Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Senator Coleman recently brought the University of Minnesota's program to my attention. It is of particular interest to me because it provides for training and development of nurses and HIV care practitioners, as part of a program that will be self sustaining within 5 years of implementation.

Mr. STEVENS. The success of this program could eventually be a template to spread out into the rest of Africa. I hope to work with my distinguished colleague and the State Department on implementation of this important program.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, 30 years ago, Egypt and the United States developed what has become a strong partnership, dedicated to a stable and peaceful Middle East. Egypt is a strong ally to the United States and is actively supporting the peace process in Israel and Palestine, Iraq, and the Sudan. It has also made many democratic reforms in recent years. Women now hold a number of important political positions such as cabinet ministers, members of parliament, ambassadors, and judges. The amended Egyptian constitution allows for multi-candidate presidential elections, and provides for equal access to publically owned media. And a number of privately owned and managed television networks have been established. It is important that we continue to support the positive changes taking place in Egypt, and encourage further democratic and human rights reforms. I am concerned that conditions and limitations placed on the government of Egypt's ability to receive and spend funds will send a negative message to the people of Egypt. The administration has expressed concerns about these legislative restrictions, which it believes could harm the relationship between our respective governments.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Inouye, Smith, McCain, Nelson, and Pryor in introducing a bipartisan bill to address the growing perpetration of identity theft against American consumers. The bipartisan bill, the ``Identity Theft Protection Act,'' is the product of two Commerce Committee hearings that featured testimony from businesses that aggregate and sell consumer information as a commodity, and the full Federal Trade Commission, FTC, which recommended much of what is contained in this legislation. The occurrence of identity theft in the United States has reached epidemic proportions. The incidence of this crime rose 15 percent in 2002, and 80 percent in 2003. The FTC stated in February 2005 that each year nearly 10 million Americans--or roughly 4.6 percent of the domestic adult population--are victimized by identity thieves. The FTC indicates that physical and online identity theft accounted for 39 percent of the more than 635,000 consumer fraud complaints filed last year with the agency. The costs associated with identity theft are enormous. In 2003, the FTC estimated that the losses to businesses and financial institutions due to identity theft totaled $48 billion, and the out-of-pocket losses to consumers totaled $5 billion, which does not take into account the average 300 hours spent by victims restoring their good names. This year alone, there have been at least 43 reported information breaches affecting potentially more than 9 million Americans. This string of data theft has focused the attention of Congress, consumers, and privacy proponents. It has raised questions concerning the business practices of data brokers and whether consumers' personal information is adequately protected from identity thieves. The difficulty of finding solutions to this and other types of identity theft is striking a balance between ensuring adequate security of sensitive personal information while not inhibiting the legitimate free flow of information that is vital to the domestic economy and law enforcement. The bill that we introduce today will not end all identity theft. No legislation can accomplish that objective. But this bill would require bolstered information safeguards and ensure notification of consumers whose sensitive personal information has been acquired without authorization. More specifically, the bill, among other things, would direct the FTC to develop rules that would require all covered entities that handle sensitive personal information to develop, implement, and maintain appropriate safeguards to protect such information, and provide effective notice to consumers in the event of a breach. The bill would limit the solicitation of Social Security numbers by covered entities, and restrict employers, State agencies, or educational institutions from displaying social security numbers on identification tags for employees and students, and for drivers licenses. The bill also would allow consumers to freeze their credit for a reasonable fee to protect themselves from identity theft, and preempt similar State or local law in an effort to provide a uniform Federal standard rather than a patchwork of widely varying State or local laws. I look forward to working with my colleagues on legislation that will mitigate to the greatest extent possible the occurrence of identity theft in this country, but without inhibiting an information sharing system that yields extraordinary benefits to every American.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Inouye, Smith, McCain, Nelson, and Pryor in introducing a bipartisan bill to address the growing perpetration of identity theft against American consumers. The bipartisan bill, the ``Identity Theft Protection Act,'' is the product of two Commerce Committee hearings that featured testimony from businesses that aggregate and sell consumer information as a commodity, and the full Federal Trade Commission, FTC, which recommended much of what is contained in this legislation. The occurrence of identity theft in the United States has reached epidemic proportions. The incidence of this crime rose 15 percent in 2002, and 80 percent in 2003. The FTC stated in February 2005 that each year nearly 10 million Americans--or roughly 4.6 percent of the domestic adult population--are victimized by identity thieves. The FTC indicates that physical and online identity theft accounted for 39 percent of the more than 635,000 consumer fraud complaints filed last year with the agency. The costs associated with identity theft are enormous. In 2003, the FTC estimated that the losses to businesses and financial institutions due to identity theft totaled $48 billion, and the out-of-pocket losses to consumers totaled $5 billion, which does not take into account the average 300 hours spent by victims restoring their good names. This year alone, there have been at least 43 reported information breaches affecting potentially more than 9 million Americans. This string of data theft has focused the attention of Congress, consumers, and privacy proponents. It has raised questions concerning the business practices of data brokers and whether consumers' personal information is adequately protected from identity thieves. The difficulty of finding solutions to this and other types of identity theft is striking a balance between ensuring adequate security of sensitive personal information while not inhibiting the legitimate free flow of information that is vital to the domestic economy and law enforcement. The bill that we introduce today will not end all identity theft. No legislation can accomplish that objective. But this bill would require bolstered information safeguards and ensure notification of consumers whose sensitive personal information has been acquired without authorization. More specifically, the bill, among other things, would direct the FTC to develop rules that would require all covered entities that handle sensitive personal information to develop, implement, and maintain appropriate safeguards to protect such information, and provide effective notice to consumers in the event of a breach. The bill would limit the solicitation of Social Security numbers by covered entities, and restrict employers, State agencies, or educational institutions from displaying social security numbers on identification tags for employees and students, and for drivers licenses. The bill also would allow consumers to freeze their credit for a reasonable fee to protect themselves from identity theft, and preempt similar State or local law in an effort to provide a uniform Federal standard rather than a patchwork of widely varying State or local laws. I look forward to working with my colleagues on legislation that will mitigate to the greatest extent possible the occurrence of identity theft in this country, but without inhibiting an information sharing system that yields extraordinary benefits to every American.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and yeas.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. May I inquire, does the Senator from Ohio intend to speak about Justice O'Connor?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, would the Senator mind if I made a short statement about Justice O'Connor before he speaks?

