Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, to respond to the gentleman it is $640 per ton in the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition so that I may have more time to speak.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will not use the entire 10 minutes and I think this amendment is going to go by voice. But let me say about this amendment that, while I think that no one disagrees with the intent of this amendment that we should have cooperation with Mexico, that I do think that it at least bears mentioning here on the floor what is happening, and the, I think, positive things that have happened with Mexico. I just listened to my colleague from Florida. I could not agree with him more that what is happening in this country is terrible and what is happening with the rise of drug addiction among young people and youth using drugs, hard drugs, is a very serious problem. There is no question that we should be very concerned about it, and there is no question we should be concerned about both the source of these drugs and how they get to this country. It is the how they get to this country, the channel, that we are talking about here today, because for the most part the hard drugs we are talking about, the cocaine, the heroin, are not produced in Mexico but they become the transit point, the place from which these are transported into the United States. As we have been more effective in south Florida in cutting off the drugs coming in from South America, we have now found that Mexico and Central America are the key places in which these drugs come in. Let us not in a sense blame the messenger, blame the people who are simply there geographically at our doorstep, because of our problem we have. I think clearly Mexico has a responsibility to work with us on this, and I think they are. That is what I wanted to take this time, just to mention some of the things that have happened in Mexico under the Zedillo administration. Not long ago, just a few months ago, the Mexican Government, at our request, arrested and expelled very promptly from Mexico to the United States so we could try the individual, Juan Garcia Abrego, the head of the Gulf cartel, one of the key people we had been trying to get apprehended and get into the United States for drug violations. That was a major step by the Mexican Government to cooperate with us. I might say as the chairman of the United States-Mexico Interparliamentary Meeting just a few weeks ago in Mexico, I heard from Mexican parliamentarians about how they thought this was outrageous because they had violated their own legal procedures and protections in extraditing this individual so promptly and quickly to the United States, and yet it is what we requested. I think we should at least acknowledge when we are talking about this there have been positive steps that have taken place. At the end of May, a couple of weeks ago, the Mexicans arrested and expelled Jose Luis Pereyra Salas, a major Bolivian drug trafficker. So they are picking up some of these major drug traffickers, they are getting at the head of this Hydra of drug cartels that is operating there in Mexico. They recently extradited two Mexican nationals, something they were not able to do before, to the United States, who were wanted for heinous crimes. That is an important departure from their past procedures on extraditions. Under the extradition treaty, we have been able to get American nationals extradited to the United States, but never Mexican nationals. Now, the two that were extradited, they were not extradited on drug-related crimes, but they were heinous crimes, one of which has been talked about in this body on several different occasions by one of our colleagues. So that was an important step. But I think the most important thing that I think should be mentioned today is the passage in Mexico within the last 6 weeks of the most important, the first and most important, money laundering legislation to counter money laundering, and the first time that Mexico has taken up this issue. There is no question, the Mexican banks, as has happened with banks all over the world, whether in the Cayman Islands or whether sometimes in Switzerland or often in the United States, banks inadvertently, or sometimes through sloppiness or carelessness or sometimes because they do not care, allow themselves to be used for money laundering. That is why you need to have tough laws that make it clear to the banks what their responsibilities are in money laundering. This legislation was drafted and worked on, they asked us for some assistance on it, we gave them technical assistance. This is their legislation. But we think it is a very good piece of legislation. Now they have to go through the process of making it work, of getting all the rules to implement it, the specifics to the banks, what they must do. But it is a very tough piece of legislation. It is what we have been asking the Mexicans to do for a long period of time. I rise only to mention this, because I think it is important at the same time we say, and I think it is appropriate that we say that money under this law should not go to the Mexican Government, or any government for that matter, that is not cooperating with us on drug interdiction and interdicting drug trafficking. We would not be sending money to those countries. But I think it is important at the same time that we say that, that we do acknowledge that there have within some important steps that have been made by Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].

