Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, and my colleagues who have allowed me to speak, I thank you for your courtesy.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish the conditions under which certain Federal agencies may enter into a memorandum of agreement with non-federal entities concerning management of the Columbia River and Snake River Basin in the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. This bill is not an endorsement of the draft Three Sovereigns agreement, but arises from ongoing concerns I have about the proposal. The livelihoods of many Northwest residents are at stake in upcoming decisions about Columbia River operations, and they deserve a voice in this process. The bill formalizes public input to federal agencies involved in the proposed ``Three Sovereigns'' agreement, or any similar agreement, by creating an advisory committee representing: local governments; customers of the Bonneville Power Administration; upstream ports; fishing interests; shippers; irrigators; environmentalists; forest land owners and grazers. This committee will advise the federal agencies on matters to be addressed under the agreement, including the economic and social impacts of any proposed recommendations. Currently, two significantly different drafts of a ``Memorandum of Agreement for Three Sovereigns' Governance of the Columbia River Basin Ecosystem'' are out for public comment. However, the public comment process was so ill-defined initially that I had to write one of the chief proponents of the agreement to request that this process be better defined. Further, it has been reported to me that at the public meeting held in Pendleton, Oregon, on the draft agreement, there was no clerk reporter to record people's comments in detail. This has not given those who depend on the river system much confidence in their ability to provide input into any forum established under a Three Sovereigns' agreement. Developing a successful regional solution to management of the Columbia/Snake River system will involve a broad range of stakeholders. While not a perfect model, the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord in California has been successful, in large part, because the water users and environmental groups were parties to the Accord. The bill would not, however, require changes in the draft memorandum of agreement itself, or impose conditions on the states or the tribes. But it is appropriate for the Congress to establish certain conditions for federal participation in any such agreement. In addition to establishing this advisory committee, the bill requires each federal agency that is a signatory to the Three Sovereigns' agreement to publish and make available to the public, including over the Internet, all scientific data used to formulate recommendations and all methodologies used to prepare cost-benefit analyses. The bill also provides a mechanism to resolve disputes among federal agencies involved in the Three Sovereigns' agreement. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget will designate an official who, at the request of a non-federal party to the agreement, will have the authority to reconcile differences between the federal agencies on any issue before the Three Sovereigns. In this manner, the non-federal signatories are not caught between differing federal agencies. The Three Sovereigns' agreement, if signed, would establish a process that is very similar to the statutory obligations of the Northwest Power Planning Council with respect to fish and wildlife recommendations. Therefore, the bill requires the Council to report to the Congress annually on how the recommendations on fish and wildlife activities under any agreement would be coordinated and reconciled with the Council's statutory responsibilities. Finally, to enhance budget coordination among federal agencies regardless of whether an agreement is entered into, the bill requires that the President's annual budget proposal include a cross-cut budget showing proposed spending for activities in the basin by the federal agencies. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and to support stakeholder involvement in the development of a regional solution to Columbia and Snake River issues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish the conditions under which certain Federal agencies may enter into a memorandum of agreement with non-federal entities concerning management of the Columbia River and Snake River Basin in the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. This bill is not an endorsement of the draft Three Sovereigns agreement, but arises from ongoing concerns I have about the proposal. The livelihoods of many Northwest residents are at stake in upcoming decisions about Columbia River operations, and they deserve a voice in this process. The bill formalizes public input to federal agencies involved in the proposed ``Three Sovereigns'' agreement, or any similar agreement, by creating an advisory committee representing: local governments; customers of the Bonneville Power Administration; upstream ports; fishing interests; shippers; irrigators; environmentalists; forest land owners and grazers. This committee will advise the federal agencies on matters to be addressed under the agreement, including the economic and social impacts of any proposed recommendations. Currently, two significantly different drafts of a ``Memorandum of Agreement for Three Sovereigns' Governance of the Columbia River Basin Ecosystem'' are out for public comment. However, the public comment process was so ill-defined initially that I had to write one of the chief proponents of the agreement to request that this process be better defined. Further, it has been reported to me that at the public meeting held