[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2380-S2388]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION
   NOMINATION OF MIGUEL A. ESTRADA, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE UNITED STATES 
     CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Edwards pertaining to the introduction of the 
legislation are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. EDWARDS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will discuss the topic on the floor, the 
nomination process.
  It is interesting the Senator from North Carolina has a bill he 
thinks is important and probably is important, yet questions are not 
able to move forward on any of those bills because we are tied up in 
doing something that is not at all useful, not at all productive, but 
it continues. Those important things we have to do are not being done, 
and as a matter of fact will not be done, apparently, for some time.
  I rise more to talk a little bit about the disappointment I have in 
the process in which we find ourselves. There is not much point in 
talking about the nominee, Mr. Estrada. He has been talked about 
forever. I can't think of another thing that could be said that has not 
already been said. What we can do is talk a little about the process 
being created. Talk about the obstruction that is taking place and the 
Congress that is faced with a great many important issues we need to 
get considered.
  We all recognize in any issue, particularly of a nominee, it is 
perfectly legitimate that people have different points of view. That is 
not unusual. Indeed, that is the way it ought to be. It also is 
appropriate for people to come to the floor after the committee has 
acted and to share those points of view and to do whatever they feel 
appropriate to try and convince others to share that point of view. 
That is the way it is supposed to be. Finally, after that is done in a 
reasonable limit of time, we have a vote, an up-or-down vote, so those 
who feel one way can vote one way, those who feel the other can vote 
the other. Not a very unusual process. On the contrary, it is the very 
well-accepted process.
  That is not what has happened here. That is not what has happened.
  As has been said before, it is time to move forward. It is time to 
move on. It is time to deal with the dozens of other important issues 
out there for this country and for the people of this country, issues 
that to people in the country are much more meaningful and have more to 
do with their business and welfare than we have here. I cannot imagine 
there is more to say from the other side of the aisle in opposition. 
They are opposed; fine. That is fine. They are able to convince anyone 
else? I don't think so. We have been working on this for about a week. 
It looks as if we will be here some more.
  It is very disappointing for those who would like to do things that 
are most important to do. Among other things, of course, the White 
House has responded. The letter was sent to the President renewing the 
request to him for confidential judicial memoranda that have never 
before been released. The response of Mr. Gonzales, the counselor to 
the President, basically indicates they respect the Senate's 
constitutional role in the confirmation process, and they agree the 
Senate must make an informed judgment consistent with the traditional 
role and practices. However, requests for these kinds of papers have no 
persuasive support in history and the precedent of judicial 
appointments. It is not there. It has not been done.
  Relevant history and procedures convincingly demonstrate that would 
be shifting standards. There is no basis for doing that.
  In conclusion, the President's counselor said: Miguel Estrada is a 
well-qualified, well-respected judicial nominee with very strong 
bipartisan support. Based on our reading of history, we believe you 
have ample information about this nominee and have had more than enough 
time to consider questions about his qualifications and his ability. We 
urge you to stop the unfair treatment and the filibuster and allow an 
up-or-down vote to confirm Mr. Estrada.
  I agree with that. Certainly, that is the case. I am not here to talk 
about the legal aspects of it, just the operational aspects of it, and 
make it clear, this man was before the committee from 10 in the morning 
until 5 in the evening, answering all the questions, answered written 
questions subsequent to that, and we continue to carry on with it.

[[Page S2381]]

  It is interesting that a number of newspapers throughout the country 
who generally do not get very involved in these things have in this 
case. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial, entitled ``A Filibuster is 
No Fix,'' said:

       Democrats are trying to decide whether to filibuster the 
     nomination of Miguel Estrada to the powerful federal appeals 
     court for the District of Columbia. They consider Mr. Estrada 
     a stealth conservative who is being groomed for the U.S. 
     Supreme Court as a Hispanic Clarence Thomas. The Democrats' 
     fear may turn out to be valid. But the filibuster is the 
     parliamentary equivalent of declaring war. Instead of 
     declaring war, the Democrats should sue for peace and try to 
     fix the process.

  That is the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

       Miguel Estrada, a Harvard-educated lawyer who has argued 15 
     cases before the Supreme Court, is well qualified for the 
     federal appellate bench. Democrats, who are threatening to 
     stall a vote on this confirmation, are choosing the wrong 
     target.

  The Florida Times-Union:

       If the system were functioning as the founders intended, 
     Miguel Estrada would be confirmed quickly to the federal D.C. 
     Circuit Court of Appeals.
       He is extremely qualified in both education and 
     experience--and the American Bar Association unanimously 
     ordered its highest possible rating.

  We heard all that. We know that.
  People out in the country are saying this is not the right process. 
We have been through this. We have had enough. We need something 
different.
  The Tampa Tribune:

       Leading the charge are committee members picked by the 
     Democratic leadership precisely because of their ideological 
     bent. Until the new Congress was seated, they thought nothing 
     of thwarting the constitutional mandate that gives the 
     Senate--the full Senate--the advise and consent power over 
     the judicial nominations.

  So it goes on, and most remarks are very similar all over the 
country. The Washington Post, not known for its conservatism, 
particularly, has indicated this is not the way. This nomination in no 
way deserves a filibuster.

  It is not just being talked about here, it is pretty much all over 
the country.
  I go back to the point I made in the beginning, that we have a lot of 
things to do. We are supposed to be dealing now, and hopefully, today 
or tomorrow, we will deal with the 11 appropriations that were not 
passed last year. We have been operating almost half of this year on 
CRs, instead of doing what we are supposed to do with appropriations.
  Certainly, as the Senator discussed, we have homeland security at a 
new threat level. I can't imagine people in the country are thinking 
more about this nomination than they are about terrorism and homeland 
security and the economy and health care and pharmaceuticals. Where do 
you suppose this would rate among those things? Or national energy 
policy, which again we didn't do last year because it was pulled out of 
the committee.
  We had a pretty dysfunctional Congress last time. Now we have a 
chance to move forward and do some things, and we are blocking 
ourselves by carrying on this kind of conversation.
  Mr. Estrada has had a full hearing, under both Republican and 
Democrat control. There is nothing left to say. It is time to come to 
the snubbing post and decide for or against. It is time to have an up-
or-down vote. We have been considering this nominee since last week. 
Obviously, it is becoming nothing more than a delaying tactic. We owe 
the nominee, we owe ourselves, we owe the American people a decision, 
and then to move on to all those other issues that confront us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I concur with everything just stated by 
Senator Thomas. We have been debating this nomination, now, for over a 
week. As a new Member of this body, and as a new member of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, I have a difficult time understanding, as a 
lawyer, why the delay when you have an individual who has the 
qualifications this man has, who has the legal background this man has, 
who has the legal training this man has--both from an educational 
standpoint as well as a practical standpoint, having practiced law.
  He clerked for a judge. He was involved with the Government side of 
practicing law, being in the Solicitor General's Office. He argued 
cases at the appellate level, at every appellate level all the way to 
the U.S. Supreme Court. He has been very successful at every level in 
his judicial career. Why, just from a purely legal standpoint, we have 
not already moved to a vote on this man is just beyond me.
  But it goes a little further than that. Miguel Estrada is a true 
success story. He is a man who, if anybody ever lived the American 
dream, is living it. He is a man who, at 17 years of age, came to the 
United States from Honduras speaking very little English. He is a man 
who was not self-taught but who entered the educational system in this 
country and took advantage of that educational system, just the way all 
Americans subscribe to do.
  This man not only had a great academic record but he went on to law 
school at Harvard University and was editor in chief of the Law Review.
  As a law school student at the University of Tennessee--where the 
Presiding Officer formerly served as president--I did not make the Law 
Review. I worked hard, but I didn't quite get there. But here is a man 
who achieved great success. Anybody who is editor in chief of the Law 
Review at any school of law is the most outstanding student in his 
class at that law school--in almost every situation. Miguel Estrada 
achieved that pinnacle in his education career.

