Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, several months ago, one of my constituents, Gilbert Miller, a retired Air Force senior master sergeant, walked into my Medford, OR office to share an idea with me. After doing some research, he discovered that some military reserve component members who had honorably served their country as Selected Reservists were not eligible for funeral burial flags. In response to this inequity, and in recognition of Veterans' Day, I rise to introduce a bill authorizing the Department of Veterans' Affairs to issue burial flags to deceased members of the reserve component. Mr. President, National Guard and Reserve units and individual members increasingly share the day-to-day burden of our national defense. Their service is routinely performed in a drill or short active duty tour status alongside an active component service member. Their status, however, does not make their contribution to our national defense any less important or less critical. Simply put, many requirements could not be met without the direct involvement of Reserve forces, either in a drill status or on short active duty tours. In view of this reality, I believe it is time to expand the current law regarding burial flags to include these members of the total force. Therefore, my bill permits the issuance of a burial flag to those National Guard and Reserve members who honorably served in the reserve component. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Non Commissioned Officers Association and all the veterans' groups for their support of this bill. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to our veterans as we prepare to celebrate Veterans' Day. Each day as I drive to work at the U.S. Senate, I cannot help but notice the beautiful monuments of our Nation's capital. These monuments were built to honor great people and great events, and each has its own inspirational story to tell. What you will find in the stories is that the greatness of our country and of its leaders was founded in the willingness of common men and women, our veterans, to risk their lives defending the principle of right. Serving both at home and on foreign soil, their service must always be remembered. Working in Washington in this great institution and among these beautiful monuments, I frequently am reminded of the sacrifices of our veterans. Even outside of Washington, in almost every town across America, there are monuments dedicated to our veterans. I urge each American to discover their story, not only from a historical perspective, but also through the eyes of the veterans living in their communities, where you will find common men and women who simply did the right thing when called upon. And because of them, we live in a world where there is more peace than ever before. They deserve our thanks. 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, several months ago, one of my constituents, Gilbert Miller, a retired Air Force senior master sergeant, walked into my Medford, OR office to share an idea with me. After doing some research, he discovered that some military reserve component members who had honorably served their country as Selected Reservists were not eligible for funeral burial flags. In response to this inequity, and in recognition of Veterans' Day, I rise to introduce a bill authorizing the Department of Veterans' Affairs to issue burial flags to deceased members of the reserve component. Mr. President, National Guard and Reserve units and individual members increasingly share the day-to-day burden of our national defense. Their service is routinely performed in a drill or short active duty tour status alongside an active component service member. Their status, however, does not make their contribution to our national defense any less important or less critical. Simply put, many requirements could not be met without the direct involvement of Reserve forces, either in a drill status or on short active duty tours. In view of this reality, I believe it is time to expand the current law regarding burial flags to include these members of the total force. Therefore, my bill permits the issuance of a burial flag to those National Guard and Reserve members who honorably served in the reserve component. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Non Commissioned Officers Association and all the veterans' groups for their support of this bill. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to our veterans as we prepare to celebrate Veterans' Day. Each day as I drive to work at the U.S. Senate, I cannot help but notice the beautiful monuments of our Nation's capital. These monuments were built to honor great people and great events, and each has its own inspirational story to tell. What you will find in the stories is that the greatness of our country and of its leaders was founded in the willingness of common men and women, our veterans, to risk their lives defending the principle of right. Serving both at home and on foreign soil, their service must always be remembered. Working in Washington in this great institution and among these beautiful monuments, I frequently am reminded of the sacrifices of our veterans. Even outside of Washington, in almost every town across America, there are monuments dedicated to our veterans. I urge each American to discover their story, not only from a historical perspective, but also through the eyes of the veterans living in their communities, where you will find common men and women who simply did the right thing when called upon. And because of them, we live in a world where there is more peace than ever before. They deserve our thanks. 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 rise to introduce with Senator Feinstein legislation that will provide incentives to taxpayers to use their wealth for charitable causes. In this era of ever-tightening fiscal constraints placed on congressional ability to authorize discretionary funding, we have asked our communities to do more and more for those less fortunate. Charitable organizations in our communities have become an integral part of the safety net for the poor and homeless and significant sources of assistance for education in every community. To help charities take advantage of those donors who wish to contribute significant wealth for charitable purposes, we are introducing the Charitable Giving Incentive Act. This legislation will change current tax law to encourage prospective donors to contribute a controlling interest in a closely-held corporation to charity. When a donor is willing to make a gift of a controlling interest in a company, a tax is imposed on the corporation upon its liquidation, reducing the gift that the charity receives by 35 percent. The Smith/ Feinstein bill would eliminate this egregious tax that is levied upon the value of these qualifying corporations. We sincerely hope that this will directly encourage meaningful contributions to charitable organizations that help a variety of causes. I ask that my colleagues support this legislation and look forward to its being considered by the Finance Committee in the near future. 