in Pendleton, Oregon, on the draft agreement, there was no clerk reporter to record people's comments in detail. This has not given those who depend on the river system much confidence in their ability to provide input into any forum established under a Three Sovereigns' agreement. Developing a successful regional solution to management of the Columbia/Snake River system will involve a broad range of stakeholders. While not a perfect model, the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord in California has been successful, in large part, because the water users and environmental groups were parties to the Accord. The bill would not, however, require changes in the draft memorandum of agreement itself, or impose conditions on the states or the tribes. But it is appropriate for the Congress to establish certain conditions for federal participation in any such agreement. In addition to establishing this advisory committee, the bill requires each federal agency that is a signatory to the Three Sovereigns' agreement to publish and make available to the public, including over the Internet, all scientific data used to formulate recommendations and all methodologies used to prepare cost-benefit analyses. The bill also provides a mechanism to resolve disputes among federal agencies involved in the Three Sovereigns' agreement. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget will designate an official who, at the request of a non-federal party to the agreement, will have the authority to reconcile differences between the federal agencies on any issue before the Three Sovereigns. In this manner, the non-federal signatories are not caught between differing federal agencies. The Three Sovereigns' agreement, if signed, would establish a process that is very similar to the statutory obligations of the Northwest Power Planning Council with respect to fish and wildlife recommendations. Therefore, the bill requires the Council to report to the Congress annually on how the recommendations on fish and wildlife activities under any agreement would be coordinated and reconciled with the Council's statutory responsibilities. Finally, to enhance budget coordination among federal agencies regardless of whether an agreement is entered into, the bill requires that the President's annual budget proposal include a cross-cut budget showing proposed spending for activities in the basin by the federal agencies. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and to support stakeholder involvement in the development of a regional solution to Columbia and Snake River issues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of S. 1723, I rise today to support the American Competitiveness Act. Mr. President, the H-1B immigrant visa program is not the preferred avenue of hiring by our U.S. high tech companies. Hewlett-Packard, which is one of Oregon's largest high tech employers, currently employs more than 65,000 people in the United States and uses only 140 H-1B visas. Of these 140 H-1B visas, 17 of them have Ph.D. degrees and the remaining of them have at least an equivalency of a Masters degree. Our American companies would prefer to invest in Americans and retain the current domestic workforce. These companies collectively already spend, and will continue to spend, billions of dollars each year on training and educating American workers. Notwithstanding the current workforce, they are unable to fill key personnel slots, and it is critical in order to remain competitive, that they have access, through the H-1B visas, to these foreign-born professionals. According to the American Electronics Association, the U.S. electronics and information industry creates high-skilled, high value- added jobs. The rapid advances in computer technology have increased demand for trained specialists like computer engineers, computer systems analysis, database administrators, and computer support specialists. Even the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that demand for these occupations will more than double by 2006. Oregon's largest employer in the state is Intel. And with more than 10,000 employees in Oregon, Intel's job growth has grown 167 percent since 1990, creating almost 40,000 jobs worldwide. In this age of a global marketplace, it is imperative that American companies have access to a legal supply of skilled professionals in the United States so that they can continue to grow and expand in the United States. Failure to increase the H-1B cap will create significant uncertainty about the U.S. government's commitment to enable American companies to compete and participate effectively in the global economy. These companies will be faced with the tough decisions to either stay in the U.S. without a sufficient number of highly skilled staff or possibly move their research and development facilities overseas. Mr. President, the American Competitiveness Act raises the current cap for temporary foreign workers to 95,000 in fiscal year 1998 and contains a five-year sunset for the additional H-1B visas. While raising the temporary H-1B cap, the American Competitiveness Act also increases education and training in the high technology field for American citizens and establishes a data bank on the Internet that matches domestic applicants with available technology jobs. Mr. President, I commend Senator Abraham for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to support the American Competitiveness Act.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lourdes Agosto be allowed floor privileges while I provide these remarks today.