Floor Statements

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 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 ``yea.''

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 ``yea.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia be recognized to speak on the bill for up to 20 minutes and that following his statement, the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Arizona is here to speak. He will speak for 10 or 15 minutes, is my understanding.

We are at a point where we have very few amendments left. We have a couple that may take a little debate but I think most of them will be disposed of with minimal debate. I hope everyone understands we are moving this along as quickly as possible. The managers have worked for 2 weeks on this matter.

After the Senator from Arizona finishes his statement, we should be in a position to have a number of votes lined up for later this evening.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, has been extremely patient. He has been waiting for us to get a unanimous consent for his amendment. We are very shortly going to get that, but prior to that being announced, the Senator from Michigan is going to offer amendment No. 1111. He is going to speak for 10 minutes. Senator Stabenow will speak for 5 minutes, and Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus will speak for up to 10 minutes in opposition, if they need to. The leaders will arrange a vote at some time that they have agreed upon.

I ask unanimous consent that that be the case.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this is the greatest and most prosperous Nation in history. Nobody has worked harder to make this country great than our senior citizens. And few things weigh more heavily on their minds than the soaring cost of prescription drugs.

You would think such a great, prosperous Nation would honor its elders, by making sure they get the medicines they need. That is why a comprehensive, meaningful and voluntary drug benefit for our senior citizens has been among my highest priorities.

Over the last several weeks, this Senate has worked hard to achieve that. In the process, many of us who shared that goal have disagreed about how to react it. In the end, we wound up with a bill that is not how I would have created a prescription drug benefit. But it is a start.

I am voting for this bill, because I believe some benefit is better than none. I am voting for it because of people like Shirley Rosamond of Sparks, NV. Shirley, who is 78 years old, raised eight children in the Sierra Nevada. She currently spends $400 a month on medicine, and has less than $400 left over to live on. This bill would reduce her monthly costs to less than $20 in medicine. And it would provide a similar level of assistance for tens of thousands of Nevada seniors.

I am voting for this bill in the hope it will be like the camel's nose under the tent--a foot in the door for our senior citizens.

I'm hoping we will pass this bill today, and then improve it in the future. And, yes, there is plenty of room for improvement.

For example,this bill will do little to help seniors whose income is $15,000 a year or more. Even if they spend more than $100 a month on prescription drugs. That is why I voted to make the program more generous.

This bill doesn't take effect soon enough. That is why I voted for and cosponsored the Lautenberg amendment to move the start date up to 2004, instead of 2006.

There are gaps in the coverage this bill provides. That is why I voted for Senator Boxers' amendment to close the coverage gap, and Senator Graham's amendment to cancel premiums while coverage is suspended.

There were other amendments that were very good but were not agreed to. Finally, this plan is just plain confusing--which means it won't give our senior citizens the peace of mind they deserve.

I voted to address all of these issues. I wish we had succeeded, and that this bill would provide the kind of coverage our senior citizens need. We didn't and it doesn't.

We have to be honest with our senior citizens, and with the American people. This isn't the best we can do for our senior citizens, but it is the best we can do tonight.

I will vote for this bill today, because it provides a start toward fulfilling our promise to senior citizens. It a start, and I won't stop fighting until we finish the job.

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 ``yea.''

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 suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 ``yea.''

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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''.

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

Mr. President, I wish that I were able to express myself in a manner that is worthy of my feelings about the Senator from West Virginia. I can't do that, but I can do the best I can.

There isn't a day that goes by that I don't recognize personally how fortunate I am to live in this country and to represent the sovereign State of Nevada and to be a Member of the Senate. It is a blessing that I have had, for whatever reasons. Whether I am worthy or not, that is for someone else to determine. But one of the most important aspects of my life has been my association, my friendship, my service with the Senator from West Virginia, a man who served in the Congress for more than 50 years, who, like clockwork, comes to the Senate floor on special occasions like the Fourth of July or Thanksgiving, and makes us all feel better for having had the opportunity to listen to a speech by the Senator from West Virginia.

