Floor Statements

If the Senator has given up the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I extend my appreciation to the Senator from Iowa for his statement. I support the amendment that will be offered by the Democratic leader in a short time. It is important the American public recognizes speaking on behalf of the American consumer is a farmer, a Senator, but his first vocation is that as a farmer. We are so proud. I very much appreciate the strong, articulate statement of the Senator from Iowa on this most important subject. It affects my family, my children, my grandchildren. As the Senator said, if we buy a pair of pajamas, we know where they are made. When we buy a peach or beef steak, we should know where that comes from, also. I appreciate the statement.

I say through the Chair, to the chairman of the subcommittee, on our side, it appears we have about five more amendments. We have the Dorgan amendment, which we have heard about. We heard Senator Leahy will offer an amendment on conservation technical assistance. Senator Daschle will offer a country-of-origin amendment. Senator Feingold will offer a Buy America amendment. Senator Jeffords may offer an amendment on historic bonds. We are moving down the road with this legislation.

Mr. President, as I have already indicated, I rise in support of the Daschle amendment, which will be offered in the next little bit, and to express strong support of the Senate for the country-of-origin labeling requirements of the 2002 farm bill. I have a letter from agricultural and consumer groups across the country that support this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record. It is dated October 9 and is signed by 170 different organizations from all over America. These are organizations that cover the width and breadth of this land, including Oregon Cranberry Farmers' Association, Sustainable Earth, Texas Farmers Union, Montana Cattlemen's Association, Illinois Stewardship Alliance, Georgia Peanut Commission, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, American Meat Goat Association, Arkansas Farmers Union, American Corn Growers Association. It is important we recognize this is representative of groups all over America that support this amendment. This list could be multiplied by 10 if these organizations were given a little more time to gather signatures.

The reason the organizations signed up for this is because they support the right of American consumers to know the origin of the food we eat. In Nevada, the Cattleman's Association and Nevada Livestock Association strongly support this legislation.

We ask, after having heard the strong statement of the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, who opposes this? That is interesting. It is the House of Representatives. It is the law that there be country-of-origin labeling.

The House of Representatives, in their version of this appropriations bill, wants to prevent any moneys going forward from the Federal Government to enforce the country-of-origin labeling. That is unfair.

Who does not support it? The House of Representatives. As I indicated, in their appropriations bill dealing with agriculture, they inserted a little provision that would not allow us to implement country-of-origin labeling. This amendment would silence our effort to inform consumers about the food they eat by telling them where their meat, lamb, fish, and vegetables originate.

I was happy for my wife to buy me a pair of shoes. This pair of shoes, by the

way, is very comfortable. I stand a lot. These shoes are made in America. Allen Emmonds is the brand name. I had a choice. There was a Brazilian brand made for people who stand a lot like I do. There was a French brand. I bought American. I had a choice. The choice was very easy. I was happy to have that choice.

If I can go to a store and find out where the shoe is made, shouldn't I be able to go to a grocery store and find out where the steak I am going to buy comes from or the roast or the potatoes or the cauliflower, whatever the case might be. If you can do it for shoes, certainly it would seem you can do it for food.

This amendment in the House version of the bill would silence our effort to inform consumers about the food they eat. That is wrong. I cannot imagine anyone who would not want consumers to know what they are eating and from where it comes.

Who could be behind the position of the House? Is it just a bunch of very educated, in the way of farm products, Members of the House of Representatives? Is it just a group of enlightened staff people who suddenly said, we do not want them to enforce that law; it is not good politics; it is not good public policy for people to know where their food comes from.

In fact, why don't we just have Americans continue labeling this stuff ``American'' when it is not. That is what is happening now. That is a reason we need to stop this.

Why, then, is the House of Representatives so involved in this issue? It is quite clear. The authors of this House provision are people who have had looking over their shoulder people from the four major meatpackers in this country that oppose this labeling. This legislation comes from those packers. These packers, while they may not have a monopoly, have about as close as you can come to a monopoly. The packers control about 80 percent of the beef in the U.S. market.

If you think they had some hand in the House of Representatives putting this provision in the legislation, of course they did. The packers do not like the country-of-origin labeling because they want to continue to sell imported beef, in effect, made in the USA. They want to trick, to deceive, American consumers into believing they are buying food that is grown and made in America because it gives them an advantage to do so, just like my shoes, just like my American shoes.

