Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3291.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank you for the time. I am here today at the request of my leader. I am here today to talk to the people of Oregon and to the American people. I am often asked in townhall meetings why it is that we don't seem to be getting much done. Every time people turn on C-SPAN they see Republicans and Democrats bickering. I have said to them: I know it is frustrating. I know you do not like it. I know it sometimes isn't pleasant. But, frankly, rather than criticize it, we ought to celebrate it because this is the way we go about the business of government of a free people--of exchanging ideas, and using words as our weapons and not actually bullets. This contest between Republicans and Democrats is not an unhealthy thing. But I must admit to the American people and to the people of Oregon that what I see happening on the Senate floor right now is nothing to be celebrated. I came to the Senate looking for solutions--not looking for a fight. I don't mind a good debate. I don't mind differences of opinion. I don't mind taking tough votes. Frankly, I have learned that the tough votes are sometimes the most memorable because they are difficult. They set you apart. They make you come to a choice. Like Senator Bennett said, I have taken all of these tough votes that my Democratic friends have wanted me to take, and they have taken some that we wanted them to take. However, I have to say that now is not a moment to be celebrated because of what I have been hearing since I came back from this last weekend. I have heard from colleagues on both sides of the aisle that this session of Congress is essentially over, that right now politics is going to prevail over policy, and that there will be gridlock until the election so that the greatest political advantage can be made out of the Congress. I am disappointed in that. I didn't come here for that. I didn't fight as hard as I did to win a seat in this body to just play that kind of a game. I find on the Democratic side people of honor and good will. I hope they find that in Republicans. Frankly, I think we are allowing the worst of our natures to take over right now. I am disappointed. I am very disappointed. I understand that the White House is now telling our leaders that unless we accede to every one of the President's demands, that we will be blamed for shutting the Government down because he won't sign any tax cut, he won't sign any appropriations bill. We are just going to be made the victims of this. I say to my friends in the White House, this is an overreach. This goes too far. The American people will judge this for what it is. I think we owe the American people something better than that. I think we owe them the truth. I think we owe them our best efforts. I think the politics shouldn't be so blatantly transparent that it brings shame upon the Senate. I am here with a heavy heart because I want to get something done. I have sat in the chair many times and begun to see this filibuster mentality build up among the minority that rails against these tax cuts that we have passed, to eliminate estate taxes, to eliminate the marriage penalty. They don't have to like it, they voted against it. I will say why I voted for them. There is an overarching reason why I vote for tax cuts. I believe in times of surplus and prosperity there is a point when we can say we are taking too much and we believe it can do more good in the general economy and we will put some back. Tax cuts go to taxpayers. When it comes to specific taxes, for example, the estate tax, I will state why I voted to change the nature of that tax, to eliminate the incidence of debt as the tax, and to shift it over to the sale of an asset as the incidence of taxation. I don't believe it is any of the Government's business how my heirs receive my estate. I think that is about freedom. I think that is about people saying: I am going to work hard and I will accumulate what I can, and I want to determine how my sons and my daughters receive my estate. Then if my heirs are unwise, the marketplace will redistribute that income because of poor choices. I don't think it is the Government's business to say we are going to determine how this money is redistributed. It is a difference of who you trust. Do you trust Government? Or do you trust freedom? Do you trust people? Or do you trust central planning? That is why I am on this side of the aisle-- not because I think there are bad people over there; I know otherwise. There are good people there. But we have a difference of belief in how the public is best served. I think they want more equality. I think we want more liberty. That is the context of the debate here. I want the American people to know I will defend my vote to my own grave to eliminate the estate tax. I believe the way we have shifted it to a capital gains as the incidence of taxation is far more consistent with notions of freedom than reaching into somebody's grave and saying we are going to distribute it a new way, a Government way. That is not the America that I believe in. When it comes to the marriage penalty tax cut, they are complaining again that too few people will benefit. You say it affects people disproportionately. But many married people will benefit. Again, it is hard to give tax cuts to those who don't pay taxes. I am not ashamed of voting to cut taxes for married people. Some people say that is unfair. However, I think we ought to incentivize marriage. It is a cornerstone of our society. Take religion out of it. Sociologists and psychologists will say for a child to have the best chance in life they need a mom, they need a dad. Those are the kinds of things we ought to be incentivizing--not penalizing. Without any embarrassment, I am proud to have voted to end the marriage tax penalty and the death tax penalty. These are bad tax policies. We have voted to end them. If they don't like the distribution of them, fine. But we have cast these votes. They voted one way; we voted another. We have taken their tough votes. As Senator Bennett said, we have taken the gun votes. We have taken the votes on abortion. We have taken a whole range of votes. We have taken a vote against their prescription drug plan. Let me go to prescription drugs for a minute. I am a member of the Budget Committee. I have sensed in the people of Oregon a real desire for a prescription drug benefit. I want to deliver for that. Because of that, I went into the Budget Committee when we created this template in the U.S. budget, determined to stand with my colleague, Ron Wyden, to accede the President's request for a prescription drug benefit. The President requested $39 billion. Ron, Olympia Snowe, and I decided together we have a majority if the Democrats will vote with us. We felt strongly that we should deliver on this promise and this need. We got the Budget Committee to exceed the President's request of $39 billion. We went to $40 billion. However, I was a little bit discouraged--even felt somewhat betrayed--when a few months later the President says, just kidding, we need $80 billion. Double? From where did the original $39 billion come? Why all of a sudden, $80 billion? Don't the American people want Congress to be responsible for this? I put everyone on notice, I am being told in the Budget Committee that $80 billion won't even begin to cover this. Now what we are looking at under the President's program, is a one size fits all plan. A Government bureaucrat will be in your medicine cabinet and making choices for your health. A plan, by the way, that doesn't even take effect when we pass it--3 years hence. How is that keeping faith with the American people? They cannot even begin to tell you what it costs. This is not the way we should make these fundamental decisions about the health of the American people and the health of our Government's budgets. I hope everybody understands that. I am being told that come October 6, when we are supposed to sine die, if we haven't passed the President's version we are going to be put in a position that we are made to look as if we are shutting the Government down. People of America, you do not want Congress making these fundamental irreversible decisions on such a basis. These are important issues. We should not be giving in to this kind of political pressure for expediency, for an election. We should do it carefully. We should do it right. When it comes to prescription drugs, I will spend what I have to make sure you have a choice, that it is voluntary, and that it is affordable. Under the President's plan, I bet there is better than half of the American people who would be eligible for it, who would not pay less for prescription drugs, yet would be forced to pay more. Is that what we want? That is not voluntary. That is about Government central planning. That is about a bureaucrat in your medicine cabinet. That is a plan for which I will not vote. I believe in the marketplace. I believe in freedom. I believe Government has a role. I believe we ought to have a safety net. But I don't believe we ought to be going to a system that says the Government knows best and a bureaucrat can tell you what pill you need to take. I have talked about taxes. I have talked about the budget. I have talked about prescription drugs. Let me end by talking a little bit about this other great frustration I hear from the people of Oregon and that is the cost of gas, the cost of energy. There is plenty of blame to go around, I am sure. I am not defending big oil. I am not defending the Government, either. But what I am telling you is our country has an enormous trade deficit because we are spending over $100 billion per year on foreign oil. When President Carter was the President, we had gas lines and we had shortages. I remember waiting over an hour every time I went to get gasoline. When that occurred, our country was 36-percent dependent on foreign oil. We are 56-percent dependent now. Do you know why? Because in the life of this administration we have had over 30 oil refineries close; we have had leases canceled; we have had no development; and we have had an increasing dependence--not less--on foreign oil. I tell the American people, that is why you are paying too much. That is why you are paying more than you need to, because we are being held hostage to a cartel of foreign nations--many that wish us ill, many that would like to put us over an oil barrel and push us over. I am saying I don't like drilling for oil. Every one of us drives a car and for a lot of us, the oil that drives that car is refined in Texas. Everyone of us likes the freedom of an automobile. Frankly, I would rather say to the American people: Let your sons and daughters