Mr. KOLBE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, just a few moments ago on the floor we cast what would be for this group that is standing around the back of this Chamber here the last vote for their page careers, not, I trust, the last vote for their careers. I suspect some of them we will see back here again in some capacity. Today and tomorrow, today from the business of the House, tomorrow when they hold their graduation exercises from the page school class marks the end of yet another milestone, another class of our page group. I rise today to make this special order as the vice chairman of the page board, a former page myself. I do so with making my remarks on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], whose therapy for his illness has made it difficult for him to be in the Chamber at this hour, but asked that I especially say to the young people that he joins me in my remarks and joins in wishing them all the very best. I suspect that each of the comments that will be made by others here, that he also would join in those. Let me, if I might, begin by yielding to a classmate in another class, another page member from a later class, I should say, the class of 1967, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his stirring remarks and words about heroes in our lives. I would like to yield to one of our distinguished new freshmen Members, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for his wonderful words. And let me just conclude with a couple of thoughts of my own. The gentleman from California, Mr. Cunningham, spoke about the lesson he learned about not being a quitter, and Mr. Dornan spoke about the heroes in our lives. I can say from having worked with this class during the course of this year, they are not quitters. The class knows, as well as I do, that it has been a tough year. There have been some ups and downs within the page school group, but that will not be the defining thing they will remember. They will remember, I think, the more positive experiences that they have had here, and none of them have been quitters. They have stuck with this. It has been tough at times and not just tough physically to do this job, and there are times when you wonder about whether you should quit. I can remember when I started this experience I dreamed of becoming a page, and then the day came and suddenly I was flying off to Washington, DC, and I was a scared little kid. But I am glad I stuck with it because I think it has been one of the defining experiences of my life. I hope you take away from this an understanding of the complexity of our Government; that it is a very complex place. I hope you take away from it the understanding, as was said earlier by Bob Dornan, that this is truly the people's body; that you have spent the better part of a year in probably the most important place on the face of this Earth for democracy. This has been the model, the dream, the hope of hundreds of millions of people all over the world that they could emulate our democracy, and it is the House of Representatives, the people's body in the legislative branch of our Government that is the symbol of this democracy for this country, and really for the whole world, and you have been privileged to spend your time here and work here. I hope you will take that away with you and I know you will. I think you have also learned a great deal. If my experience is any measure, you have learned a great deal about yourself as well, about your own capabilities, your own limitations, your own hopes and dreams. You have probably gained a lot in your own self-esteem. Most of you will not go into politics, I suspect, but there will be some of you that will. Whether or not you go into politics, the experience that you have had here is one, I think, that will last for an entire lifetime, because I think these experiences go with you regardless of the career or the profession that you have. They are experiences not about Government, not about our Congress but about life itself and about the meaning of this country and the meaning of our democracy. I think it is for that reason that this program is so important and that we not ever say that we are going to end this program. Many people have said it would be so much easier to hire people to be pages, to hire graduates, to hire people who were older; that you do not have to worry about a school and a dorm and things like that. But we would be missing something. We would be missing the challenge of having young people in our midst, and we would be missing giving this experience to so many, to more than 100 people in the course of a year and a summer that has this experience and that goes out and carries this message to the rest of the country. So that, in conclusion, is the challenge to you, to take the message, to go out and to talk to others when you go back to your school next year, when you go off to college, when you go into life, about what this country means, about what democracy and freedom and liberty and the legislative process means for all of us. Mr. Speaker, at this point I want to insert in the Record a list of all pages who have been with us for this spring semester, and I know that they will all want to get a copy of the Congressional Record tomorrow so that they will have that available to them. I wish them well in their future endeavors. I congratulate them on the completion of this event. Godspeed and God bless each of you. The information referred to follows: House Page School Spring Semester 1996 Tobin Addington, C.J. Albertie, Cheryl Arensdorf, Jesse Barrick, Theda Browdy, Beth Burhenne, Melissa Chesnov, Camrin Christensen, Rachael Clark, Matt Claypool, Chris Creaghe, Charlotte Coffee, Lisa Dang, Karyn Dest. Chris Finnegan, Alice Ganier, Geffrey Gismondi, Jennifer Hall, Thea Handleman, Kim Harrington, Nancy Hogan, Dan Hughes, Amy Johannes, Mark Johnson, William Johnston, Richie Jones, Jessica Kirk, David Kizler, Melinda Knox. Bonnie Kress, Robert Leandro, Chris Legett, Tim Lipke, Greg Lundell, Kristen Marconi, Megan Marcus, Kate Martin, Travis Martin, Angie McKinney, Sarah Metthe, Stephanie Moore, Michael Morrow, Jennifer Mueller, Jacquelyn Nash. Greg Newburn, Matt Patton, Tonya Petty, Lyandra Retacco, Philip Ross, Trese Ruffino, Rebecca Sage, Rachel Schatz, Brian Sells, Kris Soma, Bethany Spencer, Jessica Stults, Matt Tenney, Kathryn Watts, Emily Wengrovius, Julia Whitley, Melissa Young.

