Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues listening, the difference between the Menendez amendment and mine is America doesn't need another plan. There are some technical infirmities. There are some questions about what it may do in terms of our relations with other countries. Put all that aside. We don't need another plan. We need action. Maybe it is the ex-mayor in me. The underlying bill and the pilot project and the Coleman amendment will provide action. They put in place a pilot project to test how 100 percent scanning can work, and then it directs the Secretary to fully deploy, with a series of steps put in front of him, and then requires him to come back to Congress. It is not about planning, it is about action. The American public wants action. We are giving the action. We are strengthening our port security. We are putting in place a pilot project. We are directing the Secretary to ensure there is 100 percent screening of every high-risk container, and then requiring him to fully deploy an integrated scanning system 100 percent, lays out the conditions, and has him report back to us. I am not sure we can do any better today based on the technology we now have.

Mr. COLEMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the memory of Rudolph ``Rudy'' Garcia, a quintessential entrepreneur and fixture in the St. Paul community, who passed away on August 27, 2006, at the age of 61. As Rudy's close friends have noted: ``He truly personified the American Dream.'' Having grown up in an orphanage without any formation education, Rudy decided at an early age to chase his dream of owning and operating his own restaurant a dream that went hand in hand with his great love of cooking. At the age of 21, he opened his first establishment, Garcia's Casita on the West Side of the city, becoming St. Paul's first Latino businessowner. Through a combination of Rudy's personality and commonsense business practices, he was able to grow Garcia's Casita into a string of six different St. Paul eating establishments during the 1990s. From steakhouses to nightclubs, Rudy's perseverance continually led him to success even in the face of several failures and a St. Paul that was still on the edge of revitalization. Rick Aguilar, a St. Paul businessman and longtime friend, described Rudy as ``a man with a million ideas'' whose energy helped him roll with the punches and make his dreams a reality. Rudy continued to stay the course as both he and St. Paul grew alongside each other through the years. In 1994, while serving as the mayor of St. Paul, I had the distinct privilege of proclaiming a day in his honor. While the St. Paul community mourns Rudy's passing, we can't help but celebrate his life that should serve as a model for not only Latinos, but all Americans who are looking to make their dreams a reality. The St. Paul area and I will sincerely miss Garcia's great commitment to our community. Whether it was his work in the restaurant business or his participation in the early 1960s band the Jaymars a popular area band that played a mix of jazz, rock `n' roll and blues--Garcia's impact on St. Paul is immeasurable.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak up to 7 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. COLEMAN. Up to 7 minutes. I probably will not need that much time.

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I want to speak about unfounded concerns raised about the minimum wage increase proposal of the Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006. I have long supported an increase in the minimum wage in order to help raise the living standards of America's hard-working families. I voted for Senator Kennedy's amendment on a number of occasions. I voted for a minimum wage increase with or without a tip credit. It has been 9 years since we last increased the minimum wage. Many States--mine included--have raised their minimum wage higher than the Federal level. The tax bill we will take up tomorrow increases the minimum wage. The bill would also provide for a tip credit in those States--again, like my own--that don't currently allow for a tip credit. Again, I have supported a minimum wage increase with and without a tip credit. We have an opportunity to increase the minimum wage, and there is a tip credit provision in there. I find it regrettable that some of my Democratic colleagues are now arguing that the tip credit provision would actually lead to a reduction in the minimum wage for those workers in nontip credit States. It is interesting that these colleagues of mine make this argument at a time when we are close to providing an increase in the minimum wage. Not once have these colleagues of mine made such claims when the Senate considered this very same proposal on several occasions in the recent past. Contrary to what some are saying, the fact is that the tip credit would only apply to future increases in the minimum wage. I will repeat that. The tip credit would only apply to future increases in the minimum wage--not to the current minimum wage. The charge that the tip credit provision would result in the minimum wage for tipped workers going down is absolutely false. If you read closely the proposal's language, it says a worker cannot be paid less than ``the cash wage paid such employee which is required under such law, ordinance, regulation, or order on the date of enactment. . . .'' That is how the bill reads. It also appears that the critics of this provision have not taken into consideration section 218 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which prohibits employers from paying less than the current minimum wage. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Victoria Lipnic.

