Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I think that is what is at stake. What kind of an America do we want? Whom do we trust? Are we the party of government or are we the party of the people? It is a question of whom you trust. It is a question of how you spend the money. When it comes to the essential programs, our programs are the same. When it comes to spending, we spend it differently. One does it for government; the other does it for families. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, next week our Nation will pass an important if unnoticed anniversary--the anniversary of one of the first official notifications we were given of the atrocities of the Holocaust. On August 8, 1942, Dr. Gerhart Reigner, the World Jewish Congress representative in Geneva, sent a cable to both Rabbi Stephen Wise--the President of the World Jewish Congress--and a British Member of Parliament. In it, Dr. Reigner wrote about ``an alarming report'' that Hitler was planning that all Jews in countries occupied or controlled Germany ``should after deportation and concentration . . . be exterminated at one blow to resolve once and for all the Jewish question in Europe.'' Our Government's reaction to this news was not our greatest moment during that terrible era. First, the State Department refused to give the cable to Rabbi Wise. After Rabbi Wise got a copy of the cable from the British, he passed it along to the Undersecretary of State, who asked him not to make the contents public until it could be confirmed. Rabbi Wise didn't make it public, but he did tell President Roosevelt, members of the cabinet, and Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter about the cable. None of them chose to act publicly on its contents. Our government finally did acknowledge the report some months later, but the question remains: how many lives could have been saved had we responded to this clear warning of the Holocaust earlier and with more vigor? The questions of how the United States responded to the Holocaust and, specifically, what was the fate of the Holocaust victims' assets that came into the possession or control of the United States government, is the focus of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States, of which I am a member. This bipartisan Commission--chaired by Edgar M. Bronfman--is composed of 21 individuals, including four Senators, four Members of the House, representatives of the Departments of the Army, Justice, State, and Treasury, the Chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, and eight private citizens. The Commission is charged with conducting original research into what happened to the assets of Holocaust victims--including gold, other financial instruments and art and cultural objects--that passed into the possession or control of the Federal government, including the Federal Reserve. We are also to survey the research done by others about what happened to the assets of Holocaust victims that passed into non-Federal hands, including State governments, and report to the President, making recommendations for future actions, whether legislative or administrative. The Commission was created last year by a unanimous Act of Congress, and has been hard at work since early this year. Perhaps the most important information that the Commission's preliminary research has uncovered is the fact that the question of the extent to which assets of Holocaust victims fell into Federal hands is much, much larger than we thought even a year ago, when we first established this Commission. Last month, at the quarterly, meeting of the Commissioners in Washington, we unveiled a ``map'' of Federal and related offices through which these assets may have flowed. To everyone's surprise, taking a sample year--1943--we found more than 75 separate entities that may have been involved. The records of each of these offices must first be located and then scoured--page by page--at the National Archives and other record centers across the United States. In total, we must look at tens of million of pages to complete the historical record of this period. Futhermore, to our nation's credit, we are currently declassifying millions of pages of World War II-era information that may shine light on our government's policies and procedures during that time. But, this salutary effort dramatically increases the work the Commission must do to fulfill the mandate we have given it. In addition, as the Commission pursues its research, it is discovering new aspects of the story of Holocaust assets that hadn't previously been understood. The Commission's research may be unearthing an alarming trend to import into the United States through South America, art and other possessions looted from Holocaust victims. Pursuing these leads will require the review of additional thousands of documents. The Commission is also finding aspects of previously known incidents that have not been carefully or credibly researched. The ultimate fate of the so-called ``Hungarian Gold Trains,''--for example--a set of trains containing the art, gold, and other valuables of Hungarian victims of the Nazis that was detained by the liberating US Army during their dash for Berlin has not been carefully investigated. In another area of our research investigators are seeking to piece together the puzzle of foreign-owned intellectual property--some of which may have been owned by victims of Nazi genocide--the rights to which were vested in the Federal government under wartime law. For all the reasons and more, I am introducing today with Senators Boxer, Dodd and Grams the ``U.S. Holocaust Assets Commission Extension Act of 1999.'' This simple piece of legislation moves to December, 2000, the date of the final report of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States, giving our investigators the time to do a professional an credible job on the tasks the Congress has assigned to them. This bill also authorizes additional appropriations for the Commission to complete its work. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this necessary and simple piece of legislation. As we approach the end of the millennium, the United States is without a doubt the strongest nation on the face of the earth. Our strength, however, is not limited to our military and economic might. Our nation is strong because we have the resolve to look at ourselves and our history honestly and carefully--even if the truth we find shows us a less-than-flattering light. The Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States is seeking the truth about the belongings of Holocaust victims that came into the possession or control of the United States government. All of my colleagues should support this endeavor, and we must give the Commission the time and support it needs by supporting the U.S. Holocaust Assets Commission Extension Act of 1999. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, this amendment, cosponsored by my colleague from Oregon and others from cranberry producing states, amends the Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, giving cranberry producers the tools they need to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing marketplace. Cranberry growers in my state produce a fruit that is an important portion of our state's agriculture economy. Despite their economic significance, cranberry marshes or bogs are often small and multi-generational family farms. In fact, it is not uncommon to find a grower who is a third, or fourth generation farmer, working the same ten-acre bog that is or her grandparents or great-grandparents worked in the twenties or thirties. They have a strong tradition of independence and stewardship and have been marvels of ingenuity and productivity for a long time. However, today they are suffering. Prices are down by forty to sixty percent over the levels of only a year ago. In some cases the cost of production exceeds the current value of the harvest crop. While cranberry growers tend to be resilient, many are having difficulties dealing with these extreme market conditions. Our amendment will not solve all of the problems this industry faces in the near-term, but we believe it will help the industry in the long- term. It does not provide any money or increase the regulatory controls on industry. However, the amendment before us today addresses the problems in the cranberry industry in two ways: First, our amendment would expand the information-gathering authority of the Cranberry Marketing Committee beyond the traditional production states outlined in the original Cranberry Marketing Order. When the order was first conceived, cranberries were largely used only as fresh fruit for the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. As I am sure many of my colleagues are aware, decades of innovation and creative marketing by the cranberry industry has led to a tremendous expansion of this commodity--mainly through its use in juices and other products that are consumed year-round. Unfortunately, the commodity reporting mechanisms provided under the current Cranberry Marketing Order have not kept up with the growth and evolution of the industry. Today, vast amounts of cranberry supplies are imported and processed outside of production states that are subject to the Cranberry Marketing Order. This handicaps our cranberry growers, who are unable to obtain accurate information about the available supply, and therefore cannot make the optimum planting decisions. Our legislation would correct this by expanding the Cranberry marketing Committee authority, ultimately enabling growers to make better production decisions. A second component of our amendment would add cranberries to the list of commodities eligible to use funds raised from domestic procedures for overseas advertising as part of a generic marketing promotion program. Like all other agriculture producers, cranberry growers know the ability to effectively market products in the global marketplace is critical to maintaining growth and increasing price stability. Although it is my understanding that the Cranberry Marketing Committee does not currently plan to initiate such a campaign at this time, our legislation gives them the flexibility to do so. Much has been said in recent months on this floor about the plight of agriculture and an ongoing farm crisis brought about by record low commodity prices. This problem is real and cranberry producers in small Oregon coastal towns like Bandon and Coos Bay have felt it as well. I would like to urge the Secretary of Agriculture to get directly involved with the leadership of the industry to try and find meaningful initiatives that can help them weather this difficult time and ensure a healthy industry for a healthy product. Mr. President, cranberry growers know global competition will become increasingly fierce in the next century, yet they also know that their future prosperity will be built upon effective marketing and production innovation--not expensive safety nets or reactive trade barriers. I thank my colleagues for joining me in support of this amendment to give cranberry growers in my state and throughout the nation the freedom to address the current farm crisis and pro-actively meet the challenges of the new century.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Boxer in introducing this legislation to help control a deadly and easily communicable disease--tuberculosis (TB). I, like many of you, thought we had this scourge under control since the development of antibiotics more than 40 years ago. However, TB is a real problem here and abroad. It is a disease that knows no borders--because of the ease of transmission of TB, its growth abroad poses a real public health threat to nations like the United States that had previously controlled TB. Our bill will authorize $60 million in FY 2001 to help control this deadly disease. This bill calls for a coordinated effort to wipe out this disease and sets goals for the detection and cure. The statistics surrounding tuberculosis are terrifying. TB kills almost 2 million people abroad every year. The rate of infection abroad is increasing each year and TB is transmitted as easily as the common cold. Every second someone is infected with TB. Further, TB is the leading killer of women, more than any single cause of maternal mortality. This has an enormous impact on families and the very social fabric of a society. TB is the leading cause of death among HIV- positive individuals. It accounts for almost one-third of AIDS deaths worldwide. Many TB cases are easily treatable by a six-month antibiotic regimen. Tragically, this regimen is only used in 15% of TB cases worldwide. An untreated person with active TB will infect 10-15 people per year. TB control programs are underfunded and poorly organized in many countries. Since millions of people travel between the U.S. and other nations daily, we must develop stable country-specific programs that will control this disease. I believe that our bill is a good strong step towards ending TB here and abroad and I look forward to working with my colleague from California on this legislation. I ask all my colleagues in the Senate to support his important legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Boxer in introducing this legislation to help control a deadly and easily communicable disease--tuberculosis (TB). I, like many of you, thought we had this scourge under control since the development of antibiotics more than 40 years ago. However, TB is a real problem here and abroad. It is a disease that knows no borders--because of the ease of transmission of TB, its growth abroad poses a real public health threat to nations like the United States that had previously controlled TB. Our bill will authorize $60 million in FY 2001 to help control this deadly disease. This bill calls for a coordinated effort to wipe out this disease and sets goals for the detection and cure. The statistics surrounding tuberculosis are terrifying. TB kills almost 2 million people abroad every year. The rate of infection abroad is increasing each year and TB is transmitted as easily as the common cold. Every second someone is infected with TB. Further, TB is the leading killer of women, more than any single cause of maternal mortality. This has an enormous impact on families and the very social fabric of a society. TB is the leading cause of death among HIV- positive individuals. It accounts for almost one-third of AIDS deaths worldwide. Many TB cases are easily treatable by a six-month antibiotic regimen. Tragically, this regimen is only used in 15% of TB cases worldwide. An untreated person with active TB will infect 10-15 people per year. TB control programs are underfunded and poorly organized in many countries. Since millions of people travel between the U.S. and other