Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of the two leaders be charged against the time on the budget resolution.

I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, it is my understanding, listening to my friend from Oklahoma, the votes will be stacked; is that right?

Will my friend also agree to have 1 minute on each side prior to each vote?

On our side, it is my understanding Senator Levin has 5 minutes remaining.

I ask Senator Feingold have 1 minute of that 5 minutes.

He is not going to use his time.

I will yield back the 4 minutes when he finishes his time.

Mr. President, would the distinguished manager of the bill entertain having the second 2 votes 10-minute votes rather than 15- minute votes?

I have no problem with that.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays for the Byrd amendment.

I yield Senator Levin's time.

I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I would like to ask a question of the distinguished acting majority leader.

Mr. President, I am wondering if a decision has been made as to what we are going to do tonight at 7 o'clock or thereabouts. As the leader knows, we have the Archives dinner. In fact, it will be the last dinner that will ever be held in the Rotunda, for a number of reasons. That is going to be tonight. It is a bipartisan dinner. I wonder if a decision has been made yet as to what is going to be done, whether we are going to stay in session or whether there will be time yielded off the resolution during the time we are there.

I would also ask, through the Chair to the distinguished whip, has there been a decision made as to what we are going to do during the normal recess we take on Tuesdays for party caucuses?

So there can be some planning, I wonder if the two managers have any objection to having that done as it relates to the noontime recess we normally take on Tuesdays, with that time equally divided.

Will my friend yield for a question?

I say through the Chair to my distinguished friend, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, I listened to the statement of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and the questions asked by my friend from Pennsylvania. One thing the debate this morning has not touched upon, and I would like to hear the Senator from North Dakota explain a little bit, when this administration came into power there was a huge surplus over a 10-year period. It is my understanding that is gone and we are going to have record deficits as far as the eye can see. Is that a fair statement?

A final question, as part of that, do deficits matter?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I say to the Senator, will you leave the chart, please?

It is my understanding that the $37 billion was done in the Senate where there was full debate and recorded votes. Is it true that the $63 billion, which was added on, was done in a secret, closed meeting, with no public able to watch what went on, no one knowing how the votes were cast, and not a single Democrat was in the room?

Mr. President, may I ask a parliamentary inquiry--I guess it is not parliamentary inquiry--if the Senator from North Dakota will yield?

I apologize to my friend from Idaho. May I ask the ranking

member of the committee what the chairman and he have decided on a vote? We have people anxious to know when this vote is going to take place. Can the ranking member or the chairman respond to my question of when the vote will take place on the pending amendment?

Can we set the vote at quarter to 3?

Ten minutes, five minutes on each side.

With the time to be equally divided.

And no second-degree amendments in order.

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

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

I yield to the Senator from Illinois 25 minutes.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Conrad, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. President, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, did a brilliant job today responding to the false statements made by the Senator from Pennsylvania. He did it factually and with enough emotion to make his point well taken. I thought it was a stunning retort to these outlandish statements that have been made by the Senator from Pennsylvania for some time now.

But in addition to those statements that I think need some discussion, there was another statement the Senator from Pennsylvania made about why this country is in deficit, why the President's budgets are so off kilter. He said it is because of, among other things, asbestos litigation. And he talked about how hard it was on business.

I acknowledge that the asbestos litigation has been hard on companies throughout America, but not once during the statement of the Senator from Pennsylvania did he mention the people who are in dire physical condition--not once. The reason there is this litigation going on is because people are dying, and suffering. There are two conditions caused by asbestos that are fatal. One is something called mesothelioma. With mesothelioma, from the time that you are diagnosed with this dread disease until the time you die is an average of 14 months. With asbestosis you can linger a long time and suffer a long time. So we shouldn't make these little passing statements about this asbestos litigation bankrupting companies--it has not happened. Some have filed bankruptcy without losing a single job in the process. The only people who have been hurt, with their bankruptcies, are the people who are sick and dying.

My brother called me a couple of weeks ago and said: Do you remember Harold Hansen?

I said: Yes, I remember Harold Hansen.

