Floor Statements

Mr. President, I expected Senator Domenici to be in the Chamber. We have a couple of amendments we wanted to clear before the vote began, but he is not present. So Senator Feinstein should go ahead and start her debate if she cares to.

Before I respond, Senator Domenici is present and we will be happy to extend the time of the Senator if we need to.

Amendments Nos. 1665, 1666, 1667, and 1668 En Bloc

Senator Domenici and I have been working on a number of issues. I send a series of four amendments to the desk and ask that they be considered en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. President, our staff has worked on these amendments during the last several days. I ask they be agreed to en bloc.

I ask that the Senator from California be given an extra minute from the time we just took.

Mr. President, I send three amendments of Senator Domenici to the desk. They have been reviewed. I ask they be considered en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

These have been cleared by Senator Domenici, this Senator, and our respective staffs.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment NO. 1655

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, Senator Domenici and I have worked during the lunch hour and up to now to clear some amendments.

Amendments Nos. 1646, As Modified; 1656, As Modified; 1681 through

1683, En Bloc

Mr. President, I send five amendments to the desk, two of which-- amendments Nos. 1646 and 1656--will be offered as modified, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to en bloc.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, that is true.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, I think he would agree that we have spent all day working on this bill. It is an important bill with $27.3 billion in funding for some of the most important aspects this Government does.

We are now at a point where we are about to wrap this up. If there are Members who have amendments to offer, they should get over here within the next 40 minutes. If they are not here by then, we will assume there are no other amendments to be offered. We have other work that we need to do. There are negotiations going on on some amendments. Other than that, we are arriving at a point where we will move forward.

I have several amendments that I would like to send to the desk en bloc. I note that there are a number of amendments--in fact, two--in order, Nos. 1652 and 1660, which will be as modified.

We are so efficient that we are trying to agree to them twice. I don't think that is necessary. These have already been cleared.

I withdraw my request.

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

Mr. President, I send a series of amendments to the desk that have been cleared on both sides and ask for their consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to, en bloc. They have been cleared with my distinguished chairman.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman allow me to speak?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be no other amendments in order except those cleared by the two managers of the bill; and the Senator from Arizona is going to offer an amendment. I ask unanimous consent that those be the only amendments in order.

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

I agree with the Senator from California that our communities need the tools and resources to develop infrastructure projects that revitalize the environment, as well as the economy. I also agree that the project described by Senator Boxer has the potential to offer many benefits to the Los Angeles area and I will work to support this in conference.

That is my understanding as well, and I believe that we need to work together and with the Corps to draft language that is exactly correct. I will work with the Senator from Vermont to make the necessary changes in conference.

I, too, am concerned about the situation around Lake Sakakawea and appreciate my colleague from North Dakota for bringing this to our attention. I agree that the Corps of Engineers has an obligation to address it, and I would be happy to work with my colleagues to identify additional funds to tackle the noxious weeds around Lake Sakakawea.

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

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 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, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Jonathan Epstein and Mr. Eric Burman, legislative fellows in his office, be given floor privileges during the pendency of H.R. 2754, and any votes thereupon.

Mr. President, Barbara G. Edwards of Las Vegas, NV, Wilson ``Buddy'' Flagg, a part-time resident of Las Vegas, Lieutenant Colonel Karen Wagner, a 1982 graduate of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, where she was in the Army ROTC--these three people were killed in the terrorist attacks 2 years ago. Mrs. Edwards and Mr. Flagg were passengers on the American Airlines flight that crashed into the Pentagon and LT Wagner worked in the Pentagon. They were the first three heroes from Nevada to die in the war on terrorism, but sadly they were not the last.

Private First Class Matthew Commons, Boulder City, Staff Sergeant Kerry Frith of Las Vegas, Army Specialist Jason Disney of Fallon, First Lieutenant Fred Pokorney of Tonopah, Marine Corps Lance Corporal Michael Williams, who lived in Phoenix but had extended family in Reno, Marine Corps Lance Corporal Donald Cline, Jr., of Sparks, Army Captain Josh Byers, Sparks, Staff Sergeant Bryan Sarno, Las Vegas--these eight brave soldiers have also given their lives in the war on terrorism. The most recent was 10 days ago. Sergeant Sarno was killed in Iraq on September 1. Most of these Nevadans died wearing the uniform of our country. Others were simply going about their every-day lives.

We have a duty as Americans to remember every one of them, not just for their sake but also for our own, because, as painful as those memories might be, they will always remind us of important truths. Remembering September 11 reminds us we have the greatest system of government on Earth. For more than 2 centuries, no nation has held the flame of freedom higher or opened the doors of opportunity wider than the United States of America. The cowards who struck America on September 11 understand this. That is why they chose targets that symbolize our free economy and our strong Armed Forces. Those cowards had no reason to hate the people they murdered. They didn't even know these people. But they hated America because we stand for freedom, tolerance, and opportunity. That is why we must never let time cloud our memory of what happened and why we must never forget those who gave their lives in the war against terror.

In this body we are privileged to freely debate the important issues facing our Nation. That means we often disagree with one another. But we have no disagreement today on these issues regarding September 11. Today we stand as one to honor our fallen heroes and to pledge that we will never stop fighting until we have won the war against terrorism.

Mr. President, the Federal Communications Commission regulations must serve the public interest by guaranteeing that a wide range of local voices can be heard and by promoting competition in the marketplace.

As a public trustee, the FCC has a duty and obligation to include the public in its decisionmaking process. That was not done in this case.

I support this resolution that has been engineered by Senators Dorgan and Lott because the FCC did not hold a single public hearing to present its proposed rules for comment. Chairman Powell refused to hold a hearing even after Commissioners Copps and Adelstein personally requested such a hearing.

Even though the FCC's flawed process makes it impossible for me to support its action, I am deeply concerned about the situation in rural communities where many TV and radio stations are struggling.