drill for oil so they do not have to die for oil. We are setting them up to die for oil if we do not figure out some better balance between production and conservation. Conservation is important. I vote for conservation initiatives. But it is not the whole answer. You have to produce something. A third of our trade deficit is due to foreign oil. If you want an independent country, if you want an independent foreign policy, you cannot be totally dependent, as we are becoming, on foreign oil. But there you have it. That has been the policy of this administration. Finally, our Vice President said he wants to outlaw or get rid of the internal combustion engine. In my neck of the woods, we have the incredible benefit of hydroelectric power. We have low energy rates because of hydroelectric power. But, guess what, they are talking about tearing them down. They want to tear out the most clean, most renewable, most affordable energy supply that we have. Guess what happens when you do that. You lose--the recreation is gone, but, more importantly, you lose the irrigation for farmers, you lose the transportation of goods from the interior all the way from Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon to the Port of Portland and around the Pacific rim. You lose the ability to use this system of locks to move vast quantities of agricultural and other commodities. I don't think we want to do that. I think it is very unwise. If you want to get rid of the internal combustion engine --let's examine this briefly. Right now, to move about a half a million bushels of grain, you need four barges that move through these locks. Four barges use very little energy. It just floats and makes its way to the Port of Portland. Get rid of the locks or dams, guess what, you have to truck them or rail them. How many railcars does it take to replace the four barges? It takes 140 jumbo railcars to move the same volume. The tracks, the infrastructure is not there to do all the railing. So then you go to trucks, internal combustion engines. Guess how many trucks it takes: Four barges versus 539 large ``semi'' trucks. Guess what creates pollution. Guess what creates damage to your roads. That will do it. I want to be fair about this. When we are becoming so dependent on foreign oil, so dependent upon foreign energy, so dependent as a superpower on others, I think it is very imprudent to begin tearing out our energy infrastructure. So I will close, and I say again with a heavy heart, I think right now politics is prevailing over good policy. I think that is too bad. But let me tell you, the real losers will be the American people if the Republican majority caves in to the kind of tactics that say if you don't take everything we want we are going to make you look like you shut the Government down. There are a lot of us who are earnestly striving to do our duty, as is incumbent upon the majority, to move the business of the people while at the same time being fair to the minority. But how many times do we have to cast the same votes? Please, help us here. I plead with the President. Let's get something done. Let's deal in good faith. We don't have to let politics prevail. Because if we do, the legacy of this President and this Congress will be the words ``it might have been.'' It ought to be better than that. But I, for one, believe in our Republic. I believe in our separation of powers. I will be very disappointed in my leaders if we cave in to a King. We cannot do that. We are not going to cave in to a King. We need to stand up for our institution. Moreover, we need to pay attention to the details of our policy. Because if we work it out with civility, we will work it out right for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I would be happy to yield for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I yield to the Senator to make a request. unanimous consent agreement

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the Bryan amendment which proposes to cut funding for the Forest Service's timber sale program. Unfortunately, this amendment continues to assault on the statutory principle of multiple use of public lands. While I don't take issue with the Senator from Nevada on the question of increasing funds for fire preparedness under the U.S. Forest Service, I must vehemently disagree with the proposal that the federal timber program should be slashed by thirty million dollars. As we all know, we are dealing with finite resources under the Interior appropriations bill, and I believe the managers of the bill have achieved a proper balance under these circumstances. In addition, I must remind my colleagues that just last week we all voted to dramatically increase funds for hazardous fuels reduction with the adoption of the Domenici amendment. Year after year, opponents of logging on public lands allege that the Forest Service timber program is a subsidy for timber companies. The fact is, however, public timber is sold at competitive auctions at market prices. This is no subsidy for timber companies. Year after year, opponents of logging on public lands also claim that the Forest Service timber program is a money loser. Of course, their figures never seem to take into account the bureaucratic and statutory requirements created by a myriad of federal land regulations or recent accounting changes that front-load certain expenses, making more sales appear below cost. Unlike many private lands, National Forest System lands are managed for multiple uses--recreation, wildlife habitat, and forest products. If anything, the fiscal arguments used by proponents of this amendment only prove that, indeed, federal regulatory mandates are quite expensive. Ironically, this amendment is actually counterproductive for the environment as well. We have well over sixty-five million acres of the National Forest System at risk of catastrophic wildlife, disease, and insect infestation. The high fuel loads created by a century of fire suppression, and eight years of passive forest management have set up our national forests for catastrophic wildlifes that threaten homes, wildlife, and watersheds. Mechanical removal through timber sales can be an efficient and economical tool to reduce these wildfire risks, and it should be available to the professional foresters of the Forest Service. Despite its strong backing from environmental groups, the Bryan amendment will do nothing for global environmental stewardship as long as we, in the United States, continue to consume more wood products. During the assault on public lands industries under this administration, the amount of timber sold from our federal forests has dropped by nearly eighty percent. Predictably, our lumber imports have jumped by fifty percent over the same time. In other words, further cutting our domestic federal timber program may be a feel-good move for some, but it will merely serve to encourage the shift of U.S. timber consumption to forests in foreign countries. Many of these source countries do not have the rigorous environmental standards we have in the U.S.--so we should ask ourselves whose environment we are really saving with this amendment, and at what cost. What is particularly troubling for me about this kind of attack on the timber sale program is that Oregon has some of the best forests for timber production in the world. Certainly, Oregon forests are able to regenerate this renewable resource in a much more environmentally sound way than some of the foreign forests on which we have come to depend for our wood products needs. Yet in Oregon we have seen an even steeper decline in federal timber harvests than the nation as a whole during the Clinton-Gore years--more than ninety percent. Over a hundred mills have closed in my state and thousands of family-wage jobs in rural counties have been lost. Just last month, two more wood products facilities closed--one in Dallas, Oregon and one in Wallowa, Oregon. The Bryan amendment will just exacerbate the transfer of these jobs to foreign timber producers. Mr. President, I'm not saying that there isn't a place for environment and recreational purposes on our federal lands--there certainly is. However, I believe strongly that we must manage our federal lands in a balanced way, so that we are good stewards of the land and meet some of our human needs for timber and recreation at the same time. Unfortunately, the amendment before us is just another attempt to export jobs and timber harvests overseas at the expense of rural America. I urge my colleagues to reject the Bryan amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, cosponsored by my colleague Mr. Wyden, to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation, an agency of the Department of the Interior, to conduct feasibility studies in the Klamath basin. The Klamath Project in Oregon and California is one of the earliest federal reclamation projects. The Secretary of the Interior authorized development of the project on May 15, 1905, under provisions of the Reclamation Act of 1902. The project irrigates over 200,000 acres of farmland in south-central Oregon and north-central California. The two main sources of water supply for the project are Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River, as well as Clear Lake Reservoir, Gerber Reservoir, and Lost River, which are located in a closed basin. The total drainage area is approximately 5,700 square miles. The Klamath River is subject to an interstate compact between the States of Oregon and California. There are also several wildlife refuges in the basin that are an important part of the western flyway. There are listed suckers in Upper Klamath Lake that require the lake to be maintained at certain levels throughout the summer. There are also salmon in the Klamath River for which federal agencies are seeking additional flow. It is my understanding that there will be significant additional flow requirements next year. The Upper Basin has not been adjudicated by the State of Oregon, which is trying to use an alternative process to formal adjudication. The tribes in the basin are also seeking a resolution of their water rights claims. In recent years, there has been growing concern about meeting the competing needs of various water uses in the Basin, including the needs of the farmers, the fish, the tribes and the wildlife refuges. There is a consensus in the basin about the need to increase overall water supplies in order to meet these growing needs and enhance the environment. The bill I am introducing today is an effort to build on this consensus. I have discussed the concepts in this bill with a number of the stakeholders in the Upper Basin, and I am committed to a legislative process that will consider the views of the various interest groups in