Mr. STEVENS. Very well.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and transportation, which I co-chair with my good-friend Senator Daniel Inouye, has unanimously passed out of committee, four bills to protect our oceans and enhance the collective knowledge of the marine environment. The Senate just passed these four bills by unanimous consent, and I look forward to working with the House to get this important legislation enacted into law. Water covers over 70 percent of the Earth's surface. It is estimated that 80 percent of life on Earth is in the oceans. The Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans, and the Gulf of Mexico, make up the waters of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone. In fact, the Pacific Ocean alone covers nearly an entire hemisphere of the globe. But little is known about these waters. The four bills the Senate passed today will provide greater understanding of the complex ocean environment. Together, they will increase the coordination and effectiveness of the Federal agencies that contribute to the research and management of these critical marine ecosystems. The four bills are: S. 50, the Tsunami Preparedness Act; S. 39, the National Ocean Exploration Program Act; S. 361, the Ocean and Coastal Observation System Act of 2005; and S. 362, the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act of 2005. The Tsunami Preparedness Act is the first bill that Senator Inouye and I drafted as the new Co-chairmen of the Commerce Committee. It was developed in the wake of the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami that took lives in 11 countries and provides an expanded tsunami detection and warning system for the United States. The bill authorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to establish, operate, and maintain a dependable national tsunami warning system that would provide maximum tsunami detection capability for the Nation. The system would build on the model established in the Pacific, and provide for its repair, expansion and modernization by the close of calendar year 2007. In addition, the bill directs NOAA to provide any necessary technical support or other assistance to international efforts to establish regional tsunami detection and warning systems in other parts of the world, including the Indian Ocean. I wrote the next bill, National Ocean Exploration Program Act, for the simple fact that very little is known about our oceans and more research and exploration is desperately needed. Approximately 95 percent of the ocean floor remains unexplored, much of it located in the polar-regions and southern ocean. We know more about the surface of the moon than the ocean floor; this bill is intended to change that. The National Ocean Exploration Program Act establishes a national program within NOAA to conduct inter-disciplinary ocean exploration voyages in partnership with other Federal agencies or academic institutions. The Act will strengthen interagency coordination on ocean exploration for the purposes of developing and facilitating the transfer of new exploration technologies, communication infrastructure, and data management systems to the Program. The bill gives priority attention to the exploration of deep ocean regions to make exciting new discoveries. In addition, it will promote the development of improved oceanographic research, communication, navigation, and data collection systems, in an effort to increase understanding of the ocean environment. The Ocean and Coastal Observation System Act of 2005, developed by Senator Snowe, will also contribute to our knowledge of the oceans with greater monitoring and observation of this dynamic environment. The bill will establish a national, integrated ocean and coastal observing system that will collect, compile, and make available data on ocean conditions in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, including the Great Lakes. The ocean and coastal observation system will help improve weather and flood forecasting, promote understanding of climatic variability processes, enhance safety and efficiency of marine operations, facilitate research, improve management of marine and coastal ecosystems, and provide information to raise public awareness of oceans. And finally there is the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act of 2005. Authored by Senator Inouye, this bill responds to the immediate need to prevent and reduce significantly the amount of trash that is collecting in our oceans. The bill establishes separate programs within NOAA and the Coast Guard to identify, assess, reduce and prevent marine debris and its adverse impacts on the marine environment and navigation safety. In addition the bill creates an Interagency Committee on Marine Debris to coordinate federal efforts to prevent and reduce marine debris. I look forward to the new information and management capabilities these bills will provide. Alaska has more coastline than the rest of the country combined. The oceans are a vital part of our way of life, and we depend on sound scientific research to maintain them. These bills are important to increase our efforts to be good stewards of our oceans. I thank my colleagues on the Commerce Committee and those in the Senate for their overwhelming support of these bills.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to make comments concerning our good friend, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. It has been Catherine's and my honor to have become very close to the O'Connors. I want to tell the Senate that I think Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is one of the most extraordinary and gracious women I have ever known. She has come to Alaska often. What most people don't know is she is a very fine fisher person. I think one of the most interesting letters I ever received in my life was the letter I received from Sandra Day after she had gone fishing to a remote fishing lodge in Alaska. She was the only woman there at the time. She fished through some rainy periods and sunny periods and gave a general description of the joy she had being able to have the time to fish and to think as she did that. It was a real joy to read that letter. I also asked Sandra Day O'Connor to come to Alaska and speak--she has been there many times--at the Anchorage Library. She gave a stirring address to mainly young women who were part of the Alaska State Bar Association. That evening, we had a dinner for Justice O'Connor, and her husband John asked for the privilege of introducing her. I want to tell the Senate that I think that was probably the most moving tribute I ever heard a husband deliver for his wife in my life. Her husband John is a fine lawyer and a devoted husband. He told us a story of how he felt when Sandra Day got the call asking her if she would become a member of the Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor, just 2 weeks ago, at my request, took a group of the Chinese delegates to the Senate-Chinese parliamentary conference to the Supreme Court of the United States. She took the time to take these Chinese representatives through the Court and explain our judicial process and how it is an essential function of our democracy to these delegates who came to meet to discuss issues of great importance to the nation of China and our own Nation. The way she handled those people and the gracious way in which she described the functions in the chamber, and took us to the courtroom and explained how the Court listens to the attorneys who present cases and how the Court reacts individually to statements, and the type of questions she puts to the attorneys who represent various litigants, was a most instructive session for our Chinese friends. Again, it demonstrated the depth of Sandra Day O'Connor. She is one great lady. She has been an exemplary public servant who has made exceptional contributions not only to the Supreme Court but to our Nation. I think she will be remembered in this country as a groundbreaker, overcoming adversity and stereotypes. She was the first woman nominated to be a member of our Supreme Court. She is a native of southeastern Arizona and she grew up on an isolated ranch owned by her parents. The ranch itself did not receive electricity or running water until she was seven. My wife's family had a similar experience living in another part of Arizona. I think that is one of the reasons we have become so close to the O'Connors. She received her bachelor's degree in economics, magna cum laude, from Stanford University in 1950. After she received her bachelor's degree, O'Connor enrolled at Stanford Law School, graduating third in her class and serving on the Stanford Law Review. It was during law school that she met her husband, John. After graduating from law school, she faced a tough job market as a female attorney. After having difficulty finding a position in the private sector, Sandra Day O'Connor accepted a position working as Deputy County Attorney for San Mateo County, California. When her husband John was drafted into the JAG Corps in 1953, she moved to Frankfurt, Germany with him and served as a civilian attorney for the Quartermaster Market Center from 1954-1957. After leaving Germany, O'Connor