Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. That is correct.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I join in the spirit of trying to work on this issue to resolve a situation that I truly believe is broken. If we don't succeed in this, we are frankly not going to say that we are content with the status quo. The status quo is not acceptable. These people are here in this country illegally. There ought to be a way in which they can be here legally to do this work, which they want to do, and which we need them to do in order to avoid a serious crisis on the American farm. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It is historic. It is important. But it is also a work in progress. This bill represents progress. I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. We are going to reserve that for the Senator from Washington.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. The Senator is correct.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. How much time is remaining?

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I want to publicly thank my colleague, Senator Wyden, for his leadership on this issue. He and I recently faced a tragedy in our State that, frankly, left us speechless and groping for a way to respond to an unspeakable tragedy--that of a young person, troubled, from a good family, but in possession of weapons and willing to use them on his parents and his fellow students. In the face of that kind of violence--a young man who would violate four gun control laws to do what he did--Senator Wyden and I, frankly, struggled to find out how we can respond to this, how we can, as public servants, lay down a new marker, provide a new barrier for stopping this kind of violence. Also, how can we do it in a way that doesn't impose the Federal will upon the States, but provides a carrot, and not a club, for them to enact laws that would have captured this young man and prevented a horrible tragedy from being visited upon our State and the city of Springfield. We are not alone in this. Arkansas, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania have also suffered these kinds of tragedies. So it is a growing national concern. The reason I commend this legislation so strongly to my colleagues is because it is, in fact, bipartisan because it does enjoy the support of gun control advocates and antigun control defenders. As my colleague described, what this does is simply put in place a new safety net, so that if a young person does bring a gun to school, they will be detained--not to be just released to their parent's custody, but actually to undergo an evaluation in terms of their psychological health and their safety to the community at large. It is unfortunate that this has to occur, but it has to occur because, at the end of the day, no other communities should suffer this consequence again. So I commend my colleague for his leadership. I also want to thank Senator Hatch, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Sessions, for their input into this amendment; it was considerable. We worked it out with them. I think we have, in the end, an amendment that doesn't fix the situation entirely, but it goes a long way toward accomplishing that very thing. I thank all my colleagues for indulging us. I ask for their support. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Wyden, Craig, Graham of Florida, Gorton, Bumpers, Hatch, McConnell, and Mack to introduce the Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1998, also known as AgJOBS. Our bill will create a streamlined guest worker program to allow for a reliable supply of legal, temporary, agricultural workers. Mr. President, we are facing a crisis in agriculture--a crisis born of an inadequate labor supply. For many years, farmers and nurserymen have struggled to hire enough legal agricultural workers to harvest their produce and plants. The labor pool is competitive, especially in my state of Oregon, where jobs are many and domestic workers willing to do farm work are few. The General Accounting Office even confirmed that there have been local, regional and crop-based labor shortages and losses. Labor intensive agriculture is the most rapidly growing area of agricultural production in this country and we can only expect the demand for agricultural labor jobs to continue to rise. When coupled with the lowest unemployment rates in decades and a crackdown on illegal immigration, the agriculture industry--and ultimately its consumers--face a crisis. Currently, the H-2A program is the only legal, temporary, foreign agricultural worker program in the United States. This program is not practicable for the agriculture and horticulture industries because it is loaded with burdensome regulations, excessive paperwork, a bureaucratic certification process and untimely and inconsistent decision-making by the U.S. Department of Labor. Also, as reported by the recent Department of Labor Inspector General, the H-2A program does not meet the interests of domestic workers because it does a poor job of placing domestic workers in agricultural jobs. I am proud to announce legislation that is the product of a bipartisan effort put forth today by several of my colleagues. With their help, we have been able to develop a consensus solution that will create a workable system for recruiting workers domestically and preventing crops from rotting in the fields. The bipartisan support for this bill reflects months of hard work by members of both parties. Mr. President, as we introduce this balanced bill, we have two goals in mind--to make it easier for employers to hire legal workers to harvest their crops, and to ensure that workers are treated fairly in the process. These workers deserve the dignity of legal status when they are here doing work that benefits all of us. I'm very concerned that workers are protected, but let's not forget that growers have been victimized by this process too. In order to feed their families--and ours--the growers need to harvest their crops on time, meet payroll, and ultimately maintain their bottom line. Without achieving those things, farms go out of business and the jobs they create are lost along with them. So it is in all of our best interests--workers, growers, and consumers alike--that growers have the means by which to hire needed workers. I believe our legislation will help achieve that goal. Mr. President, let me briefly