Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise to submit a resolution congratulating Shirin Ebadi, winner of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize.

Throughout her life, Shirin Ebadi has been the leading advocate for human rights and democratic reform in Iran. As a lawyer, a judge, a writer, and an activist, Ms. Ebadi has spend her career speaking out and defending the rights of women, children, and victims of government repression. Despite repeated threats made to her security, periods of imprisonment, and temporary suspensions from practicing law, Ms. Ebadi has continued to work tirelessly for those needing a voice to speak for them.

In addition to establishing one of the first independent human rights organizations in Iran--the Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child--Ms. Ebadi also helped create the Center for the Defense of Human Rights, an organization aimed at defending imprisoned journalists and political activists.

Her work is an inspiration to us all. I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution demonstrating our appreciation to such a heroic champion for human rights.

Mr. President, I call the Senate's attention to my extraordinary constituent, Phyllis Bader, who is celebrating her 90th birthday today in California with her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

Though she might take the day off, Phyllis is not resting on her laurels. At an age when most of us might be at least thinking of slowing down, she is

still going strong, still working, and still doing good work to benefit her community.

For the past two decades, Phyllis Bader has served as a volunteer and employee at The Shop, a nonprofit thrift store operated by the Junior League of Palo Alto--Mid Peninsula. Proceeds from sales at The Shop are used to fund the League's charitable and educational projects in the community.

Shortly after Phyllis moved to California to be near her family, she joined The Shop team as a volunteer at the suggestion of her daughter, Junior League supporter Lorinda Reichert. When The Shop moved to Menlo Park, the League asked Phyllis to join the staff. She has been there ever since, taking good care of customers and encouraging donations of sale items.

Noting that her work with the public has contributed to her longevity and good health, Phyllis has ``never given a thought to retiring.'' She says that ``It's important for old people to be around young people; they keep you on your toes.''

Asked what lessons she has learned in 90 years, Phyllis Bader advises us to ``Keep a positive attitude. Laugh at yourself. Don't be too sensitive about what people say. Be tolerant of others' ideas. Try to lift someone's spirits each day. Find something every day to be grateful for.''

We would all do well to heed Phyllis Bader's advice. I thank her for her wisdom and her service to the community, and I send her my very best wishes on her 90th birthday.

Madam President, I am proud to support the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan to provide funding for important domestic priorities. This amendment is called ``A Month for America.''

Each month, the U.S. is spending roughly $5 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at a time when important priorities here at home go unmet. This amendment would take $5 billion of the reconstruction money earmarked for Iraq and allocates it in the following way: $1 billion for school construction, $1.8 billion for health programs for our veterans, $103 million for community health centers, and $2.1 billion for highways and public transit.

These domestic priorities are an emergency now. Surely we can delay $5 billion in Iraqi reconstruction funds until the fiscal year 2005 when even the World Bank says that only $5.8 billion can be absorbed by Iraq next year to rebuild its infrastructure.

I want to talk about the need for new Federal spending to help rebuild and rehabilitate schools in California. These are the current conditions: 87 percent of schools report a need to upgrade or repair building to good overall condition; 71 percent of schools report at least one inadequate building feature, such as the roof, plumbing, electrical systems, windows, or heating and air conditioning; and 87 percent of schools report at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor, such as air quality, ventilation, heating, or lighting.

This is an emergency. Yet when an amendment was offered by Senators Clinton and Harkin to the fiscal year 2004 Labor-HHS bill to increase funding for school reconstruction by $1 billion for the entire year, it was defeated on a party-line vote with only one Republican supporting the increased funding.

It is a shame that this supplemental bill will spend in excess of $100 million for education in Iraq but not one penny for education in California.

The Bush administration wants to spend $10,000 per month for business school in Iraq--more than double the monthly cost of Harvard Business School--but there is no funding for the children in California.

This amendment also provides $1.8 billion for health care to our veterans so that we can fulfill the commitment made to them for their sacrifices.

President Bush submitted a fiscal year 2004 budget request for VA health that is $1.8 billion below the Independent Budget produced by AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. It would be a great comfort for those fighting now to know that the U.S. Congress is serious about meeting the needs of those who fought before them.

On healthcare, the supplemental provides $850 million for Iraq to construct a new hospital and replace medical equipment. And while we should help those in need throughout the world, we should also provide for those at home. That is why the Stabenow amendment provides $103 million for federally qualified community health centers that have been shown to reduce inpatient admission rates for their patients by anywhere from 22 percent to 67 percent, and have reduced the number of patients admitted per year and the length of stay among those who were admitted.

Finally, this amendment would provide $2.1 billion for highway and public transit programs. Transit is so important for my State. We have so much congestion that we must improve our highways and roads and build public transportation.

