Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this issue. It is a very important issue for people all across the country. Yesterday, I received the news that the Federal court in Oklahoma had decided that we had no authority over the Federal Do Not Call list. I must tell you that as a United States Senator and as a former attorney general and as a lawyer and just as a citizen, I have all the respect in the world for our Federal courts and our judges and our legal system. I just happen to think they were wrong in this ruling. At the same time, I am proud to join with my colleagues, both in the Senate and in the House, in efforts to try to make sure the courts understand that very clearly there is authority for the Federal Trade Commission to establish a National Do Not Call list. I think it is very clear that the people have spoken on this issue. Back in February of this year, the Congress passed what we thought was the authorization and the funding for Do Not Call. Then, just a few weeks later, President Bush signed it into law. I know a lot of people have been sharing their stories about telemarketers. I can tell you from firsthand experience, from back in 1998 when I traveled the State of Arkansas extensively, running for attorney general--that is what I did before I was elected to this august body--everywhere I went, it seemed as though every community I went into, every group I talked to, it didn't matter who they were, what they had on their mind, they wanted to talk about telemarketing. They would say: Please, is there anything you can do to have these telemarketers stop calling us? I said: Yes. We in Arkansas had one of the first--not the very first but one of the first--State do not call systems that we passed in 1999. It had very few exceptions to it. It was something we were proud of. We had to charge $5 because, where Congress appropriated some dollars for this Federal system, we did not have a State legislative appropriation for our State system. But regardless of that, even though we charged for it, we had thousands upon thousands of Arkansans sign up for our State do not call system. I tell you, everywhere I go in Arkansas today, people still thank me for the State's do not call system. One thing we learned during that process was that for most people, telemarketers' calls are an annoyance. People get tired of being bothered during dinnertime, when they are trying to do the homework with the children, when they are trying to put the kids down--whatever the case may be. But for some Americans, a small percentage, telemarketing also has the element of fraud to it. Many people in this country--mostly seniors but not all, but many people in this country are taken advantage of via the telephone. If you look at the FBI statistics--I haven't seen the most recent round, but I was familiar with them in my 4 years in the attorney general's office-- it is a small percentage of fraud, but let me tell you, it is a lot of dollars every single year. It is millions upon millions of dollars that are swindled away from people by use of the telephone. I want to touch on something that Senator Dorgan said a few moments ago. The telemarketing industry is not evil. They are just doing their job. We understand that. We appreciate that. It is a legitimate industry. It is an industry that has a lot of hard-working people in it. They do a lot of great things. We are not critical of the industry per se. We know there are some bad actors out there. I think a National Do Not Call program will help clear up those bad actors, just like we have been able to do on a State-by-State basis, when the States pass these kinds of provisions. But telemarketing is, for many Americans, an annoyance that they just do not want to have. After all, we are talking about the privacy of people's homes. They should be able to have some control over the types of calls they get. If they get solicitations, if they don't want those, there should be some mechanism where they can shut those off on the front end. That is what the Federal Do Not Call program will do. That is why I think you have seen so many people in the House and in the Senate come to the respective floors today and argue that we should take this step that we are about to take today. One last point. In the last few weeks, ever since it was announced with toll-free numbers and Web sites that there would be a Federal Do Not Call program, and how to sign up, et cetera, there have been about 50 million phone numbers added to this list. That is an amazing number. Fifty million Americans can't be wrong. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, we all know that fraud can be very much a problem when it comes to telemarketing, but we also know a Do Not Call registry is a very positive consumer tool against fraud. By that I mean if you signed up for the National Do Not Call plan and you still get a call, you know something is up. That ought to be your first tip that something may be amiss with this call. This is another reason I thank my friend from New York for his very wise comments. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to support legislation that would clearly allow the Federal Trade Commission to move forward with its national do-not-call registry. I have submitted an amendment to that effect, amendment No. 1786 to the DC appropriations bill, as well as cosponsored S. 1652, a bill to ratify the do-not-call registry provision of the telemarketing sales rule. As we have heard today, the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma issued a decision that the Federal Trade Commission lacked the authority to develop its national do-not- call list. The court ruled that, although Congress appropriated the funds to the FTC in order to have the program, it did not actually have the language necessary to authorize the establishment of the program and the implementation of the program. Today, I rise in support of my proposal that would basically give the Federal Trade Commission the clear authority and the statutory responsibility to establish a national do-not-call program. In addition, it affirms the finding that the Federal Trade Commission was authorized in the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act to implement and enforce the national do-not-call registry. Last, it specifically ratifies the do-not-call registry provision of the FTC's telemarketing sales rule. Before I was elected to this august body, I had the great privilege of being the attorney general of my State. I remember back in 1998 when I ran for attorney general of Arkansas, everywhere I would go, every little town I would go into, and every time I would talk to a group, whether it was veterans or whoever it happened to be, senior citizens or townspeople at large, they would tell me: Please, please, if you can do anything about telemarketers calling us at home and bothering us and trying to sell us something over the telephone, do it. I was proud to do that. When I was elected to the office and began serving in January of 1999, the first thing I did was pull the staff together at the attorney general's office and write the State's do-not- call program. It was very different from the one the Federal Trade Commission came up with but both are equally good. They both get to the problem and I think can be very effective fighting against unwanted telephone calls. Listen, we have all been there. We have all received those calls. We have all been eating dinner, trying to put our children down, trying to do homework, or watching our favorite TV show, whatever the situation might be, when we have been subjected to these unwanted calls. For most people it is an inconvenience. They don't like to be bothered. They want us to find a way to respect the integrity of the privacy of their own homes. After all, they are paying the phone bill; they are paying for the service. They should be able to have some control on the amount of calls coming in and to put a stop to these unwanted calls. Some of the phone companies actually offer a service that blocks calls from people who block their caller ID. That is another subject. That can be fairly expensive for some consumers. It's not always expensive. The Federal Trade Commission came up with an idea to do this nationwide, to do it free, and to do it by use of toll-free numbers and Web sites allowing people to sign on. In fact, I signed on in the first week because one thing I noticed in Virginia is they do not have do- not-call laws, as far as I can tell, and we get bombarded in our home in Virginia. Unlike in Arkansas where we signed up for the AG's list and we may get one or two telemarketing calls a month, in Virginia we get 3 or 4 a day, and it seems they always try to call at an inopportune time. One thing I noticed, one fact that apparently is true, as I understand it, the Federal Trade Commission now has 50 million phone numbers that have been registered under the Federal do-not-call program. Fifty million Americans can't be wrong. They want relief. They want us, as their lawmakers, as their elected Representatives here in Washington, to do something to stop these calls. The Federal Trade Commission, to its credit, and I appreciate them greatly for doing this, tried to come to their aid, come to their assistance, to make a national do-not-call registry a reality. I think this is something the Nation is ready for. Fifty million people have already tried to sign up in the first few weeks after the announcement of the national do-not-call program. It is something we as Members of this body and as Members of the Congress, of the Federal Government, should try to do to ensure that the people of this country, if they want it, on a voluntary basis, can have some relief from unwanted telemarketing calls. Congress mandated that this list be implemented on a national scale, and the President signed it into law. The legislation I am proposing now clarifies our intentions, and I certainly ask my colleagues to support the legislation in any way they can. I hope we will have a vote on this matter in very quick order. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I appreciate the comments from the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member and I would like to call to their attention other benefits associated with the Little Rock Audubon Nature Center which would benefit underserved minority communities. In fact, the nature center is located in a former federal housing site for African American veterans from World War II, which has been closed for years. The center is located in the Granite Mountain community in my home state of Arkansas that lies within the boundary of a Federal empowerment zone and would serve, in particular, the minority community and school children of southeast Little Rock.

Mr. PRYOR. The Nature Center also would provide access to a beautiful 450 acre park that is currently unavailable to the citizens of Arkansas due to inadequate city funds. This park represents one of the most unique natural areas in Southeast Arkansas because of its incredible biodiversity and a globally significant geological formation, making this site both ecologically important and of great educational value.