The FCC cross-ownership provisions would enable a newspaper to more easily acquire a troubled and failing broadcast station in situations where it might not be cost efficient for another entity to purchase the station.

Newspapers have the business expertise, the financial stability, and the news-gathering resources to supplement local news and informational programming. If the FCC and Department of Justice have determined that a transfer of title would serve the public interest and would not present an unfair market advantage, newspapers should be permitted to use these strengths to serve their communities.

Although pre-June 2 newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership prohibitions provided for a waiver that would allow a newspaper to purchase a failing broadcast company, only four such waivers have been granted in the past 28 years.

Under the current cross-ownership provisions, the smallest broadcast markets would be protected from monopolies, and a limited cross- ownership rule will remain in effect in markets of between four and eight broadcast companies.

The FCC newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules will benefit communities in Nevada. For this reason, I support the cross-ownership part of the FCC's action.

I hope the final outcome of this will be to drop the number of stations a company can own but allow the cross-ownership. This will not only stimulate competition but will allow rural America to have some of the programming that simply will not be available unless a newspaper and/or a TV station join together. This is the way it is all over America, not just Nevada.

I join with Senator Domenici in presenting this 2004 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. I am pleased with the bill Senator Domenici and I have produced. Our relationship extends all my time in the Senate on this committee. We have done this bill seven or eight cycles. We have worked together a long time and have worked well together.

This has proven to be a difficult bill this year given the very tight budget constraints within which we had to work. Effectively, Senator Domenici and I--I hate to use the word ``effectively''--we have worked well together. We have $367 million in new funding, which is hardly adequate to pay for the many needs in this bill.

We added the first $300 million to the Corps of Engineers in the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased we added $233 million above the budget for the Corps, but I note that we are $212 million below what we enacted last year.

I realize with respect to staffs, they have done the best they could do with the limited resources. But we need to recognize that by underfunding the Corps of Engineers, we are seriously impacting how they accomplish the mission Congress laid out for them. Project schedules will continue to be lengthened, the maintenance backlog will grow, and solutions to water needs throughout the country will be delayed.

We must always remember, as many have said, wars in the future are not going to be fought over land but over water. We have wars already taking place within the confines of our country dealing with water.

Senator Domenici and I believe over the long term we need to find additional resources for the Corps. The work they do for our Nation is too important to be underfunded in the manner they are underfunded.

Finally, $67 million in funding above the President's request was added to regional commissions which were slashed in the President's budget request. While the funding for the Denali Commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, and the Delta Regional Authority is far below what is required, we have been able to improve matters significantly. While we were able to restore current year funding to the Appalachian Regional Commission, I am disappointed we are unable to do more for the Delta Regional Authority. However, our funding constraints simply do not allow more funding to be restored at this point.

At some time there will be offered an emergency title fund for weather-related, nationwide problems, and that is what we have done while the bill is on the floor. I am prepared to muster every vote possible to support this critical emergency package. There was a debate yesterday that took place, but a very cursory glance would recognize this is much different from what was presented yesterday. We try to be fiscally prudent. We strive to be fiscally prudent. We were sent here to be responsive to the needs of the American people. Devastating floods, hurricanes, tornados, and fires have hit so many parts of the country this year, requiring a response from the Congress. I am glad we are going to do so. We will have bipartisan support for this emergency request.

As for fiscal year 2004 before the Senate, I reiterate, as either Senator Domenici or I do every year at this time, we have produced a bipartisan bill that addresses the needs of the Nation and accommodates many of the desires of our Members. We cannot give everyone everything they need. That is an understatement. We do the best we can. Our subcommittee has always been known as one of the most collegial on the Hill. Our staffs have performed this way this year in super fashion. I extend to Senator Domenici my appreciation for his leadership in helping produce this bill.

Additionally, I think it is useful to let everyone know there have been certain items deferred for consideration when we go to conference--that is, with one exception--the same items we defer each year until we know what our final resources will be. We cannot do that until we complete our conference. So there are no new construction starts or new environment infrastructure projects for the Corps or Bureau and no university or hospital marks within the DOE's Office of Science and no geographically specific renewable energy earmarks. It is my expectation, as every year, that we will emerge with Members' projects in each of the accounts.

In my view, we will accomplish three very important objectives with this legislation. No. 1, we have been able to restore many of the ridiculous cuts made by the administration to the Corps and Bureau. This President, this administration, is not the only one that has made these ridiculous cuts, but that is not the way it is. For reasons I do not fully understand, every administration does such a terrible job of understanding the importance of the Corps of Engineers. Each year, we get a budget from a President that tremendously underfunds these programs.

It reminds me of when I was chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee. Every year, we got a request from the President that did not do anything for the Guard and Reserve--nothing. I don't know what this country would have done if we had sent the bill back they gave us. Every year, the Congress bails out the administration on projects, programs relating to the National Guard and Reserve programs. That is what this reminds me of. I don't know what the country would do if we sent the administration back the bill they gave us. But as usual, we don't have the resources to do more.

We have a construction backlog with the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation of $40 billion, but we have found enough resources to prevent the problem from becoming much worse. The chronic underfunding of the Corps of Engineers prevents it from establishing the critical flood control and navigation infrastructure of this Nation.

In the meantime, rather than me going into a lot of detail, suffice it to say that I believe this administration is doing the American taxpayer a tremendous disservice by sending woefully inadequate budget requests to Capitol Hill. In fact, I believe they are putting our economy at risk and putting people's lives at risk.

No. 2, in this bill we have fully funded the National Nuclear Security Administration, the organization charged with keeping our nuclear weapons stockpile safe, secure, and reliable, and with securing and safeguarding fissile material abroad, particularly in Russia.

At a time when our Nation has never been more concerned about homeland security, these programs are more critical than ever.