nations daily, we must develop stable country-specific programs that will control this disease. I believe that our bill is a good strong step towards ending TB here and abroad and I look forward to working with my colleague from California on this legislation. I ask all my colleagues in the Senate to support his important legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a moment about the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act that I am pleased to cosponsor with a number of my colleagues who are concerned about the state of agriculture today. I want to thank Senator Hagel and his staff for their work on this legislation which refects the input of a number of agriculture groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation. When the Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996, the idea was to update our pesticide laws so that our farmers could continue to provide the safest and most economical food supply in the world. FQPA eliminated the outdated zero-tolerance Delaney clause for pesticide residues and provided the EPA a framework to review and approve pesticides based on the best scientific evidence available about any health risks these chemicals may pose. What was not intended was to give the EPA the authority to embark on a course to eliminate pesticides based on unrealistic, worst-case scenarios while keeping important stakeholders in the dark. Agriculture in my state of Oregon is incredibly diverse. We have everything from large wheat or nursery operations to small berry farms and hazelnut orchards. While implication of FQPA will surely have implications for program commodities like wheat and soybeans, it is the small speciality crops grown in my state that I am most concerned will be the first to find what may be the only available crop protection tool arbitrarily axed by EPA. At a time when farms all across the country are in the grip of a price depression crisis, our farmers simply can't afford to take another hit--especially one from their own government. Despite our hopes to the contrary, it has become apparent in recent months that legislation is needed to steer the Environmental Protection Agency back towards science-based review of pesticide tolerances under the Food Quality Protection Act. The Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act that we are introducing today requires the EPA to expose its decisionmaking process for public comment, identify areas where assumptions were made, expedite data collection procedures where needed, and streamline the process to get economically viable alternative products approved. The common-sense legislation is the result of consultation with more than 60 agriculture and pest control organizations. Mr. President, the public has a right to know what processes are beingused in the implementation of the FQPA and how the EPA is arriving at its decisions. Our farmers have a right to know that important crop protection chemicals will not be eliminated on a whim by a federal agency. I hope colleagues agree with me that this measure of regulatory relief is urgently needed, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee I have spoken out against hate crimes of many kinds and in many lands. For that reason I cannot be silent at home. I believe that government's first duty is to defend its citizens. To defend them against the harms that come out of hate. To defend them regardless of their status, be they female, disabled or gay. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act is now a symbol that can become substance. By changing this law we can change hearts and minds as well. The law is a teacher and we should teach our fellow citizens that all crime is hateful. But we can also teach that some crime is so odious that an extra measure of prosecution is demanded by us, so that it will never again be repeated among us. Never again should we in the federal government withhold our help or stand idly by when a Matthew Shepard is tied to a fence, beaten and left to die because he is gay. Never again should we defer to others when one James Byrd, Jr. is dragged to his death because he is black. No, in these cases and in too many more, the Federal Government must have the power to persuade, to pursue and to prosecute when hate is the motive of violence against American victims, no matter their state, no matter their minority or vulnerability.

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 S. 1377, To amend the Central Utah Project Completion Act regarding the use of funds for water development for the Bonneville Unit, and for other purposes, S. 986, To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Griffith Project to the Southern Nevada Water Authority, have been added to the agenda of the hearing that is scheduled for Wednesday, July 28, 1999 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. 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 Kristin Phillips, Staff Assistant, or Colleen Deegan, Counsel, at (202) 224-8115.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. The letter talks about how many small grocers, as many in business, simply will not be in a position to bear this additional burden. I ask Members to understand, we are talking about a very significant thing. It is not just about price; it is about the ability to participate, and to continue providing health insurance to the working men and women of this country. I ask my colleagues to vote against expanding liability and in support of the Gregg amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, many of the HMOs that Senator Reid identifies are self-funded insurance plans that are provided by businesses. They certainly are included. As Senator Gregg has noted, the language reads ``discretionary authority'' which is a very broad term. The potential for liability is very great. As I speak to my colleagues and the American people today, I simply say we have a problem. We are mortals, and no one gets out of this life alive. When people die and when they get sick, there are lots of tears. We would like to help. Often, as we reach out to help, we look also for people to blame for tragedy. There are plenty of people in the legal profession to help them find others to blame. I stand before the Senate as a member of the bar. But I am not going to speak as a member of the bar. I am going to speak as the Senator from Oregon and as a member who holds a somewhat unique perspective in this Chamber--as a businessman, also as someone who has actually paid the health care bills. Colleagues, as I have listened to Senator Frist I have been impressed by his skill as a physician, his nuances and his understanding of these issues and they have been helpful to me. As I watched Senator Edwards of North Carolina use his great skill and ability as a trial lawyer to make the case for liability, I was also impressed. However, there are not many people in this Chamber who have actually written the check to provide the health care coverage to their employees. My experience before coming to this Senate was as a food processor. I provided health insurance to hundreds of employees and their families. For nearly 20 years in which I managed that business, I saw health care costs rise three, four, even five times the rate of inflation. My business was not to provide health care, it was to produce food. It was--beyond all others--a cost out of control. These people