As I look back over the time I spent here on the Senate floor, listening to the Senator from West Virginia, I am drawn to a number of things I will never forget. I remember the speeches--and I sat with every one of them. I missed a couple of them, but I watched them in my office--the speeches on the fall of the Roman Empire that were based on the line-item veto. The Senator from West Virginia was indicating the line-item veto would be the beginning of the end of the Senate.

The Senator delivered those speeches without a note. I didn't realize at the time, but the Senator knew every word he intended to say. They were not extemporaneous in the sense I would give an extemporaneous speech. He knew before he gave the speech, beforehand, every word he was going to deliver.

I was so impressed with that series of speeches that I sent them to the head of the political science then at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Andrew Tuttle. Tuttle was so impressed--I sent him the speeches so he could watch them--he started a course at UNLV based on the lectures of Senator Byrd.

I am not going to go on, other than to say our country is so much better as a result of the service granted by the people of West Virginia to the Senator from West Virginia. People may not always agree with the Senator from West Virginia, but no one can take away the fact he is the epitome of the Senate. And when the history books are written--and they will be written--there will be a place where they will list the great Senators of this body, and in the top two or three will be the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. President, as thousands of families look forward to summer vacations at our beautiful national parks, we must address an issue that could one day ruin their experience: privatization of the National Park Service.

The Park Service has worked hard to preserve Nevada's unique landscapes at the Great Basin National Park, Death Valley, and Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Instead of applauding the Park Service for a job well done, the Administration wants to study 1,800 jobs in the Park Service for privatization.

Many of these Park Service jobs have direct contact with visitors to our parks. They not only collect fees and maintain parks but also give directions, fight wildfires when necessary, and provide emergency medical assistance to injured park visitors. They are not required to do these things; they are driven by a love for the parks and a commitment to public service that contractors lack.

Privatizing the Park Service would jeopardize our national parks. Members of the Park Service have a career-long interest in maintaining the parks and perform their jobs because they are dedicated to serving the public. They often go beyond the call of duty to fix a problem in the middle of the night or change a tire for an unlucky park visitor. Can we be sure that a contractor would do the same? No.

In addition, the Park Service receives tens of thousands of hours of volunteer work every year. At the Lake Mead National Recreation Area alone, volunteers provided 92,000 hours of work, the equivalent of 44 full-time employees. Will a contractor find volunteers to provide it with 92,000 hours of assistance. Not likely.

Privatization will waste taxpayer money. Privatization studies cost about $3,000 per position studied, and privatization does not save money.

Nevadans visiting the national parks this summer want members of the Park Service, not profit-minded corporations, enriching their experience by directing them to the famous sites and best kept secrets of our parks.

I oppose privatizing the Park Service because it would hurt Nevadans, endanger our national parks, and waste taxpayer money.

This bill will keep our dedicated Park Service members running our national parks. It stops costly privatization studies and redirects the funds to address the maintenance backlog that President Bush promised to eliminate.

I am committed to protecting our parks, and I am proud to introduce this bill that will ensure that the Park Service can preserve them for generations to come.

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

Mr. President, as thousands of families look forward to summer vacations at our beautiful national parks, we must address an issue that could one day ruin their experience: privatization of the National Park Service.

The Park Service has worked hard to preserve Nevada's unique landscapes at the Great Basin National Park, Death Valley, and Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Instead of applauding the Park Service for a job well done, the Administration wants to study 1,800 jobs in the Park Service for privatization.

Many of these Park Service jobs have direct contact with visitors to our parks. They not only collect fees and maintain parks but also give directions, fight wildfires when necessary, and provide emergency medical assistance to injured park visitors. They are not required to do these things; they are driven by a love for the parks and a commitment to public service that contractors lack.

Privatizing the Park Service would jeopardize our national parks. Members of the Park Service have a career-long interest in maintaining the parks and perform their jobs because they are dedicated to serving the public. They often go beyond the call of duty to fix a problem in the middle of the night or change a tire for an unlucky park visitor. Can we be sure that a contractor would do the same? No.

In addition, the Park Service receives tens of thousands of hours of volunteer work every year. At the Lake Mead National Recreation Area alone, volunteers provided 92,000 hours of work, the equivalent of 44 full-time employees. Will a contractor find volunteers to provide it with 92,000 hours of assistance. Not likely.