My brother is quite a bit older than I am. I idolized my brother. I had two brothers older than I am. They were both wonderful. One passed away. But I remember the Hansens. We lived in Searchlight, far from the nearest high school, and when we went to high school we lived with other people. My brother Dale lived with the Hansen family. I remember Harold and Chuck. They were good athletes in high school. I remember them.

He said: You know, he called me and he has mesothelioma.

I said: Has he ever worked around asbestos?

He said not that he knows of, no.

So I said: We have to make sure he is taken care of because he doesn't have long to live.

And he doesn't. He has about a year left, if he is average.

So the fact is, we have to do something about asbestos litigation. There are some cases that are filed that should not be filed, but we have to make sure the people who are sick are protected. And when people come to this floor and just by chance mention this is causing the deficit of this country--let them recognize that people, while they are speaking, are dying from what big corporate America did to them.

I recommend, for people who want to make statements about how bad asbestos litigation is, that they read a couple of books.

Let them read ``Fatal Deception,'' a brand new book that talks about the deception of big companies that covered up the disastrous consequences of their use of asbestos. Let them read a book called ``Libby Montana,'' also a new book that talks about a little town in Montana which was decimated as a result of this product. They covered up what would happen. For a few hundred thousand dollars, W.R. Grace & Company, which was making billions a year, could have created a clean house for these people which would have protected them from exposure, but they didn't want to waste the money on these people from Libby, MT. It is not just people who worked in the plants who got sick. Workers in those plants would go home with asbestos in the dust on their clothes and the wife would wash their clothes. Now we have wives dying of this disease. Children would come rushing to meet their father coming home from the plants at Libby, MT, and they would also come in contact with the dust that would come out of their clothes. Now the children are dying.

I hope Members who come to this floor and make statements about asbestos litigation will read those two books. We want to do something with asbestos legislation to make a better approach to the way litigation takes place. But until those people with asbestosis and mesothelioma are taken care of, as long as I have breath I will fight the effort to wipe out those cases.

My friend from Pennsylvania also didn't mention one reason for the deficit. Some of us on this floor think we are in a quagmire in Iraq. We need to spend money to make sure our troops get everything they need. I attended a meeting in the majority leader's office, along with Senator Daschle and Senator McConnell, with the Iraqi Governing Council. One of these Iraqi Governing Council people said: People in America think we have the second largest reserves of oil in the world. He said: I want you and them to know that we have the largest oil reserves in the world--not No. 2 but No. 1--and within 2 years we are going to be producing 6 million barrels of oil a day.

That kind of clicked in my head. If that is the case, why don't we, rather than giving them the money, loan them the money and secure that debt with oil?

That is what we tried to do on the floor. We were, as we say in a baseball game, skunked. We were unable to get enough votes to have the country of Iraq loaned the money; no, it was, give it to them--a country producing 6 million barrels of oil a day within a matter of months. We gave them $150 million in supplemental appropriations.

Then the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, last week was asked by the press: We are spending billions of dollars on health care for Iraq. Don't you think we should be spending some of that in America? He responded by saying we have universal coverage in America, because if you do not have insurance you get taken care of. Try to explain that to the 44 million people who have no health insurance and who have to go begging if their child has a cold or some illness which they do not know what it is. And he says there is universal coverage. Man, I have trouble accepting that.

My friend from Pennsylvania, in addition to not understanding the situation dealing with asbestos, I think doesn't understand the situation about where money has been going during the 3 years of this Bush administration. We are talking down the economy? He says we are the ones who are creating discomfort with the American people. We are telling the truth. If that is uncomfortable, that is what we have to do.

He talks about arcane statistics, referring to the charts of the Senator from North Dakota. Sometimes statistics are arcane, if you do not agree with them.

We had a situation during the last years of the Clinton administration where we were paying down the national debt. What does that mean? We were spending less money than we were taking in. We were paying down the debt. What do we have now? We have red ink as far as you can see. The surplus we had when he took office is gone. That is what this budget is all about. Whether the programs that this President has pushed forward is bankrupting the country or not, I think simple math says this country is going bankrupt, if it is not already bankrupt.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Conrad, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Florida.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.

Mr. President, I object to the Senator yielding to the Senator from Kentucky. It is not appropriate.

Mr. President, the Senator from Utah has no right to yield to the Senator from Kentucky except for a question.

