Floor Statements

Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I have some information for Senators. The Senate will resume debate on the nomination of Miguel Estrada this morning. We had a productive debate on the Estrada nomination on yesterday afternoon, and it is the majority leader's objective to arrive at an agreement with the other side of the aisle regarding the consideration and vote on the nomination in the near future.

As previously announced, there will be no rollcall votes today. It is anticipated that the Senate will adjourn around noon. Therefore, Senators who wish to speak on the Estrada nomination are encouraged to make arrangements to do so earlier in the day.

Madam President, it is ironic that one of the arguments against Miguel Estrada, the President's nominee for the D.C. Circuit Court, center around prior judicial experience. This argument is nothing but hollow political rhetoric aimed at obstructing the Senate's constitutional duty to confirm judges. It is also a double standard of the highest order. To illustrate this point, I bring a Colorado legend to the attention of my colleagues. Byron ``Whizzer'' White may have passed away almost a year ago, but the Centennial State will forever feel his commanding presence. Mr. White was born in Fort Collins, CO, not far from where I live and where my family lives, and was raised in nearby Wellington. He went on to become his high school's valedictorian, All-American football star, college valedictorian, Rhodes

scholar, professional football player, and a decorated World War II soldier. Noting his many significant achievements, President John F.Kennedy nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1962, saying, Byron White ``excelled at everything he has ever attempted.'' White, at only 44 years of age, ascended to the bench of our Nation's highest court and went on to serve for three decades.

Why is this significant? It is significant because had President Kennedy adhered to such a rigid litmus test, Byron White would never have been seated on the bench of the United States Supreme Court. Adherence to the experience litmus test would mean that five of the eight judges currently serving on the D.C. Circuit would not have been confirmed because they had no previous judicial experience--including two of President Clinton's nominees, Merrick Garland and David Tatel, and one appointed by President Carter, Judge Harry Edwards, who was younger than Mr. Estrada currently is.

It is obvious that the opposition to Miguel Estrada is not concerned with merit or intellect. They are more concerned with partisan politics. Their work is concentrated on holding our Nation hostage to their rigid ideology, unprecedented in the consideration of judges. While caseloads in the Federal courts continue to increase dramatically and filings reach all-time highs, the opposition pursues an agenda of obstruction, aimed at disrupting the justice that is guaranteed by our Constitution, and creating a vacancy crisis in the Federal courts. Chief Justice William Rehnquist recently warned that the current number of vacancies, combined with the rising caseloads, threatens the proper functioning of the Federal courts.

This is a time in our Nation's history when our courts ought to be fully up and functioning. It is a time when there are lots of national security concerns centered around terrorist threats. These extraordinary delays must end. Miguel Estrada is a highly qualified and respected individual who deserves the Senate's consideration.

Mr. Estrada is a man of legal experience, a man of keen intellect and strong character. He has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court and has served both as a Federal prosecutor and Assistant United States Solicitor General. If confirmed, he will be the first Hispanic to serve on the DC Circuit. I think that is significant. And he will be a principal asset to our system of justice.

Miguel Estrada has received the highest rating from the American Bar Association. He has received strong support from those who know him the best--the Hispanic legal community, including the Hispanic National Bar Association. I believe he has earned a vote in the Senate. He has earned my respect and my support, and I plan to vote for Miguel Estrada.

I thank the Chair.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business?

Mr. President, following the attacks of September 11, many Americans found themselves feeling, perhaps for the first time, a sense of vulnerability. Terrorists had successfully infiltrated our country, hijacked four of our jetliners, and committed mass suicide. Using simple tactics and superb coordination, they singlehandedly changed the American mindset in a matter of minutes.

President Bush recognized that our way of life changed drastically on September 11. During an address to a joint session of Congress and the American people 9 days after the attacks, President Bush said the following:

On September 11, enemies of freedom committed an act of war

against our country. Americans have known wars--but for the

past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except

for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties

of war--but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful

morning. Americans have known surprise attacks--but never

before on thousands of civilians. All of this brought upon us

in a single day--and night fell on a different world, a world

where freedom itself is under attack.