Mr. PRYOR. Given current budget constraints, it is more important than even to use scarce resources wisely and I rise today to provide my colleagues with not only the numerous benefits associated with this innovative approach to educating our children, but also the costs. Specifically, I am seeking an appropriation of $1.2 million for the project but $1.2 million that will be leveraged by private funding on a better than 2 to 1 match. As Senator Lincoln pointed out, this Center will serve thousands of children and I believe that federal investment in the Little Rock Audubon Nature Center will produce broad returns that deserve the attention of this body.

Mr. PRYOR. I come to the floor today to ask my colleagues to join me in supporting Federal funding for the Little Rock Audubon Nature Center. The Little Rock Audubon Nature Center is a collaborative private-public effort to provide tools and services to historically underserved children. Using the prestige of the Audubon Society's reputation, this project will pull together all stakeholders to promote national science and math goals, environmental education, and wildlife observation. This isn't the nature center we grew up with. This is a new concept that creates a place to learn math, science, and other academic subjects in a nurturing environment reinforced by a hands-on, out-of- doors experiences. This is a chance to support what our children learn in the classroom and in the textbooks with stimulating reality. This model of learning will stoke our children's curiosity and provoke them to start asking the questions all great thinkers pose: Why does this work? How can that happen? What makes this possible?

Mr. PRYOR. I appreciate those remarks. I am making a personal request that the Senate give this project the initial funding needed to help it become a reality for the children of Arkansas. I thank the Senators for assistance in this matter. fossil energy research

Mr. PRYOR. I am seeking $1.2 million which could be phased in over a multi-year programming plan with a private fund match. I want to point out the Audubon Society's great success in my home state of Arkansas in leveraging private funding to match federal outlays for conservation projects. For example, the Audubon Society successfully restored thousands of acres of Fourche Creek by leveraging private funds to match federal dollars at a ratio of more than 2-to-1. The track record has been established and the private community has made its pledge to allow this Federal appropriation to be a catalyst for private additional investment in this worthwhile project.

Mr. PRYOR. I did. The Little Rock Audubon Nature Center will assist schools in teaching the sciences of ornithology, ecology, biology, botany and environmental health, to name a few; to excite young people's minds and prepare them for careers in the sciences; and to help improve state science scores. Senator Dorgan, are you aware that our childrens' math and science scores in America are continuing to decline throughout the country? As compared to 38 countries around the world the United States ranks 19th in Mathematics Achievement Scores, according to a 1999 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. I am particularly concerned about this decline in our students' performance in my home state of Arkansas. We need fresh ideas and new approaches to turn this situation around. So, I was very interested to learn of a recent study in Northwest Arkansas showed that nature education can be a very powerful tool for helping to address this problem.

Mr. PRYOR. I would be delighted to yield to the Senator from North Dakota and our ranking member.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution to honor a great singer, a great songwriter, a great American, a man who truly lived the American Dream. J.R. Cash, otherwise known as ``the man in black,'' Johnny Cash, captivated all those who listened during a career that spanned four decades. The man in black was a man who embodied and lived the spirit of working class America and transformed that spirit into song. I speak today to honor the life and work of this Arkansas native and music legend, and I would like to thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, for his resolution and kind words. A native of Kingsland and Dyess, AR, Mr. Cash was respected and idolized by many in my State. It is always a tragedy to lose a native son, but I know the people of Arkansas will especially mourn the loss of Mr. Cash, who passed away last Friday at the age of 71. Johnny Cash's life reads much like that of many Arkansas born during the dark and dreary days of the Depression. He was born to a family of sharecropper in Kingsland, February 26, 1932, a small town in South Arkansas not far from where my own father was born. When he was 3, his family moved to Dyess, AR--a farming colony established by Franklin Delano Rossevelt's New Deal to help lift displaced farming families out of the Depression and the crushing poverty that still permeates a large part of the Delta soil. The Cash's were especially poor. A neighbor, Earl Condra of Harrisburg, who knew the plight of many families of the region once said, ``We were poor, but the Cash's were about as poor as you could get.'' No one in the family escaped working on the farm. By the time he was 6, Cash was carrying water to workers in the field. By 10 he working almost a full day in the cotton fields, from, as he said, ``can `til can't''. When he was 12, his 14-year-old brother, whom young Johnny idolized, was killed in a saw accident while sawing oak logs into fence posts for the family farm. That same year, Cash's