Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are totally comfortable and think the leader has done the right thing regarding the schedule. It is totally appropriate and we will, of course, cooperate as much as we can to make sure we do our work on the Defense bill next week. It is important legislation, and we need to complete that.

I direct a question, through the Chair, to the distinguished majority leader. There will be some votes, or at least one vote, tomorrow on some resolutions, I would assume. Does the majority leader have any idea when?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is now quarter to 7 in Nevada. Children are walking on their way to school. Here in the East, children are already at school. In Nevada we have a wide range of school districts. We have 17 school districts, one for each county. The school district in Las Vegas, the Clark County School District, is approaching 300,000 students. It is one of the largest school districts in America. Esmeralda County, Goldfield, has 84 students. Because of the feeling I have and the complaints I received about the Leave No Child Behind Act, I thought it appropriate that I meet with those 17 school superintendents. I did that last week when I was home during the Memorial Day break. Jim Hager, the superintendent from Washoe County-- that is Reno, which is the second largest school district--is the president of the Superintendents Association. At my request he convened this meeting.

I have had many meetings over the years, as we all have, dealing with a broad range of subjects, but I have never had a meeting that was more meaningful, more informative, more educational to me than the meeting I had with the school superintendents. My only regret is I didn't spend more time with them. We spent an hour and 15 minutes. That is what we had scheduled. It was a tremendously good meeting.

I had no agenda with the superintendents other than to listen to them. I didn't bring them into the room and proceed to give a Senate filibuster to them. I wanted to make sure that every one of the 17, from the smallest school district to the largest, had an opportunity to speak--and that is what we did.

Every one of the 17 has tried so hard to comply with the intent and the actual substance of the Leave No Child Behind Act. They simply said, though, that in an effort to comply with this new law, they have robbed Peter to pay Paul with their budgets. They have compromised on all kinds of very important programs within the school districts. They have tampered with and eliminated art programs, programs for the academically talented, athletic programs, music programs, and history classes in an effort to meet the requirements of Leave No Child Behind.

There is no question, when I went to high school, that the courses I took--English, math, and sciences--were important. I was taught those subjects, of course. But also it was important that I have a full education, that I have the opportunity to participate in athletics, that teachers be given the opportunity to teach other subjects than math, science, and English. A superintendent said they had even had to shorten the time allotted for recess. Some say, Good, the kids are out too much. You know, recess time is time just like the time people take for coffee breaks. People take a break to get away from the drudgery, or even if somebody loves their job, a break is important. Children need a break just like adults. They have even shortened the time allotted for recesses.

Instead of just ignoring the law, they have tried to comply with it, all 17 superintendents. I commend them for their unified efforts in that regard. But there is only so much they can do with a law that is basically flawed, a law that is flawed because there are no resources to fulfill the requirements of that law. One after the other, these educators gave examples of how the No Child Left Behind Act is leaving these children behind. It is simply not reaching its goal.

One superintendent said: What if you, in Washington, passed a law that every child, to graduate from high school, had to dunk a basketball?

It didn't matter how hard I tried. I could never dunk a basketball. I couldn't dunk the basketball when I graduated high school at age 17.

If they passed a law saying every child who graduated from high school had to high jump 6 feet, they could not do it; if every child had to run a mile in 6 minutes, they could not do it. Physically and emotionally, it is impossible for children to do those things.

A select few can do it but not very many. But that is what we have required.

The Leave No Child Behind Act is based on the premise that we can track the progress of every school by using a one-size-fits-all approach, including standardized tests.

What I heard from these superintendents was their problems aren't standardized. The one-size-fits-all approach doesn't always work.

The Clark County School District is the fastest growing school district in the country. The New York Times published this week an article on education in Las Vegas, painting a very realistic picture of what we are facing. We are in the midst of a massive program to build 88 new schools to accommodate about 12,000 new elementary and secondary aged students who move into the county every year. This number is going to increase.

Clark County's teacher recruitment effort spans nationwide and costs more than $1 million a year--just to recruit the teachers. According to Superintendent Carlos Garcia, about 2,000 were hired last year. They need 1,600 more teachers, as we speak.

