Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I thank my colleague and the Chair.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I was listening with some amazement to the discussion last night and earlier today about the reorganization, who is to blame, and who has the interests of the American people at heart. I have been kind of astonished at the reworking of the present reality and the past history by my Republican colleagues. I am reminded that when I arrived at the Senate 2 years ago, I waited for 5 weeks to receive my committee assignments. We had, as others have said, a 50-50 split then, and the Republicans, because of the Vice President, had the majority. But it was unprecedented. So there was some reason for this delay. But then when Senator Jeffords moved over to caucus with our party in June of that year, I lost my committee assignments for the next 6 weeks while once again this agreement was negotiated. Contrary to what I have heard from others across the aisle, it is my understanding that an agreement was reached for when the Senate was 50- 50, and we had a provision that the agreement would end if and when the majority in the Senate moved to one side--not that it would remain the same for that entire session of Congress. I had no committee assignments for 6 weeks while this split of 51 to 49 was being renegotiated, despite years of precedence and how we were told the Senate should be organized and how funds were distributed when the Senate was in clear majority by one side or another. Those who are today shedding crocodile tears for their colleagues who are denied committee assignments certainly were not at all visible 2 years ago when I was waiting for those 6 weeks for my committee assignments to be reinstated. I don't propose that our side should act as irresponsibly as others did 2 years ago. In fact, I am told that many of the chairs and ranking members of the various committees, as they will be reestablished under Republican leadership, have already reached their agreement about how they are going to allocate funds--either 50-50 or 60-40--along the lines of what they agreed to 2 years ago. It seems to me that those who are able to behave responsibly have already come to their own agreements regarding their committees and what we are left with are those who are holding out with insistence that they are going to have their two-thirds share. I am reminded of my mother, when I was a child growing up with my brother and sisters, who said when we were squabbling over who was going to get this or that: Well, until you can work it out among yourselves, none of you will have it. It was amazing how, back then, it was possible for my brother and sisters at very young ages to work these things out, knowing that until we got it resolved, none of us could have what we wanted. So I think that would be a good admonition for my colleagues who are complaining today about the lack of organization. I am reminded also that when we arrived here a week ago, our new colleagues were sworn in and the next day the Republican caucus wanted to adjourn to have a conference. In fact, we on the Democrat side wanted to stay in session. Senator Clinton had an amendment to reinstate unemployment benefits for those who lost them in December. We asked for 30 minutes equally divided to debate that amendment and to have a vote. We were told we couldn't have that; there was not time. The Senate was adjourning to the next day so the Republican caucus could go out and have their conference. We came back on Thursday. The Republican leader--the majority leader, now acknowledged by everybody and recognized as representing the majority caucus, the Republican caucus--told us on Thursday afternoon that there would be no votes on Friday, no votes until Monday at 5 o'clock. We had a long 4-day weekend and came back. I came back yesterday. I understood that we were going to have a hearing this morning--right at this hour, in fact--to confirm the nomination in the Governmental Affairs Committee of Governor Ridge as the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I met last week with Governor Ridge. I told him he had my support. I met with the Secretary of the Navy last week, Mr. England, who will be the Deputy Secretary. I said I hoped we would have a hearing this week on his nomination, as well, so we could pass that--I expect virtually unanimously, or if not unanimously, on a bipartisan basis. Yesterday afternoon, I was told that the committee meeting for today had been canceled--not by the Democrats, who were fully prepared to convene today, but by our Republican colleagues from each State who in turn would be asking questions of Governor Ridge. I cannot believe that any of us are going to have any objections to this outstanding American and public servant taking over this helm as rapidly as possible. He certainly has my full support. But the committee hearing was canceled, I suspect more for the fact that the present chairman has expressed over the weekend some ambitions of seeking the Presidency than anything else because, as I say, last week, when Governor Ridge and Secretary England came to my office to meet with me, they understood we were having a hearing this week--the Governor did--and certainly understood that the arrangement was as it was. Of even greater concern to me is the fact that we had a briefing on national security scheduled for this afternoon, a top secret briefing for Members of the Senate, with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Deputy Secretary of State, about the international situation in Iraq and North Korea. We have been back a week. We have not had that briefing. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. I have not had that briefing. At 2 o'clock this afternoon we were supposed to receive the information, of which we are certainly entitled as Members of this body in which the American people elected us to represent their interests, and that briefing was canceled. Whether by the administration or the majority leader, I do not know, but it was not canceled by the Democratic caucus, I can assure you. So when we talk about preventing this body from doing the business of the American people, representing the interests of the American people, I think those of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should look in the mirror. Frankly, for someone such as myself, and my position in seniority, this argument over funding for committees--two-thirds/one-third--gets to be a little bit surreal: Who should have a car, who should have a driver. I do not even have a car in Washington. I certainly do not have a driver. I get to work just fine every day. If the American people knew what one-third of this budget or committee actually was, I think they would be astonished that anybody could not operate effectively on one-third of what we are talking about. In fact, I would propose, if we are really concerned about the taxpayers, as we profess, we should establish a precedent of one-third of the committee budgets for the Republicans and one-third of the committee budgets for the Democrats, and give one-third back to the American taxpayers. Give it to some needy food shelves around the country. Let's establish that for the President to follow. Precedents get established and reestablished all the time. That would be a good one, to have the same funding for the Democrats and Republicans, regardless of who has the majority, and giving one-third back to the American people. And then let's proceed. I might also point out that the majority leader has also announced, even if we do have an organizational resolution this week, we are going to be in recess next week. In other words, we were in session last week for a couple days, and will be in session this week for a few days, and then we are going to go off for a week. Lots of us have ideas of what we are going to do back in our States around the country, but the fact is, as others have said, we have the people's business before us. I was delighted to see the Republican leader say that based on his priorities we would be dealing with prescription drug coverage for seniors in the very near future. I understood that was his first order of business, in fact. I thought that was just exactly the right priority for the American people. So I suggest to the majority leader that, given these delays, let's get this organizing resolution resolved and then let's stay in Washington next week. Let's do the business of the people. Let's not leave Washington. Let's not go away for a weekend. Let's not go away for a week. Let's stay here in session until we get passed prescription drug coverage for seniors. If he kept all of us to the task, denying us our recess until we completed the business of American senior citizens, I guarantee you we would have something done sooner rather than much later. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have the opportunity to finish my remarks with an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. DAYTON. I have 5 more minutes approximately, I say to my colleague, and I would ask for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, the President announced a tax proposal last week. I call it ``Leave No Millionaire Behind.'' He expressed his concern about the double taxation of corporate profits in America. I wish he would devote equal concern about the nontaxation of corporate profits in this country. It is estimated that now less than half of corporate profits are taxed at all. Through various tax and accounting gimmicks, some of the very profitable companies in this country not only have no tax liability whatsoever, they receive multimillion-dollar refunds from the American taxpayer. Take CSX, for example, a company headed by the President's nominee for Secretary of Treasury, Mr. John Snow. For the last 4 years, CSX reported U.S. profits of $934 billion. It paid, in American taxes, zero. It received rebates, in fact, from the American Treasury of $164 billion. Let me repeat that. CSX earned $934 billion in profits on its American operations, paid zero taxes to the American Treasury, and received a $164 billion refund from the American taxpayer. I would say that is ``compassionate conservatism,'' but it is certainly not double taxation. It is no taxation. And it is a big winner, increasingly so, on Wall Street. It is a reason that corporate income tax in this country has been a declining share of the Federal tax revenues over the last decades. In 1960, corporate taxes amounted to 23 percent of Federal revenues. In 1970, that dropped to 18 percent; in 1980, 14 percent; last year, 10.5 percent. In other words, the corporate income tax share of Federal Government revenue is one-half of what it was 40 years ago. There used to be an ethic in this country that business, being an integral part of the communities in which they operated, drew their lifeblood from the people of this country and from its democratic and capitalist structures, and that they had an obligation to give something back. But no longer. The modern version of John Kennedy's inaugural refrain, ``Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country,'' has become, in corporate America, ``Ask what your country can do for you and what you can avoid doing for your country.'' One of the most obvious and disgraceful tax avoidance schemes is the growing practice of some American companies of setting up sham corporate headquarters offshore in places such as Bermuda or the Cayman Islands. These tax-free havens permit the total avoidance of taxes for foreign operations and, in some cases, from domestic operations as well. It is bad enough that profitable U.S. corporations can essentially renounce their U.S. corporate citizenship, but some of them continue to secure very large and lucrative contracts with our Federal Government, some even in the areas of national defense and homeland security. Evidently, they see nothing wrong with profiting off the U.S. Government and then avoiding paying taxes, even on those profits to support our very own Government. One partner in Ernst & Young said recently: ``A lot of companies feel that the improvement in earnings is powerful enough so that maybe the patriotism issue should take a back seat.'' That is why last summer my colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, amended the 2002 Defense appropriations bill to bar such corporate tax dodgers from being awarded Government defense contracts. Then he successfully amended the homeland security bill to bar those companies from getting contracts with the new Department of Homeland Security. Both amendments passed on the Senate floor by voice votes, seemingly unanimously. However, after the November election, after Paul's tragic death, the final version of the homeland security bill gutted the Wellstone amendment. Whereas Paul's amendment permitted only the President to grant a waiver upon certification to the Congress that would be necessary for national security, the corporate callboys snuck in language that allowed the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant waivers for national security or for economic benefits. Who could argue that tax-free Government contracts are not to someone's economic benefit? It seems if that corporate someone is big enough and rich enough to know who to call in Washington, and to pay $1,000 an hour for what is euphemistically here called ``Government relations,'' there is no doubt that the waiver would be granted. In other words, Paul Wellstone's legacy is going to be obliterated by waves of waivers, which is why we need more Paul Wellstones in Washington. So, last week, to honor Paul's memory, to try to reclaim part of his legacy, I introduced the Senator Paul Wellstone Corporate Patriotism Act that reinstates the Wellstone amendment to the Homeland Security Act. It says that corporations that have renounced their American citizenship and moved offshore to avoid paying taxes to the U.S. Government will not get business contracts with the U.S. Government, at least not with homeland security projects. It is the least we can do for Paul Wellstone. It is the least we should do for ourselves because most U.S. companies, like most American citizens, are law abiding, patriotic, and responsible. Nobody likes paying taxes. Americans have been anti taxes since the colonial days, since the Boston Tea Party, since the rallying cry of, ``Taxation without representation is tyranny.'' Taxes are necessary for this country's survival, however. We have increased military spending by 23 percent in the last 2 years on a bipartisan basis, which the President requested. We have evidence that new efforts in homeland security will cost an additional $37 billion. Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, the military buildup in the neighborhood of Iraq--all of these depend upon Americans paying taxes and everyone paying their fair share of taxes. When someone avoids paying their fair share, everyone else pays a higher unfair share. We need to reestablish an ethic in this country that tax avoidance is unpatriotic, un-American; tax avoidance is selfish, greedy, and an insult to this Nation. Tax exemption, especially for the wealthy, whether they be dividends or estates--those tax exemptions not based on the inability to pay for social benefits such as charitable negotiation are betrayals of our democracy. They betray the American promise of better lives for everyone by all of us working together, by joining together, by pledging together, as our forefathers did, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. This country won't work if we don't work together. This country won't thrive if the richest citizens avoid paying taxes and profitable companies put profits before patriotism. More is never enough. It is time for the American elite to say they have enough--more than enough. I urge you, don't break America with your selfishness or your greed. Pay your fair share for America. Do so willingly, proudly, and patriotically. I say to the corporate expatriots of America, come home. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Reserving the right to object, is there an order established right now?

Mr. DAYTON. Is the Senator from Alabama asking consent--is part of the unanimous consent request--I see the Senator from Vermont is here. I ask the Senator from Vermont if he wants to add his time to the unanimous consent request, and I request 15 minutes after the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. DAYTON. I refer to the Democratic whip.

Mr. DAYTON. Fifteen minutes.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire for his impassioned set of statements. I share the Senator's hope that we can work constructively on both sides of the aisle on behalf of education in America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator DeWine be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Certainly we should have spent more. President Bush, to the extent he has spent more money--and he has--for special education, boosting the Federal share from 12 to 16 percent, I give him credit for doing so. But I am not concerned about who is right. I am concerned about doing what is right. I am concerned about what is right for the schoolchildren of this Nation. I speak as a former schoolteacher who taught in a public school in New York City with 32 children in the classroom. It was the toughest job I ever had. I heard them say that the number of students in a classroom doesn't make any difference. Anybody who has tried to teach kids knows it makes a difference. I have been to 150 more schools in Minnesota, and anybody who doesn't know they are substandard and dangerously decrepit--they can cite all the statistics they want, but they are not looking at reality. Anybody who thinks the schools are over funded and that teachers who are averaging $40,000 nationwide are overpaid should spend a day, a week, or a year in a school and see what that job is about, see the kids from all different backgrounds and countries with different languages and capabilities--no wonder test scores are affected. Anybody who thinks we are over funding public education is off in another world. In Minnesota and in other States where funds are not and will not be available through property taxes and State taxes, the question is, Who will help us out? The Federal Government has these tax cuts for the wealthiest people, and we are saying to these kids: No, I am sorry, you go your own way, you suffer, we are not going to put computers on your desks to enable you to succeed. We are going to test you and find out how you are doing and use the bully pulpit. It is no wonder good teachers are leaving. Who would want to stay when that is going on. This next year is about priorities for this country, priorities on how we will spend the money and the resources we have. That debate should continue. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 2 more minutes to finish my remarks.