Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I wish to talk about jobs. I am a former mayor. As mayor, I learned a long time ago that the best welfare program is a job; the best housing program is a job; access to health care comes through a job. With jobs and with work, there is a sense of dignity and a sense of worth. People would often ask me as a mayor, What are you doing for kids? My response would be, One of the best things I could do for kids was to make sure that mom and dad had a job. Jobs are fundamentally important. The reality is that the American economy over the last few years has taken some very big hits. A lot of people have found themselves out of work. When you are out of work, the anxiety level rises, the sense of security in your family is challenged. It hurts, and it hurts a lot. Certainly the recession that began before President Bush was elected-- the recession began just as he took office--had an impact on jobs. America took that terrible blow of terrorism on September 11, which shook the foundations of the economy. You can't have economic security without national security; People are in fear. There was a great loss to the economic activity, certainly in New York and Washington and throughout this country. The impact of 9/11 cannot be underestimated. On top of that, we faced corporate America acting in a way that upset a lot of us, as it should have. Scandals within Enron and WorldCom undermined the trust, undermined the confidence that the average American had in our economic system, in the market. The stock market, by the way, I don't think is a valuer of the economy; it is an indicator of confidence in the economy or lack thereof. The fact is, Americans were not very confident when they looked at the corporate greed and the excess and the manipulation and a few folks at the top making money and folks at the bottom being hurt. That is a bad thing. In this Congress, before I got here, we acted on that. I praise the folks who stepped forward. But the reality was a great undermining of confidence in the economy and the economy suffered and Americans suffered. Then this President stepped forward and said the way to change what has happened in the economy is to cut taxes. Goodness gracious, there were a lot of folks--my colleagues on the other side, they were just outraged. Cutting taxes, how can you do that? How can you cut taxes at a time of economic need? How can you cut taxes at a time the economy is suffering? It will just plunge us further into debt. The President's commonsense perspective, and one that I share, is that the things we do should put money in the pockets of moms and dads. Then they spend that money. If they spend that money on a good or on a service, the person who is producing that good or providing that service has a job. So by cutting taxes, having moms and dads spend money, is better than the Government spending money. It is better than creating another program. This President thought we had to do those things to incur business investment. The last tax cut we passed--Madam President, I was sitting in that chair when the budget was passed, when we first got in office this year. We passed it by a 50-to-50 vote, and the Vice President had to come and step forward. We passed that tax cut and in that we provided things such as bonus depreciation, providing incentives for business to make expenditures. When they make expenditures and capital expenditures, they are going to grow jobs. There were many who said, How can you cut taxes at a time when we are in economic distress? The reality is, we do it because that is the way you grow jobs, and we are seeing that. We are seeing it in the data that is coming out. I will talk a little bit about that. But I want to step back and say the reason I am so passionate about this is not because it is part of a political party's platform, not because it is an ideological statement; it is because I have seen it work. I was mayor of a capital city. I got elected in 1993. When I was elected, the city was economically dying. It was not doing well. One of the ways to value that is the value of taxable property. In downtown St. Paul, it was over $700 million. When I got elected to office in 1993, took office in 1994, the value of taxable property was $300 million. It had lost half the value of property. I realized we had to do those things to grow jobs, so what did we do? We kept the lid on taxes. I made a commitment, saying we were not going to raise taxes in the city of St. Paul. You know, we didn't raise taxes in the 8 years I was in office--zero increase in the tax levee. We also cut three-quarters of the licenses to do business. There were those who were saying, You are giving these benefits to business. Why are you doing that? I did it because I believed if you did those things that keep a lid on taxes, you would encourage investment. I believed if you kept a lid on those things that were increasing the cost of doing business, you would grow investment. By the time I left office there were 18,000 more jobs in my city. The fact is, by cutting taxes, by stimulating those things that generate investment, you grow jobs. There may be folks who argue about that, but it is like the economist I described. Economists, sometimes, are those folks who see something working in reality and they tell you why it can't work in theory. Cutting taxes works in reality. You cut taxes, it works. My colleague, the Senator from Idaho, quietly mouths: ``You know, it works in theory, too.'' And it does. I have seen it work in reality. This is not about theory or ideology for me. This is not imagining what could be or should be or might be. This is about what is. The reality is we are seeing it today. We are seeing us coming out of that long slide--not fast enough for me; We have to grow jobs at a faster rate. But we see us coming out of the slide. We see it in the data