Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the adoption of the following amendments, which have been cleared-- Cleland amendment No. 430 and Akaka amendment No. 524--Senator Enzi be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment regarding the subject matter contained in the Harkin amendment and there be 1 hour of debate equally divided on the Enzi amendment, the Harkin amendment No. 525, and the Hutchinson amendment No. 550 concurrently, and that votes occur on the amendments in the order listed above at the use or yielding back of time, with no second-degree amendments in order to any of the amendments mentioned above; that Senator Cleland be recognized for 10 minutes and Senator Akaka be recognized for 5 minutes on their amendments.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join in the accolades by the Senator from Massachusetts and say that this amendment is an excellent amendment. Even in little old Vermont, we have schools with 20, 22 students who have English as their second language. There have been problems that we never imagined we would have. We believe this bill-- all over this Nation--will be very helpful. As far as I am concerned, we can accept the amendment to ensure its passage.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Reserving the right to object, we have an order, I think in place, an amendment by Senator Enzi. I believe that it would be right to take that amendment up first.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from Wyoming, are we through with his presentation?

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next votes in the series be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Right.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the sequenced votes and any cleared amendments, the Senate then resume consideration of the Dayton amendment No. 622 and the Voinovich amendment No. 443. I further ask unanimous consent that there then be a total of 30 minutes equally divided for closing remarks with respect to both amendments. Further, I ask unanimous consent that following that time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to amendment No. 622 to be followed by a vote in relation to amendment No. 443, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the vote. I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to the second vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS. The elapsed time would be about an hour.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that following the sequenced votes and any cleared amendments, the Senate then resume consideration of the Dayton amendment No. 622 and the Voinovich amendment No. 443. I further ask consent that there then be a total of 30 minutes equally divided for closing remarks with respect to both amendments. Further, I ask consent that following that time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to amendment No. 622, to be followed by a vote in relation to amendment No. 443, with no amendment being in order to amendments prior to the vote. I ask that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to the second vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS. No objection. I look forward to learning about it.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have no request for time on the amendment. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for 10 minutes each.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I make a point of order that there is not a quorum present.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Baucus in reintroducing the ``Post Office Community Partnership Act of 2001.'' This bill is similar to the one we introduced in the 105th and 106th Congress that so many of our colleagues supported in the past. It is my hope that this year the bill will become law. We are also coordinating our efforts with Representative Blumenauer of Oregon who will introduce a companion bill in the House of Representatives this week. This bill will allow local communities to have a voice in determining the future of their local Post Office. In many towns across Vermont, the post office functions as the social and economic cornerstone of the local downtown area. Not only does the post office provide a daily service to residents, it is an enduring neighborhood institution. The post office is an enduring neighborhood institution where residents catch up with their neighbors, or get the latest news. As a consequence many small towns across America are hurt by decisions to close, relocate or consolidate postal facilities. Our bill will increase local community input when the Postal Service determines that a facility will be constructed, consolidated, relocated, or closed. This bill also addresses larger smart growth concerns. Right now, the U.S. Postal Service is exempt from local zoning and building laws. This creates situations where the new facilities do not fit in with the size or scale of the local community. Many new facilities are relocated to the outer fringes of downtowns which encourages sprawl. Transplanting local facilities out of downtown locations has a potentially devastating impact on the character of many towns. This bill will help preserve the small town way of life by preventing sprawl and encouraging the re-use of historic structures. The Post Office Community Partnership Act will help communities have a say in the future of their local post offices. There have been a number of incidents in Vermont where a post office has moved out of the traditional town center and local officials have had little or no say in the decision. In Perkinsville, VT the post office moved from the general store to a site miles from the downtown. The same thing happened in Fairfax, when the post office moved from a historic building downtown to a strip mall. A prime example is Westminster, one of the oldest towns in Vermont. This town of 3,200 people was shocked to learn that the Postal Service was replacing their old facility with a building more than four times as large