Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, my friend from Maryland and I rise today to offer a sense of the Senate out of the concern for the 150 account out of the U.S. budget. It is an account that funds our efforts abroad, our foreign relations. As we speak this evening, bombs are falling on Serbia. I simply note that there are a lot of bombs falling in the world today. It seems like more all the time. Yet, since the mid-1980s, our foreign affairs budget has fallen by 50 percent. I supported the President last night. It was a difficult decision. We are picking among bad options, but, frankly, a good option for us is to wage more peace, a little less war. It seems to me we ought to find a way to limit within the caps but recognize the value to this country of waging peace through diplomacy. Senator Sarbanes and I have held hearings, at the instruction of the chairman, on the 150 account in the last Congress and share a concern about the direction of the 150 account and stand together today to offer this and hope that the Senate can find the resources to do better by our efforts at waging peace. I turn to my colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, and yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I have an amendment that Senator Sarbanes and I wish to offer. It will take but a few minutes, if we can do that. I think it will be accepted by both sides.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a field hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, April 6 at 10:30 a.m., at the Hood River Inn in Hood River, OR. The purpose of the hearing is to conduct oversight on the process to determine the future of the four lower Snake River dams. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact Ms. Julia McCaul or Colleen Deegan at 202-224-8115.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank Senator Jeffords for giving us this time, and my colleague, Senator Kerry, for his leadership on this issue. I also appreciate Senator Kerry's willingness to set aside some of the partisanship that divides us on this issue. There are too many good ideas that Republicans and Democrats share in common for us not to make significant progress on the issue that is on the minds of most parents, perhaps, more than any other--the education of their children. While Senator Kerry and I will not be introducing our amendment today to this legislation, I think it is important that we take this opportunity to raise the issue of principal training and development. After speaking with educators, parents, principals, and teachers in both Oregon and in Massachusetts, it became clear to Senator Kerry and I that our principals are too often not prepared to address the needs of our children. As Senator Kerry has said many times, we can't expect our schools to be well managed without good managers. It is time to provide our States and school districts with the resources to train our principals as managers. Our proposal would provide States the needed resources for the development and training of excellent principals, and the retraining of current principals to improve the way they manage our schools. This competitive principals' challenges grant will allow States to develop programs that focus on providing principals with effective instructional skills and increased understanding of the effective use of educational technology and the ability to implement State content performance standards. Throughout the debate on the Ed-Flex bill, we have heard a lot about the need for greater accountability. Our proposal does not expect the States to be accountable. Our proposal requires accountability. State educational agencies must specify how the Federal funds will be used for principal training programs, how the use of these funds will lead to improved student achievement and provide, through annual evaluation, evidence of such improvement having occurred. Importantly, this proposal does not dictate to the States how to implement these programs. Rather, it gives States the opportunity, the resources, and the support to create programs that meet the needs of every school district, rural and urban. Mr. President, as we continue to debate education reform in the Senate, I believe that we must include a component that reforms the way in which our schools are managed. We have some excellent principals in our school districts in Oregon, in Massachusetts, and all over the country. We now have an opportunity to recruit excellent principals. They are the CEOs of our schools. We should ensure that every principal has the resources and training to be a successful manager. Senator Kerry and I believe that our principals' challenges grant proposal is a strong step toward improving the quality of education in our public schools, and we look forward to working with our colleagues during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Again, I thank my colleague, Senator Jeffords, for allowing us time to speak on this issue and for his leadership on the Ed-Flex legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, Morris King Udall is my cousin. But he is more than a kinsman to me. He is a political exemplar and a source of wisdom and humor still. I lament his passing but I rejoice in his legacy. I was but a boy of 8 years when Morris was elected to Congress from Arizona to replace his brother Stewart. It was 1960 and Stewart Udall became the Interior Secretary for John F. Kennedy. It was then that I realized more fully my maternal heritage to public service. My mother, Jessica Udall Smith, often held up the service of Morris and Stewart Udall as public examples worthy to follow in order to make the world a better place and to lighten the burdens of human kind. I grew up as best I could in the tall shadows of Udall giants. I choose to follow their path to pubic service. The way is sometimes hard and the storms many. But it is a way made easier by the humor of Morris Udall. He taught me that humor directed at oneself is usually best and often funniest. He wrote to me that the only cure for political ambition is embalming fluid. He told me to use any of his jokes `cause he'd ``stole `em all fair `n square.'' I learned from him that the greatest thing about the United States of America is not that any boy or girl can grow up to be President, but that any boy or girl can grow up making fun of the President. I learned all of this from cousin Mo and so, so much more. May God bless the memory of Morris K. Udall and may we all fondly remember him too.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise to comment on a bill I have introduced today that will provide Oregon pear producers the flexibility they need to meet the demands of their foreign customers. With continued low commodity prices in nearly all sectors of American agriculture, and with financial uncertainty in many of our export markets, now is the time for the Congress to do all it can to remove unnecessary hindrances to sales of farm products abroad. The legislation which I have introduced today with my colleague, the senior senator from the state of Washington, would delete references to pears in the Export Apple and Pear Act. Under the Export Apple and Pear Act, only pears meeting Federal high quality standards are allowed to be exported. Although this standard served the purposes of the pear industry when the Export Apple and Pear Act was originally enacted in 1933, it has increasingly become an obstacle to U.S. pear producers who desire to enter new markets through the export of lower grade pears. In recent years, pear producers have had to obtain special waivers from USDA in order to sell lower grade pears to the emerging markets of Russia and Latin America. With American agriculture increasingly a part of a larger, global economy, U.S. pear producers need the Congress to remove this antiquated regulatory hurdle to expanded pear exports. Perhaps my colleagues noted that the companion bill to this legislation, H.R. 609, was adopted unanimously by the House of Representatives earlier this week. The swift passage of this legislation in the House is the result of the clear consensus of both the pear industry and the Department of Agriculture that the inclusion of pears in the Export Apple and Pear Act is no longer necessary. Mr. President, from Hood River, in the shadow of Mount Hood, to the Rogue Valley, just north of California, the pear industry has long been a key part of the success of Oregon agriculture. With the regulatory relief provided by this bill, I believe that pear producers in Oregon and around the country will have the ability to continue to compete effectively overseas and prosper at home. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Gorton and myself in support of early adoption of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise to comment on a bill I have introduced today that will provide Oregon pear producers the flexibility they need to meet the demands of their foreign customers. With continued low commodity prices in nearly all sectors of American agriculture, and with financial uncertainty in many of our export markets, now is the time for the Congress to do all it can to remove unnecessary hindrances to sales of farm products abroad. The legislation which I have introduced today with my colleague, the senior senator from the state of Washington, would delete references to pears in the Export Apple and Pear Act. Under the Export Apple and Pear Act, only pears meeting Federal high quality standards are allowed to be exported. Although this standard served the purposes of the pear industry when the Export Apple and Pear Act was originally enacted in 1933, it has increasingly become an obstacle to U.S. pear producers who desire to enter new markets through the export of lower grade pears. In recent years, pear producers have had to obtain special waivers from USDA in order to sell lower grade pears to the emerging markets of Russia and Latin America. With American agriculture increasingly a part of a larger, global economy, U.S. pear producers need the Congress to remove this antiquated regulatory hurdle to expanded pear exports. Perhaps my colleagues noted that the companion bill to this legislation, H.R. 609, was adopted unanimously by the House of Representatives earlier this week. The swift passage of this legislation in the House is the result of the clear consensus of both the pear industry and the Department of Agriculture that the inclusion of pears in the Export Apple and Pear Act is no longer necessary. Mr. President, from Hood River, in the shadow of Mount Hood, to the Rogue Valley, just north of California, the pear industry has long been a key part of the success of Oregon agriculture. With the regulatory relief provided by this bill, I believe that pear producers in Oregon and around the country will have the ability to continue to compete effectively overseas and prosper at home. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Gorton and myself in support of early adoption of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and honor two young Oregonians who have received national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in their communities. Mr. Cody Hill of Portland and Mr. Quinn Wilhelmi of Eugene have recently been named State Honorees from Oregon in the 1999 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor confered on only one high school student and one middle-level student in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Mr. Cody Hill, nominated by Lincoln High School, created and currently coordinates a program called ``Guns Aren't Fun,'' a toy gun trade-in event to encourage kids to trade in their toy guns for other non-violent toys. His idea is currently being developed into a non- profit organization to spread the message of non-violence across the country. Due to Cody's hard work and determination, more than one hundred toy guns have been turned in during two trade-in events. Cody has worked closely with local non-profit organizations and, to date, he has collected over $13,000 for the purchase of new toys. Cody has also received recognition in local newspaper detailing his volunteer work. Mr. Quinn Wilhelmi, nominated by Roosevelt Middle School, began a tutoring program with fifth grade students in his former elementary school. Quinn's program works to develop the student's writing skills by helping them compose their autobiographies. Through his initiative, Quinn was able to recruit several of his classmates to join in this effort as well, and he has made a tremendous impact on several younger students while working as a writing mentor. In light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans today are less involved in their communities than they once were, it's vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contributions these young people have made. Young volunteers like Cody and Quinn are inspiring examples to us all, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. I applaud them for their initiative in seeking to make their communities better places to live, and for the positive impact that they had on the lives of others. In recognition of their efforts, Cody and Quinn will come to Washington, DC in early May, along with other 1999 Spirit of Community honorees from across the country. While in Washington, ten students will be named America's top youth volunteers of the year by a distinguished national selection committee. I would also like to recognize four other young Oregonians who were recognized as Distinguished Finalists for their outstanding volunteer service: April Choate of Bend, Jennifer Fletcher of Portland, Julia Hyde of Portland, and Tiffany Wright of Springfield. They deserve high praise for their hard work and determination in helping others in their communities. It is clear that these young people have demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly extraordinary, and I believe they deserve our sincere admiration and respect. Their actions show that young Americans can, and do, play important roles in their communities, and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the class from Lincoln High School in Portland, Oregon, that will be representing the state of Oregon in the national finals of the program We the People . . . The Citizens and the Constitution. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals and through their experience have gained knowledge and understanding of the principles and values that support our constitutional democracy. The We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress, consisting of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges. The student testimony is followed by a period of questioning during which the judges probe students for their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. It is so important that our young people come to understand and appreciate these unique concepts and values which knit our nation together. For it is their leadership which must guide our country's future, and their wisdom which must be equal to our country's need. Again, I congratulate the student team from Lincoln High School and thank each for their dedication and diligence. The student team from Lincoln High School consists of: Graham Berry, Nicole Byers, Brianna Carlisle, Naomi Cole, Violet Dochow, Andrew Dunn, Etopi Fanta, Jordan Foster, Ian Galloway, Arianna Hearing, Sarah Hodgson, Britta Ingebretson, Aaron Johnson, James Knowles, Ashley Linder, Katharine Mapes, Heather Marsh, Amanda Morganroth, Joshua Moskovitz, David Murphy, Eric Nadal, Simone Neuwelt, Melissa Nitti, Lauren Olson, Aubrey Richardson, Caitlin Ryan, Jonathan Schwartz, Elizabeth Smith, Paul Susi, and Katherine Wax, with Hal Hart and Chris Hardman serving as their teacher advisors. They are currently conducting research and preparing for the upcoming national competition in Washington, DC. I wish the students and teachers the best of luck at the We the People national finals and I look forward to their visit to Capitol Hill.