the basin. I know that there will be other issues that stakeholders will want considered, and I will endeavor to do so. I believe it is vitally important, however, that we take the first step to enable the Department of the Interior to study ways to improve both the water quality and the water quantity in the Upper Klamath basin. There is significant private irrigation in the Upper Basin as well, and I am committed to a process that includes these water users as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, cosponsored by my colleague Mr. Wyden, to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation, an agency of the Department of the Interior, to conduct feasibility studies in the Klamath basin. The Klamath Project in Oregon and California is one of the earliest federal reclamation projects. The Secretary of the Interior authorized development of the project on May 15, 1905, under provisions of the Reclamation Act of 1902. The project irrigates over 200,000 acres of farmland in south-central Oregon and north-central California. The two main sources of water supply for the project are Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River, as well as Clear Lake Reservoir, Gerber Reservoir, and Lost River, which are located in a closed basin. The total drainage area is approximately 5,700 square miles. The Klamath River is subject to an interstate compact between the States of Oregon and California. There are also several wildlife refuges in the basin that are an important part of the western flyway. There are listed suckers in Upper Klamath Lake that require the lake to be maintained at certain levels throughout the summer. There are also salmon in the Klamath River for which federal agencies are seeking additional flow. It is my understanding that there will be significant additional flow requirements next year. The Upper Basin has not been adjudicated by the State of Oregon, which is trying to use an alternative process to formal adjudication. The tribes in the basin are also seeking a resolution of their water rights claims. In recent years, there has been growing concern about meeting the competing needs of various water uses in the Basin, including the needs of the farmers, the fish, the tribes and the wildlife refuges. There is a consensus in the basin about the need to increase overall water supplies in order to meet these growing needs and enhance the environment. The bill I am introducing today is an effort to build on this consensus. I have discussed the concepts in this bill with a number of the stakeholders in the Upper Basin, and I am committed to a legislative process that will consider the views of the various interest groups in the basin. I know that there will be other issues that stakeholders will want considered, and I will endeavor to do so. I believe it is vitally important, however, that we take the first step to enable the Department of the Interior to study ways to improve both the water quality and the water quantity in the Upper Klamath basin. There is significant private irrigation in the Upper Basin as well, and I am committed to a process that includes these water users as well.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 225th Anniversary of the United States Army and ask unanimous consent that an article written by the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Eric K. Shinseki, which pays due tribute to the U.S. Army and its contributions to our freedoms be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on the Senate's adoption of the Domenici substitute amendment to the Craig amendment regarding the President's Roadless Initiative. I was unable to be on the floor earlier today when the Craig amendment and Domenici substitute amendment were considered. First, let me say that I was a cosponsor of the underlying Craig amendment and I continue to share his concern about blatant Federal Advisory Committee Act violations by this administration in the development of their Roadless Initiative. In any case, I don't believe ``one-size-fits-all'' proposals like the President's Roadless Initiative, hatched in the halls of bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., can be any substitute for sound land management policies developed in collaboration with people at the local level. Oregonians, if given a chance, have proven time and again that they can be better stewards of the land than federal bureaucrats. I understand that Senator Craig agreed to the Domenici substitute in part because this matter of FACA violations will be considered by the courts this August. I trust that the Congress will have an opportunity to review this matter this session if the courts fail to do so, and I praise Senator Craig for his continued leadership on this important issue. With that said, I wanted to add my voice to those who spoke earlier in favor of the Domenici substitute amendment that seeks to address the growing threat of catastrophic wildfire in areas of urban-wildland interface. A century of fire suppression followed by years of inactive forest management under this administration have left our National Forest system overstocked with underbrush and unnaturally dense tree stands that are now at risk of catastrophic wildfire. The GAO recently found that at least 39 million acres of the National Forest system are at high risk for catastrophic fire. According to the Forest Service, twenty-six million acres are at risk from insects and disease infestations as well. The built up fuel loads in these forests create abnormally hot wildfires that are extremely difficult to control. To prevent catastrophic fire and widespread insect infestation and disease outbreaks, these forests need to be treated. The underbrush needs to be removed. The forests must be thinned to allow the remaining trees to grow more rapidly and more naturally. This year's fires in New Mexico have given us a preview of what is to come throughout our National Forest system if we continue this administration's policy of passive forest management. I believe the Domenici amendment will help this reluctant administration to face up to this growing threat to homes, wildlife, and watersheds. I commend Senator Domenici and the bipartisan group of Senators who worked very hard to craft this compromise.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate this week as the Forest Service has launched a series of meetings in my state and around the country to solicit comments on the Administration's proposed roadless initiative. I want to encourage Oregonians to send in their comments and attend these meetings to make their voices heard. I am concerned that so many of my constituents will not take part in this comment period in part because they believe that this roadless policy is a foregone conclusion. Frankly, I don't think the Forest Service did much to change those feelings by including language in its draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which characterized loggers, mill workers, and people in the timber products industry in general as uneducated, opportunistic, and unable to adapt to change. Many Oregonians, not just those in resource industries, were offended by this. I understand that the Administration has subsequently apologized, but I am afraid this incident only added to the feeling held by many Oregonians that the decisions about this roadless plan have already been made. So I want to take this opportunity today to outline some of my concerns about this roadless initiative and to encourage other Oregonians to take advantage of the remaining weeks of this public comment period to do the same. Mr. President, the management of the roadless areas in our National Forest System has been the subject of debate for many years. We had the RARE I (Roadless Area Review and Evaluation) process in the early 1970s leading to inventories and analysis of the large roadless areas in our National Forests. Then we had RARE II under the Carter Administration. That process was followed by a number of state-specific bills, such as the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984, where roadless areas that were suitable for wilderness protection were so designated and other roadless areas were to be released for multiple uses. Despite the growth of the wilderness system in this country, the management of other roadless areas has remained controversial. Now this Administration has proposed a roadless initiative that would permanently ban road construction from some 43 million acres of inventoried roadless areas. In addition, this draft EIS calls for each Forest, upon its periodic Forest Plan revision, to protect additional roadless areas, often referred to as uninventoried roadless areas. No one, not even the Forest Service, seems to know how many millions of acres that may ultimately be. So the President is proposing setting aside an additional 45 to 60 million acres of the National Forest system on top of the 35 million acres that are already designated as wilderness areas. Let me remind my colleagues that the entire National Forest System is 192 million acres and that there are numerous riparian areas and wildlife buffer zones that are also off limits to road construction. So we may well have more than half of our National Forest System permanently set aside and inaccessible to most of the public by the time this Administration is through. What is even more alarming to me is the position of the Vice President on this issue. In a speech to the League of Conservation Voters last month, Al Gore said the Administration's preferred alternative does not go far enough. Perhaps Mr. Gore's ``Progress and Prosperity'' tour should make a few stops in rural Oregon so he can see first-hand the results of eight years of passive management of our federal lands--double digit unemployment and four day school weeks. As part of the Administration that is writing this rule and is supposedly keeping an open mind while taking comments from the public this month, it seems a bit premature for the Vice President to speak so favorably of an alternative that is ostensibly still being reviewed. I know the Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee and the Chairman of the House Resources Committee have requested the Vice President recuse himself from the rest of this rule-making process. I agree with the Chairmen and hope the Vice President will try to restore the public's confidence that this rule-making is not predetermined and that it is open, as required by law, to the comments and suggestions of the public. Mr. President, some of my colleagues may ask why new roads may be needed in the National Forest System. There are many reasons, but perhaps the most urgent purpose is forest health. A century of fire suppression followed by