Mr. President, I rise today to comment on a prestigious conservation award that will be bestowed upon Larry Johnson of Reno, NV later this week.

Larry is an environmentalist in the most positive sense of the word. He is a sportsman in the most positive sense of the word. He tirelessly invests his time, energy, money and passion in the protecting, restoring and enhancing Nevada's environment. He knows that the environment is synonymous with wildlife habitat, and that natural ecosystems support the fish and game he values so dearly.

As a trustee of the Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition, Larry has worked to restore the native habitats of the Great Basin. This involvement also reflects his understanding that Nevadans can work together, through collaboration and innovative partnerships, to make our public lands better for wildlife, better for fish, and better for people.

Larry Johnson is a conservationist. He works hard to ensure that we actively manage Nevada's landscape. He holds public land managers and State wildlife officials accountable, but he also views them as allies. For example, he builds ``guzzlers'' where big game can find water in the desert, and he serves on resource advisory counsels for the Bureau of Land Management.

Indeed, Larry is famous throughout Nevada for his tireless work on behalf of our desert bighorn sheep. He is a trustee and longtime member of the board of directors of Nevada Bighorns Unlimited. He raises money, he donates money, and he donates his valuable time and expertise to the noble goal of enhancing bighorn sheep habitat, and preserving the wonderful heritage of the American West.

Larry is a man of principle, a man of ideas, a man of action, and a man exceptionally worthy of the Wayne E. Kirch Nevada Wildlife Conservation Award.

He is a great citizen, a great Nevadan, and a great American.

Chief Seattle once said: ``we do not inherit the Earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children.'' Larry Johnson fulfills our responsibility to be good stewards of the planet we will pass along to future generations.

Because of his dedication to conservation, our children will enjoy a richer legacy of wildlife and recreational opportunities.

Today I congratulate Larry Johnson for this much-deserved recognition of his work to preserve Nevada's natural heritage.

Will the Senator withhold?

Mr. President, on our side, we have requests for 15 minutes and 20 minutes for morning business. I checked with the majority. There would be no objections so long as they have equal time. So I ask unanimous consent that both sides have 35 minutes for morning business this morning.

Mr. President, on the minority side, we yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman; and then, following that, 15 minutes to the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin.

Madam President, it is my understanding there are two additional requests for time. Do we have time left on the Democratic side?

I ask unanimous consent that there be an additional 10 minutes equally divided and that our 5 minutes go to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, following the statement of the Senator from Minnesota.

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, a lot of work has gone into this arrangement that we are now going to approve shortly. Everyone is to be commended. Senator Dodd spent the last 24 hours or more on this floor. Senator Baucus has been very patient, waiting to have this bill move forward. He and Senator Grassley feel so strongly about and I think the majority of the Senate feel strongly about this.

I don't mean to burden the acting majority leader but I do want to say very simply, we have tried to be as upfront as we can be with what we want to accomplish with this most important legislation. We have an amendment that we want to get to. We agreed on the Dodd amendment to take 1 hour evenly divided. We understand the next amendment to be the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Michigan, Senators Bunning and Stabenow. Senator Stabenow--it was her amendment and it has not changed at all; it is just who has their name on it first--was willing to take an hour evenly divided. We could finish this vote at 4:20, go to that, finish at 5:20, and go to our next amendment in order, which, as everyone knows, is the overtime amendment which the Democratic leader will offer for Senator Harkin, or Senator Harkin will offer for himself.

I don't understand why so much effort is being made to avoid a vote on that amendment. We have been told on the Bunning amendment what will happen. Rather than filling the tree with amendments that are good and will improve this legislation, tax extenders and things of that nature, there is going to be an amendment offered by the majority to fill the tree so there can be no amendments offered, or, in fact, the Harkin amendment could be offered to speed this up.

I think we need to get this matter finished. We, on our side, believe this is very important legislation. Yes, we want to talk about outsourcing, and we have done that. Yes, we want to talk about overtime. We have not been able to have a vote on that because of the parliamentary barriers thrown up by the majority.

I hope we can get past that, move on, and get this most important legislation passed. I have no objection.

I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, be recognized to speak for up to 7 minutes before we return to Senator Bunning.

Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today that I hope will be a useful tool for America's rural schools. The ``Assisting America's Rural Schools Act'' will address the concerns of rural Local Education Agencies (LEAs) that are trying to comply with the teacher quality standards set by the ``No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.''

Every day, rural communities are confronted by a shortage of resources. It may surprise some people to know there are still small towns in rural America where the citizens wait for a doctor to make his rounds, a mail truck to drop off the mail. These families have elected to stay in their communities despite all the obstacles, and they deserve an opportunity to enjoy a good quality of life.

It should come as no shock that there aren't many teachers who want to move to the remotest areas of a State, and teach in the few scattered schools in those areas. Furthermore, rural school districts' salaries and benefits are usually dwarfed by what urban school districts can offer, which presents another barrier to attracting teachers to rural areas.

Imagine the community's sigh of relief when a rural school does acquire a teacher. Now imagine the look on the teacher's face when she realizes she is expected to be ``highly qualified'' to instruct in multiple subjects.

The small town of Austin in Lander County, NV is one such community. Austin boasts a grand total of 63 students in grades K-12. For grades 6-12, there are only three teachers for all subjects. Yes, only three teachers.

These teachers are considered ``highly qualified'' in the areas of science, English, math, and physical education. In order for Austin to acquire a teacher who is ``highly qualified'' in the subject of history, the LEA must either find and recruit another teacher, or send one of its three current teachers back to school to get accredited in history via distance learning. Unfortunately, Lander County doesn't have the money to do either of these things.

Another quandary is presented in the event that one of these three teachers retires, quits, or leaves the school system. Again, it is incumbent upon the LEA to decide how to spend its limited funds.

Make no mistake about it: The issue is not whether teachers in rural areas should be qualified to teach multiple subjects--they should. However, requiring them to attain ``highly qualified'' status in all subjects simultaneously is unreasonable.

The ``Assisting America's Rural Schools Act'' provides rural LEAs with some flexibility in meeting the definition of a ``highly qualified teacher'' without diminishing the accountability standards for such teachers. Once the Department of Education deems a rural school district eligible, it will be allowed to exempt for 1 year any teacher already highly qualified in at least one core academic subject from the Federal requirement to be ``highly qualified'' in every subject taught. A highly qualified teacher who is working toward that certification in another subject can still teach both subjects.

Nevada is not alone in facing this dilemma. While 13 out of 17 counties in my state would qualify as rural LEA's under the bill, it would also provide relief for rural school systems in 48 other states.

There is no question that every child deserves a quality education regardless of whether he or she lives in urban rural America. We have the responsibility in Congress of making sure the door of opportunity is open to all our children.

The ``highly qualified'' teacher provision in the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' is having the unintended consequence of depleting the already scarce supply of teachers in rural areas. To correct this situation, Congress should pass the ``Assisting America's Rural Teachers Act'' in the near future.

This bill was authored by Representative Jim Gibbons of Nevada and has been introduced in the House. I am proud to author the Senate Companion and urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, this has been a difficult week from many perspectives. We had two contentious pieces of legislation, and we certainly understand that on this side. As far as the legislation now before the Senate, it should not be such. I think there is no question that the majority of the Senate by far wants to pass the legislation that has been before the Senate today and yesterday.

The issue that is now holding up this legislation is whether the Senate is going to vote on an overtime amendment that is being offered by Senator Harkin. It is an issue that we feel strongly about on this side. We want to vote on whether the President should go forward with these regulations. We want to vote. We will take a half hour evenly divided, we will take 20 minutes evenly divided to get a vote on this amendment. We are not stalling for time.

This is something that will have to be dealt with sometime during the next month or so in this legislature. We are willing to work in any way to cooperate and get this bill done, but one of the things we can't do is not have a vote on this overtime issue. Senator Daschle and I have talked with Senator Harkin on four occasions at my last count. We said: Senator Harkin, don't offer this amendment; this legislation is important; we are trying to get it passed. He has reluctantly agreed every time not to move forward with this legislation.

That is no longer part of what we are able to do. We talked with Senator Harkin. He has been such a gentleman as to how we proceeded on this. He will continue to be a gentleman, but he is not going to relent offering this legislation because we do not think he should anymore.