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 rise with a pleasant report today. There are very serious things that occur on this floor in this great Chamber of debate. This is also serious, but very pleasant to report. This past Saturday history was made in our country. It occurred in my State. It occurred because a young woman by the name of Liz Heaston appeared in a men's football game at Willamette University. She became the first woman in college football history to play in a game. Before a crowd of 2,500 people, Liz kicked 2 extra points in what helped Willamette University defeat Linfield College 27-0. Liz is a starter for the Willamette University soccer team. And at the last minute she was asked to fill in for the team's regular kicker who was injured. She did it with great aplomb and obviously very effectively. After the game, Liz merely said, ``I was out there to have fun and do my job on the field for the team. That was enough for me.'' It isn't enough for me to just acknowledge this, but I wanted to come to the Senate floor today to pay tribute to her and to say in this day and age anything is possible. I commend her for being the first woman to play in a men's college football game. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Lott amendment and in opposition to the McCain-Feingold bill. It is not without some reservation that I take that position. I have the greatest esteem and respect for the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona. I know their motives in all of this are good and honorable. I just happen to come from a State, however, where we enacted a bill not dissimilar--not identical, but not dissimilar--to the McCain- Feingold bill. My State legislative process went through an entire cycle with Byzantine kinds of rules applied before our State supreme court, a very liberal supreme court, threw it all out as unconstitutional, as violating the right of freedom of speech. Now, Oregon is a State that is known for good clean government, good clean many things. We have in our State no allegations of corruption, or frankly they are very infrequent. We have voter turnout that often exceeds 80 percent. We have a very healthy democratic system in my State. Notwithstanding that, in 1994 there was an initiative that came to our ballot, very similar to McCain-Feingold, that applied to State legislative and gubernatorial races. I will admit that it passed by a large margin. I said to myself, why would it pass by a big margin if we have a good thing going here, frankly, good government in our State? I think it is simply because people don't like to be inconvenienced by democracy sometimes, and I know how they feel. I don't like to see negative ads and I don't like to be imposed upon sometimes, but frankly, democracy sometimes is uncomfortable. It is sometimes messy. On first blush it appeared to be a very good bill. However, when it came to its enactment, our secretary of state tried to explain it to all the legislative candidates. Everyone was wondering how you can run for public office. There were limits placed upon what a candidate could raise. There were limits placed upon what a citizen could contribute of $100. And the net effect of it all is that a State legislative office seeker could raise about $20,000 to $30,000, and that would buy maybe a couple cracks at communicating with his constituents. The interest in the process didn't leave. It just simply vacated the open air of democracy and went back into the smoke-filled room. I am talking about organized labor and I am talking about big business. They, then, ran campaigns about candidates in the most slanderous and scurrilous of ways. For those campaigns, no one was accountable, no one was responsible. And in the end, I believe our democracy in the 98th cycle was dumbed down and disserved. Importantly, our Supreme Court, as I mentioned, declared it all unconstitutional. They did so correctly. Now, when I ran for the U.S. Senate I ran in a special election against my friend, now my colleague, my former competitor, Ron Wyden, a Member of this Chamber. He and I became the focus of the entire country in contesting for the seat formally held by Bob Packwood. Let me tell you what happened. Both of us were running hard-hitting campaigns. Then we became the victims, and I believe myself especially, by what I term ``drive-by shooting'' on our democratic process. I had, in the course of several weeks time, $1 million of the most scurrilous kinds of ads run against me and I hated what they said. I remember my little boy sitting watching television when I happened to be there and seeing one of the ads that they ran, and he turned back to me with wide eyes and tears in his eyes and he said, ``That was a very bad ad, Dad,'' and it was. You might think because of that I would want to shut down the ability of the unions to participate I don't want to do that, but I don't want to shut down the right of people like me and you to respond to these kinds of attacks. That is what these kinds of limits will do. I truly believe that banning soft money is unconstitutional for many of the same reasons our State supreme court found it unconstitutional. I believe the U.S. Supreme Court would find such attempts here to be unconstitutional. Limit it--you may be able to do. But if you limit it, and I may even be able to vote for some form of limitation as we apply limits on contributions directly to candidates, perhaps there can be some constitutional limit on soft money. But if you do that, then there should be no more compulsory element left in this process. Frankly, the huge loophole is this loophole provided by compulsory union dues. Unless the Lott amendment passes, I can't go any farther, because I saw what happened. It happened to me, and it happened to Republicans and Democrats alike in the State of Oregon. They had campaigns run about them and they were grossly unfair. I don't want to support campaign finance reform that will dumb down our democracy in that way. Indeed, I believe some of the best things that we could do are to require voluntarism in this process and then to put some reasonable spending limits or caps on soft money contributions and then to require candidates to disclose on a daily basis the source of their contributions 3 months out from a campaign so that the public knows if one candidate is getting too much from business or another candidate is getting too much from labor. Then they can decide whether that is significant to them when they cast their sacred vote. In my view, the cure for bad democracy is not less of it but more of it and more open. I don't see that we provide for that in the McCain- Feingold bill. I see many things resulting, as they did in Oregon, which left my State in one election cycle, I believe, poorer for it. So I plead with my colleague, vote for the Lott amendment, and then let's talk seriously about some things that we can do to make this whole process fair for both sides. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today in America, too many teenagers have access to too much tobacco at too many stores and retail outlets. The result? Each day 3,000 more young people start smoking and get addicted to lethal tobacco products. As Congress considers legislation to reduce teenage smoking and to address the growing public health concerns associated with the use of tobacco, I want to propose a concept that goes to the heart of the problem--keeping tobacco products out of the hands of kids. While there are numerous well-intentioned suggestions as to how to best achieve this goal, I believe that the proposal I am introducing today goes to the heart of the problem--holding both those who sell tobacco accountable and those who illegally purchase tobacco responsible. It demands the participation by store owners, clerks, parents, kids, and local law enforcement. The proposal is a simple, direct approach: require those who sell tobacco to be licensed and trained, and hold children who illegally purchase tobacco responsible for their actions--by notifying their parents, imposing fines and community service, and restricting access to driving privileges. With this legislation, we have an opportunity to take some incremental and immediate action