years of inactive forest management under this Administration have left our National Forest System overstocked with underbrush and unnaturally dense tree stands that are now at risk of catastrophic wildfire. The GAO recently found that at least 39 million acres of the National Forest System are at high risk for catastrophic fire. According to the Forest Service, 26 million acres are at risk from insects and disease infestations as well. The built up fuel loads in these forests create abnormally hot wildfires that are extremely difficult to control. This year's fires in New Mexico have given us a preview of what is to come throughout our National Forest System if we continue this Administration's policy of passive forest management. To prevent catastrophic fire and widespread insect infestation and disease outbreaks, these forests need to be treated. The underbrush needs to be removed. The forests must be thinned to allow the remaining trees to grow more rapidly and more naturally. While some of this work can be done without roads, roads are many times required in order to carry out this necessary work. Yet this Administration apparently wants to make it more difficult to address these problems, more difficult to stop fires like those in New Mexico before they start. And the Vice President wants to go even further than that. Why else are roads needed in the National Forest System? Forest roads provide millions of Americans with access to the National Forests for recreational purposes. With the Forest Service predicting tremendous increases in recreational visits to the National Forest System in the coming years, shouldn't there at least be a thorough examination of how this roadless plan will affect the remaining areas of our National Forests, which will apparently have to absorb most of these new visitors? And what about the needs of seniors and disabled visitors? Compounding the problem, this Administration will be decommissioning many roads currently used by recreational visitors. In its rush to complete this sweeping rule, this Administration does not seem to have the time to examine seriously the impacts of steering more and more recreational visitors to a smaller percentage of the Forest System. Mr. President, I am also concerned about how this roadless initiative is supposed to interact with the Northwest Forest Plan. Last year, I came to the floor of the Senate and I expressed concerns about this Administration's forestry policies and its weak implementation of its own plan that was supposed to lay the groundwork for a cooperative resolution to the timber disputes of the early 1990s. Unfortunately, as our federal agencies scour the forests to survey for mosses, we continue to have gridlock in the Northwest, with none of the promised sustainable and predictable timber harvests in sight. So how much confidence does this Administration have in its own Northwest Forest Plan? By reading its roadless proposal, the answer is ``not much.'' Clinton's Northwest Forest Plan has thorough standards and guidelines for activities in the forests covered by the plan, including roadbuilding. This Administration had previously exempted the Northwest Forest Plan forests from its road building moratoriums because it was still clinging to the notion that its plan was the model for forestry policy in the future. Unlike those temporary moratoria, however, the Administration's roadless initiative makes no exception for the forests covered by the Northwest Forest Plan. To me, this suggests that even this Administration is acknowledging what many in the Northwest have said for some time: The Clinton Forest Plan is a failure. Rural Oregon already knew that. Now with this roadless proposal, this Administration will only make it harder for any future Administration to keep its promises under the Northwest Forest Plan. This fact is most obvious in the town of Klamath Falls in southern Oregon. Like many towns in the Northwest surrounded by federal lands, Klamath Falls was encouraged by this Administration to create jobs and economic growth through recreation and eco-tourism in order to compensate for the loss of the timber jobs. Of course, it is difficult to find substitutes for the family wage jobs that the timber industry once provided for these towns. Nevertheless, rural Oregon has tried to diversify its economy. More than three years ago, developers and community leaders in Klamath Falls embarked upon the arduous process of obtaining a special use permit to launch a winter recreation area at Pelican Butte in the nearby Winema National Forest. Millions of dollars were spent and countless hours were invested by everyone from the local forest service, to the developers, to the local government and the community as a whole. A final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision are due next year. Now, due to the fact that Pelican Butte will require three miles of road in a currently inventoried roadless area, the Administration's roadless initiative will effectively kill the plan. In its zeal to complete this plan before leaving office, this Administration apparently does not want to take the time to make reasonable accommodations for proposals that have been in the pipeline for years. Never mind the fact that the Pelican Butte project will result in a net decrease in road mileage on National Forest lands. Never mind the fact that Oregonians were told by this Administration to go and find other means to develop their economy outside of timber. The message to Oregonians is clear: If the roadless plan is to be concluded before President Clinton leaves office, there is no time to spare to consider the effort and good will invested by the people of Klamath Falls in the Pelican Butte proposal. The fact is that this Administration doesn't care how many rural communities are left in the dust by this regulatory juggernaut. Mr. President, all of this is very discouraging for Oregonians who have a sense this Administration has already made up its mind on this roadless initiative. It is my understanding that many of my constituents have just received copies of this draft EIS in the last few days--with half of the brief comment period already expired. Nevertheless, from the floor of the Senate today, I am pleading with my constituents to get out there during this comment period and make their voices heard. This rulemaking is too significant for Oregonians to be silent. Mr. President, I agree with this Administration that we need a long- term resolution to the management of our roadless areas. But common sense tells us that what is needed and appropriate for one area may not be sound stewardship for another. With this roadless initiative, this Administration is talking about setting aside in one broad stroke millions of acres that are supposed to be held in trust for all Americans. Even worse, this plan is being rushed through a truncated public comment process in order to accommodate an artificial political deadline. This isn't the way to manage our precious natural resources and this isn't the way to treat our rural communities. The management of these roadless areas is a complicated question, and it deserves more than the simple answer being force-fed to us by this Administration.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 11, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2195, a bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Truckee watershed reclamation project for the reclamation and reuse of water; S. 2350, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain water rights to Duchesne City, Utah; and S. 2672, a bill to provide for the conveyance of various reclamation projects to local water authorities. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please call Trici Heninger, Staff Assistant, or Colleen Deegan, Counsel, at (202) 224-8115.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, we have a chance to make a difference today, to vote for an amendment that will actually help a category of Americans who need our help. I believe we have a duty to stand up against hate. I believe the law is a teacher. I believe we can teach all Americans that we will protect all Americans. I also believe those who feel reluctant to support this amendment for religious reasons, remember the example of the Founder of the Christian faith who when a woman caught in adultery was brought to Him spoke in a way that the sanctimonious dropped their stones. He spoke in a way that saved her life. He did not endorse her lifestyle, but He saved her life. I believe the Federal Government ought to show up to work when it comes to hate crimes, even if it includes the language of ``sexual orientation.'' It is about time we include them. Even if one does not agree with all that they ask for, help them with this.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I conclude with this plea: Put down the stone and cast a vote based on love, cast a vote against hatred and vote for the Kennedy-Smith amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Kennedy-Smith amendment. I also rise to announce my support for the amendment offered by Senator Hatch. I ask my colleagues, in voting for Senator Hatch's amendment, to vote for Senator Kennedy's as well. It is fine to study, but I think we know enough. We know that hate crimes are already committed in our society. When I, as a human being, wake up to read headlines of a black man dragged to death and a gay man beaten to death, I want to do something. I believe in the separation of State governments and the Federal Government. I understand all of that. But doggone it, it is OK for the Federal Government to show up to work. It is time for us to say as Republicans and Democrats that we want to make a difference. We want our police officers to help not primarily but secondarily and to be there to teach, to prosecute, and to pursue those who commit the most malignant of crimes. I say to my colleagues, there are two critical words, in my view, missing in Senator Hatch's amendment. The words are ``sexual orientation,'' as it applies to making it a Federal crime. I never thought I would be on the Senate floor saying this until I saw the report of Matthew Shepard's death. I began to ask myself what I could do. Many in the Senate are reflexively inclined to vote no on the Kennedy amendment because of feelings of religious reluctance. I understand that because I shared those feelings for a long time. Then I happened upon a story in a book that I regard as Scripture. It is in the eighth chapter of John when the Founder of the Christian faith was confronted by the Pharisees and the Sadducees of His day with a hate crime. A woman who was caught in the very act was to be stoned to death. What did He do? His response was to speak in such a way to shame the self- righteous and the sanctimonious to drop their stones, and He saved her life. We should do the same. I do not believe on that day He endorsed her lifestyle anymore than I believe anyone here will be endorsing any lifestyle if they vote for the Kennedy-Smith amendment. I believe what my colleagues will be doing is following an example that says when it comes to violence and hatred, we can stand up for one another. No matter our distinctions, no matter our uniqueness, no matter our peculiarities, no matter how we pray or how we sin, we can stand up for each other, and we can stand up against hate. I say to my colleagues: Vote for Senator Hatch's amendment. It is fine, but it does not go far enough, in my view, and it is time to go far enough to include this group of Americans who are not now included in a current Federal law.