As I mentioned earlier, we are going to send an amendment to the desk at a subsequent time that will provide, on an emergency basis, $125 million in Corps of Engineers funding to mitigate weather-related damages. Acts of God is the reason we are offering this emergency amendment. There may be a few who oppose an emergency designation on this portion of the bill, but this funding is absolutely critical to the

parts of our country that have been devastated by floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and fires this year.

Senator Domenici did a fine job of describing the bill, so I will not take up everyone's time by repeating it. However, before we close here today, I want to take a moment to thank the staffs for all their hard work.

This bill has never had the resources needed to do what our Members would like us to do. However, the staffs have always done the very best they could with what we had.

Senator Domenici has always been well served by his now-former staff director, Clay Sell. Tammy Perrin and Erin McHale have also done a very good job for the majority staff.

Clay left the committee at the end of July to become a Special Assistant to President Bush for Economic Affairs. And I don't think it is appropriate to blame Clay for the just-announced deficits that we have. But I do say, on a serious note, he is a fine man, and the President is so fortunate to have someone of Clay's stature working for him.

As I have indicated, he has been great to work with. He has been a tremendous asset to Chairman Domenici. And my staff and I have nothing but fine things to say about him and the rest of Senator Domenici's staff.

I look forward to working with Senator Domenici's former Energy and Water staff director, Alex Flint, who is now the chief of staff in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, of which Senator Domenici is the chairman. Alex Flint is therefore working here on this bill as the staff director of the Natural Resources Committee, but also helping maneuver this bill through the Congress. And he can do that because he has had previous experience being the staff director for Senator Domenici.

Alex Flint is a fine man. He is of the same caliber as Clay. Senator Domenici has been served extremely well by these two fine men.

On my staff, Madam President, I thank Roger Cockrell. It was very difficult to do, but Roger agreed to leave his lifetime job, really, with the Corps of Engineers and come to work for the Senate, the Appropriations Committee. What a wonderful asset he has been to our committee.

Senator Byrd was elated we were able to work this out so that he came here. There is nobody in the Congress that knows more about the Corps of Engineers projects than Roger Cockrell. So I publicly thank him for making this very dramatic change in his personal life, leaving the career that he has had. And I am sure they are disappointed, the people at the Corps, but we in the Senate are elated he has decided to join us on a permanent basis. He does a wonderful job of handling our water issues.

There are a handful of Senators who are interested in the NNSA and other DOE issues, but every Member has an interest in the Corps of Engineers and/or Bureau of Reclamation projects. Those projects are the engine that drives this bill, and Roger does a wonderful job of working through literally thousands of requests.

I also thank Nancy Olkewicz, who returned to the subcommittee to handle renewable energy, nuclear energy, the Office of Science, and several other non-Defense Department of Energy accounts this year after having worked for the full committee for a number of years.

Senator Byrd has spoken highly of Nancy. And I am very happy that she has been willing to come here and work with me on this bill, and also for Senator Durbin on the legislative branch bill.

Finally, I want to say a word about my staff director, Drew Willison. Drew is one of those people who came to the Senate as a fellow from a Government agency. This agency was the Environmental Protection Agency. He worked with me, and he worked in the areas that he was not familiar with, but it didn't matter; he was tremendous. The first year he came to work for me, we had a highway bill. I had been on the Environment and Public Works Committee since I came to the Senate, and he was the first person who was able to impart to me enough information that I fully understood what I was doing.

As a result of that, I recognized talent when I saw it, and I worked with him to get him to leave the Environmental Protection Agency. He has had a very busy time working with me. He has graduated from law school while working with me, going to night school, which is very hard. He went to my alma mater, George Washington School of Law.

In short, let me just say that Drew Willison is a valuable asset to not only me but to our country.

And let me say to Senator Domenici, I appreciate many things about Senator Domenici, but most of all his friendship. He is a proud Republican. I am a proud Democrat. But first of all, we are proud Americans.

He does a tremendous job of representing the State of New Mexico. I have been with him to New Mexico. I have been to New Mexico without him. He is a person who serves that State very well.

As I have indicated, I thank Senator Domenici very much for our many years of working on this committee. I heard Senator Specter talk about he and Senator Harkin having a seamless transition when things change in the Senate, but so do we. Under the circumstances we have had this year, it has been extremely difficult. I am happy to work with him and lock arms and do what we can to push through this most important piece of legislation.

Every dollar we have in this bill is designated. We don't have set- asides in this bill. Senator Domenici and I and our staffs work together to try to come up with a fair bill. These dollar amounts in this bill are not--no one dictates to us what we do. We have to decide what is best for the country. We are not always right, but we really try to do what is right for the country.

I also thank Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd, who is also the former Democratic leader, for their steadfast support for the work that Domenici and Reid do. I have never had either one of these people come to me and say: How could you have done this? It is the wrong thing you have done for the committee. It is quite the opposite. They come to us and say: How can we help?

So they are great to work with, these two men. The President pro tempore of the Senate is Senator Stevens, who is the successor of the President pro tempore when we were in control, Senator Byrd.

These two very wise men have very tough choices to make, but I have great respect for the work they do, which has only been amplified by the way they worked with us on this bill.

So I look forward to debate on this bill starting next week. Senator Domenici and I are disappointed we are not going to have votes on Monday. But, as some know, a terrible tragedy occurred in the Senate family. The son of Senator Gordon Smith, a wonderful human being, was taken in death this past Wednesday night. So as a result of that, there will be no Senate votes on Monday. The Senate will be in session on Monday, but out of respect for Senator Smith, there will be no votes.

Senator Domenici and I have asked, and we have received word that Senator Feinstein will offer her amendment, which will be cosponsored by Senator Kennedy. They can be here at 2:30. We will see if the leader can agree that we can have them debate this matter and set it up for a vote Tuesday, at the discretion of the majority leader. I look forward to the debate.

