[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 72 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5694-S5701]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Helms, and Mr. 
        Ashcroft):
  S. 2135. A bill to amend title 42, United States Code, to protect 
human life; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                   LEGISLATION TO PROTECT HUMAN LIFE

      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Helms, and Mr. 
        Ashcroft):
  S.J. Res. 49. A joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment 
to protect human life; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


             CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROTECT HUMAN LIFE

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, our Nation's founding 
document, the Declaration of Independence, ultimately proclaimed that 
the right to life comes from God and that it is unalienable. Life 
itself, the declaration

[[Page S5695]]

held, is the fundamental right without which the rights of liberty and 
the pursuit of happiness have no meaning. As the author of the 
declaration, Thomas Jefferson, wrote, ``The care of human life and not 
its destruction . . . is the first and only object of good 
government.''
  It is important and I think proper to note that without that basic 
right of life, there is no liberty, there is no opportunity to pursue 
happiness in any way, shape, or form.
  One hundred ninety-seven years after that Declaration of 
Independence, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court violated this most sacred 
principle of the declaration. In Roe versus Wade, the Supreme Court 
held that the entire class of unborn children--from fertilization to 
birth--have no right to life and may be destroyed at will. As we know, 
the statistics are pretty dramatic. Thirty-five million children since 
Roe versus Wade were denied the opportunity to be born. Without getting 
into the reasons or the explanations or the rationale, the result is 
that 35 million children were denied that right.
  In subsequent cases, the Court has zealously guarded the right to 
abortion that the Court created. The Court has repeatedly rejected all 
meaningful attempts by the States to protect the unalienable right to 
life of unborn children since that decision in 1973.
  Mr. President, those of us who support the pro-life cause must never 
lose sight of our ultimate goal. Our objective is very simple. It is 
not complicated. It is to keep the promise of the Declaration of 
Independence. There is only one way to do that, Mr. President, and that 
is to overturn Roe versus Wade and restore to unborn children their 
God-given right to life, a God-given right that our Constitution. I 
believe, and certainly the declaration, gave them. And the Court took 
it away--a court, by the way, that is sworn to uphold the Constitution.
  In order to keep that hope alive in the Senate today, Mr. President, 
I am introducing two legislative proposals, and I am pleased and 
honored that the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms, 
and the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, are joining 
me as original cosponsors of both measures.
  Senator Helms for many, many years--long before my time in the 
Senate--had the courage to stand here on the Senate floor day after 
day, week after week, taking insult after insult but supporting the 
lives of unborn children. I believe history will judge Senator Helms 
very prominently in this regard. And Senator Ashcroft, with less time 
in the Senate, is certainly a strong proponent and advocate of the 
right to life of unborn children.
  Let me talk specifically about the bills--first, a bill, the Human 
Life Act of 1998. The human life bill sets forth the findings of 
Congress that ``the right to life is the paramount and most fundamental 
right of a person'' and that ``the life of each human being begins at 
fertilization.'' Based on these findings, and in the exercise of the 
power of Congress under section 5 of the 14th amendment, my bill 
establishes that the word ``person,'' as used in the Constitution, 
applies to all human beings, including unborn children, because, Mr. 
President, an unborn child is a human being.
  I have never been able to understand the rationale, as many times as 
it has been debated here on the floor, how one can say that an unborn 
child is not a human being. Remember, if it is a human being, it 
deserves the right of protection under the Constitution of the United 
States.
  As one Senator, I will freely admit that when fertilization occurred, 
I was created. There was a sequence of time that occurred after that 
caused me to be here today, standing on the floor of the U.S. Senate. 
If it had been interrupted at any stage from that moment of 
fertilization until today, I wouldn't be here.
  The effect of this legislative determination that the unborn child is 
a human being and, therefore, a ``person'' would be to place unborn 
children under constitutional shield of due process and equal 
protection clauses of the 14th amendment. Thus, the right to life of 
every unborn person would be protected to the same extent that the 
right to life of all born persons is guaranteed by our Constitution.
  Mr. President, today we have seen in this day and this age a number 
of violent acts: School shootings, violence of children upon children, 
of children upon parents, terrible violence. I think we have a cultural 
problem. Most Americans would not deny that.
  I think it is fair to say that we need to set an example as adults--
those who are supposedly leaders of our country not only here in the 
Senate, or in the White House, or in the Congress, but also at the head 
of our communities, our families, whatever else. Whatever the role we 
may play as parents, as citizens, or husbands, or wives. I think we 
have a role to set an example. I would ask here on the floor of the 
Senate my colleagues: Are we setting an example for young people to 
follow when, at the will of any individual at any time after 
fertilization occurs, we say or we tolerate that that unborn child's 
life may be ended? It is an innocent life. It is a life who can't speak 
here on the floor of U.S. Senate. No child who is unborn has the 
opportunity to stand up on the floor and say, ``I'd like to live; I'd 
like to have the opportunity to raise a family, to be a leader, to be a 
preacher, be a Senator, be a doctor, to cure cancer, to be a teacher, 
be a good mom, a good dad. I would like to have that opportunity.'' I 
think they would say if they could speak that they do not have that 
opportunity.
  I think of those 35 million children, I say to my colleagues, since 
1973 whose lives have been ended. How many of those children may have 
lived to find that cure for cancer or may have lived to have made a 
difference in a life--perhaps one of those lives of those children who 
took the lives of others? Perhaps one of these children who died may 
have been a counselor, may have been somebody on the spot who may have 
made a difference. We will never know, because those 35 million lives 
are gone--never had the opportunity to be happy, never had the 
opportunity to be successful, never had the opportunity to live--gone. 
And we did it. We did it because of that Supreme Court decision. It is 
wrong.
  I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln--a totally different issue but very 
similar in terms of its scope. Abraham Lincoln didn't take polls when 
he stood up in the United States of America in the 1860s and said: 
Slavery is wrong. It is wrong to enslave an American, or any 
individual, because of the color of their skin. And he spoke out 
against it. He spoke out eloquently against it, and he didn't take 
polls. He didn't stand up at a press conference and say to his aide, 
``I am going to examine the feelings of my constituents on this. Would 
you please take a poll and find out whether the majority of the 
American people favor slavery or oppose slavery?''
  I am reminded of what Lincoln said. I don't have the exact quote in 
front of me. I am going to paraphrase it from memory. He said: They 
tell me not to oppose slavery in the slave States, because they have 
left the country, so it is not our concern. They tell me not to oppose 
slavery in the free States, because we don't need to because they are 
free. They tell me not to oppose slavery from the pulpit, because it is 
not religion. And they tell me not to oppose slavery in politics, 
because it causes too much of a fuss.
  Substitute abortion for slavery in each of those four examples and 
you have the same situation. If we can't oppose it in any of the 50 
States, if we can't oppose it in politics, if we can't oppose it in 
religion, where does that leave the unborn children who will never have 
the opportunity to stand up here and debate this issue?
  The right to life of every unborn person should be protected to the 
same extent as the right to life of all born persons. How can anybody 
in America, any Christian in the Judeo-Christian culture of America, 
not believe that?
  I know the insults. I have been the victim of them. I know the 
taunts. I know the recriminations that come from standing up here and 
making these comments. But it is nothing--nothing--compared to what 
those unborn children endure because they have been denied after they 
have been created by God himself. Man denies them the right to life, 
that life.
  I am reminded of Gianna Jesson, a young woman, perhaps 23 or 24 now, 
who was aborted. She was aborted. I saw her sing ``Amazing Grace''in 
front of 1,000 people a couple of years ago in which she said ``I am 
thankful to my

