Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address concerns raised by a number of my constituents with respect to the Oil Pollution Act in the aftermath of the New Carissa incident. This legislation, the Fishermen and Aquaculture Oil Spill Assistance Act, is the first step toward ensuring that small businesses, such as the fishermen and shellfish producers in my state, who are impacted by these oil spills, are not victimized a second time by a lengthy claims procedure under the OPA. For the benefit of my colleagues who are not aware of this incident, the New Carissa was a large wood-chip freighter that ran aground near Coos Bay, Oregon last year and leaked 60,000 gallons of oil. This devastated the coastal environment in that area, and temporarily damaged some of the important oyster beds for which Coos Bay is well- known in the seafood industry. In fact, we still have the ship's stern section sitting off-shore, marring the natural beauty of the Oregon coast. Over the last several months I have heard from my constituents from that part of the Oregon coast, who are extremely dissatisfied with both the emergency response planning and the claims process under the Oil Pollution Act as it applies to aquaculture producers. With respect to the emergency response plans, the complaint has been that the concerns of shellfish producers are not necessarily taken into account in the development of these plans and that quick action in the early hours of a spill could protect the areas where the oyster beds are present. On the matter of the claims process, the complaint has been that there is little small businesses can do in the immediate term if the responsible party fails to make the interim payments to claimants required under the OPA. This legislation addresses the concerns by authorizing the President to offer loans to fishermen and aquaculture producers who are mired in the claims process, but have not been receiving the required interim payments. This would help these small, often family-owned, businesses meet their most pressing expenses should the claims procedure become a drawn out affair. Secondly, this legislation calls upon the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to study the claims process and the emergency response plans to determine if they adequately protect the interests of seafood producers and submit any recommendations to the Congress. Ultimately, my aim is to ensure that future oil spill incidents do not cause the same problems to others that oyster producers in Oregon have suffered following the New Carissa spill. I am pleased that my friend from the Oregon delegation, Mr. DeFazio, intends to introduce a companion measure today in the House of Representatives. Over the upcoming holidays we intend to look over this matter again and reintroduce this legislation, after receiving further feedback from our constituents, early in the 107th Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Of course.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I rise as one Senator in this body and as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee to express the hope that by noon tomorrow the State Department will provide for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the document that it has rightfully requested so that it might know the truth with respect to the Gore- Chernomyrdin agreement. Since I have been a Senator these last 4 years, I have had occasion to meet with the Vice President and Mr. Chernomyrdin when they came to Capitol Hill to trumpet what was represented to us as the great successes of their relationship and our outreach to Russia and to help Russia in its transition to democracy. In every way possible, we have hoped to conduct our business with Russia on better terms than we have in the past. I think it is appropriate for this Republican to say that, without question, no one should question the motives of Vice President Gore with respect to what he has tried to accomplish in this relationship. However, there is reason to believe that some of what has gone on with the best of motives may, in fact--I emphasize ``may''--have violated a law and a statute of this country, if not a constitutional requirement in article II of the Constitution that agreements be reviewed by appropriate congressional committees. I am told that with respect to the Gore-Chernomyrdin relationship a House committee was informed. Congressman Hamilton said he received some information to that effect. Dick Lugar, the Senator from Indiana, has said he knew in general terms what they were trying to achieve. But then all of us were taken aback a couple of weeks ago by an article in the New York Times in which this agreement was specifically quoted. I do not know of any Congressman or Senator who has yet to say they have seen the particulars of this arrangement. That is the point of the Foreign Relations Committee's inquiry of the State Department. Let me read briefly a sentence from that New York Times story that quotes what the Vice President pledges to do. He pledges to ``avoid any penalties to Russia that might otherwise arise under domestic law.'' There is nothing in the Gore-McCain law of 1992 that allows the executive branch to unilaterally waive the law. Their duty under that law is to impose sanctions, and then to waive them if that is the judgment of the executive but not to do it in a way that keeps Congress in the dark and violates specific terms of American law. Why should we care? Many of our friends on the Democratic side said this is all just about politics. You shouldn't be raising that now. I point out to them that the Vice President, the executive, and the State Department have had 5 years to take this out of politics and to simply disclose, as is rightfully our right to know, those documents and those particulars as to agreements. Some of my colleagues have said these aren't agreements; that these are understandings. If it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, to me it is a duck. In my opinion, when you see specific responsibilities and considerations on both sides and end dates, folks, that is an agreement, and the Congress has a right--and particularly the Senate-- to see this document, and in confidence if necessary. But we have a right to documents that have been requested of the State Department. I hope that it exonerates the Vice President. But let me tell you why I am concerned that it may not. The Washington Times, a week ago, ran a story in which a letter was leaked from the State Department--not by the Republican Party but by the State Department somehow to a reporter of the Washington Times--a letter from the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, to the Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov. You have to read these words to, frankly, understand it and really believe it. I don't know how words can be any clearer that the administration is admitting to a violation of law. This is what the Secretary wrote to the Russian Foreign Minister: We have also upheld our commitment not to impose sanctions for these transfers disclosed in the Annex to the Aide Memoire. The Annex is very specific in its terms, and we have followed it strictly. . . . Without the Aide Memoire, Russia's conventional arms sales to Iran would have been subject to sanctions based on various provisions of our laws. This possibility still exists in the event the continued Russian transfers after the December 31 termination date. Madam President, the Secretary of State has said here that they have violated the law. What the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the majority in this party are asking for is to have the proof of the State Department's assurances to us that they haven't violated the law. That is all we are asking for. If they haven't, we will be glad to say that to the whole world. But what we have received so far is their assurances that they haven't violated the law. Guess what. I want to believe them. But I am entitled as a Senator to see the document so I might know that they have not violated the law as the Secretary of State has said. Should we know that? I think we should. Does that mean the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement isn't a good deal? I don't know that. It may be a great deal. But it is not a deal where the means justify the ends to violate American law and treat the Senate with disrespect. It does not warrant that. We are a country of laws, and we need to obey them. We are simply asking, as a signatory to this letter, that the administration comply with the law authored by the Vice President himself. In addition to Sam Brownback and myself, the signatories to this letter are the majority leader, Trent Lott, the majority leader whip, Don Nickles, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms, John