Floor Statements

Mr. President, while the majority leader is in the Chamber, having heard the distinguished manager of the bill on two separate occasions--yesterday and today--talking about his desire to complete the bill, all members of the Appropriations Committee want to complete this bill and I would like to finish this bill. The Democratic leader has indicated that he wants to cooperate in any way we can to move these bills along.

Having said that, we have some real problems. Today is Wednesday. Tomorrow is Thursday. That is my reason for asking the distinguished majority leader if he would respond. Does the leader have an idea about what we are going to do on Friday? One of the problems we have, of course, is even when we have votes on Friday, it is on a relatively unimportant matter most of the time. If we are going to work tomorrow, there is not a chance we can complete this bill, no matter how late we work tonight and Thursday.

We have 40 amendments we have already identified. I said to the manager of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, that probably 25 percent of those the managers could agree on. That still leaves 30 amendments. There are a number of them that are quite controversial. If we are going to leave here Thursday night, I just do not think we can do it. Miracles happen.

Mr. President, through you to the distinguished majority leader, I was in a meeting yesterday with the Democratic leader, and I think we are at a point where those conferees can be appointed. I am very confident it can be done today.

Mr. President, has the bill been reported this morning?

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, this amendment relates to programs that help Hispanic children. This is more than just numbers, statistics; it deals with real people, kids who can be helped by special programs.

What does this mean? Does it mean we are spending more money to be spending more money? What it means is we will be spending more money to save money. For every $1 we spend in our country for these programs, we save $10 in welfare costs, educational costs, costs to the criminal justice system. These programs deal with children, I repeat.

One of the programs is a program called the High School Equivalency Program which assists students of migrant parents who have dropped out of high school to earn their GED.

Here is what Tedrel Eubanks said:

[The high school equivalency program] exposed me to college

life. This was something beyond my wildest dreams. I had

never given any real thought to finishing high school, not to

mention going to college. The more I attended GED classes,

the more excited I became. The more time I spent on the

University campus taking part in various activities, the more

determined I became about getting my GED certificate and

graduating and enrolling at [Mississippi Valley State

University].

And that is what he did.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I just offered be on my behalf and on behalf of the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.

Another program that is a tremendously important program that is greatly affected in an adverse way by this bill we have before us is a program called the College Assistance Migrant Program, referred to as CAMP, which assists migrant students in their first year of college with personal academic counseling and stipends. These programs have been enormously successful. But rather than talk about, again, statistics, let me talk about a person by the name of Maria de Lurdes Reynoso.

Maria said she went to the Boise State University CAMP. She said:

[The] Boise State University's CAMP scholarship has been a

stepping-stone in my college career. CAMP is much more than a

scholarship. From academic support to career opportunities,

CAMP helps its students become successful individuals. One of

the most important goals of my life was to receive a college

education. But more than anything, I have always wanted to

travel and see new places. CAMP placed me on the right track

and assisted me with a career and extracurricular

opportunities. This summer I will be traveling out of the

country to do an internship in Guadalajara, Mexico with the

Department of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture.

This Spring I will be graduating with a degree in

International Business and minors in Finance and Spanish,

thanks to the guidance and support of the people who make up

the . . . CAMP program [at Boise State University].

Mr. President, this isn't a statistic that is a throwaway. This is a statistic that deals with a young lady who would have never, ever been able to go to college and then complete college.

We have another program called the Migrant Education Program. These funds are used to identify and recruit migrant students, to provide screening for health problems, and to provide resources to enable the children to receive appropriate medical care.

As to this program, I would like to take just one case history of a young person who said:

At my new school, I was identified for the Migrant

Education Program.

Oscar Guzman said:

The teacher who was in charge of my class helped my mother

with all of the paperwork and records transfer. He also

arranged for a health check up for me, which I continued to

get every year through the eighth grade. The Migrant

Education Program had a special reading group for migrant

students, which helped me with my English.

I am the first person in my family to go to college. My

parents are very proud of my decision to go to college and

expect me to go far. My dad always tells me that I am going

to [be able to] work in an air-conditioned office with a

secretary. My aunts and uncles are also very proud of me and

use me as an example for my cousins. I hope to be in a

position where I can make a difference in education and

agriculture in order to improve the lives of families like my

own.

I would not be here today if it were not for the Migrant

Education Program in fifth grade that put me on a path of

academic achievement and the other migrant programs that

helped me succeed.

``Because of these programs,'' Oscar said, ``my life was made easier and my parents' dream of a better life for me and my brother will come true.''

That is what these amendments are about. These amendments are about improving the lives of young people. I think we all learn a culture by listening to its native language, its native tongue. Every time I hear someone speak Russian, I think of my deceased father-in-law who was born in Russia. He came as a little boy. I am confident that he didn't speak a word of Russian but I do know that his parents spoke extremely broken English. I didn't know his parents, my wife's grandparents. I think of a series in public radio recently about trying to bring back people who have written books in Yiddish. Of course, both of my in-laws used to speak Yiddish when they didn't want me to know what was going on. I think we learn a lot about a culture by listening to people's languages.

Among Latino Americans, ``aspirar'' has special meaning. It is similar to our verb ``aspire'' but it carries a greater sense of urgency. It invokes dreams of a better life, striving for a better future, among people who work hard just to make ends meet.

Children are the hope of every culture, and it is no different for Latino Americans. They are the youngest demographic group in our country and the fastest growing. More than one-third of Latino Americans are under 18 years of age.

So the great aspiration of Latino Americans, as all immigrants who have come to our country, is a good education for their children. We recognize that with this wave of immigrants, as with previous waves of immigrants, the parents are the ones who are uneducated and doing the menial work. They have aspirations, desires, wishes, and prayers for their children to be able to become educated so they don't have to do the menial work that they are doing.

We recognize that there is an unacceptable gap in academic achievement between Latino students and the overall student population. We have agreed that it should be this Nation's policy to leave no child behind. Now it is time to live up to those words.

That is why this amendment I have offered with Senator Bingaman--the Hispanic education opportunity amendment--to help Latino students achieve dreams is important.

This amendment would invest an additional $210 million in our Nation's future by strengthening these programs. I have talked about the programs--not all of them--such as the Hispanic-serving institutions, the high school equivalency program, the College Assistance Migrant Program, the local family information centers, dropout prevention, 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 communities and higher education. Despite appropriations under title V, these institutions still haven't 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 studying for the GED. The Senate's bill--the one before us-- slashes funding for these programs by

43 percent and would eliminate 23 programs to achieve a combined GED completion rate of almost 73 percent.