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I wonder if perhaps you and some of my colleagues remember, as I do, the movie ``Animal House,'' one of the classic American comedies. In the movie, the rogue fraternity Delta House had one solution to many of their problems, and that was a road trip. If there was an academic suspension--a road trip; fraternity problems--a road trip; expulsions--a road trip. Here in Washington we have some who hold a similar one-line refrain to just about every problem; and that is--tax cuts. We have budget surpluses--tax cuts; budget deficits--tax cuts; economic recessions-- tax cuts. Well, like road trips, tax cuts are a lot more fun and popular than dealing with unpleasant realities. Tax cuts are practically guaranteed to make the politicians who support them popular with their constituents, and so I must confess to liking them myself. But, like road trips, tax cuts not only avoid unpleasant realities, they often make them worse. They might postpone the day of reckoning, but the conditions will be even worse as a result, not only because of the delay in facing up to those realities, but also because of the tax cut itself. This tax cut proposal that the President made 2 days ago is the road trip equivalent of visiting Fort Lauderdale. It is excessive, it is reckless, it is dangerous, and it is seductively appealing. Masquerading it as economic stimulus would be consumer fraud. I note with interest that the White House has seemed to have dropped that claim. Little of it would take effect actually this year, and none of the proposals put real dollars in the pockets of consumers. This is a reelection stimulus package aimed at 2004 rather than an economic stimulus package aimed at 2003. It is putting money in the pockets of the wealthiest Americans who, if this administration had its way, would, it seems, pay almost no Federal taxes of any kind, whether they are alive or after they are dead. It is important we remember that the richest Americans already got huge tax reductions in 2001. Those with incomes of more than $1 million a year will get an average of $650,000 in tax cuts over the 10-year life of that bill. The rich do not need another tax cut, yet they would be the ones getting most of the money in the President's proposal. The struggling millionaire getting by on an annual income of $1 million or more would be getting another $50 to $100,000 a year in additional tax reduction, depending on their amount of dividend income. Middle-income-tax payers, upper middle income-tax payers, people who work for a living, would get the benefit of the increase in the child tax credit, which I support. That is a good idea. I hope this body will pass it. But they will get little from the rest of the President's proposals. And for most of them who put their investments into 401(k)s or IRAs or other retirement accounts for whom dividend income is already tax exempt, there would be no additional gain in our doing so at the cost of some $67 billion over the next 10 years to the Federal Treasury. In fact, the total tax package of $670 billion in cost over the next 10 years would give little boost to economic recovery, little tax relief to most Americans, and once again, more huge tax cuts to the richest 1 percent of Americans. Those of us who point this out are accused of class warfare. I must say, this is not my proposal. These are the facts. And those who are proposing it are the ones who are guilty of setting one class of Americans against others. In addition, this is a $670 tax package that we cannot afford. We are already running, once again, $200-billion-a-year deficits. That is $200 billion a year in deficit after we use up all of the Social Security trust fund surplus. President Clinton, in 1997 and 1998, balanced the Federal budget for the first time in 28 years. Then he did it again in 1999 and 2000, in the actual operating account of the Federal Government, leaving the Social Security surpluses untouched. As you recall, those of you who, like me, ran in the year 2000, most of us, I think probably all of us promised to put that money in a lockbox. The President, when he was campaigning, promised to put the Social Security surpluses in a lockbox which meant that the rest of the Federal operating budget would have to be balanced, and it was. It was projected by OMB in January of 2001 to remain balanced, actually in a surplus, for the next 10 years. Well, of course, that has not happened. We have gone from debating, when I first arrived here 2 years ago, how to best utilize a $5.6 trillion expected surplus over the decade, how we could pay down the national debt and save $200 billion a year in interest payments so that when the baby boom generation retires in significant numbers, starting in about a decade, when that trust fund has to start cashing in its IOUs, that this country would be in the strongest possible financial condition to meet those growing needs. But in 2 years, those surpluses have disappeared, and we are now looking at projected deficits every year for the foreseeable future, which is heading us, with additional debt and no cushion, toward a financial Armageddon in a decade that will rival nothing we have seen in this country since the Great Depression. The least we should do--not what we should do but the least we should do--is not make it worse. This tax proposal would do so. So in one tax proposal, we have greater tax unfairness, greater income inequality, greater financial instability, a greater future catastrophe. For this proposal and those who support it, it is like an alcoholic. I am a recovering alcoholic, so I know whereof I speak. It is like an alcoholic who knows that they should stop, that it is bad, that there are going to be future disastrous consequences, but is unwilling or unable to do so. I must say that those of us who are ``Friends of Bill W.'' see other signs of that kind of behavior in some of the statements being made these days, justifications for these deficits--that a trifecta caused our budget downfall; people don't cause deficits, trifectas cause deficits--and denial where top administration officials are starting to say: Well, deficits don't matter. Well, they mattered when the President was campaigning in the year 2000 and pledged to keep the Social Security surpluses in a lockbox. They mattered the last 2 years when the President criticized any attempt to spend additional money on schoolchildren or prescription drugs for the elderly. It seems that deficits don't matter only when the White House wants to ignore them. It is bad enough that people in the administration who should know better say that deficits don't matter. It is their job to pretend that the emperor has clothes even when he does not. But other economists and economic policymakers around the country who are saying the same things and making up rationalizations and contradicting their former positions really are guilty of professional cowardice, and they do their country a great disservice by the masquerade they are enabling. They have no honest escape from or avoidance of the truth and the facts as they know them to be. I must say that responsibility starts with and falls most heavily on the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who has danced around the head of a needle every time this administration has proposed policies which contradicted the admonitions he consistently gave to the Congress during the last administration. I think it will be shameful for anybody, any professional economist, or economic policymaker to come to Capitol Hill in the next few weeks and hedge or confuse or rationalize whether this is an economic stimulus proposal, which is not what its benefits are relative to its fiscal cost to this country, and whether it promotes greater tax inequality or equity. And anyone who is unwilling to speak that truth should have the integrity to step out of any public position or should just stay away from here entirely. To the millionaires and the multimillionaires of America, the captains of industry who are running up support for this proposal, I know whereof I speak. I say, you are letting your greed ruin America. I can understand most Americans' aversion to taxes, especially the poor, the middle class, even the upper middle class who are living on their earned incomes, who are raising children, wanting to improve their own financial conditions and that of their families. I can understand their resentment for every tax dollar. But if you can't live on a million dollars in this country and pay your fair share of taxes on it, you should deal with that yourself. You are the luckiest people in America. You are the luckiest people in the world. You are the luckiest people in the history of the world. If you are paying more taxes, it is because you are earning more money, a lot more money in many cases in the last few years. For people who want to make more money and pay less taxes on it, that, to me, is greed. To advocate for it, knowing the financial condition of this country, knowing the harm it would cause your children and your grandchildren when they have to pay the bills in the years ahead, is not only selfish, it is downright unpatriotic. This antitax ideology is destructive to America. This obsession with paying no taxes whatever it takes, moving a home or residence, moving a business, setting up offshore shells and tax evasions and other kinds of tax avoidance, people who are doing so should be ashamed. If this country falls into a financial abyss in the years ahead, we will have no one to blame but you. Nothing that anyone has hoarded will begin to replace the economic strength of this country if it is lost. There are other reasons this tax cut is terrible. That is that it ignores the serious unmet needs of our people. The priorities of this Congress and this administration regretfully have been tax cuts for the rich ahead of quality education for our schoolchildren, prescription drug coverage for senior citizens, disaster aid to destitute farmers and flood and fire victims, and a lot of serious unmet social needs. One of those areas of greatest critical need and a broken promise of the Federal Government for a decade is the area of special education. It was a quarter century ago when Congress made a promise that it would pay for 40 percent of the cost of special education. In fact, Congress even passed a law in 1982 that stated that it would do so. It legally bound itself to providing 40 percent of the cost of special education. Today, nationwide it is 16 percent; in other words, less than half of the promise that was made. For my State of Minnesota, that difference amounts to over $200 million a year in tax money, in funding for education that has to be made up by tax money in Minnesota, with more regressive property taxes, State income taxes--money that Minnesota does not have and many other States don't have. Now, I heard my friend from New Hampshire recite a great number of statistics that purported to demonstrate how much the Federal Government has increased its funding for education. The problem with the numbers of percentage of increase is the actual base in many of these programs--the measure was quite low. In fact, the Federal share for funding of all of K-12 education has been 7 percent. The State and local governments have been obligated to pick up the rest. For most of the time it has been desirable because it has maintained local control of our schools. But you can increase a low number by a high percent and still have a low number. I heard lots of blaming of the previous administration, that they should have spent more for education. I would say, having come 2 years ago, probably it should have done so. Probably the last 25 years of administrations should have spent more for education--certainly in special education they should have honored that promise when it was made and kept it. The priority of the last administration, almost by necessity, was to bring this country out of deficits, to put this country back in sound fiscal condition, to put the Social Security surplus money in a lockbox so it would, therefore, meet present and future retirements. I believe I heard the Senator from New Hampshire say that in all of those 8 years, this country was operating in a surplus. That is not the case.