McCain, Fred Thompson, the chairman of Governmental Affairs, Richard Shelby, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Richard Lugar, who, by the way, wouldn't mind knowing the truth of what has been represented to him, too. He is curious about indeed what the facts are. I regret that this is close to an election. I don't believe politics should be international. I think they should stop at the water's edge. But I think the responsibility lies with the administration to foster a bipartisan foreign policy. That is clearly not happening here. We are entitled to know the truth. If the law has been complied with, this is over with. If it has not, then, frankly, that ought to be known by the American people as well. Whether or not a Kilo-class submarine is a dangerous weapon, frankly, is a judgment the administration is entitled to make. But there may be other weapons on that, as the Secretary suggests, that were subject to sanctions. We have a right to know whether or not we have been treated as mushroom farmers--keep them in the dark and shovel the manure on them. That is not how it is supposed to work--not according to our Constitution, not according to our statutory law and various provisions. We are entitled to know the truth. As one Senator, I plead with the State Department to show us the documents and this goes away. But you have to show us the documents. We are owed it. We deserve it. We are entitled to it. It ought to happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate today to speak to the important issue of conservation in agriculture. I am pleased to join with my friend from Iowa, the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, on the introduction of the Conservation Security Act. The introduction of this legislation represents the culmination of a great deal of work on the part of Senator Harkin and his staff to explore new ways to address the needs of American farmers in the area of conservation. With the debate over a new farm bill on the horizon for the next Congress, I think it is important that we begin this dialogue now to consider how federal programs for farmers can be made more flexible and, frankly, more relevant, to farmers throughout the country. As some of my colleagues know, I come from rural Eastern Oregon. In my part of the State, which is noted for its wheat farms, it is often said that every day is Earth Day for farmers. And every year, as more and more farmland is lost to development, people from both urban and rural America are starting to realize how much a friend to the environment our farmers are. Farmers have long recognized their direct dependence upon the land and the blessings of nature for their livelihoods, and, as a result, are some of the best stewards of the land in this country. I think you will find, Mr. President, that when it come to environmental stewardship measures, farmers are almost always willing to step up to the plate to do their part, provided that they can still make a living. Too often, I believe they are simply told through regulation what they can or cannot do with their land. Not enough attention is paid to the real impact of such regulation on the farmer's bottom line or on the relative competitiveness of U.S. Agriculture to foreign competition. What good does it do for the environment to drive farmers out of business only to trade farmland for strip malls? We all know there is a place for common sense environmental regulation, but I don't believe we have done nearly enough on the incentive side of the coin. The Conservation Security Act is a bold step toward filling the gap in our current federal farm conservation regime. Simply put, this legislation offers compensation to farmers for voluntary conservation activities performed on land that is in agricultural production. Several aspects of this approach are significant improvements over the conservation tools available to farmers today. First, this legislation recognizes that there are a number of things that are beneficial to the environment that farmers can do short of simply idling their land. Adopting an integrated pest management plan that reduces pesticide use, or using soil-conserving rotational crops are just two examples of environmentally sensitive measures farmers can take while their land is still under production. Most of our spending for conservation programs at the federal level is geared toward paying farmers to set aside environmentally sensitive land altogether, such as under the Conservation Reserve Program. While such programs serve an important need, they don't address the range of conservation activities that farmers can, and often do, on their land in production. The Conservation Security Act fills this need in conservation programming and offers farmers the flexibility of choosing from amongst three tiers of conservation measures. A second significant feature of this legislation is its applicability to all farmers, not just program commodity producers. I come from a state that produces everything from blueberries to potatoes to hazelnuts and nearly everything in between. These specialty crop producers need to have conservation options too. I am pleased to note the Conservation Security Act is open to all farmers in the nation. It is critical that the next farm bill more effectively addresses the needs of specialty crop producers in this area. Finally, I have to note the potential for this legislation to help address the current farm crisis that is affecting so many of our family farmers. Those of us from agricultural states know too well the difficulties our farmers have faced in recent years, with the cost of production often exceeding the price paid for their commodities. While I believe a number of unusual circumstances have contributed to this problem--such as the Asian economic crisis--I also recognize that we must develop a more effective income support mechanism that the ad-hoc emergency farm spending packages we have relied upon in recent years. An investment in conservation, such as outlined in the Conservation Security Act, could contribute to that end. In summary, Mr. President, I believe the Conservation Security Act has great potential to address crying needs of farmers all across the nation, while encouraging enhanced environmental stewardship. These are goals I think we should all agree on when it comes to farm policy. Over the upcoming recess, Senator Harkin and I will seek more input from the agriculture community as well as other interested colleagues on this important legislation. The Conservation Security Act offers a serious attempt to address the conservation needs of farmers as well as the troubling overall decline of the family farm in this country. I urge my colleagues to give in their consideration over this recess and look forward to reintroducing this legislation at the beginning of the next Congress as the debate over the next farm bill begins in earnest.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate today to speak to the important issue of conservation in agriculture. I am pleased to join with my friend from Iowa, the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, on the introduction of the Conservation Security Act. The introduction of this legislation represents the culmination of a great deal of work on the part of Senator Harkin and his staff to explore new ways to address the needs of American farmers in the area of conservation. With the debate over a new farm bill on the horizon for the next Congress, I think it is important that we begin this dialogue now to consider how federal programs for farmers can be made more flexible and, frankly, more relevant, to farmers throughout the country. As some of my colleagues know, I come from rural Eastern Oregon. In my part of the State, which is noted for its wheat farms, it is often said that every day is Earth Day for farmers. And every year, as more and more farmland is lost to development, people from both urban and rural America are starting to realize how much a friend to the environment our farmers are. Farmers have long recognized their direct dependence upon the land and the blessings of nature for their livelihoods, and, as a result, are some of the best stewards of the land in this country. I think you will find, Mr. President, that when it come to environmental stewardship measures, farmers are almost always willing to step up to the plate to do their part, provided that they can still make a living. Too often, I believe they are simply told through regulation what they can or cannot do with their land. Not enough attention is paid to the real impact of such regulation on the farmer's bottom line or on the relative competitiveness of U.S. Agriculture to foreign competition. What good does it do for the environment to drive farmers