returned to Arizona and again faced difficulty in finding employment with a private law firm. As a result, she began a small practice of her own where she practiced from 1958- 1960. In 1965, after returning to work following a brief hiatus to care for her children, O'Connor accepted a position as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Arizona. In 1968, she was appointed to the Arizona State Senate by the governor to fill a vacancy. O'Connor successfully defended her Senate seat in the next election, and was subsequently reelected to two more terms. During this time, O'Connor was elected to be majority leader of the Arizona Senate. O'Connor was elected Judge of Maricopa County Superior Court in 1975 and she served until 1979 when she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. In 1981, President Reagan appointed her as the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court and she was confirmed unanimously by the Senate. During her time on the Court, Justice O'Connor has proven herself to be a brilliant jurist and a strong defender of the Constitution. She is known for her fairness and her desire to seek practical solutions for even the most difficult decisions the Court has ruled on. Justice O'Connor has proven to be an independent thinker and a vigorous questioner, narrowing in on precise legal issues with laser- like precision from the bench. She has lived up to her promise to respect the Constitution and to interpret the law judiciously, seeking the narrowest reach possible for the Court's rulings. Justice O'Connor is known for approaching each case individually, seeking to arrive at practical conclusions. Justice O'Connor has been a great advocate for the Court. She has traveled the globe, speaking to thousands of students, lawyers, foreign dignitaries and others on the judiciary, the Constitution, and the law. Justice O'Connor's love of this Nation, its judicial process, and the law is widely known. In her most recent book, ``Majesty of the Law: Reflections of a Supreme Court Justice'' she insightfully describes the institution of the court, its history, customs and some of its notable members. Justice O'Connor, is ``one of the most significant historical figures of the 21st century'' and ``an inspiration to all future generations.'' Chief Judge Stephen McNamee, U.S. District Court, District of Arizona. ``[Justice O'Connor] likes to hear people's points of view. I never felt I had to agree with her to conform to her view.'' Professor Stuart Banner, professor of law at UCLA who clerked for O'Connor. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Texas. Mr. President, yesterday marked the 1-year anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty to the people of Iraq. We now stand at a crucial point in history. We can see how far we have come, but we know the final chapter has not been written. This is the time to take stock, both of our challenges and our achievements. Many ignore the good news in Iraq, but there is good news. And we can't prepare for the road ahead without a balanced picture of where we are today. In the past year, there have been many accomplishments which stand as milestones on the paths of progress. Since the transfer of sovereignty, thousands of Iraqis have answered the call to serve their country. The Iraqi security force now numbers over 168,000, and another 50- to 70,000 Iraqis serve as site protection personnel. By October, the number of trained Iraqi security personnel will reach 200,000. This time last year only one Iraqi battalion was capable of deploying. Today, more than 100 stand ready. In the past year, the Iraqi Government has taken shape. In January, more than 8 million Iraqis voted in free and fair elections for the first time in 50 years. Today, Iraq has an interim constitution with checks and balances, separation of powers, and protection for individual rights, and women are involved. The Iraqi National Assembly is drafting a new constitution, which is on schedule to be released on August 15. The Government is preparing for the October referendum on the constitution, and they are planning for a new set of elections which will be held in December. Freedom has begun to take root in Iraq. Political parties, civil society groups, and a free press have emerged. A government once shrouded in secrecy now answers directly to the people and communicates with them through Iraqi newspapers, television, and radio stations. In the past year, the reconstruction has moved forward. Many of these successful projects are part of the Commander's Emergency Response Program, a tool that enables our men and women on the ground to fund small-scale projects that have an immediate and visible impact on the lives of the Iraqi people. This month, for the first time since October 2004, the electricity supply exceeded 100,000 megawatt hours. On average, 12 hours of power are now available across the nation each day. More than 94 water treatment projects are underway. And we have broken ground on 144 new primary health care facilities across the country. In the past year, 628 schools have been renovated. Another 86 are now under construction. The international community has rallied around the new Iraqi Government. Just last week more than 80 nations and organizations from around the world attended the International Conference on Iraq in Brussels. The Iraqi Government shared their vision, and the international community reaffirmed their commitment to help Iraq secure its future. I list these accomplishments because we must remember the path to progress is slow and steady. With the televised reports of car bombings and other terrorist attacks, it is easy to lose sight of the goals we have already reached. Some of us have recently called upon President Bush to keep the American people informed so our constituents understand what we are doing and know how we plan to proceed. My concern has been that rising sentiments about the continued redeployment of Reserve and National Guard units could jeopardize the important work we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last night, President Bush answered our calls for more information. In a speech before the American people, he outlined his strategy for completing the mission. Now, it is time to rededicate ourselves to the challenges that remain. We still have work to do in Iraq. Today, the Iraqi Government has control of Najaf and Fallujah. The insurgents have lost their safe havens. Unable to expand their operations, they have resorted to acts of terrorism and targeted innocent Iraqi civilians. These are the facts of desperate men--men whose only comfort is the hope that we will lose our will and weaken our resolve. The only way we can lose in Iraq is if we defeat ourselves--if we fail to stay the course. The American people--and those of us who have been chosen to represent them--cannot let that happen. Americans do not abandon friends in hard times. We do not run from the duty and responsibility of history. Our will does not waver. Our resolve does not break. More than 2 years ago, I joined many of you and supported the President's bipartisan resolution to commence this action in Iraq. When the Senate debated the resolution, I urged my colleagues to support it. I came to the floor of this Chamber and said: ``A new history of international courage can be written now.'' I repeat this call today--our Nation must have the courage to help the Iraqi people write the next chapter of their proud history in which the seeds of democracy--which have been sown by the Iraqi people and nurtured by the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform--will grow into a strong, free Iraq. I urge the Senate not to divide over Iraq. Some continue to compare this situation to the one we faced in Vietnam. Iraq is not Vietnam. Those who make this comparison ignore the history. I outlined the differences between these two conflicts in April and will not reiterate each of those differences today. The simple fact is we are in Iraq for reasons entirely different from the reasons we went into Vietnam. We can and will successfully conclude our operations in Iraq. We must succeed. The stakes are high. Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. By their own admission, what terrorists fear most is a free, stable and democratic Iraq. Over a year ago, we intercepted a message Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist in Iraq, sent to Osama bin Laden. In the message, al-Zarqawi said, ``The future has become frightening'' for terrorists because democracy has gained a foothold in Iraq. He told Osama bin Laden, ``Democracy is coming and there will be no excuse thereafter for the attacks.'' Iraq has become the proving ground of our commitment to the war on terror. If we waver, our enemies will read our hesitation as victory. If we do not fight the terrorists abroad, we will be forced to fight them on our shores. We must remain united behind our troops and committed to this mission. I urge the Senate to continue to support the strategy President Bush outlined last night. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote On Amendment No. 1026

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the other side has time left, I will wait.