today, to empower our communities in the fight against teenage tobacco use. The Tobacco Use by Minors Deterrence Act elicits cooperation among families, communities, the retailers, and law enforcement officials in the fight against tobacco use by children. Importantly, this legislation gives retailers a new leadership role and places greater responsibility on parents and minors. First, this bill establishes a self-funding State license program for retailers to sell tobacco products, similar to liquor licenses. Second, it imposes strict penalties on store owners and employees for selling tobacco products to minors. Third, it requires employee training on all tobacco laws. Fourth, it subjects minors who are caught purchasing or using tobacco products to punishments that are meaningful to them, including the option of fines, parental notification, community service, and possible loss of driving privileges. In my State of Oregon, restrictions on the distribution and sale of tobacco products are some of the strongest in the nation. This legislation echoes Oregon's commitment by making it more difficult for retailers across the Nation to make a profit from the illegal sale of tobacco products to children. Just how important is it that we take immediate action? Each day that we wait for the pending FDA lawsuits, and each day that we spend talking about doing something to reduce tobacco use by our Nation's children, 3,000 more young people begin smoking. I want you to think about that for a moment. Each day, 3,000 children start smoking--- that's more than 1 million children each year. To put this into perspective, the Centers for Disease Control [CDC] estimates that 16.6 million of our children today will become regular smokers, and almost one-third, approximately 5 million children, will die from tobacco- related illness. In my State of Oregon, 191,688 children under 18 are projected to become smokers; 61,340 of those youth will die. It is time to recognize teen tobacco use for what it is--a public health epidemic. In addition to the loss of life associated with tobacco use, there is a significant cost to our public health system. Currently, health care costs caused directly by smoking total more than $50 billion each year. We cannot afford to wait any longer. Because the longer we postpone empowering communities, families, and law enforcement officials, we do so by sacrificing the health and life of our children.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today in America, too many teenagers have access to too much tobacco at too many stores and retail outlets. The result? Each day 3,000 more young people start smoking and get addicted to lethal tobacco products. As Congress considers legislation to reduce teenage smoking and to address the growing public health concerns associated with the use of tobacco, I want to propose a concept that goes to the heart of the problem--keeping tobacco products out of the hands of kids. While there are numerous well-intentioned suggestions as to how to best achieve this goal, I believe that the proposal I am introducing today goes to the heart of the problem--holding both those who sell tobacco accountable and those who illegally purchase tobacco responsible. It demands the participation by store owners, clerks, parents, kids, and local law enforcement. The proposal is a simple, direct approach: require those who sell tobacco to be licensed and trained, and hold children who illegally purchase tobacco responsible for their actions--by notifying their parents, imposing fines and community service, and restricting access to driving privileges. With this legislation, we have an opportunity to take some incremental and immediate action today, to empower our communities in the fight against teenage tobacco use. The Tobacco Use by Minors Deterrence Act elicits cooperation among families, communities, the retailers, and law enforcement officials in the fight against tobacco use by children. Importantly, this legislation gives retailers a new leadership role and places greater responsibility on parents and minors. First, this bill establishes a self-funding State license program for retailers to sell tobacco products, similar to liquor licenses. Second, it imposes strict penalties on store owners and employees for selling tobacco products to minors. Third, it requires employee training on all tobacco laws. Fourth, it subjects minors who are caught purchasing or using tobacco products to punishments that are meaningful to them, including the option of fines, parental notification, community service, and possible loss of driving privileges. In my State of Oregon, restrictions on the distribution and sale of tobacco products are some of the strongest in the nation. This legislation echoes Oregon's commitment by making it more difficult for retailers across the Nation to make a profit from the illegal sale of tobacco products to children. Just how important is it that we take immediate action? Each day that we wait for the pending FDA lawsuits, and each day that we spend talking about doing something to reduce tobacco use by our Nation's children, 3,000 more young people begin smoking. I want you to think about that for a moment. Each day, 3,000 children start smoking--- that's more than 1 million children each year. To put this into perspective, the Centers for Disease Control [CDC] estimates that 16.6 million of our children today will become regular smokers, and almost one-third, approximately 5 million children, will die from tobacco- related illness. In my State of Oregon, 191,688 children under 18 are projected to become smokers; 61,340 of those youth will die. It is time to recognize teen tobacco use for what it is--a public health epidemic. In addition to the loss of life associated with tobacco use, there is a significant cost to our public health system. Currently, health care costs caused directly by smoking total more than $50 billion each year. We cannot afford to wait any longer. Because the longer we postpone empowering communities, families, and law enforcement officials, we do so by sacrificing the health and life of our children.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, with the permission of the Senator from Indiana, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. I will take a couple minutes.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the Chair and the Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the Senate floor this morning and talk about a development in Russia that is of concern to this body because of the action we took earlier this summer. Earlier in the year the Russian Duma passed a law which would reintegrate a Stalinist system when it comes to freedom of conscience, freedom of religion. Four religions: Judaism, Buddhism, the Russian Orthodox Church, and Islam were identified as sanctioned by the Russian Federation, but left out all Protestant religions, the Catholic religion, and any other minority faith that is currently operating there according to international treaty and according to Russian law, previous Russian law and the Russian Constitution. These new groups would be treated in minority fashion, in that they could not own property, they could not operate schools, have missionaries there, publish Bibles or distribute them or employ people. They would be required to get rid of bank accounts and to register with the state. What I am describing is a huge setback for Russia, back into Stalinist times. And so, this body took very courageous action. It voted 95 to 4 to withhold foreign aid to Russia, should this be enacted. I was delighted after we did that, that President Boris Yeltsin was good to his word and