summarize the improvements our bill makes over the current H-2A program. First and foremost, all of the labor protections currently in place for workers have been preserved. In fact, they have been improved substantially. Domestic workers under the new program will now receive unemployment insurance and all complaints filed by workers will be investigated by the Department of Labor. Also, foreign workers under the new program will retain their ability to transfer to other H-2A farms once they've completed work with their current employer. These provisions will ensure that the rights of workers--both foreign and domestic--continue to be protected. We've also improved the housing provision in the existing H-2A program, currently another barrier for many farmers. For instance, in my state of Oregon, our strict land use laws prohibit building on farm land. This means that many farms do not have housing to offer and therefore cannot use the H-2A program. Under our new bill, we allow employers the option of providing a housing allowance to workers if housing cannot be provided. This change will make it possible for many more farmers to use the guest worker program, and guest workers will still receive housing benefits. To be fair to domestic workers, we also created a process that would make agriculture jobs available to them first. The bureaucratic and untimely labor certification process of the H-2A program will be replaced by a registry which uses existing DOL job bank computers to match domestic workers seeking jobs with employers seeking workers. If job openings still exist, then employers will be allowed to bring in temporary foreign workers to fill the open jobs. In order for employers to offer these and other protections, the program has to be more practical to use. In our bill, we have streamlined the impractical time-frame requirements for applying to the program. Currently, farmers must apply for H-2A workers 60 days before they think they will need workers. In a very unpredictable industry, this requirement is a barrier for many farmers. In our bill, we have reduced this time period to 21 days, making the program much more responsive to the unpredictable nature of agriculture crops and much more practical for use by farmers. Our legislation makes many other improvements to the existing H-2A program--for both employers and workers. As a result, we can expect more growers to use it, and consequently, we can expect more domestic and foreign workers to benefit from the ample wage and labor protections afforded by it. Let's not make fugitives out of farmworkers and felons out of farmers. That is the effect of our current guest worker program. I urge my fellow colleagues to join Senators Wyden, Craig, Graham, Gorton, Bumpers, Hatch, Feinstein, McConnell, Mack and me as we introduce this important bipartisan legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this legislation, along with the list of over 100 agriculture-related associations that endorse this bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg for giving me a few minutes to speak in morning business. I ask unanimous consent that I might do so.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, Senator McConnell and Senator Biden, my friends, who have shown leadership on this issue, I thank you publicly for doing that. It's been a remarkable afternoon as we've debated this issue. In fact, the debate has been somewhat limited because I think there's a whole lot of unanimity and that perhaps the Senate may have acted precipitously in the past. I appreciated Senator Glenn's willingness to share with us some of the history and motivation that went into the markup of the Arms Export Control Act. I don't think anyone here doubts his sincerity and the accuracy of what he said. However, I think all of us who have risen today to defend wheat farmers recognize how seriously we have failed in some regard. We have not kept a nuclear genie in the bottle on the Indian Subcontinent, and now we see the bizarre spectacle of the American Government poised to wrestle American farmers to the ground because our law does not control arms half a world away. I am pleased to rise as a defender of Oregon farmers. I suppose the motivation of everyone here is absolutely appropriate. I have additional motivation in that the farmers that we're talking about are my neighbors. I come from Eastern Oregon, a place of rolling hills of wheat. And so when I consider this issue, I see their faces. And I know how much they're suffering as we speak, because last time I checked, wheat in the Port of Portland was selling at about $2.75 a bushel. I don't know when it has been that low and to have the threat of sanctions come on top of it is truly--truly a double jeopardy. I am pleased with what the Senate is doing today and I am happy to be an original cosponsor of this amendment. Again, I am thankful to the Republican and Democratic leadership for changing at least a small portion of the Arms Export Control Act. Let me indicate how important this is as a country issue and a city issue. This year alone about 40 percent of the U.S. soft white wheat comes from the Pacific Northwest. Again, this year alone that crop amounts to about $255 million. Sales of this magnitude for the rest of the year will simply go to another country if we don't act as we are today. In addition to that, this will have an effect on the city of Portland. So far this year, wheat sales in the Pacific Northwest have resulted in about $10 million. So, this is an issue that brings country and city together in a very significant way. Now, Mr. President, I am pleased to tell you that in a recent conversation with President Clinton, he emphasized his willingness, even his great desire to sign this legislation. So we are doing something here, acting unitedly as Americans and with our president. I am also pleased to tell you that a couple days ago I met with the Foreign Minister of Pakistan and Special Envoy of the Government of Pakistan. We discussed the need for Pakistan to develop with America a new way of rebuilding our relationship. I indicated to him that I felt it important to keep the door of commerce open as we acted in this Congress on sanctions legislation. I also let him know that they should also act to reach towards us as well. He gave me his assurance that purchasing soft white wheat from the Pacific Northwest would be a priority over similar purchases from other countries. Mr. President, it's been a pleasure to stand with so many Senators who care about our farmers. I count myself chief among them. I thank them for their support and ask for their votes in the Senate and for the state of Oregon. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Jeffords, for his leadership on this bill. Mr. President, I believe the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act reestablishes our commitment to the young people of our Nation by focusing on one of our Nation's founding principles--opportunity. By improving the quality of teacher training and recruitment, increasing the purchasing power of students through Pell grants and other forms of student assistance, and by improving access to higher education for students with disabilities, this legislation provides opportunity for the young people of our Nation to seek a higher education. While I could continue to talk about the many merits of this bill, there is one issue that has been of great concern to me and to the students and parents of my State, and that is the rapidly rising cost of tuition. Even as we battle--successfully-every year to give more and more of our Nation's children an opportunity to seek a higher education by expanding Federal financial assistance, the cost of tuition continues to increase far beyond the Consumer Price Index--thus offsetting out efforts to expand education opportunities. We are winning the yearly battle but faring not nearly so well in the war. In the 1997-98 school year, average undergraduate yearly tuition and fees for public 4-year institutions of higher education were $3.111, representing a 97-percent increase from the 1988--89 school year. For private 4-year institutions, tuition and fees that same year were $13,664, representing an increase of 71 percent. As a result, students and families have become increasingly dependent on Federal financial aid in the form of grants and loans. In the 1996-97 academic year, Federal loan programs provided over $30 billion in financial aid to students. Even as we have continued to provide assistance to our students over the last 10 years, a troubled trend has developed. Student financial aid in the form of loans is disproportionate to the amount of financial aid received through grants. In the 1996-97 academic school year, 60 percent of Federal, State and institutional students financial aid was distributed through loans. The combination of a decline in Federal grants and an increase in tuition cost for both public and private institutions has forced many students and families to seek Federal loans to pay for a higher education. I believe our goal in expanding the availability of student loans can't be simply to replace disappearing grants and subsidize vast tuition increases. Our goal is to expand opportunity. And so, providing money is not enough; we must control costs. Some have suggested that Federal incentives may be one way to control rising tuition rates. While this may not be a popular suggestion, we cannot afford to continue this cycle and this game of cat and mouse with our Federal education dollars. Earlier this morning, my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, addressed this issue in great detail and made some excellent points with respect to access and affordability. Basically, we're pricing parents and students out of the education marketplace by limiting the number of Federal grants. It is my hope that we can work together to change this disparity in the ratio of loans to grants and to find ways to streamline the existing student financial assistance structure so that the good we do here on a bill like this isn't undermined by tuition rates which increase even more quickly than our ability to adequately meet the financial needs of our students. However, in the meantime, I am pleased that the chairman, Senator Jeffords, has included a sense-of-the-Senate provision in this bill on behalf of myself and Senator Wyden that expresses these concerns. Mr. President, it was once said that ``education is a social process. Education is growth. Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.'' I believe this bill represents our commitment to our students by providing them with the access, assistance, and the opportunity for a higher education. Education--the process of learning--is what drives us, fulfills us, and inspires us to achieve, and I believe it is our collective responsibility as legislators, and as citizens of this country, to sustain it. Again, I thank my colleague, Senator Jeffords, the members of the committee and their staff for their work on this important legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Oregon in offering this amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill on the handling of Department of Defense aviation accident investigations. In November 1996, 10 Portland-based Air Force reservists were killed in a mysterious C-130 King-56 plane crash. For nearly 2 years, Senator Wyden and I have been working with the Air Force and the families in order to find an explanation for how this tragic accident occurred. We have learned more since asking that the Air Force renew its investigation, and we are confident that we will soon know the cause of this accident. I wish to thank the Air Force for reopening its investigation and for its subsequent efforts. We owed that to the families of these Air Force reservists, that their widows and children be given the information needed for understanding. I am pleased to have joined my colleague from Oregon in seeking answers for these families still struggling with their losses and ensuring greater responsiveness to the families of our military personnel in the future. This Wyden/Smith amendment will create a task force to review aviation accident investigations and identify areas for improvement. I will also ensure that families be provided with regular reports regarding ongoing investigations. My thoughts continue to be with the families of the victims from the C-130 accident in November. I thank them for bringing this to our attention and I commend them on their patience and strength. I also thank my Oregon colleague, Senator Wyden, for his leadership on this issue. I appreciate the efforts of Air Force officials and look forward to working with them in the future to protect our service members and their families. amendment no. 3024 (Purpose: To amend Title 5, United States Code, to enable the Secretary of Energy to set a maximum age at which new couriers may enter the Department of Energy's nuclear materials courier force and to provide early retirement programs for the Department's nuclear materials couriers) At the appropriate place add the following: Section 1. Section 3307 of Title 5, United States Code, is

