Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate observe a moment of silence in tribute to Senator Wellstone and his family. (Moment of silence.)

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, it is with a profoundly heavy heart that I rise today to present this resolution honoring my colleague, Paul Wellstone. This is not the occasion in this brief session for eulogies. There will be other opportunities on the Senate floor for all of us to share our memories and our perspectives. For myself, I cannot begin to do Paul justice in a few minutes or even a few hours. He was such an extraordinary, such a remarkable man, and he brought so much life and enthusiasm and passion and commitment to the public life he lived, and he touched so many thousands of Minnesotans and others across this country who mourn his loss as we do here today. He died fearlessly, as he lived his life. In the resolution that was just read, the words ``never wavered from the principles'' will be words that I will always associate with Paul Wellstone. He never ever blinked in the face of adversity. Courageous, difficult, perhaps at times unpopular positions were articles of faith for Paul because he believed in them. It was not about polls. It was not about pundits. It was about the conviction he had about what was right for people, for his fellow citizens. He was unpretentious, unassuming, just himself. He was no different as a Senator than as a man, than as a political activist all in one, he was extraordinary and he will never be replaced. In the hearts and minds of Minnesotans, he will never be forgotten. Yet, Mr. President, he loved this institution. He respected enormously the traditions, the men and women who served here. They came to respect him for the courage of his convictions. I could see in the course of the 2 years I have shared with him in the Senate that he was respected by people who did not agree with him because they knew he was speaking from his heart, that he was speaking from his soul, that he was speaking what he truly believed. One could ask for no more, no less from any of us than the strength of our convictions and our willingness to speak out about them regardless of political cost. Paul and his wife, Sheila, at his side for 39 years, died last Friday together, as they would have wanted it to be, not with their daughter Marcia who also was on that flight and three of their devoted aides and two pilots. It is an unspeakable tragedy and horror for all of us in Minnesota, but it will be for all of us, on behalf of Paul, to take a deep breath and carry on in behalf of our convictions and our causes-- as he would want us to do. I thank the Senate for this resolution on behalf of Paul. And for his two surviving sons, David and Mark, and their families I know it will be of solace to them in their hours of terrible grief. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague, the Senator from California.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, the Republican leader, all the Members of the Senate, and myself, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 354, submitted earlier today.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I join my colleague from Nevada in complimenting the Senator from Connecticut on the passage of the election reform law. I had the distinct pleasure and privilege to sit in the chair to preside when this matter was debated and discussed many months ago. As the Senator from Connecticut has observed, no one could have known then how long the ordeal remained before they could bring the conference report back this week. What the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Kentucky, and the Senator from Missouri accomplished on behalf of the Senate and, more importantly, on behalf of the citizens of America, is extraordinary. Given all that has not been brought to fruition in the final days, the accomplishment the Senator brought to the Senate is an extraordinary tribute to his endurance and his legislative skills. He was very gracious yesterday to commend all of the people who worked so hard on this legislation--his colleagues and the staff across the aisle. He was too modest to compliment himself. I join with the Senator from Nevada in saying that Senator Dodd has performed an extraordinary service to his Nation. We will--in Minnesota and Hawaii and Connecticut and across the country--conduct better elections, more reliable elections, elections where citizens can vote and know the votes will be counted and counted accurately. His daughter Grace and his grandchildren and my children and grandchildren will be the beneficiaries of those hours of hard work. I thank the Senator. I congratulate him for that extraordinary accomplishment. It is one of the true highlights of our session. Also, to follow up, I was presiding when the Senator referred to a couple of pieces of legislation that were not enacted in this session. We will be finishing our work and perhaps coming back in November after the election, with an agenda then that has not yet been determined and with prospects that are unknown. I express my great disappointment in some of the matters that were not accomplished. When I was elected 2 years ago--so this is my first session of Congress--perhaps I came with loftier expectations and perhaps less seasoned assumptions of what could be accomplished, especially given the opportunities that presented themselves less than 2 years ago when we arrived and were looking at these months of time, the trillions of dollars of resources available to do the things that needed to be done. One of the promises I made to the people of Minnesota during my campaign, which I took very seriously, was the passage of prescription drug legislation to provide for coverage through Medicare or some other means, but my own view was, through the Medicare Program for senior citizens throughout Minnesota, I am sure Hawaii and elsewhere, have been ravaged by these rising prices, by their inability to control the costs, by the need, as I have discovered in my age, to require more prescription medication. The benefits of those medications are lifegiving, lifesaving, life- enhancing for millions of Americans. However, for our elderly population, they are literally the difference between life and death. They are literally the difference, time after