Mutual Fund Transparency Act of 2005

Mr. President, we are at the point now where I believe we are going to hear from a number of Members who have submitted amendments and some who simply want to talk about the bill, some who want to talk about the formulas. We have had some requests for time. It is my understanding that we are going to have our vote at 5:30. It does mean we have limited time between now and then. Let me just make a comment or two about this and then ask--

Of course.

Mr. President, as I was saying, we do have a lot of people who want to be heard on this bill. I believe I have said several times this could very well be the most significant vote we will have this year. It is a vote that we actually had last year. Senator Jeffords and I worked for 3 years on this bill, along with Senator Bond and Senator Baucus. The four of us have been shepherding this bill. Now it looks as if we are very close to getting a bill.

Last year, our bill was funded at $318 billion. It was passed on to conference, and we lacked one signature of getting a conference report, so it did not happen. As a result, we are operating on our sixth extension. I know the occupant of the chair understands the significance of this. It means all the reforms we have in here, streamlining reforms, will not be a reality if we are not able to pass a bill, if we have to operate on a seventh extension. It means we are not going to have any help for the donee States. We will not have any help for the sparsely populated States. We are not going to be able to have the commission that is going to look into new ways of funding highways. We started off back in the Eisenhower administration. Since he started the national highways program, we have been funding them essentially the same way ever since, but this bill appoints a commission that is going to be creative and do a lot better job than we have done before.

The formula--you always find someone objecting to the formula. It takes into consideration about 10 different things: size of the State, density of the State, the donor status of the State--things that are very significant in order to be totally equitable. One of the factors is the highway fatalities in the State on a per capita basis. That has to tell you something. If one of the States has a lot more fatalities on the highway, it means they have greater needs. My State of Oklahoma has terrible bridges. We are ranked dead last. We were tied with the State of Missouri, but I think we are now last. We want to correct that. We want this bill. It is very important that we have this bill. We are going to have our vote tomorrow, and we want to hear from anyone down here.

I ask Senator Jeffords, did you want to make any comments at this time?

I don't see Senator Baucus. I ask Senator Bond, do you want to make any comments?

Senator Thomas.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for an excellent point, and that point is we are on our sixth extension now. Some extensions are 30-day extensions, some of them are 6-month extensions, and you can't expect the contracting community out there to be able to plan in an efficient way to spend the money to build the highways, to build the

bridges, or repair the highways if they can't plan in advance. This would give us 5 more years on a 6-year authorization. It is absolutely imperative.

I say to my colleagues that we are now operating on the bill, so whoever seeks recognition can get recognition as he or she desires.

I don't believe we are yielding time.

Reserving the right to object, I don't want to object, but we have a short period of time until we have to go to the highway bill vote. We have a long list of people who want to speak on the highway bill. What I would ask of the Senator from Hawaii is that instead of his speaking for 15 minutes, he go ahead and start, and if anyone wants to seek recognition on the highway bill, they could do so.

Mr. President, we have several requests to speak prior to 4 o'clock and then more prior to 5:30 on the highway bill which is the regular order. So far, those speakers who want to speak in morning business have been kind enough to say that they would not mind being interrupted, if necessary, if someone came down to talk about the highway bill. I appreciate that and remind my colleagues that we don't have a lot of time between now and the vote at 5:30.

The Senator from Iowa, chairman of the Finance Committee, has a title under this bill. If you don't mind, I am sure there will be time.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his comments on the highway bill. It is very significant. It probably could very well be the most significant bill we will be voting on this year.

If I can get the attention of the Senator from North Dakota, I have had occasion to give four 1-hour China speeches on the floor of this Senate in response to the 2004 report to the Congress on the China Economic and Security Commission. I do not know whether the Senator from North Dakota has read that yet, but I am going to call that up with a resolution to implement the recommendations.

This is far more serious than even some of the issues the Senator from North Dakota mentioned in his excellent comments. If we look at how China is now using up the resources we are depending upon, if we go to any of the countries in Africa, such as Nigeria and the coast of Guinea where they have huge reserves, we find the Chinese are building huge stadiums, coliseums, and roads, and paying for it themselves to get the corner on those markets we will be dependent upon at some time. They are dealing with countries such as Iran and exchanging nuclear technology.

I have been deeply concerned about the Chinese, not just in what they have been able to do in terms of their nuclear capabilities, but also their conventional capabilities. It was in 1998 that GEN John Jumper came forth and said something that startled a lot of people, but we knew it all the time, and that is the Russians are now making a strike vehicle, an SU-30, that is better than our strike vehicles, the F-15 and F-16. And then we find out China has purchased, in one purchase, 240 of these vehicles. Their buildup of conventional forces and what they are doing economically to this country is very disturbing to me. It has to be addressed.

I hope the Senator from North Dakota will join us in trying to implement the recommendations of this 2004 study--it was 4 years in the making--of the security and economic problems we are facing today as a result of the Chinese buildup.

Mr. President, first, this Commission worked 4 years. They studied it from a security and economic standpoint. It was bipartisan and had every expert one can think of on the Commission. They came out with some very strong recommendations. I would hope the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from South Carolina might want to expand what they are doing after reading the recommendations. Maybe we can join forces at a later date and have a resolution recommending the adoption of the recommendations of this Commission.

Mr. President, again, we are on the highway bill. Senator Jeffords, the ranking member of the EPW Committee, and I worked so well together on this. I have to say before he makes his comments, there are a lot of provisions in this bill that he likes better than I like, and there are provisions I like better than he likes. That is what it is, that is how we got to where we are today. It has been a great working relationship, and I anticipate we are going to be successful in getting this bill passed.

Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont brought up a very interesting point when he said this bill will save lives. We have a whole safety core in this bill. This was done in the Commerce Committee's portion of the bill. That is why when we have a very complicated formula, one of the factors in the formula is the fatality rate on a per-capita basis of the States because that is one indicator that there is a problem with surface transportation and a problem that can be corrected with this bill.

We had called this bill the SAFETEA bill because it has the safety provisions that will save lives. I can speak for my State of Oklahoma and many others that more than half the States are above this average in terms of fatalities. We need to do something about this. We cannot do it if we extend it.

I do not think people realize that if we do not pass this bill by tomorrow and get it to conference and back from conference prior to the termination of this sixth extension--and that is May 31--then we will have to get another extension. If we get another extension, we will be doing the same thing we have done over the last 2 years with extensions, and that is continue it as it was under the 7-year-old TEA- 21. There have been a lot of changes since then.

All those Senators representing donor States, such as my State of Oklahoma--I can remember when Oklahoma would only get back 75 percent of what they sent in, and now we have made improvements. The bill passed 7 years ago, TEA-21, brought up the minimum to 90.5 percent. If we had passed the bill we had last year at a higher funding level, that would have been 95 percent.

In other words, every donor State or every State would get back 95 percent of what they sent in. That would be better than the 90.5 today. At this reduced funded level, it will be about 92 percent.

The point is this: If we do not pass a bill, it is not going to happen. We are not going to have any relief for the donor States. The safety core program Senator Jeffords talked about--he is right, it is a life-or-death issue. If we do not pass this bill, people are going to die. People are going to die because we don't have any safety provisions in the extension so none of those would be adopted.

We have streamlining provisions. I think we all hear stories about how some of our antiquated rules, regulations, and statutes have made it almost impossible to get roads built and have made them cost something close to 15 percent more. We have streamlining provisions and reviews of this process in the bill, but if we don't pass the bill we will be operating under an extension, and that is not going to happen.

I mentioned earlier today this all started with President Eisenhower, actually Major Eisenhower, back in World War II when he realized he was unable to move troops and equipment around the United States to prosecute World War II as well as he should have been able to. So when he became President, he decided to have this National Highway System and we passed this bill. We have been operating the same way since then, almost 50 years now, raising money to pay for our infrastructure in America the same as we did 50 years ago.

We have done two things. First, we are giving the States the ability to be creative. I know a lot of people think no decision is a good decision if it is made in Washington. I have learned, after having been in State government and mayor of a city, that the closer you get to the people, the better the decision is and the more accurate it is. We recognize this. We allow the States not just to do things in general but also to come up with creative funding mechanisms, where they exercise the maximum of the private sector involvement in order to get these problems resolved.

In this bill we hope to pass, we even have a national commission to explore how to fund transportation in the future. This is something that will not happen if it is an extension. So we need to have this. That is why it is important.

We have the Safe Routes to School provision. I could probably name 20 different provisions of this very large bill, but this is one that several Members had a great passion for. I know several Members in the other body, as well as Senator Jeffords, were concerned about the Safe Routes to School provision. This is something that will save young people's lives, but if we do not do it and instead operate under an extension, we will not have that provision in there.

Anyone who has been in business and who has watched and waited, knows what you have to go through to get contracts, how you plan the financing, and that when you get the labor pool and your resources, in order to get the very most from them, you have to plan years in advance. The problem with the extension is it could be a 2-month extension or a 1-month extension or it could be 6 months. They are out there trying to address serious problems such as we have in Oklahoma with our bridges.

By the way, we have had several losses of life in my State of Oklahoma--two in the fairly recent past--due to bridges crumbling and killing people. So we need to correct this problem. We cannot do it unless we pass the bill.

A lot of the States are complaining right now, the border States-- California, Arizona, Florida, Texas--about the fact that, because of NAFTA, a lot of excess traffic is going through their States. We want to do something about that and we are doing it. We have a borders provision in this bill that gives them some of that relief. We will not be able to do that if we do not pass the bill. It is not going to work with an extension.

Right now we have chokepoints such as the canals we have in Oklahoma. People do not realize they are navigable. I remember many years ago when I was in the State senate, in order to try to get the point across to people that we have a navigable channel that goes all the way to my hometown of Tulsa, OK, or Catoosa, and in order to show this we managed to take a World War II submarine, the USS Batfish, from Texas, in the boneyard, and moved it all the way to Oklahoma, and it is sitting in Muskogee to tell that story.

The point is, if we have channel traffic activity, we have railroads, we have air, and we have surface, this provides chokepoints. We address the chokepoints as a major part of this bill.

The last and maybe most important thing is we have firewalls. When a person goes to the pump and pays Federal excise taxes when they buy a gallon of fuel, that person expects that money will go to improving highways and go to transportation. That is a no-brainer. That is what is supposed to happen. That is what we told the people is going to happen. But that is not what is happening. The insatiable appetite of members of an elected body to spend somebody else's money is something we have to deal with on a regular basis. So we have a trust fund and people pay money into the trust fund, but every time they have a chance to steal money out of the trust fund, they do.

What the Finance Committee tried to do, and I applaud them, they have put this together so they cannot do this that easily. For example, someone was complaining about the way this finance package is working. They said we have this program where we have hybrid cars so we give them financial advantages to encourage them so we can look out for the environment and save money on fuel and not aggravate the already existing energy shortage problem we have in America.

What do they do? They give them that money. But they take it out of the trust fund. It has nothing to do with

that. This is environmental policy, economic policy, but it is paid for by the trust fund. This is wrong.

In 1998, when President Clinton was President, he had a balanced budget amendment. He was going to balance the budget. But a lot of that money, $8 billion, was out of the trust fund to go toward the deficit. At that time I voted against it. All my conservative friends said, You want to do something about the deficit, don't you? But I said, Not on the back of the highway trust fund.

The point I want to make is there have been raids on the trust fund, and not just the highway trust fund but others. In this legislation we hope to pass tomorrow, we have firewalls built in so they can no longer raid the highway trust fund. If there is no other reason to pass this bill, this would be enough of a reason.

There will have been some complaints concerning our approach. There are two different basic approaches that one might take, putting together something such as the allocation of money that goes to the States. One is used in the other body. I served 8 years on the Transportation Committee in the House of Representatives. I know how that works over there. Frankly, it is more on projects than anything else. Not that there is anything wrong with that, except it would seem to me, and it seems to the majority of people in this body, better if you allocate on formula an amount of money then that goes back to the States and those States determine how to use it. In the State of Oklahoma we have eight transport districts, eight transportation commissioners. They sit down in a room. Certainly they know more about the needs in Oklahoma than we know here in Washington, DC. So we allocate the money in accordance with a lot of factors.