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Thank you, Mr President. I thank Chairman Bennett and Senator Dodd. It has been a great pleasure and a real privilege for me to participate in this committee with them. I can tell you that I sought membership on the committee when I heard about its creation. I sought membership not because I am some computer whiz--in fact, my kids are always trying to teach me new things we can do with it--but, frankly, because I recognized that my State, as well as yours, is very much focused on the development of the high-tech industry. Oregon has grown in high-technology in a remarkable fashion in the last decade. So I thought it would be important. I didn't realize how important it would be until feeling my oats as a member of this new committee.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chief Justice, colleagues, first let me thank the Chief Justice for the dignity he has lent to this trial. I have so appreciated the keenness of his intellect and the fairness of his spirit. I also join the Senator from Mississippi in thanking these two magnificent men who lead this Chamber. I express to you, my colleagues, the genuine affection that I feel for each of you. I am often asked the question, who do you like and who do you dislike? The ones I especially like are very easy to name; and then when it comes to those I dislike, I cannot name one. I genuinely thank you for allowing me to participate with you in this difficult and historic time. I want to also thank my colleague, Ron Wyden, for his comments about me yesterday. When Ron and I ran for the Packwood seat, I think America--and certainly Oregon--saw one of the most difficult and mean elections in the history of our State. Yet since that time, when I won the Hatfield seat, Ron and I have become friends. It was a remarkable thing to both of us that by doing something as simple as having a joint town hall meeting, Republican and a Democrat from the same State, it led to a full-page story in the New York Times. That is a sad commentary. The truth of the matter is that if Ron Wyden and I can become friends and do things to the credit and benefit of our State, so can you all. I actually believe that this trial will bring us closer together over time, and I hope lay a foundation for some very good work in the 106th Congress. Today, as Oregon's other Senator, I will cast two votes to convict and remove the President of the United States. Reaching this verdict has been a very difficult ordeal for me, and I would like to tell you why. This Mr. Smith did not come to Washington, DC to oppose President Clinton. Indeed, over the last 2 years there have been many issues, ranging from the expansion of NATO to the promotion of free trade and the fight against big tobacco, in which I have supported him and worked closely with him. As I have met with President Clinton in his office, traveled with him aboard Air Force One, he has consistently treated me with great civility and has often inspired me with his eloquence. To be in his presence is to experience the magic of his enormous personal and political talents. It is the magnitude of his talents that makes the magnitude of his misdeeds so disappointing. There can be no doubt that President Clinton's conduct has made a mockery of most of his words, or that his example has been corrosive beyond calculation to our culture and to our children. These personal conclusions, however, do not provide a constitutional basis for his removal. Only his high crimes could justify such a vote. As you know, the House of Representatives argued two articles of impeachment to us. Article I alleged four instances of perjury before a grand jury; Article II alleged seven instances of obstruction of justice. The House managers presented us with volumes of direct and circumstantial evidence, and the White House lawyers worked skillfully to plant the seeds of reasonable doubt. But as the trial progressed, I found that these seeds of doubt could only grow in proportion to my ability to suspend common sense. I struggled throughout the trial to find a way to acquit the President, if possible, on both or at least one of the articles. But in the end, the facts kept getting in my way. The stained blue dress. The Dick Morris poll asking whether the President could get away with perjury. Monica in tears in the Oval Office being told she could not come back to the White House, and then being threatened that it is a crime to pressure the President in that way. These facts and so many, many more led me to the logical, inescapable conclusion that what began as private indiscretions became public felonies. It is even more ironic to me that I had not made up my mind on article I until Mr. Ruff was in his closing arguments. We had just seen a videotape of Mr. Blumenthal saying that what he had been told was a lie, and we saw Mr. Ruff play the videotape of Mr. Clinton's grand jury testimony in which he said, ``What I told him was truthful but misleading.'' That was a lie. And it was to a grand jury. It revealed the calculations of his mind to obstruct justice. So common sense caught up with this juror. Having concluded that the President did, indeed, commit perjury and attempt to obstruct justice, I had to ask if these offenses were high crimes and misdemeanors as contemplated by the founders of this Nation. Like many of you, I found answers and comfort in the Federalist Papers Essay No. 65 written by Alexander Hamilton spoke directly to the ultimate power of impeachment. You remember his words; I won't repeat them. They will be in the Record many times. When Senator Moynihan speaks, he is kind of like E.F. Hutton to me--I listen. He had a wonderful statement yesterday about the kinds of impeachable offenses. He cited the example of Justice Chase and President Johnson. Senator Moynihan said that they were nearly impeached for their opinions, and to have done so would have been wrong. But it is not Bill Clinton's opinions that affect my vote, it is his conduct. Now, what is his conduct here? Last night, I think we all saw a brilliant statement by Senator Edwards. I think we saw firsthand why he has made so much money talking to jurors. We are seeing right now why I had to make my money selling frozen peas. I went through the same calculations as Senator Edwards, but I want to point out to you some very different reasoning that led me to come down on the other side. See, Senator Edwards is talking about what you do when you talk to a jury about taking someone's life or their liberty. That is not what we are doing here. We are talking about protecting the public trust, protecting the Constitution. So the arguments that he made ultimately aren't the ones that we ought to be using to decide whether to remove President Clinton from office. Now, what was so bad about President Clinton's conduct? The scales that Senator Edwards spoke to us about, the fulcrum of