According to the Texas Transportation Institute, Los Angeles and the San Francisco-Oakland region are ranking No. 1 and 2 for the worst roadway congestion in this country. California has two more cities in the top 5 with San Jose ranked 4 and San Diego ranked 5.

The Inland Empire of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties is ranked 12 and Sacramento is ranked 13.

What does this congestion translate to? Delays. In the Los Angeles area: 136 hours per year, on average per driver, in peak hours. San Francisco-Oakland drivers put up with 92 hours of delays, and San Jose drivers endure 74 hours of delays. Inland Empire drivers are delayed by 64 hours, and San Diego drivers are delayed by 51 hours a year.

Californians are trying to reduce congestion. More Californians are using alternative forms of transportation. Public transit carries over 1.2 billion passengers a year in California.

Transit ridership is up in California. The number of miles traveled annually by transit passengers grew by 20 percent between 1997 and 2001. The number of annual passenger trips was up 14 percent. In the San Francisco Bay Bridge corridor, 38 percent of all trips are on transit. And, 30 percent of all trips into central Los Angeles are on transit.

Like the other domestic priorities outlined in the Stabenow amendment, we need to fund transit so we can improve our infrastructure in this country. I thank the Senator from Michigan for her amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. President, I am going to support the amendment introduced by Senator McConnell for one reason and one reason only: I support our troops, and I share the sentiment all Americans have in holding our men and women in uniform in the highest regard.

It is a fact that there are differences in this country about United States policy toward Iraq. But there is no disagreement that our military personnel have been brave and courageous. They have made sacrifices for our country and more than 300 have made the ultimate sacrifice. I grieve for their loss and my heart goes out to their families and loved ones.

Families throughout America are proud of their sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are anxious about reports of daily attacks on United States soldiers in central Iraq and are hopeful that already lengthy deployments are not further extended. I share both their pride and their anxiety. I, too, think about our troops every day. I think about their families. I thing about their sacrifices.

The McConnell amendment makes note of these sacrifices. It also commends organizations such as the USO and Operation Dear Abby that help support our troops. The amendment also states that there should be appropriate ceremonies to honor and welcome them home. I hope these ceremonies occur sooner rather than later.

California has a rich military tradition. Military personnel from across the State and from all branches have been serving bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am especially proud of these military men and women and wish them a safe return home.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch. This is an excellent nominee for the Southern District Court of California, William Hayes.

I want to emphasize the excellent process that we have in place to select District Court nominees in California.

In a truly bipartisan fashion, the White House Counsel, Senator Feinstein and I worked together to create four judicial advisory committees for

the State of California, one in each Federal judicial district in the State.

Each committee has a membership of six individuals: three appointed by the White House and three appointed jointly by Senator Feinstein and me. Each member's vote counts equally, and a majority is necessary for recommendation of a candidate.

Mr. Hayes was reviewed by the Southern District Committee and strongly recommended for this position. I continue to support this bipartisan selection process and the high quality nominees it has produced.

Mr. Hayes had extensive civil experience as a private attorney before becoming a Federal prosecutor, rising to the position of head of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney's office in San Diego.

The southern district will benefit greatly from the exemplary services of Mr. Hayes, and I fully support confirmation of this nominee.

I wish to emphasize, once again, to my colleagues that we have a wonderful process in place in California to come up with these nominees for the district court. Senator Feinstein and I have three members on the committee. The Bush administration has three members on the committee. It takes a majority vote. This means we are working together, and we have proven that we can come up with mainstream nominees for the district court. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support for the nominee for the Southern District Court of California, John Houston.

I wish to emphasize the excellent process that we have in place to select district court nominees in California.

In a truly bipartisan fashion, the White House Counsel, Senator Feinstein and I worked together to create four judicial advisory committees for the State of California, one in each federal judicial district in the state.

Each committee has a membership of six individuals: three appointed by the White House, and three appointed jointly by Senator Feinstein and me. Each member's vote counts equally, and a majority is necessary for recommendation of a candidate.

This nominee was reviewed by the Southern District Committee and strongly recommended for this position. I continue to support this bipartisan selection process and the high quality nominees it has produced.

Judge Houston had extensive experience as a federal prosecutor before his appointment as a magistrate judge in San Diego.

I was delighted to meet Judge Houston and his family during his Judiciary Committee hearing in September and wish them all the very best.

The Southern District will benefit greatly from the exemplary services of Judge Houston, and I fully support confirmation of this nominee.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. It is because I prize America's leadership in the world that I will be proudly supporting Senator Byrd's amendment because Senator Byrd's amendment will allow us to really look at what we are doing in Iraq. It is because I also prize this country and I respect and honor the needs of our people that I am supporting Senator Byrd's amendment.