[[Page S5696]]

God to be where I am today, and I forgive my mother.'' Well, I say that 
is powerful, Mr. President. I have never seen anything to equal it. Not 
from the lips of any politician or any pastor have I ever seen 
testimony stronger or more powerful than that young woman crippled by 
abortion standing up before 1,000 people and singing ``Amazing Grace.'' 
There was not a dry eye in the place. That woman deserved the right to 
live. So did every one of those other 35 million children who have been 
denied.

  There is only one way to stop this. We can preach about it. We can 
talk about it. We can debate it in politics. We can sing, or be quiet 
and be silent. But there is only way to stop it. We have to change the 
Court. The Supreme Court is wrong. In 1857, the Supreme Court said in 
the Dred Scott decision that a slave could not sue in federal court 
because he was property and not human. Chief Justice Roger Taney made 
that decision. The Supreme Court is not omnipotent. Roger Taney was 
wrong in that decision. He was wrong. And Roe v. Wade was wrong. And we 
need to change it.
  My bill provides that nothing--nothing--in it ``shall prohibit a law 
allowing justification to be shown for only those medical procedures 
required to prevent the death of either the pregnant woman or her 
unborn offspring as long as such a law requires every reasonable effort 
be made to preserve the lives of both of them.''
  I am also introducing a joint resolution that would submit the human 
life amendment to the States for ratification as part of the 
Constitution of the United States. Specifically and more directly, I am 
introducing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
protect the lives of unborn children. It has been done before. It has 
been introduced before, and it has gone nowhere. It doesn't mean that 
it should not be introduced again and again and again and again until 
somehow, someway the message is received in this country that we have 
to protect the lives of these innocent children.
  Let me explain why I am proposing a human life amendment in addition 
to the human life bill. If the human life bill were to be enacted into 
law and its constitutionality upheld by the Supreme Court, it could be 
weakened or repealed by some Congress of the future. But a human life 
amendment to the Constitution could not be altered or repealed except 
by another constitutional amendment. Thus, my human life amendment 
would provide more durable protection to the fundamental right to life 
of unborn children.
  Like the human life bill, the human life amendment restores the word 
``person'' in the Constitution to its original and natural meaning by 
making clear that it includes all human beings--all human beings--born 
and unborn.
  I have witnessed the birth of three of my children. It is a privilege 
that I am glad I had. I will tell you something. There is no difference 
between the 15 or 20 minutes before the child was born, when it was in 
the womb and I could not see it, and 15 or 20 minutes after the child 
was born when I saw my daughter and my two sons for the first time. 
There is no difference. Why is it right and proper under the law to 
kill that child 20 minutes or 20 days or 20 months before that 
wonderful time when the child comes into the world? Why is it right to 
do that and wrong to do it 20 minutes or 20 months or 20 years after? 
It is wrong in both cases. It is wrong in both cases.