Mr. STEVENS. It is unfortunate that some people don't read numbers correctly. The Tongass land use plan, for instance, cost $13 million. The Forest Service spends most of its money in Alaska on planning and designing the roads and defending the lawsuits brought by the environmental organizations that encouraged these Senators to bring this amendment. As a practical matter, of the 17 million acres in the Tongass, 676,000 acres--4 percent of the forest--is subject to harvesting. Some time ago, Congress decided the Forest Service should build the roads in Alaska--not the private industry but the Forest Service-- because of fish and wildlife concerns, recreation concerns, and concerns of those people who want access to the islands. There are no roads here. The reason we have this problem is we don't have Federal highway money in this area. The area is almost as big as New England. The only roads built there are for access to timber development. The study for those roads takes more money than building the roads. The defense of the litigation takes more money than both. As a matter of fact, 75 percent of the money spent in the Tongass is spent for environmental concerns and defending the litigation that is brought time and again against any contract to allow people to harvest timber. Four times as many lawsuits are brought against timber sales in Alaska than are brought in all the rest of the country. This amendment does not cut a dime from the budget--not one dime. It is not saving any money. It just says money cannot be spent in Alaska. Where is it going to be spent? It is going to be spent in the other National forests. Mr. President, I will submit for the record a chart that shows that in the Tongass in fiscal year 2004, only $3.6 million was actually used in road support. This is not a case of saving money. As a matter of fact, the Forest Service's planning, designing, and construction of timber roads is for the protection of the wildlife, the fish, and the scenic recreation areas for residents and visitors. I do believe Alaska's timber roads are more expensive because of the environmental studies that must go on. They plan and design these areas for years before we are allowed access to the timber. We do that, again, to ensure the roads are designed properly. This was a compromise with the environmental community. In years gone by, the private industry did build the roads. The environmental community did not like it. They said we couldn't do it unless we have a plan and the Forest Service carries out that plan. It designs and plans the roads and does all the environmental work that is not done in the private sector. Actually, only 25 percent of the money is spent for preparation and administration of these areas. I do believe, unfortunately, that my friends are hiding the fact that they are bringing an environmental amendment. This is not an amendment to cut money. I challenge anyone to show it will save a dime. It will not save one dime because it does not cut money from this budget. This is not about spending. If it were, it would apply to all forests. If Senators want to bring an amendment to reduce the budget, to cut the money for road building, then that would be another matter. The Tongass has a better monetary rate of return per dollar invested than 13 national forests and the same monetary return as 17 of them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record two charts following my remarks.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is not a fiscal amendment. This is an amendment to require that no money be spent to plan, design, or construct roads. What for? For timber development. But timber roads are also built for forest management, for fish and wildlife protection, for recreation. The people involved in the administration of fish and wildlife laws use those roads. The hikers and campers use those roads. The roads are built so pedestrians go across the bridges and do not go across the bottom of the streams, as they used to. In the private sector days, the Caterpillars used to go right through the streams, damage the streams, damage the habitat for fish and wildlife, and we changed that. The Forest Service plans and designs the roads, and we construct bridges over every single little stream. We protect the environment. Now we are being accused of spending too much money because why? We are protecting the environment and defending the lawsuits against the environmental groups that bring them. I urge the Senate to reject this amendment. As I say, it does not cut a dime from the budget. Exhibit 1 fy 2004 timber road costs: tongass national forest CMRD Allocation: $19.04 million. Timber Purchase Credit: $228,000. Maintenance: $3 million. Timber Road Support: $3.6 million. The Tongass National Forest's monetary return per dollar invested is 2 percent.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the efforts of my colleague Senator Bunning in holding professional sports leagues in the United States to a higher standard with respect to testing their athletes for performance-enhancing drugs. Senator Bunning's bill, ``The Professional Sports Integrity and Accountability Act,'' is another step toward holding professional sports leagues accountable as custodians of our Nation's pastimes. I have cosponsored a similar bill with Senator McCain, and I look forward to working with both of them in the effort to rid professional sports of performance-enhancing drugs and setting a positive example for our youth who are using these substances at an alarming rate. Over the past few years, the Commerce Committee has taken a series of actions to review the issue of performance-enhancing drug use at all levels of athletic competition, professional and amateur. The results of that review have been alarming. The evidence is clear that an increasing number of young amateur and U.S. Olympic athletes are using these substances for a multitude of reasons, but primarily to enhance athletic performance. Some experts suggest that many of these young athletes seek to emulate their professional sports heroes and are drawn to whatever it takes to achieve similar athletic greatness. For those skeptics who question this link and doubt the powerful effect that athletes have on the lives of kids, I remind them of the five-fold increase in the sales of the steroid-like substance androstenedione-- better known as ``andro''--that occurred after Mark McGwire admitted to using the substance in 1998 while chasing Major League Baseball's home run record. Since then, the problem of harmful supplement use among children and teenagers has reached epidemic proportions. In 2004, more than 300,000 high school students used anabolic steroids, which are scheduled as a controlled substances in the United States. Evidence shows that teenagers are using these substances not only for athletic performance enhancement, but also for vanity. Recent news reports have indicated that when surveyed, an estimated 5 percent of high school girls and 7 percent of middle school girls admitted using anabolic steroids at some point in their lives. Steroid use has doubled among high school students since the early 1990s. The adverse health consequences associated with such use are indisputable. Medical experts warn that the effects on children and teenagers include stunted growth, scarring acne, hormonal imbalances, liver and kidney damage, as well as an increased risk of heart disease and stroke later in life. Psychologically, steroids have been associated with increased aggression, suicide, and a greater propensity to commit serious crimes. Notwithstanding the dire health effects of anabolic steroids or steroid-like substances, the use of any performance-enhancing substance for the sole purpose of gaining a competitive edge over an opponent is unfair. Professional sports leagues must be held to the highest standard and be held accountable to their players, American consumers who pay to see a fair competition on the playing field, and the young athletes who are led by the example of professional athletes.