justice, won't work if President Clinton's conduct is sanctioned by this body or by any court. What President Clinton did was an attack on the Government, and specifically on the judicial branch of Government. You see, the courts aren't supposed to write law, though, Mr. Chief Justice; they do too much of that. The courts don't have any power to raise taxes or appropriate money, and they can't raise an army or send a navy. They can find the truth and act upon the truth. And if what Bill Clinton did is OK, then we have weakened the weakest of the branches of our Government, and that is a high crime under the Constitution. I mentioned Mr. Hamilton. I think it is worth noting again that after the publication of Federalist Paper No. 65, he became the Secretary of the Treasury for President George Washington. He also became involved in an adulterous relationship with a woman named Maria Reynolds. Her husband, upon learning of the affair, demanded of Mr. Hamilton a job at the Treasury Department in exchange for keeping his silence and keeping Mr. Hamilton from personal humiliation and political scandal. Hamilton refused Mr. Reynolds a position on the public payroll, but he agreed to pay him blackmail from his personal funds. News of this arrangement soon found its way to Mr. Hamilton's opponents. When confronted, without being under oath, Hamilton confessed the truth and the whole truth. He knew and respected the boundaries between the public and the private. He wrote them down for our country, and he lived his life within those boundaries, never veering recklessly over the line of impeachability. Consider the painful contrast this creates when measured against the public life of President Clinton. When his scandalous conduct with a subordinate female became entwined with another woman's civil rights action against him, which a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that she had the right to bring, President Clinton set about to cover himself by lying to his staff, to his Cabinet, to the Congress, and to the country. And then, as the evidence so clearly shows, it demonstrates that when brought to court--the weakest of our branches of Government-- and placed under oath, he lied again and again and again. Now, in the end, I suspect this place is going to divide pretty much down the middle. I simply sound a warning note to raise your awareness to the fact that, ultimately, history and biographies and accounts yet to be revealed, facts yet to be uncovered, shoes yet to drop, will determine which of us voted right. But we have to decide on the evidence today, and the evidence to me is clear. Soldiers and sailors are discharged and punished for far less than what the President did. And judges are impeached by the House and removed by the Senate for far less than this. Indeed, we have to ask, is the President to be held to a lower standard than those he sends to war or those he appoints to dispense justice? I cannot and I never will agree to such a low standard for the Presidency of the United States. Pollsters tell me how strongly Americans and Oregonians feel about this case and how conflicted their feelings. Large majorities have concluded that the President is guilty of the felonies charged. Yet, large majorities have also concluded that they do not want him to be removed from office. These numbers remind me that the demands of justice are sometimes hard. I hope, however, that we remember obedience to the law will protect our liberties as nothing else can. You see, political prisoners around the world look to the United States for hope, not because we have a popular President, but because we have laws to protect us from a popular President. If the President of the United States is allowed to break our laws when they prove embarrassing to him or conflict with his political interests, then truly some public trust has been violated, a trust which, as Hamilton says, ``relates chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.'' These felonies are impeachable offenses, and the Constitution makes our duty clear, even though it appears harsh and difficult. When the Chief Justice calls my name, ``Senator, how say ye?'' I will say guilty twice, because I refuse to say that high political polls and soaring Wall Street indexes give license to those in high places to act in low and illegal ways. Perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes, and they are utterly inconsistent with any Federal office--ours as well, but especially with the office of the President of the United States. I harbor no illusions that two-thirds of the Senate will vote as I will. Therefore, I hope the President will spend the balance of his office repairing the damage done to his family, our democratic institutions, and our country. I will continue to support his proposals when I believe they are right, and I will oppose them when I believe them to be wrong. Now, the other man in this Chamber that I deeply regard--and because I am so junior I do it from a distance--is Senator Robert Byrd. I have appreciated his public struggle with this issue because it has validated my own struggle. When he said this last week on ``This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts,'' he could have been speaking my words: ``We have to live with the Constitution. We have to live with our consciences.'' And so do I.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation that will enable the city of Sisters, Oregon, to obtain Federal lands for the purpose of constructing a sewage treatment facility. The federal government will benefit directly from this facility, and we have the opportunity to show that we can be good neighbors and help solve local problems. This legislation, and the approach I have taken to provide a funding mechanism to benefit natural resources in the area, has broad support in the local community and the surrounding region. The city of Sisters, Oregon, is facing both environmental and public health problems due to the lack of a sewer system. Currently, all of the homes and businesses inside the city limits must use septic systems. In the summer, in order to accommodate tourists who often recreate in the surrounding federal lands, the city must place approximately sixty portable toilets throughout the town. Deschutes County has had to develop alternatives to established regulations for septic systems in order to continue use of some properties. There are ongoing concerns about a possible outbreak of infectious diseases from failed and leaking septic systems, and of groundwater contamination. Obviously, this is a situation that cannot continue. Fortunately, the city has risen to the challenge. In 1998, the 775 residents of Sisters voted to issue up to seven million dollars in bonds to construct a sewer system and a wastewater treatment facility to service their municipality. This vote was noteworthy because Sisters is the fourth most economically depressed city in Oregon. Sixty-one percent of the town's residents are considered low to moderate income and the average annual income is $17,188. While the city has put together a financing package of approximately twelve million dollars, this financing package does not include funds for land acquisition. Additional funds to acquire the land for the treatment facility and for the disposition of the treated wastewater are beyond the resident's ability to pay, and pose a huge financial burden. There is a long-standing recognition in federal law, both in the Townsite Act and in the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, that in some instances the transfer of land out of federal ownership to serve community objectives outweighs