father told him he had reached ``the age of accountability . . . you're accountable as a man, to yourself and to others.'' For Cash, it seemed the only escape from his hard life was through music. After a long, hard day picking cotton in the fields, his family would often sit on their front porch and sing. ``I remember when I was a lad, times were hard and things were bad. But there's a silver lining behind every cloud. Just four the number of people, that's all we were, trying to make a living out of black land dirt. But we'd get together in a family circle singin' loud. Daddy sang bass, Momma sang tenor, me and little brother would join right in there. Singin' seems to help a troubled soul. One of these days, and it won't be long, I'll rejoin them in a song. I'm going to join the family circle at the throne,'' he recalled in one of his songs. Indeed, by the age of 12, Cash was performing songs on the radio in Blytheville, AR. Although he was one of few to graduate high school in post-Depression Arkansas, Cash knew his future lay in music. ``I think the first time I knew what I wanted to do with my life was when I was about 4 years old. I was listening to an old Victrola, playing a railroad song . . . I thought it was the most wonderful, amazing thing that I'd ever seen. That you could take this piece of wax and music would come out of that box. From that day on, I wanted to sing on the radio,'' he reminisced in a 1993 interview. The quote under his picture in the 1950 Dyess Senior High School yearbook read, ``Be a live wire and you won't get stepped on.'' Within months of his graduation he enlisted in the U.S. Air Force and was assigned to Landsberg, Germany, where he was a radio intercept operator tasked with intercepting Soviet Morse Code. And it was also in Germany that he learned to play the guitar. After his discharge from the Air Force in 1954, Cash moved to Memphis, TN, to take a job as an appliance salesman and to attend broadcasting school through the G.I. bill. It was in Memphis where Johnny Cash would get his chance to sing to great audiences. After being turned away on numerous occasions, Johnny woke early one morning and went to the Memphis office of the famous Sun Records to meet Sam Phillips and he arrived for work. After a brief session, Mr. Phillips told Johnny to return the next day with a band. From that day forward, Johnny Cash reigned as the undisputed king of the downtrodden poor, a working man's savior in song. Johnny Cash sang with a scowl of determination. The darkness of the songs he sang was only brightened by the hope of the audiences he addressed. That this man, this legend, this poor kid from Arkansas, could succeed on the grandest scale by putting his experiences and his emotions into song, gave the poorest sharecropper and the most oppressed worker that hope. There are no parameters in song. No boundaries, no borders, no confinements. For in a song, a man may truly express the deep well of thought not to be expressed in polite society. Song crisscrosses through time with an ease and a fluidity that gives true freedom to those who are not free, whether they are beholden to debt, their family, society or their own shortcomings. Johnny Cash understood the nature of song like few before or after. He understood its power over people. He understood the hope it could give, the happiness it could bestow, the sorrow it could impart. He knew these things about music. He used this understanding to give voice to those that had none. As he said in explaining his propensity to wear black clothes, ``I tried to speak for the voices that were ignored or even suppressed by the entertainment media, not to mention the political and education establishments.'' As he put it, black clothes symbolized the dispossessed people of the world. Johnny Cash achieved a level of success equal to that of the Beatles and Elvis. The legacy he left will be a lasting one in country and rock music. From jazz to blues to country music, to the rock and roll that was nurtured in its early years in the juke joints of the Delta South and the urban ghettos of the north, Johnny Cash contributed his own particular interpretation to this musical legacy: one that will forever be enshrined in the memories of his friends, colleagues, and thousands of fans. Johnny Cash sold more records than anyone in the world in 1967. He was so popular that he had his own ABC television series. He won eleven Grammys and was the youngest person ever inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame. He has also been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, has been honored with a Kennedy Center Award, and has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. President Bush honored him with the National Medal of the Arts this past April. Despite all of the professional accomplishments and accolades, I think Mr. Cash would rather us celebrate his life in terms of the people he touched with his music and his philanthropic work. In addition to his music, Mr. Cash endowed a burn research center, campaigned for prison reform, counseled former inmates transitioning to society, and donated and worked for the Mental Health association, Home for Autistic children, Refugees for Battered Women, the American Cancer Society, YWCA, and the Humane Society, among others. Johnny Cash rose from nothing to everything on the strength of an iron will, gritty self-determination, and an unflappable faith in God, his family, and his music. Nothing he earned in his life came at the expense of others. Yet all he gave to all. Johnny Cash learned from his mistakes and ascended to a level higher than those who preceded him. He taught us to learn from our mistakes. He taught us to never give up, that the dreams of a small boy on a small farm in a small town can be big, and that they can come true. He taught us how to be free through the words and melody of a song. The lessons from his music are applicable today and will be for generations to come. Nothing captures the imagination of the heart like a great song. Mr. Cash captured the hearts of many. And his song will be missed.