Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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 will hold two days of hearings on March 28 and 30, 2006, ``Neutralizing The Nuclear And Radiological Threat: Securing the Global Supply Chain.'' On March 28, the Subcommittee will focus on the domestic and international deployment of radiation detection equipment, as well as U.S. Government efforts to prevent radiological or nuclear terrorism. Three Government Accountability Office Reports will be released at the March 28th hearing. These reports include: 1. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Radiation Portal Monitor Program, RPMP, to install Radiation Portal Monitors, RPMs, at U.S. Ports of Entry; 2. the Department of Energy Second Line of Defense program to install RPMs at key international border crossings and ports; and 3. the successful importation of radiological sources across the northern and southern border. On March 30, the Subcommittee will focus on the security of the global supply chain and update the May 2005 hearing, The Container Security Initiative and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism: Securing the Global Supply Chain or Trojan Horse? A Subcommittee staff report on global supply chain security will be released at the March 30 hearing. In addition to examining forthcoming reports, the hearings will examine the other programs that form our layered defense against nuclear terrorism including the Container Security Initiative, the Megaports Initiative, and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. Moreover, these hearings will examine the role of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, a new office created within DHS to coordinate global nuclear detection architecture. The Subcommittee hearings are scheduled for Tuesday, March 28 at 9:30 a.m. and Thursday, March 30 at 10 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. subcommittee on public lands and forests

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, this year we celebrate the 45th Anniversary of the Peace Corps. It is with immense pride that I send my congratulations to Peace Corps volunteers as they commemorate this anniversary throughout the year with events across the country and throughout the world. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy established the Peace Corps to promote world peace and friendship. Since then, more than 182,000 Peace Corps volunteers have made significant contributions to the cause of peace and human progress in 138 countries around the world. Today, we are at a 30-year high in terms of the number of Peace Corps volunteers in the field. In 2005, there were nearly 8,000 volunteers serving 75 countries, in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, North Africa, the Middle East, and the Pacific Islands. Throughout its illustrious history, the Peace Corps has been committed to helping the people of interested countries train their men and women to work in education, community development, agriculture, health care, and public works. Peace Corps volunteers are also unofficial ambassadors of goodwill, promoting both a better understanding of America throughout the world, and a better understanding here at home of the world around us. Today, the Peace Corps' mission is more important than ever. Peace Corps volunteers are a critical part of the global fight against HIV/ AIDS. The Peace Corps was also part of America's response to the tsunami, deploying Crisis Corps volunteers to Sri Lanka and Thailand to assist with rebuilding tsunami devastated areas. And when Hurricane Katrina hit here at home, some 272 Crisis Corps volunteers answered the call to assist with relief efforts along the gulf coast in partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. It is with great pleasure that I join with Peace Corps volunteers, past, present and future, to congratulate the Peace Corps on its 45th anniversary.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for Senator Santorum's amendment to restore budget cuts to the Community Development Block Grant Program, or CDBG. I was proud to sponsor a similar amendment during last year's budget, and today I am pleased to work with my good friend from Pennsylvania to restore CDBG funding in this year's budget. I am also pleased to have worked with the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, in leading a bipartisan coalition of 53 Senators this year in sending a message to the Senate Budget Committee expressing our strong commitment to CDBG and reminding folks that cities from Montpelier to Minneapolis need CDBG to create economic opportunity and to grow jobs. When we consider the budget, there are always a lot of tough choices to be made. We need to be fiscally responsible, and this is a fiscally responsible budget. We need to look at the myriad of Federal programs and ask ourselves, does the program work? Is it cost-effective? Is it achieving its goals? In the case of CDBG, the answer is yes, yes, and yes. CDBG was enacted in 1974 and has been assisting America's communities for 30 years. It is a public-private partnership that helps State and local government address community development challenges, including infrastructure and housing. Over the first 25 years, it has created 2 million