The proposed budget also cuts the College Assistance Migrant Program by $400,000. As I indicated with the example I gave earlier, these recruits are important. They are talented migrant high school graduates and GED recipients, and this mentors 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, almost three- quarters of all CAMP students received baccalaureate degrees.

The existing HEP and CAMP programs serve approximately 15,000 students. Of these 15,000 students, the vast majority--about 75 percent--will graduate from college. They will not be welfare dependent and will not have problems with the criminal justice system. And, of course, they won't be creating problems in the educational system. Over the next years, about 170,000 migrant children will become eligible for HEP, while 140,000 will qualify for CAMP. Funding for these programs should be increased, not cut. That is why this 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 Nevada, we have probably a thousand migrant students, and they make up more than half the students in Amargossa in Nye County, where my brother lives. These children have hard lives, and if any child ever deserved a head start in school, they do. Yet we have not had a single migrant Head Start Program in all of Nevada. People think of Nevada only as a place where you have the bright lights of Las Vegas and Reno but we have farming communities.

In the Amargossa Valley, there are very large dairy farms. In Lyon County, we have the largest producer of white onions in America. Migrant farm workers come there in waves. Yet we don't have a single program in Head Start for these children. They are left behind even before they begin school. We need to offer Head Start to 10,000 new migrant children. My amendment would move us toward that goal.

We know parental involvement is a crucial factor in a child's school 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. An additional investment will strengthen the ties between Latino families and their children's schools. This is good for the whole community.

This amendment also addresses the programs for dropout prevention and bilingual education. Senator Bingaman and I have worked for years together on the dropout programs. We believe there should be a dropout czar in the Department of Education that works on nothing but doing something to prevent dropouts in our country.

In Nevada, we have 50,000 students with limited proficiency in English. And Latinos have the highest dropout rate of any demographic group in our State. These programs will help Nevada, and many other States, too, with growing Hispanic populations.

In the past, we have received Federal grants for two dropout programs, at Pyramid Lake High School, a Paiute Indian school, and the Washoe County School District. But now the Senate HHS budget would eliminate all funding for these programs. The amendment I have offered would restore $20 million for dropout prevention.

None of these programs by themselves might seem that important, but taken together they give Latino Americans a better chance of realizing their hopes and dreams. Just as important, these measures will strengthen the American economy by building a more productive workforce.

Already, one-third of the new workers who join our labor force are Latino. In 20 years, it will be half. These are the workers who will pay taxes to keep our military strong, to educate our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and provide our Social Security in the future. So, you see, our future depends on the hopes and dreams of our Latino neighbors.

Aspirar--to hope. No matter what language we speak, we all understand what that means. We all have a stake in making it possible.

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

Mr. President, I ask my friend to modify that request following the word ``vote,'' that at 11:45 a.m., the amendment recur and that the time until 12 o'clock be equally divided and controlled between Senators Reid and Bingaman and Senator Specter. In effect, we will debate the matter from 11:45 a.m. until 12 o'clock and vote at 12 o'clock.

Mr. President, what we have done is meet with educators, we have met with members of the Hispanic community, and we have come to the conclusion that the programs that are included in this amendment are vital and should be increased and not decreased, and that these programs are, we think, programs that, as I indicated briefly in my statement, will not cost this country money but will save the country money in the long term.

While the figure we have come up with may not be magically correct--I would like to have had more, but in working with the minority staff, we recognize there is a limit to what we can do, but we believe this is a small enough number that people should simply vote to waive the Budget Act. And I am confident there will be a budget point of order raised against this amendment on a bill such as this bill.

I say to my friend that a few months ago we were going to give Turkey $6 billion to help us in Iraq. Maybe we should say that $200 million to help people here who are going to help our country is just as important as that gift we were going to make to the people of Turkey.

I do apologize for being rude to my friend because I always appreciate his efficacy. I am sure not everyone in the Senate has read his book. I have. I know what a fine lawyer he is and the work he has done. But probably not listening to his response will make my day easier because I will then not realize all the inadequacies in my amendment and I would have to come back and respond to that argument. This way I can just speak from the high level and not have to worry about his--I will not say nitpicking but his really good debate. In this way, I will have one of my staff tell me some of the high points of his debate, and I will just hit the high points when I return.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, through you to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from New Mexico has worked on these issues for many years, and he keeps referring to this as the Reid amendment. This is the Reid-Bingaman amendment. It is offered in that way, and it was meant to be offered in that way because of the work he has done for the many years prior to this.

The question I would like to ask the Senator: One of the provisions in this amendment calls for more money for afterschool programs for Hispanic children. Does the Senator from New Mexico have the same problems in New Mexico that we have in Nevada with respect to Hispanic children dropping out at larger numbers than non-Hispanic children?

And would the Senator also agree, for every child we are able to keep in school, we save the Government--State, local, and the Federal Government--money as a result of these children being able to be educated rather than being out on the streets, so to speak?

Mr. President, while the two Senators have been discussing this amendment, we should not be diverted from the fact that this amendment is related to specific programs that help Hispanic children in America today. Dropout prevention, of course, is one of those programs. We cannot lose the goal we are attempting to accomplish in this amendment, and that is that we help people, and there are various programs I discussed earlier today that are set forth in detail in the amendment before the Senate. There is nothing more important than the dropout prevention program, but there are programs that are just as important to which this amendment is directed.

We are talking about, of the tens of billions of dollars in Federal programs that go to education, $200 million that will be directed to specific programs that will save our country huge amounts of money. It is estimated by some groups that for every dollar we spend in these programs which are the subject matter of this amendment, the Government will save up to $10.

I appreciate the discussion that has been held this morning between the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from New Mexico dealing with dropouts, but this amendment deals with far more than just that program.

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

Mr. President, the amendment we will vote on at 12 noon that has been offered by the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from New Mexico has the support of many groups around America. I will mention just a few: National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, National Council of La Raza, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC, Migrant Legal Action Program, National Association for Bilingual Education, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, National Association of State Directors of Migrant Education, National Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Association, National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc., National HEP-CAMP Association, ASPIRA Association, Inc.

These are just a few of the groups. I would say when this matter is voted on at 12 noon today, there are no excuses. In effect, what has happened is the President has recommended these programs to be eliminated in general, dropout programs specifically. This is the opportunity for the Senate to speak that this is wrong. This is the opportunity for the Senate to recognize that there are programs that are important to the safety and salvation and security of this country other than those addressing things that explode.

