Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the oversight hearing regarding the National Marine Fisheries Service's draft Biological Opinion and its potential impact on the Columbia River operations, which has been previously scheduled for Wednesday, June 14, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. has been indefinitely postponed.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 14, 2000, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on the National Marine Fisheries Service's draft Biological Opinion and its potential impact on the Columbia River operations. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please call Trici Heninger, staff assistant, or Colleen Deegan, Counsel, at (202) 224-8115. subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I do not want to see that vacuum filled by people who do not share the values of Western Civilization as we know it in Western Europe and in the United States of America. I believe the Europeans are beginning to do their duty and we ought to continue to do ours. I also would like to conclude with an anecdote from campaigning with Governor Bush on Tuesday in Oregon, in which he assured me his opposition to this was not about getting America's withdrawal from Yugoslavia but to do it in a reasoned way, in a bipartisan way, and in a way that does not compromise the long-term security interests of the United States, which is now inseparably linked to Europe. So I plead with my colleagues to vote for the McCain-Levin amendment to strike. I believe this is in the country's interests, in the world's interests, and certainly in the interests of Kosovo. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, frankly, I am pleased, as we alternate back and forth, there are Republicans and Democrats not crossing on party lines but arguing a very important issue of what they feel, what they think, and how they perceive America's interests to be best served. I realize that many of my colleagues have spoken eloquently about the consequences that will result if the United States Senate supports the Byrd-Warner amendment. And though I may repeat some of their arguments this morning, I think it is critical that those of us who oppose this language state loudly and clearly that this is the wrong way to go. I spoke last week on this matter Mr. President. I said then that there may come a time when it is appropriate for the U.S. to withdraw from Kosovo--but that time is not now. We face enormous worldwide responsibilities, and I agree with those that feel the burden sometimes seems rather heavy. But that is not a reason for us to seriously jeopardize the most important and most successful Alliance in history. We are a European power. It is in our interests to maintain American leadership in Europe. And we have seen what happens when the U.S. chooses to come home after a bitter conflict has ended. I am confident that if the U.S. pulls out of Kosovo, as this legislation requires if the Congress does not authorize continued participation, we will be forced to return--under circumstances that will certainly not be as favorable as we face today. We have managed to create a situation where our troops certainly face threats in Kosovo, but the risks are relatively limited. By our action, by setting up the conditions under which American troops would withdraw from Kosovo next summer, we could trigger the very instability in Kosovo that we have managed to forestall thus far. I am not going to whitewash what is happening in Kosovo today. We have our work cut out for us in establishing a functioning administration there that respects the rights of minorities. But the situation is relatively stable, after over 10 years of disorder. We can only speculate, of course, as to what would transpire if we were to pull out. But there is a real possibility--one can almost say a probability--that the Kosovar Albanians would feel compelled to prepare for another assault by Serbian henchman directed by Slobodan Milosevic. Could our European allies adequately protect the Kosovar Albanians from this assault? I can not answer that definitively, but I will tell you that the Kosovars think that the answer is no. So we withdraw, the Kosovars rearm, Milosevic feels emboldened, and we are back where we started before the NATO air campaign began. Is that why we fought this war? Why do we want to jeopardize the peace? The 5,900 American soldiers that are participating in KFOR are making a critical contribution to maintaining peace in Kosovo. Our troops comprise approximately 15% of the total of KFOR. That seems to me to be a reasonable percentage for the U.S. to contribute. The European forces are making a difference in Kosovo--they are doing their job. But we should be willing to do ours as well. Mr. President, let me return to my principal concern with this amendment--the threat that it poses to U.S. leadership in Europe. I have met with five different Foreign Ministers from Europe over the past several weeks, and in these meetings I have emphasized the importance of maintaining the trans-Atlantic link. Our security is directly related to European security, whether we like that or not, and for us to signal to our Allies that we are unwilling to participate in securing the peace in Kosovo--when they are contributing 85% of the troops--inherently divides us from our Allies. I have criticized them for seeking to establish a separate defense structure that is not tied in with NATO at every step of the way. We should not encourage them in these efforts by indicating that we are an unreliable ally that cannot be counted on to stay the course. I do not think this should be an endless commitment, however, there