Nope, this suit I am wearing is not made in America; most of my suits are. When I have a choice, I want to buy ``Made in America.'' I want to do the same with my food--or at least have the knowledge of where my food comes from. As I said, most of the suits I wear are made in America. Hickey Freeman, made in America.

I am looking forward to an amendment that will be offered, as I indicated, by my friend from Wisconsin about buying American.

That is what is behind the House of Representatives' provision in the bill. They simply have been overwhelmed by the four meatpackers in this country that control 80 percent of the beef in our market. Of course, that is not what the critics of the country of origin say to the public, but the public arguments are not better. Critics of the program claim it is too expensive to put into effect. With a multitrillion- dollar budget, it is not too expensive. The General Accounting Office recently found that the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimate was arbitrary and not well supported. Most cost estimates place the costs much lower than the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture has made other mistakes.

Some argue that the country-of-origin label violates trade agreements. That is a specious argument because 48 of our 57 trading partners already require country-of-origin labeling for their commodities.

This allows foreign consumers to choose whether they want to support their own farmers and ranchers. American consumers deserve the same choice. The House of Representatives, with its country-of-origin rider, would deny that right for American consumers.

I believe, as some of my colleagues have said and will say, that U.S. farmers and ranchers produce the highest, best quality food in the world. I also believe that if American consumers are given the power of information, and the right to know, they will choose to buy American food products.

As many of my colleagues will recall, we had a full and extensive debate about country-of-origin labeling during the consideration of the farm bill. It was one of the most hotly debated provisions during the House and Senate conference on the bill, again, because of the power of the four meatpackers in this country. The outcome of all that debate--a county-of-origin labeling requirement--was a victory for American consumers and American farmers and ranchers.

The House, with its anticonsumer, antifarmer, antirancher rider, is trying to sneak a provision through the back door that they could not prevail on in open debate. We know what the rules are on appropriations bills. It is very difficult to strike things out of bills.

Americans have a right to know what they are eating. This harmful House rider would deny them that right.

When the opportunity comes, I will support, with a ``yea'' vote, the Daschle amendment.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

I have spoken to the managers of the bill and indicated to them that Senator Harkin cannot be here until 4 o'clock, so I would ask unanimous consent that the request be modified to allow Senator Harkin 15 minutes, beginning at 4 o'clock.

Just 15 of the 30 minutes for Senator Harkin.

Mr. President, if I could respond briefly to my friend from Utah and all the Senate--staff and other Senators listening--if there are other amendments in addition to the Dorgan and Leahy amendments, the two managers should be advised forthwith because we would expect this bill to be completed and the voting to start at 5:30 today.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, this would not prohibit Senator Harkin from coming later and speaking if desires.

One thing I want to bring to the attention of the Senate now: In today's Congress Daily PM--meaning the afternoon edition--the second paragraph communicates:

Democrats block consideration late Wednesday of fiscal year

2004 military construction conference report.

I want the record to be spread that that simply is not true. Whoever gave this reporter this information was either trying to mislead the reporter or simply didn't know what they were talking about. There was never any effort made last night to move the military construction bill in any way. We are ready to move this at any time. We believe the conference reports which have been completed--Military Construction, Energy and Water; those are the two I know of--should be completed immediately.

I want everyone to understand, not last night nor any other time have we ever blocked consideration of the fiscal year 2004 Military Construction appropriations conference report. In fact, not only did we not block it, no one asked us to participate in anything dealing with that conference report. I wish they had. I hope maybe tonight we can do something about this.

If I could say to my friend, Senator Harkin originally wanted to take 15 minutes on the Daschle amendment. But now what he would like to do is take 5 minutes on the Leahy amendment and 5 minutes on the Daschle amendment. So we actually save 5 minutes in the process. I hope that we can agree at this stage that Senator Harkin be recognized to speak for 5 minutes on the Leahy amendment and 5 minutes on the Daschle amendment. It is my understanding Senator Daschle wishes to speak prior to the vote on his amendment.

He wanted 10 minutes on that.

It seems we should get this tied down very quickly. I don't see why we can't do that.

Why don't we do it right now. It is my understanding we are going to vote on Daschle, Leahy, and final passage; is that correct?

Leahy, Daschle, and then you have some amendments you need to clear.

I would ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter be recognized to speak for 15 minutes on his amendment and that that be determined by a voice vote, as approved by the two managers; that following that, Senator Harkin be recognized to speak for 5 minutes for the Leahy amendment and 5 minutes for Senator Daschle's amendment, and Senator Daschle be recognized for 10 minutes; and following that, there be votes on or in relation to both amendments, Leahy being first; and that there be no second-degree amendments in order to either amendment.