Mr. SMITH of OREGON

Mr. SMITH of OREGON. Madam President, I wish to say what is in my heart and why I as a Republican stand here in support of a Kennedy amendment on hate crimes. On June 7, 1998, when James Byrd, Jr., was dragged to death on a dusty Texas road, something happened to me. I was horrified beyond my ability to express it. On October 12, 1998, when Matthew Shepard was beaten to death on a Wyoming prairie, hung to a fence to die, something happened to me. I, again, had no ability to express the outrage and horror that I felt of such conduct and wondered: What is it in the heart of humankind that could perpetrate such an action upon a fellow human being? These were people who were murdered not for their property. They were murdered because of who they were. One was a black man and the other was a gay man. I think much of America felt the shock and revulsion that I did. Many of us began to look around and ask: What can I do in my sphere of influence? How can I help to see that this never happens again in my country? So I was attracted to the whole issue of hate crimes. This is a very controversial thing with many Senators. It is controversial because, frankly, of one clause. It is controversial because it includes a new category: ``. . . or sexual orientation.'' And many of my friends in the Senate believe that disqualifies it from consideration. But it seems to me that our duty as public officials is to help Americans help human beings however we find them; no matter what we may believe their sins are because all of us are sinful. Many will say that to legislate favorably towards a gay man is to legitimize homosexuality for our society. I used to have that feeling myself, but I do not any longer. I truly believe it is possible to object to a gay marriage and yet come to the defense of a gay person when it comes to violence. And I believe we have a duty to show up to work in the Federal Government when it comes to the issue of hate crimes. Some people believe that, well, all crime is hateful; don't designate some types of crime. But I tell you that I have come to realize that hate crimes are different in this respect. Hate crimes are visited upon one person, but they are really directed at an entire community--in one case, a black man in the African American community, and in the other case, a gay man in the gay and lesbian community. We need to help, and I believe the Kennedy amendment actually helps. Some see this as controversial because they will stand behind the argument of States rights; that we cannot defend these people at the Federal level because there are State officials and local officials where most police actions and prosecutions occur; that we should leave that to them. I had that feeling until I was visited by a group of conservative Republican law enforcement officers from Wyoming who said, in the case of Matthew Shepard: It would have helped a great deal had the Federal Government shown up with resources and support to help in the prosecution of this horrible tragedy. The Kennedy amendment allows this to happen, and I support it for that reason, because I believe we need to show up to work. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have spoken all over the globe against hate crimes of all kinds. Because of that, I cannot in good conscience remain silent about hate crimes in my own country. It is time to speak out, and it is time to vote on something that will actually make a difference. In my Subcommittee on European Affairs, I recently held a hearing on the issue of antisemitism. One of the most remarkable witnesses I have ever listened to in the Senate came to testify in that hearing. He is the Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel. I will never forget what he said to our committee that day. He said: To hate is to deny the other person's humanity. It is to see in ``the other'' a reason to inspire not pride, but disdain; not solidarity, but exclusion. It is to choose simplistic phraseology instead of ideas. It is to allow its carrier to feel stronger than ``the other,'' and thus superior to ``the other.'' The hater . . . is vain, arrogant. He believes that he alone possesses the key to truth and justice. He alone has God's ear. I am afraid there are some like that not just in Nazi Germany about which he was speaking, there are some like that today in Bosnia, in Yugoslavia, Kosovo, in Africa. There are haters still, and there are haters in our own country as well. We are trying to say, once and for all, that when it comes to hate and hate crimes that are directed at these minority communities who live among us as Americans: Your Federal Government cares, too. The Federal Government will show up to work. The Federal Government will try to use the law as well to teach the American people that there is no room for hate, and if you commit a hate crime, we will come after you with the full force of the law at the local, the State, and the Federal level, because while many will say this is just symbolism, I grant you it is in part, but it is symbolism that can be made substance if we change some hearts and minds. In that sense, the law can be a teacher. That is why I support the Kennedy amendment, because I think we need to change some hearts and minds, as well as some laws, so that the Federal Government can show up to work. I am going to do something I do not suppose is commonly done here, but I want to speak using a Scripture. I do this because I need to reach out, not to change the minds necessarily of some in my own political base who are the conservative Christians. They are my friends, and many of their views are views I hold. But on this issue, I believe we can care enough to change some hearts and minds. I believe that the God of Christianity, the God whom I worship, said on this Earth that by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples--if you have love one for another. He showed that in a remarkable episode, and I want to share it. I share it with my friends in the Christian community because we need to remember this story when we think somehow that we should not help a community because of what we think their sins may be. This is the story. It comes from the 8th Chapter of John: Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. This happened in a public square. This was a wonderful example of mercy and compassion. It was a wonderful occasion in which, in my view, the greatest of all stood up against violence, violence that was later visited upon Him with hatred. I point out that if you care about the American family and you perceive homosexuality as a threat to that family institution, remember that adultery, if you want to talk about sins, is a far greater threat to the American family than homosexuality. What I say to fellow Christians everywhere is, it is time to help. It is time to remember a story and an example. It is time to say to the gay community: I do not agree with you on everything, but I can help you on many things. And particularly when it comes to violence, particularly when it comes to dragging a man to death, particularly when it comes to seeing someone beaten to death on a fence, I would be ashamed if we did not act as the Federal Government to say: We can show up to work, we can help, we can teach, we can change hearts and minds, and we can turn the symbolism into substance by letting Federal authorities bring resources and help make a difference. I know I may not be in large numbers on my side of the aisle, but I hope they will consider what I have just said. All of the excuses that will be offered today--are we prosecuting people for their thoughts? No, we are prosecuting people for their actions that kill people. Some will say: There are limitations in the bill so that every hate crime is not a Federal crime. There are limitations that will trigger the Federal response. We will defer to the States. Some will say: What business is it of ours to put hate crimes on the Defense authorization bill? Some of the most horrible hate crimes I have read about have occurred within the military. It is our business to put it here if that is what it takes to pass it here. Some will say: Isn't every act of domestic violence or rape a hate crime? I say, it may well be. It may trigger Federal involvement. But just because it includes sexual orientation does not make those victims less American. Some will say: The Kennedy amendment is not constitutional. I believe it is constitutional. I believe it is OK to say we will help Americans--how we find them--whether they are black, whether they are disabled, or whether they are gay. So my remarks today, Madam President, are about having a bigger heart and making the Federal law big enough to include communities that are the most vulnerable among us. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, ever since the days of the Oregon Trail, my state has been blessed with citizens dedicated to the spirit of ``neighbor helping neighbor.'' In every community in Oregon you can find men and women who give their time, effort, and money to making that community a better place in which to live, work, and raise a family. That is precisely what Ezra Koch has done in the community of McMinnville, and I am proud to pay tribute to him today. After over half a century of service as one of McMinnville's and Yamhill County's most respected businessmen, Ezra is retiring as President of City Sanitary and Recycling. A native Canadian, who immigrated to Oregon nearly eight years ago, Ezra and his family have truly lived the American dream. Under Ezra's leadership, City Sanitary and Recycling, and its parent company KE Enterprises, has become one of Oregon's leading sanitary companies--leading the effort to increase recycling long before it became a national cause. Ezra was the driving force behind the creation of the Oregon Refuse and Recycling Association, and served as president of the National Solid Waste Management Association. Ezra's love of his community can truly be seen in his volunteer and philanthropic efforts. The list of organizations and causes that have benefitted from his leadership and generosity include Linfield College, the McMinnville School District, Rotary International, the McMinnville Chamber of Commerce, and the United Way. Ezra credits his family with inspiring the values he has lived throughout his life. And his words are ones we should all take to heart. ``Even though we were a big family with poverty everywhere, we never lacked for enough to eat and share with others. A great tradition was born in our family of sharing what we have with those that are less fortunate, and that continues today.'' I salute Ezra Koch for all he has done to strengthen the Oregon tradition of neighbor helping neighbor, and I wish him many more years of health and happiness.