should certainly be a drawdown in our forces as circumstances warrant and as Europeans do more in Kosovo. But we should not make the determination now as to what our troops should do next year. I realize that the supporters of this amendment say that they are not calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Kosovo--that they are simply asking for an authorization. But Mr. President, with all due respect for my colleagues, their amendment forces the withdrawal of our forces unless positive action is taken by the Congress. I do not quibble with their complaints that the President did not ask for Congressional authorization for this mission. I agree with them: he should have done so. But is it in our interests to tie the hands of the next President? To force him to adopt a course of action because of a lack of Presidential leadership today? I think not. I am reminded of the early, tragic days of the war in Bosnia. As you recall, Mr. President, European troops were on the ground in Bosnia as part of the UN mission, but no American troops were there. As a result of the dramatically different risks we faced at that time, the U.S. and our Allies supported different approaches to deal with that conflict. We lost valuable time trying to coordinate our strategy--time when Bosnians of all ethnic groups were slaughtered. A strong Alliance is one where benefits and risks are shared, and that is the direction that we should be going now. Let me say, that I agree with my colleagues who have complained about unequal burdensharing. The Europeans were incredibly slow in approving their contributions to the Kosovo Consolidated Budget, their humanitarian and reconstruction assistance, and getting their police forces on the ground. I commend Senator Warner for his successful efforts at ensuring they get the picture. We have the right to expect that our European allies do their fair share consolidating the peace in Kosovo, particularly given the unequal burden borne by the U.S. during the war. And I believe that thanks to the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the Europeans now understand this and are taking steps to correct the problem. Mr. President, we must maintain American leadership in Europe. We should do our part in solidifying the progress we have seen in Kosovo. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Levin's motion to strike the Byrd-Warner language. Mr. President, I admire Senator Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He is a great American and a great man. While I am not with him on this issue, it is a privilege to be with him on most issues. Also, I believe Senator Byrd, the other author of this amendment, is a man who stands uniquely among us as a defender of the prerogatives of the Senate. I appreciate that, I admire him for that, and I thank him for that. I believe it is Senator Warner's desire to protect our armed services, as is his charge, and I believe it is Senator Byrd's desire to protect the prerogatives of the Senate that has motivated this. I respect that. I say to them that they have already achieved much of what they hoped to do with this amendment, so this debate, this effort, is not in vain. I tell them respectfully now why I am not with them on this issue. I know that many Americans are weary of our involvement abroad, and I know that many would like to just go home. I actually believe the right political vote in this case would be to vote for a date certain with my colleagues on the other side to get out of Kosovo. I say to every American who cares about foreign policy or our standing in the world, this is not the right way; this is not the right instrument; this is not the right time for this branch of Government to interject itself with this kind of an amendment. I happen to have traveled to the Balkans at the height of the Kosovo conflict. I was privileged to travel with Senator Hutchison of Texas in her codel where we visited many of the surrounding countries of Kosovo. I remember when we went to Hungary, we were standing on the balcony of the Foreign Ministry of Hungary, and the Foreign Minister came up to me--this is a beautiful setting, overlooking the Danube--and he said: Senator Smith, I did not realize when we were admitted to the NATO alliance that we would be at war a few days later, but we are thrilled to be a member of NATO, and we are proud to stand with the United States of America. I drew him out and said: Why do you say that, Mr. Foreign Minister? He said: We are proud to stand with the United States because the United States is a nation uniquely positioned in world history; that we are unique in that we have the capacity to fight for values and not just to fight for somebody's treasure or somebody's territory. I was proud of my country when he said that. I found myself a few days later in Macedonia. When we were there, we were at the point where, coming out of Kosovo through a pass in the mountains, literally tens of thousands of refugees were pouring into two camps. We went to the second camp. There were 50,000 people there. It was arranged that each of the Senators would have an hour there with interpreters. We went through the camp talking to the refugees, examining the conditions of the people, and hearing their concerns. I became aware about halfway through my visit that there were three little girls following me around as though I was from Mars. They looked at me with some degree of awe and wonder. Before we boarded the buses, I decided to try and engage them in a conversation. I was delighted to find that one of the little girls who was 10 years old could speak reasonably good English. I said to her: Would you like to go