  So the human life amendment includes the same language as the bill 
regarding medical procedures required to prevent the death of either 
the pregnant woman or her unborn offspring.
  I introduce these two legislative proposals and I realize as I stand 
here today that there is not sufficient support in the Congress to 
restore legal protection of the right to life of unborn children in 
this country, but I believe ultimately we will prevail. When the 
abolitionists stood in this Chamber in the 1820s and the 1830s and the 
1840s and they said that slavery was wrong, they did not prevail 
either, but ultimately they did because they were right. And we are 
right. It is wrong to take the lives of unborn children, and someday, 
someway, somehow, the American people are going to come to realize 
this, and they are going to throw everybody out of here who will not 
support the changing of that court. That is what they are going to do.
  One of our Nation's greatest Presidents, in my estimation, Ronald 
Reagan, had the same confidence that the right-to-life cause someday 
will prevail. He believed it deep into his being. I can remember 
meeting personally with President Reagan and discussing this issue with 
him. I know how deeply he felt about it, and I also know the attacks he 
had, but I would ask my colleagues who somehow are a bit timid to stand 
up; when this issue comes up, they hide, many of them. They are worried 
about the political repercussions. Well, those repercussions of 
politics are not as bad as what Gianna Jesson went through when she was 
aborted. Here is what Reagan said 14 years ago in a book called 
``Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.''

       Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not 
     lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been 
     divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of 
     certain human lives.

  This is a reference to what I talked about earlier.

       The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a 
     day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority 
     of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought 
     about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and 
     sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and 
     finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and 
     to the minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human 
     dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect 
     for the sacred value of human life is too deeply ingrained in 
     the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed.

  Mr. President, I close by addressing my colleagues in the Senate. 
Each one of us, every one of us, started out in life as an unborn 
child. We were once, all of us, very small human beings living in our 
mother's wombs. As President Reagan wrote, ``Abortion concerns not just 
the unborn child, it concerns every one of us,'' because we would not 
be here if our parents had made that awful decision.
  The English poet, John Donne said, ``Any man's death diminishes me, 
because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for 
whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.''
  ``It tolls for thee.''
  My colleagues, regardless of where you have stood on abortion in the 
past, regardless of the acrimonious debate, regardless of the hard 
feelings, regardless of the political pressures, the contributions, the 
political attacks, I urge you to search your conscience and to search 
your soul and ask yourself, is it right, is it really right to kill an 
unborn child?

  I am not interested in hearing about all of the social conditions of 
the person who is having the child. That is another issue. I am not 
asking you to comment about the plight of that child when it is born. 
That is another issue. I am asking you to think, reach down in your 
souls like you would have if you stood on this floor in 1840 talking 
about slavery, if you were an abolitionist. I am asking you to search 
your soul and I am asking you to say, Is it right; is it right? And if 
it is not right, then you have an obligation to support this amendment 
and to help me to right a wrong.
  I am pledging here today in this Chamber that as long as I am a 
Senator, and as long as I am alive, I am going to work for the passage 
of this amendment. I have two cosponsors this morning. That is all I 
have. But I know there are more people who agree with me in both 
political parties. Frankly, I am going to be talking to them, every one 
of them. It is not an in-your-face situation. This is an in-your-heart 
situation--not the face, the heart. Is it right or is it wrong? If you 
can look me in the eye and tell me it is right to take the life of an 
unborn, innocent child, then I will not bother you anymore. But if you 
don't tell me that, then I am going to keep on bothering you and try to 
get your support.
  I hope you will decide to join me in cosponsoring both of these 
measures and place the lives of the unborn children of our Nation once 
again under the protection of our great Constitution. The only way to 
do that, in my opinion, is through the amendment.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in America today, a great debate--a 
great division--exists over the issue of abortion. For some, abortion 
is about the so-called ``right to choose.'' For others, it is 
ultimately about control. For me, it is about something completely 
different. It is about life.

[[Page S5697]]