jobs and contributed in excess of $129 billion to the Nation's gross domestic product. Dollar for dollar there is no better initiative to help States and localities undertake important economic development activities than the Community Development Block Grant Program. CDBG is not some abstract community and economic development program but rather one that provides practical and long-lasting individual and community wide benefits. CDBG success stories abound in every State--just ask all the local mayors who are visiting our offices this week. They will tell you that CDBG is the lifeblood of community development. As a former mayor, I know first hand the importance of the CDBG program. While mayor of St. Paul, CDBG provided funding that helped make the Main Street Program--a downtown economic revitalization program--a success. However my city of St. Paul is just one of many small and large examples of CDBG's success in Minnesota. In the city of Moorhead, CDBG has provided critical affordable housing and rehabilitation assistance to the city's low and moderate income families. By way of example, CDBG funding has enabled Moorhead to provide energy, electrical and structural repairs to John and Avis Pearson both senior citizens with a combined income of $25,000. CDBG funding has also helped to revitalize Romkey Park, a formerly blighted area of the city, through the rehabilitation of run down apartments. In Anoka County, a major suburb of the twin cities, CDBG has provided funding for the replacement of dilapidated mobile homes and the redevelopment of the city of Centerville. These are the sorts of projects that improve the quality of life not just for those least well-off but for the entire community by making it a more attractive place to live and do business in. Then there is the small town of Brewster which was awarded a one-time CDBG grant a few years ago. Thanks to that grant, Brewster was able to revitalize a run down part of the town and in turn attract the Minnesota Soybean Processor, which led to the creation of 40 jobs. The company has now also opened a biodiesel division, which now employs additional workers. Despite the longstanding Federal, State and local bipartisan support for this program and its long record of achievement, the future of CDBG is in serious jeopardy given the President's budget proposal to reduce funding by $1 billion to $2.7 billion. Since fiscal year 2001, the program has endured a 15.2 percent reduction. In my home State, funding has steadily declined during the past several years with funding decreasing from $68.4 million in fiscal year 2004 to $58.5 million for the current fiscal year. At the President's proposed funding level, Minnesota would receive approximately $43.7 million for fiscal year 2007 or a 36 percent reduction from the fiscal year 2004 level. I came to the Senate promising to be Minnesota's mayor in Washington. As a mayor, I know that CDBG works, and as a Senator, I am proud to support this program and urge my colleagues to support the Santorum amendment, which would provide the funding necessary for the program to effectively assist States and localities.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill which I am introducing today, the Foreign Investment Transparency and Security Act of 2006, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill which I am introducing today, the Foreign Investment Transparency and Security Act of 2006, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak a little bit about Iran and about the outrageous comments by the Iranians threatening the United States of America and continuing their perilous path to try to obtain nuclear weapons. But before I do that, I have to respond as I listened to the discussion about port security. I am chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation. For 2 years we have been looking at the issue of port security. We have looked at the possibility of someone bringing a nuclear bomb into this country, or weapons in one of the over 11 million cargo containers that come in from the seas. We have before us a situation and the prospect of UAE Dubai Ports World taking over a number of American ports on the east coast. It has raised a lot of concern, as it should. But some of the rhetoric is a little aboveboard. When I say that, we need to do everything in our power to make sure that we are safe and secure. Ports are points of entry, and there are areas of vulnerability. This deal has raised very legitimate concerns. First and foremost was the process. The process, while we look at foreign investment in the United States, as I would describe it, a pre- 9/11 process and a post-9/11 world, about 1,500 of these have been done on a 30-day expedited basis. When folks at the sub-Cabinet level looked at this--folks in Treasury, Homeland Security, other agencies of the administration looked at this--they saw that we were talking about taking control of ports, and, yes, by the UAE. It raises security issues. Under the law that calls for a 45-day review. It didn't happen. That was a mistake. That was the wrong thing. It was a violation of the law. It was a bad process and the process needs to be changed. But we have to tone down the rhetoric a little bit. It is interesting. I have been, again, a major critic of the process. I