home? She said: I'd love to go home, but I can't; there are very scary people there. Then I said to her: Well, if you can't go home, would you like to go to America? And her eyes lit up with sparkles. She put her hands to her face and said: Oh, to be a little girl in America. I will never forget that expression. I thought of my own little girl all the way home. I wonder what has happened to that little girl. She did not come to America, but she was able to go home because the United States was there. The United States is in Europe. The world is better because after the Second World War, the United States learned from a mistake and did not repeat the mistake of the First World War. We did not go home. We stayed there as a beacon of stability that Europe has needed and I believe still needs. The Europeans are beginning to feel a need for more security of their own. I have cautioned them: Be careful as you set up these European defense identities that you do it within the context of NATO or you will begin to decouple the United States from NATO. Be careful about this. My concern is heightened because as they talk of setting up these new structures, they are all cutting their defense budgets. It appears to me they are setting up a paper lion. We made a commitment to go into Yugoslavia. If anything should be criticized, it may be we should not have gone into Bosnia. We have elections for a reason. We elected a President of the United States, not of my party, but a President who decided it was in the America's interest as the leader of the NATO alliance to go into Bosnia, and we went. That job was complicated because Mr. Milosevic continued his mischievous ways, his murderous ways in a fashion that was unthinkable to the Western World that we should do nothing. In view of our own troops, we were watching people being exterminated. In the end, I decided to support President Clinton at this next level because I did not want to have to answer why, in the face of mass murder, I did not do anything. Lest Americans think it is all in vain, it is not. Things are not great in Kosovo, but they are much better than when we found them. The benefit of Senator Warner's work is in this: The Europeans were slow off the mark in meeting their commitments financially and in troops, but they are now. They are putting in the resources, and they are manning 85 percent of the burden there. We have 15 percent, a little over 5,000 troops, there. Is that in vain? Is it appropriate for us now to set an arbitrary cutoff time and, with the blunt instrument of the budget, to say we have had enough, we are going home? I say with all respect, if we do that, we will somewhat be saying to the Europeans what they are saying to us; that we are ready to delink the United States and NATO. I do not want to do that yet. The day may come when we can say it is time to go home, and the Europeans will be in a position where they can handle it on their own. I do not believe that day has yet arrived. I tell my colleagues and I plead with all Americans to understand that while we can take for granted the peace, the security, and the prosperity of this land, most of the world looks to us as an example and with some envy and some hope that they may someday have what we now enjoy. If America says we are going home, I believe that vacuum will be so enormous, it will be filled not with an ideology but with a whole bunch of tyrants.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If I may have but a few more minutes, I will conclude.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I object to my own request on behalf of the other side of the aisle.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 307, submitted earlier by Senator Helms, which expresses the sense of the Senate with respect to Mother's Day, that the U.S. Senate should reject the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women as it demeans motherhood and undermines the traditional family.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 112, which is at the desk.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the recess of the Senate, the Armed Services Committee be permitted to file the Department of Defense authorization bill and report at 10 a.m. on Friday, May 12, 2000.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I have had the privilege for the last hour of sitting in that chair and hearing our colleagues debate the issue of NATO and our place in Europe and the broader national security issues and the specific issue of whether or not we should remain in Kosovo. It is entirely appropriate that this body debate this issue. No one should criticize any Senator for bringing that up or for crafting a piece of legislation designed to focus this Government on an exit strategy. Everyone knows we need one. I add my voice to that of Senator Lugar, Senator Levin, and others, who have expressed concern that while it is appropriate to debate, it is not appropriate to leave at this moment. I wish I could say it is time to leave, but I believe America still has a place in Europe. I believe if we set in motion the wheels to leave Kosovo, we will set in motion the mechanism to decouple the United States and NATO with Europe. I think we need to be very thoughtful about that. I wish Mr. Putin and the new Russian Federation well, and I hope they join the democratic nations of Europe. I hope we can include them in more ways than ever imaginable throughout all of my lifetime. But I think the jury is still out. I hear from their neighbors, still, they are afraid of what happened in Chechnya. The Nation of Georgia trembles. I know Moldovians do, I know Ukranians do, I know Romanians do. They have