  Abortion is, at its core, about the destruction of an innocent human 
life; a life that is unique in the history of the world--formed and 
shaped in the image of God; a life that has never been and will never 
be again.
  ``Abortion,'' said the late Mother Teresa, ``is the great 
destroyer.'' And so it is. More than thirty-five million lives have 
been lost in the terrible years since Roe versus Wade became the law of 
the land. It is a tragedy unmatched in modern times. For mother, for 
father, for child, abortion is never a real resolution. It is but a 
temporary answer that inflicts a permanent pain. It is a wound that 
does not heal; a wound, alas, that cannot heal.
  Senator Smith and I come to the floor this morning to stand against 
abortion and to stand for life. For we believe that the Fifth and 
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution protect every 
person's ``life.'' The protection designed by James Madison and adopted 
by the People is universal in scope. Its protection is unequivocal. It 
admits of no exception. ``No Person shall . . . be deprived of life.''
  As this is the Constitution's ``plain meaning,'' I believe our 
proposed Human Life Act is a legitimate exercise of Congressional power 
under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, while I 
support a statutory approach, I would, as I said before Senator East's 
Judiciary Subcommittee in 1981, go farther. For I also believe it 
necessary to amend the United States Constitution to restore its 
original meaning.
  Mr. President, the Supreme Court's efforts to create an abortion 
jurisprudence from whole cloth demonstrate the difficulty of deviating 
from the view that life begins at conception. Every judicial effort to 
establish a time when constitutional protections magically kick in has 
been undermined by medical reality.
  Earlier this year, I held a Constitution Subcommittee hearing to mark 
a profoundly sad occasion--the 25th anniversary of Roe versus Wade. At 
that hearing, we heard testimony about the relentless progress of 
medical technology in pushing forward the date of viability.
  More recently, we have learned how judges in striking down bans on 
partial birth abortions have undermined birth as a clear line for when 
the constitutional protection for life begins--effectively legalizing 
infanticide.
  Clearly, the Supreme Court, unguided by any constitutional text, has 
written themselves into a position that is legally, medically and 
morally incoherent. The experience of the past twenty-five years 
confirms the desperate need for the legislation and the proposed 
amendment we introduce today.
  In thinking about this morning, I was reminded of my first run for 
Congress. I supported a Human Life Amendment in 1972--fully a year 
before Roe versus Wade was handed down. In 1981, as Missouri Attorney 
General, I argued before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of 
the unborn in Planned Parenthood versus Ashcroft. As Governor, I signed 
the pro-life law which became the basis for the Webster decision. And 
so, like Senator Smith and Senator Helms, I am not a newcomer to this 
debate.
  But I stand before the Senate this morning not to discuss my past, 
but to talk about our future--about the kind of America we want to have 
in the next century.
  Abortion makes a statement not only about the life of the unborn 
child, it makes a statement about the life it leaves behind. Sadly, it 
sends a message that life is expendable: life that is too young, too 
old, ailing, or tenuous. It says, ``You are worthless.'' It says, ``You 
are not important.''
  To all who might hear my voice, I say, ``That is not the kind of 
statement America wants to make.'' It is not the message American wants 
to send. It is not the kind of America we want to be. Recall 
Deuteronomy, ``I have set before thee this day, life and death, 
blessing and cursing; therefore, choose life that both thou and thy 
seed may live.'' That both thou and thy seed may live, Mr. President. 
For an America that can be again--America the beautiful.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GORTON:
  S. 2136. A bill to provide for the exchange of certain land in the 
State of Washington; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                     i-90 land exchange legislation

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in 1984, I spoke in this Chamber to 
champion passage of a bill that would dramatically expand the Alpine 
Lakes Wilderness Area. The bill became law, and the wilderness area now 
boasts more than 390,000 acres of alpine and subalpine forests, 450 
miles of trails, more than 500 lakes and countless peaks and pinnacles. 
It offers year-round opportunities for hikers, campers, skiers, 
fishermen, or those who simply want time away from urban life. It is 
arguably one of Washington's favorite recreational sites.
  Today, I introduce legislation that would dramatically enhance the 
value of this recreational and environmental jewel--a bill to complete 
the I-90 Land Exchange between the Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber 
Company. The land exchange would bring up to 60,000 acres of forest 
land adjacent to the wilderness area into public ownership, creating a 
stretch of publicly owned forest from the southern border of the 
wilderness area to I-90.
  Plum Creek would trade up to 60,000 acres of its land on the I-90 
corridor of the Central Cascades for up to 40,000 acres of Forest 
Service land in three different forests. The benefits of the exchange 
are immense. It will place into public hands some of the last large 
blocks of privately owned old growth forest and increase publicly owned 
spotted owl habitat by 22,000 acres. It will bring into public 
ownership 14 miles of Pacific Crest Trail. It would eliminate much of 
the complicated checkerboard land ownership pattern, under which public 
and private entities each owns every other square mile of land. And it 
will fulfill a long-sought priority of Washington's environmental 
community--the public acquisition of prized sites such as Silver Creek, 
Scatter Creek, and Thorp Mountain.
  There is a long history of controversy surrounding these lands. 
Although the land exchange has been under consideration in one form or 
another for more than a decade, this is the closest it has ever come to 
completion.
  Conservationists began pushing for a resolution to the checkerboard 
ownership pattern back in the late 1970's. In 1986, the Forest Service 
and Plum Creek considered an exchange in the Silver Creek basin, the 
heart of the land exchange package under consideration today.
  In 1988, with the support of local environmental groups and Plum 
Creek, a legislative proposal to complete the exchange was brought to 
Congress. When the bill was not considered, the Forest Service and Plum 
Creek launched an attempt to complete the exchange administratively. 
However, the listing of the spotted owl put the project on hold.
  Since that time, some parcels have been acquired using the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund, but with such limited federal resources and 
such a vast amount of land, an exchange has proven to be the only way 
to bring a final resolution to the Central Cascades' checkerboard.
  In fact, the Conference Report that accompanied the 1996 fiscal year 
appropriation for the Forest Service stated:

       The managers continue to encourage strongly the use of land 
     exchanges as a way in which to protect important recreational 
     or environmentally significant lands, in lieu of the Federal 
     Government acquiring lands. The managers believe that land 
     exchanges represent a more cost-effective way in which to do 
     business and encourage the Forest Service to give high 
     priority to those exchanges either nearing completion, or 
     where land management decisions are made particularly 
     difficult due to checkerboard ownership.

