Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. In fact, I appreciate the Senator from Maryland coming to the floor today and sharing with us, the Senate, and the country this incredible example of how these first responders can make such an important difference when a tragedy strikes. Those in Maryland are to be commended for this response.

Mr. President, the amendment that is before the Senate today, and on which I expect we will vote very soon, is an amendment that would change the budget enforcement rules as we proceed forward in considering legislation. This amendment would amend title IV of the budget enforcement provisions of the committee-reported resolution to include a 60-vote point of order against the consideration of any direct spending or tax relief legislation that would increase the on- budget deficit in any fiscal year, in its terms, ``until the budget is balanced without Social Security'' payroll tax receipts.

The problem this amendment poses, although it sounds very admirable on its face, is that it is based on the faulty premise that either tax relief or spending is raiding the Social Security trust fund.

I will be one of the first to agree we should control spending in this body, such that we do not engage in deficit spending, which makes it more difficult for the Federal Government to pay down its outstanding debt obligations.

In fact, as I said yesterday on the floor, when I ran for Congress, I ran on a principle of a balanced budget, and beginning in about 1994, in this Congress, we were able to exert the kind of fiscal discipline that helped us ultimately, with the assistance of a strong economy, to achieve a balanced budget to start paying for what we were spending in Congress and to be able to pay down significant amounts of the national debt.

I believe that is a very admirable principle. But to argue that either the excess spending or the cuts in taxes are somehow raiding the Social Security trust fund is to create a spin that needs to be clarified.

The first point I believe the public needs to understand is that when proceeds come into the Social Security trust fund, by law, those proceeds are utilized, first, for the purposes of the Social Security benefits that are provided. Then, if there are excesses--and in the past few years there have been excesses; there will be for a number of years until the Social Security trust fund begins to run deficits-- those excesses or surpluses are then invested, by law, in Government bond instruments, in other words, Government debt instruments.

Those Government debt instruments, as other debt instruments which the Government issues, are then sold to the public or to buyers around the world, frankly, and then repurchased at the time when they become due by the Federal Government.

It will be necessary for us, when these bonds come due--for any year we issue them--to pay for them. The more deficit spending we engage in, the more debt we incur, and the heavier the debtload for future generations, it is true.

The net effect of the amendment we are now debating is directed specifically at tax relief. There is tax relief that this Congress and the President of the United States have passed, and the President signed into law in the past few years that will expire because of the procedural mechanisms utilized to get it through the Senate. The various provisions of this tax relief that we were able to accomplish in the last few years expire on different dates, depending on the terms of the legislation we passed.

I believe everyone should be very clear about one important fact. Although there has been a lot of debate in the last few days, and will be for the next few, primarily attacking the President for supporting tax relief and primarily saying that this tax relief was for the wealthy and the rich, the fact is the tax relief was provided across the board to Americans from all income categories who pay taxes. In fact, the highest percentage of the tax relief went to those who were in the lower and middle-income categories.

We can debate the value of the tax relief that is claimed to be for the wealthy. Most of it went to small businesses that apparently are categorized as the wealthy. Most of it was that which is providing the incentive to invest in capital that will generate strength in the economy and create more jobs. But setting that debate aside, those provisions of the tax relief that this Congress and previous Congresses enacted over the past few years under President Bush's leadership that expire this year, those that are in jeopardy of going away this year are not these tax increases that everyone has been referring to in the last few days, these so-called tax cuts for the wealthy. They are instead the tax cuts that directly benefit the middle and lower income classes.

What are they? First, we expanded the 10-percent income tax bracket so that more people are covered at the 10-percent level than the higher levels of taxes. That is the lowest level of tax in the income tax structure. The tax bracket of protection for the lowest level of income-tax payers was expanded. It is that tax relief that will

expire this year. It is that tax relief which is the target of this amendment. It is that tax relief which this amendment will make more difficult to maintain and which will result in direct tax increases on those who are paying taxes at the first and lowest level of income category in our income-tax code.

The second tax that is going to expire this year is not this so- called tax on the wealthy that is so excoriated in the Senate. No, it is the marriage tax penalty relief. Those who fought us for years to stop elimination of the marriage tax penalty would love to see a procedural roadblock put into the place of this marriage tax penalty relief that is expiring. We don't want to see that happen.

What is the third and the last tax that will expire this year after the expansion of the 10-percent bracket and the elimination of the marriage tax penalty? It is the $1,000-per-child tax credit. I don't believe those who are attacking the President's tax relief are going to claim that everybody who has a child and who can take advantage of the child tax credit is wealthy, according to the standards they have been putting forth. This one doesn't impact across income categories except that it is phased out for those in upper income categories and is a primary benefit specifically to those in the lower and middle-income categories.

So we have three critical tax relief provisions that are going to expire this year which directly benefit the lower and middle-income classes that will be made more difficult to extend if this amendment passes.

When you look at these things on their face, it sounds very nice to say let's put a procedural mechanism in place to make it harder to cut taxes. But let's not make a mistake. The taxes they are going at are the taxes specifically identified in the reconciliation provisions of our budget; that is, the expansion of the 10-percent bracket, the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, and the child tax credit. For those reasons, I believe it is important we recognize this amendment must fail.

There has been a lot of talk about what is going to happen to Social Security. I, for one, will vote to have strong fiscal restraint in this budget and to do what is necessary to stimulate and strengthen our economy, to make sure our economy can start gaining steam again and help us address these budget deficits.

I have a small chart that shows what the Social Security trust fund is going to look like under the current budget or without the current budget, having undone the current budget. The point is, it is the same. The reason it is the same? There will be about $4 trillion in the Social Security trust fund either way. The reason it is the same either way is all surpluses in the Social Security trust fund are by law invested in government bonds and government debt instruments. Those government debt instruments will protect the Social Security trust fund in either case.

Again, I want to make clear, the way to protect the Social Security trust fund is to stop overspending our budget. The way to protect the Social Security trust fund is to stop running deficits and start, once again, as we were in the late 1990s, paying down the national debt, giving greater strength and resiliency to our economy and confidence in our ability to repay these debts as they come due.

Let's not get ourselves caught up in this debate about whether taxes and tax cuts are bad or good. Those who debate this issue on the floor and criticize the President primarily have two messages: The first is, they want to blame the tax relief of the past few years for all of the economic problems our Nation has faced in the last 3 or 4 years, when in reality we saw the stock market bubble pop. We were attacked on 9/11 which drove down consumer confidence and drove spending through the roof in terms of the war on terrorism and the effort to defend attacks on our homeland. And we have seen other problems, mainly the uncontrolled increases in entitlement spending that drive spending in this budget.

Over the next few days we will continue to have this debate over whether it is better to have higher taxes and higher spending and somehow spend ourselves into prosperity or whether it is better to have lower taxes and give an economic stimulus to the private sector and to strengthen consumption and then try to control the deficits, thereby stimulating the economy and controlling spending. That is going to be what we debate in one context or another for the rest of this week.

I say to those who are listening, this amendment will essentially accomplish one thing, and that is to put roadblocks in the way of the kind of tax relief for which we have been fighting for the last 3 or 4 years. It doesn't put roadblocks in the way of discretionary spending proposals. It doesn't put roadblocks in the way of entitlement spending increases. It puts roadblocks in the way of efforts to maintain the tax relief that we have had in the past few years. Again, primarily that tax relief which we are targeting and which we are projecting to the Finance Committee in our reconciliation bill is the tax relief that is intended to expire this year: The expansion of the 10-percent tax bracket for those at the lowest level of income tax payment, the marriage tax penalty elimination, and the $1,000-per-child tax credit.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Will the Senator respond to a question?

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a valued staff member who has recently retired. Rosie White joined my staff in June 1994, shortly after I began my service in the U.S. House of Representatives. She has been vital to the operating of my State offices, by providing stability and organization. She has served as my State scheduler for more than 4 years--ever since I was elected to the Senate, and she has done an outstanding job. She has managed to balance the needs and demands from constituents in the State, other staff members, and my family during that time, and she has my utmost admiration for handling it all so well.

