Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, the wintering Canada goose population has increased ten times in the last twenty years, to 250,000 geese in the Lower Columbia River and Willamette Valley regions. The result has been large numbers of geese grazing on private agricultural fields of wheat, corn, grass seed, and many other crops, leading to huge financial losses for farmers. Farmers have been meeting since the early 1980s with local wildlife officials to create coordinated resource management plans to relieve depredation, but with no results. In 1997, the first Pacific Flyway Council plan was assembled to deal with agricultural depredation by migratory Canada geese. Farmers met with state and federal wildlife officials and other interested parties from Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and California to create a plan that all parties could agree to--as a first step. This funding will implement some of the priorities of that plan.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Further, is it the Chairman's understanding that the Committee directs the monies be allocated by and based upon the consensus of the Canada Goose Agricultural Depredation Working Group, comprised of, but not limited to, one person from each of the following: Washington and Oregon Departments of Fish and Wildlife; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services; and an agricultural representative each from Washington and Oregon?

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Yes. Mr. President, I would make that request.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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, we have all watched the events in Kosovo with alarm and distress over the past several months. The situation on the ground continues to deteriorate and no progress has been made on a negotiated solution to the conflict. Serb paramilitary groups and Yugoslav army units are conducting offensives in Kosovo that have the effect of driving tens of thousands of Kosovar Albanians from their homes. Innocent civilians have been killed. Villages throughout the province have been razed. Humanitarian workers in Kosovo are in great danger as they try to fulfill their mission of delivering food, medicine, and other necessities to the refugee population. In fact, just recently, in a despicable act, three aid workers with the Mother Theresa Society in Kosovo were deliberately killed by Serbian forces as they attempted to deliver humanitarian assistance to Kosovars that had been displaced by the conflict. Fighting has occurred on the border with Albania, highlighting the potential for this conflict to spread throughout the Balkans, and even involve Greece and Turkey, two of our NATO allies. Mr. President, I lay the blame of this disaster on the shoulders of one man: Slobodan Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, currently President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, rose to power in 1989 by exploiting and manipulating Serbian nationalism in Kosovo--a process that led directly to the horrific war in Bosnia and resulted in the death of tens of thousands of Bosnians of all ethnic groups. In his desperate effort to hold onto power, Milosevic has reverted to his old tricks: he is using the status of Kosovo--a province which is overwhelmingly populated by ethnic Albanians--to consolidate and perpetuate his authority and position. The six-nation Contact Group charged with monitoring events in the former Yugoslavia has issued various sets of demands since the crisis began in February--demands which Milosevic repeatedly ignores. I am aware of the diplomatic effort underway to start the process of negotiating a settlement. Yet no solution will endure that does not guarantee the Albanians in Kosovo their full political rights and civil liberties. Mr. President, for several years, the Clinton Administration has maintained a policy of upholding the so-called ``outer wall'' of sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The FRY is what remains of socialist Yugoslavia, and consists of two republics, Serbia and Montenegro. The outer wall denies United States' support of FRY membership in international organizations. It denies United States' support for FRY access to economic assistance provided by international financial institutions. And the outer wall withholds full United States diplomatic relations with the FRY. The Administration has stated that the FRY and Mr. Milosevic must fulfill five conditions before the outer wall of sanctions is lifted. The amendment that we have before us today requires the President to certify these five conditions are met before any action is taken to lift or to weaken the outer wall. These five conditions as laid out by senior officials of the Clinton Administration are as follows. First, all succession issues due to the break-up of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia--in particular, the division of assets and liabilities--must be resolved with the other republics that emerged from the dissolution of that country. Second, the FRY must comply with all of its obligations as a signatory of the Dayton Accords. Third, the FRY must cooperate with the War Crimes Tribunal that is investigating and prosecuting war criminals in the former Yugoslavia. Fourth, the FRY must make substantial progress in implementing democratic reforms. And finally, the FRY must make progress in resolving the situation in Kosovo. When discussing ``progress'' in Kosovo, I want to emphasize that progress does not mean the end of the Serbian policy of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Nor does it mean Serbian paramilitary forces ceasing their operations directed at civilians in Kosovo. That is not progress. Progress is a negotiated settlement that allows ethnic Albanians to exercise their political rights. Let me be clear: the problem here is Mr. Milosevic, not the Serbian people. The Serbian people must not be blamed for the irrational policies promoted by Milosevic. I want to be helpful to those in Serbia who are courageously opposing the detrimental policies propounded by him. These individuals are trying to establish independent media that will provide unbiased reporting to the Serbian people; they are working to strengthen the democratic opposition, small though it is, to Milosevic's stronghold on power; they are trying to develop a civil society based on the rule of law. They need our help--and they deserve our help. But Mr. Milosevic--and the Serbian people--must understand that Milosevic either needs to comply with the five conditions laid out by the Administration or his country will continue to be isolated into the next century. Before continuing, Mr. President, I must take note of the positive developments that have occurred this year in Montenegro, Serbia's partner in the FRY. Montenegro has made great strides in implementing necessary reforms to make the transition from a socialist state with a centrally planned economy to a free market democracy. Events in Montenegro prove that democracy can take root and flourish in the FRY, but requires leaders that are committed to a pluralistic, multi-ethnic state. It is in our interests to support Montenegrin President Djukanovic in his effort to consolidate and accelerate the democratic reform process. Though Mr. Milosevic has made every attempt to frustrate President Djukanovic's efforts, the Montenegrin people have spoken--and their choice is democracy. Mr. President, the amendment we have before us clearly states exactly what Mr. Milosevic needs to do for his country to join the family of Western nations. This is not a secret to him. It has been the position of this Administration for several years. What is new, however, is that this amendment prohibits the FRY from joining international organizations, such as the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and prohibits the FRY from gaining access to assistance from international financial institutions until each of these five conditions are met. What we are asking for is responsible behavior. Before lifting the outer wall of sanctions--which in effect is a reward for Serbia--we should expect nothing less. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I understand that these amendments may be accepted by the managers of the bill. So I will not ask for the yeas and nays. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment 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 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 1998.'' 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, Allard, Bond, Grams, Dodd, Sessions, Collins, Wyden, D'Amato and Thomas as original cosponsors 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 the vote needed to join their own regional group. The Western Europe and Others Group, however, has accepted countries from other geographical areas such as the United States and Australia, for example. This 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. Amendment No. 3521