out of business only to trade farmland for strip malls? We all know there is a place for common sense environmental regulation, but I don't believe we have done nearly enough on the incentive side of the coin. The Conservation Security Act is a bold step toward filling the gap in our current federal farm conservation regime. Simply put, this legislation offers compensation to farmers for voluntary conservation activities performed on land that is in agricultural production. Several aspects of this approach are significant improvements over the conservation tools available to farmers today. First, this legislation recognizes that there are a number of things that are beneficial to the environment that farmers can do short of simply idling their land. Adopting an integrated pest management plan that reduces pesticide use, or using soil-conserving rotational crops are just two examples of environmentally sensitive measures farmers can take while their land is still under production. Most of our spending for conservation programs at the federal level is geared toward paying farmers to set aside environmentally sensitive land altogether, such as under the Conservation Reserve Program. While such programs serve an important need, they don't address the range of conservation activities that farmers can, and often do, on their land in production. The Conservation Security Act fills this need in conservation programming and offers farmers the flexibility of choosing from amongst three tiers of conservation measures. A second significant feature of this legislation is its applicability to all farmers, not just program commodity producers. I come from a state that produces everything from blueberries to potatoes to hazelnuts and nearly everything in between. These specialty crop producers need to have conservation options too. I am pleased to note the Conservation Security Act is open to all farmers in the nation. It is critical that the next farm bill more effectively addresses the needs of specialty crop producers in this area. Finally, I have to note the potential for this legislation to help address the current farm crisis that is affecting so many of our family farmers. Those of us from agricultural states know too well the difficulties our farmers have faced in recent years, with the cost of production often exceeding the price paid for their commodities. While I believe a number of unusual circumstances have contributed to this problem--such as the Asian economic crisis--I also recognize that we must develop a more effective income support mechanism that the ad-hoc emergency farm spending packages we have relied upon in recent years. An investment in conservation, such as outlined in the Conservation Security Act, could contribute to that end. In summary, Mr. President, I believe the Conservation Security Act has great potential to address crying needs of farmers all across the nation, while encouraging enhanced environmental stewardship. These are goals I think we should all agree on when it comes to farm policy. Over the upcoming recess, Senator Harkin and I will seek more input from the agriculture community as well as other interested colleagues on this important legislation. The Conservation Security Act offers a serious attempt to address the conservation needs of farmers as well as the troubling overall decline of the family farm in this country. I urge my colleagues to give in their consideration over this recess and look forward to reintroducing this legislation at the beginning of the next Congress as the debate over the next farm bill begins in earnest.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Savage Rapids Dam Act of 2000, which is cosponsored by my colleague Mr. Wyden. This bill would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to provide for the installation of pumps and removal of the Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River in the State of Oregon, and for other purposes. Introduction of this bill follows months of negotiations between the Grants Pass Irrigation District, which owns the dam and has received water from it since 1921, federal and state agencies, and other stakeholders in the Basin. Removal of the dam, following the installation of modern electric irrigation pumps, will resolve the ongoing issues related to fish passage at the facility. Early on, I made a commitment to help the District resolve the controversies surrounding the dam in a manner acceptable to the District and its patrons, and in a way that left the District economically viable. This bill achieves both those goals. In December 1999, the board of directors of the Grants Pass Irrigation District adopted a resolution outlining the proposed settlement of disputes relating to the dam. The patrons of the district subsequently voted to adopt the settlement at the beginning of the year. The settlement supports dam removal, but only following the installation of irrigation pumps. The proposed settlement had several other components that have been addressed in the crafting of this legislation. I realize that it is late in the 106th Congress to be introducing legislation. However, I felt that this was the most effective way to focus attention on this proposal. Despite our best efforts to communicate with all interested and affected parties, I believe introduction of the bill at this time will enable us to gain valuable feedback before the start of the next Congress. This will enable us to reintroduce the bill early next year. I recognize that dam removal proposals can be controversial. This facility, however, is not a large multi-purpose dam. It does not generate electricity, and provides no flood control. It does not affect commercial navigation. There will be an impact on flat-water recreational opportunities, so the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with the State of Oregon and the counties of Josephine and Jackson to identify and implement recreation opportunities. The bill includes an authorization of 2.5 million dollars for the federal share of these recreation facilities. I look forward to working with the Grants Pass Irrigation District and the other stakeholders to bring resolution to the disputes that have gone on for several years now. This is an opportunity to restore salmon and maintain an agricultural way of life for the patrons of the District.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Savage Rapids Dam Act of 2000, which is cosponsored by my colleague Mr. Wyden. This bill would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to provide for the installation of pumps and removal of the Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue River in the State of Oregon, and for other purposes. Introduction of this bill follows months of negotiations between the Grants Pass Irrigation District, which owns the dam and has received water from it since 1921, federal and state agencies, and other stakeholders in the Basin. Removal of the dam, following the installation of modern electric irrigation pumps, will resolve the ongoing issues related to fish passage at the facility. Early on, I made a commitment to help the District resolve the controversies surrounding the dam in a manner acceptable to the District and its patrons, and in a way that left the District economically viable. This bill achieves both those goals. In December 1999, the board of directors of the Grants Pass Irrigation District adopted a resolution outlining the proposed settlement of disputes relating to the dam. The patrons of the district subsequently voted to adopt the settlement at the beginning of the year. The settlement supports dam removal, but only following the installation of irrigation pumps. The proposed settlement had several other components that have been addressed in the crafting of this legislation. I realize that it is late in the 106th Congress to be introducing legislation. However, I felt that this was the most effective way to focus attention on this proposal. Despite our best efforts to communicate with all interested and affected parties, I believe introduction of the bill at this time will enable us to gain valuable feedback before the start of the next Congress. This will enable us to reintroduce the bill early next year. I recognize that dam removal proposals can be controversial. This facility, however, is not a large multi-purpose dam. It does not generate electricity, and provides no flood control. It does not affect commercial navigation. There will be an impact on flat-water recreational opportunities, so the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with the State of Oregon and the counties of Josephine and Jackson to identify and implement recreation opportunities. The bill includes an authorization of 2.5 million dollars for the federal share of these recreation facilities. I look forward to working with the Grants Pass Irrigation District and the other stakeholders to bring resolution to the disputes that have gone on for several years now. This is an opportunity to restore salmon and maintain an agricultural way of life for the patrons of the District.