Rosie has been active in local Republican politics for many years, and she was extremely involved in local charities, most particularly the Booth Home in Boise and the Salvation Army. Her contributions to Idaho have been many and varied as well as appreciated. She brought vitality and enthusiasm to nearly ever project she tackled, and it was always fun to hear about her experiences. I enjoyed working with her and know that many others join me to extend their best wishes to her as she retires to spend more time with her husband, Cal. She was an asset to my office and I am pleased to call her my friend.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 9, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open and closed session to receive testimony on current and future worldwide threats to the national security of the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 9, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., on pending Committee business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 9, 2004, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding water supply issues in the arid west.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, March 9, 2004, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``The Administration's International Trade Agenda.''

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 9, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a Members Briefing on Iraq Post Conflict Reconstruction.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 9, 2004, at 10 a.m. for a hearing titled ``Postal Reform: Sustaining the 9 Million Jobs in the $900 Billion Mailing Industry (Day One).''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on A Year Round College Calendar: Advantages and Impediments during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 9, 2004, for a hearing on S. 1509, the ``Eric and Brian Simon Act of 2003'', to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide a gratuity to veterans, their spouses, and children who contract HIV or AIDS as a result of a blood transfusion relating to a service-connected disability, and for other purposes.

The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 9, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Tuesday, March 9, 2004 from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: H.R. 1446 and S. 1306, to support the efforts of the California Missions Foundation to restore and repair the Spanish colonial and mission-era missions in the State of California and to preserve the artworks and artifacts of these missions, and for other purposes; and H.R. 1521, to provide for additional lands to be included within the boundary of the Johnstown Flood National Memorial in the State of Pennsylvania, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 9, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on military readiness programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005.

The PRESIDING OFFICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to respond to some of the comments that have been made. I have been listening to the debate for the last 3 or 4 hours. It brought back a lot of memories to me.

I ran for Congress about 12 years ago, to the House of Representatives. I got elected and spent 6 years there before I then ran for the Senate. In my first race for the Congress we had a giant deficit. We had deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars range for years. I ran on a platform of balancing the Federal budget. This is the debate we had at that time.

First, there were those who said you can't balance the Federal budget or, if you could, it would be bad for the management of the Federal budget and we couldn't run the Federal Government very well if we didn't use deficit spending. That argument was debunked when, after about 6 or 7 years of effort starting in about 1994, we did balance the Federal budget. Frankly, we did very well running the Federal Government, paying down the national debt, and making a lot of fiscal progress.

The other argument that was made back then when I ran for Congress, and which is still being made and is the argument that is being made today, only in a different way, was we had to have

higher taxes and higher spending in order to have a successful society in America. We could not stop the tax increasing, we could not stop the increased Federal spending, because it was best for all Americans that we have a large, powerful, centralized Federal Government that had increasingly more control over the economy; that we nationalize our health care system; that we increasingly find Federal solutions to problems as they exist throughout society; and that the private sector simply could not provide the solutions that were needed.

It was the age-old battle of taxing and spending and a centralized, large, powerful Federal Government versus those who believed we should get the tax rates reduced, lower the tax take of this Federal Government from our economy, let the economy have the stimulus that would thereby be generated by letting people and businesses have more control of the individual decisions about the use of their resources, and try to control the deficit and the size of the Federal Government by controlling spending.

Those were two objectives for which many of us fought. I was there in Congress when we fought for and got a balanced budget. The first objective was to balance the Federal budget, to stop spending more than we were raising in revenue. The second objective was to reduce the size of the Federal Government. Many of us felt it had grown too large, that its reach was too far, and that it impeded the ability of the American people to have the kind of choices in their own lives, in their own businesses, they needed in order to achieve the American dream. It was a classic, age-old battle in American politics, and we are hearing it on the floor today.

As I have listened during the last number of hours, I have heard attacks primarily on the President. There has not been a lot of mention of the actual budget that is on the floor today. There has been some, but not a lot. Most of the attacks have been on the President, saying the economy is in bad shape, we don't have as many jobs as we want, we have a terrible circumstance facing us fiscally in this country, the deficit is high and we need to do something about it. It has been posed here that everybody should see we have a problem and, in fact, I think we all do see we have a problem. But as I have been listening to the solutions that have been proposed by those who attack the President, I have seen two solutions. One is they attack the tax cuts in the last 2 or 3 years and apparently would like to see those taxes raised. In other words, increase taxes. That is one of the proposed solutions. The other solution is spend more money.

There are a lot of very important programs that will be brought up. Some have been brought up today. Others will be brought up throughout this week.

As we debate this budget, I think you will see it will come down to that age-old argument I debated when I first ran for Congress 12 years ago and that we have debated virtually every year in one guise or another since that time. There will be those who want to blame every problem we have in this country on the fact we cut taxes a few times in the last 3 years and that we are not spending enough money in the Federal budget, that we need higher taxes and more spending, and that will solve our social and fiscal ills.

There are others of us who will argue that by cutting taxes we are able to stimulate the economy, stimulate investment in capital, give people the ability to consume, and thereby give greater confidence and strength to the economy, and certainly give people more control over what happens with the dollars they earn than they would have had if they were taxed on those dollars and sent those dollars to Washington.

The budget we actually have before us today is one that does maintain our effort to stimulate our investment in capital. It does give and strengthen and protect the tax relief to all taxpayers so we can have stronger consumer spending and stronger consumer confidence. It builds up and focuses on strengthening the infrastructure, especially in our rural areas where we need so much to have a strong investment in the infrastructure so we can have stronger economic development potential. This budget focuses on controlling spending.

Remember, I said there were two objectives we fought for early on. One was to balance the budget, the other was to control the immense growth of the Federal Government. You can actually balance this budget by simply raising taxes. It is a mathematical calculation. You figure out how far you are out of balance, how much spending you have done beyond your means and beyond your revenue, and raise taxes to meet it. You can balance the budget. But by doing so you have totally ignored one of the more important priorities we should have here, and that is to identify the right size of the Federal Government; to recognize the tenth amendment that said there was an important role for the Federal Government, but that those powers not specifically given to the Federal Government were reserved to the States and to the people respectively. That is the kind of debate you will see played out in one context or another throughout the remainder of this week.

It has been said there is no provision for the war against terror in this budget. Actually, the budget we are debating on the floor today provides for a $30 billion threshold for a supplemental appropriation for our spending, if we need it, in the war against terror.

It has been said the tax cuts that were passed by this Congress in the past few years are the problem we are dealing with today. I think that is interesting because I believe most Americans realize the tax cuts that were passed in the last few years all had expiration dates on them because, as a result of some of the procedures here in the Senate, we could not get permanent tax relief. So those tax cuts over the next 10 years are going to start expiring. The first three of those tax cuts to expire, to go away, will happen this year. If this budget is not adopted, then the people who got that tax relief are going to lose it and their taxes are going to go back up.

To listen to the debate you would think the tax relief that was passed by this Congress was solely focused on the wealthy.

As a matter of fact, it has been pointed out that because the wealthy in this country pay so much of the taxes, when there is tax relief they get a large part of the tax relief that comes back to them. But the tax relief we passed was weighted percentagewise more for the lower and middle classes. You can either look at it in terms of dollars or in terms of percentages. But the percentage the wealthy pay of the income tax in this country went up after the last tax cut--not down--because the greater percentage of focus was on the middle and lower classes.

It is three of the taxes that hit and support those middle and lower classes that are coming up for expiration this year. The first is the expansion of the 20-percent income tax bracket by expanding the amount of income tax at the 20-percent level. We gave a broad level of tax relief to those who pay the lowest level of tax in this country. That will expire this year if this budget is not adopted.

The second is the marriage tax penalty. The elimination of the marriage tax penalty will expire this year if this budget is not adopted.

Third, the $1,000 child tax credit.

Those who stand on the floor here and say all the tax relief we passed in the last few years is devastating this economy are going to get a chance to vote this year on whether to let those tax cuts stay in place. I predict the support on both sides of the aisle for maintaining those tax cuts is going to be very broad. Those tax cuts were directed at those in the very middle and lower income classes which the tax relief bills focused on in an effort to reform the code.