Mr. President, I so modify my request to the Senate.

Mr. President, further, following the cleared amendments, all Members can be ready for a vote on final passage because I also ask unanimous consent that there be no further amendments in order other than those mentioned, including the amendments cleared by the two managers.

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

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

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

Madam President, I share the distinguished Senator's desire to pass this most important legislation. In fact, I am a cosponsor of this bill, which has been introduced on a bipartisan basis by Senators Craig and Baucus. This legislation would protect firearm and ammunition manufacturers from lawsuits related to deliberate and illegal misuse of their products. It will protect the rights of Americans who choose to legally purchase and use their products. So the legislation makes sense.

As a gun owner since I was a young boy, I believe law-abiding citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I also believe the rights of the responsible gun owner should not be compromised or jeopardized by individuals who use firearms to commit crimes. The vast majority of Nevada gun owners use their guns safely, and I will

work in a bipartisan fashion to safeguard their rights. I will work to pass this bill, and I think we have the votes to pass it.

However, in a short time I will object to this consent request by my friend because it does not advance our shared goal of enacting this bill into law. In fact, this request, in my opinion, would set us back in our efforts to pass the legislation. We need to take the time necessary to debate and vote on the amendments that Senators want to offer to this bill, and then we need to pass it.

I think this late in the session, with the constraints that are obviously present with everybody, it just would not help us. I will work with my friend and anyone else to get a unanimous consent agreement both sides can agree to.

For now, on behalf of Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and others, I object.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I really do believe we can work with Senators on our side and a few on the other side to come up with a reasonable approach to this legislation that I think has an outstanding chance of passing. We can't do it now. We are wrapping up this session of the legislature. Even though my friend has suggested relevant amendments, we need to take a little bit of time to work this through. The time that has been suggested by my friend is something that may or may not work.

I just say to everyone within the sound of my voice, we need some time to work this out. We will be happy to cooperate in any way we can, but there are too many objections on this side to move forward at this time.

On behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island and others, I object.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, on certain issues, I am fairly easy to entice, but the fact is, on this, I have a significant number of Senators on this side who are not able to be enticed at this stage. On their behalf, I object.

Madam President, if I may respond, I think the approach that we get into the legislation early next year is the way it will be passed. There will be a decision made early on by the leadership on both sides, I am sure, as to if it is necessary to attempt to invoke cloture on this matter. We will have lots of time early next year to do this.

I look forward to working with my friend from Kentucky to move forward on this most important legislation.

Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a unanimous consent request? In fact, I have two of them.

I appreciate it very much. It will just take a few minutes. I have two unanimous consent requests. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 2559, the Military Construction appropriations bill; that the conference report be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I would simply say that is unfortunate. This is a military construction conference report. I cannot believe there is any controversy on that. I appreciate my friend yielding to me.

I, again, extend my appreciation to the Senator from Virginia for yielding. I will speak at more length at a later time on why I think it was important that these unanimous consents be approved tonight.

Mr. President, I direct the attention of my friend from Tennessee to Homeland Security and to Leave No Child Behind. If he wants to find some unfunded mandates, have him come to Nevada and find out what those two pieces of legislation have done--I should say that piece of legislation, Leave No Child Behind, and what we have done to the State of Nevada and every other State by not properly funding the Leave No Child Behind Act and what we have done with all of our demands on State and local government with our unfunded mandates relating to homeland security. That is the subject of another speech.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 2559, the Military Construction appropriations bill.

I do this because, in the State of Nevada, Nellis Air Force Base and the Fallon Naval Air Training Center are desperately in need of construction starts and completion of jobs that are already underway.

So I hope my friends on the other side will allow this very important conference report to be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that be done with no intervening action or debate.

I so move.

Mr. President, I will propound a unanimous consent request regarding the Syria Accountability Act in just a minute.

This is an important piece of legislation that requires our immediate attention.

This bill would establish economic sanctions against Syria, unless the President certifies that Syria has ceased all support for international terrorism and has gotten out of the weapons of mass destruction business.

As we have known for some time, Syria supports and sponsors Hizballah and other terrorist groups. Hizballah, of course, was responsible for the deadly attack against 298 of our marines in Lebanon 20 years ago, and they have also been behind repeated attacks against Israeli civilians over the years.