For nearly 10 years prior to that, our country enjoyed unprecedented peace and prosperity. The economy grew at an unbelievable rate. We were at peace with our neighbors. We focused on health-care, welfare, education, and other domestic priorities. The fall of the Soviet Union eliminated the threat to our Nation. Our defense budget shrank; our intelligence resources dwindled; and our homeland defenses remained virtually nonexistent. The biggest problem our military faced was not how best to invade Iraq, but how to keep enlisted families off food stamps.

Our mind simply was elsewhere. A number of blue-ribbon commissions tried to get our attention. The Bremer Commission pointed out the deficiencies of our intelligence collection efforts. The Gilmore Commission revealed how disconnected, disparate, and dysfunctional our homeland security efforts were. And, the Hart-Rudman Commission discussed how much our Federal Government needed to be restructured to better combat terrorism. Yet many of the recommendations from these commissions were pushed aside as being impractical, too expensive, or unnecessary. As it turns out, they were right, and on September 11, we paid the price.

Since that dreadful day, we have made considerable progress. We have rid Afghanistan of its terrorists-run government, disrupted terrorist operations around the world, and taken steps to improve our homeland defenses. I was pleased last November when the Congress, after 3 months of debate, approved legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. This Department will pull together 22 agencies and nearly 200,000 Federal employees. It will not be an easy task. Tom Ridge, the new Secretary of the Department, will have his hands full for many years to come.

The Department of Defense has also taken a number of measures to improve our homeland defense. The establishment of Northern Command was a significant organizational step toward fighting terrorism at our borders. The new commander, Air Force Gen. Ed Eberhart, will be responsible for the defense of the United States, including land, aerospace and sea defenses. NORTHCOM will also provide military assistance to civil authorities, including crisis and subsequent consequence management operations should such assistance be necessary.

This past year the Congress went further when it created a new Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security within Department of Defense. The assistant secretary will be responsible for providing guidance and planning assistance to the various combatant commands, including NORTHCOM. The Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, held a hearing today on the President's nominee, Paul McHale, for this position.

Despite our efforts to build stronger homeland defenses, our country finds itself confronted by numerous threats on several different fronts. As we

speak, thousands of U.S. soldiers, sailors, and marines are being deployed around the globe in such remote places as Southeast Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the Horn of Africa. Just last week, 4,000 soldiers from Fort Carson, CO, were given orders to deploy overseas.

The war against global terrorism continues to require substantial resources and considerable foreign cooperation. The administration has made enormous progress in this area, but more remains to be done. Many al-Qaida operatives are at large, and several nations continue to support terror groups. We must remain vigilant and proactive if we are to prevent future terror attacks.

With regard to Iraq, as the President said during his state of the union address, Saddam Hussein continues to hide his weapons programs, despite an aggressive weapons inspection regime. To many, the 12,000 page Iraqi declaration given to the United Nations last December was duplicative of previous declarations and revealed little of value. It only served to highlight Saddam Hussein's determination to retain his weapons of mass destruction.

The reports earlier this week by the U.N.'s chief weapons inspectors. Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, further demonstrated that Iraq remains unwilling to give up its weapons programs. In his statement to the United Nation's Security Council, Hans Blix emphasized this point. He said,

Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate

its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of

creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to

have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the

disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to

carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in

peace.

Iraq has hedged, delayed, and avoided complete disarmament for over a decade. There comes a time when diplomacy and sanctions become exercises in futility. There come a time when only military action will succeed where negotiations have repeatedly failed. There comes a time when the President of the United States, as leader of the free world, must say enough is enough.

Several press reports indicate that some U.S. allies, most notably France and Germany, may oppose military action against Iraq at this time. We should certainly take their thoughts into consideration. Our alliances should be both respected and preserved. At the same time, though, the President has an obligation to our country to do what is best for the United States--his primary responsibility is the safety and security of the American people. It is my hope that our friends and allies will recognize our determination to eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons programs and support our efforts in the Persian Gulf.

Just as we prepare to confront Iraq's growing arsenal of destruction, we cannot ignore the threat posed by North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The Bush administration has sought to form a global consensus to deal with North Korea's WMD ambitions. Press reports indicate that the President wants the United Nations Security Council to deal with this threat to East Asia. I think this is a good first step.