  He then went on to clerk for a judge, and not just any judge, he 
clerked for a judge at a very high level. Then, as I said, he went to 
work for the Federal Government, as an assistant to the Solicitor 
General, not just in a Republican administration but also in the 
Clinton administration.
  So he is not a judge who should be perceived in any way as an 
activist, particularly a conservative activist. I don't look at other 
graduates of this great institution, graduates from Harvard, who are 
particular activists. They are good solid citizens, but they are not 
conservative activists, certainly. To perceive Miguel Estrada as an 
activist--I have heard him so characterized--certainly doesn't fit the 
man when you look at his background.
  I want to highlight a few things about Miguel Estrada. He is truly an 
American success story who represents the mainstream of American law 
and American values. He came to this country, at age 17, an immigrant 
from Honduras, speaking very little English. He has risen to the top of 
his profession, a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, law 
clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Federal prosecutor in 
New York, Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States for 1 
year in the Bush administration and for 4 years in the Clinton 
administration, and leading appellate lawyer at a national law firm.
  Miguel Estrada has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court of the 
United States, including 1 case in which he represented a death row 
inmate pro bono.
  He has strong bipartisan support from prominent Democrats, including 
many high-ranking officials in the Clinton administration such as Ron 
Klain, Seth Waxman, Bob Litt, and Randy Moss.
  The American Bar Association unanimously rated Miguel Estrada well-
qualified. That is its highest possible ranking.
  Miguel Estrada has strong support in the Hispanic community, 
including from LULAC, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the U.S. 
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and numerous other Hispanic 
organizations. This is truly a very historic appointment.
  If confirmed, Estrada would be the first Hispanic ever to serve on 
the DC Circuit Court. Many consider the DC Circuit Court to be the 
second most important Federal court in America. Miguel Estrada's 
nomination has been pending now since May 9, 2001. We should bring this 
nomination to the floor of this body and let it go for an up-or-down 
vote.
  Those who have been very vocal and emotional and very passionate, 
pleading against the confirmation of Miguel Estrada, will have their 
day. They can vote no. But this man, and America, deserves to have a 
vote on this very well qualified lawyer, and a very well qualified man.
  Those of us who believe strongly that Miguel Estrada should be 
confirmed will also have our day. We will have our opportunity to stand 
up and say: You have earned this, Mr. Estrada. You

[[Page S2382]]

have earned the right, not just to have your nomination brought to the 
floor of the Senate, but we think you have earned the right to be 
confirmed to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.
  You have been here in America for now over 25 years. We think you 
have worked hard to achieve the educational benefits that have been 
afforded to you. We think you have worked hard to come from a very 
lowly--not necessarily menial background, because I don't know all the 
details of his background, but I know Honduras is a very poor country. 
I know he started out with a very rough, hard life before he came to 
America--and probably for awhile after he got here.
  But he has taken advantage of the opportunities that were presented 
to him, the same opportunities that everybody in this body has had over 
the years, to achieve an education and a profession in America--
America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. This man chose 
to come to our country and abide by all of the laws, take advantage of 
the opportunities that were afforded to him, and he has done that. He 
has achieved great success.
  Everybody who has written in support of him and from the standpoint 
of folks who have worked with him, both Republicans and Democrats, have 
said two things consistently about this man.
  First, from an intellectual standpoint, he is second to none. He has 
all of the intellect necessary that would be required of any member of 
the bench.
  The second thing that has been said about him by every individual 
Republican or Democrat that has written and who he worked for is that 
this man is one of the hardest working men and one of the most 
dedicated men they have ever had in their employment. That is true, 
irrespective of whether it is the law firm in which he has worked, 
whether it is the judges he has clerked for, or whether it is the 
individuals in the Office of the Solicitor General for whom he worked. 
They have been very consistent in stating that this man deserves to be 
confirmed by this body.
  We have just had another hearing this morning on another set of 
judges before the Judiciary Committee. I went to the meeting this 
morning with the idea that we were going to vote out a minimum of three 
judges who have been appointed by President Bush for circuit courts in 
different parts of the country. When I got to that meeting today, it 
became very obvious that the same folks who are opposing Miguel 
Estrada's confirmation on the floor of the Senate did not want those 
nominees to be voted out of the Judiciary Committee today. We did, in 
fact, wind up voting out 1 nominee, but we left on the table probably 
8, 9, or 10 other judges who should have been voted out. There was no 
reason not to vote those judges out.
  But once again, it was a dilatory tactic being imposed on the 
judicial system in this country by the same folks who are now opposing 
Miguel Estrada within the Judiciary Committee who decided we should not 
vote those nominees out.
  I just do not think that is right. I don't think that is the real 
system that our forefathers intended us to operate under when it comes 
to the appointment of judges to the Federal bench in this country.
  I say in closing that I am overwhelmed by the opportunity to serve 
the people of my State in this great institution. I am in awe of the 
individuals with whom I serve here on both sides of the aisle who I 
know are very passionate. They are here for the same reason I am here; 
and that is, to make America a better place for us and for our children 
to live.
  But I don't understand sometimes why we take issues such as the 
confirmation of Miguel Estrada and delay and delay and delay and 
obstruct and obstruct and obstruct at a time in the history of our 
country when we are fighting to win the war on terrorism--when we are 
literally under siege.
  If you go outside today on the streets of Washington, DC, you see 
police cars on virtually every corner with their lights flashing 
indicating they are on high alert. At a time in the history of our 
country when we are on the brink of possibly going to war and putting 
young men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of 
America in harm's way, I just don't understand. And the people who are 
calling my office don't understand why we are not dealing with issues 
of that nature instead of seeing the obstructionist attitude that is 
taking place on the floor of the Senate.
  I certainly hope we are able to conclude this debate which has been 
long lasting now for over a week. There has been much said on both 
sides of the aisle about this man. I think it is time to bring the 
nomination of Miguel Estrada to a vote. Let those folks who have been 
vocal and have been emotional cast their vote in the way they think is 
proper and let those of us who believe--I think a majority of us do 
believe--he is qualified and he ought to be confirmed have a vote to 
confirm Miguel Estrada to the Circuit Court for the District of 
Columbia.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the nomination 
which, sadly, strikes me as, frankly, an arrogant nomination and an 
anticonstitutional nomination of Miguel Estrada to be the very first 
``secret'' judge ever nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia, or for any other court in the Federal system.
  Over the past few days we have had a considerable amount of debate on 
this nomination. While I believe the debate has been good, I have been 
troubled by several of the accusations put forward about the nature of 
the opposition to the nomination of Mr. Estrada. I wanted to come to 
the floor today to discuss this nomination.
  Let me set the record straight about what this debate is about and 
what it is not about.
  First, this debate is not about obstructing President Bush's judicial 
nominee. Under Senator Leahy's leadership, Democrats have had a 
remarkable record of approving President Bush's nominees to the Federal 
court. While Democrats controlled the Senate, we confirmed more than 
six nominees per month. The rate of confirmations by the Republican-led 
Senate was much lower in comparison--3.2 nominees confirmed per month 
during the 104th Congress; 4.25 nominees confirmed per month during the 
105th Congress; and 3.04 nominees confirmed per month during the 106th 
Congress. In fact, the Democrat-led Senate confirmed more nominees in 1 
day than the Republican majority confirmed during the entire 1996 
session.
  On November 14, 2002, the Senate confirmed 18 judicial nominees. In 
1996, the Republican majority allowed only 17 district court judges to 
be confirmed and did not confirm a single circuit court nominee.
  Some of the outrage and some of the expressions of self-
righteousness, if you will, strike me as badly put.
  Personally, I have voted for more than 98 percent of President Bush's 
judicial nominees--98 percent--including three judges who were 
unanimously confirmed earlier this week--all conservative Republican 
judges, no doubt, with my support and my vote.
  The record demonstrates our commitment to move qualified nominees 
quickly through the hearing process and to have a vote on the floor in 
order to fill the backlog of vacancies on the Federal bench that was 
created, frankly, by a failure to confirm President Clinton's judicial 
nominees.
  Let me also state--I am saddened this has to be even raised in this 
Chamber--that this debate is not about race. I have heard some 
colleagues say the only reason the Democrats are opposed to Mr. 
Estrada's nomination is that he is Hispanic. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. Closer examination of the facts reveals what I think 
everybody knows; that is, the Democrats have a solid record when it 
comes to approving Latino candidates to the bench. In fact, 80 percent 
of the Hispanic appellate judges currently serving were appointed by 
President Clinton.
  During the 107th Congress, Democrats held hearings and swiftly 
confirmed six of President Bush's Hispanic judicial nominees--six of 
President Bush's Hispanic judicial nominees approved by a Democratic 
Senate.
  Using race as an issue in this debate is a red herring. And that is a 
kind way to put it. To understand this, you have to only look at the 
ever-growing list of Hispanic organizations that have expressed their 
strong opposition to Mr.