We have low-income States as a factor. If you are in a State such as Wyoming or Montana that has a low population density, yet you have to have roads to get across it, that is a consideration. If you have a high fatality rate, as we mentioned before, that is a consideration. We want to consider the number of interstate lane miles they have, the age of those, the traffic on those--all these things are factors that are in a formula. It might be politically a lot smarter to line up 60 Senators and say this is what we are going to do in your States and forget about all the rest of them and just do projects. We could do them. It is perfectly legal. We elected not to do that. We elected to do it the hard way with a complicated formula, and by the way, that is one nobody likes and that is probably a pretty good indication it is a pretty good formula. There are things I don't like. There are areas where I don't believe Oklahoma is being treated fairly. I am sure every one of the 100 Senators in this body can say the same thing.

We are still waiting now. We will be having a vote. We are 2 hours away from the vote. So we will wait for those to come down.

Amendment No. 706 to Amendment No. 605

On behalf of Senator Snowe, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment 706.

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

Mr. President, I observe Senator Snowe is en route and unless someone else wants to gain access to the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Let me reserve the right to object and ask the Senator if he would amend his unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business. However, if a Member comes with an amendment-- since the cutoff is 25 minutes away--the Senator agrees not to speak for more than a couple of minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, since we are right to the 4 o'clock deadline, that the managers' amendment proposed by myself and the ranking member be introduced at a time after 4 o'clock.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I also am going to thank staff. This was not easy. We have endured 3 years now. Ruth VanMark has been with me 18 years and has all of the background in the other body in the Transportation Committee. They will all be glad to get a good night's sleep at some time. We go from here into conference.

I suggest that we be aware that our 4 o'clock deadline has passed now. We have exempted the managers' amendment so it can be done at a later time. We are now down from 173 amendments to 7, so we have 7 to be voted on between now and tomorrow. At the conclusion of that, we will then vote on final passage and send it to conference. I hope leadership is working on both sides of the aisle to appointing conferees and that we can get it to conference and get it back.

I keep responding that I believe we can do this within the May 31 deadline and avoid an extension. We can show that things can happen in an expeditious way in the Senate, whether people believe it or not. If we get this passed tomorrow, we would have time to do it, if we are committed to making it a reality.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Texas for her comments. I know the depth of her interest and the passion she has for doing everything she can for her State.

I have said several times on the floor of the Senate how difficult it is to come up with formula approaches. It is difficult. It is a tough thing to do. There are so many factors that go into it, such as the interstate lane miles, miles traveled, principal arteries, cost to repair and replace deficient highway bridges, weight nonattainment maintenance areas, low-population States, donor States, donee States, fast-growing States. Again, it would have been so much easier to do it the way it has been done before and the way we have done it, actually, in the other body just by making a political list, and when we get to the 60 votes saying: All right, that is it, the other 40 of you guys, it is your problem.

We try not to do that. There is not one State represented in this Senate that cannot complain about some parts of the formula. We have tried hard. When we passed the bill out of committee, starting in 2005 through 2009 in Texas, 90.5 percent was all the way to 2009, and then it was 92 percent. Now in 2006, 2007, 2008 at 91 percent and going to 92 percent.

Of course, the Senator is right that Texas is a very large State, so it represents very large amounts of money. But it is a half percent more in each of those 3 years of 2006, 2007, 2008. We have

tried to do it. We tried to work with each one of the States.

As I say, I know her depth of interest. We spent many hours trying to work out variances.

The problem we always have is nothing happens in a vacuum. If we take care of a problem in Texas, then that aggravates a problem in Pennsylvania.

So formulas are tough. They are tough to deal with politically. They are tough to deal with rationally. I think we have tried to do the very best we can. With that, I am glad to yield the floor.

It is a very reasonable request the Senator from Texas is making. I observe we talked about this ``above the line/below the line.'' We plowed this furrow several times. However, when you get in conference, there are things that can be done. I can assure the Senator the State of Texas will be well represented in conference. I am sure we will hear proposals, and there will be some give and take in all areas.

Of course, we will be dealing with another whole body over there, so it is hard to predict what will come out. But we will try to get to it expeditiously and see that Texas--as I say, they will be well represented. I think we all understand that.

We are now waiting. We are, as I said before, down to about seven amendments. There could be a germaneness problem with some of them. Some of them could be worked out. My guess is, other than the managers' amendment, which Senator Jeffords and I will be propounding, there are probably, realistically, maybe four votes that we will be having. That is my guess what it will be. We have announced already we are going to have one tonight at 5:30, which is just an hour and 6 minutes from now.

After that, we invite Senators to stay here and debate their amendments. I think we probably will not have votes until tomorrow morning. We can debate these amendments. I think by that time there may be as many as three or four amendments that would be appropriate for us to debate. Then we can get on to the final passage.

As it is right now, we have plenty of time tonight. We have another hour and 5 minutes before the vote. I am sure Senator Jeffords joins me in making this request: Members who are authors of these amendments, they know who they are, come down. We are open for business. Come down and debate your amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President I will briefly talk about a provision in the Commerce title of the highway bill. We have the Commerce title, Banking, Finance, and EPW title. Section 7370 creates a hazardous material cooperative research program. It authorizes $2 million a year for each year, including 2006 through 2009, for hazardous material transport research projects on topics that are ``not adequately addressed by existing Federal private sector research programs.''

The section goes on to require that at least one of the studies ``provide an assessment of the need and feasibility of substituting less lethal substances than toxic inhalation hazards in the manufacturing process.''

I oppose the provision and hope it can be removed in conference. I will be actively opposing it in conference to see it is removed. There is no such language in the House portion.

The concept at the heart of this provision is called inherently safer technology and it is not about transportation but a longstanding wish of some of the environmental extremist communities. The EPW has spent the last 4 years working on the issue of chemical security and this issue of FIST has arisen several times in the context of the security debate. The idea of inherently safer technology predates September 11. It was around long before the tragedy of September 11. It has never been about security. It has never been about transportation. It is a concept that dates back more than a decade when the extremist environmental community--Greenpeace and others--was seeking bans on chlorine, the chemical used to purify our Nation's water. After September 11 they decided to play upon the fears of the Nation and repackage FIST as a solution to potential security problems. Now they seek to repackage it again as a transportation issue, which it is not.

This issue is not about security. It is not about transportation. It is about trying to find a research justification for giving the Federal Government authority to mandate that a private company change its manufacturing process or the chemicals they use. The study's parameters reveal this intent when it states ``substituting less lethal substances than toxic inhalation hazards in the manufacturing process.''

There are entire books written about the subject of FIST by various groups, including current efforts by the Center for Chemical Process Safety and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers to update their 1996 ``gold book'' on the subject. These are chemical process experts. The Federal Government is not.

I do not believe mandatory FIST is good for our Nation's security. Besides that, it is not a transportation issue. If it is something you want to debate in the Senate as a freestanding bill, do it that way, but do not sneak around behind and throw little a part into this bill through the Commerce title that has nothing to do with transportation.

I mention this and anything else we find in the bill that perhaps we have overlooked that has nothing to do with transportation, we will make every effort to make sure it gets out when it is in conference.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana is being modest because he has had a great deal of influence on the amendments. A critical problem in Louisiana is beach erosion. He has persuaded our committee, in an articulate way, to become much more aggressive in solving that problem. We are a much better committee because of him. I thank him for his hard work on the committee.

It is my understanding the senior Senator from Massachusetts wishes to speak.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to give a progress report. We are down to four or five amendments now. Many of them have been agreed to or have been withdrawn. We don't have anyone at this moment who is going to ask for a vote tonight. We had previously scheduled a vote at 5:30. We did not anticipate at that time that we would be getting the cooperation we are getting from the Members who have worked things out. So I announce on behalf of the leadership that we will not be having the vote at 5:30 tonight.

Let me make a couple of comments. I know anxieties are high concerning the so-called nuclear option, or what we call the constitutional option. I hesitate to take up time. If anybody comes to talk about the highway bill, we will stop and talk about the highway bill.

If you stop and realize what we really want, what we have been asking for is a vote. People are entitled to have a vote on the floor of this Senate. They are nominees. You may not like the nominees of the President for the circuit court positions, but certainly these people at least deserve an up-or-down vote.

It is kind of interesting to see how the minority has changed its mind from just a short period ago.

Senator Biden on March 19, 1997, said:

But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is

nominated ought to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have

a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor

. . . It is totally appropriate for Republicans to reject

every single nominee if they want to. That is within their

right. But it is not, I will respectfully request, Madam

President, appropriate not to have hearings on them, not to

bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote . . .

Senator Boxer on May 14, 1997, said:

According to the U.S. Constitution, the President

nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent.

It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and

prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being

given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.

Senator Daschle on October 5, 1999, said:

I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against

even voting on a judicial nomination . . . We have a

constitutional outlet for antipathy against a judicial

nominee--a vote against that nominee.

Senator Durbin on September 28, 1998, said:

I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely

fashion on nominees sent before us. The reason I oppose

cloture is I would like to see that the Senate shall also be

held to the responsibility of acting in a timely fashion. If,

after 150 days languishing in a committee there is no report

on an individual, the name should come to the floor. If,

after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that

name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the

person up or down. They are qualified or they are not.

Senator Feinstein on September 16, 1999, said:

A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them

down . . . What this does to a [nominee's] life is, it leaves

them in limbo . . . It is our job to confirm these judges. If

we don't like them, we can vote against them. That is the

honest thing to do. If there are things in their background,

in their abilities that don't pass muster, vote no.

On October 4, 1999, she said:

Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.

And on May 19, 1997, Senator Feinstein said:

Mr. President, the time has come to act on these

nominations. I'm not asking for a rubber stamp; let's hold

hearings on those nominees who haven't had them, and vote on

all of them, up or down, yes or no.

Senator Kennedy on January 28, 1998, said:

The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable

to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The

President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should

resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees--yes

or no.

And on February 3, 1998:

We owe it to Americans across the country to give these

nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like

them, vote against them. But give them a vote.

Senator Kohl on August 21, 1999, said:

[T]here are many other deserving nominees out there. Let's

not play favorites. These nominees, who have to put their

lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an `up or down'

vote.

Senator Lautenberg on June 21, 1995, said:

Talking about the fairness of the system and how it is

equitable for a minority to restrict the majority view, why

can we not have a straight up-or-down vote on this without

threats of filibuster? When it was Robert Bork or John Tower

or Clarence Thomas, even though there was strong opposition,

many Senators opposed them. The fact is that the votes were

held here, up or down.

Senator Leahy on June 21, 1995, said:

When President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the U.S.

Supreme Court, I was the first member of the Senate to

declare my opposition to his nomination. I did not believe

that Clarence Thomas was qualified to serve on the Court.

Even with strong reservations, I felt that Judge Thomas

deserved an up-or-down vote.

On October 14, 1997:

I cannot recall a judicial nomination being successfully

filibustered. I do recall earlier this year when the

Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I noted

how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.

October 22, 1997:

I hope we might reach a point where we as a Senate will

accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them

down. Bring the names here. If we want to vote against them,

vote against them.

June 18, 1998:

If we want to vote against somebody, vote against them. I

respect that. State your reasons. I respect that. But don't

hold up a qualified judicial nominee . . . I have stated over

and over again on this floor . . . that I would object and

fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is

somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate

should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President

nominates, vote him or her down.

September 16, 1999:

I . . . do not want to see the Senate go down a path where

a minority of the Senate is determining a judge's fate on

votes of 41 . . . [D]uring the Republican administrations I

rarely ever voted against a nomination by either President

Reagan or President Bush. There were a couple I did. I also

took the floor on occasion filibusters to hold them up and

believe that we should have a vote up or down.

Again on September 16, 1999:

I do not want to get having to invoke cloture on judicial

nominations. I think it is a bad precedent.

October 1, 1999:

Nominees deserve to be treated with dignity and dispatch,

not delayed for 2 and 3 years. We are talking about people

going to the Federal judiciary, a third independent branch of

Government. They are entitled to dignity and respect. They

are not entitled atomically for us to vote aye, but they are

entitled to a vote, aye or nay.

October 3, 1999:

When we hold a nominee up by not allowing them a vote and

not taking any action one way or the other, we are . . .

doing a terrible disservice to the man or woman to whom we do

this.