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of National Peace Officers Memorial Day, a day to commemorate and acknowledge the dedication and sacrifice made by the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as law enforcement officers. The men and women who serve this Nation as our guardians of law and order do so at great personal risk. There are very few communities in the United States that have not been touched by the senseless death of a police officer. In Oregon we have seen our share of loss. In January in a standoff between the Portland police and a man with a high-powered SKS military rifle, Colleen Waibel, a 17-year veteran of the Portland Police Bureau, was shot and killed. Two other officers, Kim Keist and Sgt. James Hudson, were wounded in that same standoff. In July of last year, Thomas Jeffries, a Portland police officer, was shot and killed. In 1984, a Washington County sheriff's deputy, Robert Talburt, also died in the line of duty. Mr. President, because of the dedication and sacrifice of our Nation's police officers, our communities are safer and our children have a better chance of receiving their education in a crime-free environment. Today, more than 15,000 peace officers are expected to gather in our Nation's Capital, together with the families of their recently fallen comrades. The National Peace Officers Memorial Day provides our country an opportunity to show these public servants that their efforts on our behalf and those of their fallen comrades are greatly appreciated. To the surviving families of those officers who have paid the ultimate price, this day will show that their sacrifice will always be remembered. Mr. President, I am a proud cosponsor of Senate Resolution 201 designating May 15, 1998, as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Kempthorne, myself, and others, in recognizing this important day. I thank the President. I yield the floor. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

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. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, colleagues, and ladies and gentlemen, I rise today to introduce legislation to change the Tax Code to put stay-at-home moms and dads on an equal footing with two-income families. My legislation is cosponsored by Senators Hatch, Grams, Wyden, and Abraham. This legislation that we introduce will increase the current $500-per-child credit to $1,500 per child for children up to 6 years of age. This credit would replace the current dependent care tax credit with real money that directly benefits families and restores equality and fairness in child care. Mr. President, there are many proposals to reduce tax burdens, many of which I wholeheartedly support, such as the elimination of the marriage penalty. But I must confess some frustration that I felt on the night our President gave his State of the Union Address when he spoke at great length about child care. He made a proposal, about $20 billion worth, that contained many laudable provisions and parts of which I could support. But it contained a very glaring omission, in my view. The Clinton administration policy is both a direct and indirect subsidy to the marketplace day care industry. The administration seeks to help only a small portion of working parents, ruling out those who wish to stay at home to take care of their child and those who do not want to use marketplace day care. Government policy ought not to discriminate in this manner against the best form of child care where the child is taken care of by his or her own parents or family member. A few months ago Renee Anderson of Medford, OR, sent me an e-mail commenting that government spending will not give tax relief to parents of preschoolers who take care of their own children. Here is her letter, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Renee, like many mothers and fathers, sees most government spending as ``day care'' and not ``child care.'' Child care, she says, is something that every family does. Day care is the activity undertaken out of either preference or necessity that some families are able to choose or forced to choose. A recent Wirthlin poll shows that care by a child's own parent or immediate family member is rated as the most desirable form of child care, with child care by a family's mother ranking the highest. Census Bureau statistics show that many families--nearly half of those with children under 6 years of age--pass up a second income and care for their children themselves, and yet where is the tax relief to help ease the burden of child care expenses for families that choose to take care of their children in their homes? It simply is not there. This legislation will eliminate the current discriminatory tax policy and replace it with one that is fair to all families regardless of the child care choices they make. I hope many of my colleagues can join in supporting this legislation. I know it competes with many other proposals, but I, frankly, can think of no greater priority that we ought to have than helping mothers and fathers take care of their children, for truly the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that controls the future. There is no more important responsibility that any of us as mortals undertake than to rear a child. So the Federal Government ought to not get in the way of that but ought to reduce its take and leave more resources to mothers and fathers to leave them at home where they can serve real human and child needs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Smith of Oregon pertaining to the introduction of S. 2079 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I also ask unanimous consent that my assistant, Lourdes Agosto, be allowed floor privileges while I give this speech.