To cite one pervasive challenge that Nevada as a whole and Clark County in particular faces, the Clark County School District has 81 documented foreign language barriers--not 18. I didn't make a mistake; 81 different languages are spoken in the Clark County School District.

There are so many children entering our public schools who do not speak English that, under the Leave No Child Behind, most of our public schools will eventually be on the ``watch list'' or considered a ``failing school.'' Like many parts of this country, we know it costs more to educate these children.

The Leave No Child Behind Act promises that resources will be provided, but we haven't kept that promise to the 17 superintendents in Nevada--and the rest of this country. We have underfunded the Leave No Child Behind--not by a little but by billions and billions of dollars every year. We have not kept our promise, but we still expect fourth grade children who are struggling to learn English to perform well on a test they can't understand.

I don't say this to be boastful, but I did OK in school. But if I did not speak English, it would not have mattered what my mental capacity was. In the fourth grade, I would have had problems with a fourth grade test.

We haven't kept our promise. I don't think for one minute that these children are not aware they are part of a cell group causing their schools to fail--simply because they do not comprehend the language.

Superintendent Garcia told me something that certainly got my attention. He said: I am so tired of walking into a classroom of fourth graders and seeing kids with their heads down on their desks crying because they can't read the test.

He said: I see children with their heads on their desks crying--not because they are stupid, not because they are dumb, but because they cannot understand what they are being asked to do.

As a result, not only is that child failing but the whole school district is failing. The school that the child is in could be failing as a result.

These children are being left behind because they are forced to take tests in a language they can't speak, and it hasn't changed a thing. They still can't dunk a basketball. Testing a child doesn't make him any smarter any more than weighing a steer makes that steer heavier.

Superintendent Garcia said the obsession with testing is actually causing some children to learn because they are taking fewer lessens. Many high school kids are so worried about standardized tests that they only want to take math. They are afraid of failing the standardized tests, leaving no time for other classes--sometimes even history courses.

The distinguished junior Senator from Tennessee and I have sponsored legislation talking about having American government taught in school. We are not going to be able to do that.

Does this program we have make a child better prepared to succeed in college or in life? No.

I personally would have been a failing student in a failing school if this law had been enacted when I was growing up.

I decided to go to law school because I had a part-time counselor and teacher by the name of Mrs. Dorothy Robinson who pulled me out of the junior class in high school and said: I have looked over all of your tests and I think you should be a lawyer. I don't know what tests I took. I think she was trying to be nice to me. But I followed what she suggested. From that minute forward, I said: I am going to be a lawyer. I had never met a lawyer, I had never been to a courthouse, and I had never been involved in a court case, but because of Mrs. Robinson having confidence in me--not because of some standardized tests--I decided that was what I wanted to do, even though my grammar was atrocious. My parents were uneducated. She was able to do that, and it wouldn't have happened if she had been more concerned about punitive measures in our school if I had failed a standardized test.

It is easy to look at Clark County's woes under this law because it educates more than half of our State's elementary and secondary students. However, there are other counties in Nevada facing challenges that are much different but no less significant.

A school system right next door to Clark County is Nye County, which has seen much slower growth than Clark County but still growth. It is the largest school district in the continental United States. It is huge. Superintendent Rob Roberts is a West Point graduate who worries about problems such as children riding schoolbuses in the desert with no air-conditioning. Nye County can only buy used buses because they are spending so much money on the Leave No Child Behind Act. They literally drive a million miles a year to get kids to school and back. And they are going to eliminate an extra bus which allows students from some of these outlying districts to participate in athletics and music programs and other enrichment programs. They are going to eliminate that. They can't afford it. Gas prices are going to speed up that demise.

Other counties have seen enrollment decline as industries such as mining went through cycles. Lincoln County is one of them, and it is struggling to keep its head above water to provide transportation for its increasingly scattered student population.

Elko County has been gradually slowing the decline in its enrollment. But they have increased expenses because of the Leave No Child Behind Act. They did what 14 or 15 other school districts wanted to do; that is, hire a grant writer. They had to pay a lot of money to do this. Most school districts can't afford a grant writer. They have people who try to write for grants but don't know how. One of the superintendents said: I tried to write for a grant. I do not know how.