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman for his kind remarks and especially the comments he made about the staff that supervises the pages on both sides of the aisle and in our cloakrooms, as well as the teachers in the school and the monitors in the dorms who really make this program a success for these young men and women. I am very pleased to yield a couple of moments to the gentleman from California.

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks, and if the gentleman from Florida would like to add something to this, we would be happy to hear his comments.

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and appreciate very much the fact that we have two of our freshman class, outstanding Members, who have been former pages. That can be a challenge to our pages that are here with us today. They have been with us for the better part of this last year, for the school year. They have seen, as has been already pointed out, a lot of things that have gone on on the floor of the House of Representatives, and I expect those experiences are things that they will remember, if they are like the rest of us, that they will remember for a lifetime. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California for some comments.

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for those words that he said on behalf of our pages. I must say that it has been a great pleasure for me to work with Dale Kildee as a member of the Page Board as we have gone through some of the trials and tribulations this year, through the certification of the school, its accreditation. It has been a great experience to work with somebody who has such a commitment to this program and to the young people who are with us here today, and I thank the gentleman for joining us. I would like now to yield to another member of the same class of 1967 that we heard from earlier, the class of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker], another page from that class, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].

Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his very warm remarks. I think it especially comes from the heart when you have been a former page yourself and have a feel for the experience that all of us that were pages have had here. I appreciate very much the gentleman's taking the time to be with us. I know, like myself, he needs to be in the Committee on Appropriations and I will be headed there soon but I thank the gentleman very much for joining us in this tribute to our pages. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], who is a member of the Page Board with me, and with whom I have served for the last 2 years in this capacity, and it has been a great honor for me to serve with him.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do rise in opposition to this motion to instruct conferees. From a procedural standpoint, this is a little bit like the poker player who, two poker players come to the table and one says, you put all your cards down on the table and show me what you have got there and I will decide whether I am going to raise the ante here or I am going to call you or not. Let us not do that. Let us not put all our cards down on the table here. We are going into negotiation next week, a conference committee, with the Senate. We should not go into it with with all of our cards out on the table. Let us leave the procedural stuff aside. I listened to this motion to instruct being read here tonight. There are four parts of it, but I want to concentrate on the first one: to agree to the Senate-passed levels of discretionary spending. Sometimes I think my colleagues over on this side of the aisle are a little like the moth that goes to the flame. The flame is more spending, and they just cannot resist it, more spending, no matter where you find it, no matter where it comes from; if it is more spending, we have to do it. It does not matter that the budget resolution that we passed in the House of Representatives protects such things as title I, protects such things as Head Start, gives more money to veterans' health care, gives more money to Superfund. But this has $5 million more in budget authority, $4 billion more in outlays, it is more spending. Let us not worry about where it is, let us just spend more money. That is all it seems to be that we hear about over there; not how can we reduce the deficit, how can we get the budget balanced, how can we save our children's future, but just how can we spend more money. Quick, we have something over here that is more money. Let us spend this money. Let us go and advocate spending these additional dollars. We are past that. Mr. Speaker, that is passe. That was the past. That was what we used to do. The time has come to say, where can we reduce spending, how can we do government more efficiently, how can we reduce the size of government, how can we send government functions back to the States and local people. That is what we should be talking about, not how can we find another $5 billion to spend. Mr. Speaker, I urge that this motion be defeated.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to what the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] said about the Republican budget cutting school lunches and student loans. That just simply is not true.