coming out. Consumption in the third quarter topped 12 percent at an annual rate, translating to 6 percent growth in gross domestic product in the last quarter. You have to contrast that with the first quarter of 2003. The growth was 1.4 percent. Tax cuts are making a difference. Tax cuts are taking hold. Jobs are growing. Jobless claims continue to fall to their lowest level since last February. Production in our plants and factories grew in the third quarter at a 3.5 percent annual rate. Contrast that to the negative growth in industrial production in the second quarter at 3.2 percent. Homebuilders started building over 1.9 million new homes on an annual basis, according to the last report. Inflation is well under control at an annual rate of 2.3 percent. I believe that is about a 37-year low. Finally, we are getting consumer confidence. That is what it is about. No one jumps a sinking ship. No one invests in something they think will fail. On the other hand, if they have a sense there is hope and optimism, people invest. It is about hope and optimism. That is what tax cuts have done. They have generated a sense of hope and a sense of optimism. More importantly, they have put money in people's pockets. They have encouraged investment. Sixty-four percent of Americans, according to most recent surveys, predict the economy will be stronger a year from now. That is up from 55 percent last February. Sixty-nine percent of Americans say the economy is stronger than it was 3 years ago. We have a way to go in order to move this economy forward. But the way you change the economy is not doing it like a racetrack and racing around the bends in fast turns. You grow an economy in many ways. But you see the results. It is kind of like turning an ocean liner around in the middle of the ocean; you have to get it moving in the right direction. The President's tax cuts have the economy moving in the right direction. The economy is moving in the right direction. Americans know that. Americans understand that. Let us stay that course. Let us continue to do that which generates investment, generates hope, and that grows jobs. It is the path we are on. It is the path the President set forth, which I support. It is the right path not just in theory but in reality. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill I introduce today to amend title 35, U.S. Code, to modernize patent and trademark fees, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill I introduce today to amend title 35, U.S. Code, to modernize patent and trademark fees, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recalling and honoring the life and work of a physically tiny woman with an immeasurably large dedication to serving the poorest of the world's poor. Known to the world as Mother Teresa, she fulfilled what she understood to be her vocation in the world--not as a saint, but as a human being flawed and prone to the same temptations as are we all in this Chamber. I greatly admire her faithfulness to her purpose, and her profound faith in the Maker of us all. Mother Teresa was born in August 1910 in Albania and became a Roman Catholic nun while still a young woman. A teacher, she was assigned to a convent and school in Calcutta, where she discovered a material poverty that was scarcely believable. Whatever she had given up in dedicating her life to her vocation did not compare to the need she saw around her. She left the already demanding work of her convent to found the Missionaries of Charity, a religious order of women whose work in the world remains service to people who are abandoned, suffering, poor, and dying, wherever they may be found. Today, when many in the world consider religious commitments as too- often contentious and divisive rather than fruitful and unifying, we do well to ponder the 50 years of work by the Missionaries of Charity in more than 700 homes and shelters established in India, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. The example they set for sacrificial giving of oneself can best be described by Mother Teresa's own statement of her mission in this life: My community is the poor. Their security is my own. My house is the house of the poor--not just the poor, but the poorest of the poor: those who are so dirty and full of germs that no one goes near them; those who do not go to pray because they are naked; those who do not eat because they do not have the strength; those who collapse on the sidewalks knowing they are about to die while the living walk by without even looking back; those who do not cry because they have no more tears left. Many of the people served by Mother Teresa considered her to be a living saint. But I find her all the more remarkable because she was human, fragile, and equipped with the same stubborn human nature we all struggle with when our virtue is tried. We may count ourselves blessed if we avoid what Mother Teresa told us is the greatest poverty--that of the heart. Like her, we must keep before us those ``not only hungry for bread, but hungry for love; not only naked from lack of clothing, but naked of human dignity; not only homeless for a house, but homeless for understanding and for human respect.'' Mr. President, I ask that we who are privileged to serve in this body, along with all people of goodwill, join the world in remembering the life and example of one whose dedication to her duty became her love.