March 7, 2000:

The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said:

``The Senate is surely

under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but

after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or

vote him down.'' Which is exactly what I would like.

October 11, 2000:

I have said on the floor, although we are different

parties, I have agreed with Gov. George Bush, who has said

that in the Senate a nominee ought to get a [floor] vote, up

or down, within 60 days.

Senator Levin on June 21, 1995, said:

The President is entitled to his nominee, if a majority of

the Senate consent.

Senator Lincoln at a press conference on September 14, 2000, said:

If we want people to respect their government again, then

government must act respectably. It's my hope that we'll take

the necessary steps to give these men and these women

especially the up or down vote that they deserve.

Senator Reid on March 7, 2000, said:

Once they get out of committee, let's bring them here and

vote up or down on them. . . . I think anybody who has to

wait 4 years deserves an up-or-down vote.

. . . If there is a Senator who believes there is a problem

with any judge, whether it is the one we are going to vote on

at 5 o'clock or the two we are going to vote on tomorrow, or

Thursday, they have every right to come to talk at whatever

length they want. But with Judge Paez, it has been 4 years.

There has been ample opportunity to talk about this man. He

has bipartisan support.

On June 9, 2001, in an interview on Evans, Novak, Hunt, and Shields said:

[W]e should have up or down votes in the committee and on

the floor.

Senator Schumer on March 7, 2000, said:

The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue

before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can

always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to

debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government

not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the

President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the

nominees.

. . . I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with

alacrity--vote them up or down. But this delay makes a

mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that

we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very

sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges

and then they hang out there in limbo.

These are people who are now saying they do not want to have a vote on these nominees. We have nominees who have been waiting not for weeks or months but for years. I believe some of these Senators who before had a philosophy that everyone is entitled to a vote ought to turn around and give the current nominees a vote. I have a great deal of respect for these people, except I would like to have them express some level of consistency.

The issue has become a bit clouded and confusing. When one talks about the various polls, I suggest that one can word a question to get almost any kind of answer one wants. When it gets down to the facts, the Constitution says the President nominates and the Senate is either to confirm or not confirm. It does not say anything about a mandatory supermajority. It just says confirmed. That is a simple majority, Mr. President.

Again, I invite Members to come to the Chamber. We are going to keep the floor open. There will not be any votes tonight on the amendments. We are down to about four amendments, although they should be debated tonight if at all possible. We need to get the debates behind us so we will be prepared to vote tomorrow morning.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, while we are waiting for Members to come down to the Senate floor to offer their amendments, to talk about their amendments, and be prepared for votes tomorrow morning, I will share with you that we have had a lot of erroneous reports concerning what is going on in Iraq and in other sensitive areas of the world. Quite frankly, I believe the greatest disservice that has been done to our troops in Iraq has been by the press, by the press not giving an accurate accounting as to what is really happening there.

I am a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and as such I have taken on the responsibility of spending time in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and different places where terrorism may come due to the squeeze in the Middle East. But as far as Iraq is concerned, I will share a couple of experiences.

One was a couple days after the January 30 election. So many people in the media were trying to say the election is not going to come off on January 30, it is not going to happen; democracy is not going prevail there; they are not going to be able to make the deadlines; they are not going to be able to handle the elections and they are not capable of doing it on their own; they do not have the security because they would have to provide all the security for the elections. Yet a few days after that, you might remember, of the three elements over there, the Sunnis were the ones--not the Shiites or the Kurds--but the Sunnis were the ones wanting to obstruct the elections--the most anti- American of all the groups. Yet the day after the election, the two primary Sunni leaders stood and said publicly that they were surprised it went the way it did. They wanted to be in on this. They wanted to participate. We know subsequent to that they have.

I remember testimonials by different people who had participated in that election. One was a lady who said she could not read the ballot because of the tears in her eyes. She couldn't see the ballot.

Another person told me through a translator that she was in there to vote, and it occurred to her at the time they were voting that this was not just the first time in 35 years of a bloody regime of Saddam Hussein, but it was the first time in 7,000 years that they had an opportunity for self-determination.

It is a huge thing happening over there. Who would ever have dreamed at any time in the last 35 years that they would actually be participating in a free election?

Now we have seen what has happened since then. Sure, the terrorists over there who do not want this to happen are out there and they are killing as many of the Iraqis as possible to try to obstruct this new freedom that is coming their way.

The last time I was there, I decided it would be a good idea to spend time in the Sunni triangle. That is where most of the hostilities are. It was the Sunnis who were the ones holding out last, the ones who were supporting Saddam Hussein. I recall going to Falluja, just a matter of a few weeks ago, and in Falluja there was a general whose name was Mahdi. He was the general, the commanding officer of the brigade. He was the brigade commander for Saddam Hussein. He hated Americans and he had the background to demonstrate how deeply that hatred went, the murders and all these things going on.

Yet that general, after we moved the Marines into Falluja and they started going door to door, and they were embedded with the Iraqis, this general was so impressed with the Marines that he made a statement. When they rotated the Marines out and said the Marines were going to have to go into a rotation, they had become so close working and fighting together that when they all got together before the Marines left, he said they all cried. There was a general looking at me saying: We cried because we didn't want the Marines to leave. He renamed the security forces of Falluja the Iraqi Marines. He named them after us.

While we were there in Tikrit, the home of Saddam Hussein, there was an explosion. It was at a place they called a police station, but it was a training area where they were training Iraqis for the security forces. It killed 10 immediately and seriously injured 30 more so they could not be trained. The families of these 40 individuals who were either killed or were severely injured offered up another member of each of their families to substitute for the one who was killed or the one who was injured. It was the type of sacrifice you would never dream possible a few years before--a few days before, really.

I remember going all over the Sunni triangle in a Blackhawk helicopter, 100 feet off the ground. That is the only safe way to get there. There are terrorists who have SAMs, surface-to-air missiles, although some pretty crude.

Many American families who have sent care packages to the troops over there--candy, cookies, these different

things--what they have done with these is repackage them and, as we were going over the Sunni triangle and looked down at these small villages, all the kids were out there and we threw them candy and things like that, and they were waving American flags and cheering. This is not the picture you get from the media.

I applaud the job our guys and gals have done over there, our troops. Of course, many have lost their lives, but people don't stop to realize how many more lives would have been lost if we had not been involved in that area, offering that kind of freedom.

Now we see a lot of terrorists are going into other areas. One of the good things I would announce that is going on right now is down in Africa we are now in the process of assisting Africans in forming five African brigades, and these African brigades, we will put them in a position to help them train themselves so when something like this erupts down there it will not be the Americans who have to do it.

I just wanted to take this time to applaud our troops for the great job they are doing. I really believe, as great a disservice as the press has provided, that the people of America know better. They are showing they do know better.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside for the consideration of the managers' amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask for adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to the Dorgan amendment, No. 652.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the amendment is not germane.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Ensign amendment No. 636 and the Schumer amendment No. 674 be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his statement and his support. I thank my colleague from Alaska for her statement.

I come to the floor in opposition to the Sununu amendment, also. I hope Members will read it because it says:

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to

plan, design, study, or construct new forest development

roads in the Tongass National Forest for the purpose of

harvesting timber by private entities or individuals.

This amendment is premised on inaccurate information and faulty assumptions about our Nation's timber industry, the Tongass, and the state of our national forests. Unfortunately, this type of information has become commonplace. It is the inevitable result of special interest campaigns which are designed to distort the facts and mislead the American public. For many years, I have worked to set the record straight, especially when it comes to the false claims about Alaska's stewardship of our natural resources. Unfortunately, this amendment requires that I attempt, once more, to set the record straight.

Misinformation about management of our national resources now runs rampant. I believe it lies at the heart of this amendment. It is the result of propaganda campaigns raised by extreme environmentalists and special interest groups who often get the facts wrong because they ignore our history. Our State once had a thriving timber industry. It supplied almost 2 billion board feet a year, employed over 3,000 timber workers, and generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue for the U.S. Treasury. But in the spirit of compromise and cooperation, our timber industry agreed to reduce the amount of timber it could harvest per year. In fact, one timber employee recently stated ``we cooperated ourselves right out of business.''

The Tongass National Forest was established in 1917. At 17 million acres, it is the largest national forest in the United States. It is twice the size of Maryland and more than 25 times the size of Rhode Island. As a matter of fact, if we look at the map showing the New England area, it shows how big this forest really is. The part that is covered in black is that portion of the forest that is open to timber on a proportionate basis. The other map that I have shows the forest as a whole and shows the result of the plans that have been developed. The area in blue is area that is still available for harvesting. All of the white part of that map of the Tongass is permanently closed to timber harvest.

The Tongass compromises 90 percent of the lands of southeastern Alaska. The remaining lands are State, more Federal, and private lands. The Tongass is the only forest in Alaska in which timber may be harvested now. Alaska's other forest, the Chugach National Forest, which contains 5.5 million acres, is now under a management plan which has reduced the allowable sale quantity to zero. The Chugach is completely closed to logging. No timber can be logged from that very massive forest, 5.5 million acres.

Federal timber policy regarding the Tongass has had devastating effects on the 32 communities in Southeast Alaska that depend on timber harvests for their livelihood. When Congress passed the Tongass Timber Act in 1947, an allowable sale quantity, which we call the ASQ, for the Tongass was set at 1.38 billion board feet per year. This level was slowly eroded. Under the 1959 Statehood Act, the State of Alaska was allowed to select only 400,000 acres of its 103-million-acre entitlement in Southeast Alaska.

Because there is little private land to support our local economies, Congress committed to provide support for economic development through timber sales. Congress codified that support in a series of laws beginning in 1971. In 1971, the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act set the ASQ, the allowable quantity, at 950 million board feet per year. During subsequent years, the timber industry in the Tongass supported almost 3,000 jobs and harvested an average of 520 million board feet per year. However, the amount of permissible harvest was again decreased in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, which set an ASQ of 450 million board feet per year. At that time, the Senate believed that 450 million board feet per year would maintain a robust timber industry which was a major section of southeast Alaska's regional economy.

In addition, the Senate envisioned providing Federal funds for road building and advanced harvesting technology.

As former Senator Roth stated at that time in 1980, the bill:

. . . permit[s] the established timber industries to

maintain a rate of production necessary for their economic

success. It was understood by Members of the Senate during

this debate that a vital timber industry was necessary for

the economic survival of the residents of southeast Alaska.

As Senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts said:

Our commitment was to treat Alaska fairly.

The commitment was again put to the test during the debate on the Tongass Timber Reform Act, which was called TTRA, in 1990. That plan set the ASQ at 450 million board feet on 1.9 million acres. The Act also directed the Forest Service to provide a supply of timber which meets the market demand in southeast Alaska. At that time, several Members from both sides of the aisle in the Senate adamantly agreed that this bill would be the final word on the Tongass.

As Senator Johnson of Louisiana stated:

I believe that the designation and disposition of the

public lands in the Tongass National Forest pursuant to this

act represent a responsible balance between the preservation

of wildlife areas and the availability of lands for more

intensive use as determined appropriate by administrative

planning and management. I further believe that this

agreement will allow Alaskans the certainty they need and

deserve by resolving the issue once and for all.

Now, that was in 1990. Senator Bingaman--now an original cosponsor of the Sununu amendment, as a matter of fact--said at the time:

This is a balanced bill that will adequately protect this

majestic national forest, while assuring a sustainable supply

of timber for current and future needs. . . . This

legislation recognizes that some areas should be protected,

while others should be managed for a sustained supply of

timber.

That was at the time of the 1990 act.

I remember speaking on the floor prior to passage of the bill. After years of broken promises and severe declines in the timber industry, I trusted our colleagues to do the right thing and resolve the issue of the Tongass once and for all. That is what everybody at the time said-- that Act was the final legislation pertaining to the Tongass timber harvest. I called on all Members of the House and Senate to listen to the voice of Alaskans. I received a promise, commitment, and assurance of those involved, who had the power to change these laws, that they recognized this was the end, that there would be no further divisions of the Tongass.