time, between being able to enjoy their lives, rather than being consigned to pain and suffering, and infirmity that no one should be subjected to, certainly not in your last months or years of your life. We had all these good intentions. If we totaled the assurances Members made from both sides of the aisle when they sought election or reelection that year, we would have had a unanimous agreement that this legislation was overdue, was badly needed, and we might have had some differences of views as to how it was going to be enacted. But when I came here in January of 2001 I felt as certain as I felt about anything that we would pass that legislation and we would have that moment that Senator Dodd enjoyed yesterday, to bring back to the Senate a conference report, something that was agreed upon by the House, by the White House, and by the Senate, and we could pass it and go back and proudly tell our fellow citizens we had done the job they sent us to do. I am terribly distraught and disappointed and disillusioned. I feel apologetic to the citizens of Minnesota, to the senior citizens who placed their trust in me and sent me here. I remember one elderly woman in Duluth, MN, in the northeastern part of our State, about half my size and twice my age, who spoke to me in December of the year 2000 just before I came here. She looked at me after I visited her with her and her friends. She said, If you do not keep your promises, I will take you out behind the woodshed for an old-fashioned thrashing. I don't dare go back to Duluth, MN, after our failure to pass this legislation. I think in some ways this whole process that we failed to master, if not ourselves, individually, the failure of this entire endeavor, needs an old-fashioned thrashing. It is shameful we have not enacted that legislation on behalf of seniors in Minnesota and everywhere. It is only one instance, unfortunately, where this failure to enact the people's business occurred in this body. I have presided over this Senate more hours in the last 2 years than anyone, save my colleague, Senator Carper, of Delaware, and it has been in most respects a very enjoyable, fascinating, and certainly educational experience as a new Member of the Senate to see firsthand what occurs here and how these matters are handled. The masters of the Senate, through years of experience, know how this process works; also, unfortunately, masters of the process who know how to prevent it from working and how to obstruct and delay it. I have watched since the beginning of this year, time after time the efforts of the majority leader, my good friend from the neighboring State of South Dakota, who has the responsibility as leader of our majority caucus to try to schedule and move legislation forward. I have seen time after time that he has not been given the agreement necessary. In the Senate, it takes, as you know, unanimous consent. It takes all 100 of us to agree individually just to bring up a matter of legislation. Without that unanimous consent, we have to go through a procedure that then requires the majority leader to file cloture. Then it takes 2 more days before we can vote on proceeding, just going ahead to take up a piece of legislation. Time after time we have had to go through that process. The majority leader has had to follow it. I believe, if we tallied up all those days that we have been obstructed and delayed from just considering legislation in this body, it would be 50 or 60 during the last year alone. That is 10 to 12 weeks of time. That is 2\1/2\ to 3 months of time that we have not been able to conduct the people's business, where we couldn't consider legislation, where we couldn't bring up amendments and vote them up or down. Here we are now just at a point of recess or adjournment or whatever it is going to be, and we have not passed prescription drug coverage for seniors, we have not extended unemployment benefits but once. I believe we have tried two or three other times to do so. We have not been able to get to so many things the people of Minnesota depended on me to provide and I think the people of America were looking for from all of us. So as we are in these closing moments, and as Senator Dodd from Connecticut has brought attention to some of the unfinished business before us, I wanted to highlight some of that myself and to say, the Good Lord willing, I will be back here, whether it is in November or December or January of next year or the new session of Congress. I wish we would have been able to leave here with much more accomplished. Those who are out there wondering, who do not want excuses or explanations, who want real results, which they should have, who want programs that will benefit them, who want help when they need it, who want improvements in their lives--if they really want to understand why we are leaving some of these matters undone, I invite their calls. I would be happy to discuss those matters with them. They should look, as I say, and count the number of days we have had to wait to let the clock tick so we could follow the rules of the Senate just to move on to another matter. Then I would recommend they ask themselves why it is and who it was behind this delay and this obstruction, and hold those individuals to account when they visit the voting booth in the next occasion. With that, I wish the President a good evening, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I am glad the Senator brought up the balanced approach and, earlier, the Social Security surpluses. Of course, the Senator from Florida has a great many senior citizens in his State, and I have a quite a number in mine. I would have even more if not so many of them would move to Florida and enjoy your better climate. But as I recall, President Clinton, when he departed office, had left not only a balanced budget for the first time in this country in almost 30 years, but he had actually balanced the non-Social Security part of the budget. So as the Senator said, the surpluses were accumulating in the Social Security trust fund year by year that would pay down, I believe it was, over $3 trillion of debt that would put our fiscal house in order, that would be ready for the baby boom retirement years. What happened to all of that financial responsibility in such a short time? Does the Senator recall? Where did all that money go?