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank you for the time and yield back the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, colleagues, and ladies and gentlemen, I rise today to introduce legislation to change the Tax Code to put stay-at-home moms and dads on an equal footing with two-income families. My legislation is cosponsored by Senators Hatch, Grams, Wyden, and Abraham. This legislation that we introduce will increase the current $500-per-child credit to $1,500 per child for children up to 6 years of age. This credit would replace the current dependent care tax credit with real money that directly benefits families and restores equality and fairness in child care. Mr. President, there are many proposals to reduce tax burdens, many of which I wholeheartedly support, such as the elimination of the marriage penalty. But I must confess some frustration that I felt on the night our President gave his State of the Union Address when he spoke at great length about child care. He made a proposal, about $20 billion worth, that contained many laudable provisions and parts of which I could support. But it contained a very glaring omission, in my view. The Clinton administration policy is both a direct and indirect subsidy to the marketplace day care industry. The administration seeks to help only a small portion of working parents, ruling out those who wish to stay at home to take care of their child and those who do not want to use marketplace day care. Government policy ought not to discriminate in this manner against the best form of child care where the child is taken care of by his or her own parents or family member. A few months ago Renee Anderson of Medford, OR, sent me an e-mail commenting that government spending will not give tax relief to parents of preschoolers who take care of their own children. Here is her letter, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Renee, like many mothers and fathers, sees most government spending as ``day care'' and not ``child care.'' Child care, she says, is something that every family does. Day care is the activity undertaken out of either preference or necessity that some families are able to choose or forced to choose. A recent Wirthlin poll shows that care by a child's own parent or immediate family member is rated as the most desirable form of child care, with child care by a family's mother ranking the highest. Census Bureau statistics show that many families--nearly half of those with children under 6 years of age--pass up a second income and care for their children themselves, and yet where is the tax relief to help ease the burden of child care expenses for families that choose to take care of their children in their homes? It simply is not there. This legislation will eliminate the current discriminatory tax policy and replace it with one that is fair to all families regardless of the child care choices they make. I hope many of my colleagues can join in supporting this legislation. I know it competes with many other proposals, but I, frankly, can think of no greater priority that we ought to have than helping mothers and fathers take care of their children, for truly the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that controls the future. There is no more important responsibility that any of us as mortals undertake than to rear a child. So the Federal Government ought to not get in the way of that but ought to reduce its take and leave more resources to mothers and fathers to leave them at home where they can serve real human and child needs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the Credit Unions for Kids program, an effort which began in my state of Oregon but which has since spread to more than 35 states across the nation and has served as an outstanding example of community service. The Credit Unions for Kids program represents credit union employees and members in Oregon and Southwest Washington who have volunteered their resources and time in raising $1.7 million to benefit the Doernbecher Children's Hospital Foundation. Last year, Oregon ranked first in the average dollars raised per credit union on a nationwide basis. This is a day for celebration, not only for this donation, but for the generosity exhibited by a twelve-year fund-raising effort undertaken by the employees, families, and members of the credit unions in Oregon and Southwest Washington. This combined effort serves as an example to the businesses, communities and corporations in the Pacific Northwest and throughout the nation that anything is possible, even fulfilling the dream of a new children's hospital, one floor at a time. For a moment, I would like to focus on the recipient of this donation--the new Doernbecher Children's Hospital which replaces a very old and outdated facility on the campus of Oregon Health Sciences University. This four-story, 250,000 square-foot facility houses 120 beds, including the medical/surgical units, a pediatric intensive care unit, the Kenneth W. Ford Cancer Center and the Doernbecher Neonatal Care Center. The hospital also has a 16-bed floor dedicated to inpatient and outpatient cancer treatment. Perhaps what is most impressive about this facility is the focus on the need of the children and families whom it will serve. Designed by Doernbecher staff, parents and patients, the hospital has places for families to gather together, facilities for families who wish to cook their own meals, and patient rooms that have extra beds so that parents may stay with their children. There are separate playrooms, outdoor play structures and a schoolroom. There are large and numerous windows welcoming natural light. There is artwork of birds and frogs, sculptures, painting, and poems. One particular poem, ``Naknuwisha'' which appears in the waiting room of the hospital and is a Sahaptin term among the Yakima, meaning ``to care for something precious, particularly children who need our help'' was written by Kim Stafford in 1996 and serves