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today with my colleague, Senator Wyden, I introduce legislation to restore equity in the Medicare payment rate otherwise known as the Average Adjusted Per Capita Cost (AAPCC) formula under Medicare. This formula, which is implemented by the Health Care Financing Administration, determines the payment rates made to health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that offer coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, prior to the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, AAPCC rates were determined by calculating the five-year average of per-capita Medicare fee-for-service spending by county, as well as the graduate medical education (GME) and disproportionate share (DSH) payments. Since Medicare utilization rates, GME and DSH rates vary from county to county throughout the United States, those areas that have low Medicare utilization rates subsequently receive a lower payment than other areas where Medicare utilization rates are much higher. In 1997, those rates varied from $286 in Gilliam County, Oregon to $748 in Dade County, Florida. The result of such disproportionate levels in payments to HMOs is a disproportionate amount of benefits provided to Medicare beneficiaries. For example, HMOs that provide coverage for Medicare beneficiaries living in Los Angeles, California or Dade County, Florida receive a significantly higher payment; therefore, they can afford to provide additional benefits such as prescription drugs, eye glasses, and dental coverage. Meanwhile, HMOs that provide coverage to beneficiaries in Portland, Oregon receive a lower payment rate and cannot afford to provide such additional benefits. Mr. President, this is blatantly unfair, and unacceptable. Medicare beneficiaries deserve the same access to the same benefits, regardless of where they live in this country. To address this discrepancy, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included three main provisions to change the calculation of the AAPCC payment rates. First, a minimum ``floor'' payment of $367 was implemented to provide assistance to those rural counties with low Medicare utilization rates. Second, a blended rate was established to benefit low and mid-level payment counties to slowly bring them up to a more equitable level. Third, a minimum two percent ``hold-harmless'' was established so that all counties, even those at a higher payment level, are guaranteed at least a two percent increase in their current payment rates. As a member of the Senate Committee on the Budget, I was proud to support these provisions; however, the only component of this proposal that has been implemented, is the guaranteed two percent increase for all counties due to budget neutrality restrictions. While the two percent increase is a good start in restoring some equity to the payment system, beneficiaries living in rural counties in Oregon and throughout the country will not have access to Medicare+Choice options if we cannot find a way to provide funding for the blend component. This was the original intent of Congress, and I believe we have a responsibility to implement all three of these provisions in order to restore equity to the Medicare system. The legislation that Senator Wyden and I are proposing today would remove the budget neutrality provision used in calculating the blended capitation rate for Medicare+Choice organizations. To put this simply, we propose to fund the blend. Under this legislation, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would submit to Congress a legislative proposal outlining ways in which to restructure federal Medicare expenditures in order to implement the blend. We believe this is a fair and fiscally responsible way to address this matter and look forward to the Finance Committee's consideration of this issue in the year ahead. Mr. President, I would like to commend my colleague, Senator Wyden, for drafting this legislation and for the work of Stephanie Kennan of his staff on this bill. He has been a strong proponent of Medicare reform both as a member of the House of Representatives and as a member of the Senate Committee on the Budget. I thank him for this opportunity to join him in this effort.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of Amendment No. 2796 to the Defense Authorization bill, a Sense of the Senate Resolution which was introduced by myself and Senator Wyden. I want to thank the managers of the Defense Authorization bill for allowing us to bring this important amendment to the floor for consideration. This Sense of the Senate speaks to an issue that is a source of great concern to all Oregonians. But not only should it be of importance to citizens of my state, this Sense of the Senate should also be important to any American concerned about having a say in how the federal government handles nuclear waste and other environmental problems partially overseen by the Department of Energy. Simply put, radioactive waste seeping through the soil or being discharged into the air recognizes no state boundary. Although such situations can be found in other parts of the country, the amendment before us today speaks specifically to the Hanford nuclear reservation, located in the southeastern part of Washington state. Hanford was operated by the federal government as a plutonium development facility for four decades. Today, this site is the worst Department of Energy environmental hazard in the country. Millions of gallons of radioactive waste sits at the Hanford facility, much of it stored in underground tanks that are leaking an unknown amount of material into the soil as I speak. Currently, there are cleanup efforts underway, jointly operated by the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the state of Washington. Every year the Congress appropriates money for this cleanup effort, and I am a strong supporter of this funding. However, as an Oregonian, I believe that my state should also be a part of this ongoing process. Although the Hanford site is in Washington state, it is just 35 miles north