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, 2 years have past since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, but the visions of smoke rising out of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the pain and terror on the faces of those who lost family members, friends and colleagues remain vivid in our minds. Within seconds, America realized that it was not invincible. More than a thousand of miles away from Manhattan's ground zero, the Pentagon, and the field in Shanksville, PA, Arkansans felt the vibrations of this tragedy. Families in Batesville, Pine Bluff, Jonesboro and throughout the State learned about the deaths of friends and family members. Just a few months later, thousands of families would celebrate Thanksgiving and Christmas without the moms, dads, sons and daughters who had been deployed in the fight against terrorism. Soldiers began to guard the Little Rock National Airport and Arkansas Nuclear One. And we all began to care for our neighbors a little bit more. On September 11, 2001, life for Americans changed forever. September 11 is made bearable only by the true heroism displayed on that day and everyday thereafter. We will never forget the selfless acts demonstrated by our firefighters who ran into burning buildings; police officers who went the extra mile to help the frightened and frail; EMTs, doctors and nurses who cared for the injured; and everyday individuals who raised money for the victims of this tragedy. Along with these heroes, we have hundreds of thousands of servicemen and women who continue to risk life and limb in places such as Afghanistan, Turkey and Iraq in the name of democracy and all it embodies. They put themselves in harm's way not for personal aggrandizement or advancement but for immense love of country, liberty, and family. I ask all Arkansans to join me with continued support for our men and women in uniform. I ask also that Arkansans pray for the families who lost their loved ones in the tragic terrorist attacks. The healing process is a long and difficult road, and these families need our support and compassion. Finally, we must ensure that the more than 3,000 innocent Americans did not die in vain on September 11. We must continue taking those steps necessary to protect our homeland. This means ensuring that our first responders have the tools they need to confront terrorism at home. It means ensuring that our servicemen and women have cutting-edge equipment, training and technology they need to complete their mission. It means working together by placing our safety and our children's safety above politics. Americans have endured great hardship and heartbreak as a result of the terrorist attacks, but this has not broken our faith, courage and an unshakable commitment to freedom, democracy and each other. Today, we remember the tragedy of September 11, and we honor its victims. We will never forget them.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to support the efforts of Mr. Dodd, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Hagel, to increase funding for the education of disabled children. I will also note that a few days ago, Senator Dayton offered an amendment to increase Federal funding for the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act to its full amount of 40 percent of excess cost to local education agencies. I was proud to support that effort, although it failed, and I want to thank him for his tireless efforts on behalf of those who cannot always help themselves. I was proud to support it if for no other reason than to call attention to what is right and what is fair and to where our priorities should lay. There is no commitment we can keep, no investment we can make, no service we can perform that is more important to the domestic well- being of this country than educating our children. By the same token, it doesn't do us any good to educate some while leaving others behind. Instead of providing opportunity for all of our children, we are closing doors. Instead of educating and shaping future productive citizens and leaders, we are, in some cases neglecting those who need our help the most. Those, who if we do not help now, will surely revisit us in the future disguised as another societal problem-- ill prepared for life and solely dependent on the Government. I quote, Mr. President: ``In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.'' That excerpt comes from the decision of Brown v. Board of Education, 1954. The amendment offered today by the distinguished Senators from Connecticut, Vermont, and Nebraska remind us of our commitment to those children who need our help the most, those children who have been left out and left behind, those who have been denied this right. They propose to raise funding for IDEA in the Labor-Health Education appropriations bill by $1.2 billion to the budget authorized increase of $2.2 billion. This was a budget, incidentally, that we authorized only several short months ago. The IDEA authorization, a bright spot in an otherwise misprioritized budget, was agreed upon by a vast majority of this body. Now we find ourselves taking a step back from that vote, from that commitment. A vote, I