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. If I may have 15.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the Senate's action last night when it passed S. 2237, the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2002. This important legislation will make much-needed improvements to veterans' disability compensation payments, Medal of Honor pensions, housing benefits, claims adjudications, and education benefits through increased funding for State Approving Agencies. I strongly urge the President to sign this bill into law as quickly as possible. I am pleased this bill also includes an important provision that will expand the civil protections provided to members of the National Guard under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940. I worked closely on this provision with its sponsor, Senator Paul Wellstone. My late friend and colleague from the State of Minnesota was an outspoken advocate on behalf of America's veterans throughout his service in the Senate. The Wellstone-Dayton provision in this bill will better protect members of the National Guard in Minnesota and around the country. The provision specifies that National Guard members mobilized for more than 30 days by a state at the request of the Federal Government to respond to a national emergency be allowed protections under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act during their duty. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act allows America's military personnel to have their legal rights secured until they can return from the military to defend themselves. It covers such issues as rental agreements, security deposits, prepaid rent, evictions, installment contracts, credit card interest rates, mortgage interest rates, mortgage foreclosures, civil judicial proceedings, and income tax payments. One of the most widely known benefits under the act, for example, is the ability to reduce consumer debt and mortgage interest rates to six percent under certain circumstances. The original Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act was actually passed during World War I. The statute was reenacted during World War II, then later modified during Operation Desert Storm. However, until now the Act's coverage has not included the National Guard as comprehensively as their active duty and reservist counterparts. I believe this is wrong. Following the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, members of the Minnesota National Guard were activated by our State at the request of the President to provide security at several major airports. As the duration of these activations grew to several months, I began to hear from these brave men and women about the stress and financial burdens that accompanied their service. Senator Wellstone and I were shocked to learn that, although the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act exists to ease many of these same burdens for active-duty service members and reservists, members of the National Guard were not similarly covered for these types of activations, because this service was deemed to be State, rather than Federal, service. This discovery led to the Wellstone-Dayton provision. Anyone who visited our Nation's airports after September 11 will not soon forget the contributions of countless members of the National Guard who, at the request of the President, contributed to a sense of greater security and peace of mind for air travelers by providing airport security. The men and women who provided these security efforts did so with courage and selflessness. In light of September 11, it seems apparent that the National Guard has, and ought to have, a clear role in protecting Americans from outside threats. Further, when the President requests the men and women of the National Guard take on these new missions which help to protect Americans from terrorism, their civil interests should be protected under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act. Accordingly, I am happy that this will be properly ensured with the Senate's passage of S. 2237 last night.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator for his consideration and support. Background Checks for Truck Drivers

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I would like to speak about a very important first responder matter which, I hope, the Senate will include in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. By definition, emergency management usually occurs in crisis. The incident managers must assess the emergency, organize the staff, and direct their responses under very difficult conditions. Currently, however, many first responders are not fully prepared for attacks like September 11, 2001.NOTICE If the 107th Congress, 2d Session, adjourns sine die on or before November 22, 2002, a final issue of the Congressional Record for the 107th Congress, 2d Session, will be published on Monday, December 16, 2002, in order to permit Members to revise and extend their remarks. All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of Debates (Room HT-60 or S-123 of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through Friday, December 13. The final issue will be dated Monday, December 16, 2002, and will be delivered on Tuesday, December 17, 2002. None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any event that occurred after the sine die date. Senators' statements should also be submitted electronically, either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to the Official Reporters of Debates at ``Record@Sec.Senate.gov''. Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerkhouse.house.gov. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication with, the hard copy, and signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the Official Reporters in Room HT-60. Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by contacting the Congressional Printing Management Division, at the Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily. By order of the Joint Committee on Printing. MARK DAYTON, Chairman. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 includes provisions to improve the preparedness of emergency response providers. It is also designed to improve the Federal Government's response to terrorist attacks and other major disasters. To date, however, most of the homeland security training and consulting contracts have been awarded to Fortune 500 companies. Postsecondary educational institutions have been left out of the process. It is essential that our country's colleges and universities also collaborate on the design of homeland defense-integrated emergency management and training systems. Demonstration programs should train first responders to use new technologies that would reduce the devastations from terrorist attacks. They can integrate these technologies into management procedures that will improve accountability, command, and control. The results of those demonstration programs could then be disseminated nationwide. Am I correct to assume that funding for colleges and universities to develop homeland defense-integrated emergency management and training systems could be provided through provisions in the Homeland Security Act of 2002?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator for his consideration and support. Background Checks for Truck Drivers

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I would like to speak about a very important first responder matter which, I hope, the Senate will include in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. By definition, emergency management usually occurs in crisis. The incident managers must assess the emergency, organize the staff, and direct their responses under very difficult conditions. Currently, however, many first responders are not fully prepared for attacks like September 11, 2001.NOTICE If the 107th Congress, 2d Session, adjourns sine die on or before November 22, 2002, a final issue of the Congressional Record for the 107th Congress, 2d Session, will be published on Monday, December 16, 2002, in order to permit Members to revise and extend their remarks. All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of Debates (Room HT-60 or S-123 of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through Friday, December 13. The final issue will be dated Monday, December 16, 2002, and will be delivered on Tuesday, December 17, 2002. None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any event that occurred after the sine die date. Senators' statements should also be submitted electronically, either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to the Official Reporters of Debates at ``Record@Sec.Senate.gov''. Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerkhouse.house.gov. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication with, the hard copy, and signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the Official Reporters in Room HT-60. Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by contacting the Congressional Printing Management Division, at the Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily. By order of the Joint Committee on Printing. MARK DAYTON, Chairman. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 includes provisions to improve the preparedness of emergency response providers. It is also designed to improve the Federal Government's response to terrorist attacks and other major disasters. To date, however, most of the homeland security training and consulting contracts have been awarded to Fortune 500 companies. Postsecondary educational institutions have been left out of the process. It is essential that our country's colleges and universities also collaborate on the design of homeland defense-integrated emergency management and training systems. Demonstration programs should train first responders to use new technologies that would reduce the devastations from terrorist attacks. They can integrate these technologies into management procedures that will improve accountability, command, and control. The results of those demonstration programs could then be disseminated nationwide. Am I correct to assume that funding for colleges and universities to develop homeland defense-integrated emergency management and training systems could be provided through provisions in the Homeland Security Act of 2002?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise to honor Erv Neff, a longtime friend and current President of the Minnesota State Retiree Council, AFL-CIO. On December 4, Erv will step down as the President of the Retiree Council after six years of dedicated service. Under Erv's leadership, the Minnesota State Retiree Council, AFL-CIO, has grown from 19 affiliated organizations in 1996 to 115 affiliated organizations today. Erv established the goal to expand the membership and the mission of the Retiree Council, and he succeeded admirably. Erv has a lifetime of distinguished accomplishments. They include his stewardship of the Twin Cities Musicians Union and his service as an invaluable advisor to dozens of prominent public officials. His legacy will be enhanced by his post-retirement activities. Many people view retirement as an opportunity to relax after a lifetime of hard work and personal and professional accomplishments. Not Erv Neff. Erv recognized the potential positive contributions Minnesota retirees could make toward improving the quality of life in our state. He joined the AFL- CIO Retiree Council and was quickly elected to leadership positions within the organization. Since his election as President of the Council in 1996, Erv has demonstrated that the Council could play an active role in promoting legislative initiatives that would benefit senior citizens and working men and women. He led the Council's efforts to pass improved prescription drug benefits for senior citizens at the state and national levels. He arranged for prominent speakers to appear at monthly Council meetings to educate members on a wide variety of issues. By demonstrating the ability of the Council to play an effective role in improving the lives of senior citizens, Erv was able to build the Council into one of the most vigorous advocacy organizations in Minnesota. I hope that Erv will look back with deserved pride on his service to working men and women and senior citizens. He has accomplished much throughout his life, and thousands of Minnesotans owe him their gratitude. I wish Erv and his wife, Betsy, the very best this life has to offer.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise to honor Erv Neff, a longtime friend and current President of the Minnesota State Retiree Council, AFL-CIO. On December 4, Erv will step down as the President of the Retiree Council after six years of dedicated service. Under Erv's leadership, the Minnesota State Retiree Council, AFL-CIO, has grown from 19 affiliated organizations in 1996 to 115 affiliated organizations today. Erv established the goal to expand the membership and the mission of the Retiree Council, and he succeeded admirably. Erv has a lifetime of distinguished accomplishments. They include his stewardship of the Twin Cities Musicians Union and his service as an invaluable advisor to dozens of prominent public officials. His legacy will be enhanced by his post-retirement activities. Many people view retirement as an opportunity to relax after a lifetime of hard work and personal and professional accomplishments. Not Erv Neff. Erv recognized the potential positive contributions Minnesota retirees could make toward improving the quality of life in our state. He joined the AFL- CIO Retiree Council and was quickly elected to leadership positions within the organization. Since his election as President of the Council in 1996, Erv has demonstrated that the Council could play an active role in promoting legislative initiatives that would benefit senior citizens and working men and women. He led the Council's efforts to pass improved prescription drug benefits for senior citizens at the state and national levels. He arranged for prominent speakers to appear at monthly Council meetings to educate members on a wide variety of issues. By demonstrating the ability of the Council to play an effective role in improving the lives of senior citizens, Erv was able to build the Council into one of the most vigorous advocacy organizations in Minnesota. I hope that Erv will look back with deserved pride on his service to working men and women and senior citizens. He has accomplished much throughout his life, and thousands of Minnesotans owe him their gratitude. I wish Erv and his wife, Betsy, the very best this life has to offer.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the Senate's action last night when it passed S. 2237, the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2002. This important legislation will make much-needed improvements to veterans' disability compensation payments, Medal of Honor pensions, housing benefits, claims adjudications, and education benefits through increased funding for State Approving Agencies. I strongly urge the President to sign this bill into law as quickly as possible. I am pleased this bill also includes an important provision that will expand the civil protections provided to members of the National Guard under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940. I worked closely on this provision with its sponsor, Senator Paul Wellstone. My late friend and colleague from the State of Minnesota was an outspoken advocate on behalf of America's veterans throughout his service in the Senate. The Wellstone-Dayton provision in this bill will better protect members of the National Guard in Minnesota and around the country. The provision specifies that National Guard members mobilized for more than 30 days by a state at the request of the Federal Government to respond to a national emergency be allowed protections under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act during their duty. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act allows America's military personnel to have their legal rights secured until they can return from the military to defend themselves. It covers such issues as rental agreements, security deposits, prepaid rent, evictions, installment contracts, credit card interest rates, mortgage interest rates, mortgage foreclosures, civil judicial proceedings, and income tax payments. One of the most widely known benefits under the act, for example, is the ability to reduce consumer debt and mortgage interest rates to six percent under certain circumstances. The original Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act was actually passed during World War I. The statute was reenacted during World War II, then later modified during Operation Desert Storm. However, until now the Act's coverage has not included the National Guard as comprehensively as their active duty and reservist counterparts. I believe this is wrong. Following the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, members of the Minnesota National Guard were activated by our State at the request of the President to provide security at several major airports. As the duration of these activations grew to several months, I began to hear from these brave men and women about the stress and financial burdens that accompanied their service. Senator Wellstone and I were shocked to learn that, although the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act exists to ease many of these same burdens for active-duty service members and reservists, members of the National Guard were not similarly covered for these types of activations, because this service was deemed to be State, rather than Federal, service. This discovery led to the Wellstone-Dayton provision. Anyone who visited our Nation's airports after September 11 will not soon forget the contributions of countless members of the National Guard who, at the request of the President, contributed to a sense of greater security and peace of mind for air travelers by providing airport security. The men and women who provided these security efforts did so with courage and selflessness. In light of September 11, it seems apparent that the National Guard has, and ought to have, a clear role in protecting Americans from outside threats. Further, when the President requests the men and women of the National Guard take on these new missions which help to protect Americans from terrorism, their civil interests should be protected under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act. Accordingly, I am happy that this will be properly ensured with the Senate's passage of S. 2237 last night.