the goals of maintaining such a tract in federal ownership. This is definitely one of those cases. The city of Sisters is literally surrounded by land managed by the Forest Service. After examining numerous other non-federal sites in or near the city, it was determined that this parcel is large enough, and has the proper soil conditions for disposing of the treated wastewater. I am proud to sponsor legislation that will not only resolve the city's public health threat, but will benefit all the parties involved. My bill calls for the Forest Service to convey land for the facilities at no cost to the city of Sisters. The legislation also stipulates that, at the option of the United States, the land would revert to the Forest Service upon termination of the specified uses. In return, the Forest Service will benefit from the treatment facilities themselves, as well as from improved environmental conditions. The Forest Service currently maintains eleven separate septic systems in the city to serve existing administrative buildings. Since the Forest Service administers seventy-seven acres of land within the city limits, the federal government will benefit from the expected increase in land values directly attributable to the sewer system. In order to capture some of this enhanced value for the benefit of the environment, the Forest Service will also be required to sell no less than six acres of the unimproved administrative lands within the city limits. The bill stipulates that the sale be at fair market value within three years of the enactment of the Act. Most of the revenue from this sale will be used for activities which are directly related to improving the long-term conditions in the watershed of Squaw Creek, a tributary of the Deschutes River. The remainder, not to exceed twenty-five percent, may be used for administrative improvements by the Sisters Ranger District. My legislation makes sense. It is a win-win solution that helps both the community of Sisters and the environment. I urge my colleagues to support its early consideration by the Senate. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be included in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, this evening, the President of the United States will speak to the 106th Congress and the country in his annual State of the Union address. As distracted as we appropriately are by the Senate trial of the President, it is nevertheless my hope that the Senate, by the conclusion of the 106th Congress, will have enacted a strong bipartisan agenda reflecting several core principles. First, we must ensure that our public education system provides a high-quality, safe learning environment for all children; second, we must help working families save for the future; and third, we must support policies that increase access to health care services and improve the quality of health care in this nation. With respect to the third principle, I rise today to introduce the ``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 1999'', legislation that my former colleague, Senator D'Amato from New York, proposed in the 105th Congress. Last year, this legislation received bipartisan support in the Senate with 35 cosponsors, and 113 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, demonstrating our commitment to improving the health and lives of low-income women in the United States. Mr. President, whether we stand here as fathers, husbands, brothers or sons, mothers, daughters, sisters or grandchildren, we all know someone, a family member or a friend, who has experienced the devastating emotional and physical effects of breast or cervical cancer. In my state of Oregon, more than 28,000 women are living with breast cancer. In 1999, 500 women will die of breast cancer, and 200 women will die of cervical cancer. In an age of advancing technology and improved mammography, this is unacceptable, and unbelievable. We can and must do a better job for the women most at risk in this country. The legislation I am introducing today, gives us an opportunity to expand upon an existing program that was enacted by Congress in 1990. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act created a breast and cervical cancer screening program for low-income and uninsured women, and women of racial and ethnic minority populations throughout the United States. In its eighth year at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) more than 1.3 million screening tests for breast and cervical cancer were provided. The CDC estimates that if such services were available to all women at risk, 15-20 percent of all deaths from breast cancer among women over 40 could have been prevented. Recognizing the success of this screening program, the only question that remains is the availability of treatment. For a low-income or uninsured woman, a diagnosis of breast or cervical cancer means that the fight has just begun. Without adequate coverage for treatment, women in this program are left to find their own coverage or rely upon public hospitals or charity organizations. At Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU), physicians are working overtime to treat patients and are facing limited budgets with which to provide services. Mr. President, when a woman is diagnosed with cancer, there should be no question of whether she will be treated; rather, the answer should be ``Absolutely, as soon as possible,'' not ``How do you intend to pay for the treatment?'' The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 1999 seeks to expand upon the CDC screening program--with an emphasis on continuity of care--by giving states the option of providing Medicaid coverage for breast and cervical cancer treatment services to women who have been diagnosed through the CDC Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening program. With this legislation, a woman who is diagnosed through the CDC screening program would no longer have to worry about where to find treatment; the treatment would be available to her upon diagnosis, by familiar physicians, in familiar surroundings. Mr. President, this is not an issue of costs; it's an issue of compassion. It is an opportunity to say ``yes, we're here to help'' to the women in our lives who need our help the most. I believe that this bill creates a new beginning not only for families of the women who are and who will be fighting cancer in their lives, but for us as legislators as we face a new millennium. I urge my colleagues to say yes by joining me in this opportunity to set a new standard in the way we meet the health care needs of women in this country.