In many ways, the North Korean issue is different from the situation involving Iraq. There haven't been any U.N. resolutions calling for the disarmament of North Korea, nor have North Korea's allies, China and Russia, shown much interest in resolving this issue. A global consensus is now beginning to form. Our allies in the region, South Korea and Japan, are only starting to realize the danger North Korea's WMD efforts pose to the region.

Five years ago, North Korea test-launched a three-stage ballistic missile over Japan that could have reached parts of the United States.

I think that is worth repeating.

Five years ago, North Korea test-launched a three-stage ballistic missile over Japan that could have reached parts of the United States.

This test ended a debate as to whether our country was vulnerable to ballistic missile attacks from countries of concern. It became of question of what we were going to do about it. Finally, after much debate, the Congress authorized in 1999 the development and deployment of a national missile defense system ``as soon as it was technologically feasible.''

Since President Bush's election in 2000, the Department of Defense has made considerable progress on a missile defense system. With additional funding and less restrictions, the Missile Defense Agency has launched a broad effort to evaluate all potential options for missile defense, including ground-based, sea-based, and even space- based defenses. The MDA now has a number of high-profile missile defense systems in development and is making progress in developing sophisticated sensors capable of detecting incoming missiles.

As the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Programs and Operations, including missile defense, I have assisted the President in developing these systems. Last year, the Congress provided nearly $8 billion for missile defense.

I am pleased that a number of projects are now nearing completion. The PAC-3, an enhanced version of the Patriot missile used during the gulf war capable of intercepting short and medium-range ballistic missiles, has entered into production. The Army's Theater High-Altitude Air Defense--THAAD--a system to counter medium-range ballistic missiles, is nearing production. And, perhaps most significantly, the ground-based mid-course interceptor system, which provides the United States with a limited defense against ICBMs, is scheduled to be deployed in 2004, as announced by President Bush on December 17 of this past year.

Missile defense is not the only program that has received increased attention since President Bush's election. The DOD budget as a whole has grown substantially over the past 2 years. Last year, the Congress authorized over $390 billion in funding the department, an increase of nearly $40 billion from the year before. While much of this increase went to support our military operations overseas, some of this money was used to shore up our counter-terrorism efforts, improve our intelligence capabilities, and develop new technologies to counter the growing threats to our Nation. The department is expected to request similar funding for the upcoming fiscal year.

The President and the Congress have worked hard over the past 2 years to reduce the threats to our Nation and prevent future attacks. It has not been easy. Partisan politics, divergent personalities, and conflicting perspectives frequently interrupt the process.

I believe the President deserves much of the credit for this progress. He has stepped up and led our country in a very difficult time. His message has clearly resonated with the American people. Increased vigilance and enhanced security are essential in a time of uncertainty and perceived vulnerability. I share this message and will continue to work in the Senate to see that measures that are enacted actually increase the security of the American people.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. President, with much reservation, I rise today in support of the Feingold amendment. On

August 31, 2002 several Americans in West Papua--Indonesia were brutally attacked by heavily armed assailants. Two Americans--Rick Spier and Ted Burgon--were murdered during the 35 minute ambush and many others were seriously wounded.

Last week, I met with Rick Spier's wife, Mrs. Patsy Spier, who was also shot three times during the attack. She described with much emotion the circumstances of the attack and the horrific result. I was saddened by her loss and angered by the Indonesian Government's failure to bring the perpetrators to justice. Following my meeting with Mrs. Spier, I contacted the Department of States and later received a detailed briefing from Deputy Assistant Secretary Matthew Daley. I also contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and expressed my interest in meeting the agents charged with investigation this case upon their return from Indonesia.

Following these meetings, I wrote to President Bush to express my strong views about this matter. I urged the President to press the Indonesian Government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the attack. I further wrote that if the Indonesian Government fails to act, a severe diplomatic response, including the suspension of funding for the International Military Education Training Program for Indonesia, should be considered. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks my letter of January 16 to President Bush.