am sure many of us trumpeted in our press releases and in trips back home. I realize that a lot has happened since we debated and voted on a budget resolution. In the coming days, we will be looking at another war supplemental, revenues are down, and deficits are soaring through the roof. We have many priorities and little money to meet them. These facts are not lost on me. But, I also believe that for 27 years, we have found excuse after excuse to break our promise. If it wasn't one thing it was another. There was always some reason, always some explanation and always a promise to do better next year. We can start doing better by this Nation's children this year, right here, right now with this vote. This is a highly necessary step to continue us on the path toward fully funding IDEA, toward fulfilling the promise made by this body 27 years ago. And I say continue because I recognize that we have increased funding in recent years in this body. I recognize that the level of funding we have provided to Part B of IDEA has increased by over 200 percent since 1996. Even so, if you look at where we started with this legislation, funding less than 7 percent of excess cost, we have woefully shortchanged those whom we have sworn to protect. In addition our current funding levels fail to keep pace with escalating special education costs. To listen to some of our colleagues speak about the ``revolutionary increases'' and massive gains we have made in education funding and special education funding in specific, one might think that we have fulfilled those commitments. But in the history of this legislation, appropriations have never neared the 40 percent promise we made to our schools back in 1975. In fact, in 2003, appropriations only funded 17.6 percent of the excess cost to States. And this is at a time when we are asking our States to shoulder more burdens than ever before. This year, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that local communities and States will take on approximately $10 billion in unfunded mandate, Federal special education costs. In my State of Arkansas, there are roughly 58,000 disabled children. With adequate Federal funding to IDEA we can provide these children more teachers, we can provide those teachers better training, we can reduce class size, and we can create more efficiency in diagnostics. We can do all this while alleviating the pressure to States and localities not to mention lessening the tax burden on individual taxpayers. Some of my colleagues might tell us we cannot afford to fund IDEA at the levels it needs to be funded. I would say we can't afford not to. If this is not a priority for us now, I ask if it will ever be? It was once said by Hubert H. Humphrey that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped. Well, this is a discussion about those in the dawn of their lives and we in this body, we in government have an opportunity to save these children from being cast in the shadows of life. I am not sure if there is anyone in this body that disagrees to whether or not IDEA works. Prior to IDEA's passage, nearly half of all children with disabilities were not allowed to enroll in public schools. The remaining half were segregated in inadequate classrooms. Today, over 6 million children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education, because of IDEA. Since IDEA was enacted, the number of young disabled adults in college has tripled. The disabled child dropout rate has decreased by more than 50 percent. These are wonderful results. Imagine the results we could attain, if we funded this legislation to the appropriate levels. We made a commitment; we should keep it. I think we owe our children that much. They reap the rewards or pay the price for the policies we enact today. They are the ones who cannot defend themselves. As I prepared to speak on this issue I read the debate that preceded the passage of the `Education for All Handicapped Children Act,' in 1975. I tried to perhaps shed some light on the intent of Congress in passing this legislation. Immediately I saw the importance members of that distinguished body placed on funding special education. In fact, Senator Javits from New York, a Republican, said ``Again, I point out, Mr. President, that we have only appropriated $100 million under the present law, part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act, which authorizes $666 million yearly. Mr. President, this shows our lack of the right priorities and our deficiencies.'' Senator Stafford, a Vermont Republican, said ``If enacted into law, this bill will finally begin to bring to all the handicapped children of our Nation what has always been their right--a free appropriate public education.'' A beginning. Both of these distinguished Senators from the other side of the aisle understood where we were, where we had to go, and how we had to get there. They knew that we could do better by our children. And so do Senators Dodd, Jeffords, Hagel, and Dayton. I appreciate their leadership on this issue, and I wish to join them in making sure that we do better by our children, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I rise today in support of Mr. Dodd's amendment, as well as Mr. Jeffords' and Mr. Hagel's. I know Senator Dayton, my seatmate here, has been a strong advocate of IDEA funding and fully funding IDEA, and I want to mention Senator Dayton because he is such a great advocate on this issue. There is no commitment we can make, no investment we can make, no service we can perform that is more important to the domestic well- being of this country than to educate our children. It truly is an investment