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Thurmond, Leahy, and Jeffords, to introduce the Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 1999, a bill to provide greater protection to Federal law enforcement officials and their families. Last year, this legislation received strong bipartisan support and passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent on November 9, 1997. I intend to work with my colleagues and the members of the Judiciary Committee to ensure that this bill becomes public law this year. Former Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles once stated that ``Of all the tasks of government, the most basic is to protect its citizens against violence.'' I believe that the Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 1999 gives us that very opportunity to strengthen those laws that deter violence and provide protection to those whose careers are dedicated to protecting our communities and our families. Under current law, a person who assaults, attempts to assault, or who threatens to kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family of a United States official, a United States judge or a Federal law enforcement official, is subject to a punishment of a fine or imprisonment of up to five years, or both. This legislation seeks to expand these penalties in instances of assault with a weapon and a prior criminal history. In such cases, an individual could face up to 20 years in prison. Importantly, this legislation would also strengthen the penalties for individuals who communicate threats through the mail. Currently, individuals who knowingly use the United States Postal Service to deliver any communication containing any threat are subject to a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to five years. Under this legislation, anyone who communicates a threat could face imprisonment of up to ten years. Emphasizing the need for this legislation, are the experiences of Oregon's own Chief Judge Michael Hogan and his family. They were subjected to frightening, threatening phone calls, letters and messages from an individual who had been convicted of previous crimes in Judge Hogan's courtroom. For months, he and his family lived with the fear that these threats to the lives of his wife and children could become reality, and, equally disturbing, that the individual could be back out on the street again in a matter of a few months, or a few years. Judge Hogan and his family are not alone. In April, 1997, the wife of a Circuit Court judge in Florida was stalked by an individual who had been convicted of similar offense in 1994 and 1995. In this instance, the judge's wife was leaving a shopping mall one afternoon, and as she left the parking lot, realized that she was being followed. In an attempt to lose her pursuer, she took alternative routes, speeding through residential streets. In a desperate attempt, she cut in front of a semitrailer truck, risking a serious accident and possible loss of life, to escape. Even after his third offense, stalking the wife of a Circuit Court judge, her pursuer has been sentence to only six months of probation and $150 in fines and the court costs. Mr. President, these are two examples of vicious acts focused at our Federal law enforcement officials and their families. As a member of the legislative branch, I believe that it is our responsibility to provide adequate protection to all Americans who serve to protect the life and liberty of every citizen in this nation. I encourage my colleagues to join us in sponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. SMITH of OREGON

Mr. SMITH of OREGON. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH of OREGON

Mr. SMITH of OREGON. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 5 p.m. today and the majority leader be recognized at that time.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, as we take up the Omnibus appropriations bill, I would like to take this opportunity to express my extreme disappointment that the Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act amendment, known as AgJOBS, was eliminated from the Omnibus bill. The bipartisan AgJOBS amendment received a veto proof majority vote of 68-31 when it was added to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill earlier this year. We had a golden opportunity to reform the current bureaucratic H-2A immigrant visa program that has made fugitives out of farmworkers and felons out of farmers. The amendment would have created a workable system for recruiting farm workers domestically and preventing our American crops from rotting in the fields. Unfortuantely, the Clinton Administration was content with the status quo and threatened to veto the Omnibus bill if the balanced AgJOBS amendment was included. Mr. President, I find the Administration's veto threat quite troubling since the Omnibus appropriations bill contains a multi- billion dollar disaster relief package for traditional program-crop agriculture to help deal with losses sustained as a result of the world financial crisis. The disaster relief goes to producers who already have a long history of reliance on federal assistance, yet the farm disaster bill does nothing to help producers of labor intensive commodities--fruits, vegetables, and horticultural specialties--who are not supported by the government and who are facing a crisis of nationwide labor shortages created by our own government. This crisis has been exacerbated by our current unworkable legal foreign worker program. A farmworker shortage ultimately affects America's ability to compete in the world agriculture market. According to the United States Department of Agriculture data, about three off-farm jobs are sustained by each on-farm production job. Therefore, nearly three times as many U.S. workers will lose their U.S. jobs as the number of foreign farmworkers kept out of the United States increases. Mr. President, I also cannot understand the inconsistency of the Administration enacting the H-1B high-tech worker bill and not enacting H-2A reform as embodied in our AgJOBS bill. Our AgJOBS bill contains worker benefits far in excess of those provided by the H-1B high-tech worker bill. Our bill guarantees above- prevailing wages for lower wage occupations, free housing to both U.S. and foreign workers recruited from outside the local area, reimbursement of inbound and return transportation costs to both U.S. and foreign workers recruited from outside the local area, and penalties that include lifetime program debarment for violations. The H-1B requires only the prevailing wage without any housing or transportation benefits and provides a maximum penalty of a 3-year debarment. Mr. President, we cannot continue to allow our farmers and farmworkers to be trapped in a system that rewards illegal labor practices and punishes the most vulnerable. As we address reform of the H-2A immigrant visa program early next year, I hope my colleagues will work with me to finally safeguard basic human rights, provide a reliable documented work force for farmers, and reward legal conduct to both farmers and farmworkers.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, among the provisions included in the tax package we voted on today is a provision of great importance to the charitable giving community: an extension of the enhanced deduction for contributions of publicly-traded stock to private foundations. Although extending this deduction benefits many and is a useful tool for providing funds for charitable purposes, this deduction alone is not enough. In this era of ever-tightening fiscal constraints, we have asked our communities to do more and more for those less fortunate. Charitable organizations in our communities have become an integral part of the safety net for the poor and homeless and significant sources of assistance for education, health care, child development and the arts. To meet the increasing deficit in unmet social needs, the government cannot merely expect the private sector to fill the gap, but must provide the leadership for the use of private sector resources through changes in the Tax Code. One source of untapped resources for charitable purposes is the contribution of closely held corporate stock. Under current law, the tax cost of contributing closely held stock to a charity or foundation is prohibitive, and it discourages families and owners from disposing of their businesses in this manner. Earlier this year, I was joined by Senators Feinstein, Wyden, Baucus, and Gorton in introducing legislation that would provide an incentive to business owners to use their corporate wealth for charitable causes. S. 1412, the Charitable Giving Incentive Act