As Senator Domenici said, we hope people understand this bill is not a perfect bill. It is the best we have done. If somebody has a problem, their staff should get ahold of our staff. We feel we have bipartisan support, and we have pretty much accomplished what we have set forth in the bill. The matter Senator Feinstein will debate is something that, as far as we know, is the only real contentious issue on the bill, and that relates to some of the nuclear money in this bill. Other than that, I think we should have a fairly easy time moving this most important bill through the Senate. We look forward to conference, which, again, will not be easy. We have our position and we will do our best to protect the position of the Senate in conference with the House.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Leiberman) are necessarily absent.

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

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), 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.''

Madam President, I ask the Senator from New Hampshire to modify his request to allow the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, to speak for up to 15 minutes on the amendment that is now pending, the IDEA amendment, and the Senator from Connecticut can take whatever time he wishes, not to exceed 15 minutes, in opposition to that, after which time there would be a voice vote.

Madam President, if I could have the attention of the Senate, we hope to be able to complete debate on these amendments by around 2 o'clock, if the leaders wish to schedule the vote around that time, to begin the series of votes, prior to the 3:15 matter.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, in effect, following the Durbin amendment under the previous order that has been entered, we will have the Ensign amendment and the Landrieu amendment, and then the leader will set a time to vote after they debate those.

No, I would just like to be added as cosponsor of the Senator's amendment.

Madam President, the manager of the bill is soon going to offer a unanimous consent request to start a series of votes forthwith: is that right?

Madam President, I say, while the Democratic leader is on the floor, we on the minority side have said we are going to do everything we can to finish this bill today. But we have just been informed that starting at 3:15, there will be no votes for probably 2 hours. That is going to make it very difficult.

So I hope during this first vote, the two leaders can visit to see if there is some way we can condense that time. Otherwise, it is going to be very difficult to finish this bill at a decent hour tonight.

Madam President, I say to my friend, the distinguished chairman of the committee, we will work any way we can. I served with Senator Quayle, Vice President Quayle, and want to make sure he receives the honor to which he is entitled.

We also have a briefing upstairs, so it is not an hour we are concerned about; it is 2 hours. We have an obligation on this side, having told the manager of the bill and the majority leader we would finish this bill tonight. I am just saying, it is going to be really tough when we have 2 hours of basically doing nothing.

Is the Senator talking about the Boxer amendment?

Madam President, under the applicable statutes, I move to waive the budget point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), 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 Florida (Mr. Graham), 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.''

No. Madam President, it is 1 minute.

Madam President, I am happy to hear everybody speak. But this whole system is flawed. If we are going to have 1 minute, I would ask the Chair to hold to 1 minute. I went to the Republican side today: Please have the

Chair stick to what the rules are. We want to try to finish this bill. But these speeches are unending on both sides.

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

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

Mr. President, I have an amendment that is pending. Would you give me the number of that amendment.

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, I don't think anyone would disagree that children are the hope of every culture. They certainly are the hope of this culture in our great country of America.

We look to our children and imagine a bright future for their sake. This is true for every group in America and every subgroup in America. It could not be more true for Latino Americans. Latinos are the youngest demographic group in the entire country. They are the fastest growing.

More than one-third of Latino Americans are under 18 years of age. Many came here with nothing to their name. Many of them had no education and some couldn't speak English. For these people, life is what it is and sometimes there is no hope of improving. But one thing that the Hispanic community does is work hard. They work hard in many instances to make a simple living. Some of them clean our houses, landscape our yards, wait on tables, park cars, make beds, and in other places they harvest the food for our tables.

They don't complain about their lot in life, but they dream of better opportunities for their children--our children--because children are the hope of the future.

The great aspiration of Latino Americans, as all immigrants who come to our country, is their children getting a good education.

We recognize that there is an unacceptable gap between the achievement of Latino students and the overall student population. In the State of Nevada, we have the fifth or sixth largest school district in all of America, approaching 300,000 students. Thirty percent of the kids in that school district are Hispanic. Large numbers of those children in comparison to other ethnic groups don't graduate from high school.

Some have asked why. All the reasons are not in but some of the reasons are they are such hard-working people, the business community recognizes that and, in many instances, entices them to work and not to school by offering them jobs. They are young and impressionable, and a job offers what appears to them to be a lot of money; as they proceed through life, they continue to earn the same money as adults as they earned when they were teenagers. They drop out of school for that reason.

Also, most of the Hispanics in the State of Nevada come from Mexico. Mexico does not have the tradition of public education we have, which is another reason there are dropouts. Of course they do not have the parental involvement as a result of their parents not being educated.

So there are a number of reasons. All the reasons are not in. I have named a couple of the reasons these young boys and girls drop out of high school much more quickly than other ethnic groups. We agree it should be this Nation's policy to leave no child behind. This does not say we leave no Caucasian child behind. This act does not say we leave no Asian American behind. This act does not say we leave no African American behind. No, this act says we leave no child behind no matter their race, creed, or culture.

Now it is time to live up to those words and keep our promise. That is why I offer this amendment, amendment No. 1603, the Hispanic educational opportunity amendment to help Latino students achieve their dreams. This amendment invests an additional $190 million in our Nation's future by strengthening these programs.

I told my good friend, the Democrat manager, the amendment was $210 million--and it was, earlier--and we changed it for a number of reasons. This is for Hispanic-serving institutions, migrant education, high school equivalency programs, college assistance migrant programs, local family information centers, bilingual education and Head Start for children of migrant workers. These programs give Latino students a step up the ladder of education so they can realize their aspirations.

The 252 Hispanic-serving institutions, which have at least 25 percent Latino enrollment, are the main bridge between Hispanic opportunities and higher education. Despite appropriations under title V, these institutions still have not reached Federal funding parity with other degree-granting institutions. This amendment adds $6.4 million to help address this inequity.