in the future. I quote a statement from Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS, in 1954: When I say in these days it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity for an education, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available on equal terms. That is what IDEA is all about--providing a quality, equal education to our children who are disabled. This proposal by Senator Dodd will increase the funding for IDEA-- unfortunately, not up to the 40 percent threshold the Federal Government committed to several years ago but, nonetheless, a sizable increase in IDEA funding. I am very supportive of Senator Dodd and his efforts. I also believe that for 27 years, we have found excuse after excuse to break our promise when it comes to IDEA. If it is not one thing it is another. There is always some reason. There is always some explanation. There is always a promise to do better next year. Senator Dodd's leadership and this great amendment he is offering is getting us closer to fulfilling our commitment and our promise this year in this bill. In 2003, we appropriated only 17.6 percent of the funding for IDEA. We promised to fund 40 percent. We have never come close. In my State of Arkansas, we have 58,000 disabled children who will benefit from Senator Dodd's amendment. Again, I thank him for his leadership and for his courage in standing up on this issue. It is very critical for this country that we educate our disabled children. The last point I wish to make before I turn the floor back over to my colleague from Connecticut is that when I was attorney general of my State, many of the cases dealt with IDEA. Not in all cases, but in many instances, the fundamental problem and the reason the State was being sued was because we were not providing enough money and resources to educate our handicapped children. Today, we are taking a step in the right direction to do that. I thank the Chair, and I yield back the remainder of my time to my colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, more than half a century ago, America answered the call to defend freedom in South Korea. Today, we continue to defend democracy and freedom in over 100 countries around the world. This war against communism is sometimes referred to as the ``Forgotten War'' because it came at the heels of World War II and was overshadowed by the Vietnam War. Indeed, there are fewer pages in our children's textbooks about this war than that of other wars. But the cause of freedom was no less important. The bravery of the Nation's Korean War veterans was no less significant. And the sacrifices of these veterans and their families were no less meaningful. Twenty-two nations joined 1.8 million Americans in risking life and limb to defend a country they did not know and a people they had never met. Included were the young men and women who fought on the mountains of Korea in places such as Pork Chop Hill and Bloody Ridge. The United States suffered 36,934 casualties and 103,284 wounded during the Korean War; another 8,000 were taken prisoner or met an unknown fate. In my state of Arkansas, 466 brave servicemen and women paid the ultimate sacrifice. These are our Nation's heroes and they acted selflessly to bring forth freedom and opportunity for generations. July 27 marks the 50th Anniversary of the armistice with North Korea. I take this opportunity to thank our Korean War veterans and their families for their great service and dedication to our Nation. We owe our Korean War veterans a debt of gratitude that we can never repay. The Korean War veterans defined ``new opportunity for all.'' They defended and promoted the virtues of democracy abroad, providing an emerging Nation a chance to develop and flourish into the viable country it is today. I can not begin to imagine how different Southeast Asia and the world would be if it was not for the true determination and unbelievable courage demonstrated by our soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors. American servicemen and women remain on-point in Korea to protect freedom along what is referred to as the world's most dangerous border. I commend them also for their bravery and commitment to democracy. From Korea to Iraq, let us not forget the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform have made on behalf of our great country.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, last night was a difficult night for me because I was lying in bed worrying about the insurance companies and how we were not getting them enough money during this Congress. Of course, I am being facetious because I think we have a very clear choice. I commend Senator Dorgan, Senator Durbin, and a number of others who have shown national leadership on this effort to try to make this bill better. I think there is a broad consensus that we want to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. We want to help seniors all over this country, but at the same time we have to make sure it is set up the right way. It has to make sense. Quite frankly, one of the things that to me does not make sense, and probably to most people around the country does not make sense, is that we might give a pretty healthy sum of money to the insurance industry. All over the country--and I know it is certainly true in my State-- insurance companies are raising premiums. It may be health care premiums--everybody knows those are going up. It may be property and casualty; it may be homeowners policies, auto policies, medical malpractice, legal malpractice. You name it, across the board, as far as I know, the price of every single kind of insurance in this country