But then it is true there were other parts of that tax relief which did benefit those who are in upper income brackets. If you listen to the debate today, I guess you would assume if we went back and eliminated those tax cuts, the economy would be fine, employment would go back, the deficit would be eliminated, and probably all other ills we have heard about today would go away.

What are these tax cuts we are talking about? There are a number of them. But one of the most important, in my mind, was cutting in half the tax rate on dividends, undoubtedly one of the

strongest things we could do to encourage investment in the capital structure in our Nation.

Another was the acceleration of depreciation for small businesses so they could get a little bit better handle on growing their small businesses rather than sending their small business revenues to the Government in Washington.

Another was to give those sole proprietorships--those small businesses that were sole proprietorships--the opportunity to have their tax brackets reduced.

I believe if you eliminate those tax relief measures, you are going to reduce the ability of our small businesses in this country to be resilient and you are going to reduce the investment in capital in this economy, and you will see the strength of the economy go down, not up.

But that is the debate we are having over whether we should have more taxes and that is better for the economy or whether we should have reform of our Tax Code and reduce taxes in those areas that discourage proper tax policy.

I would like to talk for a minute about what did happen.

Again, to hear the debate in the last few hours you would think the entire economic difficulty we face today in our Nation is a result of that portion of the tax relief we gave previously which went to those who were not in the lower and middle-class tax categories. What in reality happened was we had a stock bubble growth in this country that popped. The confidence in the stock market dropped precipitously. Following that, there was an attack on 9/11 in which terrorists attacked us on our homeland soil in one of the rare times in the history of our country where that has happened. As a response to that, the economy dipped even further. Consumer confidence waned. Following that, we have had some scandals--some debacles with the WorldCom problem, the Enron problem, and consumer confidence in the marketplace went even further into the tank and the economy started dipping even further.

Frankly, to blame all of the problems we have had on tax relief for the wealthy is a vast oversimplification. What happened as a result of all of these things is the economy went way into the tank, and revenue to the Federal Government went through the floor. As a result of that, we did not have the kind of revenue we had projected we would have.

In addition, our spending went through the roof. We responded to the war against terrorism by rebuilding New York and Washington, DC, giving support to those who had been attacked here on our homeland soil by developing a new Department of Homeland Security, increasing the measures and the support we put into defending our homeland, and we have prosecuted a war against terror across the globe which has involved two wars, not to mention the overall extent of the cost of fighting terrorists on many fronts. As a result, spending has gone through the roof.

There is one other thing, by the way, that made spending go through the roof. About two-thirds of the Federal budget is on autopilot, mandatory spending this budget can't control with much success, and that simply goes on growing regardless of the state of the economy. The entitlement programs of this country have an autopilot status that causes increased growth regardless of what is happening in the economy. That is another one of the big pressures on the spending in Washington.

Those are the things that are really going on here which we ought to be debating. But instead, it is a Presidential election year and everything is the fault of the President because he cut taxes, because he won't support enough new spending. The President would love to support spending on all of the pet projects and all of the very important and valuable items in the budget which because of these deficits we face he has had to control. The President, I am sure, would love on a number of these issues to support additional funding. But he has said that outside of our national defense and outside of our homeland security, he is going to try to hold the growth of the spending at the Federal level to less than one-half of 1 percent on the rest of the budget. He is going to do so because in addition to recognizing we have to deal with our deficit problems through good tax policy and through stimulation of the economy, because it is a strong economy that will help us get out of this, if anything will, he also recognizes the other side of the coin is we have to solve this problem through focusing on the spending side of this budget.

Last year, when we had a similar budget before this Congress and before this Senate, we had something in the neighborhood of 80 amendments to the budget. I would bet there are going to be dozens and dozens of amendments to this budget. Last year we defeated most of those amendments because we had budget points of order and a requirement of 60 votes in order to break this budget. Last year, we defeated almost every one of those 80 or 81 amendments. If my memory serves me correctly, there was something in the neighborhood of $800 billion in new spending over a 10-year cycle in those 80 to 81 amendments which we defeated. Certainly, every one of them had a constituency, every one of them had a valid reason why it was a good proposal for a good cause for some spending to be made. But we had to try to control this deficit. That is what we did. That is what we will do again.

I am sure as these proposals are made and as efforts to attack this budget are made, almost all of them will be couched in the argument that it is the tax cut on the wealthy which has made this problem for us, and simply taxing the wealthy more will solve this problem for us. We can tax the wealthy and spend the money and we will be fine in this country.

You can only pursue that line of thought to a certain point. I am sure it has already been said here on the floor by others, but that top 1 percent and that top 5 percent already pay the vast majority of the income tax in this country. The last tax relief we gave made their percentage share of the taxes in this country grow, not go down. At a certain point, we have to realize we will have a strong economy, and we will have a strong Federal budget if we hold the line on tax increases and hold the line on spending and pay attention to both balancing the budget and trying to maintain the correct size of this Federal Government.

There are many more things that need to be said. I unfortunately have an appointment in just a few minutes to which I have to go. But there will be a lot of debate that will go on during this week as we clash over the proper fiscal policies of this Government.

I encourage everyone in this country who listens to the debate this week to listen to it with an understanding of what is really being debated. It is the age-old fight between those who want higher taxes and higher spending and a more powerful, centralized Federal Government with an increasing reach into the economy, and those who want to keep taxes lower, who believe that is a stimulus to the economy, and who want to downsize and rightsize the Federal Government. In one way or another, virtually all of the debate we will have this week will focus on that issue.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to honor Sandy Ashworth who was recently nominated by President Bush to serve on the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, NCLIS, and confirmed by the Senate on January 26, 2004. In her capacity as a Commissioner, Sandy will provide advice to the President, Congress, and other policy makers on the library and information needs of the nation and the policies and plans necessary to meet those needs. Sandy's skills and experience will serve her well as she helps to shape the policy of the nation in this important area.

As 1 of only 12 appointees, Sandy's confirmation to the Commission is quite an honor. I know from first-hand experience that this recognition is well deserved. Sandy runs the Boundary County Library in Bonners Ferry, a facility I was pleased to visit recently. Each of the four full time and six part-time staff members are bringing neighbors and families together, promoting literacy, and providing educational and cultural resources to many who might not have them otherwise. Sandy has created a model library that provides an impressive range of services to several rural communities. Her excellence is well-known, and recognition of her work has preceded this nomination. In 2002, First Lady Laura Bush presented the library with one of the prestigious Institute of Museum and Library Services' National Awards for Museum and Library Service. In 2003, Sandy was also named one of ``Idaho's Brightest Stars,'' an award given to those who make a difference in the lives of children and families.

Truly, Sandy is one who has made a difference. She has worked diligently and with great effect for the citizens of Boundary County. I am certain she will bring the same energy to her new post and continue to have a positive impact as she represents Idaho in the NCLIS. Today, I join with her coworkers, family, and friends in honoring her contributions to the State of Idaho.

Mr. President, Idaho is known as the Gem State. I rise today to recognize a diamond among our community gems that has gained the attention of Sunset magazine. Every year, Sunset selects a group of neighborhoods, cities, and towns which readers have nominated as ``best places to live.'' I am proud to say that Sandpoint, ID, a small community in the panhandle has earned the distinction of ``Best Small Town'' in January 2004.

Sandpoint sits tucked away in the Selkirk Mountain Range, approximately 50 miles south of the Canadian border. It borders Lake Pend Oreille, the largest freshwater lake in Idaho, and is 9 miles from the well-known ski resort, Schweitzer Basin. Sandpoint is a diverse community of about 7,500 people who have occupations ranging from retail businessperson, logger, doctor, attorney, vintner, millworker, herbalist, teacher, and builder. Tourism, timber, and a thriving arts community call attention to the complexity and wonderful character of Sandpoint.

This honor bestowed by the readers of Sunset magazine indicates the efforts Sandpoint residents have made to work together to create a warm, inviting community which upholds values of

family and prioritizes preservation of the incredible natural beauty that surrounds this precious gem of Idaho. I commend the community and its leaders for their continuing commitment to making Sandpoint ``the best.''