Privatization will waste taxpayer money. Privatization studies cost about $3,000 per position studied, and privatization does not save money.

Nevadans visiting the national parks this summer want members of the Park Service, not profit-minded corporations, enriching their experience by directing them to the famous sites and best kept secrets of our parks.

I oppose privatizing the Park Service because it would hurt Nevadans, endanger our national parks, and waste taxpayer money.

This bill will keep our dedicated Park Service members running our national parks. It stops costly privatization studies and redirects the funds to address the maintenance backlog that President Bush promised to eliminate.

I am committed to protecting our parks, and I am proud to introduce this bill that will ensure that the Park Service can preserve them for generations to come.

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

Mr. President, the amendment I understand that has been the focus of so much the last few days is prepared and the two leaders are looking this over. We hope to be able to have a vote on that soon. In the meantime, I have a lot of amendments lined up that we can move on and I will work with my distinguished friend, the majority whip, in determining when we can do that. We hope in the next hour we will start a bunch of votes. We will work on that and the majority will make an announcement soon.

Mr. President, for the information of Senators, we are going to have this block of votes. Then there is going to be a period of time where the two leaders have agreed there would be no amendments voted on. At about 2:30 or quarter to 3, we are going to try to line up a batch of votes to take up time this afternoon.

So for the information of Senators, at 2:30 or quarter to 3, the two managers and leaders are going to try to line up a bunch of votes.

Amendment No. 985, As Modified Further

I announce that 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 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 reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 956

Madam President, it is my understanding the next matter is the Graham amendment.

Madam President, on behalf of Senators Graham, Feinstein, Murkowski, Johnson, and this Senator, this is a tremendous piece of work Senator Graham has done. It is good legislation. At least 12 percent of our seniors would be subject to a gap in coverage under this bill. Standard coverage would require seniors to pay 100 percent of the cost of prescriptions between $4,500 and $5,812 in total spending. At the same time, they are paying 100 percent of each prescription, and they are still required to pay a monthly premium.

Collecting a premium while a senior is in the gap is equivalent to levying a tax on the sick. This amendment suspends the payment of premium once the beneficiary hits the gap in coverage. This amendment is endorsed by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security, the Alliance of Retired Americans, and the National Council on Aging.

The amendment is offset by clarification of the Medicare secondary payer provision. This noncontroversial offset, which yields $8.9 billion over 10 years, is fully supported by the Department of Justice and is in the House Republican drug bill.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that 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 reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Edwards be recognized to offer an amendment--and he will speak, if necessary, at a later time--and, following the offering of his amendment, Senator Enzi be recognized to offer two amendments; and following that, Senator Durbin--we hope at 12:30 or 12:35--be recognized to offer his amendment; that following the offering and the speech by Senator Durbin, we ask that Senator Ensign be recognized to offer an amendment--sometime around 1 o'clock this afternoon.

For the information of Senators, the two managers are working to get a list of at least four amendments to vote on starting at 3 o'clock this afternoon. I ask unanimous consent for what I asked previously except for the voting at 3 o'clock.

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

Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to Grassley amendment No. 974 and send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Boxer.

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

Mr. President, we on this side have been as cooperative as we could be. We have done everything we can to move this legislation along. And I have said publicly that I appreciate how Senator Frist has handled legislation since he has become the Republican leader. He has not tried to shut off debate. He has rarely filed cloture, and that is commendable. And I have said, on more than one occasion, I appreciate that.

But we are in a situation now where, as part of the regular process of doing business here, we have a difficult amendment. It is a tough vote for a lot of people. It is a Boxer amendment. In effect, it would allow coverage--without exception--for prescription drugs for people who are diagnosed as having cancer.

We have been told by various people on the side of the majority that we are not going to have a vote on this. Well, my response to that is, we are going to do nothing else on the bill. This is now the regular order. And until there is an agreement made that we are going to vote on this, we are going to do nothing else. This is it. We have a lot of tough votes here, and this is one of them.