with 33 parking spaces. There were several reasons the community and local government officials were outraged at the decision. First, the Postal Services's standard ``design number 30'' does not fit in with Westminster's size, scale, zoning, or historic character. The Postal Service has been unwilling to modify their standard designs to meet community needs. Moreover the neighboring town recently built a new post office with more than 1200 PO boxes that are still vacant. The Post Office Community Partnership Act will allow the Postal Service and the local community to work together from the beginning of the planning process toward common sense solutions that benefit everyone. This legislation is necessary to ensure that local communities will always have a voice in the Postal Service's decision making process. As towns struggle to grow and plan for their development, the Postal Service has all too often been an unwilling partner. In Vermont and across the U.S., many communities are attempting to carefully plan their future development, to protect and preserve their open space, prevent unregulated sprawl, and conserve natural resources. Yet they are not getting any assistance, and are often hindered by Postal Service decisions. This bill will close some of the loopholes that allow the Postal Service to operate outside the regulations that localities place on other businesses and government agencies. This legislation will strengthen the ties between the Postal Service and local governments, help preserve our downtowns, prevent sprawl, and promote sensible, managed growth. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Baucus and me in support of this legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Baucus in reintroducing the ``Post Office Community Partnership Act of 2001.'' This bill is similar to the one we introduced in the 105th and 106th Congress that so many of our colleagues supported in the past. It is my hope that this year the bill will become law. We are also coordinating our efforts with Representative Blumenauer of Oregon who will introduce a companion bill in the House of Representatives this week. This bill will allow local communities to have a voice in determining the future of their local Post Office. In many towns across Vermont, the post office functions as the social and economic cornerstone of the local downtown area. Not only does the post office provide a daily service to residents, it is an enduring neighborhood institution. The post office is an enduring neighborhood institution where residents catch up with their neighbors, or get the latest news. As a consequence many small towns across America are hurt by decisions to close, relocate or consolidate postal facilities. Our bill will increase local community input when the Postal Service determines that a facility will be constructed, consolidated, relocated, or closed. This bill also addresses larger smart growth concerns. Right now, the U.S. Postal Service is exempt from local zoning and building laws. This creates situations where the new facilities do not fit in with the size or scale of the local community. Many new facilities are relocated to the outer fringes of downtowns which encourages sprawl. Transplanting local facilities out of downtown locations has a potentially devastating impact on the character of many towns. This bill will help preserve the small town way of life by preventing sprawl and encouraging the re-use of historic structures. The Post Office Community Partnership Act will help communities have a say in the future of their local post offices. There have been a number of incidents in Vermont where a post office has moved out of the traditional town center and local officials have had little or no say in the decision. In Perkinsville, VT the post office moved from the general store to a site miles from the downtown. The same thing happened in Fairfax, when the post office moved from a historic building downtown to a strip mall. A prime example is Westminster, one of the oldest towns in Vermont. This town of 3,200 people was shocked to learn that the Postal Service was replacing their old facility with a building more than four times as large with 33 parking spaces. There were several reasons the community and local government officials were outraged at the decision. First, the Postal Services's standard ``design number 30'' does not fit in with Westminster's size, scale, zoning, or historic character. The Postal Service has been unwilling to modify their standard designs to meet community needs. Moreover the neighboring town recently built a new post office with more than 1200 PO boxes that are still vacant. The Post Office Community Partnership Act will allow the Postal Service and the local community to work together from the beginning of the planning process toward common sense solutions that benefit everyone. This legislation is necessary to ensure that local communities will always have a voice in the Postal Service's decision making process. As towns struggle to grow and plan for their development, the Postal Service has all too often been an unwilling partner. In Vermont and across the U.S., many communities are attempting to carefully plan their future development, to protect and preserve their open space, prevent unregulated sprawl, and conserve natural resources. Yet they are not getting any assistance, and are often hindered by Postal Service decisions. This bill will close some of the loopholes that allow the Postal Service to operate outside the regulations that localities place on other businesses and government agencies. This legislation will strengthen the ties between the Postal Service and local governments, help preserve our downtowns, prevent sprawl, and promote sensible, managed growth. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Baucus and me in support of this legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 16, 2001. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the credit title of the upcoming farm bill.