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator from Florida. I want to be sure I heard the Senator correctly. First, I heard the Senator say earlier that the stock market dropped by 35 percent from January of 2001 to the present time. Is that correct? I was doing some mathematics here. Someone had holdings of $50,000 in January of 2001, and those holdings are now worth only $32,500; $17,500 of that would be lost. Does the Senate recall the tax package which I opposed as being skewed unfairly to the rich and giving a few hundred dollars in rebates to the average taxpayer? I was thinking to myself: Whatever that amount is, to lose $17,500 out of a $50,000 retirement savings in a 401(k) or an IRA, it seems to me, is a pretty bad economic deal for most Americans. Does the Senator concur or is my math that bad?

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DAYTON. If I may indulge the Senator for just another minute, the Senator from Florida, being a former insurance commissioner and having such a large senior population, I wonder if he could explain the point he just made about how the insurance companies themselves don't want to provide the kind of coverage that some of our colleagues claim would be the solution to this problem.

Mr. DAYTON. The Senator brought up earlier today, along with the Senator from West Virginia, this terrible dilemma we face in the Senate, that we cannot get a conference agreement with the House on concurrent receipt for our veterans, for those who have served this country, for those who have suffered injuries, disabilities, and the like. I believe the Senator was referring--maybe he could refresh my memory--to the conference committee gathering this afternoon; we both serve on the Armed Services Committee. I could not attend, but the Senator, as I understood correctly, said the House conferees did not even attend the gathering. They did pass in the House by over 400 votes support for the Senate position. But the White House, if I recall correctly, has now said the President will veto the Defense authorization bill because it includes concurrent receipt because it costs too much money. Back when this $2 trillion tax cut was being discussed, this Senator does not recall any real concern being expressed that we could not afford it, and I hear now, over and over again, we cannot do prescription drug coverage. We cannot even do Medicare reimbursement equalization. We cannot do concurrent receipt for our veterans. We cannot afford to do anything for benefits for people, such as extending unemployment benefits, as the Senator pointed out, because we don't have the money. But back when it was tax cuts for the wealthy, we seemed to have all the money we needed.

Mr. DAYTON. The people who watch us debate must wonder about the mathematics of the Congress. The Senator from Nevada, who is a champion of the concurrent receipts legislation, sees it passed by the Senate and then by over 400 votes in the House. And then it does seem strange that these matters just can't quite make it through the rest of the process to become law. This Senator holds out hope that the administration, which is going to be visiting my home State of Minnesota--we have not seen such an interest by an administration in our State, in my own recollection-- will come in and seize the opportunity to support two things that would be of great benefit to my State. One would be disaster assistance for our farmers who have now suffered the second year in a row, and another would be the support for concurrent receipt for our veterans. It would seem a fitting way to recognize the kind of suffering some are still going through and also the kind of contributions that have been made, once again, to see that there would be the same enthusiasm for fitting within this budget framework some of the benefits we would like to provide for our citizens, the same as we provide for the very wealthiest corporate executives who seem to be doing very well despite the difficult economic times. I thank the Senator from Florida for bringing these matters to the Senate this evening. It was an excellent discussion. I look forward to our continuing it again soon.