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, moments ago, by unanimous consent, the Senate passed H.R. 4828, the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act. This bill, supported by the entire Oregon delegation, is a very unique piece of legislation to enhance the protection of Steens Mountain in Southeastern Oregon, while preserving the local ranching economy. As the sponsor of the Senate companion bill, S. 3052, cosponsored by my colleague, Senator Wyden, I am here to thank my colleagues for the swift consideration of the House-passed bill.This bill enjoys broad support, ranging from the local community officials and the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, to Oregon Trout and the Sierra Club. For those of my colleagues who have not had the good fortune to visit this special place, the Steens Mountain area in southeastern Oregon is a unique geologic formation that is home to a wide diversity of flora and fauna. The Steens Mountain fault block stretches sixty miles. It rises to an elevation of 9,700 feet and drops 5,500 feet in three miles to the historic lakebed of the Alvord Desert. The federal lands on Steens Mountain are managed by the Bureau of Land Management. There is significant private ownership in the area, with over 270 separate landowners controlling about one-third of the land. There are several large ranching operations that graze both public and private lands in the Steens Mountain area. Faced with multiple landowners, and a wide range of views on how best to protect the land, we finally crafted a great bill that enjoys local and national support, and that the President has indicated he will sign. Through this bill, we are going to designate over one hundred and seventy thousand acres of wilderness. We are permanently removing cattle from over a hundred thousand acres in the High Steens. We will permanently withdraw over 1.1 million acres, including the Alvord Desert, from mining and geothermal development. We are also creating innovative management tools, such as a Redband Trout reserve and a Wildlands Juniper Management Area, to respond to the diverse stewardship needs of the Steens and the wildlife that finds its home there. Mr. President, it was no easy task to achieve such wide-ranging environmental protection in my state without decimating the way of life of an entire community, and without creating more distrust of federal land management policies. This solution, though, works for the land and the people, rather than trying to make the land fit an existing management classification. The best way to preserve special places like Steens Mountain, with significant private ownership, is not to force people off the land or to buy them all out. It is to ensure that open spaces are preserved in private ownership, and to provide incentives for the preservation of these open spaces. After all, it is the stewardship of this area by the private landowners over the last one hundred years that makes Steens Mountain the special place that it is today. For over a year now, the entire Oregon congressional delegation and the Governor have worked closely with the Secretary of the Interior and stakeholders to achieve one primary goal: the preservation of Steens Mountain for future generations of Americans while ensuring that the ranchers can pass their ranches down to their children and grandchildren. At the risk of leaving someone out, I would like to take a moment to mention some of the people who have contributed to this landmark process. I want to thank all of the Members of the Oregon delegation, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Governor, and all the dedicated staff members who worked on this bill--especially Valerie West, my Natural Resources Director, as well as Kurt Pfotenhauer and Matt Hill of my staff; Lindsay Slater, and Troy Tidwell in Congressman Walden's office; David Blair, Josh Kardon, and Sarah Bittleman in Senator Wyden's office; Amelia Jenkins with Congressman DeFazio; Chris Huckleberry with Congresswoman Hooley; Michael Harrison with Congressman Blumenauer; and working on behalf of Governor Kitzhaber-- Kevin Smith and Peter Green. In the Secretary of the Interior's office, I want to extend thanks to Molly McUsic and Laurie Sedlmayr. I also want to recognize the work of Mike Menge, David Dye, and David Brooks of the Senate Energy Committee, who helped bring this legislation before the Committee and to the floor of the Senate. There are also many in Oregon that have been essential to this process. First and foremost, those who live in the shadow and beauty of Steens Mountain, and who will continue to act as its stewards: Stacy Davies, Fred Otley and Charlie Otley. There are also those who have represented the various environmental groups in Oregon: Bill Marlett, Andy Kerr, Sybil Ackerman, Jill Workman, and Jim Myron. Mr. President, this bill is a historic achievement that will protect a mountain and a way of life that are deeply intertwined in the spirit of the American west, and I thank my colleagues for their support.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I will not speak but a minute, along with my colleague, Senator Wyden. He and I come to the floor to celebrate what Senator Craig will do later this evening by unanimous consent, and that is passage of H.R. 4828. It has to do with the high Steens area of southeastern Oregon. It is a beautiful and pristine area. What we have done is truly bipartisan and truly historic in that the Sierra Club and the Oregon Cattlemen's Association enthusiastically support it. They support it because this has been a product of dialog and not Executive dictate. This has come about because people of good will have said: How can we protect the environment and protect the people as well? We have accomplished that in this bill. We are creating 170,000 acres of wilderness and providing other places for people to pursue their ranching lifestyles, and we are preserving the economy of Harney County. I thank all of my colleagues--my colleague in the Senate, Senator Wyden; Congressman Walden; all of the Oregon Congressmen, Republicans and Democrats alike; and the Governor of Oregon as well; and Secretary Bruce Babbitt who worked with us in good faith to make this possible. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I am very pleased that the distinguished Senator from Utah has recognized the need to address the important issue of post-conviction DNA testing at the federal level and am proud to join his efforts. Senator Hatch's Criminal Justice Integrity and Law Enforcement Assistant Act is an excellent bill that has the strong support from law enforcement officials. It will provide much-needed funds for law enforcement authorities to analyze convicted offender DNA samples and DNA evidence gathered from crime scenes. However, it has become abundantly clear over recent years that funding is not the only problem in the post-conviction DNA testing debate. In determining guilt and innocence, our criminal justice system occasionally makes mistakes. It is our responsibility to take every reasonable measure to prevent miscarriages of justice. Perhaps the gravest injustice that could occur is wrongful imprisonment of an innocent person. Ensuring that all defendants have access to competent counsel would go a long way to minimize the risk of unjust incarceration. Some will say that there is no problem, or that it is so rare as to be negligible, or that we do not yet know the true extent of the problem and should not introduce legislation until we do. I strongly disagree. Although officers of America's courts and law enforcement work extremely hard to ensure that the true perpetrators of heinous crimes are caught and convicted, there have been errors that have sent innocent men to death row--innocent people like you and me who did not deserve to be there. While some states, like my home State of Oregon, work hard to ensure that defendants are represented by competent counsel, other states clearly do not. Without a federal standard, there is a real risk that innocent people tried in states without adequate standards for defense counsel could be unjustly incarcerated, or in rate cases, even sentenced to death. Setting federal standards for competent counsel for all defendants is a very reasonable step to make sure that our system of criminal justice operates fairly regardless of where you live. Senator Leahy and I have introduced the Innocence Protection Act, which would address the vital issue