of 1998, would permit a closely-held business to transfer its assets into a 501(c)(3) charitable organization without paying the 35 percent corporate level tax. Thus, the recipient charity would receive the full benefit of the gift. Identical legislation has also been introduced in the House by Representatives Dunn, Furse, Nethercutt, Hooley, Paul, and Smith of Oregon. In addition to this bipartisan congressional support, we have garnered support from the charitable community. It is my intention to reintroduce this legislation in the 106th Congress, and I look forward to working with the Finance Committee Chairman Roth, Ranking Member Moynihan and my Senate colleagues to legislate changes that will make it easier for the citizens of this country to give to charitable causes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from organizations supporting the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President. In these closing days of the 105th Congress, I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to those who toil everyday behind the scenes to make our lives easier. I am speaking of the very dedicated and professional group of public servants who comprise the Congressional Research Service. Access to reliable information--and the ability to get it quickly--is critical to the effective functioning of the Senate, and I am particularly grateful to the Congressional Research Service employees for their professional and timely responses to the many requests for information they receive from Senators and their staffs. It is difficult for me to imagine this institution's functioning without access to reliable information, and it is with deep appreciation that I commend researchers of the Congressional Research Service for responding quickly, pleasantly, professionally and with attention to detail to the many requests received from my office. It is this type of dedicated service that government employees all too often perform, and no one hears anything about it. This is a group of people who take their commitment to the Congress and the American people very seriously. And they deliver. Mr. President, the Congressional Research Service provides a truly unique and indispensable service to the Congress. It has certainly made my first term as a U.S. Senator easier and more productive. I congratulate all of the workers there on their fine work and extend to them my heartfelt thanks.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) designation for the State of Oregon. On October 1, 1998 Senator Wyden and I sent letters to the Director of the Office of the National Drug Control Policy, General Barry McCaffrey and Attorney General Janet Reno requesting the designation. High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (also known as HIDTAs) were authorized in 1988 by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and are administered by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. HIDTA designations are granted to regions that are centers of illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation or distribution and have harmful impacts on the entire country. Once a HIDTA has been designated, increased funding is granted to the State, design strategies to combat drug threats are adopted and these designs are then strategically implemented. The Office of National Drug Control Policy's HIDTA Program has been profoundly successful in those regions where it has been implemented. Mr. President, the State of Oregon is in desperate need of this designation. Western States--California, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, and regions in the Rocky Mountains--have received designations to help them combat tremendous drug trafficking challenges. Oregon has been too long without assistance, fighting national and international traffickers. This request is not idly made. It comes following more than a year of work with local and federal law enforcement agencies, and the U.S. Attorney's Office. There experience, dedication and tireless commitment to eliminating drug production, trafficking, and use is to be commended. Unfortunately, they have insufficient resources to combat this scourge in Oregon or the country. I appreciate their coordinated efforts and have learned through meetings with them and extensive work in my State that we must act--and act now. I am proud to report that in our first meeting of the HIDTA steering committee, of which I am a member, the Department of Defense announced it was sending Joint Task Force Six to Oregon to engage in a drug threat assessment. As we speak, Task Force Six is conducting its study in our state and will present its report to us at our next steering committee meeting on October 29, 1998. Having requested a copy of the threat assessment for Washington State's HIDTA Program in the Seattle- Tacoma areas and met with Washington State Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) specialists, I am confident our request will be accepted. The obstacles we face in fighting drug production and trafficking are similar. Oregon's central location along the Interstate 5, and its proximity to the coast, render it particularly vulnerable to those who move heroine, cocaine and marijuana. For many years traffickers have moved large quantities of illegal drugs along interstate 5, highway 101, highway 97 and interstate 84. Crackdowns along interstate 5 have been successful, but the insufficiency of resources has produced an unbalanced, under-powered drug defense. Drug shipments from Central America moving along these routes continue to increase, while Pacific Rim countries feed the problem through Oregon ports. These drug shipments are then trafficked throughout the continental United States. This flow, from sources outside Oregon, has introduced a criminal element into the fabric of Oregon society. They came to produce and sell drugs, and stayed to enjoy the climate, the abundance of space and breathtaking beauty, as well as the serenity and tranquility of our fields and forests. These very qualities that make Oregon unique are also the qualities that drug traffickers found beneficial to their trade. The facts are indisputable. In 1991, only 7 years ago, there were 39 drug-related deaths in Oregon. There were 221 such deaths in 1997. Methamphetamine use among incarcerated adults increased from 30 percent in 1991-1992 to 49 percent in 1996-1997. Children are the most victimized. There were 629 juvenile arrests for drug offenses in 1991, and 2,392 in 1997. The number of juveniles treated in drug treatment centers increased from 1,742 in 1991 to 4,028 in 1996. The Oregon Public School Drug Use Survey Key Findings Report states that since 1990, marijuana use by eighth graders--eighth graders--mind you!, has tripled, while marijuana use by eleventh graders has increased 68 percent. General illicit drug use by eighth graders has doubled since 1992, and over the same time period increased in eleventh graders by 21 percent. I have given this problem much thought in the past few months. While I am confident that a HIDTA designation is vital to our ability to deter drug trafficking and production, this problem has been further exacerbated by the current Administration's failure to focus and its diminished emphasis on the international component to the war on drugs. That is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act of 1998 (S. 2522) which calls for an additional $2.6 billion investment in international counter narcotics efforts over the next three years. This bi-partisan legislation restores funding to international interdiction and eradication efforts that were all but abandoned in 1993. Without decreasing domestic funding or effort, this legislation recommits the nation to fighting drugs with a comprehensive international approach. We, Oregonians, are committed to the welfare of our State. We will drive the criminal elements from our borders. Finally, Mr. President, we have no choice but to fight. We have no alternative but to win. I thank the chair.