  In August of 1995, Plum Creek and the Forest Service went back to the 
drawing board, and agreed to initiate the I-90 exchange. By mid-June of 
1996, when Plum Creek signed a 420,000 acre Habitat Conservation Plan, 
Plum Creek and Secretary Glickman entered into a two year agreement to 
finish the exchange. Plum Creek agreed to withhold harvest on most of 
the exchangeable lands worth approximately $200 million during the two-
year period, and although that deadline has now passed, Plum Creek 
agreed to extend it through the end of this year.
  But we're still running out of time. If we fail, we will lose this 
opportunity to maximize the public benefits of this exchange. Neither 
Plum Creek nor the

[[Page S5698]]

Forest Service has the financial resources to continue endlessly this 
process. No one can reasonably expect Plum Creek to have the patience 
to continue on with this arduous and difficult process indefinitely.
  If the I-90 Land Exchange is not completed by year's end, the 
exchange will begin to fall apart under the weight of an endless 
appeals process and litigation battles that could go well into the next 
century. And it's not reasonable to expect Plum Creek to sustain 
operations on the exchangeable lands through the indefinite and 
uncertain appeals process.
  To put it bluntly, if the exchange is appealed, this current 
opportunity will be lost forever and we won't have another chance to 
acquire such a large block of some of Washington's premier forest land.
  That's why I am introducing this bill. We need to keep all options 
open for finishing the land exchange on time. I understand that both 
Plum Creek and the Forest Service are still committed to the 
administrative process, and that's important. With the introduction of 
this bill and companion legislation in the House by Congressman Doc 
Hastings, we now have two options for finishing this land exchange on 
time and getting the most value out of the trade.
  Ultimately, public support or public opposition will determine the 
outcome of the exchange, regardless of how it is completed. Passing a 
bill though Congress and earning the President's signature demands 
public support.
  The building blocks are in place. In March, Washington State Governor 
Gary Locke wrote to President Clinton urging completion of the exchange 
by the end of the year. The State Legislature unanimously passed a 
resolution in support of the exchange. Recreational enthusiasts see the 
long-term value of bringing these lands into public ownership. 
Environmentalists recognize the value of blocking up these lands to 
create a habitat corridor for wildlife and to protect some of the last 
large blocks of privately owned old growth forest. And major newspapers 
have endorsed it.
  Earlier this spring, the Seattle P-I described the dire consequences 
if this land swap was not completed this year. The PI-'s editorial 
stated: ``None of the land exchanges is apt to satisfy everyone 
involved. But if the lands are not consolidated, however imperfectly, 
it will be next to impossible to preserve them effectively for salmon 
or wildlife habitat. And that's a real lose-lose.''
  Under the administrative process, however, it only takes one voice of 
opposition to file an appeal and kill the proposal for good.
  The lands package outlined in this bill is not final as discussions 
and negotiations continue back in Washington state. I appreciate that 
all parties are at the table working towards a lands package that 
everyone can support, and I know from experience that these discussions 
take time and patience.
  Mr. President, let me emphasize once more that the legislation I am 
introducing today is only a placeholder. It represents a starting 
point--albeit an excellent one--to achieve a consensus-based end 
product. I encourage the parties now at the table to continue their 
efforts and to expedite the completion of this large and vital 
exchange.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Close land trade or everyone loses

       The parties to the Plum Creek timberland swap need to 
     conclude their negotiations and get on with the next such 
     trade.
       The company, the Forest Service and environmentalists have 
     spent more than two years negotiating a land swap in the 
     Cascades that involves 100,000 acres now scattered in 
     unmanageable public and private checkerboard ownership. The 
     Sierra Club in particular gets high marks for taking a 
     leadership role in making a priority of consolidation of 
     checkerboard forest lands in this state.
       But company officials now say that if the deal isn't closed 
     by the end of the year, it's off. They have 20 percent of 
     their harvestable timber base in this state tied up in the 
     swap.
       They also say they may go to Congress to get the deal 
     immunized from lawsuits. That could poison environmental 
     groups' enthusiasm for such trades in the future.
       Conservationists and other groups are accusing the firm of 
     high-handed tactics. They also complain that the deal doesn't 
     give them all they want.
       Not many such deals do. But this one leaves nearly 
     everybody who wants something from Plum Creek better off than 
     if the deal falls through and the company makes good on its 
     threat to start logging the stands conservationists want to 
     preserve.
       If the deal doesn't go through, the company plans to build 
     logging roads in 53 different areas. If it does, that number 
     will be reduced to eight.
       None of the land exchanges is apt to satisfy everyone 
     involved. But if the lands are not consolidated, however 
     imperfectly, it will be next to impossible to preserve them 
     effectively for salmon or wildlife habitat.
       And that's a real lose-lose.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 2139. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel Yesterdays Dream; to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


    certificate of documentation for the vessel ``yesterdays dream''

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
direct that the vessel, Yesterdays Dream, official number 680266, be 
accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a coastwise 
endorsement under 46 U.S.C. sections 12106 and 12108.
  This vessel was purchased in 1984 by Duncan MacRae of Columbia, SC, 
for a pleasure boat. In attempting to establish a charter service, he 
discovered that the boat could not be used in a chartering business 
because the vessel was foreign built. For this reason, the boat did not 
meet the requirements for coastwise trading privileges in the United 
States. When Mr. MacRae bought his boat, he was unaware that it could 
not be legally used for its intended purpose.
  Therefore, Mr. MacRae is seeking a waiver of the existing law because 
he wishes to use the vessel for charters. If he is granted this waiver, 
he intends to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety 
requirements. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to 
allow Yesterdays Dream to engage in the coastwise trade and fisheries 
of the United States.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2139