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the efforts of my colleague Senator Bunning in holding professional sports leagues in the United States to a higher standard with respect to testing their athletes for performance-enhancing drugs. Senator Bunning's bill, ``The Professional Sports Integrity and Accountability Act,'' is another step toward holding professional sports leagues accountable as custodians of our Nation's pastimes. I have cosponsored a similar bill with Senator McCain, and I look forward to working with both of them in the effort to rid professional sports of performance-enhancing drugs and setting a positive example for our youth who are using these substances at an alarming rate. Over the past few years, the Commerce Committee has taken a series of actions to review the issue of performance-enhancing drug use at all levels of athletic competition, professional and amateur. The results of that review have been alarming. The evidence is clear that an increasing number of young amateur and U.S. Olympic athletes are using these substances for a multitude of reasons, but primarily to enhance athletic performance. Some experts suggest that many of these young athletes seek to emulate their professional sports heroes and are drawn to whatever it takes to achieve similar athletic greatness. For those skeptics who question this link and doubt the powerful effect that athletes have on the lives of kids, I remind them of the five-fold increase in the sales of the steroid-like substance androstenedione-- better known as ``andro''--that occurred after Mark McGwire admitted to using the substance in 1998 while chasing Major League Baseball's home run record. Since then, the problem of harmful supplement use among children and teenagers has reached epidemic proportions. In 2004, more than 300,000 high school students used anabolic steroids, which are scheduled as a controlled substances in the United States. Evidence shows that teenagers are using these substances not only for athletic performance enhancement, but also for vanity. Recent news reports have indicated that when surveyed, an estimated 5 percent of high school girls and 7 percent of middle school girls admitted using anabolic steroids at some point in their lives. Steroid use has doubled among high school students since the early 1990s. The adverse health consequences associated with such use are indisputable. Medical experts warn that the effects on children and teenagers include stunted growth, scarring acne, hormonal imbalances, liver and kidney damage, as well as an increased risk of heart disease and stroke later in life. Psychologically, steroids have been associated with increased aggression, suicide, and a greater propensity to commit serious crimes. Notwithstanding the dire health effects of anabolic steroids or steroid-like substances, the use of any performance-enhancing substance for the sole purpose of gaining a competitive edge over an opponent is unfair. Professional sports leagues must be held to the highest standard and be held accountable to their players, American consumers who pay to see a fair competition on the playing field, and the young athletes who are led by the example of professional athletes.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his statement and his support. I thank my colleague from Alaska for her statement. I come to the floor in opposition to the Sununu amendment, also. I hope Members will read it because it says: None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to plan, design, study, or construct new forest development roads in the Tongass National Forest for the purpose of harvesting timber by private entities or individuals. This amendment is premised on inaccurate information and faulty assumptions about our Nation's timber industry, the Tongass, and the state of our national forests. Unfortunately, this type of information has become commonplace. It is the inevitable result of special interest campaigns which are designed to distort the facts and mislead the American public. For many years, I have worked to set the record straight, especially when it comes to the false claims about Alaska's stewardship of our natural resources. Unfortunately, this amendment requires that I attempt, once more, to set the record straight. Misinformation about management of our national resources now runs rampant. I believe it lies at the heart of this amendment. It is the result of propaganda campaigns raised by extreme environmentalists and special interest groups who often get the facts wrong because they ignore our history. Our State once had a thriving timber industry. It supplied almost 2 billion board feet a year, employed over 3,000 timber workers, and generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue for the U.S. Treasury. But in the spirit of compromise and cooperation, our timber industry agreed to reduce the amount of timber it could harvest per year. In fact, one timber employee recently stated ``we cooperated ourselves right out of business.'' The Tongass National Forest was established in 1917. At 17 million acres, it is the largest national forest in the United States. It is twice the size of Maryland and more than 25 times the size of Rhode Island. As a matter of fact, if we look at the map showing the New England area, it shows how big this forest really is. The part that is covered in black is that portion of the forest that is open to timber on a proportionate basis. The other map that I have shows the forest as a whole and shows the result of the plans that have been developed. The area in blue is area that is still available for harvesting. All of the white part of that map of the Tongass is permanently closed to timber harvest. The Tongass compromises 90 percent of the lands of southeastern Alaska. The remaining lands are State, more Federal, and private lands. The Tongass is the only forest in Alaska in which timber may be harvested now. Alaska's other forest, the Chugach National Forest, which contains 5.5 million acres, is now under a management plan which has reduced the allowable sale quantity to zero. The Chugach is completely closed to logging. No timber can be logged from that very massive forest, 5.5 million acres. Federal timber policy regarding the Tongass has had devastating effects on the 32 communities in Southeast Alaska that depend on timber harvests for their livelihood. When Congress passed the Tongass Timber Act in 1947, an allowable sale quantity, which we call the ASQ, for the Tongass was set at 1.38 billion board feet per year. This level was slowly eroded. Under the 1959 Statehood Act, the State of Alaska was allowed to select only 400,000 acres of its 103-million-acre entitlement in Southeast Alaska. Because there is little private land to support our local economies, Congress committed to provide support for economic development through timber sales. Congress codified that support in a series of laws beginning in 1971. In 1971, the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act set the ASQ, the allowable quantity, at 950 million board feet per year. During subsequent years, the timber industry in the Tongass supported almost 3,000 jobs and harvested an average of 520 million board feet per year. However, the amount of permissible harvest was again decreased in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, which set an ASQ of 450 million board feet per year. At that time, the Senate believed that 450 million board feet per year would maintain a robust timber industry which was a major section of southeast Alaska's regional economy. In addition, the Senate envisioned providing Federal funds for road building and advanced harvesting technology. As former Senator Roth stated at that time in 1980, the bill: . . . permit[s] the established timber industries to maintain a rate of production necessary for their economic success. It was understood by Members of the Senate during this debate that a vital timber industry was necessary for the economic survival of the residents of southeast Alaska. As Senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts said: Our commitment was to treat Alaska fairly. The commitment was again put to the test during the debate on the Tongass Timber Reform Act, which was called TTRA, in 1990. That plan set the ASQ at 450 million board feet on 1.9 million acres. The Act also directed the Forest Service to provide a supply of timber which meets the market demand in southeast Alaska. At that time, several Members from both sides of the aisle in the Senate adamantly agreed that this bill would be the final word on the Tongass. As Senator Johnson of Louisiana stated: I believe that the designation and disposition of the public lands in the Tongass National Forest pursuant to this act represent a responsible balance between the preservation of wildlife areas and the availability of lands for more intensive use as determined appropriate by administrative planning and management. I further believe that this agreement will allow Alaskans the certainty they need