In 1997, however, the Forest Service completed the Tongass land management plan, which currently guides management of the Tongass. The development of that involved an unprecedented level of scientific review and public involvement. It took over 10 years and cost the taxpayers of the United States $13 million.

I opposed the plan because it contained again a drastic reduction in the amount of timber allowed to be harvested. It reduced the allowable sale quantity level to 267 million board feet per year. I thought the levels were

much lower than they needed to be, and they violated the commitment previously made to me. Numerous scientists who found that the Tongass could sustain far greater development supported my conclusion.

Yet, today, that plan seems like the golden age of the Tongass timber industry. I now find myself defending a plan I initially opposed, because of continued efforts to erode the promises made to our State.

This plan addresses how to manage the Tongass--a largely undeveloped forest landscape--over time. The centerpiece is a biological conservation strategy that protects the ``biological heart,'' as they called it, of the Tongass, designed to assure the sustainability of all resources and values, while allowing development on a relatively small portion of the Tongass to support communities in southeast Alaska through timber harvesting.

Mr. President, 93 percent of all forested areas in the Tongass are set aside under the 1997 plan; 93 percent are not available for timber harvesting. Timber harvesting can actually now occur on only 676,000 acres, or 4 percent of the 17 million acre forest. The allowable sale quantity under this plan is 267 million board feet--down, as I said, from over 1 billion board feet. An ASQ of 267 million board feet per year is the bottom quantity, as far as I am concerned.

Since 1990, the volume of timber harvested from the Tongass has dropped from hundreds of board feet per year. Last year, only 46 million board feet of timber was harvested--46 million board feet of timber from a forest of 17 million acres.

To comply with the Tongass Timber Reform Act, the current plan seeks to plan, prepare, and sell about 150 million board feet per year. Delays caused by litigation have prohibited the Forest Service from accomplishing this goal on the Tongass. Fourteen projects are currently under litigation. They represent over 238 million board feet of timber that should have been harvested in years gone by.

Direct timber jobs in the Tongass have declined from over 3000 in 1990 to less than 700 today. Unemployment in parts of southeast Alaska is well over 10 percent, all because of extravagant acts of those who oppose the very Act they championed at the time it passed in 1990.

Mr. President, 150 million board feet per year could support 959 direct timber jobs, totaling over $35 million in direct wages, Each direct timber job is estimated to support another 1.7 jobs in the local economy. These jobs are an important high-wage sector of the economy and provide much needed year-round employment for southeast Alaska. The benefits of a sufficient and sustained timber supply are obvious.

The timber industry in southeast Alaska has changed dramatically over the period we have described. The large pulp mills are closed. Three medium sawmills, one small sawmill, and a handful of micromills remain, but they are primarily idle because of the level of timber that can be cut right now. These businesses are family owned and community based and depend upon a supply of timber from the Tongass for their survival.

The remaining mills are involved in efforts to increase the demand for, and the stumpage values of, the timber in southeastern Alaska.

These people are trying to build a more integrated industry to provide finished products, such as window and door trim, to local, national, and international markets.

The Tongass timber program is working to complete investments in drying and planing lumber, having it graded, to sell in the local region.

Wood resources in southeast Alaska are now known to have unique qualities. Wood density and lumber strength is high. New lumber grades for Alaska yellow cedar and hemlock have recently been issued, which surpass the strength of other species currently used in construction in the lower 48, such as Douglas fir. This is also expected to increase the value of Alaska's timber.

In other words, we are trying to do what we can through technology to increase value of our timber, even though the amount of the timber is steadily declining.

The efforts of those remaining in the Tongass industry to adapt to current conditions will be worthless if Congress adopts the Sununu amendment. As I said, the amendment prohibits the Forest Service from using funds appropriated for the ``planning, designing, studying, or construction'' of timber roads.

Planning, designing, and studying are necessary to assure that we meet the multiple use consideration of the national forests. This forest area is full of small streams that contain migratory salmon. Wildlife is there. There are recreation values. A whole series of values require the Forest Service to study the areas that can be harvested. Careful planning, designing, studying, and construction is necessary to protect those values, as well as provide a transportation route so timber can be taken to market.

This amendment will effectively enact a roadless rule in the Tongass. It would prevent access to more than 300,000 acres of unroaded timber base in the areas that are open for timber harvest. Access to the small amount that is available should not be denied because of this amendment.

Data provided by the Forest Service shows at a minimum southeast Alaska will lose two mills and about 680 more jobs. These numbers will not support the industry described if this amendment passes.

Law requires that a sufficient timber supply be provided to meet market demand. That was one of the basic considerations that came from the 1990 Act. Current market demand is about 150 million board feet per year in our own area. Under this amendment, we would harvest less than 40 million board feet per year, bringing the industry to a standstill. I ask the Senate to reject this approach that would further renege on the obligation to southeast Alaska to fulfill the commitments that were made to Alaska and to southeastern Alaska under the Tongass plan.

Some of the Senators claim the Sununu amendment is about our fiscal responsibility to ensure taxpayers are not subsidizing the Tongass timber industry. But this is not about fiscal responsibility.

National environmental groups have spent millions appealing and litigating timber sales in the Tongass National Forest, causing program costs to soar and the number of sales to collapse. Almost 75 percent of all the costs associated with timber sales in the Tongass National Forest are spent on NEPA, appeals based on that Act, and litigation. The remaining 25 percent is the actual preparation and administration of a sale, including the building of roads.

Compliance with NEPA and other Federal laws and responses to appeals and litigation currently total about $110 per thousand board feet, or $110,000 per million board feet.

Without these costs, timber sale preparation and administration for the Tongass Forest would cost about $36 per thousand board feet. The average timber sale generates about $42.5 per thousand board feet. Without frivolous appeals and lawsuits, the Tongass timber program would yield a reasonable profit margin and make money for U.S. taxpayers.

Administrative appeals and litigation increase the cost of Tongass timber sales exponentially compared with the rest of the United States. The Forest Service estimates the timber sales in the Tongass are appealed and litigated more than four times that of timber sales in the national forests in the lower 48. It is the cost of this litigation and the cost of the environmental programs that are instilled by these extreme environmentalists that drive up the cost in the Tongass. Now they say we should stop harvesting timber because of the cost. Despite extensive environmental review and public participation, the majority of the timber projects in the Tongass are appealed and/or litigated.

Taxpayers are not subsidizing the timber industry. Under the National Forest Management Act, timber sale purchasers are required to competitively bid and pay market value for the sales they purchase. Purchasers also pay for all logging, transportation, and manufacturing costs.

In addition, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act mandates that national forests be managed for multiple use benefits such as fish, wildlife, recreation, and clean water.

Ecological benefits include various land management objectives such as

improving forest health and reducing the risk of catastrophic fire.

All of those costs are what the environmental groups say are part of the cost of the timber sale program. They are not. Seventy-five percent of all the costs have nothing to do with harvesting timber. They have to do with the attacks of extreme environmental groups that now bring this amendment to say you cannot use Federal money to build these roads, or even plan them, because it costs too much.

In the Tongass, timber sales also provide basic infrastructure, such as roads and docks. This infrastructure provides residents and visitors with access to hunting, fishing, recreation, and wildlife viewing. The whole spectrum of tourist activity in southeast Alaska is supported by the roads constructed. Some roads constructed by timber sales serve as the basic road system between communities and ferry terminals, which are the water highways of the island communities of southeast Alaska.

That area has no roads. Even our capital cannot be reached by road. This is an island area. It must have roads basically from the edge of the water to the area available for harvesting which, by definition, is back away from the view shed that we keep along the water's edge to assure that tourists will have the proper view of the area.

I do believe these water highways between our southeastern islands are connected, in a way, by virtue of the forest roads that are developed under these timber sale programs.

These timber sales provide benefits beyond revenues earned. Economic benefits include new jobs, additional income for individuals and businesses. Basic tax receipts of this area depend on the harvesting of timber in the Tongass.

The problem that I see now is that these communities have come to rely on timber sales not only for jobs but for their local economies. Timber sales revenues are important to local communities which receive 25 percent of the proceeds of these sales for public schools and roads, as do all areas that have national forests. By prohibiting these roads which will kill the sales, in effect, the contribution that is brought about by the laws that pertain to national forests will not be realized in Southeast Alaska because there won't be any harvest or 25 percent to support the schools that come out of the national program.

That program applies to the entire United States. The timber roads program applies to all States where there are national forests. In the year 2004, the timber harvest for all 10 forest regions was about 2 billion board feet. The gross receipts totaled $217 million and expenditures amounted to over $268 million, and that number does not take all costs into account.

The 1998 timber sale performance information reporting system found net losses in 8 of the 10 forest regions. Some States may be able to show a profit or even break even, but clearly the national timber sale program does not.

As a matter of law and policy, national forest managers are required to behave differently from private forest managers, so it does not make sense to judge their performance by private sector standards--profits.

If the Forest Service's goal was to maximize profits, contrary to the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, the Forest Service would allow export of timber and sell it to the highest bidder worldwide in the global economy. But that would essentially outsource all of the value-added forest products industry of the United States, putting local mills out of business, eliminating jobs, and leaving local communities with few alternatives for revenue. Given our current economic climate, the United States cannot afford that policy.

I want to share a quote from President Roosevelt. Senator Murkowski mentioned he established the Tongass National Forest. I think it is relevant today. He said:

. . . First and foremost, you can never afford to forget

for a moment what is the object of our forest policy. That is

not to preserve forests because they are beautiful, though

that is good in itself, not because they are refuges for the

wild creatures of the wilderness, though that too is good in

itself; but the primary object of our forest policy, as the

land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous

homes.

This national forest concept was supposed to provide an alternative to the development of privately owned timber and be a yardstick for the management of timber resources in our country.

The construction of timber roads is important for both the economic and environmental health of our forests. They provide access to timber used for wood, paper products, and home construction. They enable citizens to access our forests for public recreation, and they enable Forest Service employees to manage those forests for the public good.

The timber road program in Alaska is managed in the same manner as the timber road program of every national forest in the United States. The only difference in our case is we provide special protections, such as culverts, to ensure safe fish passage, and we protect the terrain. We have learned from the mistakes of the past. We do not build roads the same as they do in other areas. We strive to strike a balance between conservation and economic development.

And now with this amendment, some Members of the Senate would penalize Alaska for doing the right thing. We have developed a basic approach to use our timber areas to protect other values besides timber harvests. We could seek to significantly reduce the amount of these protections required for our timber road system, and we could drastically reduce the funds required, but that would be inconsistent with proper stewardship of our national forest lands.

Because only 1 percent of Alaska's lands are privately owned, it is imperative that the Federal Government allow us to use some of our resources on Federal lands. The Federal Government manages, by the way, 235 million acres of Alaska's land.

We have a long, proud history as responsible stewards of our natural resources. Alaskans will always manage our lands in a way that ensures its vitality. Timber is a renewable resource. It can be--and will be-- managed as such under the Tongass land management plan.

Much of Alaska will remain pristine wilderness. We have set aside a tremendous amount of it. But we need some certainty that we will be able to harvest small portions of the forest which are not already set aside. We need to know we will be able to sustain the timber industry today with the assurances of the past. We need assurances that our efforts will not be met by more resistance, such as the frivolous lawsuits and amendments such as this.

In order to give our communities a chance to be prosperous, Congress should allow the Tongass to be managed under the forest management plan without further unwarranted interference.

I remind the Senate, the same environmental groups that caused the Tongass to lose money through frivolous litigation and stalling tactics, as I said, are now calling for an end to the timber program under the guise of fiscal conservatism. It is disingenuous and duplicitous, and their approach is given sanction and credibility by this amendment. This amendment should be defeated.

I do hope that our colleagues will consider this: Taxpayers for Common Sense has repeatedly opposed Federal funds for the entire National Forest System. They argue that 105 of the 111 national forests spend more money in the operation of forests than they collected through timber sales. They want us to meet the cost of all multiple use values the cost of recreation, the cost of conservation, the cost of protecting wildlife--by the revenues coming in from the small amount of areas of the forest allowed to be harvested.

This group singled out several national forests as wasteful. I want to point out to the Senate that the Taxpayers for Common Sense attacked forests in California, Alaska, Montana, Oregon, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Washington, and Utah. I urge the Senators involved in this amendment to consider this. Why single out Alaska? Why is it that Alaskan roads cannot be built with Federal money? They are being built in all these other national forests deemed wasteful.