signed a bipartisan letter with my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, with Senator Clinton from New York, and with both Senators from New Jersey. We signed a bipartisan letter that said we demand that this go back to the 45-day process; we demand that we take a close and serious look at it and we make sure we have looked at all the security concerns. Then, at the end of that 45-day process, we demanded that Congress have the right to review the conclusion. If the conclusion from our perspective did not appear to be in the best interests of our national security, we would then note our disapproval and the deal wouldn't go through. We had a bipartisan agreement to do that. Today, clearly the American public is deeply concerned, as they should be. But instead of going through the process--by the way, we pride ourselves as being the greatest deliberative body in the world-- instead of allowing the process to go through with Congress then being briefed, having the hearings--we have had to some degree, and we need more. We heard from the folks who made the decision in front of the Homeland Security Committee. They explained what happened. Then we went into private session. We went into the secure room in this building and had classified material. We had a review. We listened. We understand the review is ongoing. Nothing is going to change. There is no change in the status quo. Dubai is not going to be taking over any American port until the CFIUS process is done, not until the President has exercised his authority under law and until we in Congress have a review. My colleagues are talking about this is our only chance to stop this deal, and we have to act now. This is policymaking by poll taking. Clearly, the American public has been concerned, as they should be. We have put in place a process by which there is a 45-day time to review. We have called for and demanded congressional oversight of that and the opportunity to be heard, and we will get that. We need to be assured that we are going to get that. But to somehow communicate to the American public that this is our only chance and terrible things are going to happen if we do not stand up and stop this today is really more about pandering to the fears of the moment than doing what we are supposed to do in this bill; that is, be deliberative and thoughtful. I have some deep concerns about the history regarding UAE--deep concerns about the trafficking of nuclear materials by Dr. Kahn from Pakistan. I have concerns about the UAE when they recognized the Taliban, as they did, by the way, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. One of our strongest allies today in the war on terror is Pakistan. Are my colleagues presuming that somehow we should be cutting off relations with Pakistan? I don't think so. They say there were concerns about what they did, but now they work with us. I believe we have about 500 to 700 naval ships that are docked in the UAE on a regular basis. Our ability to fight the war on terror is dependent in part on the partnership we have with the UAE. They support us in the war in Afghanistan. We have a changed situation in the post- 9/11 world. We have an ally whose policy I don't like when it comes to boycotting Israel. That is something that deeply troubles me, and it should be a factor that we look into. But the bottom line is you can't pick out all the negatives and not recognize in this post-9/11 world that we have a country that has been an ally, that does billions in trade with us. We put the safety of our sailors in their hands at their ports. I think we have to look at the whole picture and allow the review to go forward with an understanding that nothing is going to happen within 45-days--no change of ownership and no increase in security problems. Let me briefly try to address the overall issue of port security and container security. Some of us have been working on that before the issue became the issue de jour, the issue of the day. I have been to Hong Kong and looked at the operation. I have been at the Port of L.A. I have looked at the radiation portals, the radiation portal monitors that we have in various places throughout this country. The reality is that today there are 11 million cargo containers coming into this country, and we actually closely look at perhaps 1 in 20--5 percent. That is what we look at. We have a system. It is not a random system. It is a targeted system. These are things that are based on the manufacturer, where the cargo came from, and a range of things-- who the shipper is and who the receiving company is. We are looking at 1 in 20. We need to do better. One of the things we should be doing--and I had a chance to review this when I was in Hong Kong. They have part of their operation in which they have put in place American technology. They are actually able to literally, almost like a moving CAT scan--as the trucks come from mainland China with the goods being sent to the United States, they don't stop. They just keep coming in. They go through two portals. You get a screening. You can see what is inside the vehicle. At the same time, right at the very end, there is a radiation portal monitor which gives us an indication of whether there is any nuclear material in that cargo. At the same time, the operators--the