Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, with all respect for my friend from Iowa, I believe the Harkin amendment attempts to strangle NATO's expansion because it cannot prevent NATO expansion. This amendment places unreasonable restrictions on expenditures by limiting our assistance to new NATO members to 25 percent of all assistance provided to these countries by current NATO members. I urge my colleagues to read carefully the resolution of ratification that we have before us. Condition two requires the President to certify that the United States is under no obligation to subsidize the national expenses necessary for Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic, to meet those countries' NATO commitments. Let me be clear on this point. In signing the Protocols of Accession with these three countries, the United States has not signed up to foot the bill for their membership in NATO, and Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic understand that it is ultimately their responsibility to make the necessary improvements to their military structures. Now, my friend from Iowa knows that in the past, the U.S. Congress has authorized and appropriated funds for countries in Central and Eastern Europe to assist in their efforts to meet the criteria for NATO membership. Approving this resolution, however, in no way restricts the congressional prerogative to make this decision on an annual basis. In other words, why draw an arbitrary line now? We are going to do this on a regular basis anyway as circumstances change. If in the future years we determine that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic do not warrant or do not need the U.S. assistance, we will not authorize and appropriate it. I trust that future Congresses will be able to make this decision based on the circumstances in their time and will not need artificial percentages to dictate how our assistance should be appropriated. I also confess concern about the signal that would be sent if the Senate adopted the Harkin amendment. Does approval of this amendment mean that the United States would only need NATO 25 percent of the time no matter what our security interests may be? Does it mean that the United States is interested in only 25 percent of NATO's activities, exercises, and planning processes? Does it mean that the United States would participate in just 25 percent of NATO operations despite any potential threat posed to the alliance? I think these questions demonstrate why arbitrary ceilings simply do not belong. Mr. President, I suggest that we allow the Congress to make funding decisions based on our foreign policy interests and that we reject any effort to tie our assistance to countries in Central and Eastern Europe to that provided by our NATO allies. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose the Harkin amendment, which I do today. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Wouldn't we, if we accept the amendment of the Senator from Iowa, then be relegating Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic second class citizenship in NATO?