I am pleased that Senator Mitch McConnell, Chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, has included strong report language on Indonesia. As I noted in a colloquy with Senator McConnell, the references in the report language to the Americans murdered in West Papua and the demands that justice be served for these crimes were warranted and much appreciated.

The amendment before us would limit Indonesian military personnel to participation in the IMET program only, absent a presidential determination that the Indonesian government and armed forces are ``demonstrating a commitment to assist United States efforts to combat international terrorism'' and ``taking effective measures, including cooperating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to bring to justice any member of the Indonesian Armed Forces or Indonesian militia'' whom might be involved in the August 31 killings.

I understand that the Department of State opposes this amendment, which it believes would damage important U.S. foreign policy interest in Indonesia. In a letter sent to Senator McConnell, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly wrote:

. . . the President has directed that we [the Department of

State] emphasize to the Government of Indonesia that there

must be a credible investigation and process of justice to

avoid damage in our entire bilateral relationship.

He further wrote:

In response to our repeated demarches, the Indonesian

government has agreed to a new investigation of this crime to

include FBI participation. FBI agents will arrive in

Indonesia on January 22 to explore the terms of their

participation in the investigation.

While I applaud the administration for its involvement in this issue and am encouraged by Indonesia Government's agreement to conduct a new investigation, I strongly believe that the murder of innocent Americans is unacceptable and demands serious action on our part. We cannot be seen as rewarding the Indonesian government for covering up the killing of Americans. Such an action would set a frightful precedent and give other nations the impression that the murder of Americans would not warrant a serious response on the part of the United States. Clearly, the IMET funding in this bill sends the wrong signal at the wrong time. Therefore, despite serious reservations, I will vote in support of the Feingold amendment.

Like many of my colleagues here in the Senate, I will continue to monitor this situation very closely, and should the Indonesian Government conduct a full and fair investigation, I will consider supporting new funding for Indonesia in the future.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, January 16, 2003.

Hon. George W. Bush,

President, the White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear President Bush: I am writing to express my growing

concern about the lagging investigation into the August 31,

2002 attack on several Americans in West Papau, Indonesia.

Three people were killed, including two Americans, during the

attack, and eight others were seriously wounded.

As you may know, the Indonesian police completed its

preliminary investigation last fall and concluded that the

Indonesian military may have been responsible for the attack.

Despite being informed of the results of the police

investigation, the Indonesian military has failed to look

into this matter. In fact, press reports suggest that the

Indonesian military may have exonerated itself of any

responsibility.

I understand that senior officials at the Department of

State have expressed the concerns of your Administration

about the dogged pace of the investigation to the Indonesian

government. Your effort to determine who was responsible for

this brutal attack is commendable. However, more must be

done.

I urge you to press the Indonesian government to conduct a

comprehensive investigation into the attack. Such an

investigation should include active and meaningful

participation by United States law enforcement agencies who

should have complete access to evidence and witnesses.

The murder of innocent Americans overseas warrants a

serious response on our part. If the Indonesian government

fails to act, severe diplomatic actions, including the

suspension of IMET funding for Indonesia, should be

considered. We cannot afford to overlook further delays in

this important investigation.

Again, thank you for your efforts, and I look forward to

your response.

Sincerely,

Wayne Allard,

U.S. Senator.

Mr. President, let us commend the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for the strong report language on Indonesia. I particularly appreciate the reference to the Americans murdered in Papua in August 2002, and the demands that justice be served for these crimes. I share this sentiment completely and believe that inaction by Indonesia on these murders will result in a negative reaction by both the congress and the Administration.

I understand that the Federal Bureau of Investigations may be in Indonesia in the very near future to assist in investigating this crime. Does the chairman share my support for the FBI's involvement in this case?

The Foreign Operations bill strikes an appropriate balance between our national security interests in that vast archipelago and the realities of a developing Indonesia. I want to be on record that I will continue to closely follow the investigation into the murder of Americans in Papua last year and I encourage the Chairman and all my colleagues to pay attention to that case.

I also recommend that the administration report to Congress on a regular and ongoing basis into the progress the Government of Indonesia is making into resolving these murders.

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

We are in morning business?