Now, Mr. President, we could have, if we had been mischievous, done other things. Some said: Why don't we have Alzheimer's? Why don't we have diabetes? Why not have juvenile diabetes? Why not have Parkinson's? The Senator from California, acting in good faith, recognizing the need to move this legislation, said she would limit her amendment to cancer. And that is what has happened.

So, Mr. President, we are now at a point where there is going to have to be a decision made by the majority when we are going to vote. We want a vote. That is all we want. We want a vote. We will do it at any time, but until there is an agreement, there will be an agreement on nothing on this bill.

Mr. President, we have had conversations while the manager has been speaking. We have been assured by the majority that we will have a vote on the Boxer amendment in the next 24 hours. Having said that, I withdraw the Boxer amendment.

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

Will my friend from Iowa yield so I can respond to the Senator from West Virginia?

I say to my friend from West Virginia, the distinguished Senator, we are trying to get some votes lined up shortly. It is my understanding Senator Byrd wishes to speak for 10 or 15 minutes on the Durbin amendment.

Senator Dorgan wishes to speak for how long on the Durbin amendment?

Does Senator Stabenow wish to speak on the Durbin amendment?

And then Senator Lindsey Graham is here to speak on what?

Of course, the Senator from Iowa has the floor. How much longer does the Senator expect to speak?

That kind of defeats that theory.

So much for my ideas.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we had some votes tentatively scheduled after and that appears to have fallen by the wayside. I therefore ask that Senator Byrd be recognized for up to 15 minutes rather than 10 minutes, and Senator Stabenow for 10 minutes instead of 5 minutes, and I ask that the Senator from New Hampshire accept that modification to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if there is not a vote called following the statement by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, Senator Durbin be recognized for 15 minutes, Senator Smith of Oregon for 5 minutes, and Senator Nickles for 20 minutes to speak on this bill or any pending amendment.

Madam President, I ask that the time of the Senator from Nevada be reserved, and we now turn to Senator Durbin who is under the consent agreement.

Reserving the right to object, in relation to the time between now and 6:30, I ask my friend from Pennsylvania, how long do you intend to speak?

I think that would be appropriate. I ask that the consent request of my friend from Iowa be modified to divide the time between now and 6:30 equally between the majority and minority.

With the time controlled by Senator Durbin on our side.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), 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 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 Jennifer Crow, an American Political Science Association fellow in the office of Senator Cantwell, be given floor privileges during consideration of S. 1.

Mr. President, if I could say through the Chair to the leader, as the leader indicated, we have more than 30 amendments. To vote on those would take 12 hours, or something like that. The two managers last night indicated they thought two-thirds of the amendments that are pending could be accepted by the two managers.

We have on our side probably no more than six more amendments to offer on this legislation. Senator Boxer is here to offer her amendment. We have several more that could follow that. Then we have an important amendment that Senators Conrad and Lincoln offered. Senator Lincoln offered it on Friday, but she withdrew it, and she wants to reoffer that today.

I think if we do not have some flareup as a result of someone wanting to change the basic components of the bill, it is very likely we can finish this bill in a reasonably short period of time. I hope the two managers, who were meeting after we adjourned last night, have been able to make headway in working through the money we have left over that has created so much interest. Anytime there are a few dollars--and this is more than a few dollars--left on the table, so to speak, there are a lot of people who are after that money. I hope that can be resolved in some fair manner. But if that is the case, then I think you, the distinguished Republican leader, can complete this bill in a reasonably short period of time.

On our side, we have done our best to have amendments ready to offer. Senator Boxer is in the Chamber. She will not take a great deal of time on her amendment. We have the other key amendments we believe are ready to be offered and can be done in a short period of time.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), 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 ``nay''.

Reserving the right to object, will there be a unanimous consent offered for sequencing votes later this afternoon?

For the information of Senators, my understanding is that the two leaders want to have a series of votes starting at 2:25 this afternoon; is that right?

Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding the Senator has asked that following the Dodd vote we vote on Pryor and Boxer.

Did you ask unanimous consent on something else?

Mr. President, I reluctantly have to object. I personally

could care less, but until the two managers are here--unless you have cleared it with the two managers.

We do not object.

I say to the distinguished Senator from Texas we will try to do that. It seems the right thing to do.