Mr. COLEMAN. This letter says that absolutely the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits employers from paying less than the current minimum wage. That is to be taken into consideration in terms of what the Senate is doing with the minimum wage tip credit provision. The letter from the Department of Labor is very clear. If my colleagues have any question, this is now part of the Record; I have asked that it be printed in the Record. It lays it out very clearly. Again, the letter states that if the tip credit becomes law, the Labor Department reads it ``as protecting the current minimum wages of the tipped employees in the seven States that now exclude a tipped employee's tips from being considered as wages because to do otherwise would be inconsistent with what we understand to be the intent of Congress and the Fair Labor Standards Act.'' In my State, the minimum wage is $6.15. Our employee wages are not going to be decreased if this tip provision comes in. If there is an increase above that, then of that amount of the increase, you could use tip credits to compensate for that, with no decrease in the minimum wage. This is nothing more than an effort by my colleagues on the other side to steal defeat from the jaws of victory as we move to the opportunity to pass an increase in the Federal minimum wage. Let's not miss that opportunity. Let's support this bill and get this done on Friday.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. One provision of Section 1220 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 would create a new Section 501 (q)(2)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code. This particular subsection contains one of several new requirements for credit counseling organizations to qualify for Federal tax exemption under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3). I wanted to clarify with the chairman that this particular provision is not intended to impose a limitation on all credit counseling organization revenues derived from debt management plans, but rather only on the revenues derived from what are commonly referred to as ``fair share'' payments from creditors to credit counseling agencies. These are payments made by creditors to credit counseling organizations that are attributable to the debt management plan services provided by credit counseling organizations to consumers whose debt is being repaid to the creditors. If the limitation were intended to include both ``fair share'' revenues paid by creditors and revenues received in the form of debt management plan fees paid by consumers, then virtually no existing credit counseling organizations, if any, would be able to qualify for tax-exempt status under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3). That is not the intent of Congress.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about America's energy crisis, and I am glad to see that my friend, Majority Leader Frist, is on the floor to discuss this issue with me. High natural gas prices continue to be a terrible burden for Minnesota's families and businesses. High natural gas prices had a severe impact on Minnesotans last winter--I am sure many of my colleagues remember the push that I, along with Senators Snowe and Collins, made early this year for emergency LIHEAP assistance-- assistance the majority leader helped us deliver. Moreover, I don't need to remind my farm State colleagues of the severe impact high natural gas prices have had on their input costs, straining even the most efficient farms. Whether high natural gas prices or $3 gas at the pump, high energy costs take a toll on all Americans, which is why I will vote in favor of the Gulf of Mexico energy bill that will provide 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet I believe this bill is only a piece of the larger energy mission America must accept. Clearly, Americans feel the strain of high energy costs at home, in the car, and at work, but all must realize our foreign oil dependence threatens our very economy and national security. I would like to ask the majority leader about the importance of fuel independence to our national and economic security and the need to build upon the Gulf of Mexico energy bill by considering, on this floor, additional energy proposals that will help to secure our energy future.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Leader, I appreciate those comments. Some people dismiss such an ambitious goal as reducing our growing dependence on foreign oil, but I recall a time when the Moon was also once out of reach. We all know the power of America's innovative, relentless spirit when called to an objective, no matter how formative. I am particularly pleased the majority leader supports an aggressive, multifaceted energy strategy that includes renewable fuels and energy conservation. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I know we cannot afford to rely on oil imports that are subject to the whims of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or the political stability of Nigeria. The fact is that countries rated by Freedom House as ``not free'' produce more than two-thirds of the world's oil and have nearly 80 percent of the proven reserves. I believe the imperative is clear: America must free itself from its oil dependence, and I believe the solution is also clear: renewable energy and energy conservation. The Vehicle Fuel Choices for American Security Act that I have coauthored and now has 27 cosponsors lays out an ambitious plan for saving 2.5 million barrels of oil per day in 10 years, roughly the amount of oil we currently import from the Middle East, through renewables and energy conservation. Further, the bill will promote E85 fueling infrastructure and speed the development of cellulosic ethanol, while investing in the development of efficient vehicle technologies and assisting auto manufacturers' transition to fuel-efficient vehicle production. Last week, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources committee, and my good friend, Pete Domenici expressed on the floor his affinity for the ideas in this bill, and a portion of the bill has already received a hearing in the Energy Committee. Mr. Leader, will you work with me to develop an energy package that boosts our renewable fuel production and energy conservation?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his support and leadership on energy issues. I believe America faces a great threat in foreign oil dependence, but more importantly, I believe in Americans' ability to accomplish the impossible. I know if Congress will put forth a vision and provide the tools to accomplish that vision, Americans can break our addition to foreign oil. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I am honored to join Senator Durbin in introducing the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Act which focuses on the important issue of preparing future generations to live and work in an increasingly interconnected and complicated world. My colleague and I strongly believe that in order for the United States to effectively confront global challenges, to compete successfully in a global economy, and to lead responsibly in the world, we must dramatically increase the number of Americans gaining international experience through study abroad. In 2004, Congress recognized the value of study abroad when it formed the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program. The Commission issued a report in November 2005 calling for a national study abroad program to greatly increase and diversify the number of U.S. students participating in study abroad while at the same time addressing the institutional barriers which hinder many students from studying abroad. Again, the Senate recognized the significance of the study abroad experience when it declared 2006 as the ``Year of Study Abroad,'' and encouraged initiatives to promote and expand study abroad opportunities. With this legislation, my colleague and I move this important agenda one step further by sponsoring a bill that will change the country. It will enable our students to graduate with skills necessary to work effectively in today's global society by making study abroad an integral part of the undergraduate educational experience. Today, only 1 percent of all enrolled undergraduate students spend time living and studying abroad for academic credit. And only approximately one-third of those students chose to study in locations outside Western Europe, even though an estimated 95 percent of the world's population growth will occur outside that area in the next 50 years. The percentages of minorities among individuals studying abroad are extremely low, and underrepresentative of the numbers of those students in the general student population. Minnesota ranks third in the Nation for study abroad participation rates. During the 2003-2004 school year, 8073 students enrolled in Minnesotan colleges and universities studied abroad, which is a little less than 3 percent of the overall enrolled undergraduate student population in the State. I would like to see this number grow--study abroad opportunities will help make the next generation of Minnesotans and all Americans more competitive in the global marketplace. The reality of the global environment commands that far more of our students study abroad, regardless of their field of study, ethnicity, socio-economic status or gender, and that more of them study in nontraditional destinations. In order for graduates to be effective in the increasingly interconnected global society, they must better understand the broad world, not just a small part of it. Study abroad should become the norm, not the exception for U.S. college students. It can only be good for our campuses, our communities and our Nation to have more U.S. students understanding more about the rest of the world.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice to the celebration of a significant event in this Senate: the renewal of the Voting Rights Act for 25 years. This legislation is part of our efforts in the Senate to come together to make sure the America of 2031 is a whole lot more successful at bridging racial divides than we are today. I grew up in a large Jewish family in New York City. One of my parent's favorite entertainers was a Jewish comedian named Georgie Jessel. I am sure some of my senior colleagues remember him. In the 1950s he was a good friend of the stunning and talented African- American singer and actress Lena Horne. From time to time they would go out to dinner. You should know that even in New York in those days, they had segregated clubs. Well, by chance or by accident, Mr. Jessel scheduled one of their dinner dates in one of those clubs. The maitre'd took one look at her skin color and said indignantly, ``Who made your reservation?'' Jessel shot back, ``Abraham Lincoln.'' Lincoln made a reservation for us all. One hundred and forty years later, we are still struggling to keep it. One of my most vivid experiences since I came to the Senate was a civil rights delegation to Alabama sponsored by the Faith and Politics Institute a couple years ago. Representative John Lewis helped to lead the delegation, and shared with us his experiences. We stopped at the Rosa Parks Museum at Troy State University in Montgomery and reflected on the bus boycott. We visited the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church, where the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., used to preach, and the civil rights Memorial. I was struck with the fact that I visited these historic locations in peace and security. A generation ago, the visitors who came from outside the South to these locations endured threats, vilification, and violence. This visit reminded me of a simple truth: Individuals such as Parks, King and so many others, shape our society. As we look at the challenges and injustices of the world around us, we often ask the question, How can we change the world? I think we often look in the wrong place for change. We look to big government, big business, big entertainment, or big publishing to bring about change. It is comparatively easy to change a speech or a law or a budget. The real challenge is in changing hearts. And that job falls to all of us who are willing to speak out, willing to model understanding and willing to change. Our hope lies in the fact that in America, there are no ``ordinary people.'' I often like to say that a leader without followers is just a person taking a walk. The Dr. Kings and Rosa Parks are all around us, in need of the followers and workers who will inspire major change. Every person has the ability to shape our Nation with their vote. As a democracy, this Nation is built on the idea that we look to the people, and the way we do that is by the power of their vote. Voting is the recognition that each person, each individual, each vote, is important. We cannot afford to sustain any impediment to that process. If we do not defend the freedom to vote, the product of our democracy is dulled and diminished--it is not a true reflection of what is America. Legislation we passed in the Congress has been crucial: the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and a series of additional measures right into our own decade. Vigorous enforcement of those statutes is essential. The Voting Rights Act recognizes that one of the best things that government can do for their people is make them secure to cast their votes. The Voting Rights Act recognizes that in a free society, the people lead. The United States is unique in world history because we are a nation built upon rights rather than privileges. We believe we have been endowed by our Creator--not our government--with rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The American concept of rights is a large set. We have the freedom of religion. We have the freedom of speech and assembly. We have the right to be secure against government intrusion in our homes and private affairs. We have a free press. And to a greater degree than ever, we have the freedom to vote in this country and to have those votes count. If you pull any one of those freedoms out of the set, the whole thing collapses. Each of our rights protects and reinforces all the others. All the American rights get stronger with the passage of this bill and that's something to celebrate. But we shouldn't pat ourselves on the back for too long. We can deal with voting inequality by strictly and aggressively enforcing this law, but we have a long list of issues of economic inequality to deal with. We have achievement gaps in our schools. We have housing gaps in our home ownership markets. We have health gaps in access to quality care. Racial equality in America is race without a finish line. We have finished a lap today, but as Robert Frost wrote, ``We have promises to keep, and miles to go before we sleep.''