of competency of counsel, among other things. Although the Criminal Justice Integrity Act, as introduced, does not address the issue of competency of counsel, Senator Hatch has promised to work with me and others to consider this issue when any post-conviction DNA testing legislation is considered in the Senate. I commend Senator Hatch for his interest in this matter, and for his willingness to work with me to produce a bill that will truly make a good system even better. Mr. Hatch. I promise the distinguished Senator from Oregon that I will take up this issue in the months ahead. The issue of competency of counsel for indigents in state capital cases is a difficult issue for several reasons. First, it is not clear that this is a nationwide problem. For example, in Utah and Oregon, there does not appear to be a problem concerning the representation of indigents in capital cases. Second, the anecdotal examples cited in the media of poor capital representation occurred many years ago. For example, the death penalty trial of Gary Graham, which has been repeatedly mentioned in the press, occurred in 1981. Third, the States that seem to have a problem in this area recently made improvements. In 1995, Texas Governor George W. Bush signed legislation that provided indigent capital defendants the right to have two attorneys represent them at trial. Just this year, Alabama passed a law that compensates lawyers who represent indigents in capital trials at $100 per hour. In short, I would like to know more about the extent of this problem before I introduce legislation. Thankfully, the Bureau of Justice Statistics is releasing a comprehensive study of state indigent legal defense services in December. I am hopeful that this study will provide the information necessary to evaluate the extent of this problem. I look forward to working with Senator Smith in the months ahead.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I have listened to the debating back and forth on the issue of whether we do H-2A or H-1B. I would like the American people to know that I think there is a lot going on behind the scenes. I think there is a lot that needs to happen behind the scenes, and quickly because both of these issues are legitimate issues. I believe America needs to make up its mind whether we want the high-tech industry to remain an American industry. It is vital to our economic good, and we are all proud of it. We all want to encourage it. We need to help the high-tech industry by raising the H- 1B visas temporarily. Otherwise, this is an industry that is prepared to move to other shores. I would rather they remain on our shores because I think it does us an enormous amount of good. In my State, and in the State of the Senator from Nevada, and so many States, we are seeing small businesses thrive with the development of this new technology. But I also want to speak to the need that we not abandon the cause of the Hispanic and Latino workers. There are many proposals right now addressing their needs. I happen to be a cosponsor of a bill, being argued by many on the other side of the aisle, which help these workers. I think it is a crying shame that we have people living in the shadows of our society right now. These are people who are here; yes, many of them illegally, probably well over a million, and maybe as many as 2 million people who are working primarily in agricultural industries. These illegal workers have infiltrated many other industries as well. They have been here for a decade and more. Many people worry that if Congress addresses the worker shortage in agriculture, more illegal workers will come. I have news for them. They have already come. They are here. They live among us and contribute to our economy. They are contributing to our tax rolls, frankly, without the benefit of law. I believe Republicans and Democrats ought to find a way as human beings to reach out to the illegal farm worker community. If it isn't with amnesty, there are ways we can allow them to be here legally. A lot of people say we have no worker shortage in agriculture. I tell you that we don't if you include all the illegals. But we owe something better to these workers and something better to their employers than an illegal system. It is a crying shame, and we ought to be ashamed of it in the Senate, and do something about. I know Speaker Hastert is working on this issue in the House. I believe our Senate leadership is working on it here. But I am in a dilemma. I will admit it right here on the floor of the Senate. I want to help the high-tech industry by providing them with highly skilled temporary workers, but I also want to help the workers in the agricultural industry who contribute to our economy and deserve our attention as well. I hope that our leadership will respond quickly to the needs of the agricultural industry, as well as the dignity its workers deserve. I see our leader is on the floor. 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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning the IDEA Full Funding Act of 2000. Mr. President, before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, Senator Gregg, for his leadership on this important legislation. I rise today to lend my support to S. 2341, the IDEA Full Funding Act of 2000. One of my top priorities as a United States Senator has been to provide equal access to high quality public education for all children, including those with special needs. My commitment to education for those with special needs began while I was a State legislator and worked with the Oregon Disabilities Council to ensure that children with special needs had equal access to a quality education. I have continued that work here in the Senate, but realize that we have a long ways to go. This legislation takes a step in the right direction by funding the federal mandates put forth in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). These federal funds will free up state and local dollars that can then be used in the classroom for new textbooks, pencils and computers that are necessary for students to learn. In 1954, the Supreme Court established, in Brown v. Board of Education, that all children are guaranteed equal access to education under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Despite this decision, it was estimated that one million children with disabilities were being denied access to public education. It was not until 1975, with the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, that equal access to education was extended to children with disabilities. The purpose of the 1975 IDEA legislation was ``[T]o assure that all children with disabilities have available to them, a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet the unique needs, to assure the rights of children with disabilities and their parents or guardians are protected, to assist States and localities to provide for the education of all children with disabilities, and to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities.'' With the passage of IDEA the federal government promised to assist states with 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for disabled children. Based on the national average per pupil expenditure for the year 2000, 40 percent of that average would represent approximately $2,500 per student. However, since 1975 the federal government has not met this commitment. In fact, the federal government gets an ``F'' in arithmetic in this instance, currently paying only 12.7 percent of the per pupil expenditure. But, we are slowly working to improve this grade. In 1997, funding for IDEA was only $2.6 billion. In the last 3 years, the Republican- controlled Congress has nearly doubled Federal funding on IDEA to approximately $4.9 billion. Although Congress has allocated more money to IDEA, current funding levels are 3.1 times less than what is needed to fully fund the forty percent commitment. The purpose of providing this additional funding to the IDEA program is to free up local and state dollars. Currently state and local education agencies have been forced to divert their precious resources to pay for the additional costs, due to federal mandates, of educating children with disabilities. As a result, Washington has created an inappropriate and unfair conflict between children with disabilities and children without. We owe it to all children to live up to our responsibility and resolve this conflict. This important legislation would take a step in that direction by authorizing funding for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to reach the Federal government's goal of providing 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure to assist states and local education agencies with the excess costs of educating children with disabilities. By steadily