I am surprised my colleagues from New Hampshire and New Mexico would offer this amendment in view of the conditions of the forests in their own States. According to the Wilderness Society, the Forest Service's timber program in New Hampshire lost between $813,000 and $1.2 million. We are

being attacked for something that does not exist in Alaska alone.

In New Mexico, the timber program lost between $365,000 and $414,000.

The same economics are applied to the Tongass Timber Programs as in all National Forests. The difference in Alaska is that four times as many lawsuits are brought against Tongass timber sales than in the rest of the United States.

If this amendment is designed to protect the taxpayer, then restrictions on Federal funds for timber roads should apply to all forests in every State. And I think special interests will come after those other areas, if this amendment is passed.

I call this an ill-conceived amendment. I urge it not be adopted. It would add weight to the logic embraced by Taxpayers for Common Sense who have attacked, as I said, almost every forest in the United States. It will send us down a slippery slope by setting a precedent for halting road programs in national forests.

The roads designed and built by the Forest Service are in the best interests of the Nation because they protect all the values of the multiple-use concept of our national forests. This is not only important to the timber industry, but it is important to millions of Americans who rely on roads for access to national forests.

I do not want to encourage environmental groups to continue waging frivolous lawsuits in the hopes of making timber programs throughout the United States too expensive to continue. What they are doing is increasing the costs. Again, I point out, 75 percent of the costs in Alaska are involved in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the appeals and litigation that ensue whenever the Forest Service offers a timber sale in the Tongass.

Adopting this amendment would unfairly and unjustly distinguish one State--our State--sending a sobering message to Alaskans: Despite Congress's statements and actions in the past, a Senator voting for this amendment will be telling Alaskans that their economic well-being is secondary to special interests, and when push comes to shove, Congress will forget about the commitments of the past, forget about the promises of the past, and move to satisfy this extreme environmental movement that is the basic cause of the problem as far as the forests are concerned.

If Congress chooses to adopt this amendment, none of our forests are safe. No forest can afford to sit idly by. These special interest groups are designing ways to destroy an important Federal program based on spurious allegations with regard the economics involved. Those economics are affected more by the environmental movement, which is challenging most timber sales in the Tongass, than by the forest actions themselves.

Above all, I ask the Senate to remember that this amendment goes back on congressional promises made to Alaska. In exchange for withdrawing over 100 million acres of land for parks, refuges, and forests, including 17 million acres in Tongass National Forest, Congress promised that it would leave intact sufficient land to maintain a robust timber industry in Alaska.

Unlike the timber industry in other States, Alaska's timber industry is reliant on the Tongass, which comprises 90 percent of Southeast Alaska. Only 676,000 acres are currently open for timber harvesting.

Since 1980, jobs in the Alaskan timber industry have shrunk from over 3,000 to less than 500 today. We have only four small family-owned timber mills left.

This amendment is not about fiscal responsibility, it is a back-door attack on the timber industry to benefit this extreme environmental movement.

As I said, 75 percent of the timber sale cost is from NEPA, the National Environmental Protection Act, compliance, appeals, and litigation. Without those, the Tongass would make a 13-percent profit.

Many of the national forests in the United States have monetary returns per dollar invested, which is less than the rate of return of the Tongass, and they are not considered at all in connection with this amendment. This amendment would set a precedent that litigation can make the cost of timber programs in all national forests too expensive to continue.

If this amendment was really about fiscal responsibility, then all national forests would be included. Most of the timber programs throughout the United States--as I said, 8 out of 10 of them--are not profitable. In fact, according to the Forest Service--and I close with this point--the Tongass is one the best managed forests in the Nation. It has one of the lowest costs per acre, including the timber program.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the U.S. Forest Service. The creation of the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture is remembered as probably one of the most significant conservation legacies of President Theodore Roosevelt.

During President Roosevelt's tenure, there were established 5 new national parks, 51 bird reserves, 4 game reserves, 18 national monuments, and 150 national forests, including the Tongass National Forest. All told, some 230 million acres of land was set aside for the public. It is no wonder that President Roosevelt is regarded not only as the first but perhaps the greatest conservation President.

President Roosevelt shared his vision for the national forests in an address to the Society of American Foresters on March 26, 1903. Here is what he said:

First and foremost, you can never afford to forget for one

moment what is the object of our forest policy. The object is

not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful,

although that is good in itself. Nor because they are refuges

for the wild creatures of the wilderness, though that too, is

good in itself. The primary object of our forest policy . . .

is the making of prosperous homes. Every other consideration

comes secondary. A forest that contributes nothing to the

wealth, progress or safety of the country is of no interest

to the Government, and should be of little interest to the

forester.

He further said:

Your attention must be directed to the preservation of

forests, not as an end in itself, but as a means of

preserving and increasing the prosperity of the nation.

I find it somewhat ironic that during the centennial year when we celebrate the achievements of the Forest Service and the professional foresters who manage these forests, that this particular amendment is offered today. This is an amendment opposed by the Society of American Foresters. This society represents 16,000 professional foresters from across the Nation. It is opposed by the National Association of Home Builders. It is an amendment opposed by the very people who were identified as the core stakeholders of our national forests by the Roosevelt administration.

This amendment is opposed by organizations which, like President Roosevelt, believe in the wise use of our forests. It is opposed by the National Association of Counties. It is opposed by America's working men and women who belong to the labor unions that make up the Forest Products Industry National Labor Management Committee. We have the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the PACE International Union, the International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, the United Mine Workers, the Southern Council of Industrial Workers, and the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers.

The amendment we have before the Senate now does not comport with President Roosevelt's vision for the national forests. It is an amendment that turns our national forests, which are intended to support multiple uses, into wilderness areas. It is the falling domino in the nationwide campaign to lock up our national forests, throwing people out of work and wreaking havoc on our local economies. And most offensively, to me, it is an amendment that discriminates against just one forest--the Tongass National Forest, in the State of Alaska. It is only directed to the Tongass. It covers no other national forest in the Nation. I suggest to my colleagues in the Senate that first it is the Tongass; next it will be the forests in your home States.

Even though this amendment is cloaked in the language of fiscal responsibility, it should come as no surprise that the usual suspects are working hard for its adoption--those who seek to shut down and to prohibit any timber activity on national forest lands. It is not that they are fiscal conservatives themselves. It is because they specifically oppose logging in the Tongass. These are groups such as the Wilderness Society, the Alaska Rain Forest Campaign, the National Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, formerly known as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. These are organizations that have just said no, there shall be no timber activity in the Tongass.

The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, now known as Earthjustice, is a group that maintains an office in Juneau for the purpose of appealing and then litigating the timber sales that are presented in the Tongass.

It is no wonder the Forest Service finds it difficult to efficiently manage the timber program in the Tongass. I am told we have about 2 years of the Forest Service planned timber offerings that are either under appeal or litigation at any one time. This is four times the rate experienced by the Forest Service nationally.

It is fair to say the professional foresters, in whom President Roosevelt placed his trust, no longer manage the timber in the Tongass. I can tell you these professional foresters are very frustrated that what we have are trial lawyers and judges who have more to say about managing our forests than they do.

The proponents of this amendment will tell you this is about making the free market system work within our national forests. As long as the litigators can tie up the timber sales, tie up the forest management in knots, this is not a free market scenario.

When Congress passed the Tongass Timber Reform Act, which caused the cancellation of long-term contracts and the closure of the pulp mills in Ketchikan and Sitka, that was not the free market. It was not the free market that eliminated thousands of timber jobs in the State of Alaska. It was about timber politics, plain and simple.

It is not the free market that generates the high costs that the proponents of this amendment complain make the timber sales unprofitable. According to the Society of American Foresters, about 75 percent of the cost associated with timber sales in the Tongass is spent on environmental review, appeals, and litigation. So the remaining 25 percent of that is spent on actual preparation and administration of the sale.

So again, you look at the numbers, and you say, it seems, looking at just the columns, the numbers are higher. But keep in mind, 75 percent of those costs are directly associated with the environmental review, appeals and litigation. So we need to be very clear about what this amendment does. If it is passed, it essentially will enact a roadless rule on the Tongass National Forest. Because the Tongass is currently 95 percent roadless, and because it has stringent environmental standards, the amount of timber that could be harvested from the Tongass would be vastly reduced.

The current 150 million board foot program--and keep in mind, this was formulated after a very extensive scientific consultation, with public participation. It was a process which took 9 years and $13 million to complete this plan. Under this program that again was formulated in this very lengthy process, it would be reduced to 30 to 40 million board feet. This would result in the direct loss of two or more of the mills and loss of about 680 potential jobs.

Now, some of you may be saying: Well, 680 jobs does not seem that significant. In the southeastern part of

the State of Alaska, where our population numbers are few and our unemployment numbers are very high, this is a huge loss. This is a devastating loss. This would truly be nothing more than the latest chapter in the campaign to shut down the Tongass and kill off the timber industry in southeast Alaska.

Now the proponents of this amendment would have us believe that if this amendment fails, then somehow or other there are going to be all these big corporations that stand to gain. But the timber industry in southeast Alaska is not made up of big corporations. It is made up of mom-and-pop businesses. These are owner-operated small businesses run by people such as Steve Seeley, out of Ketchikan; Kirk Dahlstrom, out of Klawock; Butch and Jackie DuRette. These are real people who are contributing to their local economy. These are people who could have cut and run when the timber industry turned sour, but instead they accepted the risk. They stayed around, and they tried to build their businesses. Believe me, these are people who know what the free market is. I know these people, and I am proud to tell you of the good job they do contributing to the economy of southeast Alaska.

So for the good of southeast Alaska, and for the good of sound forest management, I ask my colleagues to look at this amendment, look at it very carefully, look at who it is opposed by. It is opposed by the Nation's professional foresters. It is opposed by working men and women. It is opposed by the National Association of Counties. And it is opposed by our Nation's homebuilders. Let's look carefully at how we manage our forests and make sure we do it right.

One of the contentions you will hear is that the economics in the Tongass do not work. You will hear some numbers thrown around. I think it is important to recognize you would be operating off of a false assumption or a false premise if you were saying that the Forest Service is supposed to be a profit-making venture. As I indicated in those comments made by President Roosevelt some 100 years ago, conservation, in Roosevelt's mind, meant the wise use of forest resources for the greatest good, not necessarily locking them up under glass down in southeastern Alaska.

The question of why the Forest Service does not necessarily make a profit has been studied extensively. There is a think tank in Bozeman, MT, called the Property and Environment Research Center. They did a study in 1995 where they noted that the Forest Service is not expected by its governing law to make a profit. Its operations are governed by extensive environmental review processes that make it difficult to turn a profit.

Again, look at the numbers. Look at what the task, the mission, is in terms of multiple use, and what it is we are asking our foresters to do.

I will speak a little bit about the cost issue because there are those who will suggest this amendment is not being put forward because they are opposed to timber in the Tongass; they just think it is an unreasonable amount of money and that we are subsidizing. Well, we have a breakdown of the various regions across the country from the U.S. Forest Service that delineates the cost per acre of our respective national forests based on State. It sets forth the net acres, the gross receipts, as well as the monetary return per dollar invested.

If you look at the Tongass, we operate at about $6.05 in terms of cost per acre. As you go through this report across the country, you realize that $6.05 is actually a pretty good deal in terms of how we are operating on a cost-per-acre basis.

Running down through the States--not singling out any particular State, but in several of the California national forests, the cost per acre at Six Rivers National Forest is $27.35. The cost per acre in Plumas, CA, is $35.86; in San Bernardino National Forest, it is $189.20. As to the sponsor of the amendment, if you look at the White Mountain National Forest in the New Hampshire area, their cost per acre is $19.39.

So if we are talking about singling out one national forest in the entire national forest system, and we are saying it is too expensive in the Tongass, and we are not going to allow for any Federal dollars to go toward building roads because we think it is too expensive there, I challenge you: Take a look at what is happening with the operation of our other national forests in terms of our cost per acre and what it means.

Let's look to the monetary return per dollar invested in those national forests in California I made reference to. Their return per dollar invested is 1 percent. That is not a very good return if that is what you are going to base it on.