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an up-and- coming resort community in my home State of Idaho. The Washington Post Travel Section recently chose the Top Ten domestic travel ``Hot Spots'' for 2004. Lake Cascade, ID was one of the destinations selected. With the construction of the first ski, golf, and lake resort in the Nation in over 20 years, the Tamarack, Lake Cascade is poised to join the ranks of Idaho's nationally renowned resort communities.

Lake Cascade will gain valuable jobs, nationwide notoriety, and welcome economic growth from the Tamarack. I commend the business and community leaders for their commitment to rural development. Lake Cascade is the gateway to the Frank Church Wilderness Area, a place of stunning beauty, largely undisturbed by man. The town has a wonderful history as a playground for outdoor enthusiasts of all types, and draws visitors from many places. I look forward to watching this burgeoning Idaho community as it embarks on a new chapter in its history.

Mr. President, today I honor over 158 individuals and organizations working every day to make Idaho a great place to live. I'm talking about the recipients of the Spirit of Idaho Award. I created this award almost 3 years ago to recognize and bring attention to the many deeds of service that happen in local Idaho communities that are not always recognized by the media or the general public. Recipients of this award improve lives every day with their selfless giving and shining examples. I would like to take a moment today and recognize each of these outstanding individuals.

Kamrud Jacobson delivers newspapers in Twin Falls. While completing his route one day, Kamrud noticed unusual smoke coming from the chimney of a nearby house. He quickly asked a neighbor to call 911. The Fire Department responded and put out a growing house fire. Kamrud's vigilant actions effectively saved the house from burning to the ground. Kamrud's efforts embody the qualities of service and

selflessness the Spirit of Idaho award hopes to recognize.

Alex and Jay Phelps are truly life-savers for one woman. The two, who deliver newspapers in Twin Falls, noticed several newspapers piling up at a particular house on their route. Concerned by this development, the boys explained the situation to their mother, who then contacted authorities. The boys were right to be concerned; the resident of the house had had a stroke and was in need of medical care. As a result of the efforts of these two boys, the resident was rescued and received medical care.

Ten members of the Wood River Winter Recreation Coalition in Sun Valley worked together for hundreds of hours on a volunteer basis to offer a community-based, historic recreation agreement that will be implemented in the Sawtooth National Forest. The members crafted what is often extremely difficult to create: a collaborative solution to a perplexing problem. Both user groups and our forest are the beneficiaries of the Coalition's outstanding work.

Barbara Dehl of Nampa authored and lobbied the Idaho State Legislature and the U.S. Congress for passage of ``Cassie's Law,'' a law intended to prevent abusive dating relationships, as well as assist victims of such abuse. Ms. Dehl courageously battled for this legislation at both the State and Federal level after the tragic death of her daughter Cassie in December of 1999. She has been the catalyst behind important progress in the fight against violence.

Idaho Working Partners, through Janet Miller their State Chairwoman, are models of community service, assisting numerous organizations in and around Boise. The Salvation Army, the Hope House, and the Booth Family Center, to name a few, have all been helped. Food drives, donations for flood ravaged areas, and Christmas projects for the needy have been just a few of the outstanding projects engaged in by Idaho Working Partners. They are to be commended for their efforts.

Dr. Dan Prinzing, Social Studies and Curricular Materials Coordinator for Idaho's State Department of Education and a former teacher for the Boise School District, is Idaho's first contact for projects, scholarships, and special programs in areas of civics, U.S. history and government, economics, and responsible citizenship. Dr. Prinzing is also an advocate for the need to improve international education for Idaho's students, and works closely with a variety of civic organizations to promote student involvement in programs focusing on an understanding of the U.S. Constitution and state and federal laws.

Jackie Phelps has been an exemplary volunteer with Meals on Wheels in Boise. For many years, she has delivered meals to shut-in seniors who aren't able to pick-up or prepare meals themselves. Jackie has benefited many in need through her constant, dedicated service. I commend her for her caring.

Gail Chumbley and her students at Eagle High School in Boise have worked diligently to honor Idaho veterans. Ms. Chumbley has spearheaded a local effort to document the personal histories of a number of Idaho veterans through classroom assignments where students interview veterans. Her work has earned the notice of the VFW and the Idaho State Historical Society Library and Archives, among others. Chumbley and her students also conducted a drive to raise money for the national World War II veteran's memorial to be built on the Capitol Mall in Washington, DC. Through her work introducing so many Idaho veterans to Idaho school children, Gail Chumbley honors herself, her profession, and all of Idaho's veterans. In addition, her students have demonstrated a respect for past sacrifices and service, and in so doing have enriched their educational experience.

Students at Eagle High School in Boise went the extra mile to help the less fortunate during a recent Christmas season. The Salvation Army enlisted the help of local high schools during their Christmas food drive. Eagle High's generosity was clear as they took in the most poundage of all the local high schools. These students coupled their feelings of compassion with actions of kindness.

Kyle Enzler of Eagle completed a cross-country bicycle trip to raise money and awareness for needy children around the world. Enzler is the founder and organizer of Trek for Kids, the foundation behind his cross-country trek. His journey covered over 4,500 miles in 15 weeks, raising over $1,000 for the cause. Kyle is a great example, choosing to make meaningful contributions in fighting the world's problems.

Sherrill and James Cooper of Lewiston are saints to numerous children they have taken in through over 30 years of caring for young people in need. Children have arrived at their house in Lewiston Orchards at all hours lonely, frightened, traumatized, angry, sometimes hurt and the Coopers have opened their doors and hearts. These wonderful people have also been recognized with the Angels in Adoption award for their work in this critical labor of love.

Blaine County Senior Center of Hailey was honored for the work of their senior citizens on behalf of KidShop, an after school program in the Blaine County School District. The seniors raised $5,000 through the Festival of Trees to provide healthy snacks to the children. The endeavor was also very successful in bridging the generation gap and allowing ``juniors and seniors'' to get to know one another. Each of these seniors is to be commended for supporting this very important endeavor.

Pete Mecham of Idaho Falls received the Sammy Award. The Sammy Award recognizes outstanding scholar athletes based on academic performance, athletic excellence, leadership, and community service. With over 19,000 applicants and just 25 recipients, Pete's award is quite an honor. His activities and honors, which are nearly too numerous to mention, include National Honor Society, High School Seminary President, Eagle Scout, numerous wrestling championships, and the U.S. Marine Corps Distinguished Athlete Award.

Pam Davison of Malad works for the USDA Rural Development office in Blackfoot and has spent many hours working with Southeast Idaho senior citizens to improve their homes under a Federal self-help program. Through the program and Pam's dedicated work, seniors have been able to winterize their homes and save money on energy bills. In times of tight budgets and rising energy prices, the help Pam has provided to our seniors is invaluable.

Jay Heuser of Preston has worked diligently in economic development for the city of Preston. His outstanding projects include a business incubator, new water tank, and city industrial park improvements. Jay has been a dedicated public servant, serving as mayor, and improving the lives of the residents of Preston.

Rosa Moosman of Montpelier is the editor and manager of The News Examiner. Rosa has reported on lumber and Forest Service issues in a professional and polished manner for the community. In a State with a large lumber industry, this reporting has been an invaluable public service. She has also been a great example for journalists statewide.

Jensen Lumber Company of Montpelier uses small-diameter timber in productive ways. A necessary component of healthy national forests is the thinning of these small trees, and Jensen Lumber has put these trees to good use. In doing so, they have made great economic contributions to the community.

Heritage Safe Company is a model to many businesses, and an economic force in the community of Grace. Heritage Safe started as a small business in a small town. However, it is quickly becoming one of the country's largest makers of gun safes. Heritage Safe Company is recognized for its economic contributions to the community.