The high school equivalency programs provide academic instruction, counseling, computer-assisted teaching, and career awareness to migrant students for the GED. The Senate's fiscal year 2004 Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill slashes funding for these programs by 43 percent and eliminates 23 programs that achieved a combined GED completion rate of 73 percent.

The proposed budget also cuts the College Assistance Migrant Program by $400,000. CAMP, or the College Assistance Migrant Program, recruits are talented migrant high school graduates, GED recipients, and they mentor them through their first year of college. Before CAMP was created, there was no record of a migrant child having completed college. Since its inception, nearly 75 percent of all CAMP students receive a college baccalaureate degree.

The existing HEP and CAMP programs serve approximately 15,000 students. Remember, for every one of these students we keep in school or put through college, we save our country much money. It is estimated that for every $1 we spend on the programs, we save the Government upwards of $10 in justice costs, insurance costs, welfare costs. For every child we keep in one of these programs, our country makes money. Over the next 5 years, 170,000 migrant children will become eligible for this program while 140,000 will qualify for CAMP. Funding for these programs should be increased, not cut. That is why my amendment adds $11 million for HEP programs and $1 million for CAMP.

We also need to make the Head Start Program available to more children of migrant workers so they have a fighting chance to do well in school. In the relatively small State of Nevada, we have hundreds of migrant students. In Amargossa, in Nye County, they make up more than half of the students. These children, many times, have very hard lives. If any child ever deserved a head start in school, they do. Yet we have not a single migrant Head Start Program in all of the State of Nevada.

About 20 percent of the State of Nevada is Hispanic. Nationally, only 19 percent of the eligible migrant children are served by Head Start. The rest are left behind, even before they begin school, even though we have a program that says Leave No Child Behind. We need to offer Head Start to at least 10,000 migrant children. This amendment moves us toward that goal.

We know that parental involvement is crucial to a child's success. That is why the local family information centers were created by the No Child Left Behind Act. These are community-based centers that provide parents of title I students with information about their children's schools so they can get involved in their education. It does much more. An additional investment here of $13 million strengthens ties between Latino families and the children's schools. We know parental involvement is a success for the teachers and for the students. This might seem like a lot of money, but it will save much more, as I have stated, in the long run--almost 10 to 1. You do not have to be from Nevada to bet on these odds.

One way this investment will pay dividends down the road is by building a stronger labor force. Already, one-third of new workers who join our labor force are Latino. In 20 years, it will be one-half. These are the workers who will pay our taxes, build our roads, keep our military strong, educate our grandchildren, protect our environment.

It is important we educate our grandchildren and our great grandchildren and provide for our Social Security. Our own future will depend upon the hopes, the aspirations, and the dreams of our Latino neighbors. These programs might not seem that important to some, but to the individuals involved, they provide greater opportunities for these children. They give Latino Americans, their parents, but also all Americans, a better chance for having a better society. They give these boys and girls a chance for realizing their dreams and aspirations.

We had a vote similar to this earlier this week. We had the usual performances on both sides of the aisle: Vote with me; vote with me; do not vote with the minority; the vote might pass. We had three very courageous Republicans crossing over the line and voting for these young boys and girls: Senator Smith of Oregon, Senator Hutchison of Texas, and Senator Domenici of New Mexico. I appreciate the courage and their individualism, their independence, in voting for these young people.

I yield the floor.

Could I ask my friend a question?

We have a vote scheduled for 5:20. We may not be able to have it now. You are going to speak probably until that time?

Madam President, the Senator from Arizona was concerned. He had some questions. I have checked with the people on the majority. He has no problem with our going ahead with the first vote. So I say to my friend from Illinois, within a minute, the Chair will call the vote in compliance with the order previously entered.

I would say to the Chair, it is my understanding, also, we are going to do a better job of enforcing the 1-minute rule.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), 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 move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1585

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), 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 ``nay.''

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), 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.''

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

Mr. President, the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, wishes to speak on the amendment, so I ask that the vote not occur at this time. She is on her way over to the Chamber.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), 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.''

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

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

Will the Senator withhold?

Mr. President, I want to commend Senators Harkin and Specter for increasing funding for the CDC Chronic Disease Comprehensive Cancer Account by $2.6 million in this bill, bringing the total funding for this account to $12 million in FY 2004. Given the tight budget constraints we are facing this year, I am particularly appreciative of the increased funding they were able to provide for this important program.

The Comprehensive Cancer programs support public and private partnerships to reduce cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality. These efforts are especially important to the growing number of cancer survivors and their families who are faced with a wide range of physical and emotional health complications after they have survived cancer. This is an especially critical issue for children.

According to the Institute of Medicine's National Cancer Policy Board, while childhood cancer was nearly always fatal before 1970, 78 percent of patients today survive at least 5 years. While this statistic represents a welcome trend and is a major victory against cancer, it raises new issues that need to be addressed.

Cancer survivors, especially children, are oftentimes plagued with neurological impairments, heart and lung problems, growth and fertility disorders, and psychological stresses caused by treatment, complications of the cancer, or both.

Over the past 3 years, 16 children in the small community of Fallon, NV, have been diagnosed with a rare form of leukemia. Sadly, three of these children have since lost their battle with cancer. However, thanks to chemotherapy and other promising treatments, many of these children have shown tremendous progress and we are hopeful that they will make full recoveries.

While we are focused and doing everything we can to ensure that the children in Fallon make full recoveries, we cannot stop there. We need to have support programs to ensure that these children--and cancer survivors around the country--receive the support and care they need and deserve.

According to the IOM policy board, up to 60 percent of survivors do not receive coordinated follow-up care at specialized clinics, which are best suited for treating long-term medical and psychosocial needs. Moreover, pediatric oncologists are trained to battle the cancers, but few are prepared to treat the chronic medical conditions that can follow.