I say that with the full knowledge that on this very important piece of legislation we are willing to vote, we are willing to discuss the amendments that Senators Grassley and Baucus have. They want to improve the legislation. I think they can do that, and I think their amendments will be supported.

The second-degree amendment now before the Senate is not a bad amendment. I think the tax credit should be extended to sun and geothermal, but this extends it to wind. That is certainly a small bite of the apple that needs to be done.

I know the obligations and the burdens of the majority are difficult. We, not too long ago, were in the majority, and it is very hard to move legislation through this body. We need a vote on this overtime issue, and we hope and we are going to press as hard as we can to get a vote on it sometime in the near future.

No objection whatsoever.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request I wish to make.

Mr. President, we have only 40 minutes left until 10:30 a.m. We have on our side, and I am sure on the other side, more than 20 minutes. On our side, the Senator from Oregon wishes to speak for 15 minutes, the Senator from Connecticut wishes to speak for 10 minutes, which is 25 minutes. I don't know how much total time the two Senators on the majority would like. I am sure it is more than 20 minutes total.

I ask unanimous consent that the time be extended to 25 minutes on each side for morning business--not in addition to but 25 minutes total to each side.

A total of 50 minutes, yes, and that on our side, the Senator from Connecticut be recognized for 10 minutes and the Senator from Oregon be recognized for 15 minutes.

Madam President, before the distinguished Democratic leader leaves the floor, I would like, through you, to pose this to him: We have been here now for approximately 2 hours on this very important legislation. The Democratic leader has talked about how important it is, the distinguished chairman of the committee has talked about how important it is, our ranking member has talked about how important it is, and we are doing nothing. We have a gentleman's agreement that this would be for debate only, but I think the Democratic leader would agree with me, and I think everybody should be put on notice that this cannot go on all day long, that this is ridiculous; would the Senator agree to that?

Madam President, it is true also, is it not, that we have made--and I would like to hear the Democratic leader respond to this--a fair response? The majority has an amendment they want to offer, sponsored by Senator Hatch, dealing with extension of some tax credits. We then said we would like to offer an amendment to stop what--it is not a crime but it is close to it in our country today with all the outsourcing of all these contracts, and we want to make sure the U.S. Government contracts are not outsourced unless there are certain limitations placed upon them.

Then they would come back with another amendment sponsored by Senator Bunning. Then we would come back with another amendment sponsored by Senator Harkin dealing with overtime, and this is no secret; this is an issue about which we have great concern as to what the administration is doing with American workers with overtime.

Is there anything in this agreement the Democratic leader sees that should prevent us from moving forward on this critical legislation? We have even agreed to time limits; is that not true?

Madam President, reserving the right object, I wish to express my appreciation to the chairman of the committee. He, in the statement he has made so far, along with the ranking member, underscored the importance of moving this legislation, and this is movement in that direction.

As we indicated in the dialog between Senator Daschle and this Senator, we will agree on time limits anytime the Senator wants to work something out in that regard. We will be happy to do that. This is a very good first step, and we do not object.

Madam President, we now have an amendment that will be offered as soon as Senator Hatch arrives. Senator Byrd saw we were not doing a lot on the floor, and he asks, through me, that he be able to speak for up to 20 minutes at this time.

Madam President, I propound that in the form of a unanimous consent request, with the understanding that the first amendment be offered as soon as he finishes. That will be good.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

No objection.

Reserving the right to object, we have no problem with that except we now have an hour and 10 minutes. We don't want those two Senators to use the entire 70 minutes so we should have some idea how long they are going to speak.

I think it would be appropriate if my friends agree the time be equally divided between now and 3:30 between the proponents and opponents of the measure.

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

I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is absent on official business.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote ``yea.''

If I could make a brief statement without the Senator losing the floor----

For the minority, the majority leader has indicated there will be no votes tonight. Everyone should know that.

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

Madam President, I think the American people need to look at what has transpired in recent weeks with this administration. Senator Dodd has brought to the Senate's attention one issue; that is, a high-ranking member of this administration has said that outsourcing jobs--what does it mean? Shipping jobs overseas--is good for our economy. That is what he said. Well, if that were the end of it, you could well say, maybe that was just somebody who made a mistake.