If we look at what we spend in a year on items most important to the people in this country, and we compare it to what they are about to spend in Iraq reconstruction which we were told would never fall to American taxpayers, we will see that our people are being shortchanged.

Senator Byrd's amendment allows the funds for the military to move forward and even $5 billion of reconstruction for the Iraqi police to move forward, but it withholds the $15 billion because he prizes America's leadership, because he doesn't want us to look

foolish, because he as well as I and many others are tired of reading in the newspaper comments from the Iraqis.

For example, this is one from USA Today. It tells of an Iraqi businessman who was surprised to see the $100 million estimate to build a complex that will house more than 3,000 people. He said: I could build this for $10 million.

If someone comes to the floor and says Senator Byrd is turning his back on America's place in the world because Senator Byrd wants to protect the people of this country and their taxpayer dollars so that when and if we do build housing or shopping malls in Iraq, it is done in the right way, I say the people who question him are on the wrong track.

I have another quote. A member of the Iraqi Governing Council-- appointed by this administration, I might say--saying to Waxman staff over on the House side that non-Iraqi contractors had charged about $25 million to refurbish 20 police stations in Basra, a job that he said Iraqis could have done for $5 million. This is a disaster.

My friend talked about President Roosevelt. Let me tell you what FDR said about this during World War II:

I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the

U.S. as a result of this world disaster.

He was talking about war profiteering. Maybe my colleagues are sanguine about the scandals we have already seen with no big contracts in the back room to firms that have connections to the Vice President of the United States. I am not sanguine.

The Byrd amendment is saving us from the embarrassments that will flow, because they will flow. I have been in the area of military procurement reform for a very long time. I served in the House for 10 years. I served on the Armed Services Committee. I discovered a lot of problems with military procurement, and you ain't seen nothing yet when you already have Iraqis saying we are charging so much.

What Senator Byrd is saying to us is, before we send hard-earned American tax dollars over there for a rebuilding, if you will-- actually, it is not even a rebuilding; it is a building because a lot of the things they never had before--before we do that, we need to look at this situation.

When I see that the administration, the President, is asking for $33,000 apiece for 80 pickup trucks when here they cost $14,000, I say thank you, Senator Byrd.

When I see a $3.6 million request for satellite phones at an average cost of $6,000 and we are told by the Iraqis that they paid on May 12 $900 each, I say thank you, Senator Byrd.

And $2 million for museums and memorials when the Iraqis say they are tired of memorials. That is all Saddam ever gave them. They don't want more memorials. I say thank you, Senator Byrd, for calling attention to the fact that they want to build two prisons at a cost of $50,000 per prison bed where in America it cost $25,000 per prison bed.

Others have talked about the cost of a 4-week business course in Iraq at a cost of $10,000 per student when in Harvard it is $4,000. I say thank you, Senator Byrd.

Where is the money going? Into somebody's pocket where it doesn't belong over there or over here? It doesn't matter; it is taxpayers' dollars.

Look at what we spend one year on drug enforcement, $1.6 billion, and our kids are dying of overdoses, and we don't have the money, and this administration won't give us the money for education.

This President cut afterschool programs in half, throwing 1 million kids out on the street. Thank goodness we restored some of it. I say thank you, Senator Byrd.

You can make the most lofty statements you want about America's leadership. America's leadership doesn't move forward one iota when we are not careful and we don't look at what we are doing.

I think it is extraordinary: $9 million for a state-of-the-art Iraqi postal service. Per capita, this amount is greater than the Federal Government spends on the U.S. Postal Service. Tell that to our constituents who are told they may not get Saturday mail deliveries.

My constituents are perplexed by this request. The President will not pay for it. He is adding to an already overblown deficit. If we do not count the Social Security trust fund, it is up to $700 billion. He will not pay for it. The numbers do not add up. They do not make sense.

My people want us to do our share to help the Iraq people, but they were told a different story from this administration. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer:

Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi

people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to

be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own

reconstruction.

Ari Fleischer, the spokesman for the President, said that in February of this year. In March of this year, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz:

There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to

be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the

Iraqi people.

He also said:

We're dealing with a country that can really finance its

own reconstruction, and relatively soon.

This is what my constituents were told, and now they are told they are supposed to blink their eye at tens of billions of dollars going for things that cost half the price in this country.

How about Secretary Rumsfeld, the leader of this war:

I don't believe that the United States has the

responsibility for reconstruction.

Let me say that again. The top person in the Defense Department, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

I don't believe that the United States has the

responsibility for reconstruction.