So again, to single out the Tongass, to single out the State of Alaska and say, ``You are the only one where we, as a Congress, are going to decide how you are going to manage your forests because we are going to tell you that there are no dollars that can go for road- building activity,'' the land management plan that we have spent 9 years and $13 million on is thrown out the window because the Federal Government is going to tell us that our costs are a little bit too high--it is wrong. It is flat out wrong, and it needs to be stopped.

I mentioned those who oppose this amendment. It is important for us to recognize who the professional managers are, the professional foresters, some 16,000 professional foresters across the Nation who oppose this amendment. Our decision, should we adopt the Sununu amendment, would override the judgment of professional foresters. It would render meaningless the Tongass land management plan. We need to think about what it is we are doing should we move forward in support of this amendment.

I want to leave my colleagues with a few facts again about singling out the Tongass for this action in this amendment.

Alaska is a State. We are not a colony. We may have come late into the statehood battle, but we are still a State, and we deserve to be treated as a State. We sought statehood so we could gain control of our resources. But sometimes that goal remains pretty illusive. All we are asking for is that we have the ability to manage our Federal lands responsibly. We can--in conjunction with those professionals, those foresters who are working hard on this plan to make it work--manage the forests to provide for the multiple uses our national forests are tasked to do.

I know people think: Oh, we throw around these Alaska statistics all the time. But I think it is significant in this debate to put this in context. Ninety-four percent of the land in the southeastern part of the State is part of the Tongass National Forest. It is controlled by the Federal Government, the U.S. Forest Service.

In the State of Alaska, we have 54 percent of the Nation's designated wilderness. In one State, our State, we have 54 percent of the entire designated wilderness.

What are we doing with the Tongass National Forest now? Forty percent of that land in the Tongass, some 6.6 million acres, is already off limits to timber development. It is in a wilderness area. It is a national monument. It is a land-use designation II area. It is absolutely, positively off limits. That is 40 percent currently in the Tongass.

Another 56 percent of the Tongass National Forest is off limits to timber under the forest plan--this forest plan that I keep talking about that took 9 years and $13 million that this amendment will essentially kick aside. Fifty-six percent of the Tongass is off limits under that plan.

That leaves 4 percent of the Tongass, or approximately 655,000 acres, out of a total of 17.8 million acres in the Tongass. That 4 percent is what we are talking about that would be available for timber development. Allowing southeast Alaska, allowing people such as Steve Seeley and his sawmill, and Kirk Dahlstrom's sawmill in Klawock, allowing this development in an economy that is already very hard pressed, is not going to spoil the beauty of this incredible national forest--these 17.8 million acres. It is not going to doom any national treasures.

We have a plan we have worked hard to complete. We ask to be allowed to continue that, and to be able to provide for the few jobs we would like to continue in the area for the benefit of those who choose to call it home.

With that, Mr. President, I see the senior Senator from Alaska is here. As

well, we are joined by our colleague from Oregon. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to several of the remarks raised by my colleague from New Hampshire. I start off my comments by stating very clearly it was certainly not my intention, nor do I believe it was the intention of Senator Stevens, to question motives or to imply somehow our colleague is an environmental extremist.

If, in fact, that was perceived from the remarks, that the Senator from New Hampshire falls in that category, again from my perspective that was not my intention, and I certainly would not want him to think that I have put him in that category of those who, as the Senator from Oregon indicated, are engaged in ``professional environmental conflict,'' I think was the terminology he used.

I do wish to speak very briefly to a couple of the issues. The Senator from New Hampshire indicated that he was not, through his amendment, proposing any addition of wilderness designation. He stated that was not his intent. I understand that is not the intent. However, the practical effect, if we were to withhold any Federal dollars, any opportunity for Federal revenues to come in and help with the road building in that area, that would be the practical effect in the Tongass. It would put off limits those areas to any harvesting of the timber. If we cannot build a road in there, the harvesting will not happen.

As the Senator from Oregon mentioned, we are dealing with an incredible land mass. The acreage in the Tongass is 17.8 million acres. As has been said many times this evening, the area we are talking about that would be available for development is a small fraction of that. Just 4 percent of that would be available for any form of development, but still, if one is not able to put a road in, if they are not able to access the area, the harvesting does not happen, and in effect what is being created is an off-limits area, off-limits to development, off- limits to recreational use, off-limits to pretty much anything.

I was born in the Tongass. I was born in Ketchikan. At the time that I was born, Ketchikan was a very thriving timber community. The Tongass is not a place where one just goes to take a walk. It is an old growth forest that is as tangled and deep a forest as one can possibly imagine.

So those who would say, We want to make sure we have access to the Tongass for recreational purposes, the way that one is able to access for recreational purposes is through the roads that have been built as we have harvested in certain areas. My family goes out there and we want to use the area for hunting, but we do not go off the beaten track because it cannot be accessed. The animals are not in the areas that have not been cleared, to a certain extent. So for those who will engage in the multiple use of the Tongass, these roads are significant.

The statement was made that those of us who are in opposition to this amendment are saying that this really is not about the fiscal issue. I guess I have to just stop on that one and say, okay, if we really are looking at this from a cost perspective and we are looking to minimize the extent of Federal dollars going out and to be as cost efficient as we possibly can, why are we just looking at the Tongass alone? If what we are really talking about is to get those efficiencies, to make sure we do not have unnecessary subsidies, then tell me why this is just about one national forest in 1 State out of all of the 50 States. Because we are not going to balance the budget on what is happening in the Tongass in terms of the dollars that go out there.

I wish to speak just a little bit to the dollars. My colleague has indicated that the Tongass spent $49 million on its logging program and the logging roads in 2004. The total budget to operate the Tongassis is $49 million. In fact, the timber program on the Tongass cost $22.5 million. He has also indicated that the timber revenues on the Tongass in 2004 were $800,000. In fact, the timber revenues were nearly $2 million. So it is important to make sure we are using the right numbers.

Let us just look at what that $49 million buys us. Is this all about roads? No, it is not. Now, the road maintenance is an aspect of that, but it is also for bridge and road construction unrelated to timber harvesting, other engineering projects. The work that the Forest Service does in the Tongasssupports subsistence harvest, the fish and wildlife, basically keeping the grocery store open for thousands of rural Alaskans.

Senator Stevens mentioned the fish culverts that are inserted to allow for the fish passage. We build those so fish can get to where they need to get. It is one of those things we do to make sure we are caring for the environment and are good stewards.

We developed an invasive species strategy to help prevent the nonnative plants from coming in and taking over, as we are seeing in some parts of the lower 48.

Basically, the bottom line is these dollars that are going out are not all directed at road building. They are dollars spent on recreation, visitor service, heritage, wilderness, minerals, vegetation, watershed, subsistence, wildlife, fish habitat, fire suppression, and land acquisition. And administrative costs are included in there, as well. So when we look to the Tongass and those costs, we must put it into perspective.

I spent a few minutes in my previous remarks looking at the costs per acre on other national forests across the 50 States, what is the dollar return on

your investment if we are trying to make that connection. These are important to recognize. What is very important to recognize is the Tongass is not so way out of whack in terms of its management and its costs that it should be sending off signals and red flags. In fact, my colleague from Alaska has indicated the Tongass has been singled out and has been declared the best managed national forest in the system. That ought to count for something.

For my colleagues who are saying this is simply a fiscal issue and we need to look at it from the numbers perspective, let's look at it from the numbers perspective. Let's use the right numbers, but let's also recognize there is something terribly wrong with an amendment that pulls one national forest out of all of our national forests and says: There is too much going to you; we have to shut it off.

Folks, that is not right. It is not fair. I certainly hope my colleagues, when we have an opportunity to take this up in the Senate, vote down this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Is it not the offeror of the amendment who places in order the amendments that are called up and lays the other amendments aside?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1015 be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 1019.

Mr. President, I ask to be recognized in support of the amendment.

Mr. President, we just heard a good observation about the increase in spending, but it is important for the American people to understand, we did ramp up homeland security. We did ramp up defense. Let me read the increases in spending that have occurred in other areas since 2001: legislative branch, 40 percent; judiciary, 40 percent; Agriculture, 25.7 percent; Defense, 55 percent; Education, 109 percent; Energy, 48 percent; Health and Human Services, 53.1 percent; Homeland Security, 153 percent; Housing and Urban Development, 38.2 percent; Justice, 22.7 percent; Labor, Health, and Human Services, 57 percent; Department of State, 74 percent; Transportation, 40 percent; Veterans Affairs, 44.5 percent; General Services Administration, 404 percent; National Science Foundation, 61 percent. The average has been almost 39 percent in the last 4 years. Outside of homeland security and defense, the increase in spending by the Congress has been almost 30 percent.

I come to the floor of the Senate to talk about the spending problems. I also want the American people to understand what is happening to us presently. This chart represents the on-budget Federal deficit. It is not the games that we play in Washington. This is the true amount of money we are going to spend that we don't have, that we are actually going to borrow money to pay for. As you can see, this year it is going to be $544 billion. That is $544 billion that we are going to ask our children and grandchildren to pay back. There is no question that we have some belt-tightening to do. There is no question that the authors of this appropriations bill have done some of that in the bill.

The amendment I wish to focus on presently is an amendment that reduces funding for land acquisition within the bill by $121.2 million, from $154 million, for a total of $32.8 million.

The reasoning behind this amendment is, there is $92 million in reserve accounts right now to buy land that had not been spent this year. The committee put forward another $154 million. Buying land to preserve our scenic heritage, natural wildlife areas, is a good goal. The problem is, do we need to do it now when we are in a time of war, when we are borrowing from our children's future to be able to accomplish that? Is now the time to spend money on it? If not, is there another need? Is there a priority on which we should be spending?

I would say that we need to have another priority. The current bill provides funding for land acquisition through four separate programs: $12.3 million for the Bureau of Land Management, $40.8 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service, $56 million for the National Park Service, and $44.9 million for the Forest Service. Within the amendment, land acquisition funding for both the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service is eliminated, while funding for both Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service is reduced by $32 million.

According to OMB and staff estimates, the estimated amount of unobligated balances for Federal land acquisition at the end of the current fiscal year will be $92 million. OMB estimates that BLM will have $28 million in unobligated balances. In contrast, the bill provides an additional $12.3 million for BLM. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is set to receive almost $41 million, will have an estimated $32 million in unobligated balances at the end of this year, according to OMB.

Of the $121.2 million savings produced, $60 million in this amendment is transferred to a special diabetes program for Indians, and $61.2 million is transferred to the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program. Both programs are with the Indian Health Service. Why is that important? There are some important things about diabetes with Native Americans that need to be recognized.

The question is, Do we spend money on land or do we spend money to improve the people's lives that need us the most? We have a real crisis in health care in Indian Country.

The causes are many, but one controllable factor is the delivery of federally funded health care services. Quality of care is severely impacted by poor oversight, lack of competitive forces, and the serious lack of funding prioritization. My amendment addresses the latter. There are 107,000 Native Americans that suffer from diabetes.

We were in the midst of talking about whether we buy land or take care of diabetes with native Americans. That is what this amendment does. It is obvious we are not going to be able to trim the spending in this bill, but it certainly is not obvious that we cannot reprioritize.

Let me give some facts and figures on Native American diabetes compared with diabetes in every other group in this country. The national U.S. population rate for diabetes is 6.3 percent. For Native Americans between 45 and 74 years of age, it is 45 percent, 7 times the national average. The most extensively studied, the Pima Indians, an estimated 50 percent of that population suffers from type II diabetes.

Native Americans who have diabetes suffer from increased rates of kidney failure, amputations, blindness, heart disease, and stroke. End stage renal disease in Native Americans with diabetes is six times higher than any other group in this country. Diabetic retinopathy, i.e., blindness from diabetes, occurs in 24 percent of Native Americans who have diabetes. Only 2 to 4 percent of the diabetes in the Native Americans is type I; 98 percent of it is type II diabetes.