as a constant reminder to all who enter the hospital that this is a place for children, and a place where healing and hope begin: Naknuwisha young friend, be part of something old-- be home here in the great world where rain wants to give you drink where forest wants to be your house where frogs say your name and your name where wee birds carry your wishes far and the sun reaches for your hand-- be home here be healed be well be with us all young friend. Mr. President, this beautiful new hospital is the foundation of a commitment made by the community, families, friends, physicians, and by businesses who have given the gift of time and resources to turn a dream into a reality. I am proud to recognize the Credit Unions of Oregon and Washington, and to congratulate them on their contribution to this facility and this day of celebration of the opening of the Credit Unions for Kids floor of the Doernbecher Children's Hosptial. Congratulations, and thank you.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. The conference report before us reauthorizes various agriculture research programs at land-grant colleges and universities through 2002. In addition, it provides for $600 million over five years for a new competitive grants program for research in key areas such as agricultural genome, food safety, nutrition, new and alternative uses of agricultural commodities and products, biotechnology, natural resource management, and farm efficiency. This bill also contains important provisions which authorize funding for crop insurance, rural development, and to restore food stamps to certain legal immigrants. The critics of S. 1150 most often question the costs of the various provisions included in the conference report. However, it is important to note that our investment in agricultural research provides a tremendous return to our economy, generating economic growth and tax revenue through increased agricultural productivity. This return is estimated to be between 35% and 50% nationwide--and even greater in Oregon. Additionally, in terms of constant dollars, federal spending on agriculture research has declined over the last ten years while other non-defense research spending in such areas as health, space exploration, and the environment has increased. As an added assurance that these funds will be spent in the most efficient way possible, the conference report contains provisions which increase the accountability of these research projects, making them subject to competition, requiring more stakeholder input, peer and merit review, and greater collaboration amongst the research institutions involved. Further, the benefits of other important provisions contained in this bill, such as funding for crop insurance, rural development, and restoration of food stamps to certain legal immigrants, far outweigh the arguments against this legislation. I am especially pleased with the food stamp provision which allows the resources of private charitable groups, such as the Oregon Food Bank, to reach a wider spectrum of our communities. What better way to use these funds than to enhance our food production, feed our nation's hungry, and protect America's farmland? Currently, some of the most important work in the area of agriculture research is being done in my state, where more than 140,000 jobs are tied to farm production, In just one example, research at Oregon State University facilities on wheat strains and diseases has resulted in an estimated $8 million in increased wheat productivity per year. Results of their studies are shared with other states like Idaho, Montana, Utah, Kansas, and Colorado, presented at national and international symposiums, published in scientific journals, and communicated through industry newsletters. Again, this is just one of the many valuable research projects undertaken in my state by OSU through this partnership of federal and state funds. Agriculture in my state is diverse--reflecting the varied geography, soil, an climate types of Oregon's beautiful mountains, valleys, coastline, deserts, and forests. There really is no such thing as an average farmer in my state. He or she may be a large scale wheat grower, a small orchardist, a producer of high quality nursery plants, or a family farmer maintaining cranberry bogs. Despite the varied backgrounds of Oregon's farmers, all of them, and I think this would apply to farmers across the country as well, are working hard to maintain America's leadership in agricultural production despite unrelenting pressure from all sides--pressure to continue to produse the world's safest food supply while competing with imports that may be heavily subsidized, produced with pesticides illegal in the U.S., or even, as was widely reported in the media just yesterday, not even meeting our food safety standards. For the small family farmer, who still exists in my state, this pressure is compounded by the struggle to maintain the way of life which fed our grandparents and their parents before them. Everyday they defend their farm, perhaps part of their family for generations, for encroaching development, inheritance taxes, and complicated and ever increasing governmental regulations. Breakthroughs brought about as a direct result of the research dollars we will be voting on today may mean that family farmers in Southern Oregon may be able to squeeze enough productivity out of their land to hold onto their farms for a few more seasons. Or it may mean that a grass seed farmer in the Willamette Valley can export more grass straw to Japan due to a quality assurance program. Or it may mean a farmer in the Columbia Basin can use fewer pesticides on pea plants due to new, more pest resistant strains or new growing techniques. For them, the components of this bill represent the American research and technological know-how that has kept them ahead of the curve--and hopefully, with your support today, will continue to do so into the future. Let's give our farmers the tools they need to continue to produce a safe and bountiful food supply for our families. The conference report before us reaffirms the traditionally strong Congressional support for American agricultural leadership. This legislation enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support and I urge my colleagues to join me in casting a vote in favor of S. 1150.