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I wish today to recognize the passing of my friend Max Metzger this past Saturday morning. As we grieve the loss for his family, the citizens of St. Paul are grateful for the music he brought to them. As the former mayor of St. Paul, I had the opportunity to become acquainted with Max and was touched by the love of music he brought to our community. To say Max was an icon in the St. Paul Music scene would be an understatement. For 56 summers he brought music to thousands of Minnesotans, conducting pops concerts at the Como Lakeside Pavilion. He was a gifted musician, director, and entertainer. He was a kind and gentle man with a great sense of humor, a love for his city, and passionately devoted to his wife Nell. Max Metzger was born in Germany in 1922, and his family emigrated to the United States in 1931. His mother was Mady Metzger-Zeigler, an internationally renowned mezzo-soprano who founded the St. Paul Opera Workshop. Max was involved in the Workshop for several decades, before taking it over upon his mother's death in 1979. Yet while Max clearly loved music and had a high aptitude for producing and performing, he had not inherited his mother's beautiful voice. In fact, his mother made Max promise never to sing or she would disown him. So Max found other outlets for his musicality. He started to play the bassoon at a young age. He played with the St. Paul Civic Opera Workshop, directed the Civic Opera orchestra, and played with a symphony orchestra in Duluth. Max Metzger personified the thriving arts culture in St. Paul for decades, touching innumerable lives. In fact, in appreciation of his amazing deeds and accomplishments, the City of St. Paul dedicated a street in his name in beautiful Como Park. The Nobel Prize winning poet T.S. Eliot once said that ``you are the music while the music lasts.'' Mr. President, the music will last in the hearts and minds of countless Minnesotans, thanks to Mr. Max Metzger.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled ``Offshore Abuses: The Enablers, The Tools & Offshore Secrecy.'' The Subcommittee has held a number of hearings addressing the issue of tax havens and offshore abuses which are undermining the integrity of the Federal tax system, diverting tens of billions of dollars each year from the U.S. Treasury, and undermining U.S. law enforcement. Hearings held in 2001 examined the historic and ongoing lack of cooperation by some offshore tax havens with international tax enforcement efforts and their resistance to divulging information needed to detect, stop, and prosecute U.S. tax evasion. A hearing held in December 2002 and report issued in January 2003 provided an in-depth examination of an abusive tax shelter used by Enron. Two days of hearings in November 2003, and a bipartisan report issued in 2005, provide an inside look at how some respected accounting firms, banks, investment advisors, and lawyers have become engines pushing the design, sale, and implementation of abusive tax shelters to corporations and individuals across the country. The subcommittee's upcoming August 1 hearings will present case histories on the use of offshore trusts and corporations to circumvent U.S. tax, securities and anti-money laundering laws. Witnesses for the upcoming hearing will be securities firms, banks, law firms, U.S. taxpayers, a trust protector, and tax and securities experts. The subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, August 1, 2006, at 9 a.m. in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Raymond V. Shepherd III, staff director and chief counsel to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, at 224- 3721.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, we have all learned in our personal lives that in times of difficulty and challenge, all the extraneous matters of life disappear and we wisely cling to those relationships and values we hold most dear. As we as a nation confront a dangerous set of circumstance in the Middle East, we would be wise to do the same thing. The United States made a solemn, unequivocal, irrevocable commitment to the State of Israel in 1948. We did so for two reasons. First, we were responding in moral revulsion to centuries of persecution of the Jewish people around the world and specifically in Nazi Germany. Second, we were affirming the formation of a democratic society in the Middle East because we believed, then and now, the democracy is, in Lincoln's words, ``the last best hope of Earth.'' That commitment had absolutely nothing to do with politics, partisanship or the price of a gallon of gasoline. Today on this floor we renew that commitment to Israel, and by doing so, remain faithful to our own creeds and national moral identity. We as a nation are committed to democracy and the rule of law. We believe that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. We know from our own history that many disagree with that commitment. We know that those values are not self-actualizing. Sometimes free nations have to fight violent people to preserve the circumstances under which they can live in peace and freedom. We stand with Israel today to support its right to defend itself against terrorists and those who support them. Israel is a small country, surrounded by many who are hostile to their existence. Over the last six decades, Israel has made risky territorial concessions to its neighbors in hopes that moderate Arab voices would prevail over extremists. Those extremists' view of peace in the Middle East are predicated on the destruction and removal of Israel. Despite the fact that southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip have been the launching point for violence against Israel in the recent past, Israel agreed to withdraw from them in the hope of peace. That hope has been dashed by Hamas and Hezbollah, both in the abduction of Israeli soldiers and the launching of rocket attacks. Some in the European community and even in the United States have said criticized Israel's response as ``disproportionate'' and urged Israel to negotiate. When their very survival is at stake, how do you measure proportionality? With whom do they suggest Israel negotiate? I am not saying there is not role for diplomacy or a diplomatic solution. But the foundation of such a solution must be No. 1, Israel has an absolute right to defend itself and No. 2, we must make absolutely certain that our actions do not embolden terrorists to continue their inexcusable tactics. No one supports armed conflict or the injury of civilians. A terrible price is always paid by those who bear the least guilt for the battles. But when Israel is faced with terrorists who work for its destruction, firm steps must be taken. I commend the President for his active work with the leaders in the region, the United Nations and Europe. This is a situation where public statements should be few and maximum influence exerted in private networks of diplomacy. I believe the President is honoring our Nation's commitment to Israel and forcefully pursuing our Nation's wider objectives in the War on Terror in this situation. I think the American people can be reassured and proud that the United States is acting as a great power, in pursuit of high moral principles. We hope that through our strength and advocacy, those who initiated this conflict in Lebanon and Gaza will cease their actions, that their ability to continue to inflict terror and destabilize the region is eliminated or at least severely curtailed, and those who work for peace can regain control. Israel is the only democracy in the region and they need our friendship and support right now. By demonstrating our resolve, we help ensure that our other friends in the region will work for a solution which is best for Israel and all the legitimate forces in the Middle East.