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

       Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 
     (46 U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 
     (24 Stat. 81, chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 
     12106 and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the 
     Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
     documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in 
     the coastwise trade for the vessel YESTERDAYS DREAM, United 
     States official number 680266.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2140. A bill to amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and 
Adjustment Act of 1992 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Denver 
water reuse project; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                 denver water reuse water authorization

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I take the time today to introduce a 
bill that will help millions of water consumers throughout my state. 
The Denver Water Department has developed a unique plan to re-use non-
potable water for irrigation and industrial uses. This bill would 
simply authorize the Denver Water Department to access federal funds to 
assist in the implementation of this plan. The Mayor of Denver has 
fully endorsed this legislation. I am delighted to assist the Mayor and 
the great City of Denver.
  Denver Water Department serves over a million customers and is the 
largest water supplier in the Rocky Mountain region. Due to uncertain 
water supplies in the semi-arid west, it is critical to make wise use 
of every drop of water. With this in mind, over the past several years 
Denver Water has developed a plan to treat and reuse some of its water 
supply for uses not involving human ingestion, such as irrigation and 
industrial purposes. In this manner, Denver will stretch its

[[Page S5699]]

water supply without the cost and potential environmental disruption of 
building new reservoirs. It will also ease the demand on fresh 
drinking-quality water supplies.
  The Denver Nonpotable Reuse Project will treat secondary wastewater, 
that is water which has already been used once in Denver's system. It 
is an environmentally and economically viable method for extending and 
conserving our limited water supplies. The water quality will meet all 
Colorado and federal standards. The water will still be clean and 
odorless, but since it will be used for irrigation and industrial uses 
around the Denver International Airport and the Rocky Mountain Wildlife 
Refuge, the additional expense to treat it for drinking will be 
avoided.
  The nonpotable project is constructed in three phases and ultimately 
will result in an additional useable water supply of 15,000 acre feet. 
The use of the nonpotable water for irrigation and industrial customers 
will free potable water supplies for up to 30,000 homes.
  Construction will include a treatment plant and a distribution system 
that is separate from the potable water system. Phase I will serve 
customers in the vicinity of the reuse plant, including a Public 
Service Company power plant, other industrial users and other public 
areas. Phase II will add irrigation for parks and golf courses in the 
former Stapleton Airport and the recently closed Lowry Air Force Base 
redevelopment areas. The Rocky Mountain Arsenal, which is being 
converted to a national wildlife refuge, will also use the reuse water 
to maintain lake levels on-site and to provide water for wildlife 
habitats. Phase III will service existing parks as well as new 
development of a commercial corridor leading to the Denver 
International Airport. With the construction of Phase II, the 
irrigation, heating and cooling, and car washing facilities at Denver 
International Airport will convert to reuse water, where a dual 
distribution system has already been installed.
  This plan would benefit many Coloradans, and would help relieve many 
of the water burdens faced in the Denver region. Again, I'd like to 
thank Mayor Webb for his support, and I am hopeful this bill can be 
quickly passed and put into effect.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Mayor's letter and the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2140

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DENVER WATER REUSE PROJECT.

       (a) In General.--The Reclamation Projects Authorization and 
     Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 1631, 1632, and 1633 (42 
     U.S.C. 390h-13, 390h-14, 390h-15) as sections 1632, 1633, and 
     1634, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 1630 (43 U.S.C. 390h-12p) 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 1631. DENVER WATER REUSE PROJECT.

       ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
     the appropriate State and local authorities, may participate 
     in the design, planning, and construction of the Denver Water 
     Reuse project to reclaim and reuse water in the service area 
     of the Denver Water Department of the city and county of 
     Denver, Colorado.
       ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 
     percent of the total cost.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds 
     for the operation or maintenance of the project described in 
     subsection (a).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The table of contents in section 2 of the Reclamation 
     Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 
     prec. 371) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating the items relating to sections 1631, 
     1632, and 1633 as items relating to sections 1632, 1633, and 
     1634, respectively, and
       (B) by inserting after the item relating to section 1630 
     the following:

``Sec. 1631. Denver Water Reuse Project.''.