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning and construction of the Willow Lake Natural Treatment System Project for the reclamation and reuse of water by the city of Salem, Oregon. This project is an innovative approach to an ongoing sewer overflow problem. It will not only provide environmental benefits for the city and the Willamette Valley, but could also provide irrigation water for the local farming community. This natural treatment system is one component of the city's recently adopted Wastewater Master Plan. Currently, the city has a combined sanitary sewer system. Unfortunately, each winter season during the wet weather, sewer overflows spill into Salem-area creeks and streams, as well as the Willamette River. The proposed natural treatment system, working in conjunction with the city's wastewater treatment plant, will provide Salem with the ability to meet regulatory requirements by storing and treating all wastewater from Salem's sewer system and significantly reducing wet weather sewer system overflows. The finished system will meet Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) standards, and be fully operational by 2010. Although the specific site has not yet been selected, I am hopeful that any land needed for the project will be acquired on a willing buyer-willing seller basis. The natural treatment system proposed includes both overland flow treatment and constructed wetlands treatment. The overland flow system will include grassy swales and poplar trees to provide a high level of wastewater treatment. The constructed wetlands will include shallow ponds with wetland-type vegetation, and provide both treatment and storage. This system will be capable of producing between 10 and 20 million gallons per day of high quality effluent during the summer months that could potentially be used as a source of irrigation water for the farming community in the area. A separate feasibility study will have to be conducted before a determination is made on whether to use this water for irrigation purposes. Any application of this water would have to be in accordance with state water quality standards and the requirements of the food processing industry. This bill would authorize the Secretary to participate in this project under the Bureau of Reclamation's existing Title XVI water reuse program. This program requires a feasibility study for all projects authorized, and caps the federal cost-share of the construction costs. Under the Title XVI program, the city would have title to the project, and be responsible for all operation and maintenance costs. This project will provide multiple benefits for the environment. It will naturally treat wastewater, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, improve water quality in Salem-area streams and the Willamette River, and reduce wintertime sewer system overflows. As water supplies tighten throughout the western United States, we need to look at innovative, cost-effective programs such as this to reuse water as efficiently as possible. I urge my colleagues to support enactment of this legislation, and will ask for its timely consideration by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning and construction of the Willow Lake Natural Treatment System Project for the reclamation and reuse of water by the city of Salem, Oregon. This project is an innovative approach to an ongoing sewer overflow problem. It will not only provide environmental benefits for the city and the Willamette Valley, but could also provide irrigation water for the local farming community. This natural treatment system is one component of the city's recently adopted Wastewater Master Plan. Currently, the city has a combined sanitary sewer system. Unfortunately, each winter season during the wet weather, sewer overflows spill into Salem-area creeks and streams, as well as the Willamette River. The proposed natural treatment system, working in conjunction with the city's wastewater treatment plant, will provide Salem with the ability to meet regulatory requirements by storing and treating all wastewater from Salem's sewer system and significantly reducing wet weather sewer system overflows. The finished system will meet Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) standards, and be fully operational by 2010. Although the specific site has not yet been selected, I am hopeful that any land needed for the project will be acquired on a willing buyer-willing seller basis. The natural treatment system proposed includes both overland flow treatment and constructed wetlands treatment. The overland flow system will include grassy swales and poplar trees to provide a high level of wastewater treatment. The constructed wetlands will include shallow ponds with wetland-type vegetation, and provide both treatment and storage. This system will be capable of producing between 10 and 20 million gallons per day of high quality effluent during the summer months that could potentially be used as a source of irrigation water for the farming community in the area. A separate feasibility study will have to be conducted before a determination is made on whether to use this water for irrigation purposes. Any application of this water would have to