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, co-sponsored by 20 of my Senate colleagues, to bring sunshine to our campaign finance laws, to provide for full disclosure of contributions and expenditures of groups which have heretofore not been held accountable, yet have been subsidized by the American people through their tax-exempt status. Joining me in this effort are Senators Abraham, Ashcroft, Burns, Santorum, Gorton, Hutchison, Allard, Bennett, Coverdell, Gregg, Helms, Thomas, Inhofe, Mack, Warner, Bunning, Lott, McConnell, Crapo, and Roberts. I have long been a proponent of full disclosure, to the extent it is consistent with the First Amendment, of campaign contributions and expenditures. If we are to rekindle the trust of the American people, not only must the political parties be held accountable, so, too, must those tax- exempt groups which engage in political activities, yet heretofore have operated outside the realm of disclosure. The public has the right to know the identity of those trying to influence our elections, and Congress must do whatever it can to make sure that organizations do not wrongly benefit from the public subsidy of tax exemption. The bill we are introducing today, the Tax-Exempt Political Disclosure Act, expands upon the McCain-Lieberman amendment of last week which targeted a narrow list of tax-exempt organizations established under section 527 of the tax code. The so-called 527 groups covered in this bill do not make contributions to candidates or engage in express advocacy, and thus are not required to publicly disclose contributors or expenditures. Our bill contains in its entirety the provisions of the McCain-Lieberman amendment, but goes beyond the 527 groups to require tax-exempt labor and business organizations, as well, to disclose their contributors and expenditures. Specifically, in Title I of our bill, which is identical to the McCain-Lieberman amendment, we require the subset of 527 organizations that are not already subject to the Federal Election Campaign Act to: 1. Disclose their existence to the IRS; 2. File publicly available tax returns; 3. Publicly report expenditures of over $500; and 4. Identify those who contribute more than $200 annually to the organization. Title II of our bill applies to business or labor organizations that are tax-exempt under sections 501(c)(5) or 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code and that spend $25,000 or more on the very same kinds of political activities engaged in by section 527 organizations covered by Title I of our bill. As we do with the 527 organizations, we require tax-exempt business and labor organizations to report expenditures for political activity of $500 or more and identify those who contribute more than $200 annually. Importantly, this legislation will not result in disclosure of any labor or business organization's membership lists because annual dues to these tax-exempt groups are excluded from the definition of ``contribution.'' The bill requires disclosure only of those members who choose to contribute more than $200 annually for political purposes. If the Senate is for disclosure of the few tax-exempt 527 organizations that may spend a couple of million dollars on issue ads, then surely we should advocate disclosure of the tax-exempt labor and business organizations that will spend twenty or forty times that amount of money on issue ads and other political activity. Our legislation will require these organizations receiving tax exempt status to emerge from the shadows and make some minimal disclosure about themselves and the source of their money. Tax exemption is not an entitlement, and any organization wanting to avoid the ramifications of claiming such status simply may choose not to seek that status. Our bill merely says that if a group engaging in political activity wants tax exempt status, the public has a right to expect certain things in return. Let me make clear that we are sincere in this effort, and we welcome and invite Senators McCain and Feingold to work with us. We are open to discussions with business and labor groups, as well, on the mechanics of the bill. We want to be flexible and will consider changes where appropriate. The bottom line, however, is that in the end there must be meaningful disclosure if we are to have the confidence of the American people and bring integrity to the process.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, co-sponsored by 20 of my Senate colleagues, to bring sunshine to our campaign finance laws, to provide for full disclosure of contributions and expenditures of groups which have heretofore not been held accountable, yet have been subsidized by the American people through their tax-exempt status. Joining me in this effort are Senators Abraham, Ashcroft, Burns, Santorum, Gorton, Hutchison, Allard, Bennett, Coverdell, Gregg, Helms, Thomas, Inhofe, Mack, Warner, Bunning, Lott, McConnell, Crapo, and Roberts. I have long been a proponent of full disclosure, to the extent it is consistent with the First Amendment, of campaign contributions and expenditures. If we are to rekindle the trust of the American people, not only must the political parties be held accountable, so, too, must those tax- exempt groups which engage in political activities, yet heretofore have operated outside the realm of disclosure. The public has the right to know the identity of those trying to influence our elections, and Congress must do whatever it can to make sure that organizations do not wrongly benefit from the public subsidy of tax exemption. The bill we are introducing today, the Tax-Exempt Political Disclosure Act, expands upon the McCain-Lieberman amendment of last week which targeted a narrow list of tax-exempt organizations established under section 527 of the tax code. The so-called 527 groups covered in this bill do not make contributions to candidates or engage in express advocacy, and thus are not required to publicly disclose contributors or expenditures. Our bill contains in its entirety the provisions of the McCain-Lieberman amendment, but goes beyond the 527 groups to require tax-exempt labor and business organizations, as well, to disclose their contributors and expenditures. Specifically, in Title I of our bill, which is identical to the McCain-Lieberman amendment, we require the subset of 527 organizations that are not already subject to the Federal Election Campaign Act to: 1. Disclose their existence to the IRS; 2. File publicly available tax returns; 3. Publicly report expenditures of over $500; and 4. Identify those who contribute more than $200 annually to the organization. Title II of our bill applies to business or labor organizations that are tax-exempt under sections 501(c)(5) or 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code and that spend $25,000 or more on the very same kinds of political activities engaged in by section 527 organizations covered by Title I of our bill. As we do with the 527 organizations, we require tax-exempt business and labor organizations to report expenditures for political activity of $500 or more and identify those who contribute more than $200 annually. Importantly, this legislation will not result in disclosure of any labor or business organization's membership lists because annual dues to these tax-exempt groups are excluded from the definition of ``contribution.'' The bill requires disclosure only of those members who choose to contribute more than $200 annually for political purposes. If the Senate is for disclosure of the few tax-exempt 527 organizations that may spend a couple of million dollars on issue ads, then surely we should advocate disclosure of the tax-exempt labor and business organizations that will spend twenty or forty times that amount of money on issue ads and other political activity. Our legislation will require these organizations receiving tax exempt status to emerge from the shadows and make some minimal disclosure about themselves and the source of their money. Tax exemption is not an entitlement, and any organization wanting to avoid the ramifications of claiming such status simply may choose not to seek that status. Our bill merely says that if a group engaging in political activity wants tax exempt status, the public has a right to expect certain things in return. Let me make clear that we are sincere in this effort, and we welcome and invite Senators McCain and Feingold to work with us. We are open to discussions with business and labor groups, as well, on the mechanics of the bill. We want to be flexible and will consider changes where appropriate. The bottom line, however, is that in the end there must be meaningful disclosure if we are to have the confidence of the American people and bring integrity to the process.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 21, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1848, To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Denver Water Reuse project; S. 1761, the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 1999; S. 2301, To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Lakehaven water reclamation project for the reclamation and reuse of water; S. 2400, To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain water distribution facilities to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; S. 2499, To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Pennsylvania; and S. 2594, To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to contract with Mancos Water Conservancy District to use the Mancos Project facilities for impounding, storage, diverting, and carriage of nonproject water for the purpose of irrigation, domestic, municipal, industrial, and any other beneficial purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please call Trici Heninger, Staff Assistant, or Colleen Deegan, Counsel, at (202) 224-8115.