of Oregon, and it lies next to the mighty Columbia River, which forms much of the border between the two states. Any failure to clean up this facility adequately will be felt not only in Washington but in my state as well. Thousands of Oregonians live within 50 miles of this site. Thousands more live down the Columbia River, which is not only home to countless species of wildlife, but also a key transportation and recreation resource as well. For these reasons, I am pleased that the Department of Energy and the state of Washington and Oregon entered into memoranda of understanding concerning Hanford last August. With the implementation of this agreement, Oregon will be a participant in the major decisions regarding Hanford that have potential repercussions for the health and safety of Oregonians. The amendment Senator Wyden and I have introduced simply encourages the continuation of this kind of cooperative decisionmaking regarding the future of the Hanford site. As acknowledged by the Department of Energy and the state of Washington by the memoranda of agreement, Oregon has a huge stake in this process. It is a point worth reiterating, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important Sense of the Senate resolution.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, immediately following the tragedy that occurred at Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon, Senator Wyden and I went to the floor of the Senate to express our great sadness and outrage that a community in our state would be subject to such an act of violence. Perhaps what is equally disturbing, is the fact that Oregon is not alone. From Jonesboro to Springfield, the virus of school violence has been indiscriminate. While we will never forget these tragic events, it is time for us to turn our grief and our anger into action. I believe it is our responsibility as legislators, governors, school officials, law enforcement, parents and students to work together to determine the sources and solutions to this complex problem. To address this issue, Senator Wyden and I have introduced legislation, S. 2169, to encourage states to require a holding period for any student who brings a gun to school. If states pass a law requiring the 72-hour detainment of a student who is in possession, or has been in possession, of a firearm at school, they will receive a 25 percent increase in funding for juvenile violence prevention and intervention programs. As we have learned from recent events, students who bring guns to school are suspended temporarily because communities often lack the personnel and resources to detain them in juvenile justice settings. By providing states that pass laws requiring detainment an increase in funding for prevention programs, schools will have additional resources to address the growing severity of violence and juvenile delinquency. States may use such additional funds for prevention and intervention programs that include professional counseling and detention in local juvenile justice centers. Mr. President, it has been said that ``the foundation of every state is the education of its youth.'' If we do not fulfill our promise of providing a strong and safe foundation for our students, education will not be possible. I believe this legislation is an important step in building a strong foundation, and I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Wyden and me in cosponsoring S. 2169.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, the last amendment last night voted on was a Democratic amendment, and going back and forth, I believe the next one will be a Republican amendment. However, the chairman is not here. We will check with him, and if an accommodation is necessary, we will pursue that.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, this morning, the Senate will be in a period for morning business until 11:15 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the tobacco bill, and it is expected that a Republican amendment will be offered regarding attorneys' fees. It is hoped that a short time agreement can be reached on that amendment so that remaining amendments can be offered and debated throughout today's session. At 12 noon, the Senate will proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the modified tobacco committee substitute. Assuming cloture fails, the Senate will continue debate on the tobacco bill. The Senate may also consider any other legislative or executive items that may be cleared for action. Therefore, rollcall votes are possible throughout today's session of the Senate. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I don't suspect that will be a problem. We are going to check with the chairman and try and accommodate.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, this coming weekend the President of the United States will travel to my home State of Oregon to deliver the commencement speech at Portland State University. As Oregon's junior Senator, I welcome President Clinton. I look forward to seeing his remarks and want him to know he is welcome in my State. While in Portland, he will find a vital, vibrant community, like much of the Nation, which has enjoyed very good economic times. Because of this, the President might leave Portland thinking his administration's policies, even those regarding natural resources and the environment, have been good for Oregon. And if he does that, if he has that impression, he will be sadly mistaken. During the last recess, I traveled through the rest of Oregon. I returned from Washington last weekend having spent 5 days in eastern Oregon. I went to the communities of Condon, Boardman, Hermiston, Pendleton, LaGrande, Baker City, Ontario, Nyssa, Burns, John Day, Enterprise, Milton-Freewater, and Ione. This region is the home to honest, hard-working people. It is a region that is also home to some of the most breathtaking scenery on the Earth. It is a region of forests and rivers, mountains and valleys. It is a region where people earn their living from the land. But it is a region in dire economic straits. It is a region which is fighting for its survival. Many States have what I term country-city divides, conflicts between rural and urban areas. I happen to be the first Senator elected in Oregon who has lived in rural Oregon in nearly 70 years. I take the issues with respect to all of my State very seriously. I take the issues that affect rural Oregon very