be in accordance with state water quality standards and the requirements of the food processing industry. This bill would authorize the Secretary to participate in this project under the Bureau of Reclamation's existing Title XVI water reuse program. This program requires a feasibility study for all projects authorized, and caps the federal cost-share of the construction costs. Under the Title XVI program, the city would have title to the project, and be responsible for all operation and maintenance costs. This project will provide multiple benefits for the environment. It will naturally treat wastewater, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, improve water quality in Salem-area streams and the Willamette River, and reduce wintertime sewer system overflows. As water supplies tighten throughout the western United States, we need to look at innovative, cost-effective programs such as this to reuse water as efficiently as possible. I urge my colleagues to support enactment of this legislation, and will ask for its timely consideration by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty provides that NATO members, by unanimous agreement, may invite the accession to the North Atlantic Treaty of any other European state in a position to further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area. The resolution of ratification notes that only Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have been invited by NATO members to join the Alliance. No other agreement or document, including the July 8, 1997 Madrid Summit declaration of NATO, or the Baltic Charter signed on January 16, 1998, should be construed otherwise. Much has been said about these documents, but I am not certain that all of my distinguished colleagues have read them carefully. In Madrid, NATO's Secretary General stated ``In keeping with our pledge to maintain an open door to the admission of additional Alliance members in the future, we also direct that NATO Foreign Ministers keep that process under continual review and report to us. We will review the process at our next meeting in 1999.'' This is not a promise, a commitment, or any other guarantee that countries in Central and Eastern Europe will be invited to join NATO--it is merely a statement that enlargement is a process that should be reviewed by NATO regularly. Further, the Baltic Chapter, signed this past January by the Presidents of the United States, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania declares that the U.S. ``welcomes the aspirations and supports the efforts of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to join NATO. It affirms its view that NATO's partners can become members as each aspirant proves itself able and willing to assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership, and as NATO determines that the inclusion of these nations would serve European stability and the strategic interests of the Alliance''. Mr. President, this last statement is important--the Baltic Charter clearly states that including any new members in NATO must serve the strategic interests of the Alliance. All candidate countries will be evaluated on these criteria. The United States should not support the invitation to NATO membership to any further candidates unless the Senate is first consulted, unless any proposed candidate can fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of membership, and unless their inclusion would serve the overall political and strategic interests of the United States. During Foreign Relations Committee hearings, both Secretary of Defense Cohen and Secretary of State Albright expressed the Administration's understanding of the need for consultation with the Senate prior to any future rounds of expansion. I strongly oppose, however, mandating a period of time during which the United States is not permitted to pursue a policy of NATO enlargement that very well may be in our national interests. The decision to enlarge NATO should be based not on an arbitrary timeline, but should be the result of a thoughtful process--based on consultations with the Congress--that considers the security interests of NATO and the qualifications of candidate states. I strongly oppose the Warner Amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, the situation in Bosnia and the continued participation of U.S. soldiers in the NATO operations is an issue about which many Senators have very strong opinions. I agree with my colleague from Idaho that the decision to keep U.S. troops there is one that the administration did not adequately discuss with the Congress. The past actions of the administration on this question, promising twice that American soldiers would come home by a date certain and twice breaking that promise, rightly gives the Senate reason to wonder if the administration is serious about its commitment to withdraw U.S. soldiers from Bosnia. However, I want to be clear about what this amendment does. Simply, it punishes Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. These are three countries that have all met the criteria for NATO membership and have chosen the path of democracy and freedom after 50 years of Communist domination. I remind my colleagues that the troops from Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are, as we speak, standing side by side with American soldiers serving in Bosnia. Earlier this year, all three countries publicly stated that they were willing to commit troops if the U.S. showdown with Iraq led to military action. I am convinced that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic will be among our strongest allies in NATO, and preventing them now from fulfilling this role simply does not serve American interests. I support a vigorous debate on the merits of U.S. participation in