working to increase IDEA funding to $2 billion each year annually until 2010, Congress would increase opportunity and flexibility for local school districts to fund the programs that they feel are best for their students, whether it be school construction, teacher training or smaller classrooms. I was pleased to see that the House of Representatives passed similar legislation, H.R. 4055, on May 3, 2000 with a 421-3 vote. It is my hope that the Senate can follow the strong lead of the House and work for swift passage of this necessary legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I rise to express my support for S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This bill, which authorizes numerous Army Corps of Engineers' programs throughout the Nation, is of vital importance to my state of Oregon. Oregon has both coastal and inland ports that rely heavily on the technical assistance provided by the Corps' programs for their continued operation. Dredging and flood control activities are also important to the economic vitality of Oregon. The Corps also operates a number of dams in the Columbia River basin and the Willamette River basin that generate clean hydroelectric power. S. 2796 authorizes the study of several small aquatic ecosystem restoration projects in Oregon. It also designated the Willamette River basin, Oregon, as a priority watershed for a water resource needs assessment. I would like to express my deep concerns about one provision in the bill, however. It has come to my attention that Section 207 of the bill, which is worded very innocuously, would allow for contracting out of operations and maintenance activities at Federal hydropower facilities. The dedicated men and women, many of whom are my constituents, who currently provide operations and maintenance at Corps' hydropower facilities in the Pacific Northwest are professionals of the highest order. Any problems related to the operations and maintenance at hydropower facilities on the Columbia River are the result of the Corps' failure to sign a direct funding agreement with the Bonneville Power Administration for almost 7 years after being authorized to do so. As the Water Resources Development Act moves to conference, I urge that this provision be deleted from the bill, as it already has been in the House version.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I say to the Senator, I do think we should debate it longer than we have. I grant you that. What I have observed, as a junior Member, however, is that every time we go to focus on amendments, we can't get time agreements. We can't get agreements on some reasonable amount of time. Look, I have already taken all the gun votes. I will take them. I am for background checks. I am for things that will protect kids in the classroom. But I do not know why I should be asked to vote on them two and three and four times. How many times do you need a vote to run a political ad against me? The truth is, I have taken the votes. Let's get on to debating education. We have done the gun debate.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. It seems fair to me, I say to the Senator. I will certainly encourage my leadership to accede to that. What I am afraid of is the comment I read in USA Today, where Senator Daschle said: We are not interested in getting anything done. We are interested in obstructing this place and creating a train wreck because we think that is good politics. That really concerns me. I have to tell you, I am always optimistic, but I am discouraged by the windup scene I am seeing develop here. We owe the American people something better than this. I think we need to get on to some reforms. I, for one, am committed to a generous and bipartisan effort in that regard.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I was not intending to speak on education, but I want to respond to my friend from Nevada. I am a junior Member of this body, but the perception of what has gone on here with respect to education is utterly different than my observation. My observation is that this side of the aisle is anxious to talk about education, not just to throw more resources at the status quo, not to put up roadblocks to real reform but to truly find out ways to make Washington less of a burden upon local education. I have yet to go into a school district in Oregon and ask, ``Where are your problems?'' and they don't tell me it usually has to do with some Federal mandate. The truth is, what we are trying to do is empower local folks who understand about educating children and to lower the burden of Washington. This idea of 100,000 teachers is great, but everyone should understand that is about sloganeering; that is about TV ads. That has nothing to do with educating kids. The truth is, we need an awful lot more than 100,000 teachers; We need 1 million teachers; but we ought to trust people locally to be able to make that judgment whether to build a school or to hire a teacher. We should not tie their hands. That is what has gone on, and the record should reflect that as well. This Republican is prepared to vote for a lot more resources, but he thinks we owe it to the parents of this country to give them reform as well. Mr. President, I came here in morning business to try to interject myself into the debate on PNTR.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I yield to my friend from Nevada.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4444, a bill establishing permanent normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China. I strongly believe that permanent normal trade relations will have a substantial and long-term political, economic, and national security benefit for our country. I have long maintained that as China becomes a member of the global community, its government and its people will benefit from these changes and the United States will benefit from better relations and, eventually, I believe, from a more liberal and less oppressive government. Much of China's recent past has been marked by progression and regression, starts and fits toward economic liberalization that impact all levels of society, only to be matched by periods of oppression, when the government feels that things are getting out from underneath its thumb. This one-step- forward, two-steps-back pace shows how truly feared the market place is in a Communist country. And I believe that if you are a true Communist, you do fear the marketplace. For it is that marketplace--the private sector--that will eventually prove to be the downfall of the Communist system in any country. Like many of my colleagues, I am genuinely and deeply concerned about human rights abroad. For that reason, I traveled to China last year to investigate the human rights situation and to determine the state of religious freedom in that country. WTO membership and normal trade relations with China will eventually improve the human rights situation and, I believe, religious freedom in that country. The past few decades' gradual opening of trade, investment, and cultural exchanges with China have led to positive steps in the area of human rights and religious tolerance. That is not to say that all is well. There is much work to be done in the area of human rights, but on balance a ``carrot and a stick'' approach is better than the stick alone. Globalization is part of ``the carrot.'' It is globalization--the economic integration of their economy--that will introduce the Chinese people to new ideas and information. I believe that as a free market economy, we have a moral and ethical obligation to other nations to help them move toward free markets and into the global economy. Our own history shows the results of not pressing for this integration. During the late 19th century and also following World War I, our negligence in integrating both Japan and Germany had horrible results that reverberated through much of the 20th century. We must not make the same type of mistake with China. The economic benefits to the United States of H.R. 4444 are great. Our markets to a great degree are already open to Chinese goods; this legislation will open their markets to our goods. This is good for America. And it is good for the people of my home State of Oregon. In the first year following China's membership in the global economy-- economists predict trade will double with the United States. China is the sixth-largest market in the world for American agricultural products--and following WTO membership, that trade will account for one-third of the growth in exports over the next 10 years. In addition, according to the World Bank, China will spend an estimated $750 billion in new infrastructure over the next decade. This is wonderful for the United States, but let me take a moment and tell you what it will do for Oregon. My State is the Nation's largest producer of solid wood products and an important agricultural exporter. China's accession to the WTO and normal trade relations will benefit: Wheat.