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the Pentagon has rolled out a program to bring home troops who have served in Iraq for over a year. It is a good program. Under the Rest and Recuperation Leave Program, these service men and women will get a much deserved 2 weeks of R&R with their families. Unfortunately, the program only provides for transportation to places such as Baltimore, Atlanta, Dallas, or Los Angeles. From these cities, our service men and women are expected to pay their own way home at same-day rates. Chad Krandall and Dave Schmaltz, cousins and Minnesota National Guard members from Gwinner, MN were told the price of a same-day ticket from Baltimore to Minneapolis-St. Paul would be $1,200 each. Steven Bazaard, another Guard member from Minnesota, was faced with a similarly high bill if he was to make it all the way home to see his wife Sherry Billups in Blackduck, MN. Isaac Girling, a member of the 142nd Battalion in Iraq, will have to pay the same exorbitant fee when he comes home next week to Stillwater, MN to see his newborn son for the first time. I don't have anything against Baltimore, Atlanta, Dallas, or Los Angeles. But to be perfectly frank, these cities can't really hold a candle to Blackduck or Gwinner, and they are a long way away and expensive to travel to. This R&R program is a good start, but it doesn't go far enough to support our troops. These are families which have already made do for a year without their loved ones, and the toll has been both emotional and financial. To ask them to pay same-day airfare to see their loved ones is simply unfair. If we acknowledge that troops who have been in Iraq for a year deserve a 2-week vacation like anyone else, we ought to make sure they get all the way home. That is what we are talking about here--making sure our service men and women who have performed so admirably, have sacrificed so much in defense of their country and in defense of freedom, get all the way home. I have introduced, along with the distinguished chairman, Senator Stevens, and my friend and fellow Senator from Minnesota, Senator Dayton, an amendment to fix this unintended consequence of the R&R program. We have broad bipartisan support, including Senators Byrd, Dayton, Alexander, Chambliss, Collins, Conrad, Corzine, Craig, DeWine, Domenici, Dorgan, Ensign, Enzi, Graham of South Carolina, Gregg, Johnson, Kennedy, Murkowski, Santorum, Sununu, Stevens, and Allen. The chairman and his staff on the Appropriations Committee have been very gracious in working with me to craft a good amendment to make sure our troops and their families do not have to pay these high rates. This amendment will not have any budgetary consequence. It will simply make sure existing funds are used for this essential program to boost troop morale and to reunite families separated by this engagement. This amendment is the right thing to do. I notice my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Minnesota, Senator Dayton is here. I yield the floor at this time to Senator Dayton.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I say to my friend and colleague, Senator Dayton, that the two folks from Minnesota understand it is really good to get home--and also the folks from Alaska and Idaho. This amendment does that. I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. COLEMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the men and women on the front line in Iraq defending America in the fight against terrorism. We cannot forget them. There are a lot of other things going on in Washington--including, by the way, the discussion of who said what to whom. I digress for a moment to comment on calls for a special prosecutor. I am a slight student of history. In 1999 there was an effort in this body, led by Senator Collins from Maine, a bipartisan effort, to put in place a provision to allow for a special prosecutor. It was blocked, it was stopped, by the very same folks today talking about the need for a special prosecutor. I will be very blunt: We are hearing rank political hypocrisy when it comes to claims about a special prosecutor. I also note the calls that: The administration did this, the administration did that. The President of the United States has been very clear. If someone in his administration leaked information or did something that is illegal, they will be held accountable. That is what the administration has said. We have to get away from the politics and simply do the right thing. The American public get it. They see through it. Unfortunately, it casts a negative light on everyone when every battle is a political battle other than simply doing the right thing. One of the right things, by the way, being done is, today the Pentagon has rolled out a program to bring troops home who have served in Iraq for over a year. These service men and women are going to get a well-deserved rest. Unfortunately, the program only provides for transportation to places such as Baltimore, Atlanta, Dallas, and Los Angeles. For folks who come from Minnesota, my State, that creates a burden and a hardship. Flights are very expensive if you have not planned 2 weeks in advance, costing literally thousands of dollars. This is a good start. It does not go far enough. Because I want to make sure that the service men and women who had to pay--some, again, $1,000 or more for same-day tickets to see their loved ones--I have submitted, along with Senator Stevens, Senator Dayton, and Senator Dorgan, an amendment to fix this unintended consequence of the R&R program. If we acknowledge that our troops who have been in Iraq deserve a rest, we ought to make sure they get their way home. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, who has said they will take care of this. My heartfelt thanks to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you. Mr. President, I do not need to remind my colleagues how much money disappeared from the American and world economy on September 11. Success will build world confidence and investment far beyond this investment in Iraq. Failure would cost us far more. We can, and will, argue over the nature of this commitment. Should it be a grant or loan? We know we cannot let a single American dollar go to paying off the debt Iraqis owe to the French or Germans who propped up Saddam Hussein. We know we cannot load Iraq with debt it cannot repay while urging other nations to forgo their debt. This body will vigorously debate this issue, as it should, but let us not pit the needs of home against the safety of our troops in Iraq. I say this without hesitation: We put our troops in Iraq at grave risk if we do not win the peace. I urge my colleagues not to let political showmanship put American lives at risk. The mayor in me says it is time to get back to work in this body and support those efforts that will get Iraq and its people back to work. Restoring hope and confidence will, in turn, create new investment that will save American lives and ensure that Iraq and its people have a brighter hope for a better tomorrow. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I speak today as a former mayor. I have been listening to the debate about the President's request for $87 billion supplemental appropriations to support what our troops need in Iraq. Yet there are some, who want to divide that, who say: Yes, we will provide somehow $67 billion; that is what the troops need on the military side, and to do that gives them moral clarity, while supporting an additional $20 billion for infrastructure and other essential services is labeled as squandering American resources that could be better used at home. Let me offer some insight on what it takes to build a city, what it requires to assure that those who live in a city feel ownership in their future, feel confident in their role in that city, and have the necessary confidence to move that city forward. First, to rebuild a city requires patience. A broken and decayed city did not happen over night, and it will not be fixed overnight. What happened in Iraq did not happen overnight. From 1970 onward, Saddam Hussein never had a budget; he did not invest in infrastructure. In fact, he pillaged and raped that infrastructure for his own needs, for his palaces, and to cover his friends. So what you have are patterns of neglect that have set in and cities have become stale and moribund. Their infrastructure starts to collapse. That is what we have seen in Iraq. The water systems fail, the sewer systems fail, and the power grids blow out after years of no maintenance. The roads and sidewalks crack and shift and become dangerous to use. So you have the state of decay. Second, to restore confidence and hope in a city requires commitment and investment. Safe streets do not just happen overnight. You have to train a police force. You have to recognize that the best partners in fighting crime are not the guns in their holsters but the people who live in the neighborhoods who will support the law enforcement efforts. Moms and dads living in a city need to have confidence in knowing the police are there to protect and serve them, not to conduct covert activities on behalf of the Government to deprive them of their freedom, their liberty, and their lives. That has been the pattern in Iraq for many years. Third, to assure growth in a city, there must be a sense that there is a future in the city. This requires business believing there is room to grow. You have to grow jobs. You have to get paychecks to people who then invest in homes and libraries and streets and sidewalks. Rebuilding a city is a tough job. Now, increase that on a grand scale of rebuilding a nation, and I hope my point is becoming more evident. The fact is, rebuilding Iraq--all of Iraq--is as important to the protection of our soldiers as the equipment we give them to protect and defend themselves. We have to win the peace. We have to win the peace and not just the war. Rebuild a neighborhood and you keep parents from becoming bitter that they do not have clean water or a functioning sewer. Make the investment in a library and you give the children a tool out of their despair and bring the light of learning and opportunity into their lives. If you remove people's hopes, you remove their incentive to be participants in the community. And if you choose not to invest in their lives, their homes, their communities, and their businesses, they will turn away from the light and seek the darkness. The threat our troops face in the months ahead in Iraq is not just from the Baath loyalists or foreign terrorists who are simply trying to live another day so they can kill another American soldier. The threat our troops face is that moms and dads in Iraq will lose confidence in the promise America made to them not only to liberate them from the brutality of Saddam Hussein but from the chains of despair. We have seen it in our own cities. When we take away hope and confidence in people, they strike out. Ask any cop in any American city what he fears most: a gang member packing a Glock or a neighborhood where people don't care what goes on outside their locked doors and windows. You can always find a way to arrest the gangster, but it is nearly impossible to get people who have lost hope to open the doors to their lives once they have been closed. And once hope is lost, the land becomes a swamp of discontent, a breeding ground for terrorists, unchecked by the populace. That is what we cannot allow to happen in Iraq. If we try to parse the investment we make in Iraq, we parse the commitment to American troops. This is not rhetoric. This is not drama. This is reality. We need to invest in training Iraqis to become policemen now and ensure that more American troops can come home sooner. We need to invest in Iraqi infrastructure now and ensure that its economy begins to recover. And more Iraqis will go back to work. And the greater the hope grows, less anger will be directed toward American troops. We need to invest in Iraqi schools and libraries and hospitals, and conditions that lead to despair and striking out against American soldiers diminish, and the breeding ground that terrorists prey on becomes smaller and smaller, until they disappear completely. The best way to take the gun or bomb out of the hand of a