Then we have today Tommy Thompson who says: We should not have Americans be concerned about all the money we are giving to Iraq to establish a health care system because we really have, in the United States, a universal health care system because those people who have no insurance get taken care of. That is what a Cabinet officer of this President said.

Now, should we stop there? Let's go on and talk about what another Cabinet officer said 2 weeks ago, the Secretary of Education. The Secretary of Education said, to a group of assembled Governors, that the National Education Association were terrorists. He did not say it once to the Governors but twice. I have talked to Governors who were there: The National Education Association are terrorists; the largest teacher organization in the world, based in the United States, are terrorists.

I think that is something I cannot comprehend: How the Secretary of Education can say this about teachers.

Someone I went to high school with--we played baseball together; we were on the first State championship baseball team in the history of the State of Nevada; He was a pitcher; I was a catcher--Reynaldo Martinez and I have been friends for these many years. He was my chief of staff in the Senate. He retired a few years ago. He was a longtime organizer for the National Education Association. To call Rey Martinez a terrorist because he was a member of that organization is difficult for me to comprehend.

For me personally, what is transpiring in Congress, because of the position the administration has taken regarding highway transportation--the former chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the former chairman of the Finance Committee, now the ranking member of the Finance Committee, has worked, as I have worked, on a number of highway bills. There is no bill we do in the Senate, in the Congress, that is more important than a highway bill. It creates millions of jobs over a 6-year bill. We produced a bill based on the budget we passed a year ago. We have there, in the bill that we were able to report out of committee, in keeping with the budget, and as passed the Senate of the United States, a bill that is a very good bill, that does not raise one penny of taxes, that takes care of transit and highways. The President says he is going to veto the bill.

Outsourcing is good; 44 million Americans, don't worry, you have universal

coverage because if you get sick, you can go to an emergency room, if you are lucky, if there is one there; the National Education Association personnel are terrorists; and he is going to veto the transportation bill. Is there somebody in the bowels of the White House trying to destroy the President? I cannot imagine the President would come up with these ideas himself. I certainly hope not.

I commend and applaud my friend from Connecticut, the senior Senator from Connecticut. He has brought to the attention of the Senate the importance of focusing on the disastrous loss of manufacturing jobs. Since this President has been in office, our Nation has lost a total of 2.8 million jobs. Every single month, with no exception, manufacturing jobs are lost.

I guess I should be leading the cheers here because out of the 50 States, the great State of Nevada is the only one in white on this chart. We hold the record. We created 200 new jobs in the last 3\1/2\ years. That is certainly better than losing 200, and it is certainly better than the State of Texas, which has lost 150,000 jobs, or the State of New York, 115,000 jobs. Even a small State such as Wyoming lost 700 jobs. California has lost 273,000 jobs. So 200 may not look like much, but for us in Nevada, we will take it.

Two hundred manufacturing jobs in 3\1/2\ years were created in the State of Nevada--not much, until you compare it to the rest of the country. Then we are doing pretty well. We are the only State in the Union that had a net gain of manufacturing jobs during this Presidency.

Where have these jobs gone? Some are gone forever, but lots of them have gone overseas. Our country cannot remain strong if we can't manufacture steel, automobiles, airplanes, and appliances. I am very happy that we do wonderfully well with our service industry. No place represents that better than the State of Nevada, especially Las Vegas. But we cannot remain the superpower of the world by flipping hamburgers, which is something I forgot to mention.

Somebody in the administration suggested 2 weeks ago that we should create a new manufacturing category; that is, people who work in fast food restaurants. I am not making that up. They want to turn people who work in McDonald's preparing meat patties, putting the sandwiches together, into manufacturers.

Mr. President, I have only talked about what has happened in the last few weeks: Outsourcing is good, teachers are terrorists, veto the transportation bill. We have universal coverage in America because if you are one of the 44 million, you get taken care of some day somewhere. That is universal coverage. That was the Secretary of Health and Human Services who said that. And now they are trying to develop a new category of manufacturing.