vetoed that legislation. After that, however, he participated in a compromise bill, which an honest reading would tell a person is of no difference. The upper house of the Duma, yesterday, passed compromise legislation. The President is expected to sign it, and unfortunately, the worst things that could happen to religion in Russia could still happen. There is reason to believe that the Russian Government will implement this law differently than it is actually written. It is for this reason that I have worked with Senator Mitch McConnell, and other members of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, to modify our bill in a small, but significant way. The word ``enact'' will be changed in conference to ``implement'' in order to give the Russian leaders some latitude in interpreting this legislation. The foreign operations bill language will now allow the Russian Government 6 months to enact the new legislation in a manner that will not discriminate against minority religions before a decision is made to withhold foreign aid. I come to the floor today to plead with my colleagues to support this language. I would tell you that the people we represent would not be amused by our inaction or our unwillingness to do something. This isn't about trade, this isn't about freedom of contract, this is about taking tax dollars from the American people and giving them to a government that is reimposing Stalinist restrictions. Imagine going to a townhall in your State, or mine in Oregon, and talking to Catholics who are watching the spectacle of their church being removed from Russia--and then trying to explain why Russia should get American tax dollars as foreign aid. I thank the Chair for this time. I thank my colleague again from Indiana. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I also would like to commend the Senator from Washington for his diligence in pursuing a solution to this issue. I would be pleased to work with the Senators from Washington and Idaho on this effort to evaluate how well this provision works, and to consider the need for any changes.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, former Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles once stated that ``Of all the tasks of government, the most basic is to protect its citizens against violence.'' While this has been one of our biggest challenges, Congress has the ability to also strengthen those laws that deter violence and provide protection to those whose careers are dedicated to protecting our families and also our communities. With that intent, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Federal Judiciary Protection Act, a bill to provide greater protection to Federal law enforcement officials and their families. Under current law, a person who assaults, attempts to assault, or who threatens to kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family of a U.S. official, a U.S. judge, or a Federal law enforcement official, is subject to a punishment of a fine or imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both. This legislation seeks to expand these penalties in instances of assault with a weapon and a prior criminal history. In such cases, an individual could face up to 20 years in prison. This legislation would also strengthen the penalties for individuals who communicate threats through the mail. Currently, individuals who knowingly use the U.S. Postal Service to deliver any communication containing any threat are subject to a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to 5 years. Under this legislation, anyone who communicates a threat could face imprisonment of up to 10 years. Briefly, I would like to share an example illustrating the need for this legislation. In my State of Oregon, Chief Judge Michael Hogan and his family were subjected to frightening, threatening phone calls, letters, and messages from an individual who had been convicted of previous crimes in Judge Hogan's courtroom. For months, he and his family lived with the fear that these threats to the lives of his wife and children could become reality, and, equally disturbing, that the individual could be back out on the street again in a matter of a few months, or a few years. Judge Hogan and his family are not alone. In April of this year, the wife of a circuit court judge in Florida was stalked by an individual who had been convicted of similar offenses in 1994 and 1995. Mrs. Linda Cope, the wife of Circuit Judge Charles Cope was leaving a shopping mall one afternoon and as pursued by a man named Stelios Kostakis. As she left the parking lot, she realized that she was being followed and attempted to lose Kostakis by taking alternative routes and speeding through residential streets. In a desperate attempt, Mrs. Cope cut in front of a semitrailer truck, risking a serious accident and possible loss of life, to escape. Even after this third offense, stalking the wife of a circuit court judge, he was sentenced to only 6 months on probation and $150 in fines and other court costs. In September 1996, Lawrence County Judge Dominick Motto was stalked, harassed, and subjected to terrorist threats by Milton C. Reiguert, who was upset by a verdict in a case that Judge Motto had heard in his courtroom. After hearing the verdict, Reiguert stated his intention to ``point a rifle at his head and get what he wanted.'' Mr. President, these are only a few examples of vicious acts focused at our Federal law enforcement officials. As a member of the legislative branch, I believe it is our responsibility to provide adequate protection to all Americans who serve to protect the life and liberty of every citizen in this Nation. I encourage my colleagues to join us in sponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, former Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles once stated that ``Of all the tasks of government, the most basic is to protect its citizens against violence.'' While this has been one of our biggest challenges, Congress has the ability to also strengthen those laws that deter violence and provide protection to those whose careers are dedicated to protecting our families and also our communities. With that intent, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Federal Judiciary Protection Act, a bill to provide greater protection to Federal law enforcement officials and their families. Under current law, a person who assaults, attempts to assault, or who threatens to kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family of a U.S. official, a U.S. judge, or a Federal law enforcement official, is subject to a punishment of a fine or imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both. This legislation seeks to expand these penalties in instances of assault with a weapon and a prior criminal history. In such cases, an individual could face up to 20 years in prison. This legislation would also strengthen the penalties for individuals who communicate threats through the mail. Currently, individuals who knowingly use the U.S. Postal Service to deliver any communication containing any threat are subject to a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to 5 years. Under this legislation, anyone who communicates a threat could face imprisonment of up to 10 years. Briefly, I would like to share an example illustrating the need for this legislation. In my State of Oregon, Chief Judge Michael Hogan and his family were subjected to frightening, threatening phone calls, letters, and messages from an individual who had been convicted of previous crimes in Judge Hogan's courtroom. For months, he and his family lived with the fear that these threats to the lives of his wife and children