[[Page S2383]]

Estrada's nomination--the Hispanic organizations that have expressed 
their opposition to Mr. Estrada as a ``secret'' nomination. These 
groups include the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Mexican American 
Legal Defense Fund, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, to name but a few.
  To claim that Democrats oppose Mr. Estrada's nomination based on his 
race is offensive, and it is not worthy of the great traditions of this 
Senate.
  So if the opposition to Mr. Estrada's nomination is not about 
obstructing President Bush's judicial nominees or about race, then what 
is this debate about? Simply put, it is about the constitutional duties 
of the Senate.
  When I was sworn in to this Senate, with great pride, great 
conviction, I swore an oath to God to uphold the Constitution of the 
United States. Article II, section 2, of the U.S. Constitution gives 
the President the power to appoint judges with the ``Advice and Consent 
of the Senate.'' I take this responsibility very seriously.
  The Senate is not a rubberstamp for the nominations of a President--
Republican or Democrat. The Senate has a coequal role to play in the 
approval of nominees from a President. The Constitution requires this 
body to play that role.
  I must follow my constitutional duty to carefully scrutinize each 
nomination as it comes before the Senate. I render my best judgment as 
to whether or not the individual is fit and qualified to serve on the 
court to which he or she has been nominated.
  In order to make that judgment, I rely on material provided to the 
Senate Judiciary Committee by the nominee, his or her legal record, and 
independent analysis of outside organizations, such as the American Bar 
Association. In addition, I use the statements and responses to 
questions put to the nominee during his or her confirmation hearing. 
All of these sources allow me to make an informed decision on each 
nominee's qualifications to serve.
  I have attempted to follow this process as I have examined Mr. 
Estrada's nomination, as I have the dozens and dozens and dozens of 
previous President Bush nominees for whom I have voted, conservative 
Republican judges, and I voted for them with pride.
  But throughout my time in the Senate, I have never seen a nominee 
with more of a stealth record than Mr. Estrada. Despite a full hearing 
by the Senate Judiciary Committee, there is simply not enough 
information about Mr. Estrada's judicial views for me to be able to 
fulfill my responsibility of advice and consent.
  Let me take a few moments to outline Mr. Estrada's failure--utter 
failure--to provide the information necessary to confirm his nomination 
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
  We are talking here not about a Cabinet position, a political 
position that will come and go. We are talking about the approval of an 
individual for a lifetime appointment, someone who will serve in the 
second highest court of the land for the rest of the lifetimes of many 
of us here in this body.
  First, during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Estrada refused to 
comment on a single Supreme Court case. Now, this is an individual who 
has never served on the bench and so has no record on the bench. He has 
not been an academic scholar, so he has no writings that are publicly 
available for anybody to review.
  Most other nominees have long experience either on the bench or in 
academia, and we can examine their record with great scrutiny. I may 
approve or disapprove of their views on one thing or another, but at 
least I know what their views are. And overwhelmingly I have voted for 
them because I knew what their views were. I may have disagreed with 
some of their views but, nonetheless, found them to be competent, 
capable individuals for whom I could vote.
  But in this instance, Mr. Estrada refused, and has no other record, 
and refused to comment on a single Supreme Court case. While I 
understand that nominees often do not like to comment on cases and 
issues that one day may be appear before them--and I understand that, 
certainly--Mr. Estrada refused to give the committee a single example 
of a Supreme Court decision that he disagreed with throughout the 
entire history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

  Mr. Estrada may not want to create a record for himself by stating 
his views on a controversial case such as Roe v. Wade--I understand 
that--but did his coaching to avoid answering questions include 
commenting on, say, the Dred Scott case? Rather than addressing the 
issue, he simply refused to give the committee an answer.
  Several attempts were made by members of the Judiciary Committee to 
get Mr. Estrada to elaborate on his approach to legal issues. Despite 
being asked specific questions about his judicial philosophy, he 
refused to give the committee an answer--refused. Even when asked to 
name a single judge--living or dead--whom he admires or would like to 
emulate, he refused to give the committee an answer.
  Finally, members of the Judiciary Committee have asked Mr. Estrada to 
provide the Senate with legal memos or other analysis which he has 
prepared in the past and which could possibly shed some light on his 
judicial thinking. So far, Mr. Estrada has refused to provide this 
additional information as well.
  One of our colleagues has argued that this request for information is 
merely a delaying tactic or beyond what is truly needed to confirm Mr. 
Estrada. Yet our Republican friends had no problems asking Democratic 
judicial nominees for extensive documentation. This included asking 
Marsha Berzon, nominated to the Ninth Circuit, for the minutes to every 
single meeting of the California ACLU during her entire membership 
period with that organization. It was argued, then, that such 
information was required by the Senate to be diligent in examining the 
qualifications of judicial nominees.
  If this type of information was necessary to confirm judges in the 
past, I believe it is fair to ask Mr. Estrada to supply enough 
information to the Senate to help us understand his judicial 
philosophy. No stealth judges. No secret judges.
  Conservative Republican judges? Yes, of course. President Bush is 
President of the United States. He is our President. He has the 
opportunity and the authority to nominate these individuals to the 
bench. And they have been overwhelmingly approved by this Senate, 
Democrats and Republicans alike. That is not the question.
  The question is, What kind of precedent are we going to set to begin 
to approve individuals to lifetime appointments to the bench while 
having utterly no concept of where the individual is in terms of his 
judicial philosophy?
  Mr. Estrada may well be qualified to serve on the U.S. Court of 
Appeals. He may well be qualified. Unfortunately, it appears he has 
been coached, he has been advised to say nothing, to elude all 
questions, and to avoid providing the Senate with any information that 
would help us to construct an opinion about his thoughts on judicial 
issues.
  I ask each of my colleagues to consider the precedent we will set for 
future Presidents, future nominees, and, indeed, for this Senate if we 
confirm a nominee who has refused to provide the Senate with sufficient 
information. I fear it is a step toward making the Senate merely a 
rubberstamp for this or any other President's nominations and would, in 
fact, be an abrogation of our constitutional duties.
  We swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not 
to surrender the role of the Senate's responsibilities for advice and 
consent. The precedent that would be set here would lead to a 
circumstance where Presidents, perhaps of both political parties, in 
the future would routinely nominate people to the bench who had some 
ideological ax to grind, some out-of-the-mainstream judicial views, but 
who had never sat on the bench before. It would be considered to be a 
disadvantage to have served on the bench before. It would be considered 
to be a disadvantage to have been a scholar and written about your 
views. And we would wind up getting a succession of these stealth 
candidates who had no record and who also, on top of that, refused to 
respond to the Senate relative to their judicial philosophy. This would 
be catastrophic to the integrity of the Federal bench.
  Unless we are able to get more complete information, I will vote 
against Mr. Estrada. My vote is not based on

[[Page S2384]]

race. I am proud to have voted for Hispanic nominee after Hispanic 
nominee. That is not the question. Nor is it an attempt to block 
President Bush's nominees because I am proud of the dozens and dozens 
and dozens of President Bush nominees for whom I also have voted.
  Even though I may have disagreed to some extent with their political 
and judicial philosophy, at least I understood where they were coming 
from, and I knew what they were. They seemed to be, in my best 
judgment, largely in the mainstream of contemporary American 
jurisprudence.
  I will vote against Mr. Estrada because I believe it would make a 
mockery of my constitutional obligation for advice and consent to 
confirm a nominee to a lifetime appointment to the appellate bench, the 
second highest court in the land, who has refused to answer basic 
questions and who has no record. What a precedent, what an ugly 
precedent it would be for this Nation to accept that. This Senate 
deserves better. The American people deserve better.
  I lay before my colleagues my rationale for taking this position on 
this particular individual. It is my hope that never again will we see 
this kind of stealth, secret process, this assumption that the Senate 
will abrogate its advice and consent obligations brought before this 
body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Alaska.