Mr. President, ordinarily I do not come to the Senate floor and involve myself in a lot of the issues that are going on at the leadership level, but I have to say I really am disappointed the leaders of the Democratic Party are continuing to obstruct the Republicans' effort to organize and to move forward with this Nation's agenda.

In the last session, we could not even pass a budget. We have appropriations bills that are waiting to be acted on as we move into this new year. My hope is we could put aside our partisan differences and move quickly forward with these pressing issues, deal with the people's business. After we finish the unfinished business of the last Congress, and after the State of the Union address, then we could go ahead and begin to move forward with the business of this new year.

Historically in the Senate, the majority party has moved ahead very quickly on the organizing resolution. It has been a standard process where two-thirds of the funding goes to the majority party and a third to the minority party.

I was interested in the reference by my colleague from Utah who mentioned there was an e-mail floating around, which he quoted, that this was actually a planned effort by the Democratic party to obstruct the agenda. I have been informed there have been previous e-mails that if the Democrat party had been in control in the Senate, they were planning to push the two-thirds/one-third breakout on funding because that has been the tradition of the Senate year after year; that is what has happened, the majority party has had the two-thirds and the minority party has been one-third.

Now we find the majority party has tried to use last year's abnormal type of session--there was nothing normal about last year's session we can use as a standard for moving forward from this point on, but the fact is historically this has been a rather standard process. I hope we can put aside this type of partisan bickering that does not have anything to do with the people's business and move forward with what historically we have done in the Senate.

Last year, Congress started with Republican control, then went back to the Democrat Party because a Republican changed parties--went from a Republican to an Independent. And then after this election, technically, we could have been back in the majority again--after the vote in Missouri. It was decided we would hold that aside and just move forward with this year's agenda.

As we enter the second week of a new year, the second week of the 108th Congress, the business of the Senate is once again seeing obstructionist politics blocking the Nation's business and our work from moving forward, getting something accomplished. I don't see any legitimate reason for this delay.

The Senate, over its many years, has abided by the clear precedent I referred to earlier, with an organizing resolution quickly agreed upon, and then we move forward with our routine business each year. Now we have the Democrats wanting to change the world since they did not get their way in November.

I had one of the more contested races in the Nation, in Colorado. It is clear to me the people of Colorado are disappointed that we did not pass a budget last year; that we did not get our work done in the last Congress.

I don't think anyone wins with obstructionist politics. The big losers are the citizens of this country. We are not able to address their problems and move forward with real solutions. The people of the United States made clear whom they chose to lead the Senate. It was the same argument all over the country as in my race. Yet the minority party refuses to step aside and let the duly elected party move forward. We have a clear majority in this Congress to deal with the business of the people and the business of the country. They refuse to relinquish the power the people of the United States said they no longer wished them to hold.

We face challenging times in our Nation. Grave threats against our national security continue to damage economic confidence. Spending bills that should have been approved last year are still pending. That is right, 11 spending bills that provide funding for parks and research failed, under the leadership of the Democrats, to proceed. And they are not passing now because of the Democrats' persistence in obstructionist politics. Last year, for the first time in decades, we did not even pass a budget. Yet the Democrats still want to control.

I stand by our newly elected Majority Leader Frist and the people of the United States. Let our work proceed. Let the will of the people stand victorious and let the continuing resolution move forward according to the clear precedent that we have in the Senate.

Newspapers across the Nation continue to report that the obstructionist politics of the Democrats have delayed the confirmation hearing of Tom Ridge, the President's choice to run the new Department of Homeland Security. My question is, Do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle truly believe the people of the United States would rather see obstruction than move forward with the Department of Homeland Security, with the effort to try to restore economic growth in this country, to finish the unfinished business we had left over from the last Congress because of obstruction politics?

The New York Times reported that until Senators adopt a so-called organizing resolution, committee chairmanships will rest with the Democrats despite the November elections that gave Republicans a 1-vote majority. The impasse creates delays in the Senate business, not only of Mr. Ridge's confirmation but also the confirmation of John Snow as Treasury Secretary, as well as consideration of the appropriations bills left over from last year.

