Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, September 11, 2001, was a day of infamy that will rank down with the very worst, most cowardly and vile actions ever taken against this Nation or any other nation on this planet, a sneak attack, murdering thousands--innocent children, women, and men-- with no provocation, no forewarning, with no justification or rational reason, just the demented ravings and rantings of a fanatic who has perverted the principal teachings of his professed faith, of its greatest prophet, Mohammad. He twisted Mohammad's words into support for wars, with himself to play God and decide who deserved mercy and who did not. Innocent civilians died in the United States as a result of that fanaticism. His soldiers died on September 11. And he is off somewhere hiding in a cave. Ten Minnesotans or Minnesota natives lost their lives in the attacks that terrible day: Gordon Aamoth, Jr., whose parents are good friends of my parents, an investment banker with offices on the 104th floor of the World Trade Center; as did Ann Nelson, a bond trader. Others were killed at work at the Pentagon: Captain Charles Burlingame, III, was the pilot of the hijacked American airlines plane which struck the World Trade Center. Tom Burnet was a passenger on United Airlines Flight 93, and one who led the counterattack against the hijackers on that plane. Tom and the other American heroes could not save themselves, but they may have saved us, as that plane's target was reportedly this very Capitol in which I stand with you today--alive, all of us, thanks, possibly, to Tom Burnet and the other American heroes. These were good, hard-working Minnesotans, good, hard-working American citizens, who had the terrible misfortune to be living their lives in the wrong places on that day, September 11, 2001. They have been forever taken away from their families and friends, from their lives. So to those families and friends I express my very deepest condolences. I remember leaving the Russell Senate Office Building that morning, going over to a hotel just a couple of blocks away from the Capitol where I was residing at the time, and I was asked by the general manager if I wanted to go up on the roof of the hotel, which I did, about 10:30 in the morning. The sky was totally clear except for a dark plume of cloud coming up from the Pentagon. There was no air traffic in the sky, no planes going in and out of National Airport, no helicopters, as is usually the case, going across the river. All was quiet there until suddenly this one F-16 fighter plane came streaking down The Mall, seemingly just a few hundred feet right over the top of the Capitol. I thought to myself, I just never imagined in my worst nightmares I would ever see a day where a U.S. fighter jet was flying over our Capitol to defend it from whatever foreign enemy was attacking us. I pray to God I will never, ever see it again--never again. George W. Bush became our President that week. He hadn't been elected our President, not in the traditional way of a democracy, by getting the most votes in the election, but that week he became our President. He rose magnificently to the enormous challenges and burdens which a President of the United States must bear, and must often bear alone, for all the rest of us. President Bush did that and he did it well, very well. He gained the good will of our entire Nation, and our Nation gained the good will of almost the entire world. What priceless silver linings there were for all of us who survived those dark, terrible, black clouds which engulfed us on that terrible day. What opportunities those 10 Minnesotans and their fellow citizens gave to their country, at the terrible cost of their own lives. We gained the support, the good will, and the alliance of practically the entire world. The President said, just 4 months later in his State of the Union Address to Congress and the American people, on January 29, 2002: As we gather tonight, our Nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet the State of our Union has never been stronger. I recall all of us rising up in the House Chamber where we were witnessing that speech, and being stirred--shivers down my spine--by those words: ``Yet the state of our Union has never been stronger.'' Today, 2 years later, the U.S. Government, the same Bush administration, does not have the support nor the trust nor the respect of the nations of the world--not their governments and not the majority of their citizens. That is not surprising. For most of the past year, the administration has scorned most of the rest of the world. It has denounced the United Nations, derided allies of ours who disagreed with us, has berated others in order to try to compel their support. And it has proclaimed repeatedly the right of the United States, and the intention of the Bush administration, to take whatever military action it deems necessary--whenever, against whomever, who threatened or might at some time in the future threaten our national security. No one in this country who cares about this country could question our right to protect our Nation's or our citizens' safety, not before September 11, 2001, and not after September 11, 2001. No one in the world who wishes us well would question our doing so. In fact, the vast majority of the world's governments and people supported our war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and against al-Qaida, and our stated intention to attack terrorists and terrorist organizations and their bases of operation wherever they were throughout the world. But instead, the administration chose to go to war against Iraq. That action most of the rest of the world did not support. Other governments and the United Nations were skeptical about the Bush administration's claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which U.N. inspectors could not find last fall and this year. They didn't believe they constituted an imminent threat to our National Security. The Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, called the evidence the U.S. gave him about Iran's weapons of mass destruction ``pretty pathetic.'' The rest of the world was skeptical, and the rest of the world would be proven right to be skeptical. There were no weapons of mass destruction used, thank God, against U.S. troops when they invaded Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction were found unused on battlefields or command posts or stored in caches anywhere in that country. Not even biological, chemical, or nuclear materials that could have been used to make those weapons have been found. Not even top level Iraqi scientists or former government officials, some of whom have been incarcerated for months now, denied any legal representation, denied chances to visit with their families--in some cases the families don't even know where they are or even if they are alive--not even interrogations under those conditions have produced information leading to weapons of mass destruction or supplies of weapons of mass destruction materials of the kinds and in the amounts that were claimed by the President and Vice President and Secretary of Defense and the National Security Adviser. The rest of the world didn't believe our fears, but the American people did. The American people trusted our leaders. They believed them. They supported their decisions. They sent their sons and daughters, their husbands and wives, their friends and neighbors halfway around the world to fight for, and some to die for, that stated threat, that urgent threat that was asserted again and again by our leaders. On August 26, 2002, Vice President Cheney said in a speech: There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. One month later, on September 26, 2002, President Bush stated after meeting with Members of Congress: All of us are united in our determination to confront an urgent threat to America. The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as minutes after the order were given. Ten days later, just before Congress voted on his desire for a resolution, the President added that ``Iraq is exploring ways of using UVAs--unmanned aerial vehicles--for missions targeting the United States''. Later, the administration officials admitted those vehicles had a maximum range of only about 300 miles and couldn't have been used against the United States. During the same speech, the President asserted Saddam Hussein could have ``a nuclear weapon in less than a year''. Supposedly the evidence cited and leaked to the press before that speech was that Saddam Hussein was secretly buying aluminum tubes for use in producing nuclear fissile materials. But when our own Department of Energy concluded they were the wrong tubes to use for such a purpose, the State Department's intelligence bureau concluded and pointed out they weren't even secret buys and that the purchase orders were posted on the Internet. The question was not made known to Congress nor made known to the American people. In two reports to the Secretary of State, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research concluded there was no reliable evidence that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program at all. That was, in fact, what