folks who are watching this-- have a manifest of what is in it. If the manifest says X-thousand DVDs and all of a sudden you see a big, solid kind of cylindrical object, you have a problem. You stop it and do further inspection. You take a look at it. They have an opportunity to screen 100 percent of that. That should be the standard we set. I am introducing this morning a bill that will require the Department of Homeland Security to put in place a system to screen each and every one of the cargo containers that come into this country. That is the kind of security we need. In addition to that--and I believe the UAE deal represents a concern, even though security is being done, certainly, at home by the Coast Guard and Homeland Security, even though the reality is that cargo security starts at overseas ports, it is not when it comes into our waters--we have, I believe, 41 agreements called the ``Container Security Initiative.'' We have the Department of Homeland Security sitting side by side in foreign countries with personnel who run their ports looking at every manifest that comes in, making some judgments about what is inspected and not inspected. At the same time, we have an agreement with private security, CT-PAT, Partnership Against Terrorism. We work, then, on the private side to have measures in place that will increase the measure of safety and security that we have regarding these containers coming in. The bottom line is, I am concerned if we have a foreign entity that is owning or operating an American port, that they would have access, then, to our security procedures. That raises concerns. The other reality is that 80 percent of the terminals in the United States are foreign owned--either foreign companies, or in some cases-- by the way, I say to my colleague from California, there are four port operations on the west coast that are foreign owned by foreign countries--three by Singapore and one by China. Do we feel any safer that China owns a major American port operation? The reality is there hasn't been a problem, by the way, until this deal. Now we hear there is a crisis. Now we have to hear we have to act today. What is happening today is it is about politics. That is what is happening today. We had an understanding that we should have a 45-day review, that we should have access to then participate in that and look at the information as it comes in. And we should have a clear opportunity to make a judgment about that 45-day review. We have something else today. But the bottom line, again, is that part of the bill that I will introduce today will require a separation of ownership, and we can't unravel 80 percent of the terminals that are foreign owned, foreign operations. Each of these operations should have an American company, folks who are operating these ports who understand the security procedures. They should be vetted. They should be cleared. We should know who they are. If we can separate operations from ownership, if we can make sure we have in place a system whereby each and every piece of cargo in a container that is coming into this country--the 11 million that come in by ship, and then if we can reform the CFIUS process so it is more transparent, so Congress has a chance to review these things before they happen, we will be much better served. That is the way this deliberative body should act rather than playing with the politics, to demand that we have to do something today when, in fact, we have a process, a review process. We should let it go forward and not allow anything to change until our will has been heard, then do the things that we have to do to check out each and every piece of material coming into this country, require Homeland Security do that, and, as I said before, separate the operation of ports, where we have folks we can vet, who we can check out, those who own it. By the way, we have, I believe, about $100 billion of foreign investment in this country. That is a good thing. It is called jobs for Americans, economic security, national security. Let us strengthen our national security when it comes to cargo container security, but let us not act on politics at the moment.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be extended until 2 p.m. with the time equally divided in the usual form, and the time between 1:30 and 2 p.m. be reserved for the proponents and opponents.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I want to move on to what I intended to talk about today, and that is Iran. I will not speak that long. I think it is important to respond to the outrageous comments made by the Government of Iran this week and this latest stunt by the despotic Iranian regime that said: The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain. If the United States wishes to choose that path, let the ball roll. First, there is a method to this madness. There is a method to this, with what this regime needs and is seeking to do. It needs crisis. It needs to raise the level of tension to justify its own increased militarization in the harsh security measures at home. That is what it is intending to do. On the other hand, we have to take them at their threat, at their word. If they are threatening the United States, take them at their word. Hitler told us in ``Mien Kampf'' what he was