A recent assessment of all the existing comprehensive cancer control programs showed that while all States were doing something with regard to cancer survivorship, there was no uniform, coordinated approach. The CDC, in coordination with this country's leading cancer survivorship organizations, have started a year long planning process to develop a National Public Health Action Plan on Cancer Survivorship. This plan will chart the course for the implementation of cancer survivorship activities into State comprehensive control programs, State cancer registries and other public health functions, which will be available this winter for States to use.

We cannot afford to stay behind the curve on this issue, which will surely become an even bigger problem as NIH research continues to improve treatments. Providing increased funding to the Comprehensive Cancer Account will not only ensure that adequate funds are available to disseminate the new survivorship plan to all States, but also ensure that States will have the appropriate resources to implement the plans.

I thank the chair and ranking member for their support for this effort, and I look forward to working with them to secure the highest possible funding level for the Comprehensive Cancer Account and the cancer survivorship programs it supports.

adequate funding for medicare contractors

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), 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.''

Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Senator Graham of Florida, to introduce legislation that authorizes funding for a new veterans' hospital, outpatient clinic and senior center in Southern Nevada. Nevada is now the third most popular retirement State in the Nation. And many of the retirees who make their homes in Nevada are veterans who served our country with courage and honor.

More than 240,000 veterans live in Nevada, and more than one-third of Nevada's residents over age 65 have worn the uniform of the United States. Veterans are the cornerstone of our economy. They are also our neighbors, our family members and our friends.

As we welcome these veterans, we must also ensure that they can get the services they need--especially medical care. Our veterans put their lives on the line for our freedom. They deserve the best health care in the world. But we have been struggling to keep up with our fast-growing population of veterans.

Across the Nation, more than 110,000 veterans have waited more than 6 months for their first medical appointment with the VA. There have been some backlogs in booming areas like Las Vegas, which has the highest growth rate in the Nation. This new facility should ease some of these delays and result in improved care for our veterans.

I was pleased to learn recently from VA Secretary Anthony Principi that he endorsed the building of a new hospital in southern Nevada. This bill, which was made possible by the strong leadership of Senator Graham of Florida, would authorize $250 million to build this sorely needed facility.

I realize that we have many urgent priorities today, and our resources are not unlimited. But this is a matter of national security. We have soldiers in

the desert of Iraq today who volunteered to risk their lives protecting our freedom. They willingly put their lives on the line for us. In return, we make certain promises to them. One of those promises is that they will receive quality health care when they come home. We must keep this promise to our troops.

Right now, I am sorry to say, we are not keeping that promise to the Nation's veterans. This bill will help steer us onto the right course, and begin to correct that injustice for the veterans in Southern Nevada.

I urge your support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Senator Graham of Florida, to introduce legislation that authorizes funding for a new veterans' hospital, outpatient clinic and senior center in Southern Nevada. Nevada is now the third most popular retirement State in the Nation. And many of the retirees who make their homes in Nevada are veterans who served our country with courage and honor.

More than 240,000 veterans live in Nevada, and more than one-third of Nevada's residents over age 65 have worn the uniform of the United States. Veterans are the cornerstone of our economy. They are also our neighbors, our family members and our friends.

As we welcome these veterans, we must also ensure that they can get the services they need--especially medical care. Our veterans put their lives on the line for our freedom. They deserve the best health care in the world. But we have been struggling to keep up with our fast-growing population of veterans.

Across the Nation, more than 110,000 veterans have waited more than 6 months for their first medical appointment with the VA. There have been some backlogs in booming areas like Las Vegas, which has the highest growth rate in the Nation. This new facility should ease some of these delays and result in improved care for our veterans.

I was pleased to learn recently from VA Secretary Anthony Principi that he endorsed the building of a new hospital in southern Nevada. This bill, which was made possible by the strong leadership of Senator Graham of Florida, would authorize $250 million to build this sorely needed facility.

I realize that we have many urgent priorities today, and our resources are not unlimited. But this is a matter of national security. We have soldiers in

the desert of Iraq today who volunteered to risk their lives protecting our freedom. They willingly put their lives on the line for us. In return, we make certain promises to them. One of those promises is that they will receive quality health care when they come home. We must keep this promise to our troops.

Right now, I am sorry to say, we are not keeping that promise to the Nation's veterans. This bill will help steer us onto the right course, and begin to correct that injustice for the veterans in Southern Nevada.

I urge your support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I would like to respond to my friend. He is absolutely right. He and Senator Harkin have set an example after which many of us have modeled our responsibilities on the Appropriations Committee.

I would say this. I think we should. I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania. Why don't we go ahead and finish this bill? I think we have lost the time--we won't be able to do it today, but maybe we could do it tomorrow.

I had suggested and made a unanimous consent request that there be a vote at 3:15. When do you want the vote today? It is the pending amendment. When do you want the vote? I would say that. Let's vote on that. We have a number of amendments on which we can go ahead and vote. We have a couple more people who want to speak on the overtime issue, but they could do that quickly.

I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, check with the majority leader. See when he wants the vote. He can set the vote on overtime. We won't set it. Let him set it. Set the time for that. We can go ahead and dispose of other amendments. I think if he came back and said fine, vote on it at 2:15, or whenever--give us a suggestion--then we will try to finish this bill.

Fine.

Mr. President, I would say to my----

Mr. President, we have never in the past 6 months, during the time four Members are running in the Presidential campaign, said to the majority that we can't vote today because people are running for President. We have never done that. We have lost by one vote. And we have gone ahead and refiled amendments. We have taken our lumps.

On this occasion, we gave adequate notice that we think it is a good idea to vote on Tuesday. But we never tried to play games as to why we wanted that. We have done this on one occasion. This is an extremely important vote for the country.

What I am saying is that I guess we are in a no-win situation. If the majority leader says we are not going to vote on it today, then I don't see any alternative. But we are not going to be able to finish this bill. This is an important bill for the people of the State of Nevada.

It is an important bill for the people of this country. But the overtime issue is also an important issue.