That is not Barbara Boxer speaking. That is not Robert Byrd speaking. That is not Senator Murray speaking or Senator Stabenow.

This is what the American people were told, and Senator Byrd is saying to this administration that they did not tell us the truth about this.

It goes deeper than that. This administration has been wrong down the line on this policy, and suddenly we are supposed to write this enormous check for this reconstruction. I look at it as a blank check-- when one sees the numbers they have put forward. They were wrong on the weapons of mass destruction. They were wrong on what would happen after the war. They were wrong when they failed to predict that the terrorists would move in and fill the void. They were wrong on what the rebuilding would cost. They were wrong on the state of Iraq's ability to recover economically. They were wrong on how many troops would be needed. They were wrong on the oil revenues. They were wrong on how much other countries would contribute.

I know it is hard to listen to this. I know some of my colleagues on the other side do not really want to listen to this, but these are the facts. We are not operating from a lack of experience. What Senator Byrd is saying--and he is making a plea to colleagues on both sides of the aisle--is that we need to take a further look at these requests, especially at a point in time when we are told by this administration that they cannot even meet our homeland defense needs.

I have an amendment to try to protect commercial aircraft from shoulder-fired missiles. Let's support Senator Byrd. He is doing the right thing for America.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I thank the Senator so much for yielding. I have a few questions. What I want to do is make a 4- or 5-minute statement and then ask three or four questions and hope the Senator can answer them in his inimicable fashion.

First, I thank Senator Schumer so much for picking up on this issue. I remember reading about this in July and just scratching my head. I essentially thought: This cannot be true. I cannot believe that someone in the White House would reveal the identity of a person who is working at the CIA undercover. Whether she is an analyst, an operative, or an agent, it matters not, but certainly someone whose identity had never been revealed. I thought: This cannot be happening.

To be honest, I should have done more about it, but I did not, and thank the Senator for writing to the head of the FBI, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and letting him know this.

Here are my questions: As I look at this, I think, why would someone do this? Well, clearly the idea behind attacking Ambassador Wilson's wife was that Ambassador Wilson gave the White House news they did not want to hear, which was that there was really no proof that Saddam Hussein was getting nuclear materials from Niger. They did not want that answer; it was kind of a kill-the-messenger type of response; and in order to get back at

him, they out his wife, which is despicable and a crime, but I think it is about arrogance and it is about intimidation.

We have seen the arrogance, but it is the intimidation factor I want the Senator to comment on because this is not only about this one incident--in which clearly Ambassador Wilson was correct, by the way-- but it is a signal that is sent, really, frankly, to everyone in politics that nothing is off limits if someone crosses us: We will go after their wife; we will go after their kids.

I have to say to my friend, he is a family man, I am a family woman. We are in this world--God knows how and why but we are in it--and we are willing to take the hits and everything else, but the lowest form of politics is if someone comes after your kids or your spouse. I resent it, and I want my colleague to comment on those two areas.

I also ask him to comment on a third one, and that is the whole struggle that women are having in this world of ours to enhance our careers, to break the glass ceiling, to go into fields that are maybe a little bit unusual. I do not have the statistics at my fingertips, but if we look at the number of women who are FBI agents, I can tell my colleague that it is very few. I used to know the exact number. I do not want to throw out a number, but it is way less than a third, as I remember.

So we have a circumstance where there is a woman in a nontraditional field doing her work, obviously not getting credit for it. She is working incognito at the CIA, whatever her work is, and she is going up the ladder. Maybe she has a tremendous future. Well, probably the future in that field has been harmed, if not totally destroyed, and maybe her life or other lives that she touched in her work are in danger.

So we are talking about a number of issues--yes, the crime that was committed, but the whole idea of intimidation to people who might take on this administration, the whole idea of going after someone's family when we know, as public servants, what our families mean to us and how we protect them from whatever befalls us, the hits, the pain, and other things that happen. We asked for it. We are in this arena.

So I hope my friend will perhaps talk about that. It is a human tragedy beyond the crime, and I ask my friend to comment.

Will the Senator yield for a brief question?

The reason I am doing this is because I am unable to stay and speak on the Senator's amendment but I wanted to make a couple of comments and ask a question, if I can, through the Chair.

First, I again thank Senator Schumer for his leadership on this. We spoke about it this morning, the fact that he took action back in July and wrote to the head of the FBI. He knew immediately that this was something outrageous, and I do thank him for that.

I am also very pleased that we are able now to have the Senator's amendment offered, to which I am a cosponsor. If I am not, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.