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Idaho Red Cross volunteers responded by the dozens. These selfless life-savers provide relief to victims of disasters and help people prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies. In times of need, these individuals have come forward to help. These volunteers included: Richard Kaylor, Mary Wolf, Cheryle Andrews, Glenda Loomis, Cindy Bahora, Allison Mallow, Marlene Bailey, Jim Manring, Marva Barnes, Brooks Mathern, Julie Benintendi, Gordon McAllister, Robert Bones, Carol McAllister, Steve Button,

Linda McGuire, Farrell Byington, Tempe McFarlane, Bonnie Capell, Joseph Morisette, Sherri Carpenter, Lynette Muson, Ben Cavaness, Roger Olson, David Chehey, Kathlene Parsons, Richard Cripe, Shirley Perkins, Frank Dalley, Ray Ragan, Julie Dillehay, Lorraine Roberts, Kathy Dutt, William Roberts, Germaine Eslinger, Carolyne Rucker, Lynn Farnworth, Susan Saldin, Sarah Farnworth, Kent Schaufelberger, Sean Farrell, Rick Sonnenberg, Gloria Fastabend, Cynthia Schulze, Richard Fesler, Barbara Stevens, Leslie Freeman, Joseph ``Bill'' Stevens, Jim Fulfer, Colleen Stevens, Michele Gamblin, James Stumpf, Rich Gorman, Jennifer Swanberg, Jeri Gowen, Donna Taylor, Gina Gridley, Jana Thomas, Jim Grigg, Terry Tippery, Oreanna Harless, Steve R. Tryk, Susan Hill, Barbara Webster, Allen Howard, Patsy Walton, Rick Huffard, Daniel Weigel, Ronald Jacques, Phillip White, Sharon Katz, Mimsi Wise, Rich Kaylor, Stephanie Witt, Edward Kinghorn, Mary Wolf, and Daunna Kirkham of Boise, Nampa, Meridian, McCall, Arco, Lewiston, Idaho Falls, Eagle, Coeur d'Alene, Black Foot, Kimberly, Moscow, Rathdrum, Rexburg, and Terreton.

Mark Langlois, Robert Macfarlane, James Pollard, and David Larson of Idaho Falls are Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory engineers who assisted recovery efforts in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC, following the tragic events of September 11, 2001. At a time of great need and obvious peril, these selfless individuals rushed to help their countrymen.

Dan O'Brien, a name you may know for his Olympic competitions, has diligently served the cause of youth sports in Moscow. His dedication not only serves the youth of Moscow, but also the community as a whole. His hard work and dedication have been recognized on several fronts, receiving not only the Spirit of Idaho, but also the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association Hero Award. I commend Dan on his outstanding efforts.

Students at Peregrine Elementary of Meridian were chosen by the Red Cross as winners of the ``Your Coins Count'' statewide campaign not once, but twice. The ``Your Coins Count'' campaign offers schools educational programs about Red Cross services and history, then asks students to collect spare change and donate the money to the Red Cross in support of local services like disaster relief. These students' shining example proves that each of us can make a difference in the lives of others.

The fight against child pornography needs more warriors like those at the FBI child pornography unit in Pocatello. This unit analyzes illegal computer traffic in order to find and prosecute those that are victimizing children. Each of our children are safer thanks to the work of these dedicated professionals.

Moscrip Family and Bandana's Running and Walking Shop of New Plymouth have been pillars of support for young people wishing to participate in the local high school cross country and track programs. For the past three years these two groups have joined to provide affordable running shoes to local youth involved in the cross country and track programs at the New Plymouth High School. As a strong supporter of healthy living, I applaud the efforts of these two organizations.

Ana Marie Schachtell has served the cities of Nampa and Treasure Valley well, organizing the Fiesta Idaho events. This event helps groups with differing backgrounds to come together in a spirit of understanding and respect. Under Ana's leadership and vision the annual Fiesta Idaho celebration has blossomed into a major event celebrated each fall in several locations in and around Nampa.

Jim Olson and George Gorino are Boise American Legion members. In addition to their service in this organization, and their military service for our country, these two have gone the extra mile to honor the victims of September 11, 2001, as well as military personnel involved in the war on terror. As a result of their dedication, a monument and flag have been erected on Freezeout Hill in Gem County honoring these groups. Today, it is Jim and George who are honored.

John Jackson of Nampa owns the successful Jackson Food Stores, and has used his success to help others. John donated funds to build an indoor track and field facility next to the Idaho Center. The facility is very important to the Boise State University track team, as well as local youth and adult track clubs. The site is also scheduled to host some significant competitions in the coming years. John's selfless and important donation has also spurred additional economic development in the area.

Wiley Dobbs of Twin Falls has served as an Idaho Congressional Award Board Member since 1993, where he has spent thousands of hours working as a student advisor, making presentations to different groups, and talking to parents. Idaho leads the United States in the number of participants in this prestigious award program and the Twin Falls region leads the way in Idaho, thanks in large part to Wiley and his associates.

Sixteen-year-old Jessy Peterson of Castleford saved a man's life in December 2002. As he headed home late one evening, Jessy spotted a fire burning in the garage of a house. Jessy was able to successfully awaken the resident of the house, who escaped without harm. He then went one step further and helped the resident to extinguish the fire. Jessy's courageous actions speak to his depth of character.

Bob Harmon of Meridian is a hero in the war on terror, but he doesn't wear a uniform or carry a gun. Bob owns Harmon Travel and used his business to support our troops. He donated airline tickets for family members to attend the burial of a soldier killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Bob Harmon gave freely to help a military family in a time of need.

Scott Andrews of Blackfoot is the Bingham County Prosecutor. As part of his efforts to keep his county safe and make the Prosecutor's Office more accessible, Scott has created a new website. The website: www.co.bingham.id.us/prosecutor/prosecuting_attorney.htm, provides people with quick and easy access to important information about matters handled by the Prosecutor's Office, including information on victim and witness services, the public record, and legal research links. Scott has made our judicial system more responsive with his innovative approach to his office.

Taylor and Alyssa Jenson's story is truly touching. These two Pocatello sisters literally gave of themselves to help others less fortunate than they. Seeing the needs of cancer victims, Taylor and Alyssa cut and donated their long hair to make wigs for those who had lost their hair as a result of chemotherapy. They are to be commended for this exceptional act of service.

Jared Helm is a senior at Lewiston High School. He is dedicated to volunteering and making the community a better place. He is also a role model for younger children and stresses the importance of volunteering to them. Last year he volunteered over 450 hours, has a 4.0 GPA, and is a Lewiston High School Student Body officer. Such commitment embodies ``The Spirit of Idaho.''

``Grandma'' Gay Reese plays an important role for the ``America Reads'' program every day at Lincoln Elementary School in Twin Falls. For the past five years, she has helped young students learn to read. Gay's remarkable dedication has helped to instill a life-long love of reading within several hundred Magic Valley children. In addition, she has been instrumental in recruiting new Grandparents to the America Reads program. ``Grandma'' Reese embodies the selfless service honored by the Spirit of Idaho award.

The Hospice of Eastern Idaho provides a full range of supportive services for terminally ill individuals and their families while they are in the latter stages of a terminal illness. This critical service depends largely on volunteers. The following individuals have given of their time and talents for the benefit of others:

Donna Stone has been a Hospice Volunteer for three years. Last year she provided 195 volunteer hours for one patient, consistently showing up twice a week to give respite care for the patient's husband for two to three hours at a time. Her willingness and faithfulness week after week are inspiring.

Since becoming volunteers in spring 2002, Buck and Debbie Horton have each worked almost 200 volunteer

hours for many different families under the care of the Hospice. They are both retired and have dedicated themselves to helping others in the community. Those at the Hospice of Eastern Idaho are fortunate to be able to call upon these outstanding individuals at any time to help patients and their families.

Larry and Evelyn Miller are Mormon missionaries, assigned to the Hospice of Eastern Idaho by the LDS Church. They serve as volunteer spiritual liaisons for patients and families, but also are available to give families respite care when needed. These volunteers have given hundreds of hours of respite care to many in need.

Donna Meyer has been a Hospice Volunteer since 1994 and has put in over a 100 hours helping patients. Since 2002, she has been visiting and reading to one particular patient who does not speak. Donna reads to her and puts cream on her face and hands to let her know that someone cares. Recently she purchased a bird feeder to place outside the patient's window so she might enjoy watching the birds. Donna connects with this woman, even though there is not a word spoken during the visit.

Dorothy Wayne has been a Hospice Volunteer since 1989 and has given over 100 hours to a variety of patients. She has traveled extra miles to stay with patients when necessary, often during the evening hours or even on weekends when needed. She is a retired nurse and uses her excellent training and experience to the benefit of all involved with the Hospice.