all been in my office this week, worried that the United States would pull out its stabilizing influence, an influence that, frankly, these emerging democracies look to, count on, and still need. I know we are tired of it. I know we are tired of funding it. I know our fighting men and women don't like being in a police operation. But I also know the cost of leaving Europe is a cost that is much larger than the one we are paying now to stay in Europe. I hope President Clinton and Madeleine Albright and others in our executive branch can figure out how we can get out of there, but get out in a way that does not destroy this institution called NATO, which the world still needs. As Senator Lugar said, that day may come, that we can go home and the Europeans say goodbye, but that day is not now. I think we should have a vigorous debate, but I think we should be exceedingly careful before we say to our European allies and to everyone watching the United States and counting on the United States, that we are pulling out of Dodge. I don't think we can say that yet. I hope we can say it soon. But I know we can't say it now.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 1 p.m. on Monday, May 15. I further ask unanimous consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period for the transaction of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Akaka, 30 minutes; Senator Kennedy, 30 minutes; Senator Thomas, or his designee, 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will not be in session tomorrow and will reconvene on Monday at 1 p.m. When the Senate reconvenes, there will be a period for morning business not to exceed the hour of 3 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume debate on the military construction appropriations bill under the previous order. Senators who have statements in regard to this appropriations bill are encouraged to come to the floor on Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. This is a news release from Department of Energy Secretary Richardson announcing six short-term actions to help prevent power outages. This will blow your mind. We are expecting power outages all over the United States this summer. The long-term forecast for the Pacific Northwest is for energy shortages, as well. If you look at the six proposals for what this Government is going to do, there isn't one proposal about producing energy. The first one is: Look for opportunities to reduce electric consumption at Federal water projects. Let me tell the farmers what that means, they are turning off the switch and they are turning off the water. That is what that means. Second, solicit and approve tariffs that will help reduce electricity demands during peak times. Do you know what that means, Mr. President? That means the rates are going up. It is like a tax increase. So the cost of your energy is going up. We are not going to produce any more, Heaven forbid, we are just going to make it more expensive. The next actions prescribed: The Energy Department will conduct an emergency exercise with State and local governments to help prepare for potential summer power supply emergencies. So we essentially will do a fire drill to see what happens when a whole city shuts down because electricity isn't produced when hitting a switch. Somebody has to turn something before we can have lights. The next one prescribed: the Government is going to gain up-to-date relevant information about potential grid-related problems as quickly as possible. Great. We don't already have that information? Finally, we are going to prepare public service announcements to provide tips for how you can conserve electricity. Nothing in the news release about producing. When Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush are in the State of Oregon, I want Oregonians to ask about our power. I want them to ask how are our lights going to go on at night? How are we going to stay warm in the winter? How are our factories going to continue to operate? How will we have jobs? This is not a hypothetical situation I am posing. These are real potential threats. In spite of all of that, the Vice President is talking about shutting down any offshore drilling. Fine, but realize that has a cost to the environment. Talk about not renewing nuclear licenses for energy plants--but that has an environmental cost as well. I see Senator Byrd on the floor all the time, decrying how the coal fields of West Virginia are being shut down because this Administration does not want to produce any more coal. I hear the people in the northeastern United States screaming about skyrocketing fuel prices in the winter, yet we are becoming more dependent upon foreign oil. Now I hear this Administration, in my neck of the woods, the Pacific Northwest, saying they are going to tear out our hydroelectric power. It is not unreasonable, my fellow Americans, to ask how are the lights going to go on? Our own Energy Department is admitting we have a problem on the horizon. I think the whole country was just reminded that gasoline does not come from a filling station. It is $2 a gallon and climbing in some cases, falling in others, I hope. We need an energy policy. I support conservation initiatives. Raise CAFE standards? I am for that. I am looking for ways to conserve. But Americans are demanding energy and this Administration's policy is to shut down domestic energy production and leave America more dependent on foreign oil. This does not add up. I hope Oregonians understand that it is very important to ask the Vice President of the United States what his policy on energy is. Mr. Bush has already answered it. He said if he is elected President, the dams