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I was inspired to come to the floor to respond and to support the words of my friend from Arizona as he spoke very eloquently and emotionally about the plight of the people of Kosovo. Growing up as a little boy, I have to tell you, I saw, with all Americans, reports and film footage from the Second World War where we saw a holocaust carried out in a previous decade. And I reacted with horror at things that I saw that humankind could do to one another. It just seemed to me, at a young age, that if we had the ability to stop holocausts in our time that we should. I know we cannot be the policemen of the world, but I am here to tell you we are right now in Bosnia. We supported our President. And we are maintaining peace in Bosnia. But right next door we are witnessing a holocaust unfold before our eyes, and we apparently are paralyzed in our efforts to respond. Winter is coming, and tens of thousands of Kosovar Albanians are in the hills and will soon die if something is not done to ensure their rights, to ensure their safety, and to stop the bloodshed. Mr. President, I want to suggest that one person is solely and directly responsible for the catastrophe unfolding before our eyes, and that is President Milosevic of Serbia. He has indicated no willingness to negotiate a solution that will allow the Kosovar Albanians to exercise their legitimate political rights. He is interested in one thing and one thing only--the consolidating and maintaining of his power on that country and region. And he apparently will do anything to ensure that this remains the case. Mr. President, for months the United States and our allies have stood by and watched one onslaught after another in Kosovo, rendering enormous tragedies in that land; and yet we just respond with critical statements in the face of Serb offenses. For months the United States has told Milosevic that we will not let him get away with in Kosovo what he has done in Bosnia, but yet we do nothing. We do nothing to stop his onslaught. For months, the United States has threatened the use of force if Mr. Milosevic does not take necessary actions to withdraw his forces from Kosovo and to begin a serious process of negotiation. I am saddened to say the other day a reporter just outside this Chamber asked me if we were doing nothing as a country in the face of this holocaust because of the President's internal difficulties, because of his unwillingness to wag the dog, if you will. I cannot think of anything more indicative of why we need to make sure our Commander in Chief can respond, to have a Commander in Chief that can respond with the integrity of his office. And here we sit paralyzed in the face of unfolding, unspeakable tragedy. I am here to say one thing to Mr. Milosevic: Our patience in the U.S. Senate is running out. I join the Senator from Arizona, and many others, in saying time has run out and that I will support vigorous and, if necessary, unilateral use of force against Serbian installations in Kosovo and in Serbia proper. It is time for American leadership in Kosovo. It is unfortunate that we have thus far not seen evidence of this from the Clinton administration. If it is up to Congress to provide the leadership, so be it. I welcome Senator McCain's call for action. I understand the former majority leader, Bob Dole, has made the same call. And I join them today in support of America doing something unilaterally, if necessary, to take action to stop this tragedy, this unfolding holocaust. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to transfer the administrative jurisdiction over certain lands within or adjacent to the Rogue River National Forest and to clarify the authority of the Bureau of Land Management to sell and exchange Oregon and California Railroad grant lands (O and C lands) in Oregon. The bill represents a thoughtfully crafted compromise agreed to by the majority and minority in the other body, and the O and C counties and the timber industry in my state. Title I of the bill would consolidate the management over certain parcels of federal land by transferring jurisdiction over these parcels between the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The status of any O and C lands transferred will not change, regardless of which agency has jurisdiction over the lands following the transfer. This is not a land exchange in the traditional sense, but rather the transfer of jurisdiction between two agencies of lands already in federal ownership. It is my understanding that the Administration supports this transfer. Title II of the bill provides that, over successive ten-year periods, there will be no net loss of acres designated as O and C lands. These lands are somewhat unique in the federal inventory, and are managed in accordance with the Act of August 28, 1937, and other applicable federal statutes. There have been concerns on the part of the O and C counties that the O and C lands will be used by the federal government in land exchanges and sales, thereby diminishing the total acreage over time. Since the counties rely on revenues from these lands, it is important to clarify that it is the intent of Congress that the acreage remain constant. Mr. President, this bill is non-controversial, and I would ask for the support of my colleagues on enactment of this measure before the end of this Congress. 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 legislation to transfer the administrative jurisdiction over certain lands within or adjacent to the Rogue River National Forest and to clarify the authority of the Bureau of Land Management to sell and exchange Oregon and California Railroad grant lands (O and C lands) in Oregon. The bill represents a thoughtfully crafted compromise agreed to by the majority and minority in the other body, and the O and C counties and the timber industry in my state. Title I of the bill would consolidate the management over certain parcels of federal land by transferring jurisdiction over these parcels between the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The status of any O and C lands transferred will not change, regardless of which agency has jurisdiction over the lands following the transfer. This is not a land exchange in the traditional sense, but rather the transfer of jurisdiction between two agencies of lands already in federal ownership. It is my understanding that the Administration supports this transfer. Title II of the bill provides that, over successive ten-year periods, there will be no net loss of acres designated as O and C lands. These lands are somewhat unique in the federal inventory, and are managed in accordance with the Act of August 28, 1937, and other applicable federal statutes. There have been concerns on the part of the O and C counties that the O and C lands will be used by the federal government in land exchanges and sales, thereby diminishing the total acreage over time. Since the counties rely on revenues from these lands, it is important to clarify that it is the intent of Congress that the acreage remain constant. Mr. President, this bill is non-controversial, and I would ask for the support of my colleagues on enactment of this measure before the end of this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.