and deserve by resolving the issue once and for all. Now, that was in 1990. Senator Bingaman--now an original cosponsor of the Sununu amendment, as a matter of fact--said at the time: This is a balanced bill that will adequately protect this majestic national forest, while assuring a sustainable supply of timber for current and future needs. . . . This legislation recognizes that some areas should be protected, while others should be managed for a sustained supply of timber. That was at the time of the 1990 act. I remember speaking on the floor prior to passage of the bill. After years of broken promises and severe declines in the timber industry, I trusted our colleagues to do the right thing and resolve the issue of the Tongass once and for all. That is what everybody at the time said-- that Act was the final legislation pertaining to the Tongass timber harvest. I called on all Members of the House and Senate to listen to the voice of Alaskans. I received a promise, commitment, and assurance of those involved, who had the power to change these laws, that they recognized this was the end, that there would be no further divisions of the Tongass. In 1997, however, the Forest Service completed the Tongass land management plan, which currently guides management of the Tongass. The development of that involved an unprecedented level of scientific review and public involvement. It took over 10 years and cost the taxpayers of the United States $13 million. I opposed the plan because it contained again a drastic reduction in the amount of timber allowed to be harvested. It reduced the allowable sale quantity level to 267 million board feet per year. I thought the levels were much lower than they needed to be, and they violated the commitment previously made to me. Numerous scientists who found that the Tongass could sustain far greater development supported my conclusion. Yet, today, that plan seems like the golden age of the Tongass timber industry. I now find myself defending a plan I initially opposed, because of continued efforts to erode the promises made to our State. This plan addresses how to manage the Tongass--a largely undeveloped forest landscape--over time. The centerpiece is a biological conservation strategy that protects the ``biological heart,'' as they called it, of the Tongass, designed to assure the sustainability of all resources and values, while allowing development on a relatively small portion of the Tongass to support communities in southeast Alaska through timber harvesting. Mr. President, 93 percent of all forested areas in the Tongass are set aside under the 1997 plan; 93 percent are not available for timber harvesting. Timber harvesting can actually now occur on only 676,000 acres, or 4 percent of the 17 million acre forest. The allowable sale quantity under this plan is 267 million board feet--down, as I said, from over 1 billion board feet. An ASQ of 267 million board feet per year is the bottom quantity, as far as I am concerned. Since 1990, the volume of timber harvested from the Tongass has dropped from hundreds of board feet per year. Last year, only 46 million board feet of timber was harvested--46 million board feet of timber from a forest of 17 million acres. To comply with the Tongass Timber Reform Act, the current plan seeks to plan, prepare, and sell about 150 million board feet per year. Delays caused by litigation have prohibited the Forest Service from accomplishing this goal on the Tongass. Fourteen projects are currently under litigation. They represent over 238 million board feet of timber that should have been harvested in years gone by. Direct timber jobs in the Tongass have declined from over 3000 in 1990 to less than 700 today. Unemployment in parts of southeast Alaska is well over 10 percent, all because of extravagant acts of those who oppose the very Act they championed at the time it passed in 1990. Mr. President, 150 million board feet per year could support 959 direct timber jobs, totaling over $35 million in direct wages, Each direct timber job is estimated to support another 1.7 jobs in the local economy. These jobs are an important high-wage sector of the economy and provide much needed year-round employment for southeast Alaska. The benefits of a sufficient and sustained timber supply are obvious. The timber industry in southeast Alaska has changed dramatically over the period we have described. The large pulp mills are closed. Three medium sawmills, one small sawmill, and a handful of micromills remain, but they are primarily idle because of the level of timber that can be cut right now. These businesses are family owned and community based and depend upon a supply of timber from the Tongass for their survival. The remaining mills are involved in efforts to increase the demand for, and the stumpage values of, the timber in southeastern Alaska. These people are trying to build a more integrated industry to provide finished products, such as window and door trim, to local, national, and international markets. The Tongass timber program is working to complete investments in drying and planing lumber, having it graded, to sell in the local region. Wood resources in southeast Alaska are now known to have unique qualities. Wood density and lumber strength is high. New lumber grades for Alaska yellow cedar and hemlock have recently been issued, which surpass the strength of other species currently used in construction in the lower 48, such as Douglas fir. This is also expected to increase the value of Alaska's timber. In other words, we are trying to do what we can through technology to increase value of our timber, even though the amount of the timber is steadily declining. The efforts of those remaining in the Tongass industry to adapt to current conditions will be worthless if Congress adopts the Sununu amendment. As I said, the amendment prohibits the Forest Service from using funds appropriated for the ``planning, designing, studying, or construction'' of timber roads. Planning, designing, and studying are necessary to assure that we meet the multiple use consideration of the national forests. This forest area is full of small streams that contain migratory salmon. Wildlife is there. There are recreation values. A whole series of values require the Forest Service to study the areas that can be harvested. Careful planning, designing, studying, and construction is necessary to protect those values, as well as provide a transportation route so timber can be taken to market. This amendment will effectively enact a roadless rule in the Tongass. It would prevent access to more than 300,000 acres of unroaded timber base in the areas that are open for timber harvest. Access to the small amount that is available should not be denied because of this amendment. Data provided by the Forest Service shows at a minimum southeast Alaska will lose two mills and about 680 more jobs. These numbers will not support the industry described if this amendment passes. Law requires that a sufficient timber supply be provided to meet market demand. That was one of the basic considerations that came from the 1990 Act. Current market demand is about 150 million board feet per year in our own area. Under this amendment, we would harvest less than 40 million board feet per year, bringing the industry to a standstill. I ask the Senate to reject this approach that would further renege on the obligation to southeast Alaska to fulfill the commitments that were made to Alaska and to southeastern Alaska under the Tongass plan. Some of the Senators claim the Sununu amendment is about our fiscal responsibility to ensure taxpayers are not subsidizing the Tongass timber industry. But this is not about fiscal responsibility. National environmental groups have spent millions appealing and litigating timber sales in the Tongass National Forest, causing program costs to soar and the number of sales to collapse. Almost 75 percent of all the costs associated with timber sales in the Tongass National Forest are spent on NEPA, appeals based on that Act, and litigation. The remaining 25 percent is the actual preparation and administration of a sale, including the building of roads. Compliance with NEPA and other Federal laws and responses to appeals and litigation currently total about $110 per thousand board feet, or $110,000 per million board feet. Without these costs, timber sale preparation and administration for the Tongass Forest would cost about $36 per thousand board feet. The average timber sale generates about $42.5 per thousand board feet. Without