Fern Jones has been a Hospice Volunteer for 10 years while continuing to work full time. She has spent over 100 hours visiting patients during her lunch hour, after work, or on weekends when necessary. Soon she will retire. I am confident that her self-sacrificing spirit will continue to shine as she carries on with her important work.

Bob Siedelmann has been a Hospice Volunteer since 1999, and has volunteered for over 100 hours of service. He is always willing to stay with a patient, even if he has to change his plans to make the time work. Recently he attended the early service at his church so that he could be with a patient by 10:30 a.m. on Sunday. Bob's help and caring have improved the lives of many of the Hospice's male patients.

Vince Aquino has always been willing to visit with any patient, even if that patient did not know he was there and could not communicate with him. He has spent many hours in the secure units of more than one nursing home to be with patients suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's. He has been a Hospice Volunteer since 1999, putting in over 100 hours of service.

Connie Staffel is a professional counselor who works full-time at Eastern Idaho Technical College. Since becoming a volunteer last October, Connie has worked many Saturdays to facilitate a support group for grieving family members. In addition she has been available for patient care when her schedule permits. With her specialized training and experience, Connie has been a valuable resource for the Hospice.

Leora Cornia, a volunteer first with District 7 and now with Hospice of Eastern Idaho, has given 100 hours to a variety of patients. She is willing to give of her time to any and all that need her, though I am told her favorite activity is conversing with patients. Leora's service is invaluable to the Hospice and its patients.

Jim McCue is a volunteer who began with District 7 and now works with Hospice of Eastern Idaho. Jim has spent countless volunteer hours listening intently to his patients. He prefers to report on his visits in poetic form, and after visiting his most recent patient wrote: ``I can already see it getting harder, I can already see it ending hard. I can already see it lasting too long, and not long enough.'' The Hospice Staff appreciates his insight and poetry as they work to assist the Hospice's patients.

When the Hospice had patients in the St. Anthony, Rexburg area, Barry Leeck of Chester was, for an extended period, the only volunteer close enough to be of assistance. He has always been willing to fit patients into his work schedule, and often visits patients after work or on his days off. His volunteer hours also include helping the Hospice office with clerical matters. I commend him for his service.

Domestic violence is a terribly destructive, hurtful thing. The victims of this horror need help and protection. The Family Service Alliance of Pocatello provides this support. Many women and children in southeast Idaho have been the beneficiaries of the safe haven provided by the Alliance. This organization also provides counseling to victims of rape. This important organization is truly representative of the ``Spirit of Idaho.''

It was an honor to present the Spirit of Idaho award to a group of dialysis patients from Coeur d'Alene. This group rides stationary bicycles to remain healthy during treatment. The group collectively set a goal to ride the miles equivalent to a biking trip across the United States. Their journey had a special destination for me--they were pedaling to Crapo, Maryland. As a result, this group is affectionately called the ``Crapo Bikers.'' Day after day, these dedicated individuals biked for miles, moving a pin across the map of the United States. Despite adversity this group reached their goal. Their resolute determination stands as an example for all.

Jenny Busdon, a world champion gold medal recipient in cross country skiing, has worked on multiple fundraising projects over the past decade to benefit the Harriman Trail system and Galena Lodge in Sun Valley. She promotes increased participation in cross country skiing and overall awareness of the sport. As a strong supporter of healthy living, and an avid sportsman, I applaud Jenny's efforts.

Carol Harlig of Ketchum is a two-time breast cancer survivor who mentors others with the disease and serves on numerous community boards for breast cancer awareness. She also serves at the Ketchum Library. Recently she also put together care packages for Blaine County troops stationed in Iraq. Even with all of these important responsibilities, Carol finds time to mentor at-risk elementary school children. She is a great example for others in Idaho.

I honor all Spirit of Idaho recipients, past and future, for their exceptional contributions and accomplishments. It is a privilege to pay tribute to these individuals for their important efforts on behalf of the citizens and communities of the great State of Idaho.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor two of my staff members who not only are integral for my office operations, but have filled the same needs for two previous Idaho Senators. For over 20 years Jim and Chas Grant have worked on the staffs of Idaho Senators in the U.S. Senate. These Caldwell, ID, natives began their service in the offices of Senator Steve Symms in the early 1980s. They remained to work with his successor, Senator Dirk Kempthorne, and now they fill a vital role in my office.

Chas and Jim are without peer when it comes to knowing the people of Idaho. Through their work in constituent mail, they have processed hundreds of thousands of constituent letters. That incredible number is a testament not only to the Grants' longevity, but also to their great dedication. The Grants read and carefully sort each letter, ensuring prompt response from my office. In the 5 years that Jim and Chas have directed the constituent mail program for me, the number of letters, faxes, and e-mails has consistently grown, reaching over 45,000 last year. It is a tribute to the Grants that they have effectively handled this large increase in mail. Constituents often express their satisfaction with the quick, accurate responses to their inquiries. It is the hard work of the Grants that makes these quick responses possible.

While they work side-by-side, they most definitely have provided tremendous individual contributions to my office.

Chas Grant was born and raised in Idaho. He graduated from Caldwell High School in 1972, and later received a B.A. in history from Boise State in 1977. Chas began working on Capitol Hill for the Postmaster in 1981. Since that time he has worked for Senator Symms, then Senator and now Governor Dirk Kempthorne, and myself.

Jim Grant grew up in Idaho, where he attended Caldwell schools. He graduated from Caldwell High School in 1975. From there, Jim attended Gallaudet in Washington, DC, where he earned a bachelor of arts in English. He began working for Senator Symms on July 18, 1983. During his time working in the Senate he has assisted three Idaho Senators: Symms, Kempthorne, and myself. We have all benefited greatly from his service.

I asked Senator Symms and Governor Kempthorne to contribute to this statement, as I know they valued the Grant's contributions as much as I do.

From Governor Dirk Kempthorne: ``Jim Grant was a dedicated and dependable employee in my Senate office for six years. His work ethic and `can-do' attitude was a pleasure to be around. As with many of us, he has had to overcome personal challenges, but has served the citizens of Idaho well. His hard work was truly appreciated, and he has been a tremendous public servant for the citizens of Idaho.

``Chas Grant was always ready to help resolve any problems that came up with constituent mail. His common sense view and solutions put the constituent first, and provided me with a smooth running mail operation. Chas faced personal challenges, and always found a way to make certain that his work responsibilities were met. His tenure as a public servant has been remarkable for many reasons, and I thank him for his years of service.''

And from Senator Steve Symms: ``Congratulations, Jim and Chas, on your many years of exemplary service. On behalf of Steve Symms, Governor Kempthorne, the members of my staff, and other Senate staffers that have benefited from your work: we honor you today. Thank you for your great work!''

Since Jim and Chas started in the Senate, many things have changed. When Chas came to Washington, Ronald Reagan had just been elected President and Pac-Man was the latest craze. When Jim started in '83, camcorders and ``Just Say No'' had just been introduced. In the Senate, we have gone through 24 sessions of Congress and have made changes like allowing TV cameras to cover all the happenings on the Senate floor. Even mailrooms have become increasingly complicated as e-mail and fax messages have been added to traditional letters as means of long- distance communication.

One constant that has been, however, is Jim and Chas Grant's dedicated service to the members of the Senate and the people of Idaho. Also unchanged is the Grants' untiring work ethic and commitment to their job. I have appreciated their talent, experience, and knowledgeable assistance in my office. Jim and Chas recently went out of town for an extended period and the rest of my staff stepped in to keep up with the barrage of mail over that time. Trying to fill in for the Grants gave everyone a better appreciation of the important role the Grants play in the office. We were all very glad to have them back, as we realized we weren't that great doing their jobs. I look forward to having them around for as long as they intend to be.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor an Idahoan who will soon celebrate his 88th birthday, Payette native Jack K. Norris. Jack is a hero, not only for Idaho, but for the entire Nation. Jack was born in Payette, ID, on November 30, 1915, but he has spent much of his life in service to our country. He was a member of the Class of 1939, U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and served throughout the world during World War II. His numerous awards include: a Purple Heart, Silver Star with Oak Leaf Cluster and a V for Valor, Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster, Combat Infantry Badge, Presidential Unit Citation, French Croix de Guerre, Belgian Order of the Crown, Belgian Croix de Guerre, and five European Tour of Duty campaign stars. These many honors speak to his exceptional service to country, and his outstanding military knowledge. This knowledge was cultivated and expanded through years of military courses and training including graduation from the Battalion Commander's Course, Command and General Staff College, British Staff College, Army War College, Army Aviation School-Senior Officers Course, fixed and rotary wing qualification, and Senior Officers Aircraft Maintenance and Logistics course. In his own words, Jack describes his decision to enlist in the Army as: ``probably the best thing that ever happened to me.''