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am a supporter of the death penalty. I believe there are some times when humankind can act in a manner so odious so heinous, and so depraved that the right to life is forfeited. Notwithstanding this belief--indeed, because of this belief--I rise today to talk about the importance of protecting innocent people in this country from wrongful imprisonment and execution. Today, Senator Leahy and I are introducing the Innocence Protection Act of 2000 that will use the technological advances of the 21st century to ensure that justice is served swiftly and fairly. It has been difficult to open a newspaper in recent months without finding discussion of the death penalty and possible miscarriages of justice. You have almost certainly seen or heard reports of inmates being freed from death row based on results of new genetic tests that were unavailable at the time of trial. There have been a number of cases where this has, in fact, occurred. This is a cause for concern for a number of cases. First and foremost, of course, is the possibility that an innocent person could lose his or her life if wrongfully convicted. In such cases, this also leads to the double tragedy that the true guilty party remains free to roam the country in search of future victims. Clearly, capturing and convicting the true perpetrator of a crime is in everyone's best interests. The Innocence Protection Act of 2000 would provide a national standard for post-conviction DNA testing of inmates who believe they have been wrongly incarcerated. Although many inmates were convicted before modern methods of genetic fingerprinting were available, not all states routinely allow post-conviction DNA testing. This does not make sense. If we are to have a system that is just, transparent, and defensible, we must make absolutely certain that every person who is behind bars deserves to be there. One of the best ways to do this is to make the most advanced technology available for cases in which physical evidence could have an influence on the verdict. Making DNA testing available will result in some convictions being overturned. In such cases, people who have been unjustly incarcerated must be afforded fair compensation for the lost years of their lives. The Leahy-Smith Innocence Protection Act of 2000 has a provision that would do this. Sometimes a person who has been wrongly imprisoned is released from prison with bus fare and the clothes on his or her back. This practice simply heaps one wrong upon another. While officers of America's courts and law enforcement work extremely hard to ensure that the true perpetrators of heinous crimes are caught and convicted, there have been instances where defendants have been represented by overworked, underpaid, or even unqualified counsel, and this situation cannot be tolerated in a system of criminal justice. The Leahy-Smith Innocence Protection Act of 2000 would ensure that defendants who are put on trial for their lives receive competent legal representation at every stage in their cases. The Innocence Protection Act of 2000 will allow us, as a nation, to continue our confidence in the American judicial system and in the fair and just application of the death penalty. We must have confidence in the integrity of justice, that it will both protect the innocent and punish the guilty. This legislation will not prevent true criminals from being executed; rather, it will increase support for the death penalty by providing added assurances that American justice is administered fairly across the country. Therefore, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, whether you support or oppose capital punishment, to join Senator Leahy and me in backing the Innocence Protection Act of 2000, which will put the fingerprint of the 21st century on our criminal justice system, ensuring that innocent lives are not unjustly taken in this country. Ms. COLLINS Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of the ``Innocence Protection Act.'' Since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976, 610 people have been executed in our nation. In that same period of time, an astounding 87 people who were sentenced to die have been found innocent and released from death row. Each of these individuals has lived the Kafkaesque nightmare of condemnation and imprisonment for crimes they have not committed. It is difficult to imagine the despair and betrayal these individuals must have felt as they were accused, tried, convicted and sentenced, all the time knowing they were not guilty. And during all those years they remained in prison, the real perpetrators remained at large. I am an opponent of the death penalty, and I am proud to be from the State of Maine which outlawed the death penalty in 1887. The legislation we introduce today is, however, not an anti-death penalty measure. The legislation we introduce today simply requires logical safeguards to be put in place to prevent wrongful convictions. Its two most important provisions compel DNA testing where it can yield evidence of innocence, and puts in place a new process to ensure defendants receive competent counsel in death penalty cases. The ``Innocence Protection Act'' calls on the federal government and the states to make DNA testing available in circumstances where it could yield new evidence of innocence. The incidents in which DNA testing has exonerated individuals are not isolated--64 people have been released from prison or death row due to DNA testing. Linus Pauling once said that ``science is the search for truth.'' Through DNA testing, science provides a tool that can uncover the truth, and lend certainty to our moral obligation in a civilized society--proper administration of our criminal justice system. The legislation we introduce today assists the wrongfully convicted, and will help prevent the miscarriages of justices that have seemed sadly common. It will also serve the interests of justice and protect crime victims. Justice is never served until the true perpetrator of a crime is identified, convicted and punished. We owe it to the victims and their families to pursue every avenue to find and hold accountable the true criminals who have injured them. Our American ideals and sense of justice simply cannot tolerate the current risk for mistaken executions. The case of Mr. Anthony Porter should shock the conscience of America. Mr. Porter spent over 16 years on death row, and at one point he was only two days short of receiving a lethal injection, having been convicted of two murders. A determined group of journalism students investigated his case and uncovered evidence that exonerated Mr. Porter. It was only through their efforts that the identity of the real murderer was determined, a review of the case compelled, and Mr. Porter ultimately freed. The peculiar good fortune that lead to the release of Mr. Porter undeniably highlights a weakness in our system of justice that cries out for remedy. Nothing that we can do here today can restore those years to Mr. Porter, or others who have been wrongly convicted, but we can demand safeguards be put in place to protect the innocent from conviction, and protect society from real criminals who may remain loose on our streets. Regardless of one's views about the death penalty, I hope we all can agree to needed safeguards to help ensure that justice is served. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am delighted that last night the Senate voted to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act, S. 2311. I am proud to count myself as one of the cosponsors of this legislation in the Senate and strongly support its swift passage by the House. The HIV/AIDS epidemic continues to take a high toll on Americans infected with HIV and their families. HIV/AIDS has affected Oregon in many ways. Almost five thousand Oregonians have been diagnosed with AIDS--resulting in almost 3,000 deaths. In addition, those infected with HIV number up to 8,500 in Oregon. This epidemic has touched people in every part of my State--rural and urban, rich and poor, senior citizens and newborns. Although the story of each of these individuals living with HIV/AIDS is different, they all have one thing in common: they all benefit from the Ryan White CARE Act. Oregon received almost $8.5 million federal dollars last year to fund programs through the Ryan White CARE Act. Passage of the Ryan White CARE Act will allow Oregonians living with HIV to have timely access to life-prolonging medications and necessary health care and support services, regardless of income level or insurance status. The Ryan White CARE Act will also improve access for HIV positive Oregonians to clinical trials, with the potential for additional scientific breakthroughs in the treatment of HIV/AIDS. I call for the House to join the Senate in a similar quick passage of the Ryan White CARE Act that will allow hundreds of thousands of HIV positive Americans to remain healthy, productive members of their communities, while slowing the spread of the AIDS epidemic. I would like to thank my friend Terry Bean of Portland, Oregon for talking to me about the good things the Ryan White Act does for Oregonians living with HIV/AIDS. Terry is a long time board member of the Human Rights Campaign and has been a highly valued advisor on issues affecting the Gay and Lesbian community in Oregon. Terry's thoughts and wisdom on hate crimes, ENDA and fighting against all types of discrimination have provided me with an ethical marker for doing what is right on the Senate Floor for Oregonians. I do feel lucky that Terry's advice is dispensed on a golf course--though the only criticism I may have for Terry is that he lacks the political savvy to lose to a United States Senator. I thank him anyway for his strong support and good advice.