personally. I would like to report to my colleagues on the State of rural Oregon, the rest of Oregon, today, and to invite the President not just to go to Portland but to come with me to John Day, to come with me to Nyssa, to come with me to Burns, OR, and to see for himself an area of my State that has been terribly damaged by many of his administration's policies. These are Oregonians who have made their living off the land for generations. They are now being forced out of business by policies of this administration. These policies are often driven by emotionally generated, questionable science to institute severe restrictions on agriculture, forestry, grazing, and mining on both public and private lands. Mr. President, there are people in the administration now who talk with straight faces, without blinking, about tearing out the Columbia River dams. These are assets built by the Federal Government in the Second World War. They were built to serve a multiple of purposes. They were built to provide public safety from spring flooding; they were built to provide irrigation for agriculture; they were provided to move crops from country to city, the city of Portland, the Port of Portland, where 40 percent of the wheat in the West goes right through and down that river. They were built also to produce electricity. Heaven forbid, people need electricity. They were built specifically to provide the production of metals for weaponry in the Second World War. But now we are being told that all of these values must be subordinate to the single value of supposedly protecting the environment. They want to blow up these dams. I am afraid I probably motivated some of my environmental opponents when I told them that when they blow the dams I will be on top of them, because I feel very strongly that the multiple of public values that are to be served by these are still worthy values. And there are many things we can do to make them more environmentally friendly, and we are doing that as we speak. Well, that is an aside. But the people that I know in rural Oregon are good stewards of their land. After all, they need their land for their livelihoods, and they desperately would like to pass it on to their next generation, to their children. Moreover, these people make their living by producing food and wood fiber that all Americans need and use in our everyday lives. I sometimes begin to think that we are so removed from rural communities in our modern society that we think we do not need farmers because there is a Safeway down the street, we do not need foresters because there is a lumber yard down the street, and we forget this connection. As we forget this connection, we begin to enact laws that shut down all of our basic American industries of mining, grazing, farming, forestry, fishing, drilling--all of these things that we have done that have produced this American standard of living. I fear as we shut these things down, we will then lament the day when our economy takes a very serious downturn. And it is difficult to reverse, because even in this room, Mr. President, everything around us is the product of the Earth in one way or the other. It came out of the Earth, and we bring these materials into commerce to produce products. Well, we all use them.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I ask unanimous consent to have an additional 5 minutes, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. For all the talk of a postindustrial service economy, Mr. President, people's most basic needs are still food and shelter. Let me offer some facts and figures to help put things in perspective. Eleven of Oregon's thirty-six counties had double-digit unemployment in March, including Grant County with a rate of nearly 20 percent, Lake County at 15 percent, Wallowa County at 14.4 percent. It is about to get much worse. For example, Mr. President, people do not like the way a clearcut looks, but nature has a way of clearcutting, too. It is called a forest fire. We have them very commonly in my part of the world, and yet even the salvage of burnt timber is not being allowed to be harvested in my State now. That makes no sense. And 122 mills have shut down in Oregon since 1990. Timber receipts to Grant County for roads and schools declined from a high of $12.4 million in 1992--$12.4 million--to $1.9 million in 1997. What are we saying about schools? What are we saying about roads? The amount of timber harvested from our public lands has been reduced by approximately 80 percent. Under the President's Northwest Forest Plan, only 3 million of the 24 million acres--or 12 percent of the available acreage--is open for sustainable timber production. All this despite the fact that tree growth rates exceed harvest rates by 85 to 90 percent. The Clinton administration would have us believe that they need to take over the management of Oregon's natural resources because we are incapable of doing so. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Oregon has some of the toughest land use laws in the Nation. Despite the utilization of forest lands for agriculture, urbanization, and infrastructure, 91 percent of the forest land base that existed in Oregon in 1630--in the year 1630--91 percent of that land still exists as forests and for growing trees. Mr. President, the final visit of my week in eastern Oregon was to the Ione High School commencement, where I had the privilege of delivering the graduation address. Ione is a small community, and its class of 1998 is also small. There were nine graduates. Yet nearly 500 people packed the high school gymnasium on a Friday evening to lend their support as a community to these outstanding young people. As I looked at the graduates, I could not help but wonder what future there was for those who wished to live and work and raise a family in eastern Oregon. Will there be jobs for them? Will there be good schools for their children? Will this administration sentence them to a future with no option but to move to a city, to an urban area, in order just to make a living? I returned from that trip, Mr. President, with a commitment to redouble my efforts on behalf of the good people of rural Oregon and to do everything within my power to ensure that their communities and their way of life will survive. Finally, the next indignity to be visited upon rural Oregon involves the implementation of the Glenn amendment which now may invoke unilateral