who are writing the checks, trying to live up to the promise that we all want in this country for health care, are not the enemy. They are trying to do a good job, and to meet the needs of their employees. I cannot think of a single thing that would imperil health care more in this country than removing the protections provided to employers on the issue of liability. We are shown all of the terrible situations by the charts shown in this Chamber. But I say to you, I have a heart, too. I would like to help. But I also know that when you deal with an inflationary cost such as medicine, sometimes you don't have the ability--particularly in agriculture--to pass those costs on in the price of your product. So when you add on top of that the potential cost of liability, I fear that employers will not be able to bear it and will turn that benefit into cash for their employees and simply say to employees--you will have to buy it yourself. But people don't have the ability to buy health care coverage as individuals as well as when they are pooled in employer groups. I support employer-provided health care. I think we are imperiling it if we remove the protections provided to employers by ERISA. Now, employer-provided health care has an interesting origin in our country. It was very rare prior to World War II when we put on wage and price controls but did not limit the ability of businesses and labor to bargain for benefits. When the men went off to war, businesses reached out to many of the women. They could not offer them a higher wage, so they offered them the benefit of health care. Then businesses began to do this more and more, and it became the subject of collective bargaining under Taft- Hartley and other labor provisions. By the 1970s, nearly three quarters of the American people were covered by employer-provided health care plans. Congress wanted to go further. In fact, it was a Democratic Congress in 1974 that produced the protection called ERISA to further induce and incentivize businesses to expand in a multistate way to provide health insurance. Folks, it has worked. Right now the frustrating thing to me is, as we try to legislate, we inevitably have to draw lines and make decisions. We once were in the position in the State of Oregon of figuring out how best to allocate Medicaid resources. We don't like to have uninsured people in our State; we want them to be insured. Our current Governor's name is John Kitzhaber. He is a medical doctor; he is an emergency room physician. He is a Democrat. He came to the Federal Government, along with many on the Republican side, and said: Let's take this Cadillac plan for a few and essentially turn it into a Chevrolet plan for many. So we got a waiver. Instead of rationing medicine through waiting lines and price, we did it upfront by saying: These are the health care procedures that are available. The Vice President, Al Gore, and others referred to our Governor sometimes in very disparaging terms. He was even called ``Doctor Death'' by the media. But he had the courage, and many with him, to make decisions that were tough. So when we see the pictures and the charts, I say to you that I have been there, I have seen and lived them before. My heart strings are pulled by those, too. But I also know that we don't help them by increasing health care costs--we uninsure them. What we are debating, really, is where to draw the line, how to make health care more affordable to more people. The last thing in the world we should be doing is so disincentivizing the ability of small businesses to afford health care that they will simply turn it into cash. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter on behalf of the National Grocers Association.

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 Wednesday, July 28, 1999 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. 624, To authorize construction of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System in the State of Montana, and for other purposes; S. 1211, to amend the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act to authorize additional measures to carry out the control of salinity upstream of Imperial Dam in a cost-effective manner; S. 1275, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to produce and sell products and to sell publications relating to the Hoover Dam, and to deposit revenues generated from the sales in to the Colorado River Dam fund; and S. 1236, to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for commencement of the construction of the Arrowrock Dam Hydroelectric Project in the State of Idaho. 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 Kristin Phillips, Staff Assistant or Colleen Deegan, Counsel, at (202) 224-8115.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will be brief. I rise to oppose the McConnell second-degree to the Silk Road amendment. I rise as a cosponsor of the bill. We are constantly called upon in this country to pick sides among parties with ancient feuds. The area of the Silk Road, as defined in this bill, is an area that has long been beset with communism, Islamic fundamentalism, and other interests which, frankly, are inimical to U.S. interests. Section 907 picks a side. I think it is founded on the best of motives but with the worst of results. At the end of the day, if we want to be honest brokers in this fight, it does not help us to be sanctioning one party at the table. This isn't about oil; this isn't about some of the interests of the oil companies that want to develop in the Caspian; this is about being evenhanded; this is about getting beyond the status quo, which simply is not working. In my view, it is appropriate to give the President the discretion to make a recommendation as to whether or not this sanction should continue. If he determines that it is working, fine, leave it in place. If not, I fear we will forever be caught up in picking sides on the Senate floor in conflicts we cannot ultimately end. I believe the U.S. posture in this very sensitive and important region of the world should be fair to both sides. There are atrocities, human rights violations, on both sides. I wish there were just good guys and bad guys; unfortunately, there are plenty of both on both sides. In the end, I ask us to take a more evenhanded approach, support the Brownback bill and, ultimately, I believe, be more effective in this very sensitive negotiation in trying to foster peace, trying to foster development, trying to foster democracy in a part of the world that has known little of any of that. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution regarding a deplorable vote by the General Assembly of the United Nations in February 1999. At that time a resolution was passed recommending a convening of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This Convention protects civilians living in territory occupied by a hostile force. In February, the Palestine Liberation Organization supported by the Arab Group and the nonaligned Movement successfully and wrongly argued that the Convention should meet to adopt measures that would stop Israel from building in what they termed the ``Occupied Palestinian Territory including Jerusalem.'' Only Israel and, I am proud to say, the United States voted against this United Nations Resolution, which carried by a vote of 115 to 2 with five abstentions. Unfortunately, with such a lopsided vote, we now face a situation in which the Swiss Government, as depositary of the Geneva Convention, has been asked to convene this conference on July 15, 1999. This resolution, sponsored by Senators Schumer, Brownback and I, commends our Department of State for its strong opposition to the United Nations action and, in addition, asks the Swiss Government to refrain from holding this politicized convention. We intend to send a clear signal to the United Nations General Assembly about the inappropriateness of this resolution and urge our government to continue to work for the cancellation of the scheduled conference.