Mr. DAYTON. I appreciate the Senator going back to that point in time when the two of us and the Presiding Officer were sworn in here. I recall, for myself, the excitement I felt back then of the opportunities we had because the surpluses projected for the next decade, at that time, were $5.4 trillion. I wonder if the Senator recalls, as I can, the anticipation of all the good things we could do on behalf of the people of Minnesota, Florida, and the rest of the country. In my campaign, I made a promise of prescription drug coverage for every senior in Minnesota and sent busloads of seniors at the time up to Canada where they could get prescription drugs for half or less than half the cost of those same drugs in the United States. I recall saying back then the solution was not to bus every senior from Minnesota to Canada--and I think that would have been more problematic to travel from Florida to Canada--but the solution was to provide the kind of coverage here from our Government that the Canadian Government provides. I wonder if the Senator from Florida recalls other instances of the kinds of hopes and dreams we shared back then as a freshmen group of Senators as to what we could do for this country, and if you can think, as I can, back to the days when we were talking about surpluses for 10 years rather than deficits.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I ask for unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds more to finish my remarks.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as an original cosponsor of Senator Byrd's amendment.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment by the great senior Senator from West Virginia. It closely parallels an amendment which I filed and which, unfortunately, now that the Senate has made its determination to limit the amount of time and debate on this historic decision, I will not be bringing to the Senate for a vote. A decision to rush to judgment on this matter has now been made by the Senate. I won't belabor the point except to say that in January of 1998, after Saddam Hussein had bounced U.N. inspectors out of Iraq, the Senate took 5 months to consider and finally approve a resolution which did not even authorize President Clinton to use force. In October, 1998, the Senate passes another resolution which again did not authorize the President of the United States to use force. In 1990, the Senate took 5 months after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and that resolution was passed just days before President Bush committed this Nation to its first military engagement in the Persian Gulf war. We have had a number of very valuable hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee in the last weeks. I asked one panel of recently retired generals, three of whom were directly involved in the Persian Gulf war, whether the absence of a Congressional resolution or declaration of war had in any way prevented or impeded that military buildup preparatory to the engagement in January of 1991. They said, no, it did not. So I don't understand why, from any consideration-- military, diplomatic, or constitutional--we should be voting and rushing to this judgment this weekend, but we will. We will be voting on what? What is it, S.J. Res. 46, that we are actually voting upon? It is a preapproval of whatever the President of the United States decides to do whenever. It is a vote for euphemisms such as ``to use force'' or ``as he determines to be necessary.'' Why? Why are we rushing to this judgment at this time? So we can adjourn in the next few days and go home until next January, or until we decide whether the outcome of the November election will aid or impair our own political agendas? Some of those concerns might seem justified, particularly as they relate to our own domestic concerns. But for decisions of war or peace, decisions about what is right for our national security, decisions about the life or death of Americans fighting on our behalf, decisions about the survival of the existing world order and even possibly the survival of our world as we know it, there are no justifications for political calculation or personal convenience. There should be only one consideration, and that is to do what is right for the country, as God gives each of us to see that right. Yet S.J. Res. 46 preapproves any decision by the President of the United States to commit this Nation to war at some time in the future, with U.N. support or without it--unilaterally, bilaterally, multilaterally, preventatively, preemptively. Even other amendments that I will support, which have the best of intentions, fall into this trap: What do you do when you are preapproving a war? Put a limit on this but not for that; if this; if that. However, it is very hard to forecast events of this magnitude. There is no need for us to try to do so. There are no good reasons for us to do so, except the need to preapprove something and then go home. If we don't vote for the final resolution, we will be accused of not supporting the President, of not speaking with one voice to Saddam Hussein, to the United Nations, and to the world. Those are very serious accusations, that you don't support the President of the United States. I do support the President. He is my President. He is our President. I pray he will make the right decisions and get the credit. I pray he won't make the wrong decisions and get the blame. But when I am asked to support this President, or any President, I need to understand what it is exactly that he wants us to