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

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

The yeas and nays are not in order.

I announce that 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 ``nay''.

I announce that 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 Florida (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote ``nay''.

Reserving the right to object, I ask the vote occur at 4:25 and I be given 5 minutes after Senator Sununu.

He can take a minute of my time.

Mr. President, under the consent we obtained, I was to have 5 minutes to speak. I would ask that 1 minute of that time be given to Senator Dayton, so he can have his 2 minutes. I ask the Chair to notify me when I have used 3 minutes.

Mr. President, my first elective job was when Medicare came into being. I was the chairman of the board of trustees at a place called Southern Nevada Memorial Hospital. It is now called the University Medical Center. At that time it was the largest medical facility, hospital facility in Nevada.

At that time 40 percent of the seniors who came into that hospital had no insurance, and children, other relatives, and friends had to sign a piece of paper before they came into the hospital that they would be responsible for the bills. Medicare changed all that.

In 1965, when Medicare was created by Congress, it took 11 months after the bill was signed to put a new program in place. That was back in the days of slide rules and adding machines. That was, of course, before we had computers that had any ability to function.

Today our senior citizens need help with soaring drug prices. They deserve the security of knowing they will be able to buy the medicines that can keep them alive and healthy.

So today if we are telling our seniors to wait for that help and that security until the year 2006, I do not think they are going to accept that. It will be too late for millions of seniors, people who have worked hard all their lives to make this the greatest and richest country in the world--the only superpower left in the world. Certainly, if that, in fact, is the case, we should have a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens.

It might be too late for Alice and Frederick Williams of Reno. They worked hard all their lives and raised four children. But Alice contracted hepatitis C from a blood transfusion. Today she is also battling heart disease and a thyroid condition, and Frederick is recovering from prostate cancer. Together, they have to spend $350 every month on prescription drugs. That is $4,200 a year. They don't have it.

Jackie Ridley, it might be too late for her. She is a retired teacher, who spoke at a Committee on Aging hearing in Las Vegas. She and her husband had all kinds of problems: heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, and emphysema. Between them, they had 25 prescriptions. Before Jackie's husband passed away, they faced out-of- pocket expenses of more than $1,000 every month. And sometimes, to make it to the next month, they cut back on some of their medicine. We have heard that before.

These Nevada seniors, and millions more like them in every single State, need help now, not 3 years from now. They deserve security now, not in 2006. That is why I rise to support the Lautenberg amendment. It would make this prescription drug benefit effective sooner rather than later.

The bill is confusing enough without asking some senior citizens to apply for one benefit now, and then come

back in 2 years to apply again. Our seniors have enough to worry about without wondering if they will be ruined financially before the benefit takes effect.

The American people know that when Congress really wants to get things done, we can take action quickly. Now they are looking for us to help them, seniors who have worked hard to make this country strong and prosperous.

I urge the support of the Lautenberg amendment.

I yield back whatever time I have.

I yield back.

I announce that 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 Florida (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote ``no''.

I announce that 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.

Madam President, the two leaders have met and talked to the managers. We will have, in approximately 30 minutes, two votes. Senator Dodd has agreed to take 20 minutes on his two amendments. He can divide it however he deems appropriate. Following that, the Senate will still be in

session. People will offer amendments, if they desire, but it is contemplated these two votes will be the last votes of the evening.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from Connecticut has graciously indicated the time he has used would be counted toward this time.

That being the case, the vote will occur around 6:15 p.m., for the information of Members.

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

I announce that 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 move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I ask unanimous consent that the Democratic leader be recognized to speak next, and following his statement the Senator from Georgia be recognized to speak, both as if in morning business. The Senator from Georgia will speak for up to 7\1/2\ minutes; I don't know how long Senator Daschle is going to speak, but I don't think it will be long.

While we are waiting for Senator Daschle, if we could reverse the order and have the Senator from Georgia proceed.

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and Senator Conrad be recognized to offer a series of amendments, and following his offering amendments the Senator from New York, Senator Clinton, be recognized to offer her amendments.

I state for the information of Senators, the manager or I will also have some other amendments to offer on behalf of other Senators. Following that, there should be no more business of the Senate.