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I was once asked by a mother in a town meeting I had in Oregon why her son or daughter should put his or her life at risk for a Hungarian or Pole or Czech through the expansion of NATO. I think it sometimes helps to think in human terms like that. My answer to her was that the surest way not to put her son's or daughter's life at risk was, in fact, to expand NATO. It is a very troubled area in world history. In a tough neighborhood, good fences make for better neighbors. I have fought to expand NATO because I think to leave the vacuum, to leave muddled ``international speak'' out there at the border was a mistake. I think the answer I gave to that mother can also be given to my friend from Iowa. The Senator is concerned about the bill going up. I am concerned about that, too, but I think the surest way that the bill not go up is to expand NATO. I think if we did not expand NATO, and the worst kinds of scenarios you could construct actually occurred, we would be spending far more than $1.5 billion--whether Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were in NATO or not because I don't think this time we would stand idly by. I certainly hope we would not. So the surest way, I think, we can assure the American taxpayer that Senator Harkin is rightly concerned that we won't spend $125 billion to expand NATO, is to define the terms of the future, not just react to them, make them, expand NATO, make this commitment, and I believe it means we will not be spending the kind of excesses that I also fear with the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on Reading and Literacy Initiatives during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at 10:00 a.m.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled ``Environmental Compliance Tools for Small Business.'' The hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 1998, in room 428A Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 28, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 326, the Abandoned Hardrock Mines Reclamation Act of 1997; S. 327, the Hardrock Mining Royalty Act of 1997; and S. 1102, the Mining Law Reform Act of 1997.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at 2:30 p.m. on Federal research and development.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I would like to associate myself with the words of the Senator from Delaware and just tell my colleagues, the advocates of this amendment, I support it. I believe the Poles, Hungarians, and Czechs would support it, too. These are nations that know something about prisoners of war and missing in action, gulags, and all the horrors that go with totalitarianism, and I fully expect that they would want us to accede to this. I appreciate the Senators offering this amendment. I think it helps. And part of the reason to expand NATO is to heal these countries. Part of the healing comes from addressing issues like this. We will find they will do this with us and without any resistance to it. I thank the Senators who are offering this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, we have confirmed the nomination of an outstanding judicial nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Garr ``Mike'' King is a consummate professional, who is universally respected within the Oregon legal community for his integrity and professionalism. His long and distinguished legal career as a trial lawyer began as a Deputy District Attorney with the Multnomah County Oregon District Attorney's Office. He helped draft the Oregon Rules for Civil Procedure and wrote the arbitration rules used in Multnomah County. Since 1971, as a partner with the Portland firm of Kennedy, King & Zimmer, he has handled a variety of cases, including commercial litigation, professional malpractice, products liability, and employment litigation in an exemplary fashion. In addition, Mr. King has been active in the U.S. District Court mediation program, has served as an arbitrator through the American Arbitration Association and, in 1995, was elected to the Board of Regents for the American College of Trial Lawyers. Mr. President, I am confident that Garr ``Mike'' King will bring to the U.S. District Court for the district of Oregon the same dedication, professionalism, and integrity that has exemplified his entire legal career.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I wish to announce that today at 9:40 a.m. the Senate will resume consideration of S. 414, the ocean shipping reform bill. Under a previous unanimous consent agreement, there will be 20 minutes of debate remaining on the Gorton amendment No. 2287 which is pending to the shipping bill. At 10 a.m., the Senate will proceed to two stacked rollcall votes. The first vote will be on or in relation to the Gorton amendment, followed by a vote on the motion to table the Kennedy amendment No. 2289 to the Coverdell education bill. Further, the Senate will stand in recess between the hours of 12:30 and 2:15 for the weekly party caucuses. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, under a previous unanimous consent agreement, there will be two stacked rollcall votes. The first vote will be on or in relation to the Glenn amendment No. 2017, followed by a vote on or in relation to the Mack-D'Amato amendment No. 2288. Following those votes, Senators should expect further votes throughout Tuesday's session as Members offer and debate their amendments to the Coverdell education bill. I thank my colleagues for their attention. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on my sense-of-the-Senate amendment regarding the use of tobacco revenues to restore solvency to the Medicare Program. During the markup of this resolution, my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, offered a very similar amendment that stated it was the sense of the Senate that any tobacco legislation should increase the cost of a pack of cigarettes by $1.50. I voted in favor of this amendment. However, like Chairman Domenici, I believe we should use these revenues, not for new programs, but to save Medicare. I stated in the Budget Committee meeting that we were voting on amendment after amendment of very popular, and I am sure well- polled, ideas. When it comes to educating children or taking care of children, providing for schools and all of the other ideas that in the abstract we find very, very appealing, I found the arguments compelling--except for one thing. We have made some serious promises to the American people with respect to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--entitlements upon which people, frankly, have come to depend. These programs are in extremis. So, while it would be easy to vote for all of these well-polled ideas, I think it is important that we stand up for the promises of the past. As we all know, there is a way to protect Medicare and also to address the issue of smoking. The use of tobacco products by children and teenagers has become a public health epidemic. According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 16 million of our Nation's children will soon become regular smokers. This is a national tragedy. I hear some of my colleagues, even on my side of the aisle, say we should not do this through price. I have to say, in my opinion, all the regulation, all the education materials we can print and provide the schools are fine and good, but next to peer pressure the teens feel to smoke, these things amount to very little --except when you go after price. It is an economic deterrent that may well save them from this vicious habit, a habit which ultimately could take their lives. Of the 16 million children I have talked about who become regular smokers, approximately one-third of them will die from tobacco-related illness. As this population ages and becomes eligible for Medicare, the health-related costs will escalate. In fact, a report by Columbia University says that tobacco use costs Medicare approximately $10 billion per year and the total economic cost of tobacco-related health costs is more than $100 billion per year. Regardless of the outcome of the tobacco settlement in Congress--and I am one who intends to vote for a settlement. Whatever we can get through this Congress that will help to change these disturbing, shameful trends, I intend to vote for because I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that we provide all the deterrence we can towards this habit and at the same time ensure that the Medicare Program that will bear much of the burden of this habit remains solvent by any and every means, as long as the means are contributing to the end that tobacco use by this generation and generations to come will be on the decline. Whether we end up with a tax on cigarettes of $1.10 or $1.50 a pack, these revenues should be used to restore what has already been lost; in this case, Medicare dollars due to tobacco-related health care costs. I thank my colleagues. I hope they will vote for my amendment. I hope we will have a tobacco settlement. And I hope we will keep yesterday's promises first and restore a degree of solvency to Medicare. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Grassley be added as a cosponsor to my amendment, No. 2180.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Coverdell amendment be temporarily set aside so I may speak on amendment No. 2181.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Briefly, Mr. President, this amendment is a very simple sense of the Senate on Social Security that says that when we act to save Social Security, we will not be doing so by increasing Social Security taxes. Amendment No. 2180 (Purpose: To clarify Federal law with respect to the use of marijuana)