This reminds me of my friend Greg Maddux. In Las Vegas we are so proud of him. He has won the Cy Young Award 4 years. He is slightly built and my size. He is one of the greatest pitchers of all size. His hands are smaller than mine. He is now going to Chicago. He needs to win 11 more games to become a 300-game winner, which is a big deal in baseball. Just a handful of people have done that. So he needs 11 more games. Based on the President's assumption of how we can create manufacturing jobs, maybe we can get him to 11 more quickly. What I suggest is having four strikes instead of three. With four strikes--he has great control--I guarantee you, even though he will be 37 years old next month, I think he could win his 11 games much more quickly.

That is what is going on with this administration. If you don't like what goes on, change the rules.

I have said before, I have two brothers older than I. One of them was working in a Standard station in a place called Ashfork, AZ. He wanted to take his little brother away from Searchlight. So we went to what I thought was the big town of Ashfork, AZ. Frankly, it was not a lot of fun for me because my brother had a girlfriend, and he didn't spend a lot of time with me. So I was pushed off on his girlfriend's brother. I could not beat him at anything. It didn't matter what it was. I never beat him at anything because he always changed the rules in the middle of the game. That is what is going on here with the administration. We are going to change the definition of manufacturing.

The loss of jobs in our country is very bad. If it were only manufacturing jobs that were going overseas, I would not like it, I would complain about it. But this has been compounded because the loss of manufacturing jobs is not the only problem. The Senator from Connecticut and I were looking earlier today at a chart. I am sure he has shown it. This chart talked about some of the diagnostic procedures that were going overseas. Look at some of these things: 14 million jobs in danger of being shipped overseas.

As I was saying, Senator Dodd and I were looking at this earlier today. We don't need to go through all of this, about the 14 million jobs, some of which have already been shipped overseas and some going overseas. Diagnostic support services, we already know what these are. They are actually shipping medical records to other countries and having them catalogued. But they are also having some of these medical records reviewed. Take, for example, a CAT scan. Ship it overseas. They can have somebody there review it very quickly. Take, for example, an X-ray, a simple X-ray, ship it overseas. They can do it quickly. You will get the results back soon. I don't feel very good about that. I go to my doctor in Las Vegas or Reno, Boulder City, Elko in Nevada. They are shipping the X-rays they take of my body to India or some foreign country to have somebody over there call my doctor or the hospital staff and tell them what is wrong with me? I don't think so.

The additional problem with that, just from a basic fairness standpoint, I won't disclose the Senator's name, but a Senator told me she had two complaints from constituents in that State that privacy was being violated, people had information that came from overseas about her health condition. I hope the people making these decisions for our President were not trained during the Reagan years.

Reagan, for whom I have the highest respect, didn't continue this. He learned early on it was not a good idea when someone in his administration said, let's have ketchup considered a vegetable for the school lunch programs. Maybe that person is still around here someplace and giving these great recommendations to this administration. I hope not. Or if it is true that that person is around, maybe they should put a stop to it. We do not want people who are being X-rayed, medical records, lawyers who research cases and write briefs, technological specialists to keep virtually every company running--all these jobs are fleeing America in a mad global case for cheap labor.

Every time a job goes overseas, it hurts an American family.

It used to be that if you lost a job, you would find one pretty quickly. Now the average time for getting a new job after losing a job in America is almost 1 year. Losing the job is bad enough because you lose self-esteem, you lose a sense of pride, you believe you have not been appreciated, even though you were doing the best job you could, but also that family probably loses their health insurance because they cannot pay for the COBRA; they don't have money to do so.

My son left to go to Vegas, and he needed coverage of insurance for 2 weeks. It cost him $2,200. He is married, has two little girls, his wife was pregnant. He had no choice. He had the money to pay for it. If he had not had it, I would have helped him. That is not

the way it is with everybody. Many people are not able to buy insurance for periods of time when they don't have it. Maybe they are buying a home or were going to buy one and they lose the sense of a dream of owning a home.

What about college? College is so expensive. It used to be that when I was growing up, I could work in the summers and during the school year to pay for my education. My parents were not in a position to help me, and I basically educated myself with a few little scholarships I had. You cannot do that anymore. You cannot work during the off- season--unless you rob banks--to pay for a college education. It is too expensive. So that is another thing a family would lose--the ability to prepare for their children to attend college. That is why the loss of American jobs is a crisis in our country. We need a real plan to address that issue. We cannot afford to wait until the next business cycle because the flight of jobs overseas is a result of powerful economic forces.