It is also no secret that the Baathists of Syria and Iraq shared a common view of the world. They are anti-western, corrupt, and dangerous. Our intelligence experts have noted a significant amount of weapons and terror traffic between Iraq and Syria leading up to the war. This would be consistent with reports that Syria offered sanctuary to senior figures from the Iraqi regime.

And now, as our brave men and women fight a low-intensity conflict in Iraq, it is becoming clear that many of the threats that they face result from the porous border with Syria, and the failure of Syria to crack down on cross-border terrorism.

Make no mistake: This bill is critical to our troops, and to restoring peace in the Middle East. It is also critical to holding Syria accountable for their shabby record on terrorism and human rights.

I am hopeful my colleagues on the other side will pass it without further delay.

To my knowledge, no amendment has been filed tonight. I hope tomorrow morning we can pass the Syria Accountability Act. We can shorten the time to 1 hour. Under the present consent agreement which has been approved before this body, we will move to it for an hour and half at any time the majority leader wishes. We have waited a long time to get to this. I hope we can do it tomorrow.

I hope that also tomorrow--and I was willing to do it tonight, but it has been rejected on two separate occasions--we can pass the Military Construction appropriations bill. I don't understand why we can't do that. We could have this matter on the President's desk in a matter of hours. After it is signed, places such as Nellis Air Force Base and Fallon Naval Air Training Center would be able to start construction projects that are badly needed. Both of those bases are terribly busy because of what is going on in the Middle East and because of the training for our naval airmen and Air Force airmen. I know the people at Nellis badly need this money.

I ask consent that the order entered with respect to H.R. 1828, the Syria Accountability Act, be changed to reflect the time for consideration be reduced to 60 minutes; that there be 30 minutes under the control of Senator Specter, 15 minutes each for Senators Lugar and Boxer, or their designees; and at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning the Senate proceed to the measure under limitations provided under the previous order as modified above with the remaining provisions of the order now in order to remain in effect.

I would hope that the majority would allow the Senate, before we take our weekend break, to do these two pieces of legislation--the Syria Accountability Act and the military construction conference report. I hope we can do that. These are non-partisan measures. I don't know what advantage any of us have by taking a few minutes and passing them. I hoped we could do military construction in tonight's wrap-up. It is something that needs to be done that no one disputes. No one needs it more than the military of our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, so that Democratic Senators will have some knowledge of what is going to happen in the time we have, we have three Senators who have asked to speak--Senators Akaka, Harkin, and Ben Nelson. That should use up our 30 minutes.

Mr. President, if I may respond, the Senator from California is here. In fact, she left a very important conference committee to come here because she feels strongly about her amendment. She has an amendment to offer and she is not in a position to agree to any time. She will probably take an hour, an hour and a half. So it will be the first lengthy amendment on this bill.

Mr. President, I wonder if my friend will modify his request to have the votes following the first vote be 10 minutes in length.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I object.

Mr. President, I have always been a great admirer of the Senator from the State of Washington. She always steps forward with amendments that are extremely important.

I am happy to yield for a question.

I object.

Mr. President, I do not think there is going to be a vote very soon on this matter. I think it is going to be quite a long time before we vote. We have a lot of things we need to talk about.

(The remarks of Mr. Reid are located in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. President, I believe maybe we need a vote.

So when would my friend from Utah like to vote?

I think the Senator should move forward.

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

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

I object. I object.

I object. If there is going to be a request to set aside the Dayton amendment, I object.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Phillip Boardman on his selection as Nevada Professor of the Year by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

As someone whose life was transformed by education, I understand the importance of recognizing the work of good teachers, and I consider it an honor to speak today of Dr. Boardman's dedication to teaching and commitment to his students.

This award is a major accomplishment. The Professor of the Year Awards are the only national awards to recognize college and university professors for their teaching skills. But this is by no means the first time Dr. Boardman has been honored for his great gift as a teacher. He has previously received awards from the University of Nevada and the State of Nevada Regents.

A Professor of English and the Chair of Core Humanities at the University of Nevada, Reno, UNR, Dr. Boardman is an expert on English and Renaissance literature and has taught for three decades at UNR. Throughout his career he has taught courses on Shakespeare, C.S. Lewis, the Bible, medieval literature, linguistics, and composition.

Dr. Boardman's contributions to teaching have not been limited to the university classroom. He has also delivered scores of presentations to high school classes, senior centers and libraries. He was the executive co-producer of the The Western Tradition Lectures, a videotaped series of nine lectures by UNR instructors.