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. They are not, Mr. President. They are separate.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I think they need to be considered separately. They are on entirely different issues.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If the clerk will read the first one before him, I will proceed with that. Amendment No. 3520

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues who are conferees for the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill to retain the Senate-passed funding level for the Army Corps of Engineers' fish and wildlife mitigation measures on the Columbia River. The Senate approved $95 million for this program, which is vitally important to ongoing efforts to restore the salmon and steelhead runs in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Unfortunately, the House-passed bill slashed funding for the program to less than $8 million, enough for just two studies already underway in the Basin. The House Committee justifies this action by claiming that the funds spent to date have not recovered the salmon. Further, the House report states that since a major decision on the long-term operations of the federal dams on the system is supposed to occur in 1999, we should just wait for that decision before we spend any more money on salmon recovery efforts in the basin. Given the life cycle of the salmon, waiting even a few years is simply not an option. Inaction on our part could push the salmon closer to extinction, which is unacceptable to those of us in the Pacific Northwest. We must also be realistic about the possibility that the 1999 decision could be delayed. And unless a regional consensus is developed soon on how best to proceed, the decision--whenever it comes--is bound to be controversial and subject to challenges. Work on these fish mitigation measures, for which most of the funding will be reimbursed through power revenues, must continue while a long- term solution is developed and implemented. The House approach to this issue fails to recognize that most of the funding is earmarked for important mitigation facilities at dams not being studied for permanent drawdown or by-pass, including McNary Dam and Bonneville Dam, as well as for important mitigation analysis studies. Information from these studies is needed if we are to make an informed decision on the long- term operation of the system. Let me state emphatically that I am opposed to removal or drawdown of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, which would destroy navigation on the river, affect irrigation, and eliminate up to 40 percent of Bonneville's generating capacity. There are those in the region who view this an ``either/or'' proposition: either the river is operated for salmon, or for economic activity. I say we can operate it for both. The Columbia River truly is the lifeblood of the Northwest. The Basin drains approximately 259,000 square miles, and encompasses two countries and seven states in its approximately 1,200 miles to the Pacific Ocean. In this century, we have harnessed the River for a variety of human activities and benefits, including navigation, water supply, power supply, and flood control. At the time many of the great public works projects in the Basin were constructed, fish and wildlife impacts were not fully considered. We are now struggling with the best way to mitigate these impacts while still meeting human needs. The consequences of these decisions could affect the livelihoods of most Northwest residents. I know that there are those who oppose funding certain activities on the River that they view to be of questionable value. I think our colleague, Senator Gorton, performed a great service for the region with his 1996 amendment to the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act to require that an independent, 11-member scientific panel review projects proposed to be funded by that portion of BPA's annual fish and wildlife budget that implements the Northwest Power Planning Council's fish and wildlife program. I would support the expanded use of scientific review panels for other fish and wildlife funding proposals within the Columbia River Basin. In closing, Mr. President, let me reiterate my fervent hope that Senate conferees on this bill will stand firm on the $95 million appropriation this body has already approved.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, in 1995, when I was privileged to serve as President of the Oregon State Senate, I was invited by State Representative Margaret Carter to tour Portland Community College, which was located in her district, in the heart of Oregon's largest city. As I represented a rural Eastern Oregon district, I looked upon this tour as a valuable learning opportunity. And what I learned was that PCC was offering a lifeline for many economically disadvantaged students who were seeking to build a better future for themselves and their family. I was so impressed with the work of PCC, that when I was elected to the United States Senate, I approached PCC with the idea of each year giving one of their students the opportunity to serve as an intern in my Washington, D.C. office. The student selected to serve as the first PCC intern was Tracie Mitchell, whose final day in my office is today. I just want to take a minute to salute Tracie, not only for her outstanding work in my office, but also for the outstanding accomplishments at home and in her career. Through the programs at PCC, Tracie, a mother of two wonderful children--Ruben and Shea, earned a degree in Microelectronics, and has gained employment at Tektronix, one of Oregon's outstanding high tech companies. I know that Tracie is anxious to return to her children, her job, and her classes at PCC, and I thank her for her service to my office and to all Oregonians. If she has learned as much from her internship as my office as learned from her, then I know this summer has been a very rewarding experience.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I yield the balance of our time to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Is the Chair prepared to receive an amendment?

