorism, both at home and abroad, but have also repeatedly voted to preserve due process by granting Habeas Corpus rights to detainees and broke with my party in voting to ban the practice of torture.

Jeff Merkley: The first thing we need to do to change Washington is to change senators. Gordon Smith has joined George Bush time after time to subvert the Constitution and individual liberty. We aren’t going to protect our nation by making our citizens less free.

We need to pass legislation to end warrantless wire-tapping and restore judicial oversight. And we need a president and a senate who are committed to ending torture by our government. … Restoring the rule of law is the most important thing we must do as a nation to clean up after eight disastrous years of George W. Bush.

Sally Bailo, Klamath Falls, asks:

Do you advocate privatizing Social Security? Why, why not? Would you guarantee long-term funding of Social Security? If so, how?

Gordon Smith: While Social Security needs reform in order to meet the needs posed by the retirement of baby boomers, I have never supported privatization. I do support “add-on” accounts to Social Security, which allow taxpayers to set aside an additional amount of income to be invested in private markets — however these accounts would not in any way reduce the amount of funds already being contributed to the Social Security system.

We must come together in a bipartisan way if we are ever to reform Social Security. I don’t care which party comes up with the fix — I just care about fixing the program.

Jeff Merkley: I am firmly opposed to privatizing Social Security. We cannot jeopardize the retirement of millions of Americans by turning the guarantee of Social Security into a gamble. … We need to get our budget back into balance, stop stealing from the Social Security trust, and continue to create jobs and grow the economy.  That’s how we can protect Social Security, which is a bedrock commitment between generations.

Howard L. Slinkard, Bonanza, asks:

Would you change the Second Amendment? What is your position on U.S. citizens’ right to bear arms, and would you guarantee that right?

Gordon Smith: I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms that it affords the American people. I do not support changing the Second Amendment; particularly since the U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified that our right to bear arms is a significant, individual right.

Jeff Merkley: I believe in increasing personal freedom by keeping government out of people’s gun cabinets. I am a strong proponent of the individual right to bear arms and believe we should protect Second Amendment rights.

Rowena DeMartin, Klamath Falls, asks:

How would you initiate a health program to assist those without medical insurance and pay for it?

Gordon Smith: Every American deserves access to quality, affordable health care coverage.  This begins with strengthening and protecting federal programs like Medicare as well as vital safety-net programs like Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

I co-sponsored Sen. Wyden’s Healthy Americans Act because it provides a good starting point. I have also authored a proposal that would deliver real and meaningful healthcare reform for small business by partnering the federal government with states and businesses to provide affordable health care for employees of small businesses.

Jeff Merkley: Sen. Ron Wyden has done a tremendous amount of work to improve health coverage for all Americans. I support his Healthy Americans Act and have pledged to co-sponsor that legislation if I am elected senator. This bill will guarantee every American universal, affordable, comprehensive, portable, high-quality health coverage that is as good or better than members of Congress have today.

We also need to do more to provide preventative care to catch problems before they become serious. And we need to address the nationwide nursing shortage that will have a devastating impact on our health care system over the next decade.

Why doesn’t the federal government properly budget for forest management to avoid catastrophic wildfires? How would you budget for timber sale layout, controlled burns and thinning in our forests?

Gordon Smith: I have fought to provide more funding to pre-fire forest treatment as well as regular timber sale funding for Oregon’s national forests and BLM land. Unfortunately, firefighting costs now amount to roughly half of the Forest Service’s entire budget. We can’t get fire suppression costs down until we start thinning forests to reduce the incidence of catastrophic wildfire. We can reduce the costs of thinning by allowing more harvest of merchantable timber, and we can help pay for reforestation by harvesting dead trees killed by wildfire. I have advocated legislation to accomplish both these goals.

Jeff Merkley: The Administration has routinely underfunded the budget for fighting wildfires and has therefore had to take money from the recreation budget, thinning and other fire prevention activities that would help prevent wildfires.

We have to think about budgeting in a whole new way. In our current model, some necessary thinning projects just don’t pencil out. We need to help create a viable biomass market so that everything that comes out of the woods through thinning is economically useful. We also need to provide incentives for mills to retool for small diameter trees, as they have in Lakeview, so that their supply continues, we can do the necessary thinning, and keep people working.