Dr. Boardman has also made substantial contributions to scholarship. Not only has he edited books and written numerous articles and reviews, he well soon complete his major 25-year project, The Arthurian Annals: The Tradition in English from the Beginnings to 2000.

Despite his strong commitment to his teaching and scholarly responsibilities, Dr. Boardman also finds time to assist his colleagues in their development as instructors. He was the author of a successful National Endowment for the Humanities Challenge Grant, matched during 1994-1998, to establish an endowment fund to support teacher stipends and faculty development at UNR. He has also written several articles on how to approach teaching medieval literature and culture.

Dr. Boardman has led a distinguished career in an important and noble profession. Please join me in congratulating him on his selection as the Nevada Professor of the Year.

Mr. President, sometime, when the opportunity arises, I am going to introduce, for myself and Senator Ensign, the Dandini Research Park Transfer Act, which will transfer an important tract of land in Washoe County, Nevada, to the University and Community College System of Nevada.

The University of Nevada holds two patents from the Bureau of Land Management for approximately 467 acres of

public land located north of downtown Reno. In the early 1970s, the land was patented to the university pursuant to the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Now known as the Dandini Research Park, it is the home of Truckee Meadows Community College and the Desert Research Institute's Northern Nevada Science Center.

Truckee Meadows Community College and its predecessor, Western Nevada Community College, have provided educational programs and opportunities to the residents of Reno, Sparks, and the surrounding communities for over 30 years. Construction of the College's facilities on the Dandini campus began in 1975, shortly after conveyance of the original patents.

For over 25 years the Desert Research Institute has excelled in applied scientific research and the application of technologies to improve people's lives in Nevada and throughout the world. Its three core divisions of Atmospheric, Hydrologic, and Earth and Ecosystem Sciences cooperate with two interdisciplinary centers to provide innovative solutions to pressing environmental problems. The Center for Arid Lands Environmental Management and the Center for Watersheds and Environmental Sustainability apply scientific understanding to the effective management of natural resources while addressing our needs for economic diversification and science-based educational opportunities. In doing so, DRI undertakes fundamental scientific research in Nevada and around the globe. For example, as a key participant in the U.S. Geological Survey Water Research Program, DRI plays a critical role in identifying and helping protect the region's scarce water resources.

DRI shares its facility with the Western Regional Climate Center, one of six regional climate centers operating under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's climate program. The Western Regional Climate Center conducts applied research and provides high quality climate data and information pertaining to the western United States.

The Desert Research Institute wishes to expand its Northern Nevada Science Center. DRI is considering an innovative means of financing the expansion, which would involve a private developer who would build and finance the expansion and lease it back to DRI. The private developers with whom DRI has discussed the proposal, as well as the Institute's counsel, however, have pointed out that the terms of the patents and the restrictions imposed by the Recreation and Public Purposes Act represent obstacles to such an arrangement.

Truckee Meadows Community College and the Northern Nevada Science Center are exceptional assets to the scientific and educational community in the Truckee Meadows. The Center serves not only the citizens of Washoe County, but the needs of all Nevadans and the western United States as well. It deserves the opportunity to grow and prosper with the community--one of the fastest-growing communities in the Nation.

The bill Senator Ensign and I will introduce simply directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey this property from the Bureau of Land Management to the University and Community College System of Nevada. Because of the overwhelming public benefit provided by the Center, we ask that the land be conveyed for free, but that the University cover the costs of the transaction.

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

Mr. President, sometime, when the opportunity arises, I am going to introduce, for myself and Senator Ensign, the Dandini Research Park Transfer Act, which will transfer an important tract of land in Washoe County, Nevada, to the University and Community College System of Nevada.

The University of Nevada holds two patents from the Bureau of Land Management for approximately 467 acres of

public land located north of downtown Reno. In the early 1970s, the land was patented to the university pursuant to the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Now known as the Dandini Research Park, it is the home of Truckee Meadows Community College and the Desert Research Institute's Northern Nevada Science Center.

Truckee Meadows Community College and its predecessor, Western Nevada Community College, have provided educational programs and opportunities to the residents of Reno, Sparks, and the surrounding communities for over 30 years. Construction of the College's facilities on the Dandini campus began in 1975, shortly after conveyance of the original patents.