Mineral, Lander, and Carson City Counties are also in the position of needing to hire grant writers--just to find new ways to supplement their financially strapped school districts, because the Leave No Child Behind Act is bankrupting the school districts.

In Esmeralda County, some of the children travel up to 160 miles every day to school. Transportation expenses are 70 percent of their budget. They are cutting special events because of rising transportation costs.

The Humboldt County superintendent concurred--that there are all kinds of problems with this Leave No Child Behind Act. They are concerned about the costs associated with the transfer of students to new schools, if one of the schools fails its annual yearly progress.

Under the Leave No Child Behind Act, if you do not like a school and it is failing, you can demand that your child go to a school someplace else.

These counties can't afford to haul these kids around. These are not schools located two or three blocks away, or 2 miles away--it could be 180 or 190 miles away.

White Pine County has two local schools that perform well. Parents know that they do a good job. But because of a situation with one or two special education students struggling in math--these are children who are emotionally or physically or mentally handicapped--these two fine schools will be classed as ``failing'' schools.

Douglas County's superintendent knows about the stigma of a failing school. Superintendent John Soderman

said he appreciates the accountability principles in the law but the punitive implications are brutal. It is the ``label of blame'' law.

Pershing County is fretful over the way its 23-percent special education students are being left behind.

Pershing County: The largest city in Pershing County is Lovelock, with 23 percent of the students in special education in that school district. They will be left behind.

Churchill County asked me when the Federal Government planned to fully fund this law. I said I did not know. Storey County is the historic county seat of Virginia City. The superintendent said the law was too inflexible.

Again, you cannot legislate a child to be able to dunk a basketball.

Every one of these counties agreed that providing teachers with professional development, ensuring that they are highly qualified in their subject--or, as in the case of Lyon County, multiple subjects--is proving to be expensive and frustrating.

The meeting with these superintendents took place in Nate Mack Elementary School in Henderson, NV. We were greeted by a student band featuring drums and xylophones. Another class presented a wax museum of famous Nevadans in history. They were dressed as historical characters. The first child, a little girl, was a special education student. She was physically handicapped, but she played her part very well.

Now, is this little girl going to make that school a failing school? If we had a law that was meaningful and fair and educated students, that little girl would not make it a failing school. She would make it a successful school. This law is going to make it a failing school because of this little girl.

I was so impressed with this wax museum of famous Nevadans. They were trained not to smile. They did not frown. They were mimes, there to be wax. They were not to move. They did a wonderful job dressed as the historical characters they studied.

These are examples of how experienced, creative teachers can find exciting ways to help children learn. Music and history are integral to education, but the Leave No Child Behind law focuses on standardized tests.

I hope these children and their instructors will continue their lessons in music and in history, their athletics and art classes, even though there will not be standardized tests on these subjects.

This was one of the best meetings, if not the best, I have ever had. It opened my eyes. But I am not alone. I am sure many Senators have heard similar stories from educators in their States. I hope we can work together to fix this law, mainly by either changing it or funding it, and do the other things needed that we have to do to achieve the laudable goal of ensuring that no child is ever left behind.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, how much time is left on the majority side?

We will wait until their time expires.

Madam President, how much time is remaining on the majority side?

Madam President, I am going to yield in a minute to my friend, the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. But I would hope everyone who has heard all these speeches understands the country has a deep problem with these huge deficits. The largest deficit in the history of the world, the history of our country, was last year. This year we will exceed that.

I hope everyone understands there is spending going on like a bunch of drunken sailors here, and the spending is being paid for with borrowed money.

Madam President, I yield 15 minutes to my distinguished friend from New Jersey.

Madam President, I direct a question to my friend from New Jersey. Would my friend agree that these huge deficits that are piling up at unprecedented rates are also, long term, very damaging to our economy?

Would the Senator also agree that during the last 3 years of

the Clinton administration, we were actually spending less money as a Federal Government than we were taking in--meaning we were paying down the debt? Was that not a good sign for the economy, to the rest of the world, and to our own taxpayers?