will stay and you will keep your jobs and the lights will go on at night. I like that answer. It is clear. He also made the point that we can have our energy and we can have our fish as well. Let me tell you a real dirty little secret. As we speak, all that can be heard here in Washington is the gloom and doom about the fish going away. Do you know that in the Columbia/Snake Rivers right now, those rivers are teeming with salmon coming back to spawn? Let me give some numbers. As of today, at the furthest dam they want to take out, called the Lower Granite, 18,000 chinook have passed through this season. Some say, ``Oh, but they must be hatchery fish.'' To those I say no, they are not. A few of the fish are from hatchery stock, but many of them are wild. Do you know how many fish passed through this same dam last year? It was 240. This year it was 18,000. These numbers have many in the environmental community looking pretty ashen-faced. The first dam on the Columbia River that the fish pass through is called the Bonneville Dam, a dam Franklin Roosevelt dedicated, I believe in 1936. As of today, 160,000 spring chinook have passed over that dam this season. These are big returns. There are lots of fish returning. In fact, there are so many coming back that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is clubbing nearly every fish they can find that is a hatchery fish. They are killing them so they will not spawn because they say that hatchery stock affects the ethnic purity of the wild stocks. The real secret about hatchery fish is that their eggs come from wild fish. But, nevertheless, we have so many fish now, apparently, that we have the luxury of clubbing them to death before they can spawn. By the way, the hatchery fish in the Atlantic salmon recovery program are treated the same as wild fish. But in spite of all this, we're told in the Pacific Northwest that we have to take out our dams. We have to take them out in order to have a normative river. What do we hear from the administration? We hear on the one hand that Fish and Wildlife has concluded the dams have to come out. The National Marine Fisheries Service says we need to study dam breaching for at least 10 years because we do not have a good answer yet. And, by the way, the studies they have been producing are all predicated on data from 1980 to the current date. However, if you look at data dating back to 1960, which is available, you do not come up with extinction modeling. But federal agencies just picked the years that had the worst ocean conditions to argue that the salmon are going to become extinct unless we tear out our dams. I want the fish but I don't want the people to be suckers. I think we are being set up to be that. I would like to know, also from Mr. Gore, why it is that the Corps of Engineers was about to issue their recommendation, which was don't take the dams out, and they were ordered by the White House not to make that recommendation? Why were they ordered to make no recommendation? What that adds up to, I believe, is that this is not about science--this is about political science. Political science is not the basis upon which this decision should be made, particularly when our rivers are full of fish as we speak. What are the consequences if they pull the dams out? I have named a few already, but I do know it adds 13 cents a bushel to every farmer's wheat. I know it means $11 million a year lost in revenue to the barging industry. When you take this wheat from the barges and put it on a truck, do you know how many trucks it takes to replace those barges per day? It takes 2,000 semi trucks a day. You say you care about the environment? Are you going to burn that kind of fuel, burn up those kinds of miles, cause that kind of congestion in the city of Portland and the city of Seattle? Not on my watch you will not. What else does tearing out the dams mean? It means a loss of about $130 million in property values to farmers. What does that mean to property taxes? School support? Roads? All those things are in jeopardy if you take those dams down. Dam breaching takes 37,000 acres of wheat out of production. What happens to those families? Their land goes back to sagebrush. It takes at least 5,370 direct jobs in Portland. I actually think it is higher than that when you look at the ripple effect. When you take out these dams, you lose longshoremen in Portland and the many other service-related jobs that depend on them. Not only that, but to take these dams out, it would cost $809 million. Some have said that it could cost that much for each dam--I don't know whether we can get through this body an appropriation to destroy Federal assets that will be in the billions of dollars. What are you going to replace the energy with? What are you going to burn? This is crazy. What else do you lose? You lose 3,033 megawatts of clean hydroelectric power. That is the amount it takes to run the city of Seattle every day. We are going to take that out in the face of projected energy shortages? Not on my watch. So I say with the Senator from Washington: No, not on our watch. I say to my fellow citizens in Oregon, this is the most important question you can ask Al Gore. Governor Bush has answered it. Please, Mr. Vice President, tell us what is your position on tearing out hydroelectric power in the Pacific Northwest? One of your agencies says do it. Another says we don't know enough yet. A third says don't do it. And Gore is refusing to answer the question. We can have our fish and we can have our power. There are many things we can do, short of destroying our energy infrastructure and our clean, hydroelectric power. There are many things we can do to save fish short of the destruction of this kind of energy. To replace our clean energy with any other type, you are going to burn something and Oregonians will live in a dirtier place. I do not want them to. I ask the Vice President, respectfully, to answer the question. What is your policy on dam breaching?