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to thank a departing member of my staff for his contributions to the State of Oregon. Michael Drobac, who currently serves as my legislative aide for defense, labor and judiciary issues, is a native of Eugene, Oregon. Michael received his undergraduate and graduate degrees from Stanford University and has been a highly valued aide in my office since my election to the United States Senate. In my short time in the Senate, I have grown to expect and receive unadorned direct advice from Michael on a variety of issues and projects helping Oregonians. He has worked tirelessly on drug control issues and judicial appointments. Michael has worked attentively with affected Oregon communities and the Department of the Army to resolve safety and economic issues surrounding the Chemical Demilitarization program at the Umatilla Depot in Oregon. His advice and work on defense related issues on both the national level and in conjunction with Oregon's fine National Guard has always been exemplary. Michael, is returning to Oregon to attend Law School at the University of Oregon. I wish him well and do not doubt that Michael will put his law degree to good work. I join my staff in thanking him for his time and expertise. Given his background, good character and passion for public service, I would not be surprised to see Michael's return to Washington, DC, sometime in the future, working again on behalf of the state of Oregon.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. On behalf of the Senior Senator from Oregon and myself, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the Honorable Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services on the issue of Chemical Demilitarization, Oregon is one of the eight states with chemical weapons stored and awaiting destruction required by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Our local communities surrounding the Umatilla depot have serious concerns about the pending demilitarization program. These concerns include the safety of the local population and the impact on the local communities of undertaking a huge demilitarization effort to destroy 3700 tons of chemical agent. This effort will require the influx of nearly one thousand workers to build and operate the destruction facility over a period of eight years. These workers will require the communities to provide facilities, infrastructure and services to accommodate them. These efforts will cost money, and we are concerned that the economic impact of this effort will be a huge drain on the local communities. We are concerned that, while there may be a considerable impact on the local communities, there has not been adequate attention given this issue by the Department of Defense. Would the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee agree to work with us to look into this situation so we can better understand the problem, and in so doing, find a solution? Finally, I mentioned my concerns to the Secretary of Defense. He expressed his willingness to work with us. I would ask that the Chairman and Ranking Member discuss this problem with the Secretary of Defense and consider including language in the Conference Report on the issue of impact. I understand from the Office of the Secretary that the Army will work with us to include some acceptable report language. We want to make it clear that any discussion of impact would be restricted to the chemical demilitarization program and account. Again, I thank the honorable Chairman and Ranking Member.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I wonder if the Senator can address this. He is into this issue, but I think we have to answer the question the Senator from Nebraska has raised, Why do you need the 3 days, 72 hours? My point really is this. I wonder if this amendment isn't so regulatory that it really isn't trying to end gun shows, and not an attempt to provide the service that we are asking be provided. If they find that there is a question, shouldn't the Justice Department, the FBI, deny the check in 24 hours, 1 hour, or whenever it occurs, and then go investigate it?

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise first to thank the cosponsor of this amendment, Senator Jeffords; and also Senator McCain, who was instrumental in helping me and others to bring attention to the need to get a bill we can be proud of and that actually works. Second, I extend my condolences, my thoughts, my prayers to the people of Atlanta. I know whereof they suffer this terrible day. It was a year ago, and a few days, that Oregon, in Springfield, at Thurston High School, suffered a similar tragedy. Now we must add Atlanta to the roll of Littleton and Springfield and Jonesboro and Paducah and many other places. We stand here today as elected representatives of the people of the United States, to try to do right by them. But too often in this Chamber the focus seems to suggest there is only one answer and that answer is to go after guns. But the problem is so much deeper than that. I am willing to admit there are things we can do, and things we are doing now, that will separate law-abiding citizens and gun owners from the fanatics and the kooks and the criminals, the dangerous and the deranged in our society. We do not want them to have guns. We do not want obtaining guns to be easy for them. But we want to construct a system that encourages the law abiding to come and participate in an instant check, a system that encourages, that incentivizes, and does not just regulate and drive things into the back alley and into the parking lot. The amendment that Senator Jeffords and I offer today does two very simple things. We do close the pawnshop loophole. We use the very language of my colleague and friend from New York, Senator Schumer, to go back to current ATF regulation to make sure if someone comes in and hocks his gun he cannot then go, commit a felony, and then retrieve that gun without a background check. I have no intention of leaving that loophole open. We are going to close it today. Second, because there is a dispute as to the Hatch-Craig language in terms of licensees, we are clarifying that. We are saying simply those in the new Federal firearms dealer category of a ``special licensee'' must comply with all dealer provisions of the Gun Control Act and always do a background check with no exceptions. This morning we have heard there are apparently 13 additional loopholes. Let me suggest the difference between our amendment and theirs. What our amendment does is incentivize. What their amendment does is regulate. The special licensee, if he obeys the law, comes in and is entitled to an instant check, access to the instant check system. He is not charged a fee, because we are not interested in increasing taxes