could become reality, and, equally disturbing, that the individual could be back out on the street again in a matter of a few months, or a few years. Judge Hogan and his family are not alone. In April of this year, the wife of a circuit court judge in Florida was stalked by an individual who had been convicted of similar offenses in 1994 and 1995. Mrs. Linda Cope, the wife of Circuit Judge Charles Cope was leaving a shopping mall one afternoon and as pursued by a man named Stelios Kostakis. As she left the parking lot, she realized that she was being followed and attempted to lose Kostakis by taking alternative routes and speeding through residential streets. In a desperate attempt, Mrs. Cope cut in front of a semitrailer truck, risking a serious accident and possible loss of life, to escape. Even after this third offense, stalking the wife of a circuit court judge, he was sentenced to only 6 months on probation and $150 in fines and other court costs. In September 1996, Lawrence County Judge Dominick Motto was stalked, harassed, and subjected to terrorist threats by Milton C. Reiguert, who was upset by a verdict in a case that Judge Motto had heard in his courtroom. After hearing the verdict, Reiguert stated his intention to ``point a rifle at his head and get what he wanted.'' Mr. President, these are only a few examples of vicious acts focused at our Federal law enforcement officials. As a member of the legislative branch, I believe it is our responsibility to provide adequate protection to all Americans who serve to protect the life and liberty of every citizen in this Nation. I encourage my colleagues to join us in sponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Montana and my colleagues from Washington and Idaho who have joined me in resisting the Bryan amendment. The Senator from Nevada is my friend, but I believe on this issue he is very wrong. If he were to prevail, this would force great injury on my State. Mr. President, I would like to take just a couple of minutes to speak against the amendment from the junior Senator from Nevada. This amendment calls for a $10 million reduction in funds for new road building, the elimination of the purchaser credit program, and a further reduction on logging in roadless areas. I strongly oppose these provisions. Timber sales are vital to the long-term viability of local communities throughout the West. Under existing law, 25 percent of the gross receipts from Federal timber sales go to local communities. These funds are used for local schools and roads programs. Without a viable forest road maintenance, repair, and construction program, the timber sale program would be significantly limited. The big losers will be local communities. Shared receipts are an integral part of local government revenues in the West. There is no practical way to separate these payments from the other payment programs without having dramatic negative consequences on local communities. The necessary dollars to offset the loss of revenue caused from the reduction in timber sales would not be forthcoming. Mr. President, Federal timber sales have declined precipitously, primarily from limitations placed on the Forest Service by environmental considerations and species protection efforts for spotted owls, marbled murrelets, and various species of salmon. In 1987, the timber sale program provided more than 12 billion board feet of timber; 10 years later, less than 4 billion board feet were sold. It does not take an accountant to determine the serious implications this has had for the budgets of rural communities. Two-thirds of all timber harvested in national forests come from small businesses. Those small operations are generally headquartered in the rural areas, providing jobs and stability to their communities, not to mention needed revenues to sustain local programs and services. The Bryan amendment would dramatically limit forest road construction, putting additional pressures on the timber sale program. Since 1991, total new road construction built by the Forest Service or by timber purchasers has declined by two-thirds. Spending on both new road construction and reconstruction has been cut in half over this same period. Most supporters of the Bryan amendment are unaware that the Forest Service will spend many times more on reconstruction and repair of existing roads than they will on the construction of new forest roads. Indeed, most of the funding appropriated by Congress each year goes toward the reconstruction of existing roads. In 1996, more than 2,800 miles of roads were reconstructed, while only about 450 miles of new roads were constructed. Reconstruction activities protect watersheds through improved road design, road placement, and sediment control. Road construction funds are being used for watershed protection as part of the President's forest plan for the Pacific Northwest. According to the Forest Service, forest roads allow critical access needed for the suppression of up to 10,000 wildfires per year and reforestation of the burned-over lands. The Bryan amendment will quite simply prevent the President from keeping the environmental and economic commitments made in the Northwest forest plan. The Forest Service has invested significantly in technology transfer applications for road building. Examples cited in this year's Forest Service budget proposal are: wetland development and riparian restoration through modification of culverts and other drainage structures, retaining soil through innovative design of gravity walls, and lower water crossings for roads to minimize disturbance, provide fish passage, and avoid damming and channeling during peak flows. Mr. President, the Forest Service is continuing its efforts to reduce the number of roads. In recent years, the Forest Service has annually reduced more than three times as much road mileage as compared to new construction. In 1996, the Forest Service reduced 1,400 miles of roads. For the past 6 years combined, the Forest Service has reduced over 18,000 miles of roads. The Bryan amendment also calls for the elimination of purchaser road credits program. Eliminating purchaser road credits would have serious implications for local communities. Under the purchaser credit program, timber sale contracts require the purchaser to reconstruct or construct roads and bridges. Purchaser credit is an off-budget means for the Forest Service to rebuild and repair existing roads and occasionally to build new roads at a significant savings to the taxpayer when compared appropriated funds. Timber companies receive credits equal to the value of the road work required under a timber contract. The credit can be applied against the price paid to the Government for the timber harvested. These companies reflect the cost of building roads in their submitted bids. As funds for road construction have been reduced in recent years, purchaser credit has become a vital tool to accomplish road work in all regions of the country, especially reconstruction. About 80 percent of the program is used each year for reconstruction on roads, especially for safety and environmental improvements. Proponents of this amendment project positive Federal budget effects from the elimination of purchaser road credits. Elementary economics tells us that purchasers will simply bid less for the timber than they would of the credit were in place in order to offset their increased costs, while the Federal Government will net virtually the same amount. The Bryan amendment would further restrict the construction of roads in roadless areas. Road construction in roadless areas of the national forests are, for the most part, limited to emergency situations. Indeed, few if any