do, what he intends for us to support. This President, as I understood his speech last Monday, is certainly not asking the Congress to declare war on Iraq today. He is wisely reserving that judgment. Why wouldn't we exercise the same wisdom? The situation, as we have seen in the last weeks, is inherently fluid. New facts become known; old facts even change. I support the President's reserving judgment until after the United Nations decision, until it attempts to force Saddam Hussein's compliance, until we can determine the outcome of those efforts. During those critical days or weeks ahead, I will be around. I will be available at any time, day or night, whenever, to participate back here on the Senate floor in this momentous decision. All of us in this Chamber and in the House could be here within hours, should be, and would be if we were called upon to do so, whenever the President or this Congress believed that a decision to commit this Nation to war must be made. As the President said Monday night, the time before that decision is limited. But the time for that decision is not now. Another reason to follow this protocol, the reason for my amendment, the reason I support Senator Byrd's amendment, is that it is what the Constitution of the United States requires Congress to do--either declare war or not. It says right in that book--I don't carry it with me quite as faithfully as the great Senator from West Virginia, but I do happen to have my copy today--Congress shall declare war. That is about as clear and unambiguous a statement as could be made. There are important reasons that Congress was given, and only Congress was given, that authority and that responsibility. Because it was considered by our Founders to be essential to the system of checks and balances upon which this Republic depends. James Madison wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1798, less than a decade after the Constitution's ratification, in which he said: The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature. But the Doctrines lately advanced strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it. For if the opinion of the President, not the facts & proofs themselves, are to sway the judgment of Congress in declaring war, and if the President in the recess of Congress create a foreign mission, appoint the minister, & negociate [sic] a War Treaty, without the possibility of a check even from the Senate, . . . it is evident that the people are cheated out of the best ingredients of their Government, the safeguards of peace which is the greatest of their blessings. The subsequent 204 years have demonstrated many times the wisdom and foresight of our Constitution. Its principles should give special pause to this body when being admonished by the President, by any President, not to ``tie my hands.'' Those words indicate a regrettable lack of regard for Congress and for our constitutional standing as a coequal branch of Government. Our Nation's Founders darn well wanted to tie a President's hands. Thomas Jefferson wrote: In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. Those words are meant to apply to this President, to any President. Except in matters of war and peace? Especially in matters of war and peace. I would say this, the Constitution's wisdom has a very valuable perspective on the pressures and perils we face in this body today. Not only the perils in confronting a dangerous dictator, as we must, but also the perils in how we decide to do so. Some might prefer to avoid the momentous decision the Constitution assigns us whether or not to declare war. Whether or not to send Americans into battle halfway around the world, where they would likely encounter the chemical or biological weapons we rightfully seek to spare this country. Some of those Americans will die too young, and others will suffer horrible wounds lasting for lifetimes. Iraqi children and their families will be destroyed in their own homes, schools, and mosques. The rest of the world will judge that decision and its consequences, which they could not escape. We will read about it in the newspapers. We will watch its manifestations on television. We will probably attempt to share the credit if it turns out well, and avoid the blame if, God forbid, it doesn't. We will talk about that decision. We might even hold hearings on it, but we won't assemble in this Chamber where previous Senates once voted declarations of war, but not since World War II. Mr. President, these decisions are ones we will live with for our lifetimes. They should not be made in these circumstances. We should follow the guidance we have seen evident from the changes in the administration's views over the last weeks. I support and applaud those changing perspectives. I respect a leader who can listen and learn, then adjust his views and decisions accordingly. I believe the wise counsel from Members of this body--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--has been an important part of that process. I believe the American people, the collective wisdom of our fellow citizens, who overwhelmingly support the President, who overwhelmingly believe the President should consult with this body, who overwhelmingly believe the U.S. should act in concert with the U.N. and other nations of the world, and not alone, unilaterally, preemptively. I believe those public judgments, as we all manage to view them, probably daily in polling documents, have had enormous influence on the decisions that are going to be made. We owe it to our responsibilities to