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I am proud to join with my colleague, Senator Barkley, in cosponsoring the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center for Community Building Act. I pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Barkley, for taking the initiative on this matter, for your leadership. I believe it has been one week to the day since the Senator arrived in Washington, and even before he had undertaken the oath of office and assumed the official title of Senator from Minnesota, he was acting on behalf of our State. He deserves the credit for this measure. Others are moving Heaven and Earth, as the Senator said. I believe he is too modest. He is the prime mover in this matter. I salute my colleague for his doing so under such extraordinary circumstances. I could not think of a better way for anyone to begin service in this Chamber than to honor our colleague, Paul Wellstone, and his wife Sheila, who cared about these matters from their own heart. As Senator Barkley said, with the experience that Paul had being the son of immigrants and his undying compassion for those who came to this country under any circumstances, Paul's concern extended beyond those who could do him some good in this society. Paul's concern was for those he could do good in this society. He devoted countless hours, thousands and thousands of hours to people and causes where there was no benefit for him, there was no political advantage. Most of the people coming to this center were not citizens and would not be for a number of years. Paul did it out of his heart; Sheila did it out of her heart, out of their common compassion for their fellow citizens, with no thought of gain or benefit to themselves. This is a fitting first tribute. I hope it will be only the first tribute. I join with Senator Barkley in asking my colleagues here and in the House to ultimately pay tribute to Paul and Sheila, especially Paul, since this was his matter of concern, the Mental Health Parity Act. He worked tirelessly with Senator Domenici to pass this in the Senate, and unfortunately it was not adopted in conference committee. I join Senator Barkley in hoping that measure could be passed in this session. If it is not possible, I will do everything I can, working with Senator Domenici and others next year to see it does pass. This is an important statement of the Senate and the House. We need to pass it, honoring Paul and Sheila Wellstone. It is appropriate because it symbolizes that compassion, that spirit of humanity which marked their lives.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I will be approximately the same.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, for more than 20 years Paul and Sheila Wellstone were my friends and my political allies, so it is with a heavy heart that I stand here today. For the last 2 years Paul was my mentor and partner in the Senate, and I will miss him especially, as will Minnesota, as will America. I thank my many colleagues in the Senate who came to Minnesota just a short time ago for the memorial service commemorating Paul and Sheila, their daughter Marcia, their staff and friends, Mary McEvoy, the Democratic Party Associate Chair, Tom Lapic, and Will McLaughlin. Over half of the Senate attended that evening. Another dozen former Senators, a dozen or so Members of the House, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Secretary Thompson, Reverend Jackson. Paul and Sheila would have been honored. I especially want to thank my Republican colleagues, Senator Lott, Senator Nickles, and the others who attended that evening. I was not aware until the next day that Senator Lott was treated discourteously by some in the Minnesota crowd. To him and anyone else who suffered that misfortune, I deeply apologize. Paul and Sheila would have been horrified, as was I when I learned about it, as would the people of Minnesota have been. That is not the way we treat distinguished guests in Minnesota. As for the rest of the evening, if the eulogists spoke sometimes a little long, they at times became impassioned, political, or even partisan--well, it was a service for Paul Wellstone. The speakers were selected, but they weren't scripted. They were all family and close friends who were still in shock and in great emotional distress and in deep pain. What was most extraordinary about that service that evening, what hopefully will be remembered now the campaigns have concluded, is that over 20,000 people came to honor the lives and mourn the tragic deaths of Paul and Sheila and Marcia Wellstone, Mary McEvoy, Tom Lapic, and Will McLaughlin--over 20,000 people. That was unprecedented in Minnesota. Nothing in my lifetime or in my knowledge of the State was even in the same realm of that magnitude of love and gratitude and grief and sorrow. The service was held at the University of Minnesota Basketball Arena which seats over 15,000 people. It was filled an hour before the service was scheduled to begin. The fire marshals closed the doors. Another 6,000 or so arrivals filled an adjacent arena to watch the service on closed-circuit television. It, too, was overfilled by the time the service began. Police and university officials urged late arrivals to go home and watch the service on television, but hundreds, several hundred, remained clustered outside, standing around, wanting to be part of this unprecedented Minnesota congregation. That enormous outpouring of people and their emotions attested to the breadth and depth of Paul Wellstone's political reach. He had touched so many people so deeply. He had helped them, comforted them, and reassured them. He had inspired so many people. He was their voice, their champion, their hero, their United States Senator. And then suddenly, tragically, cruelly, he was snatched away and gone forever. It was a service to remember and in part regret. It was a service of remembrance and regret for eight exceptional people who lost their lives flying to a funeral service in northeastern Minnesota. I knew Paul, but the first time I saw him in action was in June of 1982 at the DFL State Convention. I was endorsed at that convention to run for the first time for the U.S. Senate, and the first day that 3- day convention opened, Paul announced--much to everyone's surprise--he was going to run for the endorsement for State auditor 2 days hence. For the previous 8 months, a very earnest young man had been in every county and every district and political event in Minnesota in Democratic circles, explaining in numbing detail the functions of the office of State auditor and how he was the best qualified to fulfill them. Sunday came around, and the auditor's endorsement was the last endorsement at the end of the third day. There were 1,300 Democratic delegates who were tired and worn out and ready to go home. Paul appeared on the stage after his opponent's one last excruciating explanation of the auditor's position, and presented himself--most of the audience seeing him for the first time--and he gave a typical Paul Wellstone speech: Nuclear freeze, save the environment, for economic justice--nothing of much particular relevance to the office of State auditor. He was endorsed by acclamation of the delegates. Paul and I both lost our elections that November, but we spent the next 3 years campaigning together, working for the Governor of Minnesota, Rudy Perpich, in the Office of Energy and Economic Development. We spent many hours talking and traveling the State together. In 1990 we swapped our political aspirations, Paul ran for the Senate and I for State auditor, and this time we won. Paul's victory in 1990 was one of the most memorable David-defeats-Goliath stories in America's political history. In the first published poll several months before the election, the incumbent was ahead by over 50 percent. Paul was in single digits. He was given no chance to win, and almost no help by the political establishment. He was outspent in the campaign by over 5 to 1. Yet Paul was the only Democratic challenger that year who ousted an incumbent. His campaign symbol, his signature and his icon, became the rattling, gas-guzzling, usually in-the-repair-shop green bus. But despite a brilliant campaign which captured the public attention, this distinctively different candidate walked fast and talked fast and actually rode a bus. His innovative ads won national awards that year, produced a campaign that couldn't even afford to air them. Despite 8 months of Paul Wellstone and his best hyperdrive, that amazing energy and excitement, and organizing all over the State, he still entered that final weekend before the election, with most polls showing him being 6 to 8 points behind. That Saturday, as our Statewide DFL ticket boarded the bus--not Paul's bus, which was once again in the repair shop, but another bus-- for its final 2-day swing around the State, Paul's opponent had just launched a vicious personal attack against him. The campaign had no money to produce or air a response. Those 2 days were agonizing for Paul and Sheila and Marcia, who accompanied him, and for those of us who were sharing that experience with him. Then, like a miracle, the hero of the moment came forth, the former Senator and Vice President, Walter Mondale, whom fate was to bind to the conclusion of another Wellstone campaign 12 years later. The Vice President publicly denounced the attack as a violation of Minnesota's standard of decency. The editorial board of the State's largest newspaper agreed the day before the election. And the majority of Minnesota voters agreed the following day. It was the most stunning upset and astounding victory in Minnesota political history. Paul Wellstone was on the green bus headed to Washington, which, of course, was the bus that broke down on the way. Despite Paul's 20 years of political experience, he wasn't prepared for the Senate. The Senate may not have been prepared for Paul. I know he later regretted some of his earlier decisions. He told me so after he sat down with me when I won my election two years ago, and he was counseling me to take a different approach. But while he would have changed perhaps his early style, he would not have changed his substance. He would not have changed because he could not have changed his values or his ideals or his convictions. He could not alter his passion for social justice, his caring for people, or his outrage at their oppression or suffering. His values were the essence of who he was. They were the core of his beliefs, the cornerstone