One of the things that is important to protect the security of this Nation is an educated population. That means educating all young people, no matter their background, their ethnicity, their religion, where they come from, because it is better for us all when that occurs.

We will shortly begin the final 15 minutes of debate on this matter, and I ask that everyone realize that there are groups who believe this amendment is important. They believe it is important because their sole function is to protect children. This amendment will help children.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding we are now in the time where there will be 15 minutes equally divided for the proponents and opponents of this amendment; is that true?

I would reserve the final 3 minutes, in that we are the movers of this amendment, for Senator Bingaman. That would be 3 minutes before the hour that Senator Bingaman have the final 3 minutes.

When my time is up, which would be in 4\1/2\ minutes, would the Chair so advise me?

Mr. President, some of my distinguished colleagues have asked whether we can afford to give this helping hand to a select group of students, namely Hispanic students. I say we cannot afford to ignore them. Take, for example, Clark County, which is in Las Vegas, in Nevada. In the Clark County School District, which is the fifth or sixth largest school district in America with more than a quarter of a million students, about 30 percent of the students are Latinos. This amendment would apply to those students. We need to give a helping hand to the Clark County School District through additional moneys.

It is unfair that the President of the United States has recommended eliminating the dropout prevention program for Hispanic students-- eliminated it. He has cut other programs to which this amendment applies. It is simply not right. People in Nevada will suffer as a result of that.

Latino children have the highest dropout rate of any ethnic group in America. It is nothing they are proud of; it is something they are trying to work on. Hispanic leaders talk about education. For the Latin Chamber of Commerce in Las Vegas, and it is a huge organization, that is their No. 1 priority: What are we going to do to keep our children in school? They have a scholarship program to send kids to a community college, to our colleges in Nevada. It is working well. But we need to do something to help the public school system keep these children in school.

We know for every dollar spent on preventing dropouts, we save more than $9 in the future. Today, one in every three new workers in our labor force is Hispanic. In 20 years, half of our new workers will be Hispanic. That means the money to pay for Social Security in the future, and our national security in the future, will come from Hispanic workers who are starting in school today. If we shortchange these children, we shortchange ourselves and our children in the future. But if we invest in these children, we invest in our future.

This amendment, offered by Senator Bingaman and this Senator, would provide a helping hand to Hispanic children by investing an additional $210 million in Head Start, dropout prevention, bilingual education, college assistance for children, and other programs. The fact is, there is an unacceptable gap in academic achievement between Latino students and the overall student population. We have made a promise to all children in America that we will leave no child behind. It is time to live up to those words.

I spoke today about this being more than statistics and numbers, more than cuts and percentages of cuts, but of programs that actually help children. I, today, spoke about Maria de Lurdes Reynoso, who is a better person today as a result of these programs. I spoke about another young person by the name of Oscar Guzman, who is now in a program so that he is going to graduate from college. That is what this is all about--helping children.

Tedrel Eubanks of Mississippi Valley State University--one of these programs allowed her to get a high school diploma and then go to college, something her family never dreamed that any one of them could do.

We have learned this morning from actual cases about one child in the family is not only making a tremendous impression on his siblings but on all of his cousins.

For every dollar spent here, we save our country $10. We are talking about spending $200 million and saving the country $2 billion. My math may be a

little bit wrong there, but you get the point.

Mr. President, the manager of the bill isn't here. I have asked unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman be recognized for the last 3 minutes. No one is here for the majority to respond, and I ask unanimous consent that the time run against the majority.

Mr. President, are we in a quorum call?

Mr. President, if the distinguished manager of the bill and others need additional time, I will be happy to agree to that. I just want to make sure there is no time wasted.

I suggest the absence of a quorum under the previous condition.

Madam President, pursuant to the Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), 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.''

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I know the hour is 12:30 and we will recess for the weekly caucuses. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Madam President, we just completed a very important vote prior to the break. Senator Bingaman and I offered an amendment to increase funding for programs relating to Hispanic children. There was a point of order raised and that amendment was defeated.

I understand that. But I have trouble understanding a communication released today from the White House. On this very day we were voting on important issues relating to Hispanic children in America, they released this communication that talks about an historic partnership to improve educational opportunity for Hispanic children. This is nothing but fluff, big piles of fluff.

When it comes to putting the programs where their mouth is, nothing ever happens. We had an opportunity this morning to vote to help Hispanic children, and what do we get from the White House? We get a press release talking about an opportunity to sit down and talk. Here is the statement: The partners will work with local communities to reinforce positive expectations.

The positive expectations were the programs that have been cut and eliminated by this White House.

I hope the American public sees what is happening. What we have from the White House is nothing but piles of paper, nothing to help the children about whom I spoke earlier today, including Ted Eubanks, Mississippi Valley State University, or Maria de Lurdes Reynoso, who talked about programs that changed her life, or Oscar Guzman, who talks about programs that have given his family dignity as the first person in his family to attend college.

I repeat for the third time in these few minutes, I am willing to understand the defeat that has just occurred where, with rare exceptions, the majority voted against the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico and me to help Hispanic children. I understand that. However, to have the hypocrisy, the same day, issuing this release, ``Historic partnership to improve education for Hispanic Americans,'' is absolutely ridiculous.

Amendment No. 1552 To Amendment No. 1542

Mr. President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for a question?

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the manager of the bill is working to set up a series of votes beginning at 5:45 p.m. today; is that right?

Just to alert Members, we are going to have one, possibly three votes at 5:45 p.m.; is that right?

Reserving the right to object, is the manager of the bill going to raise points of order on these two amendments?

I am wondering if we might be able to accomplish that now to save a little time so we might not have to go through that later.

I would move to waive that and ask unanimous consent that we be able to handle both of these points of order at the same time. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to waive the two points of order en bloc. And then I would ask for the yeas and nays.

That is the wish of the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, if the Senator will allow me to, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order that the yeas and nays be allowed on both waivers.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, prior to September 11, I proposed legislation called the American Marshal Plan. This legislation received the support of the National Council of Mayors and other governmental entities, recognizing that it was extremely important that our country do something about the deteriorating infrastructure. Hearings were held. We had mayors from around the country testify as to the state of the infrastructure in their cities. We were moving along very well until September 11 and then we were certainly distracted from this and many other things. We have been trying now for many months.