Saddam Hussein's own son-in-law had told the United States and United Nations officials when he defected in 1995. As the Washington Post reported on August 10 of this year, a year previously--on August 7, 2002--the Vice President volunteered in a question-and-answer session at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, speaking of Hussein, that ``left to his own devices, it's the judgment of many of us that in the not-too-distant future, he will acquire nuclear weapons.'' On August 26, the Vice President described Hussein as a ``sworn enemy of our country'' who constituted a ``mortal threat'' to the United States. He foresaw a time in which Hussein could ``subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.'' Continuing to quote: We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from firsthand testimony from defectors, including Saddam's own son-in-law. But as the Washington Post goes on to say, the son-in-law's testimony was the reverse of the Vice President's description; the opposite of what the American people, were told and what Congress was told. But those contradictions were never disclosed to the American people nor to Congress. In fact, the President and the Vice President continued to insist right up until the invasion that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear threat that was an imminent and urgent danger to the United States. The Vice President said on a network show on March 16 of 2003 that ``We believe he--Saddam Hussein--has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' The President, in his address to the Nation on March 17, 2003, cited intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves ``no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.'' If the Vice President of the United States asserts there is no doubt, and if the President of the United States asserts there is no doubt, then what is there to doubt? If you can't trust your own President and Vice President to tell you the truth about matters of life and death, such as nuclear threats, wars, and the future of this Nation, then what can you trust? Another thing the American public believes is that Saddam Hussein is directly linked to al-Qaida and to the terrible events of September 11, 2001. According to the national surveys, over two-thirds of the American public believes that. Why? Because that assertion has been made repeatedly by this administration. In fact, in the President's speech to the Nation last Sunday, he mentions the word ``terrorists'' or ``terrorist organizations'' 27 times--27 times. He cited the weapons of mass destruction once, in a rhetorical reference. The fundamental basis on which we went into Iraq as proclaimed before the war began was only cited one time in that entire address to the Nation. But ``terrorism,'' or the connection of terrorists to Iraq, al- Qaida, and the West dominated the President's remarks, and his continued assertions to the American people of what the real situation is in that country for which Americans are still giving their blood, bodies, and lives. On the other hand, as reported in the Washington Post recently, key administration figures have largely abandoned any claim that Iraq was involved in the 2001 attacks. ``I am not now sure that Iraq had something to do with it,'' Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said on August 1. The CIA's report--the administration's main source of information about these connections or lack of them--to the President and the administration, as reported in the New York Times on February 2 of 2002, found ``no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaida or related terrorist groups.'' Maybe former Marine General Anthony Zinni, who has been on missions representing the administration and the President in the Middle East, has the best analysis of this changing rationale for our actions. He said: Initially, there was at least an implication that Iraq was linked to terrorism. When that link couldn't be made, it was possession of weapons of mass destruction. When that link couldn't be made, it was lack of cooperation. Right now it is about ``we will not let you talk to our scientists,'' and it is the reason we will go to war. We know what the Iraqis have, and we can't tell you. I just think it is too confusing. What is not confusing is the casualties mount. The number of Americans being wounded or killed in action in Iraq last month exceeded the previous month by over a third. Director Tenent told us this week that they are averaging 15 attacks a day on United States forces after the victory we won so courageously and magnificently in 3 weeks over 4 months ago. But we in the Senate owe the American people and those soldiers over there our continued search for and insistence that the truth be told to us and to the American people about the circumstances that got us into this war, the circumstances that exist in this war, and how we are going to get out of this war preserving the victory which was won but also bringing our men and women home. They have performed and continue to perform with patriotism that goes beyond anything I can imagine. But they want to come home. Their families want them home. They deserve to come home. In his Gettysburg address, recognizing and paying tribute to other American heroes who lost their lives, President Lincoln concluded that ``we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'' A government of the people, by the people, and for the people is a government that tells the truth to its citizens. If it doesn't, it is not a government of them, not by them, and certainly not for them. It is imperative. Today, in commemoration of those who did not die in vain 2 years ago, there should be once again a rebirth of our freedom and our assertion to this Government or any Government of the United States of America to tell us the truth. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Isn't it also true that this administration proposed eliminating taxation on other income? Doesn't the Senator think it is a little odd for an administration to be penalizing people who want to work, people who want to work overtime and, at the same time, providing tax breaks or tax elimination for people who don't work for their income?

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

Mr. DAYTON. The Senator's distinguished record speaks for itself. I rise on a matter related to what the Senator just described, the quandary regarding funding for education programs. Yesterday, for the fourth time, I attempted to obtain 40 percent of Federal funds for special education to fulfill a promise that was made by the Federal Government to States and school districts 27 years ago, which today, and if we pass the appropriation measure that is before us, would be less than half of that 40 percent share. Every one of my colleagues in the Republican caucus voted against this amendment, evidencing that special education funding in the scheme of everything else is simply not a high enough priority. At that time, yesterday, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee made some observations that I still find rather astounding, particularly as it relates to the actual experience of educators in my State of Minnesota. According to the senior Senator from New Hampshire, it seems we are putting so much Federal money into the education programs--in fact, to quote the Senator, so much so fast under President Bush and the Republican Senate that we now have a situation where a large percentage of the dollars which we have already appropriated cannot be spent and have not been spent. Over $9 billion were cited that are supposedly sitting in some vault somewhere over at the Department of Education, title I funding, that was appropriated over the last 2 or 3 years evidently that the States have not drawn down to spend. We were told before that funding for other areas of education had increased so rapidly that those dollars could not be utilized. We were told by the Senator about 2 months ago that there are so many Head Start slots available that some of those are unfilled because there is more availability than parents desiring to put their children into Head Start. That comes as quite a surprise to parents and educators and Head Start service providers in Minnesota where there has been known to be a serious shortage of funding for those who are eligible and would like to utilize that program for years. It would come as a surprise to the school board members in school districts all over Minnesota that there is unused money in Washington for education. Our State is experiencing a shortage of some $250 to $300 million in education funding resulting in school districts across the State having to make drastic cuts in funding for public education, cutting teacher positions, cutting curriculum offerings, cutting supportive services. I wrote this morning to the Secretary of Education to ask him exactly the circumstances resulting in this $9.2 billion of unexpended Federal funds and to ask for his recommendation on what can be done to make these funds available to schools and school districts throughout the country where the funds, I can guarantee, would be well used today, tomorrow, or the day after so we