       (2) Section 1632(a) of the Reclamation Projects 
     Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (as redesignated by 
     subsection (a)(1)) is amended by striking ``1630'' and 
     inserting ``1631''.
       (3) Section 1633(c) of the Reclamation Projects 
     Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (as redesignated by 
     subsection (a)(1)) is amended by striking ``section 1633'' 
     and inserting ``section 1634''.
       (4) Section 1634 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization 
     and Adjustment Act of 1992 (as redesignated by subsection 
     (a)(1)) is amended by striking ``section 1632'' and inserting 
     ``section 1633''.
                                  ____



                                    City and County of Denver,

                                         Denver, CO, May 15, 1998.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: Please accept this letter as a 
     statement of my support of the Denver Water Nonpotable Reuse 
     Project. Your willingness to sponsor this worthwhile 
     legislation adding the Denver project to the Title XVI 
     authorized list is appreciated by the City and County of 
     Denver. Nonpotable reuse has been identified as a critical 
     element in the Denver Water Department's recent Integrated 
     Resource Plan. Coupled with conservation and system 
     refinements, it forms the core of the water supply needs for 
     the Denver system for the next 20 years.
       As you are well aware, the water resources in Colorado are 
     limited and valuable. Reuse conserves potable water sources. 
     This project will help to fulfill Denver's obligations under 
     water decrees that provide for the importation of water from 
     the Colorado River Basin. Those obligations require Denver to 
     exercise reasonable steps which, in view of legal limitations 
     and economic feasibility, provide for the reuse of imports so 
     as to reduce or minimize Denver's demands on Colorado River 
     sources.
           Yours truly,
                                               Wellington E. Webb,
                                                            Mayor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2141. A bill to require certain notices in any mailing using a 
game of chance for the promotion of a product or service, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                   honesty in sweepstakes act of 1998

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Honesty in 
Sweepstakes Act of 1998.
  Every day millions of senior citizens and other innocent consumers 
receive sweepstakes announcements that boldly announce that they have 
just won millions of dollars or some other prize, perhaps a luxury 
cruise, when in fact they have not. Millions of Americans also receive 
cashier's check look-alikes, made out to their name, and written for 
thousands of dollars, as a ploy to get them to purchase some product or 
service. But upon close scrutiny, these cashier's check look-alikes are 
actually worthless.
  These two tactics are some of the most pervasive deceptive direct 
mail marketing ploys being used today. Theses slick direct mail 
marketing ploys prey directly upon the better elements of the American 
character: optimism, good nature, trust, and natural tendency to accept 
things at face value.
  The recent increase of news reports detailing how American consumers 
are being deliberately misled into believing that they have just won a 
huge prize, only to find out later that they were taken advantage of, 
clearly shows that the problem is getting worse. All across our 
country, families' home mail boxes are being stuffed with increasingly 
deceptive direct mail marketing ploys, and senior citizens are 
particulary vulnerable to these deceptive tactics.
  Something needs to be done to restore honesty in sweepstakes.
  This legislation has two key provisions. The first ensures accuracy 
and honesty in direct mail sales promotions that use sweepstakes or 
other games of chance to entice consumers to buy their products or 
services. The second provision promotes honest forthrightness when 
cashier's check look-alikes are used in direct mail sales promotions. 
Together, this legislation's two key provisions will benefit American 
consumers, the U.S. Postal Service, and the direct mail marketing 
industry.
  First, my bill will protect American consumers from deceptive 
marketing practices. It will accomplish this by requiring that direct 
mail marketers provide consumers with honest, up-front and clear 
disclosure of what is being sent to their mail boxes. These new 
disclosure standards will enable consumers to quicky separate mail that 
is truly important from mail that is deceptively designed to look 
important by masquerading as something that it is not.
  Second, the bill helps the Postal Service do its job better. This 
bill will strengthen the Postal Service's efforts by enabling it to 
halt the delivery of deceptive mass mailings. This legislation will 
reassure the American people that the Postal Service is on their side, 
and not on the side of those who would

[[Page S5700]]

use the Postal Service to deliver deceptive marketing ploys.
  Finally, this legislation will benefit the direct mail marketing 
industry as a whole. It will enhance the public image of the majority 
of direct mail marketers that are honest by compelling companies that 
use deceptive marketing practices, and whose activities taint the 
entire industry, to either clean up their act or get out. For many 
years, direct mail marketers have successfully sold their products 
without resorting to deception. Let's return to those days.
  The Honesty in Sweepstakes Act is built on a solid foundation of 
precedents. The key principle for the sweepstakes portion of this 
legislation is based on the way in which lotteries clearly disclose 
important information, like the total chances of winning. As for 
achieving the same goal for the printed materials used in direct mail 
marketing, this honesty is achieved through requiring the disclosure to 
be printed on top and in easy to read font sizes. It is also similar to 
food labeling, letting you know what is inside the product. The 
cashier's check look-alike portion of this bill is founded on precedent 
in current law that allows the Postal Service to dispose of, or 
otherwise refuse to deliver, government look-alike materials. My bill 
simply expands this current statutory provision to include cashier's 
check look-alikes.
  This bill addresses deceptive sweepstakes in two important ways. 
First, it requires an announcement to be clearly printed on the face of 
the envelope to state that ``This is a sweepstakes. You have not 
automatically won.'' This announcement must be clearly printed in a 
large 16 point font, or in an even larger font in some circumstances, 
so that it is crystal clear and easy for everyone to read. Many of our 
nation's seniors will especially benefit from this large font size 
requirement. Second, this bill requires that important information be 
printed clearly on the top of the first page of enclosed material, 
including the chances of winning the big prize being promoted and that 
no purchase is necessary to participate. For cashier check look-alikes, 
this bill calls for a 16 point font notice that ``This is not a check. 
This has no cash value.'' The days of deceptive marketers burying all 
of the important information and other disclaimers in fine print are 
numbered.
  Enforcement is triggered by the consumers themselves. When people 
receive sweepstakes and cashier's check look-alikes that do not meet 
the honesty guidelines laid out in this bill, they should contact the 
Post Office and register a complaint. These consumer complaints can 
then trigger a postal investigation of the materials in question. If 
the Postal Service finds that the materials do not live up to the 
Honesty in Sweepstakes guidelines, the Postal Service can then dispose 
of the mail accordingly, either by disposing of it or returning it to 
the sender. As a result, marketers who are not complying with the 
Honesty in Sweepstakes standards will then take a loss on the 
production and postage costs associated with that mailing. Needless to 
say, the company will quickly learn its lesson and produce marketing 
materials that are more forthright and honest.
  I have consulted with the Attorneys General of both my home state of 
Colorado, and of the state of Florida, which is in the forefront of the 
effort to fight deceptive sweepstakes practices. These two offices 
expressed support for both this bill's goals and new approach. The 
Attorneys General were also glad to hear that this bill contains a 
clause stating that nothing in this bill will preempt state law. This 
important clause gives each of our respective states the freedom to 
enact its own additional guidelines as it sees fit. I appreciate the 
helpful feedback and support these two states' Attorneys General have 
shown.
  For too long, too many of our senior citizens and other innocent 
consumers have been victimized by deceptive sweepstakes and cashier's 
check look-alikes. This bill will end this practice, and I urge my 
colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2141