In addition, the 11 freshman Senators cannot receive their committee assignments until the dispute is settled. Obstructionist politics of the 107th Congress continue: No committee assignments, no chairmen; newly elected Members of the Senate remain without the right to participate in discussions because of heavy obstructionism.

In my view, we must end the stalemate and get back to work. I come to the floor to reemphasize how important it is that we move forward and get the Senate's business accomplished.

Mr. President, the beginning of the 108th Congress marks a pivotal moment in the management of one of the most complex water systems in the world. Complex both hydrologically and legally, the river is managed through a series of agreements that are collectively known as the ``law of the river.'' and it is the ``law of the river'' that brings me to the floor today.

For years, the State of California has consumed far more than its annual allocation of 4.4 million acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. Instead, the State has pursued a path of overuse--often drawing more than 1 million acre-feet of water a year over its allocation. With the turn of the new year, and just as Colorado enters the fourth year of the most severe drought in 300 years, I am pleased that Secretary Norton and the Department of the Interior have taken strong action to force California into compliance with the decades-old agreements that dictate the amount of water that the State is entitled to consume, thereby ending its abuse of the river. This watershed decision to enforce the 4.4 million acre-feet allocation reveals a welcome determination to ensure confidence in the law through decisive action, demonstrating to all parties that abuse of the ``law of the river'' will not be tolerated.

``The law of the river'' has evolved over 80 hard fought years; every precious drop of the river means life or death to the people of the basin States. Secretary Norton has now made it clear that every party to the compact will be held accountable, and that these agreements will stand as precious as the water itself. No longer will States be able to ignore the ``law of the river.''

In Colorado, our citizens must abide by the doctrine of prior appropriations. Other States govern water under a hybrid or riparian rights system. These time-tested theories have one constant principle-- a user cannot take more water than its legal share. This strong sentiment is reflected in a recent Denver Post editorial that I would like to share with you today. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

California has had ample opportunity to meet its legal obligation; agreements outlining baby steps toward compliance with the 4.4 limit have been in existence since the 1990's. Even though the State has consumed far more than its fair share for years, it has had plenty of opportunity to live within its allocation. Yet in the end, with the water shutoff, I hope California will recognize its legal obligations.

To Secretary Norton and my colleagues from the basin States, I urge you to continue to force all members to abide by their allocation and to protect the law. Secretary Norton's fair action has demonstrated that this administration will uphold the ``law of the river,'' and when the law is not adhered to, those in violation will be held accountable.

I have remained in close contact with Colorado Governor Bill Owens throughout the ordeal, and would like to share with you an insightful comment made by the Governor in a conversation we had shortly after the decision to shut off the water was announced Governor Owens said, ``In the West, our word is our bond. As Colorado suffers from the worst drought in its history, we cannot and will not support so-called `surplus' water deliveries to California, unless California keeps its word to us.'' I certainly agree.

I commend the Secretary for her action, and hope this will serve as a clarion call that the law of the river is indeed a law that must be obeyed.

Exhibit 1

[From the Denver Post, January 4, 2003]

The Law of the River

Nevada shouldn't be surprised. Two weeks ago, U.S. Interior

Secretary Gale Norton said California couldn't take more than

its legal share of Colorado River water. This week, she told

Nevada the same thing. Her actions were proper. All seven

states that share the river and tributaries must abide by the

Colorado River Interstate Compact, the 80-year-old agreement

known as ``the law of the river.''

California hogs 5.2 million acre-feet of river water a

year, far more than its legal share of 4.4 million acre-feet.

But Nevada has been slurping more than its share, too. The

pact entitles Nevada to 300,000 acre-feet annually, but it

uses an extra 37,00 acre-feet a year, or 11 percent over its

legal share.

California had wanted Norton to declare a surplus of water

in the Colorado River, thus letting it continue using more

than its legal allotment. But such a declaration would have

been absurd during an ongoing, record-breaking drought.

After telling California ``no,'' Norton had to apply the

same standard to other states. Although Nevada's excess water

use is a drop in the bucket compared to California's wastrel

ways, Nevada also must follow the law of the river.

Colorado doesn't use its entire share of river water,

however. The river flows on the Western Slope, but our

population lives mostly on the Front Range. The dispute is

over preserving Colorado water rights for future generations.