Mr. KOLBE. No, Mr. Chairman, that is simply not true. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, student loans are not being cut. First of all, Pell grant will go up, the total dollar volume of student loans will go up under the Republican budget. The only thing that we are talking about cutting is cutting the very wasteful, bureaucratic direct student loan program. We are going to reduce some of the money that goes in subsidies to bankers. But we are not cutting the number of student loans or the amount of student loans. Let us make that very clear.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to restore a comment that was made earlier by my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith]. I think if this were the budget that were proposed 2 years ago, we would all be up here enthusiastically endorsing it. But that was 2 years ago today, we think there is a better alternative that is available. The chief difference between this alternative budget proposed by the conservative Democrat coalition and the Republican budget comes in the area of tax relief for American citizens. The coalition talks about how we are going to achieve greater deficit reduction. They say their deficit reduction numbers are bigger. The Concord Coalition endorses it. That is true. It does make a faster reduction in the deficit at least initially. Mr. Chairman, what the coalition budget does not do is give necessary relief to American taxpayers. American taxpayers are paying too much in taxes today. Whereas a few years ago, a generation ago, Americans were sending 4, 5 percent of their income to Washington, today they are sending over 20 percent. When you add in local and State taxes, for a one-income family, 36 percent of their income goes to taxes, 39 percent for a two-income family. It is too much. We need to stimulate the economy. We need to stimulate growth by putting some money back in people's pockets. That is the difference between these two budget proposals. We believe we can achieve a balanced budget. We get to a balanced budget at the same time as the coalition budget. We believe we can achieve a balanced budget. We can do it while giving at the same time some tax relief to American citizens. Mr. Chairman, there is another difference. If you look at this proposal over the very long run, even longer than our budget horizon goes, you do not get the fundamental changes that you must make to entitlement programs in order to have longstanding, long lasting, budget deficit reduction. That is one of the big differences here. We have got to change programs. We have got to make changes to entitlements if we are ever going to really see a balanced budget. For those two reasons, tax relief for American citizens and fundamental changes to entitlement programs, the Republican budget proposal should be supported.

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman for a few seconds here. Go ahead.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to two of the points made by the previous speaker. First of all, he said that not only was the earned income tax credit being cut. We have heard that one before. He said it was practically being dismantled. Now, I know the gentleman from North Carolina has been around Washington a lot longer than I have. Maybe that is part of the problem here. This is how much has been spent in the last 6 years on the earned income tax credit. This is how much, $109 billion; $155 billion would be spent in the next 6 years. Mr. Chairman, that is dismantling the EITC? I do not think so. But only in Washington-speak, only those people that have been around here all the time and only think of everything when it doubles every year think that we are actually cutting or dismantling the earned income tax credit. On the second point, as far as the deficit is concerned, I would point out that President Bush, the Congressional Budget Office under a Democratic Congress, a Democratic administration, proposed in a Republican administration, said that the deficit was going to go down each of the succeeding years after 1992. The President's budget starting in 1993 showed deficits that stretched into infinity.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, yesterday in my remarks on the floor, I talked about the budget proposals that were before us. I said that I thought there was a difference in the direction of these proposals. I said the budget debate ought to be about the direction of this country, it ought to be about our different philosophies. In the various proposals we see here today we can see those differences clearly delineated. The President, in his State of the Union Address, told us three times that the era of big government was over. Yet, the budget proposal that he has made and the other alternatives that we have before us from the Democratic side of the aisle do not reflect that the era of big government is over. I want to focus on the issue of entitlement changes, because this is where we know we have to make changes if we are ever really going to balance the budget, if we are ever really going to change the direction of government. Many of our entitlement programs are not working the way they should. They are not delivering health care, they are not delivering services to people in poverty the way they should. We need to make changes to that and we think we can make those changes by giving their management back to the States, back to local governments. Yet the alternative budget provisions and the Clinton budget make none of these changes. No fundamental changes are being made to entitlement programs. That is why we need to adopt the Republican budget proposal.