do not have a situation where we have supposedly $9 billion of Federal funds lying around waiting for some school or school board to identify this opportunity to provide the educational services that schoolchildren in Minnesota are being denied today because of a critical shortage of funding. We also offered yesterday amendments to increase funding in this bill before Senators were lambasted for our fiscal irresponsibility. We were told again by the chairman of the HELP committee that we have finally set up in the Senate this year a budget for ourselves and we have renewed the concept of fiscal discipline through a budget after having been abandoned for a year under prior leadership of the Senate. Even though we have a budget, we should, we are being told, ignore it and fund all these additional programs for education. Yes, I did seek yesterday to increase funding for special education by $11 billion next year. That is a lot of money. But it is money fulfilling broken promises of over a quarter of a century. It was lambasted for its fiscal excess. Yesterday the manager of the bill noted there were no Senators offering amendments. It seems one of the reasons was that quite a number of Senators were at the White House literally at the same time I was offering my amendment. About the same time the critics were accusing my amendment and other amendments being offered for being fiscally reckless, Members were being notified by the President that he would seek another $60 billion or $80 billion--according to estimates I have seen, but it will actually be $100 billion--additional spending for the war effort in Iraq over the next fiscal year in addition to the $87 billion we approved earlier this year for additional funding for that effort, which I supported. And I will support, I expect, the request by the President for this continuing effort. Once we are in a war situation, as we are, we cannot conduct a war under budget. We have to conduct a war to win, to secure that victory, as the administration is trying now to do. It struck me as an odd juxtaposition of priorities, particularly given the Republican assistant leader spoke yesterday and said we were very clear that what the President wants he is going to get in terms of additional dollars. If we want to break the budget for an additional $160 million, as was one proposal yesterday for education--another proposal was for $68 million for education; in my case, $11 billion for additional funding for special education--those are figures that somehow break whatever this budget and this fiscal discipline the majority caucus claims we have established within this body. As soon as the administration wants another $80 or $100 billion next fiscal year, no questions asked. What the President wants, he will get. I wish the President would add to his list of priorities in addition to funding the economic reconstruction of Iraq, for $10 billion, we are told in this proposal, and another $15 billion over the next few years for AIDS in Africa, a worthwhile cause, but I wish we would give the same priority to the special needs of the students of America, both those at the elementary and secondary levels and also, as Senator Kennedy pointed out, those in postsecondary education who find getting a Pell grant or getting a college work-study opportunity about as scarce as finding a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. As the American people look at the fiscal crisis afflicting this Government's budget, from the beginning of this fiscal year of a projected deficit of $150 billion to now a deficit projected to be in the neighborhood of $550 billion--that includes, by the way, the use of the Social Security trust fund surplus of $155 billion for this year so actually the operating account of the Federal budget is in deficit close to $700 billion this year. Next year, the budget deficit for fiscal year 2004 was expected to be $200 billion and now it is already up to $480 billion. That does not count the $80 billion or $100 billion for the next fiscal year to be added for the President's request. So we are looking at the start of the fiscal year of a deficit next year of some $580 billion, almost three times what was projected a year ago. That is in contrast, by the way, to a surplus that we enjoyed in each of the last 4 years under President Clinton. There is one area, however, where there does not seem to be such a problem on the spending side. That is when it comes to pharmaceutical industry prices and profits. There was another interesting article today in the New York Times looking at the practice of the Veterans Administration in successfully lowering the price of prescription drugs for the VA and making it possible for millions of veterans to pay just $7 for up to a 30-day prescription. It is astonishing to see what the Senate and House bills now contain for prescription drug coverage contrasted with the VA copay of $7 per prescription. No wonder thousands of veterans are signing up for this program every month, stretching those appropriated dollars. I ask unanimous consent this New York Times article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DAYTON. For all its apparent success, lawmakers have disregarded the Veterans Administration model and others like it that use the Government's immense power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. In fact, under the Senate and House bills, under existing law, Congress would exempt the drug industry from the kind of cost controls in place for virtually every other major provider of Medicare services. One of the founders of the current health maintenance organization concept who then recanted his support based on what they became, former Minnesotan Dr. Paul M. Elwood, said in the article: The legislation pending in Congress does more to deform than to reform Medicare. Drug companies [the article goes on] say they support prescription drug coverage under Medicare [since the taxpayer will be paying for more of these medicines]. But in the last few years, they have invested several hundred million dollars in campaign contributions, lobbying and advertising to head off price controls. They were the largest contributor in the last campaign cycle for Federal campaigns, and of course those are not philanthropic contributions; they are political investments on which they expect and are receiving their desired return. The article goes on to say: The legislation ``reflects a political judgment that the pharmaceutical industry'' would block ``price controls or any arrangement that used the concentrated purchasing power of the government to buy prescription drugs,'' said Paul B. Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a private research institute. Why would the pharmaceutical industry be able to block the Congress from enacting legislation that would lower prescription drug prices for the people of America? It begs the question, Whose interests are being represented, that an industry, the pharmaceutical industry, can block legislation right here on the Senate floor, right over there in the House of Representatives--can block legislation that would result in lower prescription drug prices for senior citizens and people of all ages across this country? It goes on to say that the VA plan, by contrast, uses its buying power and uses it successfully to lower prices that VA pays for the medicines and that the veterans in turn pay. According to the National Academy of Sciences: . . . the VA's methods had achieved nearly $100 million in savings over the past 2 years. But Congress did not consider that approach; in fact, Congress did the opposite. Congress said you cannot use that approach. Medicare cannot get involved in price reductions. Medicare cannot use the vast purchasing power on behalf of all senior citizens and others under Medicare, which goes far beyond what the Veterans' Administration has in terms of numbers--cannot use that clout to negotiate or insist on lower pharmaceutical prices for seniors, for others on Medicare. Why? Because that would cut into the profits of this already excessively profitable industry. Representative Michael Bilirakis, the Florida Republican who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, said that if Medicare pooled its purchasing power, it would amount to ``a form of price controls.'' ``That's not America,'' Mr. Bilirakis said. ``Many of my constituents would feel that price controls are a great thing. But ultimately some of us have to be responsible.'' Since when is it responsible for Congress to allow drug prices to go up higher and higher, beyond the reach of our fellow citizens? Since when is it responsible in America to let an industry, the drug industry, write a letter that 53 Senators sign, saying they would oppose any kind of reimportation such as that proposed by my colleague from the House of Representatives, Gil Gutknecht, Republican House Member from Minnesota. He was one of those who courageously and successfully led the drug reimportation victory in the House, one which I hope this body will enact and follow suit. But when a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist can write a letter that 53 Senators sign, stating exactly what the pharmaceutical industry