Madam President, everybody within the sound of my voice should understand that the distinguished Senator from New Jersey is a person who understands the business world. Before coming to the Senate, he was one of the Nation's leading economic advisers, a person who had been so distinguished in the economic world that he was known all over the United States and in many parts of the world. When the Senator from New Jersey speaks about aspects of our economy, people should really listen.

Madam President, today many people in the Chamber came to work extremely early. The reason is they wanted to avoid being stuck in traffic. They got up early in the morning. They came to work earlier than they were required to come to work because they were afraid of being late for work because of the traffic jams in the Washington, DC, area. You may say, well, Washington is a unique place. But it is the same in Las Vegas, Reno, or anyplace else in our country. We have traffic jams, highway problems, too few mass transit systems, and those we do have need renovation and replenishment.

To mention a road in Las Vegas or here on the capital beltway as being a place to stay away from during rush hour, certainly everybody understands that. Is there going to be an accident in the morning? Maybe there was an accident. Maybe it is just routine congestion that creates difficult problems. People sit, losing precious time they could be spending with their families or getting to work and getting things done. But they are stuck in traffic.

As the Senator from New Jersey and I have talked about on the floor of the Senate a lot of times, the price of gasoline is tremendous. You sit there with your car idling, wasting precious fuel. In Nevada, there are places now where you are paying $2.70 a gallon for gasoline. People are locked in these traffic jams that are unbelievably difficult. They keep us away from our families and our work, and that also adds to the stress of the individual involved.

But while Americans are stuck in traffic all over America, a bill to get America moving again is stuck in Congress. The highway bill is stuck in Congress. Why? Where is it stuck? It is across this great Capitol in the House of Representatives. They have refused to appoint conferees so that we can go to conference.

We were able to work out an arrangement in the Senate where we appointed very good conferees. The Republicans have 11 and the Democrats have 10. They are anxious to go to work and do something about the comprehensive 6-year surface transportation bill on which we have to work.

The House passed a version. The Senate passed a version. We like ours better, but they are both bills on which we need to work out the differences.

During the Memorial Day recess, staffs held bicameral meetings to begin a dialog between the two bodies. But because the House has not appointed conferees, these meetings mostly dealt with procedural matters. In effect, we did not do much.

I cannot imagine why the House is taking so much time to appoint conferees. We are losing weeks of valuable time. Before we can get to the meat of this bill and sit down with members of the conference to take votes on issues, staffs have to spend weeks going over this very complicated bill. It is a 6-year bill. It is a bill of hundreds of pages dealing with problems we have with our highways and problems we have with our transit systems all over America. We need to have something done yesterday. We need to meet this country's growing transportation needs which are improving safety and relieving congestion.

In 2003, the last year for which we have statistics, more than 43,000 people in America lost their lives on our roads, the highest number of fatalities since 1990. In addition to the personal tragedy associated with these accidents, they cost an estimated $137 billion each year in property losses, productivity, and medical costs. There is not an amount you can put on the loss of a life. In addition, we have a situation where we talk about 43,000 people--more than 43,000 people-- being killed, but hundreds of thousands of people are injured. People become paralyzed. People lose eyes. I have visited a facility in Las Vegas where they deal with head trauma. The vast majority of people in that facility are the result of automobile accidents.

This year, Americans will lose more than 3.6 billion hours to traffic congestion. That is 3.6 billion hours they will not be able to spend with their families, their friends, or at work. The cost of wasted fuel will be about $70 billion.

The bipartisan Senate bill--and it was bipartisan, led by the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe, and the ranking member, Senator Jeffords--this bipartisan Senate bill invests $318 billion over 6 years, allowing States to improve safety and reduce congestion on roads.

Even this big bill is only an effort to keep a level playing field. We do not make any advancements, as we probably should, but at least it allows us to tread water in most places to keep from drowning with the problems we have with traffic in our country. The $318 billion represents an investment in our transportation infrastructure, protects our economy and quality of life, and it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. Why the President would pick this vehicle to flex his muscles is something I do not understand. There have been other issues that have come out of this Congress that maybe he should have taken a look at, but certainly not the highway bill. It creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.

We need to move forward on this legislation. I think we need to let everyone know that the House of Representatives is the cause of our not moving forward on this bill. If the House appointed conferees today, we might be able to complete this conference by the end of the Congress, but it is going to be a close call. There is so much work to do, and we need the House to work with us, not against us.