of his conscience. They were the hallowed ground of his political soul. Paul Wellstone was a hard-working political activist, a hard-nosed political organizer, and a smart, savvy politician. He wanted to win. He knew how to win. But he would not win if it meant losing his soul or forgetting his conscience or sacrificing his principles. He was no Don Quixote out tilting at windmills. He was rather, a Richard the Lionheart on a crusade, mindful of the risks, the pitfalls, and the odds, but undeterred by them. Time after time during his 12 years in the Senate, he took his stand believing that he was right--well, maybe not right but correct. He voted his conscience. He voted his convictions, hoping that 50 or more of his colleagues would vote with him, but willing to stand alone if they did not. Some people said that Paul's dissenting votes reflected badly on him. Others said they reflected badly on the Senate. Some people believe the Senate would be a better place without Paul Wellstone. Others of us believe the Senate would be a better place with 50 more like him. Those who questioned his accomplishments overlook the obvious. Paul could work tirelessly, speak persuasively, and do everything effectively. But he could only vote once--1 out of 100, 1 out of 535. Paul had only 2 years out of his 12 years with a Democratic President, Senate, and House, as the Republicans will have again in January. For his other 10 years, Paul served in divided government. He did not accomplish all he wanted to. He did not accomplish much he wanted to. But he accomplished all he could. And he would have accomplished so much more if death had not intervened so suddenly and so cruelly. There was so much life and so much politics left in Paul Wellstone, and so much courage. His death echoes the words of Ernest Hemingway: Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer quality than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality of those who would seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change. If people bring so much courage to this world, the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks everyone and afterwards many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break, it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of those, you can be sure that it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry. Those are the words of Ernest Hemingway. Paul Wellstone wasn't that fatalistic. At least, he didn't live or practice the politics of fatalism. Paul was a social reformer and a crusader for social and economic reform. He believed in it. He dedicated his life to it. He gave his life for it. He knew the odds were stacked heavily against him, especially here in Washington. He knew how hard it was; how unusual the circumstances had to be for a Paul Wellstone to make it to the Senate. He knew how hard it was for a Paul Wellstone to stay here, to combat the powerful forces aligned against him and their enormous financial and political resources that would try to defeat him. He detested political fundraising. He disliked the amounts of money he had to ask for, and he distrusted most of the people who could provide it. His loathing of fundraising was matched only by his hatred of flying in small airplanes--the principal reason he vowed his 1996 campaign would be his last. But when the time came, he could not turn his back on the crusade. He could not abandon the causes, and he could not leave the people--because it was the people Paul loved. He loved being with people. As long as he wasn't raising money from them, or flying with them, Paul loved being with people--real people, farmers, iron rangers, educators, senior citizens, children, all classes, all races, all religions, all points of view. Paul practiced the politics of diversity, and inclusion, and empowerment. He truly cared about people as individuals. He cared about their lives, their families, their well- being. He loved visiting veterans homes, nursing homes, and schools. He loved spending hours with people who couldn't vote or benefit him politically. He cared about people because they needed him--not because he needed them. The poor, the unfortunate, the mentally ill, the disadvantaged and the distressed--he loved working for them, working to make their lives better, and working to give them a chance, a job, a farm, a home, a life. I agree with the majority leader. If this Senate, if this Congress and this administration want to show their respect for Paul Wellstone, if they want to honor his memory, we will pass and the President will sign into law the Wellstone-Domenici Mental Health Parity bill before we adjourn this year. Nothing less would do him justice. Nothing else would make him happier. Paul came to love this institution of the Senate. For an organizer, it was the ultimate challenge. He genuinely liked most of his colleagues--even those he disagreed with most of the time. Yes. He got frustrated, discouraged, and impatient. But he respected the Senate. He loved being a Senator, and he was learning how to be a great one. He was a great man. He was a great husband--with an even greater wife, Sheila. He was a great father and a great politician. He was an excellent U.S. Senator, and he was becoming a great one. But death denied him that opportunity. And it denied us him, and it denied the people of Minnesota the leader they elected to represent them. He died on his way to a funeral, that of the father of a friend. He flew because he had to, despite what in hindsight seems more like a premonition than a fear. He willed himself to fly because he had to be the best U.S. Senator he could be. And he never backed away from adversity. He got on a reliable plane with a reputable charter firm flown by two licensed pilots. They flew into what was reportedly occluded but not threatening weather, with low clouds and light, freezing precipitation--not ideal but not unusual for northern Minnesota in late fall. And then, somehow, inexplicably, the plane landed in a desolate forest rather than a nearby airport. It burst into a huge conflagration and destroyed the lives of eight people, and damaged many more lives who lost their loved ones, and left many thousands--thousands--of people without their leaders, their allies, their heroes, and their friends. But life goes on, as it must. Minnesota held an election, as it should. Senator-elect Norm Coleman conducted himself honorably in the aftermath of that great tragedy and won honorably and honestly in that election and has earned the right, through the expressed will of the people of Minnesota, to serve as a U.S. Senator for 6 years, beginning in January. And I pray that he will be our Senator for the next 6 years. But former Vice President Mondale performed a great service to our DFL Party in Minnesota, to our State, and I believe to our democracy by stepping forward at the last moment when, in hindsight, the situation was impossible but seemed possible only because it was former Vice President Mondale. Senator Dean Barkley is an excellent appointment made by Governor Ventura. He has earned this honor. He is knowledgeable. He is experienced. And he is committed to good government. He has proven that as commissioner of State planning. Through his own political pioneering he has forged an independent strength and spirit which has captured the political imagination of the people throughout our State and offers great promise in the years ahead, and he will have himself great promise in the years ahead. I am honored to be working with him during these next months, as I look forward to working with Senator-elect Coleman when he begins his term in January. We have a special spirit in Minnesota. Our political spirit is testified to here today by Congressman Jim Ramstad and Congressman Mark Kennedy, who are witnessing these words of tribute to their colleague. Both worked closely with Senator Wellstone, especially Congressman Ramstad during his long years in the House with Paul on many issues of which they shared concern and commitment. And Paul's staff, who loved him and gave their lives of service with him, and who are suffering a loss that is also immeasurable, are here as well. And I pray that they, too, will find opportunities in the future. I know they will, but it just will not be with Paul. Years ago, then-President John Kennedy paraphrased a statement made by Theodore Roosevelt which seems like a fitting bipartisan note on which to end these remarks. He said in New York City, in a speech paraphrasing President Roosevelt: The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best, if he wins, knows the thrills of high achievement, and, if he fails, at least fails daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. Paul, you have won many battles, but now you can wipe the dust and sweat and blood off of your face, and may you rest in eternal peace. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, it has been a very moving afternoon in the Chamber listening to my colleagues speak so eloquently about my good friend, the senior Senator from Minnesota. The words of my colleagues were very moving. It was touching to hear of their respect and their affection and their admiration for Paul Wellstone. I spoke earlier this afternoon about the Senator, my dear friend, and because others were waiting to speak I abbreviated my remarks. I wanted to close by noting, as others have so well, that Paul's remarkable achievements were not his alone. He was one of those people who, in his greatness, was able to attract great people to his side. He had extraordinarily dedicated men and women who worked for him, worked with him, gave of their time and their energy, their hearts and their souls to his work: Colin McGinnis and his staff here in Washington; Connie Lewis, Minnesota State director, and her staff in Minnesota were always with Paul and Sheila and extraordinarily dedicated. Of course, if you wanted to make a difference in Washington, if you wanted to try to move mountains and you were young and idealistic, who better to work for than Paul Wellstone? Many of his former students at Carleton College in Northfield, MN, went on to be his key staff aides. I used to tease Paul and say that is what he was doing during his time there; he was recruiting the best and the brightest to work on his campaigns and organize the State and to work in Washington and in Minnesota on behalf of the many causes he championed--Jeff Blodgett, who was managing his campaign for the third time and doing so with great skill, and according to the last published polls, with very successful results, and others in Minnesota who gave up their careers, family life, and set it aside to one more time bring the man they loved and in whom they believed to victory. Kari Moe, who was involved with Senator Wellstone's Washington office, was his chief of staff for years before. They are incredibly dedicated people each in their own right. Tom Lapic tragically was on the plane with Paul and lost his life in service to his friend and his country. Tom was the deputy Minnesota director. Several hundred friends and family came to his memorial service a week after his death. He was a man who touched people deeply, as did Paul. His wife Trudy and others shared their recollections, the wonderful qualities Tom had that complemented Paul, his calmness, virtually unflappable under any circumstances. Like Paul, he was astute and eloquent, and he and Paul collaborated on many of the words that Paul used in speeches. Tom was always by Paul's side offering his guidance and perspective. Will McLaughlin was on Paul's campaign staff. He was just starting his political career at the age of 23 in Minnesota. But everybody could see he was destined to be a star, a Governor or a Senator, something special someday. He already had been elected President of his fraternity at the University of Minnesota. Politics was in Will's blood or maybe even in his genetic code. His father Mike McLaughlin was a long time Fourth District chair of the Minnesota Democratic Party, and he collaborated with the greats of the previous generation--Hubert Humphrey, Fritz Mondale, Eugene McCarthy, Joe Karth, Bruce Vento. Will's mother Judy McLaughlin was a close associate of the former speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives. He will be missed by his mother Judy and his siblings and his friends and those in Minnesota who never had a chance to get to know him. Thousands of Minnesotans knew Mary McEvoy who was on the plane as staff in name but really as a friend of Paul's and Sheila's. She was one of Sheila Wellstone's very closest friends. Sheila flew with Paul because he loathed it, and Mary flew with Sheila because she loathed it. It was beyond tragedy, beyond words that Mary had taken a leave of absence from the University of Minnesota where she was a full professor, where she chaired the department, where she had her own very distinguished career in her field, so she could help her friend Sheila and her friend Paul during their time of need. She had a service where over 1,500 Minnesotans, friends, and family came to pay their respects. She was associate chair of the DFL Party. She was a leader. She was a colleague. She was a mother of three beautiful children, and she had her husband Jamie. She will be terribly missed by all of us in the life of Minnesota. Of course, the linchpin of Paul's staff, his unpaid and most important staff person was his wife Sheila who, unlike some campaign and political spouses, was beloved by Paul's staff and gratefully welcomed to the office for her ability to run interference when necessary with her husband and his life and his schemes. I remember once it was said it took a lot of money to keep Mahatma Gandhi in poverty because of the people around him necessary to help him carry out his mission. It took a lot of really remarkable and talented people to keep Paul Wellstone on the brink of disorganization. He had so much energy and was doing so many things, often simultaneously. Sheila was the linchpin and a formidable political activist in her own right. She was born and raised in the coal country of West Virginia, a hard-scrabble upbringing. She and Paul were married when they were 19 years old. For 39 years they were each other's best friend, colleagues, mates, spouses. Many talk about and preach family values. That was a wonderful marriage and a wonderful family. They had three children of whom they were enormously proud. Marcia Wellstone, tragically on the plane, was a future political star in her own right. She loved campaigning, loved being out with the people of Minnesota. She was a wonderful teacher in the White Bear School District, beloved by her students, liked by her colleagues. She also leaves a gap with her family and friends that can never be filled. They had two sons who fortunately were not on the plane that day, David and Mark, of whom Paul and Sheila were also enormously proud. I hope and I trust they will, in this time of terrible loss and grief, be consoled a little by the words that were expressed today, by the words that have been expressed by people all over the country. They had extraordinary parents, very hard parents to lose, but ones who will be with them in spirit always and gave them the best upbringing that any two fine men could wish for. Paul was a family man from the beginning. That was always foremost in his priorities. I remember not more than 6 weeks ago I happened to come to the Senate Chamber one afternoon, just around the lunch hour. Much to my surprise, the Senate was in recess. There was Paul with his 7- year-old grandson named Joshua, Marcia's child, who was evidently on an outing that afternoon with his grandfather. Paul was showing him around the empty Chamber and pointing out where his desk was, as well as others. I think Paul was convinced that he had Josh quite impressed with this great Chamber and all it represents to all of us until Josh looked up at him kind of wistfully and said: Grandpa, are we going to go someplace soon? You promised that we were going to go someplace this afternoon. For once, Paul seemed almost at a loss for words. He looked up at the ceiling and then looked forlornly at me, looked over to Josh and said: This is someplace. I close by saying, yes, Paul, this is some place that you reached, without any of the advantages some of us have enjoyed, and Sheila Wellstone with none at all. They met at age 19. He came to Northfield, MN, built a career as a college professor, she as a housewife raising their children. To come to some place like this is a phenomenal American success story. I recounted earlier today about how Paul was elected in 1990. He ran an extraordinary campaign, a David versus Goliath, come from nowhere, miraculous victory that is a tribute to the kind of indefatigable courage and willingness to follow his dream and bring people along with him. He stood for what he believed in and won by doing so. That should be in every political textbook in this country for decades to come. He served in the Senate for 12 years and made those stands again and again. Whether they were popular, whether he had the votes or not, he knew usually with great insight whether he was going to be successful. He knew when he lost he had no alternative but to stand behind what he believed in, to stand with his conscience and his convictions. He trusted in the people of Minnesota to give him the opportunity to serve, which they did twice, and he was going back to seek their support for a third term. As others have pointed out, he was facing one of the most difficult votes of his career, as some would say, at an inopportune time, which was the resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq by the President, at his discretion. Paul began his Senate career with that kind of vote with the Persian Gulf resolution and some believe because of his stands over the years that if he were to oppose a popular President, if he were to express a different perspective and, as Senator Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, pointed out, vote for an alternative resolution, one that committed the United States to multilateral action with other countries of the world, that he would pay a political price for that in Minnesota. Paul never really agonized about his decision in this matter because compromising his convictions was not something Paul ever considered doing. In fact, in my 2 years in the Senate, the one time I saw Paul angry was when a staff person--not his own staff, he did not know who made the comment--was reported in the Washington Post as saying the Senate Democratic Caucus was trying to find some alternative resolution to provide cover for Paul Wellstone who was facing a difficult reelection. Paul was furious that anyone would accuse him of looking for cover from a tough vote. He said in one of our meetings that is what he had to take back to the people of Minnesota, that they knew he would never seek cover to avoid a tough decision or a tough vote; he would do what he believed was right and he was willing to go back to the Minnesota electorate and take their judgment. I believe if he had been able to bring that to the Tuesday election that judgment would again have been in the affirmative. That is Paul Wellstone's legacy to all of us. That is his legacy to the country. Whether one would agree with everything Paul believed is not the point. There are those who can have sincere convictions on the other side of the issue. That is the greatness of our country and our democracy, that we can have those disagreements, honest, different points of view, and we are a better institution and we are a better country for our ability, through our political process, to embrace and incorporate those differences. He stood for what he believed in, would risk everything, his political career, his opportunity to serve, everything he believed and everything he wanted, on a matter of principle. He would do so willingly, courageously, and emphatically. That is something I will take with me throughout the rest of my life, and I would commend it to everyone else in this body and across this country. I yield the floor.