wants said, that this is somehow dangerous to the safety and well-being and welfare of Americans, says a lot about who controls what happens in Washington. In fact, if the record be shown, the imports of foreign-manufactured drugs exceeded $14 billion last year. These were drugs that were made, manufactured outside of this country and imported. The only difference is they were imported by the drug companies at higher prices. If the consumers want to import those same drugs from Canada or somewhere else at lower prices, that is what is objectionable. But once again, it is the pharmaceutical industry and its profits that are given priority over people. So we have this very bizarre but, unfortunately for America, all too real juxtaposition of less spending for education. I see the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, who has been such a champion of funding for education and so many other causes benefiting the people of his State and across America. His amendment is one that we will consider. I wish and hope it will fare better than my amendment yesterday for special education. Given the votes on the other side of the aisle, I don't think that is promising. But when time after time we try to put more money into education and are defeated, yet we can, without even a blink of an eye, put $80 billion or $100 billion more into economic reconstruction or other efforts in Iraq paying, as I was told, in Iraq, paying 1.8 million Iraqi citizens not to work, not to do anything, just not to foment revolution, pay 1.8 million Iraqi citizens not to work and we are not willing to pay Americans who want to work overtime, or extend unemployment benefits for those who want to work and are seeking work, when we can run up deficits of humongous proportions, the biggest deficits in this Nation's history, three times more 12 months later than they were projected to be, without a blink of the eye on the other side of the aisle. But there is nothing to be said when drug companies want to raise prices and take more money out of the pocket of Americans. I would say it is time for this body to look very carefully at itself. It is time for the American people to look carefully at this body. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Sept. 4, 2003] Some Successful Models Ignored As Congress Works on Drug Bill (By Robert Pear and Walt Bogdanich) By most measures, the Department of Veterans Affairs has solved the puzzle of making prescription drugs affordable for at least one big group of Americans without wrecking the Federal budget. Wielding its power as one of the largest purchasers of medications in the United States, the V.A. has made it possible for millions of veterans to pay just $7 for up to a 30-day prescription. Thousands are signing up for the program every month. Yet for all its apparent success, lawmakers have disregarded the V.A. model--and others like it that use the Government's immense power to negotiate lower prices--as they try to give older Americans relief from rising drug costs while reshaping how the elderly get medical services. Instead, a Congress deeply divided by ideology has given birth to legislation that would add prescription drug coverage to Medicare, but that many experts say would fall short of meeting the needs of the elderly. The benefits, costing $400 billion over 10 years, are complex and limited, and the legislation relies in part on cost control mechanisms that are untested or unproven. In fact, Congress would exempt the drug industry from the kind of cost controls that are in place for virtually every other major provider of Medicare services. ``The legislation pending in Congress does more to deform than to reform Medicare,'' said Dr. Paul M. Ellwood, a noted health policy analyst who was an early proponent of managed care. ``Instead of creating a system of readily understandable choices based on cost and quality, Congress is writing legislation that will increase the complexity of Medicare, so it will be more difficult for seniors to navigate.'' The effort to forge a final deal on Capitol Hill, blending separate House and Senate measures, was high on the agenda as Congress returned to work this week. Lobbyists and health policy experts say the likelihood that a comprehensive drug bill will become law this year seems no better than 50-50. But Thomas A. Scully, administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said yesterday that he was ``95 percent sure we will get a Medicare bill out of Congress.'' Politically, the legislation is a marriage of convenience, combining drug benefits, long sought by Democrats, with a Republic approach to administering the benefits, through private health plans and insurance companies. To secure votes, the Senate bill was festooned with provisions aiding various interest groups. There is language that would, for examples, aid chiropractors; marriage and family therapists; doctors in Alaska; hospitals in Iredell County, NC; operators of air ambulance services; and many other groups. The need for bipartisan support ``led to a series of compromises that resulted in a hodegepodge of a bill,'' said Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, who opposed the Senate bill. Michael Valentino, a manager of the V.A.'s drug benefit program, praised Congress for trying to help Medicare patients buy prescription drugs. But he added that the coverage could be expanded if Medicare took full advantage of its purchasing power. John C. Rother, policy director for AARP, the lobbying group for older Americans, said the legislation was a ``real godsend'' for people with low incomes or high drug expenses. ``But for many others,'' he said, ``the benefits will be seen as inadequate.'' Premiums and drug benefits could vary from plan to plan, state to state and year to year. The Senate and House bills both establish a standard drug benefit, with substantial coverage upfront and catastrophic coverage for high costs. But beneficiaries would have to pay all drug costs in the middle, until their out-of-pocket costs reached a certain level--$3,700 a year under the Senate bill and $3,500 under the House bill. Robert D. Reischauer, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, said the gap in coverage ``defies rational policy analysis'' and was not found in commercial insurance. Congress engineered the gap to keep the drug plan's cost under the $400 billion limit. `political judgment' Drug companies say they support covering prescription drugs under Medicare. But in the last few years, they have invested several hundred million dollars in campaign contributions, lobbying and advertising to head off price controls. The legislation ``reflects a political judgment that the pharmaceutical industry'' would block ``price controls or any arrangement that used the concentrated purchasing power of the government to buy prescription drugs,'' said Paul B. Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a private research institute. The V.A. plan, by contrast, owes its relative success to its buying power--and a willingness to use it. Its doctors and pharmacists analyze research to establish a list of preferred drugs for various conditions. The V.A. obtains discounts through bulk purchasing arrangements--using generic drugs where possible--and competitive bidding. ``We are so far ahead of anybody else, it's almost ridiculous,'' Mr. Valentino said. In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences found that the V.A.'s methods had achieved nearly $100 million in savings over the previous two years. But Congress decided not to adopt the V.A.'s approach; in fact, it was not seriously considered. Lawmakers also passed up other alternatives including vouchers for the purchase of health insurance and proposals to assist only people with low incomes. Representative Michael Bilirakis, the Florida Republican who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, said that if Medicare pooled its purchasing power, it would amount to ``a form of price controls.'' ``That's not America,'' Mr. Bilirakis said. ``Many of my constituents would feel that price controls are a great thing. But ultimately some of us have to be responsible.'' The political imperative that seems to have produced today's fragile consensus stems from complaints that every lawmaker has heard from constituents: prescription drugs costs too much. At Medicare's inception in 1965, policy makers chose not to cover outpatient drugs, because medicines now so indispensable to treating disease either did not exist or were relatively inexpensive. Instead, Medicare focused on big-ticket items like hospital care and doctors' services. For years, Medicare mostly paid whatever bills health care providers submitted, but by the 1980's Congress decided it needed to restrain rising costs. In subsequent years, Medicare prospectively set limits on what it paid major health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, skilled nursing homes and home health agencies. The controls have never been popular with the health care industry. ``In Medicare, the tendency is to set prices too low,'' said Dr. Donald J. Palmisano, president of the American Medical Association. Indeed, Carmela S. Coyle, senior vice president of