the NATO force which is keeping peace in Bosnia, but I do not believe that the resolution of ratification to enlarge NATO is the appropriate place for this debate. I think Senator Craig's concern that NATO should not be reformulated into a peacekeeping organization is right on target. NATO is the most effective collective defense alliance in history, and to maintain its critical article V capabilities we cannot allow the NATO mission to drift towards peacekeeping and nation building. The amendment offered by Senator Kyl, however, on Tuesday, approved by a 90 to 9 vote, clearly states the U.S. view of what the mission of NATO should be and what it should not be. However, I cannot support delaying action on NATO enlargement until Congress has authorized the U.S. troop presence in Bosnia. My colleagues well know, in December of 1995, the Senate approved the Dole-McCain resolution on the deployment of U.S. forces to Bosnia by a vote of 69 to 30. Since then, the Senate has, on at least two occasions, approved appropriations to support U.S. troops in Bosnia. I understand that many Senators do not want U.S. forces in Bosnia, but the Senate has had the opportunity to speak on this issue and we will again in the future. Now is simply not the time, and the expansion of NATO ought not to be the vehicle. So I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment of my friend from Idaho. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I find it very humbling to be among these giants as a newcomer to this body. I feel something like the student questioning the wisdom of his professor because when it comes to names like Pat Moynihan, John Warner, and Sam Nunn, these are men whom I admire and whom I have read about for years in history books. Yet, I rise to oppose this amendment for reasons that I think are very, very important. I wonder as we consider the feelings of the Russians--and I am not saying those considerations are illegitimate, but what are the feelings of the Pols, the Czechs, and the Hungarians? Do they have no right to qualify to self-determination to be a part of the western alliance? I have had officials from all of those countries tell me that if they had to choose between the EU or NATO membership, they would take membership in NATO; whether right or wrong, they are afraid of Russia. I believe they have a right to qualify to be a part of the west. And, yes, strong economies are so important; but, frankly, they recognize that security precedes strong economic growth. Madam President, the European Union may be many things, but it is certainly not a substitute for U.S. leadership in Europe. The EU has proved time and again that it is incapable of acting together on matters of foreign and security policy. Its military arm, the Western European Union, refuses to take action when European interests are threatened and, instead, turns to NATO or individual member states to address problems on the continent of Europe. The political vision of the European Union extends no further than its trade interests, shown most recently by its rush to reengage the regime in Iran and its refusal to jeopardize commercial contacts by even mentioning the civil rights record of the Chinese government. In contrast, for 50 years, NATO has been the defender of freedom and democracy and has shown that it is willing to make the necessary sacrifices to assure the success of these valued principles. In its membership, NATO includes two countries that will apparently never be in the European Union--the United States and Canada. It includes Norway, which rejected EU membership in a public referendum, and it includes Turkey, whose application to the EU has been repeatedly rebuffed. How ironic it would be if we pass an amendment here that says before these countries can be in NATO, they must be in the EU, but, by the way, Turkey, which is a member of NATO, apparently will never be a member of the EU. Austria, Finland, and Sweden are all members of the EU, with continued neutrality policies. It is not just the different missions of NATO and the EU that made denying NATO enlargement to EU membership untenable, but the different membership of the two organizations lead it to take varying positions on issues of importance to both. Further, the economies of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are growing faster than almost all of the countries of the European Union. Consider some recent statistics that demonstrate the disparity between these 3 countries and the current EU members. In 1997, Italy's estimated economic growth rate was 1.5 percent, Germany's was 2.2 percent, France's was 2.4 percent. Meanwhile, Poland's growth rate was an astounding 7 percent. Hungary's economy grew by a healthy 4 percent. Growth in the Czech Republic was less impressive in 1997, due to severe flooding in that country, but their economy is expected to rebound in 1998. The European Union's regulation, taxes, subsidies, and labor laws could very well hurt the economic development and growth potential of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. The pursuit of membership in the EU should be a careful decision made by countries in Central and Eastern Europe and should not be a requirement for NATO membership. Even if these countries elect to seek EU membership, the European Union has made it clear that it will take years for them to conform their legislation to the multitude of EU laws and regulations. In short, the amendment of my friend from New York is a delaying tactic that runs counter to U.S. security interests. Therefore, I oppose any effort to link NATO enlargement to membership in the European Union, and urge my colleagues to do the same. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

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