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, twice now I have heard the gentlewoman from California, the gentlewoman from Florida talk about cuts in the earned income tax credit. Let me point out to my colleagues what we are talking about here. Here is what we have spent the last 5 years on the earned income tax credit, $109 billion. This is what we are talking about spending the next 6 years, excuse me, the last 6 years versus the next 6 years, $155 billion. It must be some very special accounting that is used here in Washington by some of my colleagues that calls an increase from 109 to 155, $1 billion over the next 6 years, as some kind of a cut. What we are talking about changing, what we are talking about eliminating is the earned income tax credit for illegal aliens. We do not think they should be eligible for the earned income tax credit. We are talking also about eliminating payments, ending payments to persons that have substantial sources of nontaxable or unearned income: for example, Social Security, tax exempt interest, IRA distributions, child support payments, those would be counted as part of the income, not currently included there. So, yes, for those people there would be an elimination because they have other sources, in many cases government sources, of unearned income. We are talking about ending payments to childless workers. That was not ever the original intention of the legislation to have people who are childless workers. I would like to know the logic from my colleagues on this side of the aisle as to why a couple that earned, individual who has two children, is trying to raise them, should work extra hard to pay for taxes to provide an earned income tax credit for somebody who is childless and working part time. An individual who is working full time at the minimum wage would qualify for a total of $40 under the earned income tax credit. In other words, basically a full-time person who is childless working at the minimum wage does not qualify for it anyhow. So you are talking about part-time people anyhow. For the first 18 years of the earned income tax credit, it was not available to childless workers. That was one of the things that was added much later. My colleagues also often mention that this is one of Ronald Reagan's favorite programs. They ought to remember that when Ronald Reagan was President, he was talking about in 1986, the total cost of the earned income tax credit was $2 billion. Today it is $25.3 billion, that is an 1165-percent increase in just 10 years. We are not talking about eliminating or cutting the earned income tax credit. We are talking about getting rid of some of the abuses and trying to target those who need it the most and allow working people who have families to keep some of the money in their own pocket and not have to pay for childless couples who do not really need the earned income tax credit.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, at the outset of this debate, the gentleman from New Jersey laid out the case very eloquently for this budget. A budget is not really about numbers. It is not about whether we spend $1,500 billion on the Federal Government or $1,600 billion. It is not even about whether we cut a program, whether we increase a program, whether we add a program, or whether we eliminate a program. No, Mr. Chairman, a budget is an opportunity for this body and for our political parties to make a philosophical statement about the direction we believe this country should be going. It is an opportunity for us to say something about where we think our future is. It is an opportunity for each party in Congress to set forth its vision, its vision for America, its hopes, its dreams for our future and for our children's future. Mr. Chairman, our budget makes such a statement. It says very clearly what we believe the National Government's priorities should be. It insists that we should decide what this Government can do, what it must do, and what it should do. It says that we should reduce the burden on our children, the burden that a new child born today in this country, assumes upon his or her birth. That burden is a burden of $188,000 just to pay the interest on the national debt. Our budget says we believe other levels of government, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations, can perform government functions better than Washington can. We say this about education, we say this about some aspects of welfare, about some aspects of health care, we say it about such things as economic development. And, yes, most importantly, it says that we believe the burden of taxes on American citizens should be reduced. Our budget would reduce the burden of taxes on American citizens. The gentleman from Texas talked about having to borrow more money. But we reach a balanced budget as soon as any of our other budgets that are proposed. What we do differently is leave some of the money in people's pockets, leave money in the pockets of American citizens so they can decide how to spend the money on their health care, on their education, on their schooling, on their housing, on all the needs that they have. We do this because we believe that Americans who work hard and earn it should keep it. That is what this budget is about; that is the statement this budget makes. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I join my fellow colleagues today in support of the Ryan White CARE Act conference report. Additionally, I would like to extend my appreciation to the conference team, chairmen Bliley and Dingell, and subchairmen Bilirakis and Waxman for all their hard work to see this legislation through fruition. I also come forward today for the thousands of men, women, and children whose lives depend on the continuation of the services provided under the Ryan White CARE Act. This legislation is essential to the AIDS community. Ryan White CARE provides people living with AIDS a tool to obtain emergency care services. Ryan White CARE gives the support needed to provide AIDS patients to live their lives to its fullest potential. Specifically, this bill requires recipients of CARE grants to utilize a portion of their funds to provide health services to women, infants, and children. This bill aims to serve all individuals infected with the AIDS virus, but acknowledges the growing number of infants and children infected with the virus. With advancements in research to deter the virus in infants, the bill targets our future--our children. The reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act sends another important message. We have worked in a bipartisan manner to ensure passage of this essential legislation. This legislation is an act of simple compassion and humanity that anyone and everyone can support. I have been a supporter of the Ryan White CARE Act since its inception, and I hope that future Congress will continue to promote its services in future Congresses. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in a bipartisan way to speak about a program that I think is widely applauded by most people in this House, and that is Head Start. It is a program that has certainly worked well in my district. I think it has worked well across the country, and it has worked well because it does good things and it has a performance record that we can all talk about. It is a program that is designed to provide nutrition, health screening and treatment, education, and social services to preschool-aged children and to their parents, and it has contributed greatly to our efforts to help those kids do better as they get older and to help to win the war against poverty in this country. In my community of Tucson, AZ, 70 percent of the children served by Head Start are bilingual, and through this program, these children learn English better so that they can go to kindergarten with a better knowledge to start out of their schooling on the right footing, an that helps them stay in school. That helps everyone, the kids, their parents, and the community. Mr. Speaker, for years Head Start has enjoyed strong bipartisan support, and in these austere budgetary times, that support has continued. I urge my colleagues to continue to provide adequate funding.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I spoke this afternoon about the need to put fiscal year 1996 appropriation issues behind us. With today's momentous vote on H.R. 3019 we have accomplished this. I wanted to speak a little more about an amendment I authored during markup of the Interior appropriations bill, and which is included in section 335 of the Interior Department portion of H.R. 3019. The Kolbe amendment on Mount Graham is quite simple. It states that alternative site 2, which was issued by the Forest Service, is authorized and approved, and that the site--alternate 2--shall be deemed to be consistent with and permissible under the terms of the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988 (AICA), Public Law 100-696. What does this mean? The Kolbe amendment reaffirms what many people believed; that the alternative site chosen by the Forest Service for the location of the large binocular telescope [LBT] is in compliance with the authorizing language. Why was this language necessary? To clarify, once and for all, that the alternative site for the large binocular telescope falls within the parameters established by Congress for the location of the Mount Graham telescopes. In fact, during the entire period in which the Forest Service defended itself against the lawsuits filed by various environmental groups, U.S. Attorney Janet A. Napolitano argued in both U.S. District Court and before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that ``* * * [the site] satisfies the statutory requirement that the three telescopes comprising the Observatory, including the LBT, not exceed 24 acres within the marked boundary.'' ``The site'' she argued, ``also conforms to the requirements of Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 3 * * *.'' U.S. Attorney Napolitano concluded her argument by stating what many of us already knew and understood, ``the Approved site [alt 2] is the best site for the long-term survival of the red squirrel.'' The U.S. attorney is not only one who has taken the position which the Kolbe amendment clarifies. Ninth Circuit Court Judge Hall in her dissenting opinion stated: I think that the AICA confers discretion on the Forest Service to site the telescopes as it sees fit, so long as those locations are within the 24-acre ``Site'' described in section 601(b) of the AICA, and because I believe we are bound to defer to the Forest Service's own reasonable interpretation of the AICA * * *. Judge Hall's final comment was: I find the further delay imposed by today's decision especially regrettable in light of the fact that the FS appears to have chosen to locate the LBT on Peak 10,477 in good faith and for laudable reasons: Peak 10,477, according to the FWS is now the location that would cause the least disruption to the squirrel's habitat. I couldn't agree more. I hope the adoption of the Kolbe amendment closes this unfortunate chapter of the Mount Graham Observatory. Alternative site 2 is in compliance with the AICA, and I look forward to the resumption of construction of the LBT. The discoveries that lie in the heavens await us.