the American Hospital Association, said 67 percent of hospitals lose money on Medicare. By and large, however, the measures have managed to slow the growth of Medicare costs, say many health policy experts, including Bruce C. Vladeck and Nancy-Ann DeParle, who ran Medicare under President Bill Clinton. Drug costs, however, have skyrocketed, and while most of the elderly get some help from retiree health benefits, Medicaid or state programs, at least one-fourth of Medicare beneficiaries have no drug coverage. Under the bills passed this year, the government would subsidize drug coverage provided to Medicare beneficiaries by private insurers and health plans. They would bargain with drug companies to secure discounts and rebates, a task likely to be delegated to pharmaceutical benefit managers, or P.B.M.'s, the companies that already perform the service for many employers. Both bills stipulate that Medicare officials cannot ``interfere in any way'' in those negotiations. For President Bush and Republicans in Congress, the concept makes sense: let the marketplace set the prices, rather than government. For years, lawmakers have found fault with Medicare's arcane and voluminous regulations. Congress has frequently intervened to tweak the formulas, taking money from some providers while giving more to others--often to those with the most persuasive lobbyists. That, in turn, contributes to anomalies in medical care, because doctors have financial incentives to perform certain services and not others. Mr. Scully, the Medicare administrator, said such anomalies were inevitable because Medicare was ``a big dumb price-fixer.'' Still, Medicare has been a boon to the elderly and their children. Surveys show that beneficiaries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their care. Before Medicare, only 56 percent of the elderly had hospital insurance; the program has contributed to an increase in life expectancy and a sharp reduction in poverty among the elderly. Moreover, some studies show Medicare has done better at controlling medical costs than private health insurance. Cristina Boccuti, a researcher at the Urban Institute, and Marilyn Moon, a former public trustee of the Medicare program, said Medicare spending grew more slowly than private health insurance costs from 1970 to 2000. Republicans say such comparisons are misleading and contend that Medicare's cost controls have slowed access to new treatments and technology. Negotiated Discounts But that does not seem to be a problem for the V.A. The study by the National Academy of Sciences found that its approach had ``meaningfully reduced drug expenditures without demonstrable adverse effects on quality.'' Mr. Valentino said: ``When we make our recommendations, it's not because Doctor A, in his or her opinion, believes it is the best drug. It is because the evidence says it's the best drug.'' Echoing the criticisms of government investigators, he added that P.B.M.'s, by contrast, sometimes make deals favoring expensive drugs for their own financial benefit. Under the House and Senate bills, Medicare beneficiaries would have access to drug discounts negotiated on their behalf by private insurers and P.B.M.'s. Supporters of the legislation say these discounts could reduce retail drug prices by 20 percent. But Congress consciously decided to disperse Medicare's purchasing power. It did not want Medicare to establish a uniform nationwide list of preferred drugs or a price list for those drugs--mechanisms that the drug industry opposes. ``Price controls cause artificially low prices,'' said Jeffrey L. Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. And low prices for a government program, he added, would reduce the money available for researching new drugs and could prompt drug makers to seek higher prices from patients with private insurance. Critics of the drug industry dispute such arguments--and say that they obscure the obvious. ``The obvious is that if you control prices, you pay less,'' said Mr. Vladeck, the former Medicare administrator. ``There are some problems with it, and not all price controls work as well as others. But the pharmaceutical industry does have enough political juice to prevent any reasonable price controls.'' The idea of giving people a choice between traditional Medicare and private health plans has deep roots. ``We must promote diversity, choice and healthy competition in American medicine if we are to escape from the grip of spiraling costs,'' the Nixon administration said in 1970, in words similar to those of President Bush in 2003. In 1978, Alain C. Enthoven, a Stanford University economist, called for regulated competition among private health plans. Medicare, he said, would subsidize premiums, and the most efficient health plans would pass on their savings to consumers, so patients would have a financial incentive to enroll. Prompted by such thinking, the government offered new private alternatives to the traditional Medicare program in the 1980's, and Congress encouraged the development of health maintenance organizations. Enrollment grew, in part because many H.M.O.'s offered drug benefits not available in traditional Medicare. Medicare beneficiaries generally praised the care they received in H.M.O.'s, but the plans did not control costs as their proponents had hoped. Many H.M.O.'s began reducing some benefits, including drug coverage. They also pressed Congress for more money, saying that their costs were rising 10 percent a year--five times the increase in payments from Medicare. Unable to persuade Congress to close the gap, many abandoned Medicare or curtailed their participation. That track record has heightened critics' skepticism about the current legislation. ``The myth of the market,'' said Lynn M. Etheredge, who worked at the White House Office of Management and Budget from 1972 to 1982, ``has a powerful sway over people's minds, despite evidence that it is not working in the Medicare program.'' The Congressional Budget Office estimates that under the legislation, many private plans will cost slightly more than traditional Medicare. Moreover, there is widespread doubt that insurers--who do not now sell stand-alone drug insurance--will begin to do so. Even Mr. Scully concedes that such drug coverage ``does not exist in nature'' and would probably not work in practice. The elderly are heavy users of prescription drugs, so few insurers are eager to write coverage for their drug costs alone, separate from their other medical expenses. ``It would be like providing insurance for haircuts,'' Charles N. Kahn III said several years ago, when he was president of the Health Insurance Association of America. limits of coverage Even if President Bush signs a Medicare drug bill in the coming year, it will not be the last word. Health policy experts say that costs may well grow faster than the official projections suggest. That would increase pressure on Congress to hold down drug costs, just as lawmakers continually try to slow the growth of Medicare payments to hospitals. At the same time, when Medicare beneficiaries realize the limits of the new drug coverage, they can be expected to lobby for more generous benefits. In supporting the Senate bill, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, made clear that it was only a down payment, a foundation for more comprehensive drug benefits. Ms. DeParle predicts that the legislation will produce a huge demand for drugs, and she is far from certain that competition will do much to control costs. ``It is pretty much theory, and that is what worries me about it,'' she said. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that per capita drug spending for the Medicare population will increase about 10 percent a year over the next decade. Critics of the legislation doubt its cost can be kept to the $400 billion budgeted by Congress. ``Utilization will go up dramatically, and costs could explode,'' said Senator Don Nickles, Republican of Oklahoma. For now, however, politicians have chosen to favor drug companies over Medicare beneficiaries, said Prof. Uwe E. Reinhardt, a health care economist at Princeton University. ``On one hand, there is the taxpayer and, in fact, patients who would benefit from having costs controlled,'' Dr. Reinhardt said. ``But on the other hand, those people do not finance the campaigns of these legislators.'' Ms. Coyle of the hospital association declined to address the question of why her industry, but not the pharmaceutical industry, had been subject to price controls. Her group's biggest concern about the legislation, she said, is that ``we are not addressing the larger problem: a health care system that is fundamentally broken.'' The nation, she said, wants the best care for everyone, but needs to decide if it is willing to bear the cost. So who would be the big winners if the legislation is signed into law? ``The short-run political winner is George Bush, because this law will not be understood by anyone,'' Dr. Reinhardt said. ``It is so complex. But he can go in 2004 and say, `Look, for 30 years you tried to get a drug benefit--I got you one.' '' And, he added: ``the elderly will benefit, too, relative to nothing. Who loses? Obviously the people who pay for it.''