The fact is, we now have the DC bill in front of us and we have a legislative way to express ourselves. The thing I want to point out is now there is an attempt to try to demean this incident by saying that the fact that a CIA analyst or agent--we are not exactly sure--was revealed is not such a big deal and does not have much merit to it. I know my friend spoke about that, but I want to pursue a couple of questions.

Is it not the fact that the head of the CIA himself decided this was so egregious, to reveal the identity of Ambassador Wilson's wife, that the head of the CIA, who really serves at the pleasure of President Bush, asked for an investigation by the Attorney General? Is that correct?

Yes. I just want to point out that to attempt to minimize this crime by saying this woman was probably an analyst and not an agent is unbelievable to me. The fact is, whether she was an agent or an analyst or anything else, was she not undercover? Every time I see her on TV, they cover up her face. I say to my friend, let's not get into the sideshow about was she an analyst or was she an agent. The fact is, she was in a covert situation, was she not, and it is safe to say that the reason her face is covered up is that she was undercover; the reason the CIA asked for an investigation is that they believe a law may have been broken because she was undercover.

I want to make that one point, in addition to the points we made this morning, which is that I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment. I hope my colleagues on the other side will not have a dual sense of when an independent counsel should be appointed: There is a real estate deal somewhere; there is an independent counsel. There were no lives on the line there. This is a situation where someone who is undercover has been revealed as a way to get back at her husband who happened to bring back the news that the administration didn't want to hear--that in fact Iraq was not purchasing, at least in this particular case, from Niger any nuclear materials.

We have a circumstance where, faced with this, the new defense is: She was just an analyst; she wasn't an agent. I want to make the point, this woman was in the CIA. Her career has no doubt been destroyed. She was undercover. We do not see her face on TV. The fact is, the CIA asked for an investigation. And what my friend is saying today is, we need a more independent investigation. We don't want politics to play a role in this investigation. We want to remove it, even though the Attorney General will still be in charge of an independent or a special counsel, as we call it. A special counsel will have a little more independence than just getting it over to the Justice Department.

Mr. President, will my friend yield further?

I wish to make a point to underscore this discussion. This leaking of a name is, on its face, a crime. The person who did this deserves to be punished because to think that someone would punish someone's family--they didn't like what Ambassador Wilson said: How can we hurt him? How can we sting him? How can we burn him? We will hurt his wife. We will out her; that will ruin her chances. And that will send a chilling message to Ambassador Wilson: A, be quiet, maybe this will go away; and, B, it sends a chilling message to everyone. That is why what you are doing is so important.

This is an incident that cannot be swept under the rug. Whether it is a Democratic administration or a Republican administration matters not because this endangered someone, and it sends a chilling message to anyone who might bring bad news to this administration, who might disagree with their policy in Iraq.

I say to my friend, he is right on target. If this does fail in a party-line vote--and I pray it does not, but if this fails in a party- line vote, unfortunately, this will become a bigger and bigger political issue because I, for one, am not going to stop focusing attention on it. As a woman who has all my life been in jobs that are perhaps a little bit different than other women, I have tried to say we can do it. This attack on this woman who was on the ladder, obviously, in the CIA, was not only a crime, it was unjustified, and it sends a terribly chilling message to other women out there that you can do the greatest job in the world but, gee, if you are married to someone who might say something controversial, you are going to be outed.

What about the message--I close with this--it sends to other agents out there, other agents who may be working on issues and bringing back information that the administration doesn't want to hear because maybe it does not comport with what they want to be known as the facts? What kind of message does this send? Are they going to take the risks? As Senator Harkin said, we are going to win this war against terrorism by the quality of our intelligence. And here we have the White House itself that says it is leading the fight against terrorism. We stood by their side continually on this, as we should. Here they are, in essence, outing someone who could be working in ways to save our people from another terrorist attack, from al-Qaida, and whatever else.

I am so pleased my friend has been so stalwart on this issue. Anything he needs from this Senator from California to help him, I remain available to do whatever I can do to bring justice to this family.

I yield back the time.

Mr. President, I want to comment on the nomination currently pending before the Senate, Judge Carlos Bea for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

I was delighted to meet Judge Bea and his family at his Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this month.

Judge Bea was born in Spain but has lived in California for most of his life. He received both his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University. He practiced law in the San Francisco area for over 30 years before he was appointed a judge on the San Francisco Superior Court. He was elected to the seat in 1990 and has been reelected twice by the voters of San Francisco. He has also taught at Stanford and Hastings law schools.

In addition to his accomplishments in the legal community, Judge Bea is also an Olympic athlete. He played on the Cuban national basketball team during the 1952 Olympic games.

As a judge, he is widely respected for his keen intelligence. As one reporter noted, ``he has received high marks for his specialty, handling complex civil litigation disputes.''