what is best for this country; we owe it to the brave men and women who will have to carry out those decisions, to make them when they must be made, on the basis of the best, most current, and most complete information possible--knowing, even then, that we will still not have the certainty, clarity, foresight we would wish to have. That is the wisdom of the Constitution. That is the wisdom of Senator Byrd's amendment. That is, I believe, the wisdom of the amendment I would have brought forth, which says simply the Congress shall go back to following the Constitution of the United States. The reasons for that document's decisions are as valid today as they were 213 years ago, and maybe some day--it will not be this week but soon, this body will review the decision not to follow its dictates and return to it. I look forward to that and, hopefully, Senator Byrd will be on the floor that day, as he deserves to be when that decision is made. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DAYTON. I will use that 1\1/2\ minutes to respond. I was not here when those events occurred. I rely on the authorities and information available to me. I will note Senator Lott was quoted in several publications. On February 12, the then-majority leader said: I had hoped that we could get to the point where we can pass a resolution this week on Iraq. But we really developed some physical problems, if nothing else. . . . So we have decided that the most important thing is not to move so quickly, but to make sure that we have had all the right questions asked and answered and that we have available to us the latest information about what is . . . happening with our allies in the world. He went on to say: The Senate is known for its deliberative actions. And the longer I stay in the Senate, the more I have learned to appreciate it. It does help to give us time to think about the potential problems and the risks and ramifications and to, frankly, press the administration. The majority leader made that statement on the Senate floor on February 12. The resolution was passed and signed by President Clinton August 14, 1998, 6 months later. Also, I am not a legal scholar, but in making my comments I cited the opinion of counsel at the Library of Congress and its Congressional Research Services. They opined--I realize lawyers and others can disagree----

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. President, the opinion stated its judgment that since the document in 1998 urged the President to follow the actions which the Senator from Oklahoma has accurately described, it did not constitute an authorization under the War Powers Act. Furthermore, in the absence of any reference to authorization under the War Powers Act, which the resolution before us today contains, it did not provide that authority. I thank the Chair. I yield back time.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to pay tribute to those Americans who play a very special role in our democracy, the citizens who volunteer to serve as election judges. They work at the polls on Election Day, safeguarding our most precious right as Americans, the right to choose our leaders whom we then trust to govern, legislate on our behalf, and protect our rights and freedoms. Having received training in election laws and rules, judges open and close the polls, making a formidable commitment of time, energy, and stamina to work all day, often from before dawn until after dark. Some judges must promise to remain inside the polling place all day. They distribute ballots, tend to ballot boxes, count ballots, strictly adhering to prescribed procedures to ensure secrecy and accuracy of election materials. The judges process absentee ballots, help voters who require assistance, register new voters, and make certain that only qualified voters are permitted to vote. Recent history has taught us, all too dramatically, how important this process of validation is. To undertake this form of volunteer service is truly to exercise one's civic responsibility while also facilitating that right and duty for one's fellow citizens. While voters with strong party interests might be drawn to the position, a judge's job is not to influence voters. To be an election judge is to be a citizen-activist on a very basic, very human level. The activities of a judge, although routine, figure among the most rewarding and meaningful that an ordinary citizen can perform. Older Americans, especially retirees, regard it as a welcome way to keep in touch with what's happening in the broader community and to connect with their neighbors. Election judges are people of character and dedication. The official functions they pledge to perform are honorable and indispensable to our society. On Election Day, November 5th, many thousands of fine Americans will invest their time by fulfilling the role of election judge. We are most fortunate to have these conscientious citizens. I am proud to express my appreciation for their valuable service which makes our form of government work.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I absolutely agree with the Senior Senator from New York. What I find particularly disturbing is, as I know from experience in Minnesota, where the President has been to my State three times in the last year in the midst of my colleague's very difficult election campaign, the President has come in, raised a couple million dollars, and has charged part of the cost of this trip to the American taxpayers. He gives one 20-minute policy speech somewhere and then goes on to raise millions of dollars for campaigns, and the American taxpayer is paying the bill. I agree with the Senator, the President ought to stay at home. He should focus on the economy, in addition to Iraq. And if he does travel for political reasons, the American taxpayer should not be paying the bill.