I am ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation. There is no bill more important to States--I say that without any question-- every 6 years than the 6-year Transportation bill. It deals with highways, but it also importantly today deals with mass transit. I think it is a blot on this Congress that we do not have a Transportation bill. We have not even had a markup in committee. I am terribly disappointed that this is the case. We will not be able to do a highway bill this year.

It only makes sense that when we haven't had a markup in committee on a bill that is going to handle the highway and transit needs of this country for 6 years, it takes a little bit of discussion in the subcommittee, in the committee, and certainly on the floor. I would hope that the Republican leadership is at least anticipating that we will do a reasonable extension so that States around the country can at least go forward. It is better than doing no bill.

The State of Nevada is a rapidly growing State. We have tremendous highways needs, and now with the tremendous growth that has taken place in the Las Vegas and Reno areas, we have mass transit needs.

We are in the process of opening a monorail system. We are anticipating a light rail system. We have needs not only for our highways but also our mass transit. This is the way it is all over the country. It is beyond my ability to comprehend how we talk about all that we are going to do but have not mentioned the highway bill.

I am reminded of your father, the chairman of the full committee, who did a highway bill. I served on that committee. I have served on that committee since I have been in the Senate. The late great John Chafee pushed a highway bill. He was a person who was able to compromise. He understood that legislation is the art of compromise. But in this forum we are now in, it is either their way or no way. We have no bill.

I worked, when I first came here, with Senator Stafford of Vermont. He is a wonderful gentleman to whom I wrote a letter recently. I can't remember, I think it was on his 90th birthday. He was old and still very healthy. We have done a highway bill with Senator Moynihan, Senator Baucus. It appears we will not do a highway bill now. I think that is just bad government. I don't know how anyone can take pride in not having a highway bill. We have funding problems.

Remember, these are not taxes that we are suddenly going to assess the American people to pay for highway and transit. Every time someone goes to buy a gallon of gas for their car, they pay a tax; it goes into a trust fund. We use these trust fund moneys for these bills that come up every 6 years. People ask, Who is paying for mass transit? A decision was made many years ago that because every person we put on mass transit takes pressure off the highways, we would allocate about 20 percent of our highway funds to mass transit.

It helps our highway programs generally. All we want to do is spend the trust fund money, but this administration will not let us do that. They are afraid if we spend the money in the trust fund--it should not be a slush fund; it is a trust fund--they are afraid if we spend the money collected for the purpose of building highways, we will make the deficit look bigger. I don't know how we could make it look bigger. The deficit now is about $500 billion, and if we add the Social Security surpluses, which are masking the deficit, it is near $600 billion for 1 year, the largest deficit in the history of this country by far.

Also, people are trying to rewrite the endangered species act, clean air act, and historical preservation laws in a highway bill. That is not the place to do that, Mr. President.

I hope some attention will be focused on what this Senate is not doing, not passing a highway bill. If we do not do a bill at the right time, we will have problems letting construction because some States have very cold weather and they have to plan their construction needs to meet the weather of that particular State. If we fail to pass a long-term bill, it takes away all the ability of State highway engineers, managers, and State highway directors to plan ahead. The way we are able to get the most money out of the trust fund dollars is to do a 6-year bill. Doing a bill a year at a time costs a lot more money.

There are issues that are on the must-do list. I don't know the exact number of times we have voted on whether to invoke cloture on Estrada, who wants to be a circuit court judge, but I think it is seven, eight, maybe 10 times. It is a total, absolute waste of the Senate's time. A vote has not changed from the time the first vote occurred to the last one, but yet it is time the Senate is taking. Why aren't we spending that time on the highway bill?

A lot of time is spent by the majority talking about the Senate Democrats are so hard to deal with; they are not allowing the President to have his judges. We have approved--I don't know the exact number; I think it is around 140--140, and we have not approved three. We waste so much time here on issues that do not advance the needs of this country.

The appropriations bill is an important bill. I think we have had some important discussion and debate. Tomorrow we have 11 amendments lined up to be offered on this bill. It is important we move this bill as quickly as we can. But in the process, talking about the things that we must do, I would hope people would understand the importance of a highway bill: For every billion dollars we spend on highways or infrastructure development generally, 47,000 jobs are created, high- paying jobs. That does not include the jobs that spin off from those jobs. For every one of those 47,000 people working, they are able to buy a new car, recarpet their home, buy a home, buy a TV set, and then in turn other people work.

I guess this administration is not worried about employment, which is obvious. The previous administration, the Clinton-Gore administration, created about 23,000,000 or 24,000,000 jobs. Going back to the time of Herbert Hoover, under this administration, it is the first time a President has had a net job loss, which is over 2 million jobs now. It seems to me it would be a good idea for this administration to join to do something to push a highway bill to put out billions of dollars for construction which creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.

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 Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), 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 Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), 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.''

On behalf of two Senators, I object.

Mr. President, if the Senator will allow me to say a few remarks prior to that without the Record appearing interrupted.

I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. President, let me say first of all that the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa have done remarkably important work over the last many years on this most important piece of legislation which we have to move every year. They have done tremendous work for the National Institutes of Health and for the Centers for Disease Control. I think we owe them a debt of gratitude for recognizing the problems which we have and which have been addressed.

Let me say very briefly that if we maintain the schedule we have now had for this entire year where we have very few votes on Fridays--if we have votes, they are usually inconsequential--and we have no votes until late Monday, we can't do all the work that needs to be done. Everyone might as well acknowledge that. We work here on a 3-day workweek basically. That is what we have been working on. We can't do the nine appropriations bills that need to be done and the mass of other very important legislation. Once we get the bills passed, we have to do the conferences and bring those back. We have the important bills that are already in conference that are nonappropriations matters. Of course, we have the three appropriations bills in conference. But we have lots of things to do. I just alert everyone that it can't be done on a 3-day workweek.

I think it is very important to note that today there will be no votes. Yesterday was an important holiday. There were parades around the country and other festivities that Members of the Senate and House were involved in.

This bill is extremely important. It is a difficult bill. We are going to cooperate in any way we can.

We do have one procedural problem. I don't know how long it will take to work that out. We have the overtime amendment which the Senator from Pennsylvania is aware of. It will take some time.

We also have the Leave No Child Behind Program. I spoke to the State legislature in Nevada in February and said unless something happened we would be leaving lots of children behind. The State of Nevada and other States are really in deep trouble in education because the Federal Government is not doing what it needs to do.