                      Tongass Land Use Management

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the appropriations bill, the omnibus 
bill, as we call it, will be here soon. I wanted to comment about 
stories pertaining to a provision I have in the bill and the change I 
sought to make in it.
  The Tongass language in this omnibus bill that will come back to the 
Senate is the same language in the bill when it passed the Senate. It 
was not challenged in the Senate. The language provides that the record 
of decision for the 2003 supplemental environmental impact statement 
for the 1997 Tongass Land Use Management Plan shall not be subject to 
administrative appeal or judicial review.
  During the consideration of the omnibus bill, I did suggest some 
modification of that language. It led to considerable discussion in the 
press. I might add there are a whole series of provisions in this bill 
as it comes back that were modified in conference by many Senators, 
many Members of the House of Representatives. The process by which we 
do that in many ways has been discussed by other Senators. At a later 
time I want to discuss the process by which Senators comment upon the 
work of other Members of the Senate.
  In any event, for instance, in the Los Angeles Times, Senator Boxer 
said:

       The stewardship proposal could allow logging of 10 million 
     acres in California if the riders remain in the bill. I 
     intend to discuss them at great length on the Senate floor.

  My amendment did not apply to California at all.
  The Senator from California also is reported as saying in another 
release I have that:

       This is a dangerous backdoor attempt to silence the public, 
     states, and localities, and to stop our citizens from going 
     to court to protest these destructive riders.

  The provision to stop going to court was in the Senate bill.
  In another article in the Grand Forks Herald, there is this 
statement:

       The riders would remove Alaska's Tongass and Chugach 
     forests from protection under the national roadless policy 
     and require the Forest Service to offer timber sales to meet 
     market demand regardless of the effects on habitat and the 
     forests' other resources.

  I could go on and on with these articles that are in the papers and 
in the news releases throughout the country.
  What I want to do is set the record straight on what the situation is 
in the Tongass and how we got where we are today. It is a long saga. It 
takes a little while to relate to the Senate.
  In 1997, after 10 years of planning and $13 million of the taxpayers' 
money, the Tongass Land Use Management Plan was completed. I opposed 
that plan because it contained drastic reductions in the timber 
harvest. I thought the levels were much lower than they needed to be. 
There were numerous scientists who found the Tongass could sustain far 
greater development support than what was included in the report.
  Today, just 6 years later, that plan seems like the golden age of the 
Tongass timber industry. I now find myself defending that plan, which 
Democrats and environmentalists then supported because those same 
extreme environmentalists and their friends from the previous 
administration have done so much damage to Alaska's timber industry 
since that time.
  The Tongass Land Use Management Plan reduced the allowable sale 
quantity (ASQ), for the Tongass to 267 million board feet. That is the 
plan I am talking about that we are now defending. Of the allowable 267 
million board feet of timber, less than 220 million board feet would be 
economically harvestible under the plan. It provided access to only 
676,000 acres of the 17 million acre Tongass National Forest.
  Furthermore, it established that timber harvesting on Federal land 
would be managed over 100-year and 120-year rotations. These rotations 
provided more than enough time for forest revitalization.
  The Tongass is the only forest in Alaska in which timber may be 
harvested. I call the Senate's attention to this. Our other forest, 
which is 5.5 million acres, the Chugach, is under a forest management 
plan which has reduced timber harvesting to zero. This renders the 
Chugach forest almost completely closed to logging. There are some 
small inholding tracks that could be logged, but none of them are being 
logged, to my knowledge. Last year less than 1 million board feet of 
salvageable timber ravaged by disease was sold from the Chugach. There 
is no real commercial harvest there.
  Many groups and individuals frame the current debate about the 
Tongass as an argument about whether or not the forest should be saved. 
The terms of the 1997 plan made by the Clinton administration make it 
clear that framing the issue this way is very misleading. The 1997 plan 
set aside 93 percent of all forested areas in the Tongass National 
Forest in my home State.
  Under the Tongass amendment I asked Congress to approve, that land 
will remain completely untouched. It will not touch any of the land, 93 
percent, that is reserved, set aside. It would remain completely 
untouched. Clearly the vast majority of the Tongass has already been 
saved for future generations. Yet they want more. There is 7 percent of 
the forest that is still open to logging under the agreement made in 
1980.
  My State's timber industry has experienced a swift decline, 
threatening thousands of Alaskan families who depend upon that industry 
for their livelihood. Today timber communities in southeast Alaska have 
been devastated by unemployment due in large part to jobs lost in the 
timber industry. I point out to the Senate this bill we will vote on 
tonight will contain $3.1 billion for the farm community that has been 
devastated by about a 15 percent reduction in income. My timber 
industry will receive nothing even though it has been totally 
devastated by the actions taken by the Clinton administration.
  The Tongass once supported 4,000 timber jobs. Today two-thirds of 
those jobs have disappeared, and all of them will disappear if the 
roadless policy is applied to the area set aside for logging in the 
Tongass format and the Tongass Land Use plan.
  In the last 10 years, diseased supply and frivolous lawsuits waged by 
extreme environmental groups have led to the closure of all of our pulp 
mills. There is not a single pulp mill left in Alaska. When those mills 
closed, they took southeast Alaska's best jobs with them. I hasten to 
point out, as I said, when farming fell 15 percent, Congress declared a 
disaster. That is $3.1 billion we put up for the farmers. They are no 
different than loggers. The only difference is, loggers have been 
affected by actions of the Department of Agriculture. It is the 
Department of Agriculture that asks us to protect the farmers.
  The situation in the Tongass has not only cost us thousands of jobs, 
it has also cost the Government valuable tax dollars. The Government 
may soon have to pay the Alaska Pulp Company $750 million for the 
Clinton administration's illegal cancellation of timber contracts in 
the Tongass. That money should be paid to Alaska's workers.
  The rapid decline in Alaska's timber industry is due to two main 
causes: the

[[Page S2385]]