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have spent many hours in the last few weeks looking at matters of national security. As the Presiding Officer knows--he is also a member of that committee--the hearings we have held, thanks to our outstanding chairman, Senator Levin of Michigan, have been invaluable. I also thank the administration for providing us with briefings and meetings to give us the best possible understanding of the situation we face. I also serve as a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee. I have spent the last couple months on the legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security. I pay tribute to the chairman of that committee, Senator Lieberman, who is also the author of that legislation. I think it is tragic that legislation has been hung up here in the Senate for matters of political grandstanding rather than substantive disagreement. But there has been very little attention paid on the Senate floor or in Washington recently to the economic security of the American people. Frankly, if this administration has its way, I think there will be no attention paid to economic security at all over the next 6 weeks. If you look at the condition of the economic security of this Nation, for most Americans, you can understand why the White House wants to do anything possible to change the subject. Yesterday's papers, alone, had one day of economic news that would say we ought to put the economic security of this country on the highest level of alert, a code red, for disaster, disaster, disaster. As the papers reported yesterday, the Nasdaq exchange fell to its lowest level in 6 years, 77 percent below its high in the year 2000; a 39-percent drop in this year alone. The S&P 500 dropped near its 5-year low, 45 percent below its high just a couple years ago, and a 27-percent drop in this year alone. The newspapers yesterday said the stocks were surging in July and August of this summer. There was hope, optimism for an economic recovery being underway. But what happened? War scare happened. The Dow Jones has dropped almost 1,400 points since August 22 of this year, a 14-percent drop in its entire value in just 1 month. Why? Well, yesterday's Washington Times said: ``On concerns about the economy and a war.'' The Washington Post said: Uncertainty in the economy and a possible war in Iraq. The Times and the Post agree. According to the chief strategist for Lehman Brothers, the stock market is now heading toward its third consecutive down year, which would be the first time since World War II--the first time in over half a century--that the stock market has dropped for 3 consecutive years. That means the 401(k) account or the IRA or the private savings accounts of many Americans are worth half, or even less than half, of their value when President Bush took office. Unfortunately, Mr. President and Members, it is more likely to get worse than better. A Wall Street Journal headline yesterday said: ``Is Your Portfolio Ready for War?--Iraq Attack Could Slash S&P 500 by 10%.'' That is another 10 percent in addition to what has happened already. Crude oil prices were reported yesterday as topping $30 a barrel, the highest level in 19 months. The number of Americans out of work in this country since February of 2001 has increased by 2,300,000 of our fellow citizens. Let me say that again. The number of Americans out of work in this Nation has gone up since February of 2001 by 2,300,000; and we can't get an extension of unemployment benefits passed in the Senate to protect those who have lost their jobs and are suffering the drastic financial consequences. Unfortunately, it is not likely to get any better, because the leading economic indicators fell in August for the third straight month. The Wall Street Journal said their consensus economic forecast for the last quarter of this calendar year--2002--has dropped 16 percent, and it also has been revised downward for the beginning of next year. The chief economist for Wells Fargo Bank--a good Minnesotan, Mr. Suysoh said a war with Iraq could bring oil prices to over $40 a barrel and cause a major recession. Some have said the administration decided to make the possibility of a war with Iraq the main topic this fall, because the economic condition of this country was so bad. Well, they have succeeded in making the war with Iraq the main topic, and they have succeeded in making the state of our Nation's economy even worse. Those comments about orchestrating the timing are not mine. They are the words of the White House Chief of Staff, Mr. Andrew Card, reported on September 7 that the White House waited on its PR offensive about the possibility of war until after Labor Day. He said: From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce a new product in August. That is one heck of a product. This Senator's judgment, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is that Mr. Card is being honest. I have seen no new information and I am aware of no imminent threat to this country. The war scare that is going on now. The hurry-up-and- vote pressure on the Senate right now. The pressure to OK the first preemptive attack in this Nation's 213-year history. They are the first installment of a doctrine