Questions from the Herald and News:

The campaign ads being run in this part of the state are particularly harsh and are viewed by many voters as attack ads. Why run these kinds of ads? How would you characterize the race in the southern part of the state and why?

Gordon Smith: About $12 million has been spent grossly misrepresenting both me personally and my record as a bipartisan, independent voice for this state. The voters in Southern Oregon deserve to know the truth about my record and my opponent’s. I have tried to demonstrate my steadfast commitment to the issues that matter most to rural Oregon, such as water, timber and small businesses. I was proud of my vote last week in support of the crucial county payments legislation and disappointed in my opponent for opposing it.

Jeff Merkley: From the beginning, I have focused on the issues important to Oregonians. I’ve put detailed policy proposals on my Web site (www.jeffmerkley.com) outlining my solutions to the problems that confront our nation. And I have run ads focusing on those issues: our out of balance tax and trade policies, the need for fiscal discipline in our federal budget and the importance of protecting reproductive rights. I have not run any ads that personally attack Gordon Smith and I will not do so. The race in Southern Oregon is very close. Unfortunately, Senator Smith has run ads in southern Oregon that he would never run in Portland — ads that attempt to divide our state in two and pit residents of Klamath Falls against residents of Portland. That’s the wrong approach both in this campaign and in the U.S. Senate. I have spoken about the need to provide jobs in rural areas, improve access to health care and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.

How should water be allocated in the Klamath Basin? Do you support the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement? How will you continue to facilitate agricultural and environmental cooperation?

Gordon Smith: I fought to restore water to Klamath farmers after it was cut off, and for financial assistance for those whose livelihoods were threatened by federal policies. I support states’ rights, and believe that water in the Basin must be allocated in accordance with state water law.

Regarding the restoration agreement, I commend those who worked so hard to develop it and have committed to work for its implementation. I also recognize that many stakeholders don’t support the agreement, and know we must resolve their concerns for it to succeed. I will foster continued cooperation among the divergent parties by pursuing win-win solutions for the environment and for all those who depend on the Klamath River for their livelihoods.

Jeff Merkley: What we don’t need is for the federal government to come in and “solve” this problem. We need a locally grown solution that Oregon’s congressional delegation can get through Congress.

In the Legislature, I supported the effort to create a pilot program to take water from our rivers during high-flow seasons to replenish our aquifers and store for use and release during low-flow seasons. The Agriculture and Community Water Act was an effort to help solve the water problem for Oregon by establishing the framework for statewide water storage projects. The bill also created a grant program to study usage, conservation, reuse and storage.

Question to Gordon Smith from the Jeff Merkley campaign:

In 2004, you authored a provision to give tax breaks to companies that shelter their profits overseas because you said it would create 650,000 new jobs. The tax giveaway ended up costing taxpayers $265 billion and created no jobs according to economists. In fact, companies actually laid off more workers. Why did you vote for this policy again in January 2008 in the Finance Committee, canceling out Ron Wyden’s vote?

Gordon Smith: I am one of Congress’s leading advocates for returning tax dollars to be invested in the United States.  I’ve fought to return $362 billion to the American economy — that is a pretty good way to create new jobs and grow American companies. The alternative is letting this money stay abroad — and that doesn’t help anybody. In fact, well over $11 billion in taxes were paid by these companies to the U.S. Treasury that wouldn’t have been paid otherwise.

Question to Jeff Merkley from the Gordon Smith campaign:

In 2001, Sen. Wyden and Sen. Smith voted for an amendment that would have suspended the water cut off to farmers in Klamath. Would you have voted yes or no?

Jeff Merkley campaign: The vote in question was to put aside a Smith amendment on water cut-offs in the Klamath Basin. The Senate voted to set aside his amendment; Ron Wyden and Smith voted to allow it to be considered. Jeff Merkley would have joined Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith to carry a full debate on this issue. Like Ron Wyden, Jeff Merkley believes there needs to be a comprehensive solution that takes into account the needs of all stakeholders including the farmers, tribes, fishermen and local communities, and he would have voted to continue working towards that solution instead of shutting down the debate.