here. He is immune from civil liability and fines of up to $10,000 and 5 years in prison. We are trying to get people to understand we want them to come in. We do not want to drive them into the back alley and into the parking lot and into the street. We want them to come in, in the light of day, because they are proud of their second amendment rights, and will protect their second amendment rights through instant check. Let me tell you what else we do. There is a huge difference between this amendment and the one my friend from New Jersey is proposing. He is allowing for 72-hour checks. If it takes 72 hours to get a background check, it is not an instant check. If you have ever been pulled over for a traffic violation, you know the policeman will check your car, check your license, check your registration, and he will find out if there is any additional reason, other than a traffic violation, to hold you. We have instant check now. Why do we not make instant check available to people who are exercising their second amendment rights? I want to be real clear: 72 hours is not an instant. We are going down to 24 hours because we want to incentivize this Government to finally go to work and produce instant check, make it available. One of the most appalling revelations to come out of the tragedies of Littleton is that gun laws are not prosecuted by this administration. We can pass all the laws in the world on guns but if they are not enforced they are of little value to this country. So, where it makes sense to add, we are adding. But we call on the administration also to enforce. If we enforce our laws, we will begin to make them efficacious; we will begin to change conduct. But there is an important additional reason for supporting this amendment versus that of the Senators from New Jersey. Many States, as we speak, my own included, are debating the issue of gun shows, are debating the issue of instant check. You and I know very well that law enforcement takes place where crimes occur, at the local level. There are Governors and legislators who are working with gun advocates, gun opponents, and police forces who are trying to come up with definitions that will work for their States and their localities. That is happening as we are talking. It is happening in my State. If we go to Senator Lautenberg's definition, all we would do is nullify much of the work that has already been done and has been passed into law. I am saying we should not do that. Because law enforcement, while we have a role, will remain primarily a local concern because it is locally administered. So I would like to trust the States, to leave them some room, some discretion to fix this problem on their terms, in ways that work in their communities. We cannot know it all here, even though we too often pretend to. So, if you care about the issue of States rights and law enforcement, Smith-Jeffords is the way to vote. If you want Washington to dictate every principle and every definition, then Senator Lautenberg's approach is the way to do it. There is another reason. I talked about incentives. I congratulate the Senator from New Jersey. His amendment today is much better than the one I proudly voted against on Wednesday night. That one made sure taxes were raised, Government bureaucracies were built, and everybody in sight got sued. What we are trying to do is not raise taxes, not grow Government, and to provide some immunity, therefore some incentives to get people to comply with these laws. We call upon this administration to enforce these laws. I hope my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, will vote for this amendment. We are using Senator Schumer's language. I thank him for that. It works. It clarifies. It ties it up. But if you try to tighten every loophole you see, I promise you the effect of your work today will be to create a black market, an underground, a back alley business, a parking lot exchange. I want them to come inside. Because second amendment rights do come with second amendment responsibilities, let's make it easier; let's not make it harder. We are doing this in this amendment. We are applying instant check, we are trusting the States, and we are not growing Government. We are protecting kids in the schools, we are protecting the second amendment right to bear arms, we are protecting law-abiding citizens, and we are getting after the kooks and the criminals, the deranged and the dangerous who haunt our society, to make sure this is not a huge loophole that will give them access to dangerous weaponry. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment and vote against the Lautenberg amendment. It is too much and it will drive this issue into the back alley. Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If the Senator will yield for another question. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, don't you believe that if the Justice Department needed more resources to do this to provide the service, we would find the ways and means to accommodate them?

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I join in thanking those who have submitted this amendment today. I especially thank Senator Hatch for his indulgence and his leadership; Senator Craig, for allowing this to go forward; Senator McCain, for his doggedness and determination to help a number of Members to make sure that what we began yesterday to close this loophole, we, in fact, closed today. I am proud to stand on the floor of the Senate and proclaim myself a defender of the second amendment. I say that and also qualify it only in this respect: I defend the second amendment for law-abiding citizens to bear arms--not for nuts and crooks. I think it is possible to defend this constitutional right and also defend kids in the school cafeteria. But to do that, we need to make this technical amendment today. I am proud to stand with my colleagues. I hope the other side will allow this to clear. This is something our country needs. It is something I am proud to be a part of. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation requiring the Secretary of State to report on actions taken by our Ambassador to the United Nations to push the nations of the Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG) to accept Israel into their group. As you may know, Israel is the only nation among the 185 member states that does not hold membership in a regional group. Membership in a regional group is the prerequisite for any nation to serve on key United Nations bodies such as the Security Council. In order to correct this inequality, I am introducing ``The Equality for Israel at the United Nations Act of 1999.'' I believe that this legislation will prompt our United Nations Representative to make equality for Israel at the United Nations a high priority. I am proud to be joined by Senators Brownback and Thomas as original co-sponsors of this important legislation. Mr. President, Israel has been a member of the United Nations since 1949, yet it has been continuously precluded from membership in any regional bloc. Most member states from the Middle East would block Israel's membership in any relevant regional group. The Western Europe and Others Group, however, has accepted countries from other geographical areas--the United States and Australia for example. Last year, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan announced that ``It's time to usher in a new era of relations between Israel and the United Nations * * *. One way to rectify that new chapter would be to rectify an anomaly: Israel's position as the only Member State that is not a member of one of the regional groups, which means it has no chance of being elected to serve on main organs such as the Security council or the Economic and Social Council. This anomaly would be corrected.'' I believe it is time to back Secretary General Annan's idea with strong support from the United States Senate and I ask all my colleagues to join me in sending this message to the UN to stop this discrimination against Israel.