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I have come to talk to citizens of my State who have a rare privilege in the next few days: The two leading candidates for the highest office in our land will be in the State of Oregon. Vice President Gore will be there tomorrow, and Governor Bush will be there on Tuesday. I will have occasion to be with Governor Bush, and my friend and colleague, Ron Wyden, will have occasion to be with Vice President Gore tomorrow. Oregonians need to ask a lot of questions to find out where these men are on issues that affect their lives. I came to speak in terms similar to those of Senator Gorton, who wants Washingtonians to ask what I want Oregonians to ask; that is, Mr. Vice President, where are you on the issue of hydroelectric power on the four Snake River dams in the State of Washington? I am not sure I know of an issue of greater importance to our State's environment and our State's economy. As a background to this question, Mr. Gore, where are you on the question of breaching these dams? I would like to talk a little bit about our energy policy in this country. So I say to any Oregonians that may be watching, I want to share a memo which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, May 24, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2163, a bill to provide for a study of the engineering feasibility of a water exchange in lieu of electrification of the Chandler Pumping Plant at Prosser Diversion Dam, Washington; S. 2396, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts with the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Utah, to use Weber Basin Project facilities for the impounding, storage, and carriage of nonproject water for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other beneficial purposes; S. 2248, a bill to assist in the development and implementation of projects to provide for the control of drainage water, storm water, flood water, and other water as part of water-related integrated resource management, environmental infrastructure, and resource protection and development projects in the Colusa Basin Watershed, California; S. 2410, a bill to increase the authorization of appropriations for the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978, and for other purposes; and S. 2425, a bill to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the planning, design, and construction of the Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project, Oregon, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 364 Dirsken Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please call Trici Heninger, Staff Assistant, or Colleen Deegan, Counsel, at (202) 224-8115.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, May 23, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 740, a bill to amend the Federal Power Act to improve the hydroelectric licensing process by granting the Federal Regulatory Commission statutory authority to better coordinate participation by other agencies and entities, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please call Trici Heninger or Bryan Hannegan at (202) 224-7875.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, May 17, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on the operation, by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, of the Flathead Irrigation Project in Montana. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please call Trici Heninger, Staff Assistant, or Colleen Deegan, Counsel, at (202) 224-8115. subcommittee on water and power

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I had the privilege of chairing a hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee on April 5 that examined the status of U.S. efforts to resolve still open questions of compensation and restitution arising from the tragedy of the Holocaust, and that looked broadly at the persistent phenomenon of anti-Semitism that inspired and enabled that monstrous crime. Extraordinary witnesses appeared before the Committee--led by Dr. Elie Wiesel, who called on us and all civilized men and women to stand firm against the dark forces of bigotry and other hatreds, and Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Stuart Eizenstat, who described the efforts of the United States and other countries to finally and squarely confront with painful truths and achieve some level of justice for the Holocaust's victims and its survivors. One subject that was analyzed for the Committee in great detail was the current reach and impact of anti-Semitism, and I feel particularly indebted to David Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, for his thoughtful and comprehensive testimony on this grave matter. This presentation reviewed not only the scourge of anti- semitism in Europe but the increasingly troubling incidence of this form of bigotry in the Arab world. At the same time that countries across the Middle East are engaged in a peace process guided by Washington that promises a new era in relations between Arabs and Israelis, old anti-Jewish enmities are too often tolerated, or even fanned, by important institutions in the Arab world. Anti-Jewish and anti-Israel propaganda of the most grotesque nature is commonly available--on the newsstands, in schools, in professional societies and political conferences--and almost universally tolerated, even by governments committed to pursuing peace. As the American Jewish Committee asserted, this sanctioning of hatred against Israel and Jews in general, profoundly complicates the search for Middle East peace, fostering a climate in which compromise, accommodation, trust and understanding--on both sides--may be unattainable. This virulent hatred is simply incompatible with the search for peace, and it is the obligation of the region's leaders to act firmly against its continuing dissemination. I am grateful that the American Jewish Committee distilled the essence of its testimony on this subject in an advertisement that ran on the Op-ed Page of the New York Times on Tuesday, April 11. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the AJC ad be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing, with my colleague from Oregon, legislation which will correct an oversight in the American Fisheries Act of 1998. Some of my colleagues will recall that the American Fisheries Act was passed as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act in the closing days of the 105th Congress. Let me speak briefly first to the American Fisheries Act, or AFA, itself. The AFA was a major revision of management policies for the valuable Bering Sea pollock fishery, raising domestic vessel ownership standards, while bringing greater stability to the pollock fishery by allowing fishers and processors to engage in limited cooperatives. Months of intense negotiations between interested congressional offices and a number of Alaskan and West Coast fishing interests resulted in the compromise that was passed into law. Oregon certainly does not have as great an interest in the Bering Sea pollock fishery as other states do. Nevertheless, Oregon-based vessels do participate in this and other distant-water fisheries. Many of these vessel owner-operators pioneered the development of the Alaskan pollock fishery during the Americanization of the Exclusive Economic Zone in the 1980s. The American Fisheries Act was supposed to allow these, and other fishing vessels with substantial history, to stay in the fishery while excluding new or speculative entrants. The language used in the AFA to achieve this purpose requires that qualified vessels must have delivered at least 250 metric tons of pollock in 1996, 1997, or an eight month period in 1998, to the shore-based processing plants that compose the ``inshore sector'' of the Bering Sea pollock fishery. Alternatively, the AFA requires vessels to have delivered at least 250 metric tons of pollock in 1997 and have had at least 75 percent of their catch delivered to the ``offshore sector'' of factory trawlers in order to qualify for that sector of the Bering Sea pollock fishery. While it was thought that this qualification language in the American Fisheries Act would carry over all vessels with a substantial history in the fishery, this has turned out not to be the case. An Oregon-based vessel named the Hazel Lorraine--a vessel with years of Bering Sea pollock landings on record--has found itself locked out of both the inshore and offshore sectors of the Bering Sea pollock fishery due to the way the qualifications are worded in the AFA. On the one hand, the Hazel Lorraine does not qualify for the inshore sector. The fact that the then-Tyson Seafood plant in Kodiak was destroyed by a fire in 1997 also impacted the Hazel Lorraine's deliveries during this period. On the other hand, the Hazel Lorraine does not qualify for the offshore sector either--also as a direct result of the Tyson fire. In short, the Hazel Lorraine does not meet the AFA requirements for either the inshore or offshore sector for Bering Sea pollock despite a substantial record of deliveries in the fishery that stretches back more than fifteen years. Ironically, the owners of the Hazel Lorraine actively supported the American Fisheries Act as it had first been introduced in the 105th Congress. However the bill changed dramatically during a series of backroom negotiations before being tucked into an omnibus appropriations package. The AFA that actually passed the Congress differed substantially from the drafts that had been widely circulated in the fishing industry earlier that year. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Hazel Lorraine is recognized in the North Pacific as a vessel that can legitimately claim a long history in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. It would be a terrible mistake if the Congress were to allow this vessel to continue to be shut out of its historic fishery. A number of industry leaders and associations, such as United Catcher Boats and the Midwater Trawlers Cooperative, have also recognized this and have stated their support for restoring the right of the Hazel Lorraine to fish in this pollock fishery. Over the course of the past year, Senator Wyden and I have discussed this issue with our colleagues, and have come to the conclusion that the best course of action is to introduce authorizing legislation that would clearly place the Hazel Lorraine among those vessels eligible to participate in the inshore sector of the Bering Sea pollock fishery. This legislation will do just that. I think my colleagues will find that those in the North Pacific fisheries who know the circumstances surrounding the Hazel Lorraine will be supportive of this legislation. I look forward to working with members of the Commerce Committee to bring this issue to a resolution during this session of the Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing, with my colleague from Oregon, legislation which will correct an oversight in the American Fisheries Act of 1998. Some of my colleagues will recall that the American Fisheries