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Briefly, this amendment is a sense of the Senate regarding the use of tobacco revenue to restore the solvency of the Medicare Program, an amendment similar to the one that Senator Lautenberg introduced in the Budget Committee. I yield the floor. Vote on Amendment No. 2166

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I send an additional amendment to the desk.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Briefly, Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the- Senate amendment on an issue that has become of great concern to me and to many in my State, the legalization of marijuana for medical use. I will speak to this later. Amendment No. 2181 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning increases in the prices of tobacco products)

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

Mr SMITH of Oregon

Mr SMITH of Oregon. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I sent an amendment to the desk earlier today to modify my original amendment numbered 2180. This amendment simply provides an exception for federally funded research projects being conducted on marijuana. This is to ensure that the National Institute of Drug Abuse at NIH and other agencies may continue their important research on the long-term effects of drug use, and possible alternatives to the persistent use of marijuana. This amendment addresses an issue which has become a great concern to me and to many in my State--legalization of marijuana for medical use. While this is simply a sense of the Senate to prohibit the use of Federal funds for medical use of marijuana, I intend to work with my colleagues on legislation on this issue following the budget resolution. While this is not a new issue for the State of Arizona, or for the State of California, which have already passed laws and put them in place following the passage of Proposition 215, there are other States, including Oregon, Maine, Alaska, Nevada, Florida, and the District of Columbia, which are facing similar ballot measure proposals. In my State of Oregon alone, five ballot measures have been proposed which would legalize the use of marijuana in varying degrees, from an outright legalization of the drug to legalization for medical purposes. California and Arizona have already passed legislation legalizing medical use of marijuana and are already experiencing the adverse effects on their communities. In California, for instance, the law has become almost impossible to enforce, as the law enforcement community has had difficult times suppressing illegal marijuana use and its sale. With the opening of ``pot cafes'' in that State, it is impossible to prove whether patrons are there for medicinal or recreational use. At a time when illegal drug abuse is on the rise, legalizing the use of marijuana in any form, medical or recreational, sends a mixed signal at best to our children, particularly when there are prescription drugs in the marketplace such as Marinol. While the effectiveness of these prescription drugs is varied, I believe it is our responsibility to encourage a healthy alternative to marijuana that is effective, safe, and can be regulated like any other prescription drug in the marketplace. I would be interested in working with any of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have an interest in this issue, particularly those who want to keep drugs, such as marijuana, out of the reach of our children. In a study released by the National Institute of Drug Abuse at NIH, marijuana is noted as the most commonly used drug in America. In fact, 18 million Americans used it last year alone. In fact, smoking marijuana over a long term has the same damaging effects on the brain as long-term use of cocaine and heroin and produces the same lung damage and potential cancer risk as smoking cigarettes, even though marijuana smokers smoke less. Perhaps even more disturbing is that the National Institute of Drug Abuse also reported that 23 percent of all eighth graders in the United States used marijuana in 1996 and that marijuana use overall has steadily increased since 1993. Mr. President, while this is a sense of the Senate and it is only a start, I believe this is our opportunity to voice our opposition to these efforts to legalize the use of marijuana in our States. Through these laws, we are proceeding down a dangerous path by sending a mixed signal to our children that marijuana use is an acceptable alternative. It is not. It is dangerous. It is deadly. I thank the Chair and encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Also, that the Kyl amendment may be temporarily laid aside so I may speak to an amendment I introduced early this morning.

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