Clinton administration's policy barring logging and roadbuilding on 
58.5 million acres of national forest, including the Tongass, and 
frivolous lawsuits brought by the multibillion-dollar environmental 
lobby in an effort to lock up public resources on public land.
  First, let me talk about the plan implemented by the Clinton 
administration's final days in office. When Congress passed the Tongass 
Act in 1947, we set what we called the ASQ level for the Tongass at 
1.38 billion board feet per year. That level was slowly eroded. In 
1980, the level was reduced to 450 million board feet per year under 
the Alaska National Interest Lands Act. In 1997, the Tongass land 
management plan further reduced the level to 267 million board feet. By 
2001, the harvest level in the Tongass was only 48 million board feet--
from 1.3-plus billion board feet to less than 48 million board feet. 
When you talk about a disaster, clearly this drastic reduction is one 
of the most serious disasters for the timber industry.
  To give my fellow Senators some perspective, Southeast Alaska has 
more than 18 million acres of forest land, 95 percent of which is in a 
national forest and only 850 timber jobs left today. Arkansas has 19 
million acres of forest land, 8 percent of which is national forest and 
43,000 timber jobs.
  Pennsylvania has 17 million acres of forest land, 2 percent of which 
is in a national forest, and 82,000 timber jobs.
  New York has 19 million acres of forest land, 4 percent of which is 
national forest, and 51,000 timber jobs.
  Last year, while Alaska harvested 34 million board feet, New York 
harvested nearly 900 million board feet of timber.
  This history and disparity between how national forest lands are 
administered in other States and how they are administered in Alaska 
shows that reductions in the ASQ levels are unfair, unreasonable, and 
unlawful.
  The 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act provided the 
proper balance between protecting and preserving Alaska's heritage and 
providing economic and social opportunities to the people of the State 
of Alaska. That 1980 Act specifically prohibited the changes the 
Clinton administration made to the Tongass management plan in 1999. 
Section 708(b) of the 1980 Act specifically states that there will be 
no ``further statewide roadless area review and evaluation of national 
forest systems lands in the State of Alaska'' without the express 
authorization of Congress--none. We call that one of the ``no more 
clauses.'' That was the one concession Congress gave to us when it 
withdrew over a hundred million acres of our State for national 
interest lands and disallowed any type of development by the people of 
the State of Alaska.
  Section 1326 of that same act--again, deemed the ``no more clause''--
prohibits review of any future conservation area greater than 5,000 
acres without congressional approval. Clearly, the study of the 18 
million acre Tongass was not authorized; it was not previously reviewed 
by Congress.
  The roadless plan was first announced by the Clinton administration 
in 1999. I hope Senators will listen to this. In the fall of 2000, I 
received a call from the Clinton administration assuring me as chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee and the Senator from Alaska that the 
Tongass would be excluded from the roadless plan. The proposed rule 
upon which hearings were held specifically excluded Alaska.
  Let me consider that now, and I hope the Senate will consider it. As 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Clinton administration 
sought my help on many issues in the year 2000 as we considered the 
2001 appropriations bills. I was in a position then to hold them to 
their commitment on the roadless areas.

  After the election was over and the appropriations bills had passed, 
President Clinton personally applied the roadless plan to the Tongass 
by Executive order. It was not included in the proposed rule upon which 
hearings were held, but at the last minute the President personally 
added Alaska to the plan.
  In their rush to lock up Alaska on their way out the door, the 
administration ignored the concerns of my State, the Alaskan Natives, 
and our timber communities, and they specifically violated the law.
  Lawsuits brought by extreme environmentalists have created an equally 
troubling situation. The lawsuits have forced the Forest Service to 
keep revising its plans. The groups filing these suits are abusing the 
National Environmental Policy Act, an act which I cosponsored along 
with Senator Jackson in the 1970s.
  As a cosponsor, I believe I knew the original intent. When we passed 
that act, we intended it to be used to assess the environmental impact 
of major Federal decisions. Radical environmentalists have used it to 
create an absolute barrier to resource development or commercial use on 
any public lands.
  Each time we complete an environmental impact study, it costs the 
taxpayers up to $10 million and locks up public resources for years. In 
effect, this practice has created a class of professional environmental 
lawyers whose only practice is to prevent the utilization of resources 
on public lands.
  I have been a lawyer for 50 years and I have never seen such 
development. I have never seen such single-minded people who use a law 
designed to protect our environment to produce income for themselves, 
at a cost to the taxpayers and the people of this Nation.
  No one seeks to limit due process or debate on these issues, but the 
extremists have exhausted the time period for a reasonable review 
process. I ask colleagues to remember new roadless areas are illegal in 
Alaska under these clauses I have read, unless specifically approved by 
Congress. This would not even be an issue if the Clinton Justice 
Department had raised the ``no more clause'' when they defended the 
Tongass land management plan in Federal court. Neither did the Federal 
district court judge.
  Mr. President, I have a letter from the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, 
one of our major political subdivisions in Alaska. I ask unanimous 
consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        Ketchikan Gateway Borough,


                                Office of the Borough Manager,

                                                    Ketchikan, AK.

     Re: Amendments relating to Tongass timber issues

     Senator Ted Stevens,
     Hart Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens: On behalf of the Ketchikan Gateway 
     Borough, I would like to thank you for your efforts at 
     bringing closure to what has become a decade long dispute 
     crippling the economy of many Southeast Alaska communities, 
     Ketchikan included.
       Specifically, with TTRA in 1990, the intent was to bring 
     peace and stability to the timber industry, providing enough 
     timber to meet the demand, and not overproducing and 
     unbalancing normal market forces. The result, however, was an 
     ineffective provision. The phrasing ``seek to meet'' demand 
     was interpreted in a way which resulted in the demand not 
     being met, and led to a downward spiral of ever reduced 
     capacity and employment. Removing the words ``seek to'' from 
     this provision would go a long way toward helping the 
     economies in Wrangell, Ketchikan, Prince of Wales Island, and 
     throughout Southeast Alaska recover from the adverse impacts 
     of the prior error.
       Second: In addition to the restrictive effect which the 
     ``seek to meet'' language has had on timber supply, the 
     uncertainty caused by protracted litigation over both the 
     1997 ROD and the Roadless Rule issues has brought the timber 
     industry almost to a standstill. It has constricted the 
     timber supply to the point where unemployment is threatening 
     the viability of communities. New investment for more 
     environmentally friendly secondary processing is difficult to 
     secure because of the uncertainty as to timber supply and the 
     effect of litigation on the ability of the Forest Service to 
     put out sales.
       It has been nearly 6 years since the issuance of the 1997 
     ROD, a planning document which took nearly a decade to 
     complete. It is time for the decision to be accepted and for 
     people to move on. It will only be a few more years before it 
     is time to begin the next TLMP ROD process. Continuing 
     uncertainty caused by protracted litigation over land use 
     plans is killing the economy in Southeast Alaska. The 
     Ketchikan Gateway Borough has lost nearly 10 percent of its 
     population since 1996, and 2 percent just in the last year. 
     Review of individual sales offers adequate opportunities for 
     appeals if there are issues requiring review.
       Third: In regard to the Roadless Rule, the whole process 
     was a rushed pre-determined decision. Application of the rule 
     to Alaska, however, stands out as the most significant 
     injustice of the entire process. Throughout the public 
     comment period the proposal was described as clearly not 
     impacting Alaska. It was only after the comments were closed 
     that the final rule was issued to apply to Alaska as well. 
     This is fundamentally unfair and improper. Further, the ``no 
     more'' clause of ANILCA precludes such an action.

[[Page S2386]]

       Even if the process were not flawed, the impacts are 
     drastic and unconscionable. If the Roadless Rule were applied 
     here it would virtually guarantee that there would not be any 
     meaningful timber industry employment in secondary 
     manufacture in Southeast Alaska. The amount of timber 
     available from the largest National Forest would end up as 
     exports in the round and small production of likely less than 
     100 MMBF of sawlogs and chips.
       Further, the ability to build new infrastructure or even 
     support existing infrastructure, would be jeopardized. If the 
     economy in the area continues with such constriction and 
     uncertainty there will be additional loss of population and 
     continued increases in social problems associated with 
     poverty.
       The Ketchikan Gateway Borough urges you to use your best 
     efforts to ensure the passage of the riders which address 
     these three issues.
       Thank you for your attention to this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Roy Eckert,
                                                  Borough Manager.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this letter is from Roy Eckert, borough 
manager, concerning amendments relating to Tongass timber.
  I want to put into the Record another letter that has been written to 
the Secretary of Agriculture and signed by Petersburg city council 
member, of the Recreation/Wilderness Program manager of the Tongass 
National Forest, Bill Tremblay. It is a factual letter setting forth 
parts of the comments that I have made. I hope Members of the Senate 
will read it.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Dear Secretary, thank you for receiving other members of 
     the Petersburg City Council. I would like to take this 
     opportunity to join my voice with the other council members 
     in noting our strongest opposition to the recently signed 
     Roadless Area Conservation Policy. I take exception to this 
     as a member of the City Council and as a Forest Service 
     employee. Some action is needed to address the devastating 
     impacts of this decision to the captive communities within 
     the boundaries of the National Forests in Alaska, 
     particularly on the Tongass National Forest in southeast 
     Alaska.