miles of roads have been built in roadless areas of the national forests in recent years. However, building some roads in roadless areas is necessary on occasion to allow access to treat insect and disease outbreaks, to monitor forest health, or for wildfire management. Finally, Mr. President, there is no subsidy associated with timber sales or road construction. For new road construction and reconstruction associated with timber sales, costs are fairly apportioned. These costs are fully offset by timber revenues, resulting in net profits averaging more than $400 million per year over the last 6 years. According to a recent economic analysis released by the Price Waterhouse accounting firm, ``the forest roads program does not contain a subsidy for timber purchasers--it provides an efficient and effective mechanism for financing road construction and reconstruction.'' Forest Service timber sales are sold using an open, competitive auction system process. All sales are sold at fair market value, with costs associated with the timber sales, including road work, apportioned and built into a minimum bid price, which sets the floor on the value of the timber sale. Mr. President, I would like to close by quoting from a September 9 editorial in Oregonian which addresses the merit of Senator Byran's amendment. We think timber sales should be based on good plans and sound scientific analysis of their effects. This amendment, however, more closely fits the agenda of those environmentalists opposing all commercial timber sales in the national forests than it does the interest of good planning. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Byran amendment. In the interest of time, I will summarize so we will leave to Senator Kempthorne some time. I am reminded of the statement I heard from one Senator--everything that can be said has been said but not everyone has said it. So I guess it is my turn. I would like to let Senator Kempthorne have a chance to be on record also. I could focus on the many points Senator Craig laid out very well as to why this is not a subsidy, why this all nets out in the end for the advantage of the forest, for the advantage of the taxpayer and for the advantage of local communities in the rural Northwest. I suggest to you that President Clinton came to my State, held a big timber conference, made some promises as to the level of historic timber harvest that would occur, along with a whole lot of environmental protection. Part of that promise was that inclusion of these purchaser road credits would continue, that roads would be maintained so that there are not big blowouts, that there would be the ability to suppress fires, that there would be the ability to continue to harvest where it is economically and environmentally responsible to do so. I was very heartened the other day to find two of my State's leading newspapers--these are not conservative newspapers; these are liberal voices in my State, the Oregonian and the Register-Guard out of Eugene--said the Senate should maintain the funds on these roads. Well, let me quote from the Oregonian. They said Forest Service road funding, ``which consists of road resurfacing, culvert replacement and other environmentally vital drainage improvements, these environmentally responsible activities are badly underfunded. It would be perverse to cut these budgets in the name of stopping new roads.'' I agree. If you just focus on the economics, this washes out to the taxpayer. If you focus on the environment, we are not talking about much new road building. We are talking about maintenance of roads for people to use, for forest health to be provided, for the environment to be protected against washouts of these roads. We are talking about people who want to hunt in our national forests. All of these things are critical to this debate. But, in the end I want to emphasize what the Senator from Montana said. There is a human element here, for crying out loud. There are people who breathe air and have blood in their veins and have children and have dreams and who want a future, who love to live in the country, who understand what it means to be stewards of the land and who also understand that this is a chain saw at their way of life. This is a chain saw aimed at the heart of Northwestern rural communities. It has to be stopped. I care about protecting the environment. I just happen to believe that people like wood products, too. I happen to believe there can be a balance between the environment and our economy; between providing for animal and human needs. This goes at the heart of stopping that kind of balance. I plead with my colleagues. You have interests in your States where I need to learn. I want to know what it is that helps your people, your human element. But if you want to know what affects mine, this does. Even the leading liberal papers of my State agree with me. The New York Times doesn't understand the issue. They are on the other side. Today I stand with the people of Oregon, who understand the balance of the environment and our economy. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Wyden, for yielding. I publicly commend my senior colleague from Oregon, with whom it has been my great pleasure to stand on this issue and ask for justice for our State. I want to point out a very pivotal role that Senator Strom Thurmond played in breaking a logjam, if you will, for the State of Oregon. For a very long time now, Senator Wyden and I have been trying to get answers from the Air Force for widows and orphans, literally, as to why their loved ones, these airmen, perished in this tragic accident. For one reason or another, we were stalled and put off at every turn. It was Senator Thurmond who, when he heard of Senator Wyden's hold on this nomination--and, frankly, my encouragement of that--that he intervened in our behalf. I acknowledge it. I thank him. He asked me to go immediately with him to the cloakroom where we got on the phone with the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force. We laid out the terms of a deal that will include a new investigation into C-130 air transports generally, and this one in particular. It was promised to Oregon's families, that these widows and orphans would be given the information they need as to why this accident occurred. It was promised that a member of the National Transportation Safety Board would be a part of this investigative team. And I think that is important for the Air Force that has, in my State, lost some credibility. I thank the Air Force for their promise to provide to our State, and this issue generally, the kind of investigation that was conducted for Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, who perished in an accident in Bosnia. So, I thank the Air Force for responding. I regret it took this level of intervention, but I compliment my senior colleague for his leadership on this. I have been proud to stand with him. I am grateful to Senator Thurmond. I am thankful the Air Force has come around to help us on this issue. I only hope that out of all of this will come information that will protect our men in the Air Force who fly C-130 air transports from this ever occurring again to anyone else. With that, I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to vote for the confirmation of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I am pleased to rise as one of the cosponsors of Senator Gorton's amendment. Many here, including the Presiding Officer, spent the last year campaigning, and, frankly, I made education one of the cornerstones of my campaign. Everywhere I went there was frustration at the local level about Federal redtape, bureaucracy, burdens and