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation requiring the Secretary of State to report on actions taken by our Ambassador to the United Nations to push the nations of the Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG) to accept Israel into their group. As you may know, Israel is the only nation among the 185 member states that does not hold membership in a regional group. Membership in a regional group is the prerequisite for any nation to serve on key United Nations bodies such as the Security Council. In order to correct this inequality, I am introducing ``The Equality for Israel at the United Nations Act of 1999.'' I believe that this legislation will prompt our United Nations Representative to make equality for Israel at the United Nations a high priority. I am proud to be joined by Senators Brownback and Thomas as original co-sponsors of this important legislation. Mr. President, Israel has been a member of the United Nations since 1949, yet it has been continuously precluded from membership in any regional bloc. Most member states from the Middle East would block Israel's membership in any relevant regional group. The Western Europe and Others Group, however, has accepted countries from other geographical areas--the United States and Australia for example. Last year, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan announced that ``It's time to usher in a new era of relations between Israel and the United Nations * * *. One way to rectify that new chapter would be to rectify an anomaly: Israel's position as the only Member State that is not a member of one of the regional groups, which means it has no chance of being elected to serve on main organs such as the Security council or the Economic and Social Council. This anomaly would be corrected.'' I believe it is time to back Secretary General Annan's idea with strong support from the United States Senate and I ask all my colleagues to join me in sending this message to the UN to stop this discrimination against Israel.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to submit S. Con. Res. 30, in order to recognize the sacrifice and dedication of members of America's non-governmental organizations and private volunteer organizations throughout their history and specifically in answer to their courageous response to recent disasters in Central America and Kosovo. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Wellstone, Thomas, Sarbanes and Brownback as original cosponsors. While much time on the Senate floor has been devoted to America's response to the natural disaster wrought by Hurricane Mitch in Central America and the human disaster wrought by the horrifying aggression in the Balkans, little has been devoted to those organizations conducting humanitarian relief efforts in those areas. I am proud to note that several Oregon humanitarian organizations have been on the front lines in both Central America and the Balkans-- particularly in Kosovo. Mercy Corps International based in Portland, Oregon, is one of the largest humanitarian agencies helping Kosovar Albanian refugees and first began work in that area in 1993. Over the past six years, the agency has provided more than $30 million in relief and development aid to 250,000 people in the area. Whether it be providing food, blankets, clothing, hygiene and cooking utensils to the first onslaught of refugees, or managing refugee camps in Senekos, Mercy Corps International has made humanitarian aid a priority in a desperate situation. In Central America, Mercy Corps' Hurricane Mitch relief efforts included evacuating thousands of children and families, delivering housing materials for tents and temporary shelter, and providing more than 200,000 pounds of food to the hungry and 60 tons of clothing and blankets to the homeless. I am truly proud of Oregon's Mercy Corps International. Mercy Corps is not alone as a humanitarian presence in Oregon. Portland's Northwest Medical Team International has provided disaster response and emergency relief to refugees of wars and to victims of hurricanes, floods and famines. Each year, Northwest Medical Teams International recruits, equips and dispatches volunteer surgical, medical and redevelopment teams to areas of the world in need of this type of humanitarian aid and assistance. Northwest Medical Teams International ships more than $50 million in humanitarian assistance to over 50 countries each year. Currently, Northwest Medical Teams International is helping to manage the flow of humanitarian aid and to assist refugees in the Balkans and is collecting donations for humanitarian aid in the region through its Kosovo Relief Fund. These two Oregon humanitarian organizations embody what is good in America--the noble effort to reach out and help a neighbor in need, regardless of geography, cultural or linguistic differences. This outreach from non-governmental organizations deserves far more than this resolution, it deserves the sincere acknowledgment and thanks from each citizen of this country.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today in an effort of bipartisanship with Senator Kerry, to present our plan to improve the quality of education for the children of this country. The legislation that we are introducing with Senators Chafee, Collins, Snowe, Bayh, Cleland, Kennedy, Levin, Edwards, Bryan, and Murray, combines the best ideas from the Republicans with the best ideas from the Democrats--it is a way of reaching across the aisle to accomplish education reform. Our shared goal is legislation that empowers educators, parents, and principals to initiate positive change in the local school districts without burdensome Federal mandates. The Kerry-Smith Plan to Educate America's Children acts upon that goal and incorporates what the President proposed in his State of the Union Address--that our Federal dollars must be invested in programs that work. I couldn't agree more. We need to ensure that we're getting the biggest bang out of our education buck--not only for the Federal Government--but for the taxpayers who deserve it, and who expect it. The taxpayers are not only the watchdogs of how we spend our money, they are the stockholders and have the right to determine the direction and quality of our investment. This legislation turns the taxpayers into stockholders by directing the Federal dollars to State and local education agencies and allows them to manage the money locally--in local school districts and for local students--to enhance and improve the quality of public education in our nation. Our proposal provides local education agencies, parents, principals, and teachers the resources to build upon reform models that have been proven to work, such as the Modern Red Schoolhouse and Success For All programs. For example, the