             the tongass national forest, finding the facts

       The Tongass is almost 17 million acres and is one of the 
     oldest forests in the entire National Forest System. The 
     forest is about the size of West Virginia and has more 
     coastline that the entire west coast in the lower 48. More 
     than 95% is federally owned. The forest has almost 5.8 
     million acres Congressionally designated as wilderness (19 
     wilderness areas in all) with another 500,000 acres also 
     designated by Congress for recreation purposes (Land Use 
     Designations II (LUD II) through the Tongass Timber Reform 
     Act of 1990).
       Attached is some of the literature used by environmental 
     groups to support the Roadless Rule, I'm providing this to 
     highlight some of the misinformation used to solicit 
     comments. National environmental groups continually portrayed 
     all 17 million acres at risk. Of course the result of this 
     effort was the generation of thousands of postcards endorsing 
     the Roadless Rule. Federal courts have ruled that comments to 
     environmental documents must be timely and substantive. 
     Comments cards parroting misstatements of fact are not 
     substantive. Many of these cards were the basis of Chief 
     Dombecks' assertion that ``overwhelming public comments in 
     favor of the Roadless Rule'' supported the decision. 
     Decisions affecting the management of our resources are 
     suppose to be based on science, federal policy, and the 
     ability of the lands to sustain the proposed action. If we're 
     going to use vote counting as a method of management then I 
     doubt we need the current organizational structure for the 
     Forest Service.
       Just a side note, it was well minded people like these that 
     had the Forest Service respond to the need to protect the 
     ``Mendenhall Penguins'' during the Forest Planning process 
     for the Tongass. Somehow, someone put a message out noting 
     that such creatures existed at the Mendenhall Icefield near 
     Juneau. As a result, there were several hundred letters 
     mailed to the Tongass Land Management Planning Team. I think 
     a lot of the comments received for the protection of the 
     remaining roadless areas on the Tongass were done with just 
     as much understanding of the issues to be addressed.
       Please review the evaluation of the comments carefully. 
     Before the President's decision, I overheard members of a 
     regional environmental organization talking about how they 
     had the phone number for making comments on his speed dial so 
     they could call every morning. The process set forth in the 
     National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) is not a voting 
     process. Again, allowing for the accumulation of one 
     opinion from one person doesn't meet the test for a 
     substantive comment.


                         Are Forest Plans Dead?

       In 1999 the Tongass National Forest completed a 13 year, 
     $10 million dollar Forest Plan. To resolve the appeals to the 
     Regional Foresters decision, the final decision was taken 
     away from the Chief of the Forest Service and made by then 
     Undersecretary Jim Lyons. In April 2000, a GAO report on the 
     Process Used to Modify the Forest Plan for the Tongass 
     decision showed that this move, while legal, was 
     unprecedented. I'll also note for the record that Mr. Lyons 
     specifically addressed Roadless in his decision.
       After his decision, Mr. Lyons came to Sitka, Alaska to talk 
     with the mayors of the affected communities, and other 
     community representatives. Mr. Lyons, addressing the mayors 
     on behalf of the administration, assured affected communities 
     that the forest plan would provide guidance for the 
     management of the forest for the next 10 to 15 years. Only a 
     few months later we learned that Mr. Lyons was clearly out of 
     touch with his own administration as the Tongass was to be 
     included in the Roadless Rule. The potential inclusion of the 
     Tongass and Chugach National Forests in the Roadless Rule 
     prompted the Governor of Alaska to publicly announce that the 
     State had been ``stabbed in the back''. The Governor of 
     Alaska is a Democrat and the Republican led State legislature 
     has just voiced their own opposition to the Roadless Rule in 
     passing a bill supporting the Governor's position.
       Both actions related to the final forest plan decision and 
     the Roadless Rule fly in the face of other rules filed by the 
     administration encouraging more cooperation at a local level 
     in decision making and the delegation of the decision of 
     Forest Plans down to the Forest Supervisor level. I have been 
     looking over priorities of this new administration and have 
     found their focus on local collaboration and participation is 
     also in concert with these ideas.
       The process used to implement the Roadless Rule places the 
     integrity of the Forest Planning process at risk on a 
     National Scale. The Tongass Plan completed and signed in 1997 
     by the Regional Forester was environmentally sound, 
     scientifically based and legally defensible. The only flaw in 
     the decision was that it didn't meet the values of members of 
     the past administration. If we are going to have local 
     decisions continually made at the Washington level then we 
     need to resend the new planning regulations and reissue the 
     new procedures to follow to be fair to the public.


                       The Roadless Rule Document

       The Roadless Rule FEIS failed miserable in its contents. 
     Many of the points made in the analysis were flawed, 
     inaccurate, incomplete, and not site specific as is required 
     by the CFR's for an environmental analysis. The problems in 
     the analysis should have been identified in the review of the 
     document by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 
     However, since Mr. Frampton was the head of the CEQ at the 
     time, there wasn't concern about the content and more on the 
     outcome. When a delegation of mayors met with Mr. 
     Frampton, Secretary Glickman, and other in early December, 
     it was evident to them that Mr. Frampton clearly was in 
     charge of the process.


                       Economic Impacts Analysis

       One example of the poor analysis was in the discussion of 
     the economic impacts of this decision. The document notes 
     that nationally the impacts are not significant. In specific 
     reference to the Tongass, it identifies the loss of almost 
     900 jobs direct and indirect) and an estimated $17 million 
     loss of annual income to the region. The document notes that 
     the passage of the Secure Schools Act, which makes up the 
     loss of forest receipts, will help deflect the impacts. If 
     you examine the trends of the impacts to communities of 
     southeast Alaska over the past 5 years you'll see that the 
     money generated from this Secure School Act only mitigates 
     the impacts from the falling receipts from previous years. It 
     does nothing to address the Roadless Rule. Attached is a 
     better depiction of the impacts of the rule as provided to 
     the CEQ by the State Director of the USDA Rural Development 
     Program. After looking at her comments we can see that the 
     impacts go far beyond just the payments to the State. I did 
     attached the USDA State Director's comments to my response to 
     the final FEIS but I cannot see were these were ever 
     addressed in the document.
       What is not discussed in the document is how southeast 
     Alaska is unlike other regions in the lower '48 States. 
     Displaced workers in southeast Alaska cannot commute to other 
     nearby communities to look for jobs. Because of the isolation 
     of our communities, people without jobs are more likely to be 
     forced to leave the State.
       Arguments in favor of the Roadless Rule note that other 
     areas of economic growth available to southeast Alaska, such 
     as tourism and fisheries. Tourism is growing in southeast 
     Alaska but only through the commercialization of communities 
     as though we were a third world entity. More than 80% of the 
     tourism in southeast Alaska comes from large cruise ships. 
     These ships do drop passengers off in communities to 
     participate in shore excursions, but most of these trips are 
     negotiated by contract prior to the season. The free time 
     given to passengers is generally short and allows enough time 
     to these tourists to shop ``locally'' in shops. Many shops, 
     that use to be local, are now largely owned by the tour ship 
     companies. (See the attached Southeast Empire where the 
     Skagway economy is discussed.) The season for this activity 
     occurs is normally from the first of May to the beginning to 
     September (about 120 days). This leaves the other 240