I intend to support this nomination.

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

Madam President, we are about to have a vote on a judge. I wanted to take this time, 2 minutes, to offer my support for this nominee. I want to say this particular nominee for the Southern District Court of California, Larry Burns, is very qualified for this position. He is a native Californian. He is a graduate of Point Loma College and the University of San Diego Law School.

I want to emphasize the wide support Judge Burns has from law enforcement and civil rights organizations. His firm commitment to the law was well regarded while he was both a Federal and a State prosecutor. He has developed an equally respected reputation as a judge, due to his character and his legal expertise.

So I believe the Southern District will benefit greatly from the exemplary services of Judge Burns. I fully support confirmation of this nominee.

At a time when we have a lot of partisan discord, I think it is important to know that in California, Senator Feinstein and I, working with the administration, have a wonderful process in place by which the two Democrat Senators get three people on a committee to pass judgment on these nominees and the administration appoints three people. Each nominee for the district court goes through our process and they are then recommended to the President on a majority vote.

What has happened is we have taken the politics, truly, out of this judicial selection process. We have come up with mainstream candidates. That is very important because I believed the President when he came forward and said he was going to govern from the center. When he puts forward judicial nominees who are from the center, who are not radical, who are not far to the right, I am the first one to support them, and I have supported well over 90 percent of them.

When it comes to voting for nominees who are off the scales and not representative of the values of America, I am the first one to say it is not right. We have a process in place for the district courts that I only wish we had for the higher courts--the circuit courts--because it isn't working that well. But it is working very well in the district courts.

Again, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on Larry Burns's nomination, and I hope it will be a unanimous vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is to strike section 333 from the Interior appropriations bill. Essentially, section 333 is an anti-environmental rider which would impose a 30-day statute of limitations for the public to seek judicial review of certain Forest Service timber sales in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. In other words, it is putting on very tough time constraints for the public to follow if they have a problem with timber sales in the Tongass.

I want to show you a little bit of what the Tongass Forest looks like. I was very fortunate to spend a week in Alaska looking at this magnificent park. I think I may well have been right in this area depicted in the photo. You can see how magnificent these pictures are and why this rider could be so

damaging. If there was, say, some movement by the Forest Service to cut down trees and put roads in here, we want the public to have a chance to make their case to a court as to why this is not the right thing to do. So that is one photo. I will show you some other photos.

This photo represents the area we are talking about. As I said, I had the joy of being in Alaska to actually see this with my own eyes. It is so magnificent there. When I was there, of course, daylight lasted until about midnight. You can see this beautiful land.

I will show you one more beautiful photograph. Again, what we are talking about is an anti-environmental rider which would take away the public's right to go to court if they believed some of these lands were going to be destroyed. The other thing the amendment does is it interferes with the ability of the Federal district court to manage its docket because that section also puts a deadline on the court. So it not only puts a deadline on the people in terms of their inability to study timber sales, it says to a judge who may have a very busy docket that he or she has to act on this case in 180 days.

The Tongass National Forest is the last remaining old-growth temperate rain forest in the world, spanning nearly 70 acres. You have seen it here with some of these beautiful photographs. It is the crown jewel of America's natural forests, and conservation is very much in the interest of all Americans because it is our land and we are the stewards of that land.

When I was up there, I saw glaciers, mountains, growths of hemlock and cedar that grow to be over 200 feet tall. The trees can live as long as a thousand years. I am not a person large in stature anyway, but when you see some of this beauty and realize how comparatively weak we are to the forces of nature, it seems to me when we have a magnificent national forest such as this, at the minimum you don't change the rules just for this one forest. It does not seem right.

The species that thrive in this forest include the brown bear--I saw some of those--bald eagles--and I saw some of them. I did not see gray wolves and wolverines, but I am told they are there. And there are lots of salmon.

We have this temperate rain forest. It is really a jewel. We want to make sure that, at the minimum, there is a check and balance in the courts if somebody feels or a group feels or a resident feels they are not being protected enough.

We are not telling the court they cannot make a decision that favors cutting down trees or building roads. We are just saying don't contract the time. It does not seem right.

I am going to read parts of letters I have seen. This is one from a couple who is very upset about this anti-environmental rider. They are owners of the Clover Bay Lodge, a fishing lodge on Prince of Wales Island in the Tongass. They write:

We recently received a bad decision from the U.S. Forest

Service that will probably mean the end of our very

successful fishing lodge business. The Forest Service had no

interest in listening to us or others affected by their

decisions or even using the correct data regarding our

business.