I say to my friend from Pennsylvania that we are going to vote on this issue whether it is on this bill or if we are unable to finish this bill when it comes back or on a continuing resolution--however it gets here. We have a right to vote on this amendment.

I don't understand why we cannot have a vote sometime today. That is my point. Let the leader schedule it, if he wants to, right now. Do it now. If he wants to do it at 6 o'clock tonight--whenever he wants to do it--we can set it up and get rid of all of these other amendments and be in pretty good shape to finish this bill tomorrow sometime.

Mr. President, if I may say one other thing, this kind of reminds me of Roger Miller. He was a songwriter. He wrote songs which I identified with more than my friend from Pennsylvania who probably likes opera and other things. But one of the lines in one of the songs which Roger Miller wrote was pride is the chief reason for the decline in the number of husbands and wives. I think that is really true. That is what we have here. We are being prideful saying I got you and you got me. Why don't we, as adults, try to work this out so we can have a vote on overtime. We want it at 3:15. Have the leader set it any time he wants today but complete the other amendments that are important. It is a tough vote. There is no question about that. Most of them are 60- vote waivers.

I would like to finish this bill. I know the Presiding Officer has a real interest in this. Once we knock this out, we have eight more appropriations bills to go. We might be able to do another one this week. That would leave seven. That puts us in pretty good shape to finish all of this.

We want a certain time this afternoon, but we can do it some other time. We will swallow whatever pride we have, and hopefully you folks will, and we can finish this bill.

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

Mr. President, last week the Labor Department announced we had lost almost 100,000 more jobs in the month of August. Almost 9 million American people are unemployed. Almost 2 million of these people have been out of work for more than 6 months. As bad as these numbers are, the real story is even worse. These figures don't include 1.7 million people who want work but have given up looking for it and are no longer counted in the unemployed listed by the Labor Department. They don't qualify.

The problem is especially frightening among minority groups. Unemployment among African Americans is double the rate for whites. It is much harder for Hispanic and Asian Americans to find jobs.

Some may have heard the economy in Nevada is booming. We are so fortunate. It isn't as bad as it is in some places. But ``booming'' is not the proper term for it. People in Nevada, as good as it is, are having a lot of problems. We have more than 90,000 people out of work. These numbers are grim, and they don't even begin to tell the story.

Every time we lose a job, it threatens another family's American dream--the dream of owning a home, building a strong community, giving children a good education.

Some have said the economy is recovering. But is it recovering when we are still losing jobs to the tune of 100,000 a month? We know job loss is not a normal function of the business cycle. Job loss reflects more serious underlying problems with our economy such as the alarming loss of manufacturing jobs. In the last 3 years, we lost 16 percent of our manufacturing jobs. This is serious, and we need to take it seriously. We need a plan to create more jobs.

Unfortunately, the administration's only plan seems to be more of the same. Since January of 2001, we have lost more than 3 million jobs. This is the first administration since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs, and our President says more of the same.

We have to do something different. Instead of a continual program of tax breaks for those who have the most, we have to create jobs for those who want to work. We can create jobs by building new schools, roads, bridges, by rebuilding our decaying sewer systems, and by replacing broken water pipes. Any State in the Union qualifies for new schools, new roads, new bridges, and, of course, rebuilding our decaying sewer systems and replacing broken water pipes.

All over America there are plans no longer on the drawing boards. They are ready to be executed. They just need the money. We can create jobs. For every billion dollars we spend on a public works project, we create 47,000 high-paying jobs. We can also create jobs by promoting new technology to produce energy, and we can do this by having a view that we should do more with renewable, nonpolluting sources. This will not only create jobs, it will benefit our environment and help us achieve energy independence.

We can save existing jobs by helping our financially burdened States so they do not have to raise taxes on working families and small businesses. We can reverse this trend. We can save the jobs we have and help create new ones. We have to be innovative.

I hope the President will consider joining with this Senator and others who want to push what we call the American Marshall Plan; that is, have the Federal Government spend money to create jobs. These jobs are not Government jobs; they are private sector jobs.

I repeat, for every $1 billion we spend, there are 47,000 high-paying jobs, and the spinoff from those jobs is unbelievably large. That is what we need to do. America needs it. We need it to create jobs, but we also need it to make America a better place to live with better roads, bridges, dams, cleaner water, and able to adequately dispose of our sewer problems.

Mr. President, I hope we can do some of these activities in the immediate future, and I hope we are joined by the administration.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, while the two leaders are on the floor, I have spoken with Senator Byrd. His amendment has been pending for a long time. He indicated he is ready for a vote now. I wonder when the two leaders wish to begin that first vote. It is on amendment No. 1543, Senator Byrd's amendment. Can we do that?

Will the Senator yield?

To give people a little bit of notice, Senator Durbin is going to be one of the four votes tonight. He is going to take 10, 15 minutes to offer his amendment, which is one of the four amendments tonight. As soon as he does that, maybe we can start voting. He needs 15 minutes and the Senator from Pennsylvania needs time to speak in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we think this is a tremendous step forward. However, we are trying to get a fourth vote as the two leaders have requested. Both of those amendments are those by the Senator from Connecticut, the senior Senator from Connecticut: one dealing with Head Start and one dealing with special education. The one on Head Start he has not offered yet, but he wanted to do that tonight. There was a time period--we were told we could not do that because there was a second-degree amendment. We next come to the special education amendment, No. 1572. We are told the same thing.

We are in good faith trying to move this bill. But we can't be expected to meet the impossible. We have waited here a couple of days trying to move this stuff forward. We come up with amendments and people say we can't let you do that one. We are doing our best to meet the suggestion of the Senator from Tennessee, the majority leader. We asked Senator Dodd, and he has agreed to do it in 20 minutes evenly divided--Head Start.

There is no objection at this point to the unanimous consent request. We hope we can add to it.

We can announce that prior to the next vote beginning.