Mr. DAYTON. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. DAYTON. I sympathize with the predicament the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania has expressed. He has been a stalwart in support of increased funding for many of these educational efforts over the years, and I note that his independence and integrity have resulted in his being cited by yet another prominent publication today. If those qualities of an independent mind, intelligence, experience, and real compassion for people are considered to be detriments, then it is a sad and unfortunate day for the Senate. I think the Senator's record shows clearly to the contrary.

Mr. DAYTON

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

Mr. DAYTON. He also shared the circumstances with me of the State of Arkansas. When I run by the educators in Minnesota the assertion made on the Senate floor that there is a surplus of Federal funding for these programs, I get absolutely incredulous looks. I find far more concurrence with the Senator from North Dakota, who observed teachers in his State who are reaching into their own pockets for hundreds, even thousands, of dollars, who go without expenses for basic program materials, educational materials, trips to educational enrichment opportunities, and the like that cannot be funded out of regular budgets. In Minnesota, there is an estimated $250 million shortfall of special education money because of this underfunding of the Federal commitment, which I can assure my colleagues every one of those dollars would be spent swiftly and necessarily and would benefit students throughout my State if they were made available. So where these surplus dollars are that States and school districts elsewhere don't need, where the additional slots for programs such as Head Start are residing that are not being filled, I guess I would certainly like to see where that exists. I urge the Secretary of Education, if it is in fact the case, that those funds and those slots be reallocated as swiftly as possible to States like Minnesota, who need them and could benefit from them. Yes, Mr. President, my amendment exceeds the budget as it exists today. I note that when the budget for this fiscal year began, we were looking at a deficit, we were told, of about $260 billion, if memory serves me. Now we are told that we will exceed $500 billion. We are asked rhetorically where will the money come from for these expenditures. I answer rhetorically, from the same place the other $240 billion that has been added to the deficit this year will come from. And the Senator from New Hampshire is right--that will come from payments made by taxpayers in the future. But if we are going to spend $100 billion, as some experts estimate we will, over the next year in Iraq, if we are going to spend 10 percent or 15 percent of that amount in Afghanistan, if we are going to spend $15 billion to address the AIDS crisis in Africa over the next few years, as the President proposed--and those are all either necessary or very worthwhile humanitarian and strategic expenditures, but if we are talking about additional spending on the magnitude of $15 billion, $100 billion over the course of a year, how is it that we always run out of resources when it comes to children, when it comes to especially schoolchildren with special needs, when it comes to those who will be left behind in Minnesota and I suspect will be left behind in 49 other States if these additional resources are not provided? I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the opportunity to offer this amendment. I hope it will be considered in the broader context of the priorities of this body for the children of today and tomorrow. I respectfully suggest it is money that will be extremely well spent. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. The Senator is correct. It relates to funding for the IDEA.

Mr. DAYTON. Yes. The Senator is correct. It relates to the funding for IDEA.

Mr. DAYTON. I will gladly step aside for the Senator from West Virginia at any time. I hope the 3:59 offer might be extended to include 30 seconds after the Senator concludes his remarks.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, my amendment increases funding for IDEA part B by $11.8467 billion for fiscal year 2004, which is the amount the Congressional Budget Office has determined is necessary to bring Federal funding up to the 40-percent level that was promised 27 years ago. The funding being allocated for fiscal year 2004 would provide 18.8 percent, or less than half of that 40 percent promised over a quarter century ago. President Bush deserves credit for increasing the funding for IDEA in each of his three budgets. The Senate deserves credit, along with President Bush, for increasing that funding. But the fact remains that we are still less than half of what was promised 27 years ago. I know for my State of Minnesota that is money that is desperately needed not only for better special education but for better quality education for all schoolchildren because money has to be diverted from regular programs over to special education. This is money we can find. I propose that the budget point of order be waived, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. DAYTON. I have an amendment. Recognizing the generous offer of the chairman of the subcommittee with the 3:59 deadline racing to a conclusion, the magnitude of the offer by the Senator from North Dakota is so modest by comparison that it should enhance his chances.

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for a question? If he is looking for amendments, would the Senator be willing to entertain one from this Senator when this discussion is concluded?

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I rise to speak on another matter related to health care. I commend the distinguished Senators from Maryland and Maine for their legislation which I will be proud to cosponsor. It is a matter I wish to address regarding the health and safety and well-being of thousands of people in the area of my State of Minnesota surrounding the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization conference report which was signed before the recess by 24 Republican conferees and none of the 14 Democrat conferees from either the Senate or the House contains some very significant measures that were not provided for in either the Senate or the House legislation. One of those which directly affects my State very adversely would prohibit the use of airport improvement program funds for the insulation of homes and apartments surrounding the metropolitan airport that is in a DNL decibel range of 60 to 64 DNL. That is a technical term. But it basically means that those who are most severely impacted, most of whom have received some mitigation over the last few years through a pool of funds, including airport improvement funds, passenger facility funds, as well as the Metropolitan Airport Commission's own fees and the like, achieved a certain measure of mitigation. But there are many thousands--over 8,000 homeowners and an estimated 3,200 apartment dwellers--who are in the next phase scheduled to be insulated. And since the airport's location decision was made, the Federal Aviation Administration, as a matter of its record and decision, insisted that this program continue. At the last minute, in a measure that was not considered by or voted on by either the House or the Senate in this conference report, a Senate conferee reportedly inserted this language into the report. Now it comes back and is scheduled to come at some near date before this body to be voted up or down, which is, of course, the purpose of these circumventions of the legislative process. They do not go through committee for up-and-down votes nor a public debate back and forth. They don't go to the Senate floor for debate back and forth and a vote up or down. Instead, they are stuck in at the last minute in secret proceedings with not even all of the conferees present--certainly not all of the Senators present--and then it comes back in a matter that adversely affects thousands of people in my home State; a measure inserted without any notification to me, without any discussion by a Member of this body at the behest of a lobbyist for Northwest Airlines, which opposes this mitigation measure, and has done so and is within its rights to do so but is responsible for altering an agreement that has been reached; a record of decision made by the FAA as part of the approval of this airport expansion which, if Northwest Airlines wants to alter or eliminate, as they say they do, it is responsible for doing so in a public process before a public body, and not by sneaking in an amendment or language into a conference report that was not considered or voted on by either the Senate or the House. I find it highly objectionable that a Senator from another State would act in such a way as to adversely affect, to cause potential harm, if this were to go through, to thousands of constituents in my State without consultation, without discussion or forewarning. Regretfully, this is not the only instance in this legislation of matters that were added to it in conference that received no consideration in either the House of Representatives or in the Senate, language that runs directly contrary to what the Senate adopted. I speak specifically of the Senate adopting the Lautenberg