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am a supporter of the death penalty. I believe there are some times when humankind can act in a manner so odious so heinous, and so depraved that the right to life is forfeited. Notwithstanding this belief--indeed, because of this belief--I rise today to talk about the importance of protecting innocent people in this country from wrongful imprisonment and execution. Today, Senator Leahy and I are introducing the Innocence Protection Act of 2000 that will use the technological advances of the 21st century to ensure that justice is served swiftly and fairly. It has been difficult to open a newspaper in recent months without finding discussion of the death penalty and possible miscarriages of justice. You have almost certainly seen or heard reports of inmates being freed from death row based on results of new genetic tests that were unavailable at the time of trial. There have been a number of cases where this has, in fact, occurred. This is a cause for concern for a number of cases. First and foremost, of course, is the possibility that an innocent person could lose his or her life if wrongfully convicted. In such cases, this also leads to the double tragedy that the true guilty party remains free to roam the country in search of future victims. Clearly, capturing and convicting the true perpetrator of a crime is in everyone's best interests. The Innocence Protection Act of 2000 would provide a national standard for post-conviction DNA testing of inmates who believe they have been wrongly incarcerated. Although many inmates were convicted before modern methods of genetic fingerprinting were available, not all states routinely allow post-conviction DNA testing. This does not make sense. If we are to have a system that is just, transparent, and defensible, we must make absolutely certain that every person who is behind bars deserves to be there. One of the best ways to do this is to make the most advanced technology available for cases in which physical evidence could have an influence on the verdict. Making DNA testing available will result in some convictions being overturned. In such cases, people who have been unjustly incarcerated must be afforded fair compensation for the lost years of their lives. The Leahy-Smith Innocence Protection Act of 2000 has a provision that would do this. Sometimes a person who has been wrongly imprisoned is released from prison with bus fare and the clothes on his or her back. This practice simply heaps one wrong upon another. While officers of America's courts and law enforcement work extremely hard to ensure that the true perpetrators of heinous crimes are caught and convicted, there have been instances where defendants have been represented by overworked, underpaid, or even unqualified counsel, and this situation cannot be tolerated in a system of criminal justice. The Leahy-Smith Innocence Protection Act of 2000 would ensure that defendants who are put on trial for their lives receive competent legal representation at every stage in their cases. The Innocence Protection Act of 2000 will allow us, as a nation, to continue our confidence in the American judicial system and in the fair and just application of the death penalty. We must have confidence in the integrity of justice, that it will both protect the innocent and punish the guilty. This legislation will not prevent true criminals from being executed; rather, it will increase support for the death penalty by providing added assurances that American justice is administered fairly across the country. Therefore, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, whether you support or oppose capital punishment, to join Senator Leahy and me in backing the Innocence Protection Act of 2000, which will put the fingerprint of the 21st century on our criminal justice system, ensuring that innocent lives are not unjustly taken in this country. Ms. COLLINS Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of the ``Innocence Protection Act.'' Since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976, 610 people have been executed in our nation. In that same period of time, an astounding 87 people who were sentenced to die have been found innocent and released from death row. Each of these individuals has lived the Kafkaesque nightmare of condemnation and imprisonment for crimes they have not committed. It is difficult to imagine the despair and betrayal these individuals must have felt as they were accused, tried, convicted and sentenced, all the time knowing they were not guilty. And during all those years they remained in prison, the real perpetrators remained at large. I am an opponent of the death penalty, and I am proud to be from the State of Maine which outlawed the death penalty in 1887. The legislation we introduce today is, however, not an anti-death penalty measure. The legislation we introduce today simply requires logical safeguards to be put in place to prevent wrongful convictions. Its two most important provisions compel DNA testing where it can yield evidence of innocence, and puts in place a new process to ensure defendants receive competent counsel in death penalty cases. The ``Innocence Protection Act'' calls on the federal government and the states to make DNA testing available in circumstances where it could yield new evidence of innocence. The incidents in which DNA testing has exonerated individuals are not isolated--64 people have been released from prison or death row due to DNA testing. Linus Pauling once said that ``science is the search for truth.'' Through DNA testing, science provides a tool that can uncover the truth, and lend certainty to our moral obligation in a civilized society--proper administration of our criminal justice system. The legislation we introduce today assists the wrongfully convicted, and will help prevent the miscarriages of justices that have seemed sadly common. It will also serve the interests of justice and protect crime victims. Justice is never served until the true perpetrator of a crime is identified, convicted and punished. We owe it to the victims and their families to pursue every avenue to find and hold accountable the true criminals who have injured them. Our American ideals and sense of justice simply cannot tolerate the current risk for mistaken executions. The case of Mr. Anthony Porter should shock the conscience of America. Mr. Porter spent over 16 years on death row, and at one point he was only two days short of receiving a lethal injection, having been convicted of two murders. A determined group of journalism students investigated his case and uncovered evidence that exonerated Mr. Porter. It was only through their efforts that the identity of the real murderer was determined, a review of the case compelled, and Mr. Porter ultimately freed. The peculiar good fortune that lead to the release of Mr. Porter undeniably highlights a weakness in our system of justice that cries out for remedy. Nothing that we can do here today can restore those years to Mr. Porter, or others who have been wrongly convicted, but we can demand safeguards be put in place to protect the innocent from conviction, and protect society from real criminals who may remain loose on our streets. Regardless of one's views about the death penalty, I hope we all can agree to needed safeguards to help ensure that justice is served. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, let me begin by saying that I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation aimed at protecting the Little Sandy Watershed for future generations. The Little Sandy lies adjacent to the Bull Run Watershed, which is the primary municipal water supply for the City of Portland, Oregon. The water that filters through these forests and mountainsides to the east of Portland is of the highest quality in the nation and does not require artificial filtration or treatment. The Bull Run Watershed Management Unit was established by congressional action in 1977, creating a management partnership between the USDA Forest Service and the City of Portland for the review of water quality and quantity. Additional protection was given to the Bull Run by the Northwest Forest Plan in 1993, restricting all timber harvests in sensitive areas. Neither of these actions, however, extended a satisfactory level of protection to the nearby Little Sandy Watershed. Population growth and heightened water quality expectations have brought the preservation of the Little Sandy Watershed to the forefront of the public's interest in recent years. The legislation that I have cosponsored would expand the boundary of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit to include the southern portion of the Little Sandy. This would add nearly 3,000 acres to the Management Unit, including a number of acres currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). I am aware that questions have just arisen as to whether some of this acreage is currently managed by O & C lands. If so, there are concerns that O & C land would be devalued by a change in management designation. If this is the case, as the bill moves through the legislative process, I will seek the redesignation of other lands outside the preserve in order to maintain the wholeness of O & C land and the timber base.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, let me begin by saying that I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation aimed at protecting the Little Sandy Watershed for future generations. The Little Sandy lies adjacent to the Bull Run Watershed, which is the primary municipal water supply for the City of Portland, Oregon. The water that filters through these forests and mountainsides to the east of Portland is of the highest quality in the nation and does not require artificial filtration or treatment. The Bull Run Watershed Management Unit was established by congressional action in 1977, creating a management partnership between the USDA Forest Service and the City of Portland for the review of water quality and quantity. Additional protection was given to the Bull Run by the Northwest Forest Plan in 1993, restricting all timber harvests in sensitive areas. Neither of these actions, however, extended a satisfactory level of protection to the nearby Little Sandy Watershed. Population growth and heightened water quality expectations have brought the preservation of the Little Sandy Watershed to the forefront of the public's interest in recent years. The legislation that I have cosponsored would expand the boundary of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit to include the southern portion of the Little Sandy. This would add nearly 3,000 acres to the Management Unit, including a number of acres currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). I am aware that questions have just arisen as to whether some of this acreage is currently managed by O & C lands. If so, there are concerns that O & C land would be devalued by a change in management designation. If this is the case, as the bill moves through the legislative process, I will seek the redesignation of other lands outside the preserve in order to maintain the wholeness of O & C land and the timber base.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a joint legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power, and the Committee on Indian Affairs. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2508, the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act Amendments of 2000. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 7, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-485 of the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. Subcommittee on Water and Power