sanctions that unjustly impact our farmers. I think the distinguished Senator who has just left the Chair has a bill, I think Senator Murray has a bill, and I have a bill to address this very issue. Now, I know Senator Glenn and I know he is a good and decent man, and I know his bill was designed to deter nuclear proliferation. I am all for it. It didn't work. Now we are about to witness the incredible spectacle of wrestling ourselves to the ground. The government is about to impose sanctions that will ultimately not hurt Pakistan because the truth of the matter is our competitors love this. The people that will be hurt are the people of rural Oregon, Washington, Idaho and others, who will lose 40 percent of their markets to U.S. sanctions on U.S. farmers that have had no ability to deter nuclear nonproliferation. I hope my colleagues will look at a bill which I am proud to cosponsor. It is a bill by Senator Lugar that has a ``stop, look, and listen'' provision to this whole episode of unilateral sanctions, which in effect makes war on our own people. I think we need to stop and look at this very, very seriously. Mr. President, I indicated how devastated wheat farmers will be in the rural parts of Oregon, Idaho, and Washington by the sanctions now about to be imposed by the Clinton administration by the Arms Export Control Act. Food aid under this act is supposed to be exempted. It is important that credits and credit guarantees for export of wheat also be exempted. For that reason, I am introducing legislation this morning to exempt credit guarantees from any sanctions to be imposed.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a class of students from Lincoln High School in Portland, Oregon which, as a direct result of months of study and several well- earned victories, won an honorable mention as one of the top ten finalists in the We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution national finals, a competition on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. After working diligently to win competitions in their home state, these outstanding young Oregonians participated in a three day national competition to demonstrate their remarkable understanding of Constitutional principles, and their relevance to contemporary issues. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program has provided curricular materials at elementary, middle, and high school levels for more than 75,000 teachers and 24 million students nationwide. While demonstrating the importance of cooperative and collaborative work, the program teaches students a practical meaning of Democracy and fosters the development of informed, responsible participation in civic life. In addition, this valuable curriculum gives young people the resources necessary to generate their own political interests, beliefs, and values essential to becoming effective participants in a democratic government. I commend the hard work and accomplishments of this award-winning class of students from Lincoln High School: Alyssa Anne Aaby, Rebecca Mae Allen, Milo Twohy Dochow, Ian James Dunlap, Joshua Josef Hansen, Andrea Marina Hart, Thomas Hugh Hendrickson, Misha Andrew David Isaak, Laura Elizabeth Kanter, Aaron Matthew Lande, Andrew Benjamin Lauck, Dugan Alan Lawrence, Marcus Page Lindbloom, Brenna Rose McMahon, Maren Christine Olson, Galway Peter O'Mahoney, Nicholas Albert Peters, Emma Rachel Pollack-Pelzvner, Jennifer Lewis Rosenbaum, Jay Boss Rubin, Karen Deborah Rutzick, Margaret Suzanne Schouten, Kennon Harris Scott, Andrew Paterson Sheets, Maghan Marie Simmons, Kristin Kiele Sunamoto, and Evan Miles Wiener. These outstanding young people represent the vast potential of the youth in our country, and the promise and opportunity for our nation's future.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today with a very heavy heart. Yesterday, Senator Wyden, my colleague from across the aisle, and I were confronted with news of a tragedy in our State that was, frankly, in my mind, quite unimaginable. The Willamette Valley of Oregon is perhaps one of the most beautiful places in the world. It is surrounded by mountains with snowcaps and clear streams running through it. It is filled with farmers and loggers, college professors and students, people working in State government. It is truly an Eden on Earth. But yesterday, a most mindless and senseless act was committed that leaves me, frankly, speechless. A young man, obviously very troubled, on the way to school killed his parents and then took three weapons into his school cafeteria at Thurston High School in Springfield, where he opened up and killed 1 student and injured nearly 30 others. This occurred before a wounded student tackled him and held him to the ground. I don't have words to express the outrage I feel or the heartache that I feel for the families, for the victims, for this community, for my State, for my country, at this outrageous and despicable act. Yesterday, Senator Wyden and I were asked to be on program after program, and we declined, because it was not a day for pontificating about policy or political posturing. It was a day for grief and mourning. I reach out to my State. I cannot be there physically, but my heart is with you and I am in agony with you. It becomes all of us here and in any place in government not to pick a single issue and say that is why, but to look at the strings that run from Springfield to Jonesboro or in any other community in this State and to find out what is happening with the youth of America whereby they solve their problems by resorting to this kind of violence. We must have the courage to face all of the possibilities. It isn't just the school. It isn't just the gun. It isn't just the family. It isn't any of these things in isolation, but it is all of them together. I, for one, reach across to my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, and every other member of the Oregon delegation in this Congress, and to our Governor, and to school officials and to parents in Oregon and across this country and say, let's figure it out and let's try to prevent it from occurring again. This does not belong in America. The answers start with us. The answers start in our hearts and in our homes, in our legislatures, in this Capitol building, but it starts with us as individuals to find out how to say no to this in the future and to prevent it. We are doing many things to punish, and those are appropriate things. It is time to do more to prevent. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the outstanding academic achievement of a resident from my home state of Oregon, Ms. Melinda Hubbard. A senior at Country Christian High School, Melinda was recently named as the Oregon State Winner of the Citizens Flag Alliance Essay Contest for her essay entitled ``The American Flag Protection Amendment: A Right of the People * * * the Right Thing to Do.'' I agree with Melinda that the time has come to protect our nation's flag with a Constitutional Amendment. I am requesting that her essay be printed in the record immediately following my remarks so that every American can have the opportunity to read it. In addition, I have requested the Sergeant at Arms Office to fly a flag over the Capitol on Flag Day, June 14, 1998, in recognition of her achievement. The essay follows. The American Flag Protection Amendment: The Right of the People . . . the Right Thing To Do (By Melinda S. Hubbard--A Senior at Country Christian High School) The American flag. The stars and stripes. Old Glory. The Star-Spangled Banner All of these are names for the most widely known symbol of our great nation. These are names that have inspired patriotism in many people. But what do they mean to us now? In years gone by, many people have sacrificed their lives for the principles upon which the United States of America was founded and for which our flag is a symbol. The flag is a symbol of what our nation was as well as what it has become. Because of this symbolism, the flag of the United States of America should be honored and respected. This is why a flag protection amendment is necessary. The United States of America has long been viewed as the greatest country in the world, not only by its citizens, but by many other nations as well. Part of the reason that it is viewed thusly is due to the fact that its Constitution and form of government have survived for so long. While it is true that America is a relatively young country when compared with European nations, America has known a stability that few other nations have known. Consider France or Italy. In the past two hundred years, France has experienced seven completely different forms of government, and Italy has seen fifty-one forms. The stability of the United States comes from our nation's foundation, which was on the principles and morals of the Christian men who founded our great nation. In his farewell address on September 19, 1796, George Washington said, ``Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports . . . 'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.'' Before we are able to look at what our nation symbolizes, we must first look to the men who founded it. They were the Puritans. But what were the Puritans looking for? The Puritans were looking for a land of freedom, a land where they could worship their Lord and Savior as they believed He should be worshipped. It was for this reason that they fled England. They wanted a country whose churches could not be dictated to by the nation's leaders. Not only were they looking for a country where they would be allowed to worship, but they were looking for a land where they could speak out against what contradicted their beliefs and where they could have a voice in who was to lead their country. For these reasons, they toiled in a new land, carving their homes from wilderness. Without the discipline, mortality, and virtue of the founders, our nation's government would not have endured for as long as it has. For more than two hundred years, the United States has been a land of freedom and opportunity, thanks to the diligence of its founders. But with those same freedoms and opportunities comes responsibility, a responsibility to the memories of each and every man, woman, and child that has given a part of their life as a sacrifice for their country. This responsibility is one that, as America grows stronger and more prosperous, few wish to share. Since the time when everyone held the same beliefs and moral standards, people's convictions and ways they are taught have changed. The citizens of the United States are now being taught to believe many opposing codes of conduct such as ``There's no definite right or wrong; there is only what you feel'' and ``There is accountability to God, your country, and your family.'' While everyone is most definitely free to believe as they choose, these contrasting philosophies lead to different opinions on how the flag, the symbol of our nation, should be treated. The freedoms which the founding fathers toiled to establish and for which our flag is a symbol are an important part of our nation's heritage. Without these freedoms, we would be lost and would become just as any other country, a people who are devoid of hope. When a person desecrates the flag of the United States, he is not only scorning our nation, but he is also desecrating the memory of every person who ever served in a war or sacrificed their own life in order to maintain the freedoms of our nation. We must protect our nation's heritage and foundation. Also, we need to honor the memories of those who have given their lives to save the freedoms of the United States. The flag of the United States, as a symbol of these, should be cherished as dearly as our lives, if not more so. This is why I believe there needs to be a flag protection amendment. According to Article 5 of the Constitution of the United States, there are four ways to amend the Constitution. The first way is for Congress to propose an amendment, then have the legislatures of three-fourths of the states approve it. Secondly, Congress can propose the amendment, and special conventions in three-fourths of the states can approve the addition. Thirdly, two-thirds of the states' legislatures can request a special national convention to propose an amendment, and three-fourths of the states' legislatures ratify the amendment. Fourthly, two-thirds of the states' legislatures can call for a special national convention to propose an amendment, and special conventions in three fourths of the states ratify the amendments. While these amendment procedures are not easily accomplished, it is possible with persistence. We need to preserve our heritage and our flag, honoring both. The only way to be sure that the flag will always be a protected symbol of our nation's heritage is for this amendment to be passed.