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. NOTICE REQUIRED ON MAILINGS USING GAMES OF CHANCE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Honesty in 
     Sweepstakes Act of 1998''.
       (b) Notice Required.--Section 3001 of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (j) and (k) as subsections 
     (k) and (l), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (i) the following:
       ``(j)(1) Matter otherwise legally acceptable in the mails 
     that constitutes a solicitation or offer in connection with 
     the sales promotion for a product or service that uses any 
     game of chance of winning anything of value (including any 
     sweepstakes) shall not be carried or delivered by mail, and 
     may be disposed of as the Postal Service directs, unless such 
     matter in conspicuous and legible type in contrast by 
     typography, layout, or color with other printing on its face, 
     in accordance with regulations which the Postal Service shall 
     prescribe--
       ``(A) bears on the envelope the following notice: ``This is 
     a game of chance (or sweepstakes, if applicable). You have 
     not automatically won.'', or a notice to the same effect in 
     words which the Postal Service may prescribe; and
       ``(B) bears on the top of the first page of enclosed 
     printed matter the following notice: `This is a game of 
     chance (or sweepstakes, if applicable). You may not have 
     automatically won. Your chances of winning are (insert 
     applicable mathematical probability). No purchase is required 
     either to win a prize or enhance your chances of winning a 
     prize.', or a notice to the same effect in words which the 
     Postal Service may prescribe.
       ``(2) Matter otherwise legally acceptable in the mails that 
     constitutes a solicitation or offer in connection with the 
     sales promotion for a product or service that uses any matter 
     resembling a negotiable instrument shall not be carried or 
     delivered by mail, and may be disposed of as the Postal 
     Service directs, unless such matter bears on the face of the 
     negotiable instrument in conspicuous and legible type in 
     contrast by typography, layout, or color with other printing 
     on its face, in accordance with regulations which the Postal 
     Service shall prescribe the following notice: `This is not a 
     check (or negotiable instrument). This has no cash value.', 
     or a notice to the same effect in words which the Postal 
     Service may prescribe.
       ``(3) The notices described under paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     shall be printed in a font which is the larger of--
       ``(A) 80 percent or more of the size of the largest font 
     otherwise used in the matter; or
       ``(B) a 16-point font.
       ``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall preempt any State 
     law that regulates advertising or sales of goods and services 
     associated with any game of chance.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2142. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey 
the facilities of the Pine River Project, to allow jurisdictional 
transfer of lands between the Department of Agriculture, Forest 
Service, and the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, and 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


                vallecito reservoir transfer legislation

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that will allow 
the Bureau of Reclamation to transfer the title to the Vallecito 
Reservoir in southwestern Colorado to the Pine River Irrigation 
District. This transfer has been developed after close consultation and 
extensive meetings with the Pine River Irrigation District, the Bureau 
of Reclamation, the U.S. Forest Service and the Southern Ute Indian 
Tribe.
  This bill contributes toward my ongoing goal of developing local 
cooperation and control of public resources, while addressing the 
concerns of managing site-specific resources, recreation, and 
environmental protection. It fits with my long-held belief that we need 
to downsize the role of the Federal Government, while allowing the 
State and local entities which are most affected to manage valuable 
resources.
  For the past twenty-five years, the District has managed the 
Vallecito Reservoir for the Bureau of Reclamation. This bill will allow 
the District, which has developed extensive expertise and knowledge, to 
purchase the reservoir which they manage. The concerns of the public 
are addressed through provisions which require certain conditions be 
met before the title can be transferred. Once the transfer is complete 
the Pine River District will continue to manage the reservoir in 
compliance with State and Federal law.

[[Page S5701]]

  This bill is a companion bill to H.R. 3715 introduced in the House of 
Representatives by our colleague Congressman Scott McInnis. The House 
already has held a hearing on this legislation. Therefore, I am hopeful 
that the Senate can move rapidly to complete this transfer.

                          ____________________