Alcohol and substance abuse is where the other half of this money goes. Nineteen percent of Native American youth age 12 to 17 are consuming alcohol at an alarming rate, headed for addiction; 12.8 percent of the young 12 to 17-year-olds engage in binge drinking. That is five or more drinks, weekly. HHS estimates that 7.6 percent of Native Americans over the age of 26 are classified as heavy alcohol users. American Indians are five times more likely to die of alcohol- related causes than other groups and they face significant increases in carcinoma of the liver and chronic diseases such as psoriasis.

Mortality rates from alcohol and substance abuse are seven times higher in Native American populations than in the general population.

This amendment does not cut funding. It simply moves money from land to people, moves money from the purposes of why we are here to care for those who cannot care for themselves. I would say in Oklahoma, it is very evident to see the underfunding for the Indian Health Service, the number of true full-blooded Native Americans who cannot receive care that was promised under treaty to get the care they need for their diabetes, for alcohol abuse, and other substance abuse.

This is a simple amendment. I understand a budget point of order is going to be raised against it because it spends money faster than the land acquisitions do. I plan on moving to waive that point of order, but I would say to my friends on the committee, and I would say to the people of America, should we be buying more land when we cannot afford it? And if we are going to spend the money anyway, should we not be spending that on something that is going to increase the quality of life and increase the health care of those who are least fortunate in our society?

I would also ask, having looked at this and then refer to the increased spending since 2001, how many Americans have received a 39- percent pay increase since 2001? That is how much Federal Government spending, discretionary spending--that is not Medicare, that is not Social Security, that is not Medicaid, but discretionary spending--has risen. It is time for us to tighten our belt. This is one way to move the priorities back to where they should be in terms of caring for real people, not land.

The other point that I would make is when we buy land it costs us twice. No. 1, it takes it off the tax rolls which decreases the amount of income coming to the States, local communities, and municipalities. But No. 2, it markedly increases costs to care for that land. With $92 million unspent from last year, we are going to spend another $40 million to $50 million to maintain that land and close the purchase.

With that, I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee and thank him for the time to allow me to present my case.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

There is no question a significant amount of money is being spent on these two programs, but when you compare it to every other group in this country, what you see is about $1 compared to $3 for everybody else in terms of diabetes. You cannot very well square that when there is six times the rate of end-stage renal disease in Native Americans. That is an important point because if you can prevent end-stage renal disease, you save $50,000 per year per person in not having them on dialysis, as well as the fact it is a miserable life being on dialysis.

So the point is that there are increases. I will recognize that. I still say how in the world can we justify buying land when we are stealing $541 billion from our grandchildren? And No. 2 is why not people instead of land? That is a legitimate question, especially in an underserved segment of our population that needs the dollars that will make a tremendous difference. I would just ask the Senator, can't we come to an agreement that a portion of this money should be moved to solve this very tragic problem that affects and afflicts Native Americans at a higher rate than any other group in this country?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy. I plan, in a moment, to move to waive the point of order, but before I do that I think every American ought to be asking the question this is $544 billion which we are going into the market and borrowing on budget this year, $544 billion that our kids and our grandkids are going to have to pay back at a minimum of 6 percent interest every year. So we are going to pay back about $2 trillion on this $544 billion. That is going to be about $70,000 apiece that we are going to wrangle their future with. And the question is, Should we be buying more land if we are going to put our kids in debt?

Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order.

I do. I ask for the yeas and nays.

The question the American people have to ask themselves is, if we are going into hock and we are going to put this kind of lien on our kids, should we be taking money off tax rolls? Should we be spending more money to maintain the land? Or if, in fact, we are going to do this, should we not see an outcome that reduces our cost by reducing insulin dependence type 2, by reducing dialysis? I believe the choice is very clear, that we ought to be taking care of those who need us the most and not add land that is going to add cost. In fact we should, invest in those people where we are going to decrease the cost of the Indian Health Service. With that, I yield the floor.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I had to be absent from the

Senate today, and I missed votes beginning with the motion to

waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment No. 1019,

offered by my colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn. I had to

miss the votes in order to travel to Charlotte, NC, to

participate in a Base Realignment and Closing, BRAC,

Commission Regional Hearing at Central Piedmont Community

College. I am not absent from the Senate on days when we have

votes without good reason.

This afternoon there was nowhere more important for me to

be than at the BRAC Regional Hearing, which is part of the

process whereby the fate of the 130th Air National Guard

Wing, based in Charleston, WV, will be decided. I believe it

is a crucial part of my duty as a United States Senator from

West Virginia to protect the 130th. While I respect the

difficult work done by members of the BRAC Commission, and

understand that their preliminary recommendations were made

in a good faith effort to improve the efficiency and efficacy

of our armed services. However, I believe that gutting the

130th is wrong and I must make every effort to oppose it.

The 130th plays an important role in our national security,

as well as the security of

the greater Washington area. It has also provided hundreds of

National Guard personnel who responded to the call of duty in

Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. In addition to 340 full-time

Guard members, the 130th employs 201 federal technicians, and

more than 80 active guards. The State of West Virginia also

employs more than 50 State employees whose jobs depend on the

continued presence of the 130th. At a time when enlistments

and retention for both our National Guard units and regular

Army are suffering, the 130th had 96 percent reenlistment,

fifth in the nation. Every single job in West Virginia is

sacred to me, and as these jobs also protect my home State

and are a vital part of our military family and national

security, I believe very strongly that they should not be

cut.

With regard to the amendment by Senator Coburn, I believe

he made very persuasive arguments about problems in Indian

Country of diabetes and drug and alcohol addiction. When you

consider that Native Americans from the ages of 45-74 have a

rate of diabetes roughly seven times the rate for all

Americans, and that drug and alcohol addiction is rampant, I

believe most of our colleagues would feel that all that can

be done to help the Indian Health Service--IHS--combat these

plagues should be done.

However, we are in a time of severe fiscal constraints, and

I commend the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for

successfully completing the difficult task of meeting so many

priorities as best they could. The underlying bill contains

about $100 million in appropriated funds for diabetes

programs under the IHS, and there are more than $150 million

available in mandatory spending in other programs targeted at

the same problem. Similarly, the bill funds alcohol and drug

abuse programs at $145.3 million. Senator Coburn would have

shifted additional funding to those important causes by

transferring funds to be appropriated for land acquisition.

The bill contains only about $154 million for Federal land

acquisition. While IHS diabetes and drug treatment programs

surely could have benefited from an extra infusion of cash,

it was also important to fund the land acquisition program at

a reasonable level.

I will support efforts to adequately fund all programs of

the Indian Health Service, and while I would have opposed the

Coburn amendment, I commend him for his obvious and careful

attention to this matter.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1003. I would like to be recognized to speak on that amendment.

I would like to call the attention of the Members to page 8 of the report language on the Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, 2006. No. 7 is entitled, ``Report Language.'' I think it is important that we understand what this says. It says:

Any limitation, any directive or any earmarking contained

in either the House or Senate report which is not

contradicted by the other report, nor specifically denied in

the conference report, shall be considered as having been

approved by both Houses of Congress.

Mr. President, I do not have objection to that other than the fact that the American people, when the report comes out of conference, will have no way to measure the earmarks, the directives, and other things in that bill without that inclusion. This amendment requires that any limitation, directive, or earmarking be included in the conference report. This amendment is about sunshine so that if you get the conference report you can actually tell what is earmarked, what is directed, what is limited by the language that individual Senators have placed in the bill. I do not expect this amendment to pass. I understand that. But I think in one of the steps of us ever getting to the point where we do not leave this heritage of tremendous debt to our children, sunshine has to come in. And when we pass a bill out of conference, the conference report ought to say what is in there, just like it does when we have a conference bill on the Senate side or a conference bill on the House side.

The current report language actually abdicates our authority in looking at what the House earmarks or what the House limits as a body. We do not get a chance to look at that because it is not in the report language coming out of conference. I believe the Senate has a responsibility to vote on everything that is in that bill and have knowledge of everything that is in that bill. The only way a Senator will be able to know that is to take the House language in their report, filter through the Senate language, and figure out what is and what is not included.

This amendment requires that all provisions must be included in the conference report. It allows both the Senate and the House the opportunity to vote on all provisions, as opposed to only those which happen to pass through their respective Chambers.

I believe the American people expect us to do that. I believe this body was, in fact, intended to look at what the

House does. I believe the conference report ought to share what the House has limited, directed or earmarked for the benefit of individual Members or individual States, cities or otherwise.

So with that, I yield to the Senator from Montana and ask that he would support this amendment. It is a simple change. It is a change for open and more transparent Government. It is my belief that it is something we ought to consider.

Mr. President, I think we are in a time when we can take the time to make sure the American public knows what is in the bills. As a matter of fact, I think it is wrong if we do not take the time. I read almost every bill. I am one of the few Senators who do. I can tell you that I will struggle through a House bill and then have to subtract out the conference bill to find out what was deleted from the House bill to be able to know what is and what is not there.

That is not sunshine for the American people. It is barely any sunshine for a Senator. I restate, the fact is, we ought to make it easy for the American people to find out where we are spending the money. A conference report that does not make it easy, does not direct where the money is directed, where the earmarks are, where the limitations are, is less than what the American people deserve.

This is a simple request. It will not add that much time. It is all printed out. In the conference, you all know what you are going to agree to and what you are not going to agree to. It is taking one computer screen: You punch ``copy,'' and it goes into the report.

So I would beg to differ with the chairman. I love him dearly. I think he is a great man. But I think the American people deserve to know what is in every report that comes out of here in terms of spending so they can make an evaluation: Are we doing the right thing mortgaging the future of our kids? Is it legitimate?

But to pass a conference report that does not give that pathway to them, for them to see and make that judgment, I think is wrong.

I think it will help us as the Senate, as we look at what the other body does, to put that in that report. I believe anything less than that says we do have something to hide. We may not have anything to hide. But not being very transparent and very clear about what the limitations, earmarks, and directives are in a bill is something less than what the American people deserve.

I ask the chairman again to reconsider his opposition to this amendment.

But the point is, don't the American people need to see that 20 percent? Shouldn't they be able to see that 20 percent?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

Do you believe the average American can get on a computer, after this bill comes through conference, and see where all the money is spent?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1002 of the Interior appropriations bill be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the point I wish to make is the American people deserve to have sunshine on everything we do. The conference report would not adequately reflect the earmarks in the House, the directives in the House, or the limitations in the House. We are going to be voting on the bill without the knowledge of what those limitations or earmarks are.

I would like to turn for a second to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act.

Today, 144 million Americans utilize credit cards and charge more debt on those cards than ever before. In 1990, Americans charged $338 billion on credit cards. By 2003, that number had risen to $1.5 trillion.

Many Americans now own multiple credit cards. In 2003, 841 million bank-issued credit cards were in circulation in the U.S. That number becomes nearly 1.4 billion credit cards, when cards issued by stores and oil companies are factored in. That's an average of 5 credit cards per person.

The proliferation of credit cards can be traced, in part, to a dramatic increase in credit card solicitation. In 1993, credit card companies sent 1.52 billion solicitations to American homes; in 2001, they sent over 5 billion.

As one would expect, the increase in credit cards has also yielded an increase in credit card debt. Individuals get 6, 7, or 8 different credit cards, pay only the minimum payment required, and many end up drowning in debt. That happens in case after case.

Since 1990, the debt that Americans carry on credit cards has more than tripled, going from about $238 billion in 1990 to $755 billion in 2004.

As a result, the average American household now has about $7,300 of credit card debt.

As has been discussed much in this Congress, the number of personal bankruptcies has doubled since 1990. Many of these personal bankruptcies are people who utilize credit cards. These cards are enormously attractive. However, these individual credit card holders receive no information on the impact of compounding interest. They pay just the minimum payment. They pay it for 1 year, 2 years--they make additional purchases, they get another card, and another, and another.

Unfortunately, these individuals making the minimum payment are witnessing the ugly side of the ``Miracle of Compound Interest.'' After 2 or 3 years, many find that the interest on the debt is such that they can never repay these cards, and do not know what to do about it.

Statistics vary about the number of individuals who make only the minimum payments. One study determined that 35 million pay only the minimum on their credit cards. In a recent poll, 40 percent of respondents said that they pay the minimum or slightly more. What is certain is that many Americans pay only the minimum, and that paying only the minimum has harsh financial consequences.