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me today in honoring the 50 years of public contribution by an innovative technology company started in Rochester, MN, in 1956. International Business Machines, more commonly known internationally as IBM, has made economic growth possible in a competitive and continually changing marketplace. In 1956, when IBM President Thomas Watson, Jr., met with 40 Rochester business and civic leaders at the Kahler Hotel to establish a new IBM facility, they probably never envisioned that Rochester would become home to the world's fastest computer named ``Blue Gene'' that would be able to perform 18.2 trillion operations per second. They probably could not have dreamed that 50 years later IBM would become Minnesota's largest information firm, with 5,600 employees in the Rochester and Twin Cities areas. And they probably could not have imagined that the plant they were planning would account for 15 percent of Minnesota's high-tech manufactured exports, in a State that continues to lead the field in technology. IBM has spent 50 years growing into a world wide corporation which contributes to our economy at an astounding level. In 2005, IBM earned more U.S. patents than any other company for the 13th consecutive year, with 2,941 in 2005. IBM ensures that our Nation stays competitive in the global economy. Rochester has helped lead that wave of innovation. IBM and its employees and retirees have also been generous supporters of education and nonprofit organizations. Through cash and technology grants of $3.4 million and more than 185,000 hours of volunteerism in 2005 alone, they have been a great benefit to Minnesota's communities and schools. With the people of Minnesota, I ask this Chamber to join in celebrating IBM's 50th year of operation in Rochester, MN.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in paying tribute to one of our most distinguished Members, the Senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. As he passes the milestone of becoming the Senate's longest serving Member, I would remind him of a statement by Yogi Berra when they asked him about one of his many records. He said, ``I knew that one would stand until it was broken.'' Perhaps when medical science allows us to live to be 150 years old his record may be broken, but until then, I think he is safe. Knowing the Senator's affection for the simple truth, I just want to make three points in recognizing this achievement which he embodies to an extraordinary degree. The first is: Your life is what you make it. Our former colleague, Senator Dave Durenberger told me the story of a Friday afternoon in the Senate in 1987 when he was standing in for Senator Dole for the procedural ``wrap up'' with Senator Byrd. The Twins were in the World Series at the time and on the Record, Senator Durenberger asked Senator Byrd if he wanted to come to Minnesota to see one of the games. Senator Byrd said he has not seen a professional baseball game, or football game, or Hollywood movie for more than a decade. But he said he had not been idle. He shared that he had read the Bible cover to cover many times, had read all the plays of Shakespeare, all the Lives of Plutarch and the entire Oxford Unabridged Dictionary. Many of us wonder what we might accomplish without the many distractions of modern life. We should look to Senator Byrd for the answer. The second point I would like to make is: People change. When we look at Robert Byrd's upbringing and the person he has become, it underlies a basic truth which has been made clear by all the great hearts and minds of history. Life is not what happens to you: life is what you choose to do with what happens to you. Change and growth is always possible in people's lives, if they have the courage to change and discipline to grow. And my third point is: This Senate is unique. For the sake of the 100 of us who temporarily occupy these seats, Senator Byrd has embodied the truth that the Senate is unique in human history and its value must be preserved. The genius of our Founders was their understanding of the heights and depths of human endeavor and their ability to translate those thoughts into practical institutions which maximized the heights and minimized the depths. They knew that the philosophy of democracy must honor both the principle of majority rule and the protection of minority rights. And so in article I of the Constitution they created a House to operate mostly by majority rule and a Senate mostly to protect minority rights. The balance they struck has given a dynamic quality to the Congress that serves our Nation well on every conceivable issue. I have often gone up to Senator Byrd on this floor and told him that he has given me something I could not get from any other source: a proper appreciation for the living history of the Senate that leads to reverence for this institution. Robert Byrd and his service in the Senate is a great American story. It tells anyone who will listen how a person from humble origin can rise to leadership and then strive his whole life to keep the way open for those who would come up behind him. We know that great ideas are just a generation from extinction. I am grateful to have had the chance to see many of those great ideas embodied and standing on this floor in the person of Senator Robert C. Byrd. My tribute to him will be to try to learn and live out the lessons he has lovingly and forcefully tried to teach us all in this Chamber.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the National History Day program. A basic knowledge of history is essential for our Nation's children to become active participants in our democracy, and National History Day is promoting history education in Minnesota and throughout the Nation. National History Day empowers teachers to improve history education so that every student will have historical knowledge and skills to contribute to the public good of our Nation. The National History Day program also allows students to create exhibits, documentaries and performances, by using their critical thinking and research skills in the subject of history. It brings me great pleasure to pay special tribute to Emily Brown, as she is recognized for her scholastic achievements in National History Day. Emily is a student at Sunrise Park Middle School in White Bear Lake, MN, and was one of 12 students chosen from across America to display and present her history project at the White House Visitors Center on June 15. Emily's project is titled ``The Iron Jawed Angel: Alice Paul takes a stand for women's right to vote.'' I congratulate Emily as she is honored for her presentation and commend her for her dedication and commitment. I join with the citizens of Minnesota in wishing Emily well in all her future endeavors.