Act was passed as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act in the closing days of the 105th Congress. Let me speak briefly first to the American Fisheries Act, or AFA, itself. The AFA was a major revision of management policies for the valuable Bering Sea pollock fishery, raising domestic vessel ownership standards, while bringing greater stability to the pollock fishery by allowing fishers and processors to engage in limited cooperatives. Months of intense negotiations between interested congressional offices and a number of Alaskan and West Coast fishing interests resulted in the compromise that was passed into law. Oregon certainly does not have as great an interest in the Bering Sea pollock fishery as other states do. Nevertheless, Oregon-based vessels do participate in this and other distant-water fisheries. Many of these vessel owner-operators pioneered the development of the Alaskan pollock fishery during the Americanization of the Exclusive Economic Zone in the 1980s. The American Fisheries Act was supposed to allow these, and other fishing vessels with substantial history, to stay in the fishery while excluding new or speculative entrants. The language used in the AFA to achieve this purpose requires that qualified vessels must have delivered at least 250 metric tons of pollock in 1996, 1997, or an eight month period in 1998, to the shore-based processing plants that compose the ``inshore sector'' of the Bering Sea pollock fishery. Alternatively, the AFA requires vessels to have delivered at least 250 metric tons of pollock in 1997 and have had at least 75 percent of their catch delivered to the ``offshore sector'' of factory trawlers in order to qualify for that sector of the Bering Sea pollock fishery. While it was thought that this qualification language in the American Fisheries Act would carry over all vessels with a substantial history in the fishery, this has turned out not to be the case. An Oregon-based vessel named the Hazel Lorraine--a vessel with years of Bering Sea pollock landings on record--has found itself locked out of both the inshore and offshore sectors of the Bering Sea pollock fishery due to the way the qualifications are worded in the AFA. On the one hand, the Hazel Lorraine does not qualify for the inshore sector. The fact that the then-Tyson Seafood plant in Kodiak was destroyed by a fire in 1997 also impacted the Hazel Lorraine's deliveries during this period. On the other hand, the Hazel Lorraine does not qualify for the offshore sector either--also as a direct result of the Tyson fire. In short, the Hazel Lorraine does not meet the AFA requirements for either the inshore or offshore sector for Bering Sea pollock despite a substantial record of deliveries in the fishery that stretches back more than fifteen years. Ironically, the owners of the Hazel Lorraine actively supported the American Fisheries Act as it had first been introduced in the 105th Congress. However the bill changed dramatically during a series of backroom negotiations before being tucked into an omnibus appropriations package. The AFA that actually passed the Congress differed substantially from the drafts that had been widely circulated in the fishing industry earlier that year. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Hazel Lorraine is recognized in the North Pacific as a vessel that can legitimately claim a long history in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. It would be a terrible mistake if the Congress were to allow this vessel to continue to be shut out of its historic fishery. A number of industry leaders and associations, such as United Catcher Boats and the Midwater Trawlers Cooperative, have also recognized this and have stated their support for restoring the right of the Hazel Lorraine to fish in this pollock fishery. Over the course of the past year, Senator Wyden and I have discussed this issue with our colleagues, and have come to the conclusion that the best course of action is to introduce authorizing legislation that would clearly place the Hazel Lorraine among those vessels eligible to participate in the inshore sector of the Bering Sea pollock fishery. This legislation will do just that. I think my colleagues will find that those in the North Pacific fisheries who know the circumstances surrounding the Hazel Lorraine will be supportive of this legislation. I look forward to working with members of the Commerce Committee to bring this issue to a resolution during this session of the Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, April 18, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. in the Bonneville Auditorium at the Bonneville Lock and Dam in Cascade Locks, Oregon. The purpose of this hearing is to review how pending Federal decisions could affect the operations of the Federal Columbia River hydropower system. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please call Trici Heninger or Howard Useem, at (202) 224-7875.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. For a state like Oregon, whose grass seed farmers are owned an estimated $40 million by AgriBioTech, the slow progress of bankruptcy proceedings threatens the very future of our grass seed industry, our third largest commodity. Many Oregon grass seed growers simply do not have the capital to keep their farms in operation without receiving payment for their product already delivered to, or stored under contract to, AgriBio Tech.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Is it Mr. Chairman's understanding that the agriculture assistance levels in this resolution do not preclude assistance to agricultural producers adversely impacted by the AgriBio Tech case?