There will be a series of amendments. They are 60-vote amendments. We have to go through those. At the present time, we have about 40 amendments, most of which are Democrat amendments. We acknowledge that. We are going to be as positive and as cooperative as we can be on this legislation, recognizing that it is a difficult bill.

I think realistically, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, who is much more experienced than I, having been here as long as he has been, it is going to be extremely difficult to finish this bill this week. Today is Tuesday. There are no votes today. We have Wednesday and Thursday. Unless we suddenly adopt a new procedure where we work more than 3 days a week--we will not be doing anything on Friday, but we are willing to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa.

Senator Daschle indicated to me this bill is important and that we have to work in any way we can to move it along, and we will do that.

Mr. President, it is traditional in the State of Nevada that the congressional delegation speak to the State legislature. In Nevada, the State legislature only meets every other year. This past February, I had the honor and pleasure of speaking to our State legislature. I spoke about a number of things, but one of the things I spoke about was the Leave No Child Behind Act, where I related to the recently convened Nevada State Legislature that I was terribly concerned about what was happening from a fiscal standpoint in the State of Nevada because I believed the Leave No Child Behind Act was leaving lots of kids in Nevada behind.

When I gave that statement, there were some who said, I think the Senator from Nevada is a little bit off, that Leave No Child Behind is going to work out just fine, that it will not have any impact on the State.

The State of Nevada, as with many States in the Union, went through a terrible fiscal crisis this year. The matter in Nevada had to finally be resolved in the courts. The State legislature was at an impasse. The Governor called several special sessions. As I indicated, he finally had to sue the State legislature and go to the Nevada Supreme Court. Following that, the supreme court ruled that certain parts of the method of obtaining money were unconstitutional, but the court did rule that education came first. The No. 1 requirement in the State of Nevada for the legislature was education.

The Leave No Child Behind Act is legislation that is extremely important, and the law has all the markings of being good legislation that we initiated here if, in fact, it is funded properly. But it has not been. As a result of that, Nevada and other States are in a tremendous bind.

It was 2 years ago that this Congress and the President made a promise to the children of America. We promised that every child would have an opportunity to get a good education and realize his or her dreams. We promised that teachers and schools would be held accountable for achieving results, but we promised extra help to those children who needed it the most so they would not get left behind.

I think we all felt pretty good about that promise. There was a nice bill signing ceremony at the White House and the new law was hailed as a great bipartisan achievement. That was 2 years ago.

Today, the children of America are keeping their part of the bargain. In the State of Nevada, as well as all over the Nation, kids have returned to school this month with their backpacks full of books, their hearts full of hope, their minds full of dreams. Our children are eager to learn and their teachers are eager to teach. Teachers are doing their part. As part of our promise to America's children, our teachers are accepting a higher standard of accountability. They understand that when a promise is made to somebody, they are accountable for keeping that promise.

I believe we should hold teachers accountable for getting results, but I think the American people should hold us accountable for keeping our promise that we made 2 years ago. That is why I have difficulty imagining that anyone would not support Senator Byrd's amendment. In effect, it is a commitment to fulfill our promise, the commitment that we already made to title I, the program that helps those children who need help the most. This amendment would mean a lot to the children of Nevada. It would provide more than $31 million for hard-strapped school systems that serve our neediest students. It would mean smaller classes, more training for teachers, and more educational materials.

In April of 2002, I held a hearing of the Appropriations Subcommittee in Las Vegas to find out about the impact of title I programs on the children of Nevada. We learned a lot. One of our witnesses was a woman named Tammie

Carter who had a child enrolled in the title I pre-K program at Kermit Booker Elementary School. Mrs. Carter told us how important title I programs are to her family. She told us how much our promise to all of America's children means to her own child.

We should not break our promise, even to that one child, let alone millions across America. We should live by the words we uttered 2 years ago. We must be held accountable. So I hope this amendment, which will take 60 votes--60 percent of the Senate will vote to allow this education measure offered by the senior Senator from West Virginia to go forward.

Mr. President, will my friend yield?

I can remember when my friend, the Senator from North Dakota, first started coming to the floor with charts indicating the trade deficits. I can remember back in 1996 and 1997 when I thought: The trade deficit is going up, but not very much; it is $170 billion. It went up $10 billion, and that sounds like a lot of money. Maybe there is something that can be done about that situation.

Now I think there is no way to rationalize what is happening. It was $170 billion in 1996, and we are over double that in just a few years. I say to my friend, I take pride, even though I have received a lot of criticism, in that I have not voted for a single trade agreement. I thought they were shortsighted and bad for our country, and I think time is proving I was right and the twisting of arms to get votes for these programs saying it would help was simply wrong.

I say to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, these are more than just statistics on a map or a chart or a graph. I have one daughter. My oldest child is a daughter. She is married to a wonderful man who was raised in Kannapolis, NC. I never heard the word ``Kannapolis'' until they fell in love and were married. I now have three grandchildren as a result of that union.

I have been to Kannapolis visiting with their family. Kannapolis is the sight of Cannon Mills where they make towels, sheets--all kinds of these products. It is a famous place in American manufacturing history and a very important part of North Carolina industry. Last week, Cannon Mills announced they were closing. The Cannon Mills plant in Kannapolis will be gone.

Kannapolis used to be a factory town where everyone who worked in Kannapolis worked for Cannon Mills. Thousands of people were employed at that factory. Cannon Mills has sent notice to everyone that the approximately 5,000 people who are at the Kannapolis plant will no longer have a job.

That is what Senator Dorgan's graph represents to me: Actual people such as Melvin Berringer, my daughter's father-in-law, a wonderful man in his eighties who spent his entire life working for Cannon Mills in Kannapolis. People who followed in his footsteps no longer work in Kannapolis. They are all through as a result of the trade policy of this country.

I have heard my friend from North Dakota in the past try to describe what the trade policy is. Is it unreasonable? Yes. Is it unrealistic? Yes. Is it unfair to us? Yes. There isn't a word one can come up with that adequately describes how the world's only superpower would put itself in the position where we have a $470 billion trade deficit. And we had the President yesterday saying: I think what we are going to do to solve the problem is appoint an assistant secretary of Commerce. That should handle the problem. Instead of having 19 people working on the $100 billion trade deficit with China, we can now have somebody calling once in a while to see what they can do to help the program. We will have an assistant secretary. That should solve all the problems if we appoint an assistant secretary of Commerce to solve the $470 billion trade deficit. That should solve the problem quite well.