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I rise to remember the sacrifices of James Lee Krull, Richard Bruce Apland, Victor Art Rabel, David Aaron Ritzschke, and Richard Lee Lohse, five individuals from Herman, MN, who gave their lives for the United States during the Vietnam war. On July 9, 2006, the Herman High School Class of 1967 will gather at the Vietnam War Memorial to remember and memorialize the 36th anniversary of the death of classmate James Lee Krull, as well as four other brave men from Herman who during the Vietnam war made the ultimate sacrifice. James Lee Krull was born on November 23, 1949, the older of two children to Mr. and Mrs. Lean Krull. He attended high school in Herman, MN, and graduated with the class of 1967. After graduating from high school he studied welding at Alexandria Technical College and in 1969, he was engaged to be married to Donna Hutchinson. He began his tour of duty in Vietnam on March 11, 1970, as an Army corporal serving as a medic with the 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division. On July 9, 1970, Jim died from wounds he received on June 14, 1970, while on patrol in Cambodia. Jim was a highly decorated soldier. Prior to his death, Jim was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for heroism, the Purple Heart, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Expert badge with automatic rifle bar. Posthumously he was awarded the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Medical Badge. Herman, MN, also lost other sons in Vietnam, who we should pause to recognize today. PFC Richard Bruce Apland of the 82nd Airborne died on January 19, 1969, as a result of injuries suffered while serving in Vietnam. LCpl Victor Art Rabel of the Marine Corps died on February 23, 1969, as a result of injuries suffered while serving in Vietnam. PFC David Aaron Ritzschke of the Marine Corps died on July 15, 1967, as a result of injuries suffered while serving in Vietnam. PFC Richard Lee Lohse of the 101st Airborne died on May 12, 1968, as a result of injuries suffered while serving in Vietnam. James Lee Krull once wrote, ``many great men have come from small towns, and now here I am.'' These five men embody this statement. It is because of this kind of heroism that America remains the greatest nation the world has ever known. Again, I thank James Lee Krull, Richard Bruce Apland, Victor Art Rabel, David Aaron Ritzschke, and Richard Lee Lohse for their sacrifice and extend my heartfelt sympathy to the families and friends of those brave men. Marine Lance Corporal Richard Z. James

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act which, as the venerable and esteemed Senator from West Virginia stated, provides critical funding for America's troops, money for hurricane recovery, money for mine safety, while staying within the $94.5 billion funding level called for by the President. I am going to support this package. I support our troops. I applaud their efforts. I am a strong proponent of fiscal responsibility, and I understand and recognize the tough choices that needed to be made in order to put this supplemental together. But with that said, a large component of this package is disaster assistance. When it comes to helping our fellow Americans through a crisis, we need to assist all with equal zeal. The fact is, while this bill offers some Americans a helping hand, it gives some others a cold shoulder. While this bill provides needed funding for agricultural disaster assistance in the gulf to producers affected by the hurricanes, it will not send a dime to Minnesota's farmers struggling to survive their own natural disaster. The Senate bill contained that helping hand. Chairman Cochran fought for--and has fought a number of times, by the way. And I thank the chairman for all the work he has done and all the work he has done on the supplemental and I certainly thank him for his sensitivity to the needs of Minnesota producers. I served with him when he was chairman of the Agriculture Committee before he became chairman of the Appropriations Committee. But this relief never made it through the conference. It is not in the final bill. I find it incomprehensible, if not irresponsible, to provide weather- related disaster assistance for one region of the country while withholding it from another. At its core, this is an issue about equity for all regions that are suffering. And to the thousands of Minnesotans whose very livelihood has been jeopardized and those losing their farms due to last year's disastrous weather, this bill is nothing short of cruel. The absence of this piece in the bill is nothing short of cruel. The images from Minnesota in 2005 speak volumes, surreal images of a mounting storm that almost defies description. Once unleashed, these ominous clouds transformed into tornadoes and a devastating downpour. Imagine looking out your living room window and seeing the shadow of this storm, as shown in this picture, cast on a farm you have worked all your life to build--a farm you have seen through good times and bad, from performing chores before school as a kid to managing the cash flow of a modern farming operation as an adult. These clouds must have brought great anxiety in their path. But these families would not have to wait long to find out what this storm would bring as they sought shelter from the tornadoes and from the high winds as they found cover from the 15 inches of rain that fell in 1 single day. When the sky cleared, this is the scene, as shown in this picture, victims of the storm found. These are the fields, carefully cultivated every year, that were the lifeblood of family farms. These fields, left in utter destruction, a source of great pride when covered by a healthy crop, became a source of great concern to producers who understood all too well that no amount of hard work and careful planning would undue the damage done to their fields. For many farmers, their worst fears were confirmed. In the sugar sector alone, revenue was reduced by $60 million in Minnesota in 2005, thanks to this natural disaster. In one county, crop loss exceeded $52 million and farmers were prevented from planting over 90,000 acres, thanks to saturated fields. Yet the real story cannot be told through statistics. I have met these farmers, and I have listened to their personal trials endured as a result of this catastrophic weather. I was up in Lake Bronson, MN, up in the northwest part of the State, Kittson County. I think the town has about 180 people. I was there on some other matters. In a town of about 180 people, farmers came from surrounding areas. One hundred farmers showed up to talk about what they have been through, to ask for my help in trying to protect this disaster assistance relief. I looked at the faces of these men and women who are hard working-- you could just kind of see that strength in their hands and in their faces--and I turned to one of my staff and said: This is why America won Two World Wars. These are people who have been there for our country time and again. And they were hurting. Farmers are losing their operations, pure and simple. Some of these producers will not be coming back to the fields next year thanks to this storm. They are not just losing a business, many are also losing a family tradition. America is losing something here. Thousands of farmers are struggling to figure out how they will make their cash flow work this year. It is easy for us to talk about terrible crop loss numbers in black and white figures on a page, but these numbers do not quite sum up the weight felt by the farmer