[[Page S2387]]

     days of the year with little to no recreation or tourism 
     economy. May of the service industry workers now follow these 
     companies to other parts of the world to maintain their year 
     round employment. Although there are sales taxes generated 
     and wages generated in the summer season, most of the earned 
     wages leave wit the seasonal workforce so there is a minimal 
     economic multiplier effect. Many communities are now voting 
     in a head tax for these cruise ship passengers to help 
     support the infrastructure of the communities.
       The Chugach National Forest in southcentral Alaska enjoys 
     almost year round use because of its proximity to the largest 
     population center of the State, available roads, and better 
     winter conditions. Poor weather conditions and little 
     infrastructure for access virtually eliminates tourism travel 
     from October to early May in southeast Alaska. These facts 
     were not presented in the Roadless Rule analysis and should 
     have been.
       The potential growth in fishing is even bleaker. Glacier 
     Bay National Park in the northern area of southeast Alaska 
     has just recently closed itself to fishing in many places 
     traditionally used. Actions taken by the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service to protect the stellar sea lions put more 
     of our local citizens out of work. Farmed fish from around 
     the world has depressed world salmon prices. Other federal 
     actions are also threatening the fishing and recreation 
     industry. Did you know that one of the mitigations proposed 
     in lieu of breaching the three Snake River dams in Idaho was 
     to stop all troll fishing in southeast Alaska? The troll 
     fisheries are generally small businesses, many of them are 
     guides who came to this business when they lost their lumber 
     jobs because of the decisions by our agency to reduce timber 
     harvesting. While many of these actions are outside the scope 
     of the Roadless Rule decision and our agency, they are 
     federal actions that contribute to the negative cumulative 
     effects to our economy but were never addressed in the 
     analysis.
       I raised these economic issues in my comments to the Draft 
     Environmental Impact Statement. I cannot say I am satisfied 
     with the results in the FEIS.


                     Effects to the Timber Industry

       When I first got to the Tongass in the early 1980's, 
     Congress had mandated that 450 million board feet (MMBF) 
     annually be made available for sale through the Alaska 
     National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA). 
     Most of this timber was required to meet our obligations for 
     the two remaining 50-year timber sale contracts. Volume not 
     tied up in the contacts was also made available to 
     independent timber sale operators. ANILCA also resolved the 
     Alaska native lands settlement and the issue of lands the 
     State of Alaska was entitled to through statehood. The 
     settlement of other land ownership combined with poor timber 
     market conditions never allowed the Forest Service to sell 
     more that about 350 MMBF annually for most of the 1980's.
       During the initial work in the revision of the Tongass Land 
     Management Plan, Congress modified ANILCA and the timber sale 
     contracts when they passed the Tongass Timber Reform Act in 
     1990 (TTRA). In this action they also removed the 450 MMBF 
     annual timber target required by ANILCA. The final decision 
     for the Forest Plan made by the Regional Forester in 1997 set 
     a timber harvest level of approximately 286 MMBF for the 
     annual allowable sale quantity. This was reduced to 
     approximately 150 MMBF in Mr. Lyons 1999 decision. Mr. Lyons 
     decision protected some roadless areas but has forced the 
     agency to plan for some harvesting other roadless areas to 
     meet the allowable sale quantity. The Roadless Rule decision 
     makes some assumptions that some losses in areas to cut 
     timber might be made up in areas where roads already exist. 
     This statement ignores the 200-year timber rotation put in 
     place by Mr. Lyon's decision for the Tongass. The 200-year 
     rotation will make many of the roaded areas unavailable 
     for timber harvesting for another 160 years.
       The Roadless Rule decision suggests that some agency 
     funding might be diverted in a way that would benefit 
     communities impacted by the decision. In the 1990's actions 
     were taken by the agency to cancel the two 50-year timber 
     sale contracts on the Tongass. The cancellation of the first 
     contract resulted in a court settlement that made the agency 
     pay $100,000,000 to the contractor and allowed them three 
     years of the contracted timber volume for a transition. The 
     second cancellation has just resulted in a $1.5 billion 
     judgment against our agency. With these financial burdens, 
     what funds are available to help our local communities? The 
     misrepresentation of the facts by this agency alone should be 
     cause enough to find a way to reverse this decision as it 
     impacts the forests in Alaska.
       To its credit, the agency has taken some steps to address 
     the downward trend of the timber industry. We have encouraged 
     smaller sawmills or advocated for more secondary processing 
     to take place through grants and bringing in consultants. A 
     new veneer plant has just opened in Ketchikan through much 
     encouragement by this agency and several grants. The 
     Ketchikan mill alone can process 135 MMBF annually. There are 
     several other mills in southeast Alaska that also require a 
     minimal amount of volume to stay viable. The Roadless Rule 
     only allows for an estimated 30 MMBF in annual timber sales 
     off of National Forest System Lands. The agency has 
     purposefully deceived communities and businesses with their 
     intent which has resulted in meaningless investments if the 
     Roadless Rule is allowed to stand. Is there any wonder why 
     the timber industry and the State sued the agency over the 
     Roadless Rule decision?


                         Predetermined Decision

       More than a week prior to issuing the Draft Environmental 
     Impact Statement for public review, Chief Mike Dombeck 
     addressed Federal Employees noting the accomplishments of the 
     Forest Service. His first statement was; ``You are moving 
     ahead with plans to protect a special resource on our 
     national forests and grasslands--54 million areas of roadless 
     areas.''
       This statement does several things. First it acknowledges 
     the intent of the administration to protect ALL roadless 
     areas before the public had any chance to comment. Second, 
     the acreage immediately included the Tongass which had just 
     had the roadless issue resolved by Mr. Lyon's decision.
       It's also interesting to note that the recent Forest 
     Service Strategic Plan for 2000 states the first objective is 
     that, ``we will protect roadless areas through the roadless 
     area conservation policy''. This strategy was mailed to the 
     printer in October, which was a month before the final EIS 
     was available for review by the public. I will also note that 
     the Forest Service Strategic Plan for 2000 was being 
     distributed to field offices prior to the final decision 
     signed by President Clinton. (I got a copy four days to the 
     final decision.) The predetermined way this document was 
     completed makes a mockery of the entire process and opens 
     the question of our agency standards to public ridicule. 
     It specifically calls to question whether or not the 
     comments to the Roadless Rule were being reviewed for 
     content as required by NEPA or just being processed for a 
     response.
       The line officers within the Forest Service were not 
     briefed about the decision prior to the invitations being 
     sent to environmental groups for the White House signing 
     party. In fact, many our line officers heard of the final 
     decisions through the environmental community before they 
     knew about it from their supervisors.
       We have spent years getting our communities and 
     constituents to work with us on a local level in forging 
     decisions that affect the resources and their quality of 
     life. To see our objective environmental analysis process 
     used for a political gain is an embarrassment. While there 
     may be some in favor of the rule, many people within and 
     outside of the agency object to the Roadless Rule primarily 
     because the way the decision was made. If asked, Forest 
     Service employees would pass a vote of ``no confidence'' for 
     this Chief.


                lack of science in the roadless decision

       We are being told that science played a role in the 
     Roadless Rule decision. When reading this analysis I fail to 
     see where the science was used. In specific reference to the 
     Tongass, what were the measured benefits to the resources 
     provided by the Roadless Rule that were not provided by the 
     1999 decision made by Mr. Lyons? If you were to look at the 
     planning record for the Tongass Land Management Plan, you'd 
     find that there were only minor concerns for resources 
     expressed by the agency in the 1997 decision made by the 
     Regional Forester. Mr. Lyons 1999 decision more than made up 
     for any shortcomings for resource concerns in the 1997 by 
     issuing a decision based more on values than science (Which 
     is still in court). The Roadless Rule provides additional 
     protections but fails to make a case for who or for what? 
     More roadless is more roadless but it has not been 
     demonstrated that it is needed. This again is a flaw in the 
     environmental analysis which should cause it to be 
     overturned.


                       local resource management

       As previously noted, this decision was made far away from 
     the field, in an apparent partisan way, without science, and 
     in a way that didn't account for local knowledge. By 
     including the Tongass in the Roadless Rule, the 
     administration acknowledged that they don't trust their 
     employees to manage the 3.5% left to manage for resource 
     development in the 1999 decision from Mr. Lyons. They have 
     also put an end to a very cooperative process that has been 
     ongoing for the management of National Forest Systems lands 
     in Alaska.