After many years in the Armed Forces, Jack retired from the service. Unable to slow down, he began teaching at North Georgia College, where he was named Commandant of Cadets in the ROTC program. After leaving North Georgia College, and with an insatiable appetite for learning and accomplishment, Jack decided to study law. He received his license and practiced until 1983. Jack did all of these things while caring for the most important individuals in his life: his wife and three children. His tree sons have all made service to country a part of their lives, presumably as a result of their father's influence.

I also want to pay tribute to Jack's wife, Jean Donkers Norris, who passed away in 1983. Much of their lives together revolved around the military. She met her sweetheart at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and married him at the Main Post Chapel in San Antonio, TX. Jean kept the home fires burning while Jack was away at war. She was the model military wife and moved frequently to accommodate Jack's career, and that required many sacrifices on her part. She was always ready to serve--whether it be a meal to a visiting officer or thirty, or to support other military spouses. I wanted to relate a couple of stories about Jean. Once she had to shovel coal for heat in the family's temporary quarters, and commented that she was grateful white gloves were in fashion so she could hide the coal stains on her hands when she had to go out.

When Jack was a post commander, he and Jean visited every soldier who was in the hospital or in jail on Christmas Day and brought them some of her homemade cookies. She was known for her compassion and dedication to her own family as well as the U.S. Army family.

Jack and Jean had a true partnership and were exceptional role models for their children and their daughters-in-law. In today's world, as we again see the necessity of American troops deployed and in action, people like Jack and Jean bring home to us the importance of dedication to family and country. Even during trying, testing times Jack and Jean showed their commitment to a cause and their commitment to each other. Their exceptional example is worthy of praise. I am profoundly grateful for their service to our country. I send Jack all of my best for a very Happy Birthday.

Mr. President, this is truly a historic day. As the Presiding Officer knows, we have worked literally for a decade or more to try to find a path forward in the area of finding a solution to the problems we face in our national forests.

In recent years, we have seen an average of 4 million acres a year burn. We have seen devastating wildfires this

year that have destroyed not only tremendous amounts of property and environment in our forests, but have also taken lives. We have seen insect infestations that have jeopardized the future of one of the most incredible environmental resources we have in America, our forests.

All of it has occurred while we have been battling in the courts, trying to find a path forward simply to allow our forest managers the ability to implement their forest management decisions, to deal with insect infestation, to deal with the threat of catastrophic wildfire, and to help preserve the great legacy we have in America, in our forests.

I stand today to thank those in our Senate conference who have worked with us to build and strengthen the bipartisan solution that has brought us to this point.

Sitting here beside me is the Senator from Mississippi, Thad Cochran, chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Without Senator Cochran's able leadership, without his patience and his wisdom in guiding us through this process, we would not be here today. I want to personally thank him. I thank him, as well, on behalf of a grateful Nation for the skill and the patience he has given us to help bring this bill forward.

Also, I thank Senator Larry Craig, my colleague from Idaho, who has worked on this issue tirelessly for the better part of the last decade to try to help bring America to an understanding of the need for reform, and for helping us work through a bipartisan solution in the Senate. Senator Craig deserves great praise and commendation for his untiring work to help give us the possibility of being here today--just a short time away from successfully passing in both the House and the Senate this Healthy Forests legislation.

Also, Senator Domenici, chairman of the Energy Committee, has worked tirelessly on this issue and he deserves to be thanked for his tremendous efforts. Not many people follow it this closely, but there is forestry jurisdiction in both the Energy Committee and the Agriculture Committee. Senator Cochran chairs the Agriculture Committee, and Senator Domenici the Energy Committee. By coincidence, both of the Idaho Senators chair the respective subcommittees on forestry. Senator Craig chairs the subcommittee on forestry in the Energy Committee, and I chair the forestry subcommittee on the Agriculture Committee. Together, on the Republican side, we have developed a strong team to work in the Senate.

I also thank Senator Blanche Lincoln, from Arkansas, for stepping forward as the ranking member on the forestry subcommittee and working with me to develop the senate bill that set the mark for improving this legislation and moving it through the Senate. We then expanded that bipartisan base and worked with Senators Feinstein from California, Wyden from Oregon, and others, including additional Republicans and Democrats, all of whom came together to bring a bipartisan solution to the Chamber.

It was not easy. There were many who wanted to use this issue to further their political efforts, to either cause further strife and conflict on the issue surrounding our forests or to simply promote some agenda that was not consistent with our efforts to move forward on a bipartisan basis to protect and preserve our forests.

We fought many battles over the last 2 or 3 months, and they were the resulting, concluding battles in a crescendo that has been developing over the last decade. When we were done, we needed to work with the House of Representatives. There was concern at that point. There was actually another filibuster to stop us from even going into conference with the House because there was concern that the bill would be changed too much in ways that would not allow us to find a common consensus- based path forward.

Yet we have gone on together, again, in that bipartisan fashion that we developed in the Senate to work in a bicameral fashion and bipartisan fashion with the House to come together with this legislation that is now before us.

As many of us said as we developed this legislation, it is not necessarily what any of us would have written had we had complete control over the issue. But it is the result of what can happen if we work across party lines, across the lines of the rotunda between the House and Senate, and across regional lines in our Nation, to try to make sure that we get past the politics, the partisanship, past the personal attacks, and focus on the principles that will allow us to move forward and develop positive legislation such as that.

I am confident this legislation will pass the Senate today. I am confident that when it goes to the President's desk, he will sign it. The United States will have taken a very big step forward in terms of preserving one of the great environmental legacies we have--our forests; we will have taken a step to protect and preserve our rural areas in America; we will have done much to protect our great firefighters, many of whom gave their lives this year, and in previous years, in trying to protect our forests and our communities; we will have put statutory protection in place for old-growth forests in our Nation; we will have worked to develop small-diameter timber and other uses of those parts of our forests that need thinning; we will have taken steps to make sure that rural communities such as Elk City, ID-- literally at the end of the road--do not face the potential devastation a wildfire could cause not only to their economy but to their safety and the community at large; we will have protected the wildland urban interface, where so many of the people who now live in urban areas find their homes and lives and property threatened by the danger of uncontrolled wildfire.

All of these things will be brought together because we were successful today and, over the past few years, in bringing together the kind of politics that America wants, the kind of politics that is good and beneficial, that helps us to cross the divisions and eliminate those conflicts that so often bring us to a stalemate or a stall on the floor of the Senate or on the floor of the House.

Mr. President, again, I thank all Senators and all of the House Members who have done so much to look past their own individual concerns and to work together for the collective good of the whole as we built this strong bipartisan solution to a critical issue facing our Nation.

With that, I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I honor Arvilla ``Billie'' Campbell of Meridian, ID, who is approaching her 100th birthday on January 21, 2004. Arvilla's impressive longevity is matched by her positive contributions to home and country. I am sure that her six children, 19 grandchildren, and 48 great-grandchildren join me in paying tribute to this great women.

Arvilla was born and raised in Preston, ID, where she attended high school at the Preston Academy. In 1923, she married Elgin Campbell, and the couple had six children together. Her children report that Arvilla set a great foundation for each of their lives through the principles she taught. Arvilla recognized the important of a strong work ethic, telling her children that you only get what you work for. Arvilla herself was a hard worker, doing all she could during the Great Depression to ensure that her family had what they needed. She was known to comment that though the family may have been broke, they were never poor. Arvilla taught her children to have pride in their appearance and made sure they had impeccable decorum and proper speech at all times. Arvilla was also active in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and she taught many children over the occurs of many years of service.