There are some reports that the chairman of the full committee in the House--and I have not talked with him; he is my friend--does not want a bill; that he is so disappointed with what has happened with the White House that he just says: I don't want a bill.

I hope that is wrong. I am confident the Members of the Senate and the House can work out the differences on this legislation, and we will do it with the number that will be appropriate to take care of the needs of this country. I think $318 billion is a good figure. If the President vetoes the bill, it will just be overridden. I have spoken with the leadership in both the House and the Senate, and they acknowledge that would happen. But please let the Members vote to do this.

Again, all the Senators who have come to me and asked what is happening to the highway bill, I say we

have done everything we can in the Senate. It is now up to the House to appoint conferees. Once that is done, we will move as quickly as possible to solve the differences we have with the House of Representatives and move forward on this bill.

I yield my time back and urge we move to the legislation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

It is my understanding, under the order that is before the Senate, the first order of business would be two voice votes on two amendments pending. Is that right?

Mr. President, if I could take a minute.

In our conversations before the Senate was called back into session, the Senator from Idaho indicated he would like to speak for 5 minutes prior to those two voice votes and that time would be credited against the 2 hours the majority has on the underlying Cantwell amendment. I understand he is going to make that request.

Mr. President, if I could be heard, reserving the right to object, it is my further understanding this would have no bearing on our voting in 5 minutes on the two amendments. Is that right?

I ask for regular order.

Regular order.

Objection.

It is now my understanding the Cantwell amendment will be reported. It has not been reported yet, is that true?

Reserving the right to object, if I can ask the Chair, how much time does the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, have?

I say to the distinguished manager of the bill, you are probably going to have about 10 minutes on your side.

No objection, Mr. President.

Mr. President, do we have 1 minute on each side between votes on the judges?

I ask unanimous consent that prior to the judges, there be 1 minute to speak in relation to those judges.

Mr. President, the staff indicates we have 10 minutes prior to the vote on the judges. That should be more than enough to talk about the three judges. I ask unanimous consent that the 1 minute between the judges, which is unnecessary, be rescinded.

Have the yeas and nays on the Cantwell amendment been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

Reserving the right to object, could we make all of them 10-minute votes?

I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.

Objection.

Yes, there may come a time when there are six or seven amendments the managers cleared. As far as setting the Kennedy amendment aside, we are not able to do that this afternoon.

Monday.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the distinguished Senator from North Carolina wishes to speak for 20 minutes; is that right?

Is that in morning business or on this amendment?

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Carolina be recognized for 20 minutes.

Following the Senator from North Carolina recognized in morning business, that Senator Lautenberg be recognized for 20 minutes to speak as in morning business. It is my understanding we have cleared amendments now.

These have been cleared by Senator Levin. There is no objection.

Reserving the right to object, those who are listening should understand that this means you must file your amendments by 5 o'clock for them to be considered on the Defense bill. They must be filed. Everyone should also note that there is no need to refile. If there is an amendment at the

desk you have already filed, that is all you have to do.

The two leaders have decided, in conjunction with the two managers of the bill, that we need to move down the road with this bill. We first had a finite list of some 250 or 260 amendments. We would hope there would be fewer amendments than that when this filing takes place. The managers have disposed of some. They will do more later.

Senator Warner is off to Normandy, as he is a World War II veteran. But Monday will be an opportunity for Members to offer amendments. We received an agreement on this side that on Monday we will allow the setaside of the Kennedy amendment. I haven't seen all of them. The distinguished chairman is going to go through that. But I hope we have a time set up for completing work on the Kennedy-Feinstein amendment on Tuesday morning, early.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I ask my distinguished friend to amend the unanimous consent request to allow 10 minutes of the Kennedy 50 minutes to be under the control of the ranking member of the committee, Senator Levin.

Mr. President, if I may continue before we adjourn for the evening.

We will not get consent tomorrow to set aside the Kennedy amendment for the offering of other amendments. We would, however, as we were earlier today, if the two managers have cleared amendments, be willing to move those tomorrow. But as far as Senators being allowed to offer amendments, that will not be possible.