--Oregon is a large wheat-growing State and China's grain policies will become more market-oriented. In addition, the 1999 U.S.- China bilateral trade agreement resulted in more exports of Northwest grain. Vegetables.--Oregon is a major producer of beans, corn, and onions. Under the new agreements, tariffs on vegetables will drop by up to 60 percent. Fruit.--Oregon grows berries, pears, cherries, and plums. China will reduce tariffs by up to 75 percent for fresh and processed deciduous fruit; and tariffs on apples, pears, and cherries will fall from 30 percent to 10 percent. Solid wood.--China is the world's third-largest wood importer and after WTO accession, it will substantially reduce its remaining tariffs on valued-added wood products within the next 4 years. Much has been said on the floor of the Senate in these past few weeks regarding normal trade relations with China. I have to confess that I do not think the arguments against this legislation stand on their own merit. Most of what I have heard in opposition to NTR has reflected the desire to punish China, the need to sanction China or the need to block China. Those opposing this legislation have formed their arguments around the conclusion that NTR is really just a great plum for China and benefits only China. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As I previously stated our markets are already open to the Chinese--we already buy Chinese goods. This legislation will open up their market and it is a vast pool of consumers, to our goods. It benefits the United States economy. This debate is about advancing American values halfway around the world. Ninety-nine years ago Teddy Roosevelt, speaking at a state fair, said: ``There is a homely adage which runs `Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far,' '' At that time, the big stick meant America's warships and a show of American might abroad. Now the stick means America's economic might and American values. Free and fair trade is the weapon--the economic weapon of the 21st century. It is free and fair global trade that will strengthen the forces of economic and political reform in China. It is free and fair global trade that will bring greater prosperity to both the United States and the Chinese people. It is free and fair global trade that will bolster human rights and improve religious freedom in that country. America can advance its values and help China integrate into the world economy with the help of this important legislation. I call on my colleagues to send a clean PNTR bill to the President and ask for his swift signature. amendment no. 4132 Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Thompson amendment which would add a sanctions mechanism and annual review regarding Chinese proliferation of nuclear and other weapons. I would like to take a moment and go over the problems with this legislation. While the issue of weapons proliferation is a serious one, most of the elements of the Thompson legislation are already covered by current law. As many of my colleagues have noted, there are already numerous laws regarding nuclear proliferation, some of these laws include: No. 1, the Export-Import Bank Act; No. 2, the Arms Control and Disarmament Act; No. 3, the Arms Export Control Act; No. 4, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This list goes on and on. Further, I have never been a great fan of unilateral actions. Multilateral programs agreements are by far the best and most effective approach. The problem with unilateral sanctions is that they, at the end of the day, are rarely effective in achieving foreign policy goals. The history of our foreign policy is littered with a trail of ineffectual unilateral sanctions. The really harmful impact of this set of unilateral sanctions will fall on American exporters. Many of these sanctions will, at the end of the day, have the effect of blocking our export sales, by blocking U.S. credits or preventing financing. These actions will not have an effect on the underlying problem--they will only replace all sanctioned American products with foreign products. And we are not talking about military sales in many cases. The scope of this legislation is exceedingly broad and includes civilian transfers that do not actually contribute to proliferation problems. The Thompson amendment will also tie the hands of future administrations. It will not allow any flexibility for a future President to make a decision based on contemporary issues involving the state of the Sino-American relationship at that time. And finally, as we all know, the politics of the situation dictate a clean PNTR bill. Simply put, this legislation will effectively kill this bill. If we are to pass PNTR during this Congress it is imperative we have a bill that will not require another vote in the House. Mr. President, as I have shown up on the floor and have listened to the debate on PNTR. I have seen many people, Republican and Democrat, proposing amendments to this bill that have great appeal to me. They have great appeal to me because they advance noble principles. They advance American ideals. They advance the best of what we want to spread around the world. Economic freedom, human rights, improved labor conditions, improved environmental conditions, all of these things I support. But I fear the real motive behind some of these is to scuttle this trade agreement. I oppose that. I also point out, as many others have, when it comes to these security issues, slavery issues, and whatnot, we already have these laws on the books to protect this country. We should not accede in this environment, in this debate, on a vote this important to scuttle this trade agreement because to do so would shortchange the American people and certainly the people of my State. I conclude with this story from my own life. The story is a lesson that has, frankly, governed much of my thinking with respect to trade and military security and foreign relations since I have been an adult. I was a student at Brigham Young University, taking a class in military history. It was at the end of the Vietnam war. My professor was a retired Air Force general. There was great turmoil on the campuses of the United States. He made a comment that struck me and caught my attention. This professor's name was Phillip Flammer. He said: We made a mistake to bomb the North Vietnamese with military armaments. That caught my attention--in a conservative place like this university, that a statement such as that would be made. I thought: That is interesting. He said: We should have bombed them, but we should have bombed them with Sears catalogs. I thought: Hmm, there is a lesson I will remember. His point was, if we want to tear down the walls of communism, we do it with our trade. We do it with our commerce. We do it with our culture. We do it with our communications to the world. We have seen in Communist country after Communist country that when they are exposed to the miracles of the marketplace, what happens is a middle class develops. When a middle class develops, people begin to demand, with economic liberty, that they have political liberty as well. So if you are interested in improving human rights, improving the environment, improving access for Americans to their markets, then this vote on PNTR is perhaps the most important vote that we will cast in this Congress, or perhaps any other for the economic future of our country. If you care about spreading American values, resist these amendments, resist voting no to PNTR because you will do more to spread American values, American democracy, and advance American security by supporting this agreement than you can ever do by trying to amend it, to kill it, or by trying to vote in opposition to it when we come to a final vote. I do not, for a moment, question the motives of anyone who is against this. Again, I admire the ideals advanced. But I simply question this method, this bill, at this time, to scuttle this most important agreement. So I urge my colleagues to vote for PNTR and vote against the Thompson amendment--well-motivated but misguided at this time, given the laws we already have. America needs this. We should not cede the Chinese market to the European nations. We should be there ourselves. They are already here. We have yet to go there. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the agreement and a ``no'' vote on the Thompson amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak to the Senate today in strong support of S. 1608, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-determination Act of 2000. As an original co-sponsor of this legislation, I commend Senator Craig and Senator Wyden for their leadership in crafting a bill which brings all sides of the issue together. I want to take a minute to salute Oregon's county commissioners, who kept this issue on top of their priority list, and who made frequent trips to meetings in Oregon and here in Washington, D.C. to make sure this legislation moved forward. Oregon is a remarkably diverse state, but as I have traveled throughout Oregon, I hear the same thing in each of our 36 counties--and that's the fact that passage of S. 1608 is their number one priority. I also want to thank President Clinton for his statement that he will sign this legislation when it reaches his desk. S. 1608 re-establishes the federal government's compact with rural communities--one that dates back to the early days of settlement in the West--while providing much needed funding for environmentally sound, locally developed projects to restore the health of federal watersheds and forests. Perhaps more importantly, this bill will ensure that the federal government provides fair compensation to local governments so that they in turn will be able to meet their communities' needs for schools and roads. I want to make sure my colleagues understand why this legislation is needed, and how the counties in my State, as well as nearly 800 other rural counties in 41 other States, will suffer if we do not pass S. 1608 today. Nearly a century ago, the ``forest reserves'', precursors of our national forests, were transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture. At that time, the Congress understood that placing these forest reserves in the federal government's trust would have very negative effects on the property taxes local governments and local school systems could collect. To remedy this, Congress passed a law in 1908 to share 25 percent of the Forest Service's gross receipts with the counties to partially compensate the counties for the lost taxes. In addition, Congress designated these funds to be spent on schools and county roads. Having directed the Forest Service to pay very close attention to the needs of the local citizens and industries in the ``1905 Transfer Act,'' coupled with the passage of the ``1908 25 Percent Payment Act,'' Congress had developed a fair and workable compact with rural communities and counties. It was a compact that worked very well for nearly 90 years. Over the last ten years, however, as federal timber sales have declined by nearly 70 percent across the nation, rural counties in many states began to see serious short-falls in their annual 25 percent payments. In Oregon, where federal timber sales have declined by an even greater margin, these shortfalls have been truly devastating for local governments. As Federal lands have increasingly been declared ``off limits'' in recent years, rural communities have worked hard to diversify their economies. While tourism has flourished in certain pockets, to this point it has not been a substitute for the family wage jobs the timber industry once offered. Ultimately, there is only so much that local governments can do when 70 percent, 80 percent, or even more, of the land is tied up in federal holdings. The fact that local governments are no longer being adequately compensated for federal land ownership only adds to the burdens of rural communities trying to bring in new industries, provide education and health services, and bridge the digital divide. This is what we are trying to address with S. 1608. Lane County, Oregon, for example, has seen receipts from federal lands shrink by 65 percent over the last ten years. This has created a gaping $7 million hole in the resources the County uses to provide families with basic needs, including public health and safety services, strong education systems, and safe roads and highways. If S. 1608 is not passed, Lane County faces the prospect of slashing its public works engineering staff by 50 percent, leaving roads and bridges threatened with disrepair. Perhaps Grant County in eastern Oregon makes an even more compelling case for the passage of S. 1608. There, the local government has been forced to cut back to four day school weeks to make up for the shortfall in 25 percent payments. It is outrageous that the educational opportunities for children in rural areas of this country are being put in jeopardy by the decline of federal timber receipts. Throughout my state and in communities in many other states with forest counties, sports and extra curricular activities have been dropped, and special programs for gifted and talented students have been sharply cut back. These communities have been forced to make heart-breaking decisions over whether to cut back social service programs or school funding, or to sharply reduce sheriffs' patrols and close jails, or to cut out all extra curricular activities at their schools. We have an opportunity today to answer the call of rural America by passing this legislation and show our support for education and rural communities. The vote we cast today is not just a vote for or against legislation, it is a vote for or against the future of rural schools, roads, and children. Now let me turn briefly to the objections raised by some in the environmental community regarding the resource projects authorized by this bill. Apparently, the special interest groups that oppose S. 1608 over this issue would prefer that the historic relationship between the local community and the management of their neighboring federal lands be severed completely. Of course, if we were to sever the longstanding relationship between federal lands and the communities that host them, these same special interest groups would merely have to hold sway over the land management bureaucracy in Washington or the federal courts, never having to face the people most affected by their policies. Some of these groups have gone so far as to run slick attack ads against my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, implying that the resource projects authorized by S. 1608 would open the door to clearcutting on our national forests. Colleagues, please don't be fooled by the Washington tactics being employed by the national environmental interest groups in opposition to S. 1608. This bill makes clear that these projects must be in compliance with federal environmental protection laws and that they must be formulated by a Resource Advisory Committee made up of interested stakeholders, including environmentalists. S. 1608 is supported by the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition, a coalition of educators, county governmental officials, private companies, and many of the unions who represent people who live, work, and teach in or near our federal forests. It is a Coalition of over 1,000 organizations that represents over 25 million people. In supporting S. 1608, I am choosing to stand with those 25 million people, to stand with thousands of rural communities in States stretching across America. In closing, Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to put themselves in the position of a local government official from a small town in a county dominated by federal forest lands. We have many of them in my state. Towns like John Day, Oakridge, and Riddle. Perhaps you have counties with towns like these in your state. Imagine that your major resource-based industries have largely been shut down by various federal actions over the last decade. Too many of the young people are having to move away to find jobs. As a local government leader you try and build up your community and yet you find--because your community is surrounded by federal lands--that you often can't expand the land under development to bring in new industry, you often can't build roads or recreation sites to bring in more tourism, nor can you tax federal forest lands to help pay for the kind of infrastructure or human resources you need to attract high tech companies to your area. What would you do? How would you try and turn around the local economy with the federal government turning a blind eye to the economic consequences of its actions? That is what we are trying to remedy today. Shutting down our public lands in the name of the public good comes with a price--and it should not be rural America alone that has to pay it. It is long past time the federal government lived up to its financial obligation to these rural communities. A vote for S. 1608 is a step toward that end. I thank my colleagues for joining us in this effort today.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read the third time and passed, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 697, S.J. Res. 48.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 133, submitted earlier by Senator Jeffords.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.