going to do. We did not listen, and there was a terrible price to be paid. The Iranian mullahs and the President are telling us they intend to destroy Israel. They are very clear that they are on a path to obtain nuclear weapons. We know it. Let's take them at their word. Let's say: Yes, this is what you want to do, we know it, and we will not let you do it. When the President of Iran issued the first threat about the destruction of Israel, behind him was a huge banner, with good graphics. It was a big hourglass. The hourglass ball is dropping. That glass ball, which is very fragile, is Israel, about to be destroyed. But if you look very closely on the floor, already destroyed is the USA. That is their intention, what they intend to do. We have to understand we take them at their word, and we have to make sure they do not have the opportunity to develop a nuclear weapon. It is time for the international community to act stronger than it has acted, maybe call their bluff. Strong words from the Iranians require a strong response from the Security Council. Iran has threatened the United States with harm because we are looking to hold them accountable for their actions or to endorse their international commitments. In light of this situation, no sound-minded diplomat can claim the purpose of the Iranian program is benign or that it can be trusted to uphold any part of a compromise agreement. They do not want agreement. We talk about continuing the discussions with the Russian plan they laid out. We have to presume that the other side really wants an end to the crisis, but there is no rational basis to presume they want an end to the crisis. They want the crisis. They want to push it forward. They want to engage in dialog as they continue their efforts to obtain nuclear materials. So there is no incentive for us to engage in the negotiation. If you look at proposals--some unacceptable, to flatout dangerous-- all require enormous concessions to the Iranians to get their buy-in. Again, we have to say, does the other side want an end to the crisis? Do they want to do a deal? The answer is ``no.'' The Iranians already rejected a Russian proposal to jointly enrich uranium on Russian soil. There has also been talk of a deal where Iran will be allowed to conduct small-scale research enrichment in exchange for postponing industrial-scale research. This is ludicrous to be talking about. Our friends on the Security Council must recognize compromise with Iran is not an end to itself but only used when it is seeking to reach an objective, to prevent them from producing nuclear weapons. Any deal that allows Iran to retain uranium does not serve this objective. This week, the IAEA must refer--and I use the word ``refer''--Iran to the Security Council with a strongly worded IAEA resolution that will lead to robust Security Council action, not to rest on what was a weak IAEA resolution passed last month which reported Iran to the Council. Under the chart of the U.N., the Security Council is granted jurisdiction over ``threats to international peace and security.'' There is no more evident, obvious threat to international peace and security than the attempt of Iran to obtain nuclear materials and to develop a nuclear weapon. The Security Council action was absolutely necessary in dealing with Iran. I am aware that several of our partners on the Council--namely, Russia and China--have yet to come to understand the urgency of the crisis we face with Iranian's nuclear program. For this reason, I support the administration's efforts to build a coalition of allies who are willing to impose meaningful sanctions on Iran, should certain members of the Security Council fail to act responsibly by withholding support for sanctions. Action needs to be taken immediately. Sanctions need to be taken immediately. The international community cannot be constrained from action against imminent threat to peace and security by a few self-interested actors. We cannot be cowed and bowed by the threats of the Iranians. We must move forward. This is a threat to peace and security of the entire world. We have to act now. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to hold a hearing on Thursday, March 9th at 9:30 a.m. to conduct oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a markup to consider S.J. Res. 12, The Flag Desecration Resolution on Thursday, March 9, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 9, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing regarding ``Reporting Improper Payments: A Report Card on Agencies' Progress''

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 9, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. in SR328A, Senate Russell Office Building. The purpose of this committee hearing will be to review the United States Department of Agriculture's Management and Oversight of the Packers and Stockyards Act The PRESIDING, OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on armed services

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 9, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2007 and the future year's defense program.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 9, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``A Review of Self-Regulatory Organizations in the Securities Markets.''