amendment which prohibited privatization of our air traffic control system. Despite that amendment being added to the Senate bill, being the official position of the Senate, despite the fact that the House did not consider the matter, as the House bill was silent on it, out of this conference committee comes a report which would immediately, upon enactment, provide for partial privatization, for the privatization, first, of smaller airports around the country. Curiously enough, certain States, those that are proponents of this measure, were exempted from inclusion because I suspect they recognized that this is a highly speculative, highly risky, highly irresponsible action, taken with no debate or forethought but simply to fit some groups' rigid ideological biases that the private sector does everything right and the public sector does everything wrong. The trouble is, when they get elected with that ideology, they then go about running Government so as to prove themselves right, and they systematically dismantle functions, such as air traffic control, which in this country is about as perfect as a human system can be, which has a nearly impeccable record of performance over the years, by far and away the best, most safety conscious, life-protecting, life-preserving air traffic system anywhere in the world. Yet this administration wants to start to dismantle it for no cause whatsoever other than, as I said, to fit its own ideology. Rather than coming to this body and having that debate, rather than going to the House of Representatives and having that debate, they would rather wait and have conference committee time where they can sneak back in with 24 of their caucus Representatives and Senators and put this matter before 535 elected representatives of the people, myself being one, who don't have then any opportunity to delete it but simply to vote it up or down. I find this to be an egregious abuse of the legislative process, one that consistently excludes Members such as myself who don't have the necessary years of seniority to be appointed to these conference committees. It is bad enough that the process is so skewed in favor of those who simply, by the basis of having been here for more years than others, get to dominate that critical phase of the process. But it is intolerable to me, to this Senator--it is intolerable--when that authority is abused and those conferees contrive to write legislation that supersedes the legitimate authority of 100 Senators to decide upon--by voting, by majority rule decisionmaking--what will and what will not become part of those reports which then, if they are passed and signed by the President, become law. That is fundamentally a violation of the trust that the American people put equally in each 1 of the 100 Members of this body. The people of Minnesota, who sent me here, and who sent my colleague from across the aisle, have the same rights to full representation from us as do the constituents of the Senators from any other State regardless of whether they have been here a longer or lesser time than I. For my constituents' own vital interests to be harmed by a contrivance of the process that has nothing to do with its integrity but simply is a reflection of who has the power, who has the money, who has the ability to hire full-time lobbyists to hang around these Chambers and to slip into conference committees, at the last second, where no one else is looking or can do anything about it, measures that abrogate the public process in my State--I think in any State, but certainly in my State--that is unacceptable and intolerable. With all due respect to this institution, I cannot and will not allow that measure to proceed. As I stated just before the beginning of the August recess, I will do whatever I must do to prevent the proceedings of this body leading up to the consideration of that measure. I hope we can find 41 Members of the Senate who will oppose the conference report for the 2 reasons I have just cited here and other measures that were also added in conference that have an adverse effect, such matters as regional airline operations. It also adversely affects one city, Thief River Falls, in my State of Minnesota. It imposes an additional $70,000-a-year funding requirement on them. Again, it is not something that this body adopted. It is not something that the House adopted. It is something that somebody else decided they wanted to add for whatever reasons. If this bill is not sufficient reason for the Senate to stand up and put a stop to this kind of legislative freelancing through conference committees, then I think the fundamental premise of equal representation and the equal rights of each one of us as Members has been fundamentally decimated, if not nearly destroyed--in some instances is destroyed. And I, for one, am not going to be able to go back and explain to the people of Minnesota why I sat quietly by while their rights in this process were abrogated by somebody else usurping that power and abusing it. So, Madam President, I will be heard from on this matter again. I don't know when the majority leader intends to bring this matter, the conference report, to the Senate, but prior to that time, if this matter is not satisfactorily resolved, then I am going to have to continue to assert the rights of my constituents to the process that this body established and should be following rather than some kind of legislative freelancing, at the last split second, which totally abrogates their rights and my responsibilities to protect those rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, this amendment would meet a 27-year-old promise made by the Federal Government to the States and to the school districts when IDEA was established. The promise was that the Federal Government would provide for 40 percent of the costs, the additional costs of providing special education services to every eligible schoolchild. It is one of the most important commitments the Federal Government has made for public education, especially at the elementary and secondary levels, and the money could not be better spent on behalf of leaving no child behind. Sadly, at least in the State of Minnesota--and I know, from the observations of other Senators, in many other States--the funding presently is seriously inadequate to provide all of those services. In Minnesota, some $250 million a year shortfall exists in funding for special education which results in education dollars having to be shifted from regular programs and services to special education to meet the statutory requirement of school districts to provide services to every qualified schoolchild. The result is that in Minnesota all the students are harmed by the underfunding of special education, those who are the recipients of those services, as well as those who see dollars shifted from other programs for their benefit. IDEA funding for part B for States in the current legislation before us is set at $9.858 billion. To bring that funding up to the 40-percent level, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would require an additional IDEA part B funding of $11.082 billion. It is noteworthy that the increase exceeds the appropriated amount. Another way of looking at that is that the current level of appropriated dollars is less than half--less than half--of what is necessary to meet that 40- percent level that was committed to by the Congress 27 years ago. I heard the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire earlier on the Senate floor reference the increases in funding for special education that President Bush has proposed, and I commend the President for doing so. I have not served during the period of time which the Senator from New Hampshire referenced, so I do not have the basis for comparing the period of time during the 1990s that he referenced under the former administration with the circumstances that this President is faced with, but it is enough for me that President Bush has proposed in each of his budgets an increase in funding for special education, and he should be credited for doing so. But the fact remains that even with those increases up until this year, the Federal share of funding for special education nationwide is approximately 17 percent of those total costs. In other words, still, despite those increases over the last 3 years, it is less than half of what the Federal Government promised over a quarter century ago. I recognize that the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, with his responsibilities to the budget and to an allotment for the subcommittee's appropriations, has to or is likely to object to this amendment, despite it being inserted just before the 3:59 deadline. I recognize this is an amount that goes way beyond the current mandate of the subcommittee. But as my colleague from North Dakota said so eloquently just a few minutes ago, what we are really talking about as we consider these different amendments in a broader sense is, What are our priorities as a Senate? What are our priorities as a Nation? Do we really mean what we say, that no child shall be left behind? Are we willing to put forward the necessary resources to accomplish that? Or is that just a rhetorical statement without proper attribution from the Children's Defense Fund and, whereas that esteemed organization has championed the resources and the commitments that would be necessary to actualize that