I acknowledge, I appreciate, I compliment the Senator from North Dakota for being one of the few who understands trade policy and frequently speaks out, bringing it to our attention. It is something about which more should be speaking.

This is a problem that is only going to get worse unless this country changes what is happening. I repeat, I do not apologize to anyone for voting against every one of those trade agreements which I think were unfair because they dealt with those countries with environmental standards much different than ours, working conditions much different than ours, and employment standards much different than ours, making it unfair to American business.

The matter before the Senate is the appropriations bill that is being managed by Senators Specter and Harkin; is that true?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I think we need to have clear what numbers we are working with here. My friend--and I consider him a friend--the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the comanager of this bill, has spoken about the good things that have happened by virtue of the President of the United States, George Bush, and his requests for additional moneys for education.

But very seriously, that has to be tongue in cheek because the President has requested almost nothing as it relates to education. The Presiding Officer has not only been a distinguished Governor but also the Secretary of Education. I would ask that he and others look at what we are dealing with here. For example, in fiscal year 2003, the President of the United States requested an increase of $.4 billion. In the previous year, he requested $2.3 billion.

The increases that have come that my friend from Pennsylvania has spoken about have come as a result of pressure placed on this President, this administration, this Congress, by Democrats. As a result of that, we have gotten an extra $8.2 billion. All you have to do is look at what this President has requested. This isn't some kind of mathematical genius who comes up with these numbers.

In black and white, you see what the President requested. Those requests were an increase for fiscal year 2002 of $2.3 billion; for fiscal year 2003, $400 million. Fact. But as a result of work we have done here we were able to squeeze out additional moneys, an additional $8.2 billion. In fact, even for those we had to fight the administration.

Now, for fiscal year 2004, the President of the United States has requested $26 million for education. That is .05 percent over fiscal year 2003. And those fiscal year 2003 moneys were moneys that we forced upon the President. It is a .05-percent increase when States such as the State of Nevada are struggling for money, at a time when schools are struggling to meet the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act. But what this President is doing is leaving lots of children behind.

So let's not talk about, on this Senate floor, the increases that President Bush has obtained on leaving no child behind. We have obtained $8.2 billion more than he has requested, and we had to struggle to do that.

I repeat, this year, the President requested $26 million, a .05- percent increase over fiscal year 2003. For fiscal year 2004, he has asked for $.4 billion. Now, we were able to do a lot more than what he requested, and the children of America should thank us every day for doing that.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak of an American patriot.

Jim Pitts was my classmate during my 4 years at Basic High School in Henderson, NV. I have fond memories of Basic, and one reason is because I also have fond memories of my friend, Dr. Jim Pitts.

I remember when Jim and I were chosen to go to Reno as members of Boys State. We headquartered at UNR. For two young men from Henderson, where there is almost no greenery, it was almost unreal to see the green grass, the clear flowing water of the Truckee, and even Manzanita Lake.

Boys State is an experience I will always remember. And again, my memories of that experience will always include Jim Pitts.

I also recall our senior prom, Nancy Niece, a junior, was the prom queen . . . and Jim Pitts was president of the senior class. Jim and Mike O'Callaghan, who was one of our teachers and later served as Governor of Nevada, got the idea to bring in some flowers for the dance. It is an understatement to say we had flowers--they were literally everywhere! They were flown in from Hawaii. How they were purchased, I will never know. But what a prom Jimmy put together-- memories are made of this.

In high school, Jim was one of the smart kids. He was good at math, and he even liked science. So it was only natural that the faculty recognized his potential. With the support of his teachers and his family, he enrolled at the University of Oregon in Eugene. He graduated with honors, then went on to medical school at the University of Oregon in Portland.

Jim began his residency program to become a surgeon in Fresno, CA. But after 2 years, duty called, and Dr. Pitts joined the United States Army. He volunteered to become a paramedic. In lay terms, this is a medical doctor who parachutes out of airplanes to care for those who are injured in combat.

He served with the 101st Airborne Division during the bloodiest years in Vietnam, 1967-68. In Vietnam, Jim received the Bronze Star, the Army Accommodation Medal, and the Combat Medic Badge. His medical training gave him the skills needed to save lives. He was a hero.

After coming home from Vietnam, Jim returned to Fresno and completed his residency in general surgery. Dr. Pitts then moved back to Nevada, but this time he settled in the north, in Carson City. He has made his home in Carson City ever since, performing miracles and saving lives at the Carson-Tahoe Hospital.

In 1989, Dr. Pitts was honored as Distinguished Physician of the Year by the State Medical Association. He obviously passed his talents as a surgeon along to his son, Todd, who has been serving in his father's practice for the past 6 years.

But Dr. Pitts is not just a talented surgeon, he is also a great friend and a gentleman, a caring person who has made a tremendous difference in his community. And he passed these traits to his daughter Kathy, who teaches school here in Carson City. I know Jim and Carol are very proud of both of their children. And I know they, in turn, are both proud of their parents.

Since our high school days, Jim and I have rarely been able to spend much time together. He went his way, and I went mine. We have had an occasional dinner, and even went shooting together, but not often enough.

In spite of our limited contact, and the passage of 45 years, our friendship has never wavered. I am so proud of Jim and his accomplishments.

I recently wrote Jim a letter, expressing sympathy at the passing of his dear father. Little did I know when I wrote the letter that Jim was ill himself. As soon as I learned of his condition I called him, after worrying the entire weekend about my high school buddy.

When I called, I hoped I would be able to perk him up. But just the opposite occurred. Jim, always the physician, cheered me up.

He said, in effect, I am so fortunate to have the life I have, a wonderful family, and time to plan for the future.

I am sorry I can't attend the event to celebrate Jim's outstanding career, and at the same time--this sounds just like Jimmy Pitts--raise money for the Cancer Treatment Center at Carson-Tahoe Hospital.

Jimmy, may you know from your old boyhood friend of my love and affection.

Thinking of you, I am reminded of the old Jewish saying: ``Who finds a faithful friend, finds a treasure.''

Fifty years ago, I made a friend, and I found a treasure. Jimmy Pitts has truly been a blessing in my life.

Thank you, Jimmy.

Regular order.

Regular order.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), 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 ``nay.''

Would the distinguished majority leader yield for a question? Is the majority leader saying the bill that passed the Senate 88-11 last year, it would be brought to the floor and passed in the form it left the Senate?