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 9, 2006, at 3:15 p.m., on Nominations.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 9 at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the pending nominations of Raymond L. Orbach, of California, to be under Secretary for Science, Department of Energy; Alexander A. Karsner, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy); Dennis R. Spurgeon, of Florida, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy (Nuclear Energy); and David Longly Benhardt, of Colorado, to be solicitor of the Department of the Interior.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, March 9, 2006, at 9 a.m. in Senate Dirksen Building Room 226. Agenda I. Nominations: Steven G. Bradbury, to be an Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel; John F. Clark, to be Director of the United States Marshals Service; Donald J. DeGabrielle, Jr., to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas; John Charles Richter, to be U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma; Amul R. Thapar, to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky; Mauricio J. Tamargo, to be Chairman of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States. II. Bills: S. __Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Chairman's Mark; S. 1768, A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings; Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Grassley, Schumer, Feingold, Durbin; S. 829, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005; Grassley, Schumer, Cornyn, Leahy, Feingold, Durbin, Graham, DeWine, Specter; S. 489, Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act; Alexander, Kyl, Cornyn, Graham, Hatch; S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005; Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold; S. 2292, A bill to provide relief for the Federal judiciary from excessive rent charges; Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Feinstein, Biden. III. Matters: S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment, Allard, Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled, ``The President's FY2007 Budget Request and Legislative Proposals for the SBA'' on Thursday, March 9, 2006, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 9, 2006, to hear the legislative presentation of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Blinded Veterans of America, the Non-Commissioned Officers Association, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the Jewish War Veterans.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 9, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise to honor the life of Kirby Puckett, whose exuberant love of the game made him one of the best-loved players in baseball history. For many baseball fans, young and old alike, Kirby Puckett was the reason they picked up a baseball bat and kicked up their foot as the pitch approached. Kirby Puckett is Minnesota baseball. Amazingly, Kirby was not the strongest, fastest, tallest, or most gifted baseball player ever. All you had to do was watch Kirby swing at a pitch three feet outside of the strike zone to understand that he did not succeed because of his mechanics. It was his gravity-defying leaps in center field, his hustling out an infield single, and his ability to hit the pitch three feet outside the strike zone that made him one of the greatest baseball players to grace the game. This honor was quickly rewarded in 2001, when at the age of 37 he was inducted into the Hall of Fame and became the third youngest living inductee, behind Sandy Koufax and Lou Gehrig. Kirby Puckett's history-making career with the Twins began May 8, 1984. In his first game he became one of nine players in the history of baseball to collect four hits in their first game. For the next twelve seasons Kirby Puckett and his now retired No. 34 carried the Minnesota Twins out from obscurity to two World Series Titles in 1987 and 1991. He made ten straight all-star appearances from 1986 until 1995, and won six gold gloves over his career. Perhaps the defining moment in Kirby Puckett's legendary career came during Game Six of the 1991 World Series. Puckett hit a walk off home run in the eleventh inning, becoming the ninth player in history to hit a walk off home run in a World Series game. As Kirby rounded second base and pumped his fist into the air, he transcended the game itself and took his seat among the greatest players to swing the bat. Tragically, Kirby was forced to retire from baseball on July 12, 1996, due to complications with glaucoma. In his retirement Puckett continued the charitable work he began as a player, raising money for glaucoma prevention and children's charities, perhaps most famously through his sponsoring of celebrity billiards tournaments to benefit the Children's Heart Fund. He won both the Branch Rickey Award, 1993, and the Roberto Clemente Man of the Year Award, 1996, for his community service. Kirby's accomplishments were not predestined. Kirby willed his success from sheer attitude and hard work. He was born March 14, 1961, in Chicago, IL. Kirby grew up in Chicago's notorious Cabrini Green Housing Projects, ``the place where hope died.'' Despite the daily barrage of drugs and gangs that surrounded him, Kirby went on to become an All-American at Calumet High School. While playing in a college baseball league in Illinois, Puckett caught the eye of some pro scouts, although he surely caught the ears of the scouts as well with his colorful clubhouse humor. Soon thereafter in 1982, Kirby Puckett was a first round draft pick of the Minnesota Twins. As I said before, Kirby Puckett was not gifted with the greatest baseball talent. He did not physically dominate the game, but he did dominate it mentally. Ever since Kirby, little league coaches have always had to tell their kids that they could only swing like Kirby if they made the major leagues. The problem is that in order to make the Majors, those same coaches had to tell the kids they had to work and play as hard as Kirby did and have fun doing it. That is his legacy to baseball; he put the fun into baseball. It is now all of our responsibility to carry on that legacy. If Kirby were alive he would want all of us to honor him with his trademark sign-of-the cross and promise to make the most out of life as he did. As Kirby remarked with his typical modesty after his baseball career ended prematurely: Kirby Puckett's going to be all right. Don't worry about me. I'll show up, and I'll have a smile on my face. The only thing I won't have is this uniform on. But you guys can have the memories of what I did when I did have it on. Kirby, we know you are all right in heaven right now, but we are not all right. We loved you as a player, but most of all we loved how you always had a smile on your face. You made us believe in ourselves. On behalf of Minnesota and baseball fans everywhere, thank you for the memories. You will not be forgotten.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation, the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act of 2006, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation, the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act of 2006, be printed in the Record.