American workers are not afraid of fair competition. I am not against that, but I am against the mentality of chasing cheap labor around the globe with no regard to long-term implications. When American companies choose cheap labor, they are saying our environment doesn't matter. They are saying conditions for their own workers do not matter, and they are forgetting the great lesson learned from Henry Ford. Henry Ford was not a person I liked everything he did or said, but he was a good businessman. He realized in order for his company to sell cars, the people who build them should be able to also buy those cars. In other words, workers are also customers. A worker who earns a decent living can afford to buy the products and services American companies are selling. So every time a so-called American company chases cheap labor by moving jobs overseas, we are all diminished. The market for goods and services in our country is damaged.

As I have said, the President's top economic advisers said the outsourcing of jobs is a good thing. Every day someone in the administration says the economy is getting better. It might be looking up to those who have the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times delivered to their homes but not to middle class Americans. They feel that inside something is happening that goes beyond the normal business cycle.

Middle class Americans are deeper in debt than ever. Consumer debt is at an all-time high. Middle class Americans are afraid the Social Security benefits will be swallowed in the sink hole of a half- trillion-dollar deficit. And they are right. The debt would be much bigger for the 3 years that this President has been in office but for the fact that the debt is being disguised by the Social Security surplus. Middle class Americans are worried their jobs might be outsourced. They are being hit hard by the skyrocketing cost of health care. Their deductibles and copayments keep going up, and they wonder whether they are going to lose coverage entirely.

There are 77,000 people on strike in California who work in grocery stores. They are not on strike because of working conditions, not because of wages or hours; they are striking for one simple reason, health benefits. They could not make ends meet by having to pay what they were going to be told by their employer they had to pay for health costs, so they went on strike--one of the longest strikes in modern history.

All these problems are deeper than the business cycle. They all demand a real economic plan, and part of that plan is the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut. It is not everything. If we had the opportunity, we could come up with a better plan. This is a step in the right direction. What we have to do in Congress today is understand that we are not going to completely rewrite Superfund, endangered species, clean air and clean water, or the economic situation this country faces. But we have the ability to do things to improve Superfund and endangered species. We can do a little here and a little there to help the economic situation in this country.

The amendment by the Senator from Connecticut is a good amendment. It is a step in the right direction. That is why we chose this as our first amendment. It sends a message to the American people that we want to do something to stop the outflow of these jobs. Focusing on Federal Government outsourcing is one of the things at which we need to take a closer look.

We can start trying to improve our economy now, today, by cutting off Government contracts to companies that plan to outsource their work. Two years ago, the State of Florida ordered a $280 million contract to a company that outsources its work to India. If Florida wants to do that, it is their business. But when the American taxpayers hire somebody to do a job, it should be done by an American worker who is also a taxpayer.

For the fourth time in the last few minutes, I commend Senator Dodd for this amendment and urge all of my colleagues to support it. I also say this to the majority: If tomorrow, when we come back in session, there is an effort made to prevent the Senator from Connecticut from having a vote on this, we are going to keep offering it and offering it until we get a vote on it. If we don't get it done on this bill, we will get it done on the next bill. If we don't get it done on the next bill, it will be offered on the next bill. This is our No. 1 amendment, and we are going to continue pushing it.

Mr. President, Senator McCain is not in the Chamber. We are ready to proceed on our side. I think we should do the time proportionately, so that it will be equal, proponents and opponents of the legislation, when going into a quorum call.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island has agreed to give 2 minutes to Senator Lautenberg, and on the time I control I will give him 2 minutes for a total of 4 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.

I am happy to yield an additional minute to the Senator.

Mr. President, I have 7 minutes under my control. It is my understanding that the Senator from Arizona wishes to speak for 2 minutes. I yield the Senator from Arizona 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey. I would like to reserve the last 3 minutes for the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, on this matter.

Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry.

Mr. President, is there any time left on our side?

Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Massachusetts.

I yield it back.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the first vote will be 15 minutes, and for the second two there is an order that they be 10 minutes.

I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) is necessarily absent.