Mr. President, with the graciousness of the Senator from New York, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Washington be recognized for up to 3 minutes to speak on one of the amendments offered by the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Edwards of North Carolina, I send a modification to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent the amendment be so modified.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Boxer. This is an amendment to eliminate the coverage gap for individuals with cancer.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Mr. Corzine. This is a technical amendment regarding federally qualified health centers.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Jeffords dealing with critical access to hospitals.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Inouye dealing with Native Hawaiians.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jessica Donze and Michelle Curtis, two fellows in Senator Bingaman's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of the debate on

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 ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 seconds.

Mr. President, I do not know if the motion is going to be to table this. I assume so. If it is, it is our recommendation we all move to table this, and Senator Bingaman will just offer this again tomorrow.

Before the Senator yields the floor, would the Senator yield for a question?

This is a little off point, but we are talking about jobs. Is the Senator from Illinois aware that the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued its latest unemployment figures today?

Would the Senator be surprised that under this administration, which is always talking about what a great job they are doing with the economy, we now have the highest unemployment rate in 106 months; it has jumped up now to over 6 percent? Is the Senator surprised at that number?

Highest unemployment in 106 months.

For job creation.

I would respond to my friend, if the last tax cut we had creates as many jobs as the first tax cut, we are in big trouble.

My friend is right. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that national unemployment had increased in April to more than 6 percent, highest unemployment in 106 months.

I respond to my friend there is some dispute as to what the 10-year surplus was when he took office. Some say $7.1 trillion. Some say 6.2. But trillions of dollars over 10 years. And in fact, the last 3 years of the Clinton administration we had been spending less money than we were taking in. We were retiring the debt. But we are not worried about that anymore. We will have this year, some say, a debt as much as $600 billion, of course, not counting the Social Security surpluses which are used to disguise this. So I don't know where all this great economy is. It is not in Nevada.

The debt this year will be the largest in the history of the world, not only the United States.

We not only have statements that would fill volumes about how bad the deficit was. And, in fact, I can remember Alan Greenspan telling us the most important thing we could do--he appeared before the Appropriations Committee--was get rid of the annual deficits. We followed his advice and did that. He is still chairman of the Federal Reserve. I wonder why he is not talking now along those same lines.

This is something I can't understand, why there is so much silence on the other side of the aisle about these huge annual deficits he has created, especially since when he took office we were spending less money than we were taking in. To think that the country is in such deep trouble. Does the Senator realize parts of our national parks are actually closing because of a state of disrepair, our great national parks? We have money in our highway trust fund that people pay when they go to the gas pump, but this money is not being used for highways. We are trying to come up with a highway bill, but the President is not allowing us to spend the money on highways. He wants to spend it on jobs in Iraq. I don't know what he wants to spend it on.

I didn't answer the one question the Senator asked about Iraq. Not only are they trying to create jobs in Iraq, they are now talking about paying Saddam Hussein's army for back pay while they were fighting Americans. Is the Senator aware of that?

Mr. President, I spoke to our State legislature and I said the President's No Child Left Behind Act is leaving lots of children behind. There was a little criticism for my having said that. But I was right.

In the State of Nevada, as we speak, the Clark County School District, which is the fifth largest school district in America, is talking about cutting back the school week to 4 days. Some of the good programs, such as the athletic programs, which I believe in, and programs dealing with the band and drama they are talking about eliminating, and they are talking about doing away with the programs for the academically talented. In fact, unless the legislature can get some resources from the State of Nevada--they don't expect anything from the Federal Government--the Clark County School District is talking about stopping all-year-around school. We have a year-round school district. They have been talking about closing schools. Well, talk about leaving some kids behind; that is it.

Senator Bingaman and I worked for a number of years to try to create within the Department of Education an education czar because children who drop out of school are never what they could be. We have so many students dropping out of school, and it is a shame. Those children who drop out of school will be relegated to menial work for the rest of their lives--if they are fortunate to be able to have any kind of work.

So the afterschool programs, which the Senator from Illinois and Senator

Boxer have worked on for years, are programs that, in most States, they are not even considering anymore.

It has been 106 months.

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