statement, we in this Congress and, with due respect, the administration have still fallen short of that responsibility. We had, when I came into office, an incredible opportunity because we were looking at projected surpluses for the next decade of some $5.4 trillion. That is a marked difference from the circumstances which President Clinton faced throughout most of his administration when he was bringing the Nation out of the previous era of deficit spending, when he finally, through collaboration with the Congress--the Senate and the House--during the last 4 years of his administration succeeded in balancing the combined Federal budget. In fiscal year 2000, he achieved for the first time in 4 years--and probably for the last time in 40 or more years--a surplus in the non-Social Security part of the Federal budget; in other words, education, health care, and the like-- everything except for Social Security, which at this point, this year, is running about a $155 billion projected surplus; the rest of the Federal budget was balanced. We had the resources projected that would have kept that operating budget in a surplus mode for each of the next 10 years, according to both the CBO and the OMB when President Bush's administration took office in January of 2001. I thought then, as I offered this amendment at that time, that we had a tremendous opportunity we should not let go by to bring this funding immediately up to the 40 percent promised level. That year, in a bipartisan and very genuinely committed way, there was an amendment that was adopted by the Senate that would have brought full funding for special education up to the promised 40 percent level over 6 years--5 years too long in my estimation, but it passed the Senate. It went to conference with the House. It resulted in a protracted conference committee of almost 6 months. My esteemed former colleague, the departed Senator from Minnesota, Paul Wellstone, was championing this measure, among others, in that conference committee and insisting that the Senate position of building to 40 percent funding for special education over 6 years be honored and kept in the conference report. The House resisted and was adamant, and, unfortunately, at the very end of the conference, the Senate conferees agreed to the House position, causing my colleague, Senator Wellstone, to vote against that conference report, as did I. Since then, we have all recognized that the fiscal circumstances of the Federal Government have changed dramatically. I find it a little bit disingenuous for the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire to be taking credit for the spending increases for education, which he ascribes to this administration and this Congress; yet, every time somebody from this side of the aisle proposes also to increase spending for education, suddenly our side of the spending equation is bad spending and his side of the spending equation seems to be good spending. As far as I am concerned, it can be Republican spending, Democratic spending, or independent spending for education, and it is good spending. I don't care which administration, which session of Congress, or which Members of Congress can claim credit for that. I just want the credit to be there to be claimed because I know the beneficiaries are the students of Minnesota and, I suspect, all over the rest of the country. I am also perplexed when I hear the Senator from New Hampshire, who chairs the HELP Committee of the Senate--his expertise and knowledge of these matters is widely respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. But when he says, in effect, as he did earlier today, we have put so much additional Federal money into public education at the K through 12 level that the school districts aren't able to spend that money fast enough--a couple of months ago, I heard the Senator state on the Senate floor there was a surplus of Head Start positions available nationwide, so there were more slots available than there were people who wanted to get their children into a Head Start program. I truly hope if those surplus funds are available, be it from New Hampshire or any other State, they will be put into a reservoir that could be drawn from by other States. I know in the case of Minnesota--I heard the Senator from North Dakota state the same and I heard a number of other colleagues, including Senator Pryor of Arkansas--I ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. DAYTON. May I ask the Chair, the intent is to have the vote on the Dorgan-Inhofe amendment followed by 2 minutes equally divided between myself and whoever, followed by a vote on waiving the Budget Act on my amendment.

Mr. DAYTON. Also, Mr. President, I have been here this afternoon and have expressed my concern for the measures in the Federal Aviation Administration conference report. I am not going to consume time since we are proceeding to a time of voting on some of these important education amendments, including one of my own for funding for special education. But I do want to say again that this matter, before it comes before the Senate, must be resolved, or I will have to be back here in more of an obstructionist mode than I was called upon to do today. And that would be something I would prefer to avoid and see this matter resolved in some other way. I will be working with my colleagues to see that occurs. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor legislation to name the Veterans Administration hospital in Minneapolis, MN, after the late Senator Paul Wellstone. It would be a great tribute to my departed friend and colleague, who worked tirelessly to improve the lives of veterans throughout Minnesota and across our Nation. During the August recess, I met with the leaders of major veterans' organizations in Minnesota. Several have formally expressed their support for bestowing this honor on Senator Wellstone. Others, while not taking official positions, are now aware of the legislation and our intentions to proceed with it. So, I believe that the path is clear in Minnesota for this legislation to be enacted with very broad support. Senator Wellstone served for seven years on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, where he fought tirelessly for more generous benefits and expanded services, including health care, for the men and women who served our Nation with great courage and dedication, and who now deserve far better than many are receiving or not receiving. In addition, he and his dedicated staff enabled countless veterans individually to receive benefits, medical care, and other services which were wrongly denied them. While living, and after his tragic death last year, Senator Wellstone has been a hero to many thousands of veterans throughout Minnesota and across our Nation. Many of them have provided the impetus and support for this legislation. It is my hope that this measure might receive swift and favorable consideration by the Senate, and that it then be sent to the House for its concurrence and to the President for his signature, prior to the first anniversary of Senator Wellstone's death.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, let me preface my intended remarks. I seldom have occasion to take exception to the remarks made by the very distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee on which I am honored to serve, but I must say that I respectfully disagree with the modesty by which he characterized himself as anything less than one of the real greats in the Senate. In my estimation, the Senator from Virginia ranks up among the greats of the Senate from the beginning of our Nation's proud heritage and through the years. I believe the Senator has now completed 25 years of extraordinary service on behalf of not only the citizens of Virginia but also the citizens of Minnesota and the citizens of this country. When I was one- hundredth in Senate seniority for my first 2 years, I had some doubts about the worth of the seniority system. I was dissuaded whenever I would see the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, act as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, then as its ranking member, and now as chairman again, of that most important committee. When I recently had a chance to travel with him to Iraq and saw his fortitude and his determination to serve the best interests of our country, or when matters of great importance to the future of this country and this world came before the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was always reassured by the knowledge that the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, was chairman of that committee, and acting with the very distinguished ranking member, Senator Levin from Michigan. I believed that our democracy was in the best possible hands. The wisdom of the seniority system with a man of that stature serving in that role was certainly upheld. I would just like to acknowledge that his own modesty prevented him from saying what I know that my colleagues join with me on both sides of the aisle in saying, that this man is one of the true greats of the Senate on this day or any day.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, on behalf of the Democratic leader, we are also clear on Calendar No. 308, Jack Goldsmith III, to be an Assistant Attorney General; and Calendar No. 354, Daniel Bryant, to be an Assistant Attorney General. So I withdraw my objection.