frivolous appeals and lawsuits, the Tongass timber program would yield a reasonable profit margin and make money for U.S. taxpayers. Administrative appeals and litigation increase the cost of Tongass timber sales exponentially compared with the rest of the United States. The Forest Service estimates the timber sales in the Tongass are appealed and litigated more than four times that of timber sales in the national forests in the lower 48. It is the cost of this litigation and the cost of the environmental programs that are instilled by these extreme environmentalists that drive up the cost in the Tongass. Now they say we should stop harvesting timber because of the cost. Despite extensive environmental review and public participation, the majority of the timber projects in the Tongass are appealed and/or litigated. Taxpayers are not subsidizing the timber industry. Under the National Forest Management Act, timber sale purchasers are required to competitively bid and pay market value for the sales they purchase. Purchasers also pay for all logging, transportation, and manufacturing costs. In addition, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act mandates that national forests be managed for multiple use benefits such as fish, wildlife, recreation, and clean water. Ecological benefits include various land management objectives such as improving forest health and reducing the risk of catastrophic fire. All of those costs are what the environmental groups say are part of the cost of the timber sale program. They are not. Seventy-five percent of all the costs have nothing to do with harvesting timber. They have to do with the attacks of extreme environmental groups that now bring this amendment to say you cannot use Federal money to build these roads, or even plan them, because it costs too much. In the Tongass, timber sales also provide basic infrastructure, such as roads and docks. This infrastructure provides residents and visitors with access to hunting, fishing, recreation, and wildlife viewing. The whole spectrum of tourist activity in southeast Alaska is supported by the roads constructed. Some roads constructed by timber sales serve as the basic road system between communities and ferry terminals, which are the water highways of the island communities of southeast Alaska. That area has no roads. Even our capital cannot be reached by road. This is an island area. It must have roads basically from the edge of the water to the area available for harvesting which, by definition, is back away from the view shed that we keep along the water's edge to assure that tourists will have the proper view of the area. I do believe these water highways between our southeastern islands are connected, in a way, by virtue of the forest roads that are developed under these timber sale programs. These timber sales provide benefits beyond revenues earned. Economic benefits include new jobs, additional income for individuals and businesses. Basic tax receipts of this area depend on the harvesting of timber in the Tongass. The problem that I see now is that these communities have come to rely on timber sales not only for jobs but for their local economies. Timber sales revenues are important to local communities which receive 25 percent of the proceeds of these sales for public schools and roads, as do all areas that have national forests. By prohibiting these roads which will kill the sales, in effect, the contribution that is brought about by the laws that pertain to national forests will not be realized in Southeast Alaska because there won't be any harvest or 25 percent to support the schools that come out of the national program. That program applies to the entire United States. The timber roads program applies to all States where there are national forests. In the year 2004, the timber harvest for all 10 forest regions was about 2 billion board feet. The gross receipts totaled $217 million and expenditures amounted to over $268 million, and that number does not take all costs into account. The 1998 timber sale performance information reporting system found net losses in 8 of the 10 forest regions. Some States may be able to show a profit or even break even, but clearly the national timber sale program does not. As a matter of law and policy, national forest managers are required to behave differently from private forest managers, so it does not make sense to judge their performance by private sector standards--profits. If the Forest Service's goal was to maximize profits, contrary to the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, the Forest Service would allow export of timber and sell it to the highest bidder worldwide in the global economy. But that would essentially outsource all of the value-added forest products industry of the United States, putting local mills out of business, eliminating jobs, and leaving local communities with few alternatives for revenue. Given our current economic climate, the United States cannot afford that policy. I want to share a quote from President Roosevelt. Senator Murkowski mentioned he established the Tongass National Forest. I think it is relevant today. He said: . . . First and foremost, you can never afford to forget for a moment what is the object of our forest policy. That is not to preserve forests because they are beautiful, though that is good in itself, not because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness, though that too is good in itself; but the primary object of our forest policy, as the land policy of the United States, is the making of prosperous homes. This national forest concept was supposed to provide an alternative to the development of privately owned timber and be a yardstick for the management of timber resources in our country. The construction of timber roads is important for both the economic and environmental health of our forests. They provide access to timber used for wood, paper products, and home construction. They enable citizens to access our forests for public recreation, and they enable Forest Service employees to manage those forests for the public good. The timber road program in Alaska is managed in the same manner as the timber road program of every national forest in the United States. The only difference in our case is we provide special protections, such as culverts, to ensure safe fish passage, and we protect the terrain. We have learned from the mistakes of the past. We do not build roads the same as they do in other areas. We strive to strike a balance between conservation and economic development. And now with this amendment, some Members of the Senate would penalize Alaska for doing the right thing. We have developed a basic approach to use our timber areas to protect other values besides timber harvests. We could seek to significantly reduce the amount of these protections required for our timber road system, and we could drastically reduce the funds required, but that would be inconsistent with proper stewardship of our national forest lands. 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 Federal lands. The Federal Government manages, by the way, 235 million acres of Alaska's land. We have a long, proud history as responsible stewards of our natural resources. Alaskans will always manage our lands in a way that ensures its vitality. Timber is a renewable resource. It can be--and will be-- managed as such under the Tongass land management plan. Much of Alaska will remain pristine wilderness. We have set aside a tremendous amount of it. But we need some certainty that we will be able to harvest small portions of the forest which are not already set aside. We need to know we will be able to sustain the timber industry today with the assurances of the past. We need assurances that our efforts will not be met by more resistance, such as the frivolous lawsuits and amendments such as this. In order to give our communities a chance to be prosperous, Congress should allow the Tongass to be managed under the forest management plan without further unwarranted interference. I remind the Senate, the same environmental groups that caused the Tongass to lose money through frivolous litigation and stalling tactics, as I said, are now calling for an end to the timber program under the guise of fiscal conservatism. It is disingenuous and duplicitous, and their approach is given sanction and credibility by this amendment. This amendment should be defeated. I do hope that our colleagues will consider this: Taxpayers for Common Sense has repeatedly opposed Federal funds for the