who is anxiously wringing his ball cap in his hands as he surveys a barren field and wonders how he will convince the bank to give him one more season. It may shock many Americans to learn these images behind me are not from the gulf but, instead, that they describe the natural disaster that struck northern Minnesota in the spring of 2005. Even more shocking to Americans might be the fact that, of the millions of dollars in agriculture disaster aid in this emergency supplemental, none will go to these Minnesota farmers. I traveled to the gulf so see the hurricane damage firsthand in order to fully understand what my fellow Americans who live far from my Minnesota home are suffering, and I have supported their cause in Congress. I do not know that any of my colleagues from the gulf have ventured to my part of the world to witness the dire situation going on in places like Kittson County--and, again, in size and scope what happened in the gulf is almost incomprehensible--but I urge us not to forget what is happening in other parts of the country. For the farmers impacted, this is their life, this is what they got. It is underwater. I invite my fellow Senators who are interested in meeting these farmers to come to Minnesota. And not just to Minnesota; I think this same scene would be replayed in North Dakota and South Dakota and probably replayed in Missouri and other parts of the country. It is true that the suffering in the gulf is great. I have seen the tremendous damage, and I am committed to helping. But the burden experienced by the farmers I met in places such as Lake Bronson, MN, is also great. Congress should come to the aid of all Americans who find themselves victim of natural disaster and are left in financial peril and economic hardship too great for them to resolve on their own. This is simply a matter of fairness. The agricultural disaster aid package that was included in the Senate version of this emergency supplemental appropriations bill--of which I coauthored that piece--was fair. It provided assistance to farmers afflicted by natural disasters regardless of region or the type of natural disaster. This is a simple matter of fairness. What this conference report does is divide the Nation. If not excluded for regional reasons, then I suppose we are left with the conclusion that hurricanes are the only true natural disasters that deserve congressional attention. We all know that is false. And taxpayers know better. They deserve better. The fact this conference report does not provide one dollar for Minnesota's farmers is a true injustice. I will vote in favor of this emergency supplemental bill because it provides critical funding for our troops. That is what it is about. I am going to be there for that. But I will come to the floor again and again and again to raise the issue of disaster assistance for Minnesota farmers and others in the region. And at every turn I will work to move this funding. I will not let this inequity stand. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by Senators Leahy, Coleman, Lieberman, Sununu, Kennedy, Bingaman, Chafee, and Harkin. The distinguished Senator from Vermont has laid out a general principle we are dealing with here. I would like to make a couple observations, if I may. I would actually like to read from an article in the New York Times of April 3--just a couple sentences. In Sierra Leone there was a woman who was kept captive in her house for 4 days by guerillas. The rebels raped her and her daughter and cut them with machetes. Under America's Program for Refugees she would be eligible to come to safety in the United States, but her application for refugee status has been put on indefinite hold because American law says she has provided material support to terrorists by giving them shelter. The same story has been repeated in Liberia. Women who have been kidnapped, raped, forced to be sexual slaves, by the definition of ``material support,'' gave material support. The law makes no exception for duress. In the State of Minnesota, we have individuals who have worked in groups that have been supported by the United States--Hmongs in Southeast Asia resisted the Laos military; Liberians who gave de minimis aid under duress; Burmese; Somalians; Cubans resisting Castro; Colombians intimidated by the FARC guerrillas--and, again, they are in a similar circumstance as we have talked about. But the way the law is written, they would be denied the opportunity because of the definition of both ``material support'' and ``terrorist group.'' I think some of my colleagues have concerns about this. I know they have raised some questions. We have tried to look at those concerns. One of them is: What is the reason for this? There is a waiver provision in this legislation. The problem is that the labor provision is extremely, extremely limited. I believe one of them was negotiated for about 8 months. It does not cover asylum seekers in the U.S. who have been subject to atrocities, who under duress were forced to give minimal support but by definition of the law gave ``material support.'' So as a result--what I do not think was intentional--when we looked at the REAL ID legislation, we revised some of this. I do not think there was an intentional effort here. Sometimes, though, we suffer from the law of unintended consequences. The unintended consequences of the broad definition of ``terrorist organization'' and ``material support'' is to deny asylum, to deny entry to individuals who I think under all circumstances across the board--Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative--it would be agreed that opportunity is the right thing to do, such as for the Vietnamese Montagnards, the Karen National Front fighting the Burmese junta, the Afghan Northern Alliance that has had U.S. support. So what we have here, we believe, is a technical problem that can be corrected. If somebody is a member of a terrorist organization, they are not going to be allowed entry into this country. But that is not what this is about. That is not what we are dealing with here. I hope my colleagues would take a close look at this amendment and understand it is the right thing to do, the compassionate thing to do, the reasonable thing to do, and one that we will be proud of doing when we are finished. There are a lot of folks who have fought for freedom in ways that we believe they are freedom fighters, a lot of folks who have been subject to great abuse, horrific abuse, and yet, somehow, the way things have been defined or appear to be threats to this country, they do not have the opportunity others have. They are not threats to our security. The right thing to do is to support the Leahy-Coleman amendment. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to submit a sense-of-the Senate resolution expressing the deepest disappointment of the Senate with respect to the election of Iran to a leadership position on the United Nations Disarmament Commission and request the President to withhold funding to the United Nations unless credible reforms are made. A couple of observations, Mr. President. In light of the Oil-For-Food scandal, it was my great hope that we would see a movement toward reform in the United Nations. The Secretary General had put forth some proposed reforms. There was some discussion about whether the U.N. Commission on Human Rights was going to be reformed. Unfortunately, the energy was there, the hope was there, and we seemed to be moving in the wrong direction. On May 9, for the new Human Rights Council, elections will be held. It appears that Cuba may be appointed to the new Human Rights Council. The recommendations from the Secretary General for minimum reform are now coming under attack by something called the G-77, the underlying nations, which may dismantle those. A little tremor occurred just about a week ago, and to some people it may be a little thing, but it is not. It is symbolic of some of the things we face with the United Nations. Just recently, Iran was elected to the U.N. Disarmament Commission. Some may say that this is a very minor commission; it is an inactive forum; it only meets 3 weeks a year, the U.N. Commission on Disarmament. We have Iran out there thumbing its nose at the international community hell-bent on getting a nuclear weapon. And by the way, they said what they are going to do with it. They said they want to destroy Israel. That is what they said they are going to do. Hitler told us what he wanted to do and the world didn't listen. God forbid there is an explosion of an atomic weapon in Tel Aviv or Haifa. They have already said where it is going to come from, this is what we are going to do. So Iran gets elected to the U.N. Commission on Disarmament. In some ways it doesn't make sense. In some ways it is absurd, but it does require comment. It does require a response. It does require folks to say: I don't care whether it meets 3 weeks a year or 1 week a year or 50 weeks a year. This is something that highlights the absurdity of what is happening today in this international body. It is interesting that, as expected, Iran is already making efforts to convert the Disarmament Commission into yet another forum for antisemitism. Last week, at a working group meeting, Iran's representative to the Disarmament Commission stated that the suggestion that Iran had a nuclear weapons program was Jewish propaganda fabricated by the Jewish lobby in the United States. These brazenly antisemitic comments were objected to by our American representative, but other members, including the chair of the working group, remained silent. I am disturbed by the moral indifference that the U.N. has reached where you have a member state seeking nuclear weapons with the expressed intention of destroying another member state, and that member state, Iran, is allowed to serve as the Vice Chair of the Disarmament Commission. That is completely unacceptable, to say the least. I am disappointed that the Asian member states did not step up to contest the candidacy of Iran. This is what is happening: You have regional groupings, so each state, regional groupings, pick their members. The United States doesn't get involved in this. It is up to the member states, the Asian members. But somebody has to be thinking this doesn't make sense. This is going to cast a negative pall over the international community's reflection about what the United Nations community is all about. It is another step back at a time when we need to be moving forward. It is the responsibility of member states at the U.N. to step up and prevent the system from being manipulated by pariah states such as Iran that are looking to pursue their destructive agendas. Iran is probably the major state sponsor of terrorism in the world today. Iran says they want to destroy Israel. Iran supports terrorism and Iran is intent on getting a nuclear weapon. We do not control what other member states do, but we should make the position of the United States clear. The United States should not be funding institutions that not only undermine the very principles they claim to promote but directly harm U.S. interests. A disarmament commission with Iran in a leadership position should be condemned by the United States and we should make a statement. I have been very hesitant to talk about holding back funding, but we are going in the wrong direction. I will be back on the floor if Cuba gets appointed, gets elected to this new human rights council. I will be back on the floor. At a certain point in time you have to expect something. Much is given, much is received. We have given the U.N. a lot of money. We have given a lot of support. There are expectations then and they are not being met. Lest someone has failed to be aware of Iran's deeds, let me review some of the credentials for being excluded from the commission. Iran has repeatedly deceived the IAEA about a variety of nuclear-related activities, failed to provide IAEA inspectors access to various nuclear sites, and refused to answer outstanding questions that led to its nuclear program. It reneged on its commitments under the Paris Accord of 2004, which included the suspension of uranium enrichment activities. Again, I talked about the actions and rhetoric of the Iranian regime to perpetuate a record of terror and tyranny which also warrants isolation from the international community at the U.N., including calls for the annihilation of Israel, active sponsorship of terrorism through groups including Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, meddling in the affairs of neighboring countries such as Iraq and Israel and Lebanon. The overall conduct of Iran is a direct threat to world security. It violates numerous fundamental principles on which the United Nations is based. Yet it continues to enjoy full participatory rights and privileges as a member state of the U.N. In fact, it gets rewarded by a leadership position on the disarmament commission. Such a situation is beyond comprehension. The resolution I plan to submit does the following. It expresses deep disappointment in the failure of the Asian group members of the disarmament commission to stop Iran's election as the vice chair of the body. It asserts the disarmament commission has no credibility on disarmament issues due to Iran's participation, particularly in the light of Iran's defiance of the IAEA resolutions and the Security Council presidential statement regarding its nuclear program. It calls on the U.S. to reject all resolutions passed by the discredited disarmament commission, condemns Iran's continued intransigence with regard to the treatment of Israel and sponsorship of terror and, finally, works to ensure that U.S. funding is withheld from the U.N. in the amount that is directed toward the disarmament commission's activities from its regular budget. We are not talking about a lot of money here. What we are talking about is making a statement--making a statement. We call upon the President to closely monitor U.N. progress on reform and to exercise his option to withhold funding unless credible reforms are made prior to the discussions of the biannual budget in June. What do you do? In the U.S. we ask the question, What shall we do when those who enforce the law break the law? In the international context we are asking, What do we do when a key voice in disarmament is given to one of the world's most willful sponsors of terrorism at a time when they are ignoring the international community in their quest for nuclear weapons? The response is just to say no. Civilized nations must speak with one voice. That statement should begin right here with the passage of my resolution. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this resolution. The error of the United Nations is serious. To be silent in the face of it would be far worse.