Arvilla also taught love of country, a fact reflected in the lives of her children. Remarkably, all six of her children have served or are affiliated with the Armed Forces. She encouraged them to serve in the military because she believes freedom is a privilege that deserves effort and sacrifice. All four of Arvilla's sons have served in combat. E. Stewart Campbell served in the Navy, starting in World War II through the Vietnam War, attaining the rank of lieutenant colonel. Garth K. Campbell served in the Pacific Theatre of World War II as a petty officer in the Navy. Bruce E. Campbell served in the Korean War as a corporal in the Army. Doug Campbell served in both the Korean and Vietnam wars as an Army platoon sergeant. Helen Campbell Harden, one of the Arvilla's daughters, is married to John Harden, an Army warrant officer in the Army. Ruth Campbell Rivers, another daughter, is also closely connected to the military: her husband Gerald is a lance corporal in the Marine Corps. America has benefited from the efforts of each of these individuals, and Arvilla is to be commended for her children's unselfish service to the United States.

I wish Arvilla a Happy Birthday. She has been a great teacher, example, and citizen of Idaho. I wish her health and happiness on this exciting day, and join with family and friends in honoring her contribution to Idaho.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity our majority leader has given us to debate the issue of judicial nominations and the question of whether it is appropriate under our Constitution to have a filibuster of a judicial nomination by the President.

I believe we face a constitutional crisis. There are a lot of numbers that have been bandied back and forth between the various sides in this debate. I am going to try to make a little sense out of those in a few minutes, but I want to start with the Constitution of the United States, which in article II says that the President shall nominate, and by and with the advice of the Senate, shall appoint judges.

This Constitution does not provide a supermajority vote for the nomination, for the advice and consent process in the Senate. Our Founding Fathers were very capable and very good at pointing out those circumstances where they believed more than a majority vote was required for this interaction between the Senate and the President established in our Constitution.

In a number of different places in the Constitution, whether it is ratification of treaties or impeachment or Presidential veto overrides or the other occasions where our Founding Fathers believed the Constitution required more than a majority vote and instead a supermajority vote, they were very specific about laying that out.

With regard to judges, they did not lay out a supermajority requirement. Instead, it was stated--and until this Congress--that our Founding Fathers and the Constitution intended the advise and consent process in the Senate to require a majority vote and not to be ``filibusterable.''

We have seen a lot of debate on a lot of different numbers and I want to try to clarify some of these. One of the very common responses to us is: Well, we have stopped only 4 judges by filibuster this Congress and yet under the last Presidency, under Bill Clinton, over 60--I have heard different numbers, 55, 60, but whatever it is--judges were stopped by the Republicans.

It is critical for people to understand that we are talking about two very different things. All judges nominated by any President must go to the Judiciary Committee and must make it through the Judiciary Committee. In that process, under every President, a number of the judges do not make it.

In fact, we have a chart that shows under President Bush No. 1, 54 of his nominations did not make it through the committee or were voted down by the Senate.

Under President Clinton, our number, as we analyze it, is 41. Now I have heard the number 55 and the number 60, but somewhere between 41 and 60 or some other number in that category did not make it through the committee.

Actually, one of these nominees was voted down on the floor. The others did not make it through the committee. They do not make it through the committee often for a number of reasons. The point is that in the committee, there is a majority vote. It is the majority rule, as the Constitution requires, for these judges to make it through the process. Even if the committee does not act on these nominees, if the majority of the Senate wants to bring them forward, there is a discharge petition that can bring them forward.

The point is, it is important to understand the distinction between judges who are stopped in the normal course of the majority voting process of the Senate as they work through the committee and then on to the floor, and what we are debating today.

Let us go to the next chart. Today we are debating whether we should change what has never been done before. This number is the number of years in which the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, refused to uphold a filibuster against a judge. For the last 214 years, both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have refused to uphold filibusters against judges.

Now, we are going to hear and have heard over the last number of hours a lot of debate about that as well. The Republicans have been accused of filibustering Democrat judges and Democrats have been accused of filibustering Republican judges over the years, and they would have everyone believe it is a common practice for the Senate to accept the filibustering of judges.

The reality is that although there have been efforts to try to filibuster judges in the past, until this Congress neither party has tolerated it because both parties recognized the intent of the Constitution that once a President's nomination gets to the floor, the

President is entitled to a vote. Whether the Republicans or the Democrats tried to filibuster a judge, both parties in the past have ultimately come together to stop that filibuster from preventing the intent of the Constitution from being accomplished.

Let us get a little bit of history on this. The cloture rule in the Senate has been applicable to nominations since 1949. Since that time, cloture has been filed on only 35 nominations, meaning all the rest of the nominations basically made it through, once they got to the floor of the Senate, to a final vote. Of those 35 times that cloture had to be filed, 17 of them were judicial nominations, 18 were other executive nominations.

Of those 17 times since 1949, when we have had cloture on judicial nominations, cloture has been defeated on the first try in 11 of the 17 tries. Of all the other cases, cloture was defeated by the second try.

Now, people need to understand what cloture is. Every time there is a cloture vote, it does not necessarily mean there is a filibustering. It simply means that at that point, the Senate is not ready to vote. It may mean they want to wait a little longer before a vote is taken. But when we see a cloture tried again and again and the announcement that as many times as it wants to be tried it is going to be stopped, that is a filibuster. We are seeing that now on four judges, with a threat of it on seven more.

Let us put up the other two charts. There has been a lot of talk about how the Republicans stopped more of President Clinton's judges than the Democrats did of President Bush's judges. This number is the number of President Clinton's judicial nominations that reached the floor that were voted on and confirmed and the number that were filibustered. None of President Clinton's nominations was filibustered. There were some cloture votes. We can argue among ourselves whether or not that was a filibuster, but the point is that none of the efforts in the Senate against President Clinton was allowed to proceed to stop his judges from getting a vote. They all got a vote.

Let us look at the next chart. The next chart is the number of nominations of Presidents in the last 11 Presidencies where, when the candidate got to the floor, they were denied an up-or-down vote. Out of 2,372 nominations that have come to the floor during the last 11 Presidents, zero were filibustered. Zero were stopped from having a vote once they got to the floor of the Senate.

In this Congress, we have seen that happen four times, and it is now being threatened on seven more judges. A new trend, a new precedent, in American history is being set in the Senate and the American people need to pay attention to it because regardless of how one passes the numbers back and forth, the fact is that the precedent is now being set to require that not only does a nominee have to make it past the committee but they have to be subjected to the filibuster rule in contravention of the clear intent of the U.S. Constitution.

This is all leading up to a battle over a potential Supreme Court nomination. It will be very unfortunate for this country if the Senate, in this Congress, changes the history of our treatment of this critically important provision of our Constitution as we move forward in the analysis and handling of our responsibility on the advice and consent on judicial nominations.

Will the Senator respond to a question?

The Senator from Utah spent time responding to questions about the nominees we are going to vote on tomorrow. I note those who oppose this vote often bring up a chart that says 168 to 4, noting they have only filibustered 4 judges in this Congress. I think it is important to point out, though, that number 4 is the first time in the history of this country, in the history of the Senate, a filibuster has been sustained against a judicial nominee of the President of the United States.

I think it should be clarified to the American people that the fact we are now seeing a filibuster sustained against nominees of the President turns the Constitution on its head and begins a very dangerous precedent with regard to how the nominees for the judicial branch are treated by this Senate.

Would the Senator from Utah tell us how many of the nominees of President Clinton to the bench were filibustered during his Presidency?

Isn't it also true that out of the last 11 Presidents--and I think we used 11 Presidents because it was 1949 when the filibuster became possible--not one of their nominees, until today, until this Congress, not one of the President's nominees has

been successfully filibustered in the Senate of the United States because of the understanding of the fact that the Constitution gives the President the right to a vote?

It is my understanding that 2,300 nominations have come to the floor since the filibuster was possible.

Zero were filibustered this year, and this year four have been successfully filibustered, and what is it, five, six, or seven more are scheduled to be filibustered?

I thank the chairman. I think it is important to look at this and understand what this debate is about and why we are giving it this time, to focus on the threat to the Constitution that is being posed by the treatment of judicial nominations in this Congress. I thank the Senator.