costs that were imposed upon our common desire to educate our children. I said over and over again that I believed in local control. Now it is time to put to the truth what we said in how we will vote. I am proud to cosponsor this with Senator Gorton because it does exactly what we ought to be doing. Madam President, this amendment focuses the area of education on reform, returning the control of our education dollars back to where it belongs, at the local level. This amendment simply block grants the funds from the Department of Education for K through 12 and gives it to local schools. As my colleague, Senator Domenici, stated, we keep adding regulations, adding programs, adding money. But when we get to the end of the equation, we end with a negative result and subtracting from education. This amendment gives us the opportunity to give schools the flexibility to improve the quality of education at the local level, to improve the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic. Madam President, this is an opportunity for us to do the right thing, not only by reducing the bureaucracy that exists in our school education system, but to provide our schools with the flexibility and the funding to achieve a higher standard. I urge my colleagues to support this. I urge government at all levels, who care about education, to do so by showing, in an affirmative way, that our interest is in an educated child, our interest is not in adding to well-funded bureaucracies. I urge support of this amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced a bill, S. 1072, that corrects an unintended loophole in the Plant Patent Act of 1930 dealing with the coverage of plant parts. The 1930 act covers the whole plant but did not address plant parts, resulting in a loophole whereby some growers, particularly in foreign nations that do not have plant breeders' rights laws, are reproducing U.S. patent- protected varieties without authorization. They then export the harvested materials--plant parts--such as flowers and fruits, to the United States. The loophole has been created by new production and transportation capabilities unforeseen 67 years ago. As a result, American plant breeders are losing royalty income that supports continued research and breeding of new and improved varieties. Domestic growers who are paying legitimate royalties are also finding themselves at an unfair disadvantage to foreign growers producing patented varieties illegally. The Plant Patent Act of 1930 has historically offered a strong incentive for research and breeding activities, which is the foundation for a progressive and growing U.S. horticultural industry. This legislation amends the Plant Patent Act to expressly cover plants and plant parts by inserting at the end of 35 U.S.C. 163, the words ``or any parts thereof.'' This solution provides relief to U.S. breeders and growers, and would help ensure that the United States remains an international leader in the development of new and useful plant varieties. It will enable plant and patent holders the opportunity to protect their patent rights and continue investing in research and development. S. 1072 is also consistent with the 1991 International Union for the Production of New Varieties of Plants, which extends plant breeders' rights protection to harvested material. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record. The text of the bill follows:

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I have a prepared statement, but I am going to divert from it and frankly just speak from my heart, from my experience. My experience is not long in this Chamber. But my experience among the people of Oregon is very recent. And my experience there with people causes me to rise in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from California. I am reluctant to do that for a personal reason. I am one of Senator Feinstein's great admirers. She may not know that, but I think she is a terrific human being. But I have an obligation to speak as best I can for the people who elected me. I believe this may be an imperfect process. Maybe it should not be a rider to a bill. But I am very aware that for 25 years this issue has been debated in this Chamber, and we have had study after study after study, and what we are beginning to develop is a feeling among the electorate that when going for justice in the ninth circuit, that justice will be denied. So I think there is a lot of frustration on the part of many of us here that we have to do whatever we can and stop studying and stop delaying and start doing. So I feel very strongly about this. I have heard many arguments today that have merit on a procedural basis. Yes, maybe many of the legal profession oppose this. But many people support this. We have heard charges of gerrymandering. I have a map of the United States and the circuit courts of this country. They are saying we are gerrymandering on the west coast of the United States, but I notice that nearly every State on the east coast of the United States is in a different circuit. There are five circuits that cover the Eastern United States, and those circuits have the lowest reversal rates, taken together, of any region in the country. I think we need to change it. So I rise to support what Senator Gregg is doing. I thank him for that. I thank him for his leadership. He doesn't have a dog in the fight of the ninth circuit, but a lot of us do. So I thank him for that. I join my colleagues in opposition to this amendment to strike the provision in this bill to divide the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. This may not be the most perfect solution to a difficult problem, but I believe that it provides a platform from which to relieve the caseload and reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Serving more than 45 million people and spanning 1.4 million square miles, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handles more than 8,500 filings a year--with a reversal rate of 96 percent. By the year 2010, the ninth circuit population will increase in size by 43 percent. While my colleague from California may argue that this is an issue for further study, I would like to remind my colleagues that the Senate has studied this issue for almost a quarter century and has reported legislation to split the ninth circuit on three separate occasions. Clearly, the time has come to act. I want to conclude by reading the comments of some judges who support what is happening here, because some have been read to the reverse. Mr. President, we are not simply legislating without just cause. The judges that serve in the ninth circuit have given us cause to act without further delay. Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain from my state of Oregon has stated: We (the ninth circuit) cannot grow without limit. As the number of opinions increases, we judges risk losing the ability to know what our circuit's law is. In short, bigger is not necessarily better. The ninth circuit will ultimately need to be split. I replaced a great senator, Senator Mark O. Hatfield who served in this Chamber for 30 years. He said: The ninth circuit's size has created serious problems: too many judges spending more time and money traveling than hearing cases, a growing backlog of cases which threaten to bury each judge, a dangerous inability to keep up with current case law, a breakdown in judicial collegiality and, most importantly, a failure to provide uniformity, stability and predictability in the development of federal law throughout the Western region. It is increasingly clear that these problems cannot be solved by the reforms already implemented by the Court. These arguments adequately state the case for the division of the circuit. We delay at our peril. Mr. President, justice delayed is justice denied. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that corrects a Forest Service mapping error on the border of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area [HCNRA], in northeast Oregon, that has led to the closure of an important access road. The bill will restore public access to Hells Canyon, while preserving additional wilderness acreage for the enjoyment of generations to come. In 1975, Congress created the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area which includes the Wilderness Area and overlooks the Snake River and the Oregon-Idaho border. Along the western rim of Hells Canyon lies Forest Service Road 3965. The 1975 act directed the development of a comprehensive management plan for the HCNRA and specifically addressed the need to analyze road access on the western rim of the canyon. The 1982 Comprehensive Management Plan, developed with extensive public participation, provided for continued motor vehicle use of Road 3965 for recreation and fire prevention purposes. The road existed prior to the HCNRA designation, but upon the discovery that the road crossed into the designated wilderness area, the road was closed. The Forest Service inadvertently erred in its location of the wilderness boundary in question. This legislation will, therefore, adjust the wilderness boundary to bring it in line with what Congress intended when the wilderness was established. This correction will actually increase wilderness acreage. For decades, Oregon residents have traveled this service road to experience the natural beauty of Hells Canyon. The recreation area is an important part of our heritage, and public access to it is vital. I look forward to the Forest Service managing the road with continued sensitivity to all cultural, environmental, and economic impacts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that corrects a Forest Service mapping error on the border of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area [HCNRA], in northeast Oregon, that has led to the closure of an important access road. The bill will restore public access to Hells Canyon, while preserving additional wilderness acreage for the enjoyment of generations to come. In 1975, Congress created the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area which includes the Wilderness Area and overlooks the Snake River and the Oregon-Idaho border. Along the western rim of Hells Canyon lies Forest Service Road 3965. The 1975 act directed the development of a comprehensive management plan for the HCNRA and specifically addressed the need to analyze road access on the western rim of the canyon. The 1982 Comprehensive Management Plan, developed with extensive public participation, provided for continued motor vehicle use of Road 3965 for recreation and fire prevention purposes. The road existed prior to the HCNRA designation, but upon the discovery that the road crossed into the designated wilderness area, the road was closed. The Forest Service inadvertently erred in its location of the wilderness boundary in question. This legislation will, therefore, adjust the wilderness boundary to bring it in line with what Congress intended when the wilderness was established. This correction will actually increase wilderness acreage. For decades, Oregon residents have traveled this service road to experience the natural beauty of Hells Canyon. The recreation area is an important part of our heritage, and public access to it is vital. I look forward to the Forest Service managing the road with continued sensitivity to all cultural, environmental, and economic impacts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, on the Fourth of July, as Americans were celebrating their cherished freedoms upon which this country was founded, the Russian Federation passed a bill which, if signed into law, would restrict freedom of religion in that country in a lamentable way. This bill is ironically titled, ``On Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations.'' It first passed the lower house of the Russian Duma in late June. The bill would, among other things, limit the activities of foreign missionaries and grant unregistered religious groups significantly fewer rights than accredited Russian religious organizations such as the Russian Orthodox Church, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism. Mr. President, this bill awaiting signature now on President Yeltsin's desk would severely limit the very existence of what Russia terms ``new faiths.'' These ``new faiths'' include many Protestant faiths--Evangelicals, fundamentalists, Pentecostals, SDA's, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and even the Catholic Church. These faiths will be persecuted as religious minorities under this proposed law. Congress has already taken a number of steps to send signals to President Yeltsin about this bill. Many Members of both Houses have signed letters to President Yeltsin and to President Clinton. From the Vatican to former President Jimmy Carter, the reaction to this law has been strong and unwavering. I rise today to send an even stronger signal. My amendment would withhold funds appropriated in the foreign operations bill to Russia unless the President of the United States determines and verifies in writing to the Congress that the Government of Russia has enacted no statute that would discriminate against religious minorities in the Russian Federation. Mr. President, I realize, as do all Senators, that Russia is a sovereign country. We cannot tell Russia what to do as a country. We can, however, elect not to send foreign aid to a country that would discriminate against religious beliefs in so fundamental a way. This will be the clearest and strongest message that can be sent to President Yeltsin. Should he decide to enact into law this discrimination, we then will send no American funds, none of our taxpayers' hard-earned moneys, to that country in the fiscal year of 1998. In the modern world, for most religions, the kind of deprivation of status that the Russian bill would enact, should it become law, is a major encroachment upon religious freedom. Many international agreements have already been signed that require signatories to guarantee religious freedom. For example, sections of the Vienna Concluding Document of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe commits participating States in the Helsinki process to grant religious freedom as part of their Constitution. Mr. President, the Russian Federation is a signatory to that Vienna document. Furthermore, the bill on President Yeltsin's desk would not only violate this and other international agreements; it would also violate Russia's own Constitution which guarantees religious freedoms we as Americans have come to hold as so dear and so fundamental. I know some might argue, Mr. President, that we should not take these kinds of actions; that we are trying to help Russia build democracy, and we are and want to do those things, but I would say to them that religious freedom is the cornerstone of democracy. Indeed, a democratic foundation without that cornerstone of religious freedom is a democracy that is built upon sand. I hope that all Senators will join me in sending a strong signal to President Yeltsin that American dollars will not find their way to support any country that treats religious freedom in such a manner. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I call for the yeas and nays.

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

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