Colorado is supposed to get 51.75 percent of the river's

water. The interstate pact assumed the Colorado River would,

on average, flow 7.5 million acre-feet a year. But the pact

was signed during an exceptionally wet era in the West, so it

overestimated how much water the river usually has. Still,

the optimistic scenario entitled Colorado to 3.85 million

acre-feet of river water in an average year.

In reality, the Colorado River averages about 6 million

acre-feet a year, allowing Colorado 3.1 million acre-feet

under the formula.

But Colorado consumes only 2.65 million acre-feet from the

river in a normal year. So, depending on how the river's

average flows are calculated, Colorado lets 500,000 to 1.2

million acre-feet of its share flow out of state. Much of

that water supplies vegetable farms and fruit orchids in

California's agriculturally rich Imperial Valley.

To recapture its lost water, Colorado leaders have floated

ideas to build new dams or pump thousands of acre-feet from

the Utah

line to metro Denver. But any of the plans would cost

billions of dollars and create ecological woes.

If Colorado's population continues growing, our state

someday will claim its share of Colorado River water. When it

does, California and Nevada could rights demand that Colorado

and other upper-basin states--Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, and New

Mexico--follow the pact's strict limits, too.

The law of the river must be enforced, for everyone. And

water conservation must become a way of life in the West.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to make a few brief comments about legislation I am introducing today. I also will talk briefly about some of the agenda items I have been looking at for this year. Obviously, having just been sworn into office today, we are putting together our agendas and beginning to think seriously about what kind of issues we would like to put forward.

The people of Colorado understand that, as we move into this session, my priority is the cleanup of a number of our Superfund sites in Colorado, staying on track with the cleanup of Rocky Flats by 2006, cleaning up the Shattuck waste site, as well as the cleanup of Pueblo Depot.

I will also be working on transportation issues which are important to States such as Colorado, Wyoming, the home State of the presiding officer, as well as throughout the country. Transportation will be a big issue as we move into this session.

Another issue I have spoken about is housing, which we will be dealing with in this session. I also plan to focus on missile defense and judiciary nominations.

The legislation I rise today to introduce is called the Community Choice In Real Estate Act of 2003. I am pleased to have Senators Clinton, Shelby, Feingold, Burns, Sessions, and Harkin join me in introducing this bill. This is something I am doing as part of the effort to keep the housing markets competitive and strong.

The Community Choice in Real Estate Act of 2003 is the continuation of an effort that I began in the 107th Congress. This bill would clarify Congressional intent that real estate brokerage and management are not financial activities and would therefore retain the separation of commerce and banking that we intended during consideration of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act closed the unitary thrift loophole that allowed a single savings and loan to be owned by a commercial entity. This clearly established that banking and commerce were not to mix. Congress explicitly defined several functions to be financial in nature or incidental to finance to clarify the separation. Real estate management and brokerage services were not defined as financial activities.

Congress already established a clear position regarding banks' involvement in real estate management and brokerage activities, and the bill I'm introducing with my colleagues would reiterate that prohibition. I believe that we should not permit federal regulators to preempt the intent of Congress.

The real estate and banking industries have served America well, and I believe that the current system provides consumers with many important options. I know that the regulators received many letter during the comment period. I commend them for taking the time to allow all interested parties to comment and for their pledge to carefully review all comments. I intend to continue to work with them to ensure that Congressional intent is followed in this matter.

Realtors play a vital role in our economy, and housing has been one of the bright spots in our otherwise slow economy. Realtors are an integral part of the housing industry share in the credit for this positive economic news.

Additionally, Realtors help fuel the economy as small businesses. As a small businessman myself, I can appreciate the challenges of starting and running a small business. As a U.S. Senator I have worked hard to reduce rules and regulations hindering small businesses, as well as excessive taxes. The Community Choice in Real Estate Act of 2003 will ensure that small real estate businesses are able to continue to thrive.

Mr. President, I urge the Senate to promptly consider this matter, and I would ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, we also are in morning business; is that correct?

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. ALLARD pertaining to the introduction of S. 98 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced bills and Joint Resolutions.'')