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. We have no objection.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Yes.

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators Wyden, Craig, Graham of Florida, Bumpers, Gorton, Hatch, McConnell, Mack, Kempthorne, Santorum, Faircloth, and Thurmond to offer the Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits and Security Act of 1999, also known as AgJOBS. Our bill will create a streamlined guest worker program to allow a reliable supply of legal, temporary, agricultural workers. Why is this necessary? Currently, in this country, we have a process for guest workers that is terribly broken. The H-2A program, if I could show you graphically, has a 6-page application for each worker, with 325 pages of instructions as to how to fill it out. As a consequence, all of the foreign workers who are in this country are here either illegally or having been grandfathered in through earlier amnesties. It is estimated by the GAO that 40 percent of those who are here are illegal. As a consequence of that, the GAO has said there is not a farm labor supply problem because we have all these illegal aliens here. I am simply saying, and I am doing it on a bipartisan basis, we owe this country something better than a system that relies upon illegal immigration. We ought to give these foreign workers the dignity of being here under law, with some basic human standards and some benefits to which they ought to be entitled when they are here. It is for that reason that Senator Wyden and I have approached the farm community and asked them to give as much as they can, to help economically to fix this program. I believe they have responded. It is for that reason there are so many Republicans and Democrats on this bill. I know there are still some misgivings. I know my friend from Massachusetts has misgivings; the Senators from California do. But what we want to do is get this bill to a conference committee with some place markers so we can provide a forum where this can be further refined. Let me tell you the kinds of features Senator Wyden and I share in a common desire to ultimately change American law in a very fundamental way in order to avoid a very large crisis for consumers, for farm employers, and for farm workers. We are proposing in this bill the establishment of a national registry which will replace the current system that so few are able to use, even if they could afford to use it. This is going to be a registry for domestic workers only, in a way that will allow farmers to know where they can go for workers and where they can have legal status. In exchange for this, there will be added to the current system--we are going to preserve all the basic rights that are guaranteed; all the labor guarantees that are there will remain there. We are going to have a prevailing wage rate, something that reflects a level that the agricultural community can afford, and also one that gives probably in excess of 1.5 million farm workers a pay raise. We are not talking about the minimum wage, we are talking about a prevailing wage plus 5 percent. In addition to that, we are talking about a transportation allowance and a housing allowance. These are things that we owe those who come here to this country to do agricultural work. These are things which my friends on the left have been asking for, for a long, long time. I am here to say the time is now to say yes. We are saying yes to that. We are doing it on a basis, though, that recognizes the economics of the farmer also, because the truth is, most of the agricultural employers in this country are not big corporate farms, they are mom and pop who are trying to make a bottom line. They do not even control, in most cases, the price that they get for their commodities. We believe--Senator Wyden and I and Senator Graham of Florida, who has been so helpful on this, and others on the Democrat side--that we have found the middle ground here that wins for consumers but, more important, wins for agricultural workers and also for farmers. With that, I yield time to my colleague from Oregon, whose help I appreciate very much, Senator Wyden.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, before Senator Graham speaks, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment that we intended to send actually be sent, and that the amendment we will be voting on will be the one with the changes which we all understand are there.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I could not hear the rule on my unanimous consent request. And I send a modified amendment to the desk.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I have been informed by the managers of the bill that we have now available on both sides until 3 o'clock. Senator Kennedy and I have agreed we will split it evenly. I believe there is more time.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. It is, I say to the Senator.