Success For All program focuses on raising the achievement levels of K-12 students in low-performing schools by providing a wide range of assistance, including one-on-one tutoring and family support programs. To ensure that progress is being made, students in the Success For All program are assessed every eight weeks. If a student needs assistance in a specific area such as reading, a tutor is provided to help that student improve his or her reading skills. Mr. President, this is exactly what every school in America should be doing. In addition, the Modern Red Schoolhouse program goes back to the basics and focuses on the core subject areas of math, science, and reading. Students learn to master these subject areas at their own pace in order to fulfill individual learning contracts. Importantly, this program combines parental and community involvement with flexible daily and yearly schedules for students in order to meet their individual goals. It is clear that any education reform proposal must be comprehensive in order to be successful. That is why the Kerry-Smith bill focuses on the needs of children and parents before the school day begins, and after the school day ends. First, our legislation strives to ensure that every child begins school ready to learn by providing the resources to expand existing programs such as EvenStart or HeadStart. Second, our legislation provides the resources for the development and training of excellent principals--and the retraining of current principals to improve the way they manage our schools. This program can be an opportunity to encourage and recruit second-career principals from the business community. Third, we provide the needed support for communities to develop alternative schools for students who need further academic or psychological counseling. One of the concerns I hear in my state is that there aren't enough counselors in each school district. In fact, one particular school district in my state, has one counselor for every 800 students. It is my hope we can greatly increase the number of counselors. Too many children need extra support, and it benefits us all to help ensure they get that support. In this world-wide web generation where everything is changing and growing at such a rapid rate, we're not always able to keep up with the pace and progress of our children. Thomas Jefferson once said something to the effect that each generation is its own nation--and I think that is true to some extent--and it is our responsibility to prepare the next generation as they face the challenges of the next century. So as we begin debating education reform, I will support those policies that fulfill our commitment. We can achieve our commitment by providing comprehensive programs to meet the needs of all of our children throughout the entire school day and after school. We can achieve our commitment by investing in education programs that have proven to work--based on research and real results. And we can achieve our commitment by directing the resources for mentoring and training of our teachers and principals and rewarding local districts that display excellence in education. The Kerry-Smith bill is an aggressive approach and puts these principles to work--not in Washington, D.C., but in our states and local school districts. We realize that there are many education reform proposals that will be introduced in the Senate this year. And despite the differing views of our respective parties on education in previous years, Senator Kerry and I intended to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find a workable solution based on the combined strength of various bills. In closing, I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Kerry, for his foresight and leadership on this issue and encourage my colleagues' cosponsorship and support. The education of our children is, and must continue to be, a bipartisan commitment to excellence.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of an extraordinary group of people in my state who are working each day to protect our children and teenagers from the dangers of alcohol and drug abuse. The Oregon Partnership, led by Executive Director, Judy Cushing, is the only nonprofit statewide network of drug prevention services available to every community--rural and urban--throughout Oregon. While we may talk about the importance of drug abuse prevention programs on the floor of the Senate, the staff at the Oregon Partnership are turning words into action with very limited federal resources. Their accomplishments and allegiance to the thousands whom they serve, deserves respect and additional federal support. Formed in 1993, the Partnership is governed by a volunteer, 12-member Board of Directors and has a statewide volunteer base of 500 educators, parents, youth, health professionals, business and faith leaders. Together, they share a common goal--to help the young people of Oregon help themselves and their peers--to lead productive and drug-free lives. Through these combined efforts, this group of dedicated volunteers is truly a partnership. With 73 coalitions that reach across the state of Oregon, the Partnership empowers communities at a grassroots level through a strong support network of resources including media relations assistance, event planning and training that targets the local needs of each community. In addition, the Partnership's resource center provides communities and families with materials that provide answers to questions about alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. The Partnership also maintains a website that provides details about other available resources, materials and programs. Recognizing that information is only effective when it is available, the Oregon Partnership houses the only statewide 24-hour helpline with person-to-person contact every day. The HelpLine/YouthLine currently responds to 2,000 calls per month from substance abusers, family members and friends who are searching for referral assistance and information about treatment programs and services within their local area. What is truly exemplary about the Oregon Partnership, is that it provides these services through its network of volunteers. More than fifty professionally trained volunteers provide confidential counseling, information and local treatment referral for chemical dependence and other addictions. Sixty percent of the volunteers are college and graduate students pursuing counseling careers. Mr. President, I believe that the Oregon Partnership is an example of what Congress intended for the use of federal drug prevention dollars. Unlike any other program in our state, the Oregon Partnership is the resource that serves as the link that keeps the chain from prevention programs to treatment strong. The Oregon Partnership is our first line of defense and the kind voice at the end of the phone that says, ``Yes, we can help.'' For these reasons and many more, I would like to take this opportunity to formally thank the directors, members and volunteers of the Oregon Partnership for their dedication and gracious, generous service to the people of Oregon as they work to eliminate drug abuse throughout our state: Judy Cushing, Joyce Adams-Malin, Lloyd Duncan, Jennifer Fogelman, Jill Showalter, Kaleen Deatherage, Penny Labberton, Elizabeth Buskirk, Mary Ellen Apostol, Michelle Kromm, Ericka Ziettlow, Jennie Donnelly, Karla Bateman.