Then they talk about other elected officials who tried to intercede. They said:

We wrote letters, we had meetings for over 6 years with the

Forest Service and came to the same conclusion time and time

again: The U.S. Forest Service had the money and the power

and the control to force any decision, good or bad, down the

taxpayers' throats. So sometimes the courts are the only

place left and the people should not be constrained. Please

stop this damaging rider, and do not accept any limitations

on the American people's right to defend against the actions

of the Federal Government.

This is really important because so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about how big Government is bad and we shouldn't intrude in private property. Here we have a couple who owns a fishing lodge who wants to make a living doing that and says they have no other recourse but to go to court. They cannot make headway. With this rider, they will be constrained to get their whole act together in 30 days, and the court will have to act in 180 days. It seems to me not right.

I am going to read another paragraph from a letter written by a group of scientists who talk about the Tongass in this fashion:

Alaska's national forests occur within the Pacific Coast's

temperate rainforest ecosystem. Throughout the world, old-

growth temperate rainforests are rapidly disappearing. Today,

the Tongass National Forest represents the largest remaining

tracts of old-growth temperate rainforest in the world.

We are talking about an incredible resource for our Nation.

They continue:

Established in 1907 by President Theodore Roosevelt, the

Tongass is the country's largest national forest. . . .

Unlike most national forests, both the Tongass and Chugach

still encompass many undisturbed watersheds with a full

complement of all native species, including productive

populations of bald eagles, wolves, brown bears, and

five species of anadromous salmon. And we still have much

to learn about the unique biodiversity and archeological

resources of this forest.

The reason I took a moment to read this is because this is quite a group of people who signed on to this description of this land we are trying to protect: Craig Benkman, Ph.D., from New Mexico State University; Andrew Hansen, Ph.D, from the Department of Biology, Montana State University; Robert Jarvis, Ph.D., Oregon State University; David Klein, Ph.D., Institute of Arctic Biology in Alaska; Russell Lande, Ph.D., from the University of California, San Diego; William Lidicker, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley; Dale Mccullough, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley; Sterling Miller, Ph.D., Missoula, MT; Paul Paquet, Ph.D., University of Calgary in Calgary, Alberta; Roger Powell, Ph.D., from Raleigh, NC; John Ratti, Ph.D., University of Idaho; John Schoen, Ph.D., senior scientist at the National Audubon Society, Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska Fairbanks; Mark Shaffer, Ph.D., Defenders of Wildlife; Christopher Smith, Ph.D., Kansas State University; Richard Taber, Ph.D., University of Montana; and Mary Willson, affiliate professor, School of Fisheries and Ocean Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

The point I am making is, if this is, indeed, a national gift to us, why we would want to make special rules for 39 timber sales there really escapes me. It just does not seem right, and it does not seem fair, and it seems to go against bipartisan support for this magnificent place.

I have read parts of a letter from a fishing lodge owner and I have read parts of a letter from scientists who do not want to see this damaging rider. I have received another letter from a lodge operator in the same area, Larry McQuarrie, who owns Sportsman's Cove Lodge. I ask unanimous consent to print this letter in the Record.

Mr. President, Mr. McQuarrie, who owns the Sportsman's Cove Lodge, says:

This family business has contributed approximately $1.0

million to the Ketchi-

kan community annually for the past ten

years . . .

If the rider passes, then there is no due process for the

lodge or for my neighbors, and my business and community will

suffer major and unnecessary economic harm.

Let's look at Chomley Sound again. That is where this lodge is located. We can see it is magnificent, but it is unprotected, and it is on Prince of Wales Island in the southern Tongass. We can see how unbelievable this forest is. This small businessman is saying he is going to suffer irreparable harm if he cannot protect this area. What sometimes gets lost is there are so many who seem to say the only way we are going to make money, to lift the economy, is to go after resources--cut down trees and drill for oil. Of course, we need to do that in areas where it makes sense, but I am here to say that when you go in to an area that is as magnificent as this forest, the whole economic potential revolves around tourism. I saw that when I was in Alaska. It was a pretty wonderful trip.

The bottom line is, if there were a lot of trees being cut down and noise being made, we would lose the wildlife and we would lose the tourism. That is why I oppose this rider that I think is completely unnecessary.

I do not have much else to say except I think it is a bad rider and interferes with the judiciary, which I don't think is our job to do. It says to the court: You must hear this in so many days. A lot of us know the courts are backed up. There are a lot of people waiting for justice, whether it is one business suing another or somebody has a problem. Now we are saying go to the head of the class. You get to go to the head of the line if you want to cut down trees or build a road in one of these areas or there is a question about any of these timber sales.

We encourage courts to move quickly, but it seems to me we don't want to force them to have to act on one particular case in a certain number of days. It doesn't seem fair to me, and I don't think this section solves any problem.