which the President announced in June, the right to a preemptive strike by the United States of America. What would happen in this world if every other nation followed suit with a preemptive strike against a possible future threat? What about India and Pakistan, who both possess nuclear weapons? What about Israel and the Palestinians, China and Taiwan, or North Korea and South Korea? Does anyone stop to think whether this doctrine of preemptive strike would make the world more or less secure? Mr. Card, the White House Chief of Staff, is right. This new product has caused quite a PR sensation. It is taking over the headlines--it has replaced the stock market with Saddam Hussein. Talk about going from bad to worse. The trouble is that the stock market is also going from bad to worse. The number of unemployed in America has gone from bad to worse. The economic outlook of this Nation has gone from bad to worse. The Federal budget forecast has gone from bad to worse. The economic security for most Americans has gone from bad to worse. I can understand why the White House might not be aware of all this, because the contributions to the Republican political committees are at record highs. Yesterday's headline again: ``GOP Committees See a 40-Percent Increase in Soft Money.'' Their bank accounts outweigh the Democrats by more than 2 to 1. Their contributors have good reasons to be grateful. The Brookings Institute reports that the top 1 percent of American taxpayers--the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country--got 37 percent of last year's tax cut. They pay 26 percent of the taxes, and they got 37 percent of the tax cut. The average tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this Nation under last year's bill was over $45,000. The average pretax earnings of the top 1 percent is over $1.1 million, and they got an average tax cut of over $45,000. I have to say that this administration does have an economic recovery plan. The trouble is it is limited to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. For the rest of America, we are in a real-life survival show. They lose their jobs. The losers lose their health insurance. They lose their retirement investments. And the winner of the show is someone like Jack Walsh, former chairman of General Electric. He has an annual pension of $9 million. I hope that was indexed to inflation. General Electric shareholders, which include retirees whose portfolios, as I said earlier, dropped by 50 percent in the last 2 years, also pay for Mr. Walsh's car and driver and for his floor seats at the New York Knicks basketball games. They pay for his boxes at both the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees baseball games. They pay his fees to four country clubs, and more. I tell you, some corporate executives are no longer satisfied with golden parachutes. They take the whole airplane. American taxpayers ought to be asking themselves: Why does this guy need a tax cut? Why did this administration insist on squandering over $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years on tax cuts where over one-third of the benefits go to the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country? It will cost the Federal Government $500 billion more over the next 10 years just on the higher interest payments on the Federal debt. That is $500 billion more in taxes to pay for fiscal irresponsibility. That provides nothing for homeland security. That provides nothing for special education; nothing for anything that benefits the people of America. In 1 year, the non-Social Security budget of this country has gone from a 10-year forecast a $3.1 trillion surplus to a $700 billion deficit. That is an almost a $4 trillion drop in 1 year. Not even Arthur Andersen can hide that number. Yesterday's paper reported that the Vice President is indignant about suggestions that this war scare, this ``warphoria'' has been timed for political benefits this fall. I wouldn't be indignant. I would be outraged, if the White House Chief of Staff is correct in what he said--that the White House waited to introduce its ``new product'' until the fall of a midterm election. Only the people who were responsible for those decisions know why they made them. But the American people will ultimately hold them responsible for those decisions. The war scare has wiped the economy off the headlines. It has also wiped any economic recovery for this country off the map. It has wiped many Americans' jobs out of existence, and wiped many Americans' prosperity from comfort to despair. If all of this is absolutely necessary, it is unfortunate. If it is not, it is unforgivable. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 15 minutes, if necessary, to complete my remarks.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair. On that subject, I say to the Senator, I recall last year, with the new administration, there was considerable delay in the Senate receiving the administration's spending request, so there were delays in the process resulting from that. This year I believe the chairman of the Appropriations Committee took great measures to assure a timely disposition of these spending bills. It is my understanding that the Senate Appropriations Committee reported these measures out in a very expeditious fashion so they could all be passed by the Senate and conferenced before the beginning of the new fiscal year. Is that the record as the chairman has lived through it?

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, may I also ask----