If I could, briefly, before the majority leader leaves, if the proposal is the bill that passed the Senate 88-11 last year be brought to the Senate floor today in the form it passed, you got yourself a deal.

Yes.

If the Senator will yield, we have some people to speak, if the Senator will withhold the request.

Mr. President, I wasn't able to hear that.

The leaders are wishing to get the floor. How long will it be?

I have no objection.

I announce that 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 ``nay.''

I want to confirm that acceptance of this still does not create any opportunity to discuss nuclear waste issues in conference.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today for myself and Senator Ensign to introduce the Pahrump American Legion Post Land Conveyance Act. This Act will transfer approximately five acres of BLM land in Pahrump, NV, to the American Legion for the purpose of constructing a post home and other facilities that will benefit veterans' groups and the local community.

The American Legion and other non-profit organizations that represent our Nation's veterans in the vicinity of Pahrump, NV, have tripled in size over the last 10 years. The local memberships of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Disabled American Veterans will soon exceed 1000 members, and will continue to expand with the rest of the fast-growing local community.

The existing facility used by the veterans in Pahrump was built by the Veterans of Foreign Wars in the 1960s. It is much too small and not at all adequate for the veterans' current needs. The nearest facility that can accommodate them is located in Las Vegas, more than 60 miles away.

The Pahrump American Legion would like to build a post building, veterans' garden, and memorial park. These new facilities would benefit not only the local veterans, but would be made available--at no cost-- for community activities. The American Legion has tried for over six years to acquire a suitable tract of land to provide a home for a new veterans center. The Legion started a pledge campaign and raised over $16,000 for the building fund before the parcel of land they sought to acquire was removed from consideration by the BLM. Unfortunately, other tracts of land that might represent alternative sites in Pahrump are not suitable.

Mr. President, this situation is intolerable. Without a home, the Pahrump American Legion Post can't offer the kind of services and programs that the veterans in the area deserve. Our veterans aren't the only ones who are suffering, either. All across the United States, the American Legion is deservedly famous for supporting community activities like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, as well as the National Oratorical Contest, American Legion Baseball, Girls and Boys State, and other activities for young people. All of these worthy groups and projects would benefit from the construction of a new post home.

Our bill simply directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey this property from the Bureau of Land Management to American Legion ``Edward H McDaniel'' Post No. 22 in Pahrump. Because of the great public benefit such a facility will provide, we ask that the land be conveyed for free, but that the American Legion cover the costs of the transaction.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Rural Post Office and Community Preservation Act of 2003.

My legislation would prohibit the Postal Service from closing post offices in our Nation's small rural communities. Where the Postal Service has closed a rural post office, my legislation directs the Postal Service to provide a plan for the rehabilitation and economic development of such closed offices in consultation with the local community affected. It also authorizes $10 million in grants to local communities to assist in such rehabilitation. Finally, it provides that the Postal Service shall transfer the closed post office in Ely, NV, to White Pine County for such rehabilitation.

All across the Nation, the Postal Service is closing, consolidating, and moving post offices in our rural communities. Oftentimes, the Postal Service sells off centrally located and in many cases historic post offices in favor of moving the office to cheaper land on the outskirts of town. While this may result in a short-term economic gain to the Postal Service, there is both an immediate and long-term negative impact on the community.

A 1993 study by the National Trust for Historic Preservation tells us what we intuitively already know. That is, in rural communities, the post office is often the economic and social anchor of the town. When post offices are closed in our rural communities, nearby businesses suffer and the small-town character of the community is diminished.

Nevada knows the harm caused by closing rural post offices first hand.

Take the small town of Ely, NV, where roughly 3,700 Nevadans make their home. Located in northeastern Nevada, Ely is a charming small town surrounded by beautiful mountains and the cleanest air in America. Decades ago, Ely was a main stopover for public officials and movie stars alike as they traveled through the West, and was briefly the hometown of Pat Ryan who later became Pat Nixon, the First Lady of the United States, At the time, Ely's six-story Hotel Nevada was the tallest structure in the whole State of Nevada. Near the Hotel Nevada, Ely had a quaint post office that helped form the center of town. Today if you go to Ely, you will still find the Hotel Nevada. The mountains are just as beautiful. But you won't find the Ely Post Office in the center of town. Last year, over my objection and the objection of the people of Ely, the Postal Service closed the office.

My legislation introduced today would help prevent future rural post office closings like the one in Ely. It would also give the closed post office in Ely to the local community.

My legislation is not intended to be a criticism of the Postal Service. Many fine men and women work there. In fact, my bill is really a testament to the importance of our post offices and the Postal Service. It recognizes that over the history of our Nation, post offices have come to symbolize and offer more than just the practical service of keeping people in touch with friends and families in distant locales. Increasingly, the local post office has become the heart of the community, a place where people within small rural communities keep in touch with one and other.

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

Mr. President, I rise today for myself and Senator Ensign to introduce the Pahrump American Legion Post Land Conveyance Act. This Act will transfer approximately five acres of BLM land in Pahrump, NV, to the American Legion for the purpose of constructing a post home and other facilities that will benefit veterans' groups and the local community.

The American Legion and other non-profit organizations that represent our Nation's veterans in the vicinity of Pahrump, NV, have tripled in size over the last 10 years. The local memberships of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Disabled American Veterans will soon exceed 1000 members, and will continue to expand with the rest of the fast-growing local community.

The existing facility used by the veterans in Pahrump was built by the Veterans of Foreign Wars in the 1960s. It is much too small and not at all adequate for the veterans' current needs. The nearest facility that can accommodate them is located in Las Vegas, more than 60 miles away.

The Pahrump American Legion would like to build a post building, veterans' garden, and memorial park. These new facilities would benefit not only the local veterans, but would be made available--at no cost-- for community activities. The American Legion has tried for over six years to acquire a suitable tract of land to provide a home for a new veterans center. The Legion started a pledge campaign and raised over $16,000 for the building fund before the parcel of land they sought to acquire was removed from consideration by the BLM. Unfortunately, other tracts of land that might represent alternative sites in Pahrump are not suitable.

Mr. President, this situation is intolerable. Without a home, the Pahrump American Legion Post can't offer the kind of services and programs that the veterans in the area deserve. Our veterans aren't the only ones who are suffering, either. All across the United States, the American Legion is deservedly famous for supporting community activities like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, as well as the National Oratorical Contest, American Legion Baseball, Girls and Boys State, and other activities for young people. All of these worthy groups and projects would benefit from the construction of a new post home.