is going up. Nonetheless, there are some in this Congress who want to actually give them a sizable chunk of money that could go to people who really need the help. I take my hat off to Senator Dorgan for his leadership. One thing he has figured out is a way to make the monthly premium less for people. Now, saving $6 a month to someone at my income level, and all of our income levels, that is not a lot of money, but for those senior citizens all over this country who live below the poverty level--the only money they get every month is Social Security, maybe a little help from the family--$6 is a lot of money. Six dollars may make this program affordable for them. It is real money. It is money that at the end of the year, if you add it up, is only $72 a year, but that is real money to so many Americans all over this country. The purpose of the bill, not just this amendment but the whole bill, is to help Americans afford their prescription drugs. I know that Senator Durbin, who is in the Chamber, and Senator Dorgan and a number of others in this Chamber have tried to make prescription drugs more affordable in this legislation. There have been different efforts tried in different ways. One of the things I tried was to strengthen reimportation from Canada to try to make prescription drugs more affordable, but certainly making the premiums more affordable makes the program more accessible to more Americans. That is a win/win/win for everybody. So I thank the Senator from North Dakota for yielding me some of his time. I know he is frantically talking to colleagues to try to have them adopt this amendment when we vote on it this afternoon. Let's run through the numbers very quickly one more time so we understand clearly what we are talking about. This amendment expends $2.4 billion per year to make premiums cheaper. It will reduce the typical premium--this is average--by $6 a month. I take my hat off to the folks in this Chamber who worked out compromise after compromise after compromise trying to come up with solutions to make this bill something that will become law, something that the majority of Members can vote for, not just in this Chamber but the House, something the President can sign. I believe strongly people in this country deserve to have access to these wonderful prescription medications that are in many ways miracle drugs. It is a shame for this country to have these drugs available on the marketplace but so expensive that people cannot afford them. That is what we are trying to accomplish. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the United States may be the only country in the world that does not protect its population from price gouging when it comes to prescription drugs. Last week, the Senate took a very important step in eliminating that by adopting the Dorgan-Cochran amendment by a vote of 62 to 28 to allow the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada. This amendment gives that amendment teeth. It gives HHS 2 years to act, and if they do not act within 2 years, then it becomes illegal for prescription drug companies to sell their products in the United States for more than they sell them in Canada. Some people call this price control. I respectfully disagree, but if you call it price control, that means 62 of us last Friday stood up for price controls. What it does in reality is introduce competition on prices. There is one drug called tamoxifen. Tamoxifen is a fantastic breast cancer drug. One could buy it before it became generic for $241 for 60 pills in the United States, and for $34 for 60 pills in Canada. The difference between $241 and $34 is very significant, and that is what we are trying to fix. I thank the Chair.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. If the Senator will yield for another question, Canada does take the position, as any nation would, that under its national sovereignty, it can in extreme situations take over a patent. I am sure the United States has the same provision in its law. I have not looked at the law books recently, but I know after September 11 and the anthrax scare, Canada did make the statement that it reserved the right to produce its own vaccines using existing patents. I am guessing without knowing all the details of your statement, the policy and their intentions--by the way they did not do this--I am guessing they would have paid the pharmaceutical industry something based on manufacturing its patent, but they were doing it in their own national interest to protect their citizens. So my question is, you pretty much imply that they routinely have the ability to steal patents; they routinely threaten that, but as best we know there has only been one example, extreme example after September 11, where they talk about the possibility of doing this.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have a lot of respect for my colleague from Pennsylvania, but I would like to ask if he is familiar with this statement by Gerald J. Mossinghoff, president of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. He says: Canada, in a move away from the system that hindered innovation, improved the patent law for medicines in 1988. Two weeks ago, it further strengthened the law by eliminating compulsory licenses for drugs approved after December 20, 1991. Drug research in Canada has increased sharply since 1988. This is his testimony to Congress dated February 22, 1993. What I ask the Senator is, in view of this statement, is he still maintaining that Canada can steal drug companies' patents?

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

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.