For over 25 years the Desert Research Institute has excelled in applied scientific research and the application of technologies to improve people's lives in Nevada and throughout the world. Its three core divisions of Atmospheric, Hydrologic, and Earth and Ecosystem Sciences cooperate with two interdisciplinary centers to provide innovative solutions to pressing environmental problems. The Center for Arid Lands Environmental Management and the Center for Watersheds and Environmental Sustainability apply scientific understanding to the effective management of natural resources while addressing our needs for economic diversification and science-based educational opportunities. In doing so, DRI undertakes fundamental scientific research in Nevada and around the globe. For example, as a key participant in the U.S. Geological Survey Water Research Program, DRI plays a critical role in identifying and helping protect the region's scarce water resources.

DRI shares its facility with the Western Regional Climate Center, one of six regional climate centers operating under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's climate program. The Western Regional Climate Center conducts applied research and provides high quality climate data and information pertaining to the western United States.

The Desert Research Institute wishes to expand its Northern Nevada Science Center. DRI is considering an innovative means of financing the expansion, which would involve a private developer who would build and finance the expansion and lease it back to DRI. The private developers with whom DRI has discussed the proposal, as well as the Institute's counsel, however, have pointed out that the terms of the patents and the restrictions imposed by the Recreation and Public Purposes Act represent obstacles to such an arrangement.

Truckee Meadows Community College and the Northern Nevada Science Center are exceptional assets to the scientific and educational community in the Truckee Meadows. The Center serves not only the citizens of Washoe County, but the needs of all Nevadans and the western United States as well. It deserves the opportunity to grow and prosper with the community--one of the fastest-growing communities in the Nation.

The bill Senator Ensign and I will introduce simply directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey this property from the Bureau of Land Management to the University and Community College System of Nevada. Because of the overwhelming public benefit provided by the Center, we ask that the land be conveyed for free, but that the University cover the costs of the transaction.

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Let me just say, very briefly, we have been told that next Wednesday the majority leader is going to move to a period of time where the majority will come and talk for some 30 hours about how the judges that have been recommended by President Bush have been treated.

I would say, I cannot possibly imagine why in the world we would take the time of this body at such an important time in the history of this country. On this side of the aisle, we have bent over backwards to cooperate on appropriations bills. We have cajoled, begged members on our side not to offer controversial amendments. On any one of these appropriations bills, there can be all kinds of things offered. Maybe they would be deemed not appropriate procedurally, but certainly a debate could be had and they would have to be disposed of by a vote. But we wanted to work for what we thought was the betterment of this body and this country.

We agreed, without any reservation or hesitation, to be in next Monday and Tuesday, Tuesday being a legal holiday. And when we are told that the sacrifices made to move this matter along are going to, in effect, play second fiddle to two legislative days; that is, 30 hours talking about judges, keep in mind we have done a pretty remarkably good job on these judges.

We have approved 168 judges; we have turned down 4--168 to 4. We have the lowest vacancy rate of the Federal judiciary in some 15 years.

So I say--and not in any way as criticism other than constructive criticism--I cannot imagine how the majority would allow this to happen. We are aware of this. And as my friend, the distinguished Senator from Utah knows, we work very hard to try to make things as convenient for Members as possible. But, keep in mind, recognizing how we can work to make things easy on Members, we can also work to make things hard on Members.

If this is going to be done, there has to be some reasonable response to it. You cannot be slapped around forever. We believe in turning our cheeks, and we have done it. Our cheeks have been turned and both sides slapped and we still move forward. But I think this is the ultimate. I think we have taken about as much as we are going to take.

I say to everyone within the sound of my voice, this is not to threaten, but just to make people understand that there is going to have to be some appropriate action taken if this is going to happen. We have been told it is going to happen by the highest authorities on the majority side. We have asked that it not happen. We have been told it is going to happen. I think it is too bad for our Nation.

I have no objection to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, let me say on behalf of the minority that we are most happy to work on all the items the majority leader has mentioned. We look forward to working with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and Senator Byrd to move more of these appropriations bills. I think we have a really outstanding record working with the majority on appropriations bills and will continue to do that. We feel it is vitally important. The conference which was completed last week was extremely difficult and long. But we now have a bill which the President has.

We finished the Interior appropriations conference report. I am happy to hear we have a completed military construction conference report. That wasn't easy. Everyone had to take their projects in their States and cut back from what they had.

We look forward to a productive 2\1/2\ weeks. I hope we will do everything we can to complete our business before Thanksgiving.

We are here to work nights, weekends, whatever it takes, to complete that work.