The last lawsuit challenging a Tongass timber sale was 4 years ago. It is not like this is a pressing problem. There are no pressing problems challenging or enjoining the timber sales in Tongass, and timber companies on the Tongass have a huge backlog of timber under contract to be cut. As a matter of fact, they have about 300 million board feet left to be cut. They only logged 34 million board feet last year. So it is hard to understand why we have to make this rule for a problem that doesn't seem to exist. Yet it would take away a fundamental right of judicial review for timber sales in Alaska.

Maybe there is some good reason this should be done. I have been trying to figure it out myself. Maybe they actually want to reopen these sales. I don't know what it is. But I can say I have looked up and down to figure out what is going on. We have people here who are very nervous. They don't want to see a series of attacks continue on the Tongass National Forest. We had an attack last year. I spoke out in opposition to it. And we have it again this year.

Once again, I hope we strike this rider from the bill and assure the public is given an opportunity to seek judicial review, and that the judicial system is not unjustly hindered. The beauty of our country is the checks and balances that we have. All of us learn that when we go to school, in the sixth grade, eighth grade, high school, college--the checks and balances between the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the courts. When Congress starts standing up and saying: Judge, you have to hear a particular case in 180 days and, people, you better get your act together, get your case together in 30 days, in my view, this is really interfering in the rights of the people we represent and interfering in the duties of the courts.

Once again, feast your eyes on this magnificent area. It was my joy to be there for 7 days. I will never forget that trip. The last thing I want to see happen is to weaken the protections we have afforded this temperate rain forest that is so magnificent.

It honestly takes your breath way.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, colleagues, I hope Members will vote against the motion to table my amendment. I am simply trying to strike section 333, which is an anti-environmental rider that singles out 39 timber sales in the Tongass Forest and only allows a 30-day appeals process for citizens, small businesses, and community groups to act. It also says a judge must act in 180 days, pushing this ahead of other pending cases.

Now, why is it important to all of us? If you can change the rules in the largest temperate rain forest in the world, think about what would happen to you in your States. We have not had any hearings on this issue. I don't think this is the right way to legislate.

If it is a question of jobs, there are 300 million board feet of timber in the Tongass that could be cut today. There are no lawsuits pending on those.

This is a process question. I hope colleagues would not take away the rights of their constituents.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, on October 11, TreePeople will celebrate the 30th anniversary of its founding. Few organizations have had such an impact, have energized so many volunteers or have so transformed a community as has TreePeople. I applaud them and thank them for their wonderful work over the past 30 years.

TreePeople, much like the trees it plants, started as a tiny seed before blossoming into the powerful organization it is today. TreePeople was founded by a then-15-year-old summer camper, Andy Lipkis. Andy, like many foresters, understood that substantial tree die offs in the local mountains were the consequence of Los Angeles' smog, and wanted to do something about it. Andy organized his fellow campers, and together they ripped up a parking lot and planted a meadow. But he was not finished. Andy next obtained 8,000 seedlings from the California Department of Forestry's surplus stock and started the California Conservation Project, later renamed ``TreePeople.''

Since its founding, TreePeople has been committed to planting trees millions of trees. They began by planting 50,000 trees with 50,000 student volunteers in environmental programs at Coldwater Canyon Park. Several years later, after the City of Los Angeles estimated that it would take 20 years to plant a million trees in order to comply with the Clean Air Act, TreePeople took on the project and did it in three years. Later, TreePeople helped launch the Los Angeles Conservation Corps, and Kate and Andy Lipkis were elected to the United Nations Environmental Programme's Global 500 Honor Roll. TreePeople's work has extended across international boundaries with thousands of fruit trees being shipped to foreign lands to avert hunger and starvation.

TreePeople has also focused on environmental education programs and played an important part in getting 60,000 elementary school children to work toward the City's goal of mandatory recycling. In the 1990s, TreePeople launched the Campus Forestry Program, now boasting the participation of more than one million children and teenagers. TreePeople has also developed the Trans-Agency Resources for Environment and Economic Sustainability, or T.R.E.E.S., program to promote better watershed management practices.

Today, TreePeople continues to work tirelessly to make Los Angeles a better and healthier place to live. TreePeople started modestly as one person with a dream. With steadfast determination and passion, his dream became a reality. Andy Lipkis is living proof that one person, with a corps of countless volunteers, can make a big difference. I commend his vision, and I applaud him and all those who helped make his vision tangible. TreePeople's greatest strength is in its ability to attract volunteers who are willing to work for a better community. I thank them for their great work.

I extend my congratulations to everyone involved with TreePeople on this special anniversary and wish them all many more years of continued success.