                               solutions

       From what I can see, this administration has four 
     options: (1) Live with the Roadless Rule; (2) Start the 
     process to revise the Roadless Rule; (3) Have Congress 
     overturn the Roadless Rule; (4) Work on something through 
     the courts.
       The Roadless Rule can't be ignored because of the 
     tremendous impacts to communities. I'm not sure the Forest 
     Service has the millions of dollars it would take to do 
     another analysis. I also think that the decision might be too 
     controversial to be addressed by Congress that is so closely 
     divided.
       This leaves the court system to resolve the conflicts over 
     the Roadless Rule. My suggestion to the agency is to accept 
     the lawsuit filed by the State of Alaska and agree to remove 
     the Tongass and Chugach from the Roadless Rule decision.
       The Roadless Rule decision is harmful to the State of 
     Alaska and doing a single purpose study dealing the agency 
     had gone against provisions specifically prohibiting this 
     action as stated in ANILCA. I know the State of Alaska is 
     willing to pursue this in

[[Page S2388]]

     court because of the impacts this will have on our economy, 
     does our agency want to spend this kind of money defending 
     such an unpopular decision? The agency could cite the cost of 
     the trial, clause of ANILCA it violated, the inadequate 
     evaluation of the impacts in the analysis and find that 
     adequate protection is already provided to the remaining 
     roadless areas of the Tongass through the implementation of 
     the 1999 Tongass decision. With all of the reasons I've 
     presented, I believe the agency has sufficient cause to 
     withdraw the Alaska forests from the Roadless Decision and 
     not defend the decision in the courts.


                                closing

       The day the Roadless Rule was signed, I sent a note 
     directly to the Chief. I told him that in my 20 years as an 
     employee that it was the first day I was ever embarrassed to 
     be a Forest Service employee. I have spent most of my career 
     in the Alaska Region and I have never had a cause to feel 
     this way previously. I am proud of what this agency and its 
     employees have accomplished for the benefit of all people in 
     the management of the resources within the State of Alaska. 
     More than just our management of the resources, we bring some 
     tremendous skills to our communities where we participate 
     fully as community members. The partisan way the Roadless 
     Rule was completed goes counter to everything our agency has 
     been trying to build in community trust and involvement over 
     the past 30 years.
       Some people within the community and at work have 
     questioned my persistence in trying to overturn the Roadless 
     Rule. Speaking as a council member for the community, I feel 
     I have an obligation to make every effort to protect our 
     community from harm. As a Forest Service employee, I just 
     want to be proud of who I work for again.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bill Tremblay.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I go back to my original statement. I 
have been here going on 35 years now and I have never seen people make 
statements that are so unfounded and unfactual about things that I am 
doing.
  I am warning the Senate that if Members of the Senate accuse me of 
doing things that are not proper and they are absolutely unfactual, I 
intend to come here and, on a basis of personal privilege, bring those 
Senators to the floor and demand an apology. This has gone too far. 
Senators are saying my amendment covers 9 million acres. It does not. 
It protects 1.7 million acres. The reason we are discussing this here 
today is that at the last minute, the Clinton administration added my 
State to the roadless rule. Notwithstanding the fact that the Clinton 
administration called me personally and said Alaska would not be 
included in their roadless rule plan because they knew of the 
provisions of ANILCA. No hearing was ever held on the implications such 
a rule would have on Alaska, no hearing was held on the proposal, and 
no request to Congress to include Alaska in the roadless area was ever 
made. I have never seen anything more deceitful than the conduct of the 
Clinton administration in their pursuit of the roadless rule.
  I intend to pursue this now. I would hope that before my colleagues 
make statements on the floor or to the media, they review both the 
Tongass amendment and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
Act. I am literally warning Senators that we are going to have it out 
here on the floor of the Senate if they keep accusing me of doing 
something which I have not done. That, to me, is a violation of the 
Senate rules.
  When Judge Singleton ordered the Forest Service to review 9.7 million 
roadless acres, the Forest Service complied. They reviewed the 
Potential wilderness and roadless areas even though it was in direct 
violation of ANILCA. There wouldn't even be a review if the Clinton 
Administration had not ignored ANILCA, which specifically prohibited 
such review.
  Alaskans seek two remedies to the current problems with Forest Policy 
in the Tongass. First, we want the Forest Service to uphold the law and 
declare the roadless rule in the Tongass an unlawful violation of 
ANILCA.
  Second, we ask that when the Forest Service issues its decision later 
this year on the Tongass plan, we declare that it is the final decision 
on this issue. Judge Singleton's mandate entitled The Environmental 
Groups to a Review, it did not entitle them to a Forest Service 
recommendation that is favorable to their position. It did not entitle 
them to hold up the use of public resources indefinitely. We have been 
through the process and we all must recognize and abide by the Forest 
Service's final ruling.
  And, if this issue goes before a Federal court again, I expect the 
Judges to uphold the law--especially the specific provision which we 
call the ``No More Clause.''
  Alaskans understand the need to conserve our public lands and 
resources better than anyone else. We have protected more land than any 
other country on Earth and more than the other 49 States combined.
  We were the pioneers of the Nation's last great frontier and our 
lives have always depended on the sustainability of our natural 
resources.
  Our time in the great wilderness of our State has taught us that man 
forges a fragile pact with his surroundings. He needs the land and its 
resources, but he must also preserve them. That is why my State has 
fought so hard to make sure that our land and waterways and the species 
that inhabit them will be there for generations to come.
  Consistent with our commitment to the environment, we have designated 
over 58 million acres as pristine wilderness, which represents 55 
percent of all wilderness areas in the United States.
  Because only 1 percent of Alaska's lands are privately owned, it is 
imperative that the Federal Government allow us to use some of our 
resources on the 235 million acres managed by the Federal Government.
  We will always manage our lands in a way that ensures their vitality. 
Timber is a renewable resource, it can be and will be managed this way 
under the measures provided in this bill.
  Much of my State will always be pristine wilderness. But, we need 
some degree of certainty that we will be able to harvest small portions 
of the forest that is not wilderness. We need to know that we will be 
able to sustain the timber industry we have today. We need assurances 
that our efforts will not be met with more lawsuits and more 
resistance. In the days ahead I will pursue this subject again and 
again.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from my 
constituents and communities who have been severely impacted by the 
lawless actions of the previous administration.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Senator Stevens: This is just a short note to let you know 
     you have huge support for what you are doing with the Tongass 
     riders. You have my support and the support of thousands of 
     Alaskans. Don't consider for a moment that the environmental 
     ``wackos'' represent the majority view of Alaskans. Keep up 
     the great work on this crucial issue. Thanks for a job well 
     done!!
       Please pass this on to Congressman Young if you get a 
     chance. Thanks. Also, Congressman Young did a great job on 
     the call-in show on APR yesterday.
                                                     Dave Carlson,
     Petersburg, AK.
                                  ____

       Senator Stevens: Thanks for your efforts to get the timber 
     industry back on its feet. The current effort will remove an 
     obstacle that has held back investment and added to the cost 
     to operate. The continuous delay resulting from challenges to 
     the Forest Plan has been one of the industries biggest 
     problems.
                                                  George Woodbury,
     Wrangell, AK.
                                  ____

       Senator Stevens: We in SE Alaska support Senator Stevens 
     and staff in your efforts to pass the Tongass riders. We 
     support the 1997 Tongass plan's determination that no more 
     wilderness is required in the Tongass. We also support the 
     exemption of Alaska from the roadless determination, as 
     originally promised by Clinton. Adequate timber supply is 
     absolutely essential to our Prince of Wales communities and 
     critical to our mill, Viking Lumber, the only viable mil in 
     SE Alaska. Our mill employs 35 year-around and only needs 30 
     million board feet per year to continue operating. These 
     riders will provide adequate timber for this family-owned 
     mill in the Craig/Klawock area.
       Please know that we support your efforts and are prepared 
     to speak out if and when needed.
       Hang in there.
                                                       Tom Briggs,
                                                        Craig, AK.







                          ____________________