entire National Forest System. They argue that 105 of the 111 national forests spend more money in the operation of forests than they collected through timber sales. They want us to meet the cost of all multiple use values the cost of recreation, the cost of conservation, the cost of protecting wildlife--by the revenues coming in from the small amount of areas of the forest allowed to be harvested. This group singled out several national forests as wasteful. I want to point out to the Senate that the Taxpayers for Common Sense attacked forests in California, Alaska, Montana, Oregon, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Washington, and Utah. I urge the Senators involved in this amendment to consider this. Why single out Alaska? Why is it that Alaskan roads cannot be built with Federal money? They are being built in all these other national forests deemed wasteful. I am surprised my colleagues from New Hampshire and New Mexico would offer this amendment in view of the conditions of the forests in their own States. According to the Wilderness Society, the Forest Service's timber program in New Hampshire lost between $813,000 and $1.2 million. We are being attacked for something that does not exist in Alaska alone. In New Mexico, the timber program lost between $365,000 and $414,000. The same economics are applied to the Tongass Timber Programs as in all National Forests. The difference in Alaska is that four times as many lawsuits are brought against Tongass timber sales than in the rest of the United States. If this amendment is designed to protect the taxpayer, then restrictions on Federal funds for timber roads should apply to all forests in every State. And I think special interests will come after those other areas, if this amendment is passed. I call this an ill-conceived amendment. I urge it not be adopted. It would add weight to the logic embraced by Taxpayers for Common Sense who have attacked, as I said, almost every forest in the United States. It will send us down a slippery slope by setting a precedent for halting road programs in national forests. The roads designed and built by the Forest Service are in the best interests of the Nation because they protect all the values of the multiple-use concept of our national forests. This is not only important to the timber industry, but it is important to millions of Americans who rely on roads for access to national forests. I do not want to encourage environmental groups to continue waging frivolous lawsuits in the hopes of making timber programs throughout the United States too expensive to continue. What they are doing is increasing the costs. Again, I point out, 75 percent of the costs in Alaska are involved in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the appeals and litigation that ensue whenever the Forest Service offers a timber sale in the Tongass. Adopting this amendment would unfairly and unjustly distinguish one State--our State--sending a sobering message to Alaskans: Despite Congress's statements and actions in the past, a Senator voting for this amendment will be telling Alaskans that their economic well-being is secondary to special interests, and when push comes to shove, Congress will forget about the commitments of the past, forget about the promises of the past, and move to satisfy this extreme environmental movement that is the basic cause of the problem as far as the forests are concerned. If Congress chooses to adopt this amendment, none of our forests are safe. No forest can afford to sit idly by. These special interest groups are designing ways to destroy an important Federal program based on spurious allegations with regard the economics involved. Those economics are affected more by the environmental movement, which is challenging most timber sales in the Tongass, than by the forest actions themselves. Above all, I ask the Senate to remember that this amendment goes back on congressional promises made to Alaska. In exchange for withdrawing over 100 million acres of land for parks, refuges, and forests, including 17 million acres in Tongass National Forest, Congress promised that it would leave intact sufficient land to maintain a robust timber industry in Alaska. Unlike the timber industry in other States, Alaska's timber industry is reliant on the Tongass, which comprises 90 percent of Southeast Alaska. Only 676,000 acres are currently open for timber harvesting. Since 1980, jobs in the Alaskan timber industry have shrunk from over 3,000 to less than 500 today. We have only four small family-owned timber mills left. This amendment is not about fiscal responsibility, it is a back-door attack on the timber industry to benefit this extreme environmental movement. As I said, 75 percent of the timber sale cost is from NEPA, the National Environmental Protection Act, compliance, appeals, and litigation. Without those, the Tongass would make a 13-percent profit. Many of the national forests in the United States have monetary returns per dollar invested, which is less than the rate of return of the Tongass, and they are not considered at all in connection with this amendment. This amendment would set a precedent that litigation can make the cost of timber programs in all national forests too expensive to continue. If this amendment was really about fiscal responsibility, then all national forests would be included. Most of the timber programs throughout the United States--as I said, 8 out of 10 of them--are not profitable. In fact, according to the Forest Service--and I close with this point--the Tongass is one the best managed forests in the Nation. It has one of the lowest costs per acre, including the timber program. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Dorothy Hibbs came to Girdwood in 1952 and was its Postmaster from 1954-1976. During this time, the Post Office was housed in a two-story hotel called The Little Dipper. Mail came into Girdwood via train. The train would slow down and throw the sack of mail to Dorothy who would be waiting by the tracks. Unfortunately, this building burned down during the 1964 earthquake. After the Post Office burned, the operation moved to Dorothy's home until another building could be acquired. Connie Hibbs began her love for the post office at a young age when her mother, Dorothy, was Postmaster of Girdwood. Because of her hard work and efforts, Connie became the Girdwood Postmaster in 1979 and held that position until 2005. Connie came with her mother to Girdwood in 1952 and remained for 52 years. While her mother was Postmaster, Connie helped in the Post Office and at the age of thirteen began making money orders and sorting mail. Girdwood and the Post Office have always been a part of Connie's life. Connie says she loves Girdwood. It is her town. She spent the most wonderful years of her life there as the Postmaster and a ``Post Office Kid.'' Connie and Dorothy believe in the importance of the Postal Service and the need to enhance the service in Girdwood. It is only appropriate that we honor them by dedicating the Girdwood Post Office after them.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Dorothy Hibbs came to Girdwood in 1952 and was its Postmaster from 1954-1976. During this time, the Post Office was housed in a two-story hotel called The Little Dipper. Mail came into Girdwood via train. The train would slow down and throw the sack of mail to Dorothy who would be waiting by the tracks. Unfortunately, this building burned down during the 1964 earthquake. After the Post Office burned, the operation moved to Dorothy's home until another building could be acquired. Connie Hibbs began her love for the post office at a young age when her mother, Dorothy, was Postmaster of Girdwood. Because of her hard work and efforts, Connie became the Girdwood Postmaster in 1979 and held that position until 2005. Connie came with her mother to Girdwood in 1952 and remained for 52 years. While her mother was Postmaster, Connie helped in the Post Office and at the age of thirteen began making money orders and sorting mail. Girdwood and the Post Office have always been a part of Connie's life. Connie says she loves Girdwood. It is her town. She spent the most wonderful years of her life there as the Postmaster and a ``Post Office Kid.'' Connie and Dorothy believe in the importance of the Postal Service and the need to enhance the service in Girdwood. It is only appropriate that we honor them by dedicating the Girdwood Post Office after them.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. STEVENS. What amendment is pending?