Mr. President, under the applicable statutes, I move to waive the point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessary 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 Florida (Mr. Graham), 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 Florida (Mr. Graham), 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.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I am not going to debate this amendment tonight. We have no vote scheduled tomorrow. I am not sure we are going to have a vote on it tomorrow. But I will discuss it tomorrow. I am not going to discuss it anymore tonight.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will my friend yield?

It is my understanding you are going to raise a budget point of order on the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey?

I missed the first part of the debate.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays on the Corzine amendment.

Reserving the right to object, Senator Schumer has offered only one amendment, so we will make sure that we are voting on the right amendment. Senator Schumer is No. 1598, so the Record should reflect that. I ask, further, that the request of my friend from Pennsylvania be modified that the following would be added: That there be 4 minutes for debate equally divided prior to Reed amendment No. 1595. That would be after the Schumer amendment. Rather than 2 minutes, it would be 2 minutes on each side, a total of 4 minutes. Further, I ask that the votes following the Harkin amendment be 10 minutes in length.

Prior to entering the consent, Mr. President, I would note that we hope to have three more votes lined up here. On the Mikulski amendment, there has been a good faith offer made by the other side. We will discuss that with Senator Mikulski in the morning. Maybe we won't have to have a vote on that. And then we were hoping to have a vote on the Dodd and Gregg amendments. We will do those side by side. The two leaders agreed that those two votes would follow the Harkin amendment. I am not going to say a lot about that now. I know Senator Gregg says he does not have his ready to go yet. I have spoken to Senator Dodd at home this evening. He said he is agreeable to doing it following this sequence of votes. So following the Corzine amendment, I hope we can have the two votes that are going to be cast dealing with Dodd and Gregg which are on the same subject matter, I understand.

Having said that, I have no objection to the consent as modified.

Mr. President, it's been more than a year and a half since the No Child Left Behind Act became law. By passing that bill into law, we reaffirmed our commitment to provide every American child with a quality education.

The education of our children must be one of our top priorities, because they are the future of this country. We have to give them the tools they need to succeed.

Unfortunately, the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq have driven education off the national agenda. This is especially disappointing now because public schools across the Nation are in jeopardy as States struggle to close unprecedented budget deficits. At a time when NCLB is imposing new unfunded mandates on States and local governments, schools have watched helplessly as their budgets have been slashed. Many of these schools are located in poor and rural areas, where the achievement gap is widest. These schools simply don't have the resources they need to do their job, and children are being left behind as a result.

Some States, including Nevada, face an additional problem. These States have extremely high rates of population growth, and as a result they find themselves in a never-ending race to fund the growing demand for education. The formulas that allocate Federal education dollars usually don't factor high growth rates into their calculations. So, schools in these States find their backs against the wall even in the best fiscal conditions. You can imagine how precarious their situation is in a time of record federal and state budget deficits.

I mentioned my State, Nevada. The condition of its public schools is, in many ways, quite dismal. Nevada has one of the highest high school dropout rates in the country and one of the lowest high school graduation rates. It is near the bottom in performance on national reading, writing, and math tests. Per-pupil, Nevada spends less money on its students than all but five other States. I could cite many other statistics, but you get the picture--and it isn't pretty.

There is no magic fix for the problems facing schools in Nevada, or any other state. And because schools are primarily the responsibility of individual states, there is only so much the federal government can do to help. But I believe Nevada's problems stem in part from the fact that its high growth rate prevents it from receiving its fair share of Federal education funding. Nevada is the fastest growing State in the Nation by a wide margin. Its schools struggle each year to make room for new students. Despite all this, Nevada is dead last in Federal per- pupil education funding. And I want to reiterate that this problem is not unique to Nevada--schools in other states also face budget strains as a result of high population growth rates.

These States deserve their fair share of federal education dollars. It is an issue of fundamental fairness. I hope that we will address this problem in a comprehensive manner the next time we revisit NCLB. In the meantime, however, we should take this opportunity to correct a similar flaw in the way we fund Head Start.

Throughout its 38-year history, Head Start has helped put millions of at-risk children on the path to success by giving them the social and academic skills they need to succeed in elementary school. It is a textbook example of a Federal program that has worked.

Consider some of the statistics. At-risk children who participate in a quality early childhood education program are 33 percent more likely to graduate from high school, and 25 percent less likely to repeat a grade. Since a year of public education for one student costs approximately $5,900, it is safe to say that Head Start has saved taxpayers millions of dollars.

Young women who participated in a quality early childhood education program have 33 percent fewer children out of wedlock, and are 25 percent less likely to become teen mothers. Every dollar we invest in Head Start translates into four dollars of benefits for at-risk children, their families, and American taxpayers.

So as you can see, Head Start is a critical component of public education in this country. Its holistic approach also addresses many of the underlying causes of poor academic performance by providing medical services and guidance for parents of at-risk children.

But State budget crises have placed Head Start programs under siege along with all other aspects of public education--and programs in high- growth states are among the hardest hit. Nevada has seven centralized Head Start agencies that administer almost 50 Head Start programs throughout the State. At current funding levels, these programs serve approximately 2,500 at-risk children not nearly as many as they could serve with adequate resources.

We need to do everything in our power to help Head Start programs meet demand, because better-prepared students make elementary and secondary schools more effective. And because Head Start is a partnership between the Federal Government and States, Congress has the power to make a real difference on this issue.

That is why I am today introducing the High Growth Head Start Assistance Act. It will reward high-growth States, such as Nevada, for their commitment to Head Start by ensuring that programs in their state receive their fair share of Federal funds.

Congresswoman Berkley has introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives, and I applaud her leadership on this issue.

This bill will make a difference in the lives of thousands of at-risk children in Nevada and across the Nation. It is a matter of fundamental fairness. Most important, it represents a small but significant step toward fulfilling the promise we made a year and a half ago--a promise to leave no child behind.

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