I suspect that most people would be surprised to know how I much interest can pile up when paying the minimum. Take the average household, with $7,300 of credit card debt, and the average credit card interest rate, which in April, before the most recent Federal Reserve Board increase of the prime rate, was 16.75 percent. If only the 2 percent minimum payment is made, it will take them 44 years and $23,373.90 to pay off the card. And that is if the family doesn't spend another cent on their credit cards--an unlikely assumption. In other words, the family will need to pay over $16,000 in interest to repay just $7,300 of principal.

For individuals or families with more than average debt, the pitfalls are even greater. $20,000 of credit card debt at the average 16.75 percent interest rate will take 58 years and $65,415.28 to pay off if only the minimum payments are made.

And 16.25 is percent only the average interest rate. The prime rate, despite recent increases, remains relatively low--at 6 percent. However, interest rates around 20 percent are not uncommon. In fact, among the 10 banks that are the largest issuers of credit cards, the top interest rates on credit cards are between 23 and 31 percent--and that does not factor in various penalties and fees. When penalty interest rates are factored in, the highest rates are 41 percent. In 1990, the highest interest rate--even with penalties, was 22 percent, a little more than half of what they are today.

Even if we assume only a 20 percent interest rate, a family that has the average debt of $7,300 at a 20 percent interest rate and makes the minimum payments will need an incredible 76 years and $41,884 to pay off that initial $7,300 of debt. That's $34,584 in interest payments-- more than 4 times the original debt. And these examples are far from extreme.

Moreover, these are not merely statistics, but are reflective of very real situations for many people. On March 6, the Washington Post ran a headline story on its front page, entitled ``Credit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors.'' I would recommend this article to my colleagues, because it illustrates part of the problem--that credit card companies, aggressively marketing their products, end up charging outrageous interest and fees to their customers. I ask unanimous consent that the article be included in the Record. The article highlighted the following stories:

Ohio resident, Ruth Owens tried for 6 years to pay off a $1,900 balance on her

Discover card, sending the credit company a total of $3,492 in monthly payments from 1997 to 2003. Yet her balance grew to $5,564.28.

Virginia resident Josephine McCarthy's Providian Visa bill increased to $5,357 in 2 years, even though McCarthy has used the card for only $218.16 in purchases and has made monthly payments totaling $3,058.

Special-education teacher Fatemeh Hosseini, from my state of California, worked a second job to keep up with the $2,000 in monthly payments she collectively sent to five banks to try to pay $25,000 in credit card debt. Even though she had not used the cards to buy anything more, her debt had nearly doubled to $49,574 by the time she filed for bankruptcy last June.

Unfortunately, these stories are not unique.

Part of the problem goes back to changes made in the credit card industry. For a long time, most banks required their customers to pay 5 percent of their credit card balance every month. That was before Andrew Kahr, a credit card industry consultant, got involved. Mr. Kahr realized that if customers were able to pay less, they would borrow more, and he convinced his clients that they should reduce the minimum payment to just 2 percent.

The PBS program ``Frontline'', ran a program in November of last year titled ``The Secret History of the Credit Card'' that examined the rapid growth of the credit card industry and included an interview with Mr. Kahr.

Mr. Kahr's innovation has been a windfall for the credit card industry. If consumers are paying a lower percentage of their balance as the minimum payment, the credit card companies will make more money over time. In fact, many in the industry refer to individuals who pay their credit card bills in full as ``deadbeats'', because they are less profitable than individuals who carry large balances, who are known as ``revolvers.''

And Mr. Kahr's own research showed that just making the minimum payment eased consumers' anxiety about carrying large amounts of credit card debt--they believe they are still being financially prudent.

The bill I am proposing speaks directly to those types of consumers. There will always be people who cannot afford to pay more than their minimum payments. But, there are also a large number of consumers who can afford to pay more but feel comfortable paying the minimum payment because they don't realize the consequences of doing so.

Now I am certainly not trying to demonize credit cards or the credit card industry. Credit cards are an important part of everyday life. However, I do think that people should understand the dangers of paying only their monthly minimums. In this way individuals will be able to act responsibly.

It's not necessarily that people don't understand the basics of interest. Most of us just don't realize how fast it compounds or how important it is to do the math to find out what it means to pay a minimum requirement.

The bottom line is that for many consumers, the 2 percent minimum payment is a financial trap.

The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act is designed to ensure that people are not caught in this trap through lack of information. The bill tracks the language of the amendment originally proposed to the Bankruptcy bill that was co-sponsored by Senator Kyl, Senator Brownback, and myself.

Let me tell you exactly what this bill would do. It would require credit card companies to add two items to each consumer's monthly credit card statement: 1. A notice warning credit card holders that making only the minimum payment each month will increase the interest they pay and the amount of time it takes to repay their debt; and 2. Examples of the amount of time and money required to repay a credit card debt if only minimum payments are made; OR if the consumer makes only minimum payments for six-consecutive months, the amount of time and money required to repay the individual's specific credit card debt, under the terms of their credit card agreement.

The bill would also require that a toll free number be included on statements that consumers can call to get an estimate of the time and money required to repay their balance, if only minimum payments are made.

And, if the consumer makes only minimum payments for six consecutive months, they will receive a toll free number to an accredited credit counseling service.

The disclosure requirements in this bill would only apply if the I consumer has a minimum payment that is less than 10 percent of the debt on the credit card, or if their balance is greater than $500. Otherwise, none of these disclosures would be required on their statement.

The language of this bill comes from a California law, the ``California Credit Card Payment Warning Act,'' passed in 2001. Unfortunately, in 2002, this California law was struck down in U.S. District Court as being preempted by the 1968 Truth in Lending Act. The Truth in Lending Act was enacted in part because Congress found that, ``The informed use of credit results from an awareness of the cost of thereof by consumers.'' Consequently, this bill would amend the Truth in Lending Act, and would also further its core purpose.

These disclosures allow consumers to know exactly what it means for them to carry a balance and only make minimum payments, so they can make informed decisions on credit card use and repayment.

The disclosure required by this bill is straightforward how much it will cost to pay off the debt if only minimum payments are made, and how long it will take to do it. As for expense, my staff tells me that on the website Cardweb.com, there is a free interest calculator that does these calculations in under a second. Moreover, I am told that banks make these calculations internally to determine credit risk. The expense would be minimal.

Percentage rates and balances are constantly changing and each month, the credit card companies are able to assess the minimum payment, late fees, over-the-limit fees and finance charges for millions of accounts.

If the credit card companies can put in their bills what the minimum monthly payment is, they can certainly figure out how to disclose to their customers how much it might cost them if they stick to that minimum payment.

The credit card industry is the most profitable sector of banking, and last year it made $30 billion in profits. MBNA's profits alone last year were one-and-a-half times that of McDonald's. Citibank was more profitable than Microsoft and Walmart. I don't think they should have any trouble implementing the requirements of this bill.

I believe that this is extraordinarily important and that it will minimize bankruptcies. With companies charging very substantial interest rates, they have an obligation to let the credit card holder know what those minimum payments really mean. I have people close to me I have watched, with 6 or 7 credit cards, and it is impossible for them, over the next 10 or 15 years, to pay off the debt if they continue making just minimum payments.

We now have a bankruptcy bill that has passed into law. I continue to believe that a bill requiring a limited but meaningful disclosure by credit cards companies is a necessary accompaniment. I think you will have people who are more cautious, which I believe is good for the bankruptcy courts in terms of reducing their caseloads, and also good for American consumers.

The credit card debt problem facing our Nation is significant. I believe that this bill is an important step in providing individuals with the information needed to act responsibly, and it does so with a minimal burden on the industry.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am offering today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and his wife, Maria del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican nationals living in San Bruno, CA.

I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their four United States citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much longer.

In the seventeen years that the Plascencias have been here, they have worked to adjust their status through the appropriate legal channels, only to have their efforts thwarted by inattentive legal counsel.

Repeatedly, the Plascencia's lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in any way, thereby leaving them in the dark. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents, or even notify the Plascencias that he had them. Because of the poor representation they received, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the country fifteen days prior to their deportation. Although the family was stunned and devastated by this discovery, they acted quickly to fire their attorney for gross incompetence, secure competent counsel, and file the appropriate paperwork to delay their deportation to determine if any other legal action could be taken.

For several reasons, it would be tragic for this family to be removed from the United States.

First, since arriving in the United States in 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have proven themselves to be a responsible and civic-minded couple who share our American values of hard work, dedication to family and devotion to community.

Second, Mr. Plascencia has been gainfully employed at Vince's Shellfish for the past 13 years, where his dedication and willingness to learn have propelled him from part-time work to a managerial position. He now oversees the market's entire packing operation and several employees. The President of Vince's Shellfish, in one of the several dozen letters I have received in support of Mr. Plascencia, referred to him as ``a valuable and respected employee'' who ``handles himself in a very professional manner'' and serves as ``a role model'' to other employees. Others who have written to me praising Mr. Plascencia's job performance have referred to him as ``gifted,'' ``trusted,'' ``honest'' and ``reliable.''

Third, like her husband, Mrs. Plascencia has distinguished herself as a medical assistant at a Kaiser Permanente hospital in the Bay Area. Not satisfied with working as a maid at a local hotel, Mrs. Plascencia went to school, earned her high school equivalency degree, improved her skills and became a medical assistant.

For four years, Mrs. Plascencia was working in Kaiser Permanente's Oncology Department, where she attended to cancer patients. Her colleagues, many of whom have written to me in support of her, commend her ``unending enthusiasm'' and have described her work as ``responsible,'' ``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.'' In fact, Kaiser Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine, Nurse Rose Carino, wrote to say that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an asset to the community and exemplifies the virtues we Americans extol: hardworking, devoted to her family, trustworthy and loyal, [and] involved in her community. She and her family are a solid example of the type of immigrant that America should welcome wholeheartedly.'' Nurse Carino went on to write that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an excellent employee and role model for her colleagues. She works in a very demanding unit, Oncology, and is valued and depended on by the physicians she works with.'' The physicians themselves confirm this. For example, Dr. Laurie Weisberg, the Chief of Oncology at Kaiser Permanente, writes that Mrs. Plascencia ``is truly an asset to our unit and is one of the main reasons that it functions effectively.''

Together, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have used their professional successes to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. They saved up and bought a home. They own a car. They have good health care benefits and they each have begun saving for retirement. They want to send their children to college and give them an even better life.

This private relief bill is important because it would preserve these achievements and ensure that Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia will be able to make substantive contributions to the community in the future. It is important, also, because of the positive impact it will have on the couple's children, each of whom is a United States citizen and each of whom is well on their way to becoming productive members of the Bay Area community.

Christina, 13, is the Plascencia's oldest child, and an honor student with a 3.0 grade-point average at Parkside Intermediate School in San Bruno.

Erika, 9, and Alfredo, Jr., 7, are enrolled at Belle Air Elementary, where they have worked hard at their studies and received praise and good grades from their teachers. In fact, last year, the principal of Erika's school recognized her as the ``Most Artistic'' student in her class. Recently, Erika's teacher, Mrs. Nascon, remarked on a report card, ``Erika is a bright spot in my classroom.''

The Plascencia's youngest child is 2-year-old Daisy.

Removing Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia from the United States would be most tragic for their children. Children who were born in the United States and who through no fault of their own have been thrust into a situation that has the potential to alter their lives dramatically.

It would be especially tragic for the Plascencia's older children-- Christina, Erika and Alfredo--to have to leave the United States. They are old enough to understand that they are leaving their schools, their teachers, their friends and their home. They would leave everything that is familiar to them. Their parents would find themselves in Mexico without a job and without a house. The children would have to acclimate to a different culture, language and way of life.

The only other option would be for Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia to leave their children here with relatives. This separation is a choice which no parents should have to make.

Many of the words I have used to describe Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia are not my own. They are the words of the Americans who live and work with the Plascencias day in and day out and who find them to embody the American spirit. I have sponsored this private relief bill, and ask my colleagues to support it, because I believe that this is a spirit that we must nurture wherever we can find it. Forcing the Plascencias to leave the United States would extinguish that spirit.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the private relief bill and the numerous letters of support my office has received from members of the San Bruno community be the printed in the Record.