Our bill simply directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey this property from the Bureau of Land Management to American Legion ``Edward H McDaniel'' Post No. 22 in Pahrump. Because of the great public benefit such a facility will provide, we ask that the land be conveyed for free, but that the American Legion cover the costs of the transaction.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Rural Post Office and Community Preservation Act of 2003.

My legislation would prohibit the Postal Service from closing post offices in our Nation's small rural communities. Where the Postal Service has closed a rural post office, my legislation directs the Postal Service to provide a plan for the rehabilitation and economic development of such closed offices in consultation with the local community affected. It also authorizes $10 million in grants to local communities to assist in such rehabilitation. Finally, it provides that the Postal Service shall transfer the closed post office in Ely, NV, to White Pine County for such rehabilitation.

All across the Nation, the Postal Service is closing, consolidating, and moving post offices in our rural communities. Oftentimes, the Postal Service sells off centrally located and in many cases historic post offices in favor of moving the office to cheaper land on the outskirts of town. While this may result in a short-term economic gain to the Postal Service, there is both an immediate and long-term negative impact on the community.

A 1993 study by the National Trust for Historic Preservation tells us what we intuitively already know. That is, in rural communities, the post office is often the economic and social anchor of the town. When post offices are closed in our rural communities, nearby businesses suffer and the small-town character of the community is diminished.

Nevada knows the harm caused by closing rural post offices first hand.

Take the small town of Ely, NV, where roughly 3,700 Nevadans make their home. Located in northeastern Nevada, Ely is a charming small town surrounded by beautiful mountains and the cleanest air in America. Decades ago, Ely was a main stopover for public officials and movie stars alike as they traveled through the West, and was briefly the hometown of Pat Ryan who later became Pat Nixon, the First Lady of the United States, At the time, Ely's six-story Hotel Nevada was the tallest structure in the whole State of Nevada. Near the Hotel Nevada, Ely had a quaint post office that helped form the center of town. Today if you go to Ely, you will still find the Hotel Nevada. The mountains are just as beautiful. But you won't find the Ely Post Office in the center of town. Last year, over my objection and the objection of the people of Ely, the Postal Service closed the office.

My legislation introduced today would help prevent future rural post office closings like the one in Ely. It would also give the closed post office in Ely to the local community.

My legislation is not intended to be a criticism of the Postal Service. Many fine men and women work there. In fact, my bill is really a testament to the importance of our post offices and the Postal Service. It recognizes that over the history of our Nation, post offices have come to symbolize and offer more than just the practical service of keeping people in touch with friends and families in distant locales. Increasingly, the local post office has become the heart of the community, a place where people within small rural communities keep in touch with one and other.

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

Mr. President, while the majority leader is on the floor, we have had a number of conversations privately and publicly with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico on this electricity title. As I indicated last night, we have Senators Feinstein, Feingold, Boxer, Dayton, and Cantwell who have amendments to offer. All of them but Senator Cantwell have single amendments. Senator Cantwell may have two or three others. We will work with Senator Domenici to have time agreements on these. I

am confident and hopeful that the Senators offering the amendments will agree to time agreements.

I also note--and I say this as respectfully as I can to the distinguished majority leader, who I know has such a difficult job--the electricity title is very complicated. I think we are approaching this in the right way, to move through it as quickly as possible. We are cooperating in that regard. It makes it really difficult, as somebody trying to help move this along and help the two managers, to have these stops and starts. We just get going on something and then we have votes on judges.

I want everybody to understand I know how important Senator Hatch and others believe it is about these judges. For example, on Estrada, this will be the seventh vote. The votes are not going to change. We will take an hour of debate on that and get off the Energy bill, and then we will go back on it. It makes it extremely difficult. Senator Domenici told all his committee members during the committee markup that we know the bill isn't perfect, but we will have an opportunity on the floor to amend that. The leader has stuck by that. I think that is important.

Just as an effort to help, because you have to move this bill along, for example, the two Bingaman amendments--Senator Dayton cannot offer his amendments until those are disposed of. That is another procedural matter we have to deal with here.

We recognize we have a lot of work to do. We squeezed in yesterday an hour on trade while everybody was at the White House. I know the leader wants these two bills done, and the White House talked about how important they are. I think it is good we have time down as low as we do on a bill people feel so strongly about. From what I know, it should pass fairly easily--both of those trade agreements.

In short, I want the Senator from Tennessee, who, I repeat, has a tremendously difficult job, to understand we are doing everything we can to cooperate. I stated yesterday twice, and I will start the day off today saying, I don't know of a single Senate Democrat who doesn't want an Energy bill. The time line you have given us makes it really tough. We will cooperate in any way we can to move the schedule along despite the difficulties I see.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I say not only did President Johnson sign that extraordinary bill--38 years ago?

As soon as he signed the bill, Congress went out of session. That was a good example.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, the next amendment we will offer is an amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin dealing with the electricity section. He has agreed his time on it will take approximately a half hour. Senator Feingold is usually quite concise. The problem is that if we lock in this time agreement, people coming and wishing to speak on other subjects would not be able to do so. We have no reason to think anybody is going to or not going to. We don't want to have those time constraints. We are going to offer the next amendment. It would be the Feingold amendment.

Well, to be very direct to the Senator from New Mexico, as I want to be, the majority leader has told us we are going to vote on cloture tomorrow on the attorney general of Alabama, Mr. Pryor. We have had no opportunity to debate this. We will have a half hour tomorrow under the rules. We are going to have members of the Judiciary Committee come this afternoon and speak to the competency and the professionalism of the attorney general of Alabama to be a United States Federal judge. People are going to take some time doing that. When they will come, I don't know. But we wouldn't want them to be prevented from doing that because we are in a time agreement on the Feingold amendment.

If the Senator will yield for a question.

The Senator from California is here. The Senator from Washington has 7 minutes left. She wants to close. We have no more time than 7 minutes. The Senator from California wishes to speak on this amendment. She can only do that if unanimous consent is given to allow her to speak for up to 15 minutes. Otherwise, she will not be able to speak on the amendment. She wants to. Is that a fair description?

I ask unanimous consent that on the Cantwell amendment, the Senator from California be allowed to speak for 15 additional minutes and that, of course, the majority, if in fact they want 15 minutes, would have equal time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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