potential terrorist is to make sure they have food to eat, schools to attend, libraries with books, hospitals with medicine, and communities that are safe. The best way to make a difference between an Iraqi citizen who works with American soldiers instead of trying to kill them is to make sure they have access to city services and the very real opportunity for a job. There is this idea, I am afraid, that the rebuilding of Iraq is taking too long and costing too much. There is a sense of panic that has seemed to set in. There are those who roam the halls of Washington saying: I told you so. Throughout the political rhetoric that takes hold on both sides of the aisle is a sort of posturing and positioning for who is more supportive of American troops than the other. All the while, young men and women are laying down their lives to deliver on the commitment that their leaders of this country made to the people of Iraq. It is time it ends. I am not the most senior guy here, nor am I the smartest. I am not the most articulate, nor am I the most decorated. I did not come to the Senate to prove on any given day or issue I am right. I came to the Senate on any given day or issue to simply do right. Today, I urge my colleagues again to turn this issue into something that does more to give honor to our democratic traditions, and to our American soldiers, than partisan speeches about who is to blame for this and who is to blame for that. Everyone knows the pricetag is large. Everyone knows there are programs in the United States that need support, too. I understand that as a former urban mayor. Let us not lose our sense of perspective. The task before us in Iraq may be gargantuan in its cost, but the cost of failure is unacceptably high. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Texas is motioning for the floor. I yield for her.

Mr. COLEMAN. I will finish in 90 seconds.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize Paul Stacke, a widely respected figure of Minnesota radio who is retiring today after 48 years in the business. Paul began his broadcasting career in 1955. Since that time, he has worked at radio stations in cities throughout Minnesota, including Albany, Morris, Duluth, and St. Cloud, where he was a member of the award-winning news staff of AM 1240 WJON. While he has had a few different responsibilities over the years, Paul's most notable contribution was at WJON as the station's political reporter. In this position, Paul brought the latest to his listeners by covering the senators, governors, and State and local leaders in Minnesota politics and asking them the tough questions people wanted answered. Paul also brought national politics back home through interviews with political figures who serve the people here in Washington, from a speaker of the House to a President of the United States. There are many people in the media who have the skills to take themselves to a successful career. Paul is qualified in this way, but he is also more. Besides being a professional, Paul is genuine. Bringing this quality into an interview is what makes him a one-and- only. In doing so, he compels the people he is interviewing to show the same side of themselves. In interviews with political leaders, the result is that his listeners got to hear the ``real'' person who represents them. This is why Paul is a respected man in Minnesota, and why his contribution to Minnesota radio will be missed. The entire State of Minnesota--especially the St. Cloud area--was fortunate to have him on the air. Unfortunately, our work here in the Senate keeps me from attending his retirement party this evening back in St. Cloud, MN. But if I were in attendance there tonight--among Paul, his wife Carol, and his family, friends, and colleagues--I would thank him for his inestimable contribution to keeping me and so many other Minnesotans informed.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, in the time remaining, I raise one other issue, the issue of opportunity scholarships, of expanded choice for students, the issue of the debate we are having over the opportunity for the children of the District of Columbia to take advantage of a ``voucher'' program. We do not like to use that word. In my State, it is a pretty divisive word. The Mayor of Washington, Anthony Williams, says this is the right thing to do. As a former mayor, I will stand with Mayor Williams. This is a very divisive issue in my city of St. Paul. When I ran, I said I would not push vouchers for the people of Minnesota. We had our debate. We have gone a different path, expanding charter schools. St. Paul, my city, had the first charter school in the Nation. As mayor, we started 20 more charter schools, providing tax incentives and tax credits so parents could get money back and use money they need to support their kids' education, to give their kids more choice. That makes sense. But more needs to be done. I recognize that. This is a divisive issue. When the Mayor of the District of Columbia is saying we need to do this for our kids, why not do it? It is not taking any money from my kids in Minnesota. It is not taking any money from any kids in any of the other States. We have a local, elected official saying we need to do this; our kids are failing and we need to give them more hope and opportunity. Why not do it? What are we afraid of? When I was mayor of St. Paul, the Governor offered, I believe, $13 million to any community that would simply do a pilot project offering opportunity scholarships to the poorest of the poor and only the kids who were not succeeding. So you were not going to take the cream of the crop. You were not going to cherry-pick. You were going to take those who were not making it. You have to do something. In fact, the offer was that out of this $13 million, he would give $10 million to the school district to do whatever they wanted. Only $3 million would be for this pilot project. And not a single elected official, other than myself, would stand up and do it. What are we afraid of? If all you keep doing is what you have been doing, all you are going to get is more of the same. Our children need more hope and opportunity. I hope we have the courage to give it a shot and a chance. The downside is minimal. The opportunity is great. Let's seize the opportunity. Let's do this for the kids. Let's do the right thing. Let's make change. Let's give hope. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I wish to first associate myself with the comments of my friend and colleague, the Senator from Florida, with regard to concerns he raised about all the stress on the National Guard and Reserve. I have been to a number of deployments of troops of the National Guard and Reserve from Minnesota. Our folks are serving admirably and bravely, and there is great stress. I think it is clearly important to make sure we do the things to alleviate the strain, not just on the folks on the front line but on the families, and creating a bit of certainty would be good thing to do. It is not a partisan thing. It is the right thing to do for the folks who are serving so bravely and for their families. So I thank my distinguished colleague from Florida for raising this concern and wish to let him know there are many of us on both sides of the aisle who share that concern and would like a greater sense of certainty. What does it mean to have boots on the ground? When are our folks coming home? We do have to give them every bit of support we can when they are there. But certainly for the families, the words of my colleague ring true and I associate myself with them. I do disagree with my colleague from Florida when it comes to his discussion about the economy and the cause and the impact of debt. By the way, debt is a bad thing. I am not going to spend a lot of time talking about that right now, but I do certainly want to raise the issue. The national debt today is not as great as it was in the 1980s, not if you measure it as a percentage of the overall economy. That is the way we have to do it. If you bought a house in the 1980s and you spent $30,000 and you put $15,000 down, $15,000 in cash, you would be in debt 50 percent. As time went on, inflation went on, and you made a little money and you bought a second house in the 1990s, or today, for $100,000, and you borrowed only $30,000, you would be twice as much indebted as you were in the 1980s, but the $30,000 as a percent of the overall value of the house would be less, only 30 percent. The reality is that the debt today is less than it was in the 1980s. That is not to say debt is ever a good thing, but I think you have to make the facts very clear. It is also important to understand the cause of that. Let's never forget that September 11 had a devastating impact on the economy of this country. Let's not forget that WorldCom and Enron and the corporate scandals that undermined the confidence of investors in corporate America--undermined it--had a devastating impact on the American economy. And let us not forget this economy was rolling into recession, was moving into recession at the time President Bush was elected. All these things had an impact. The other concern and observation I have to make, as a Senator who has been here at this point only about 9 months, is my distinguished friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many of them, have consistently talked about the debt, they have great concerns about the debt, yet the reality has been that every time we have acted on budgets, one of the first things that I and, as a newly elected Member of this body, the Presiding Officer did was we had to resolve the budget for 2003 as soon as we got here. On issue after issue, my friends and colleagues from across the aisle, who loudly proclaim concern about the debt, sought to raise the spending. They sought to increase spending, I believe to the tune of perhaps $1 trillion of new spending. So it is hard to hear folks being concerned about the debt when, on issue after issue, they seek to raise spending. We have experienced that as we have gone through the process of approving the 2004 budget. On issue after issue, whatever amount is set in the budget to spend, my colleagues from across the aisle seek to increase that, again to the tune, calculated over 10-year periods, of trillions of dollars. Even for the Government, a trillion dollars is real money. So, yes, the debt is of concern. The way you deal with the debt is you get the economy moving. That is what the President has done. That is what the tax cuts have stimulated. And then you have the will and resolve to keep a lid on spending. Again, I urge my friends from across the aisle, every time you vote to increase spending, time and again, take a breath then before you talk about the debt. I came here this morning to support the President's request for a supplemental appropriation of $87 billion to support our troops in Iraq and to accelerate the redevelopment of that country to a stable, democratic, and peaceful member of the community of nations. As Senators, we have two responsibilities in this matter. As members of the legislative branch of Government, we must put the administration's proposals to the test to ensure they are prudent, practical, and can achieve the promised results. That is what we do as a legislative body. We also have a responsibility to support our Commander in Chief as he leads us as a nation. I love the story told about Abraham Lincoln during the time he was leading our Nation in the Civil War. He was getting, on a regular basis, communications from an elderly woman who said to him that God was talking to her and God was telling her which general to hire and which general to fire and where to attack and where to retreat. He got this series of letters. Finally, President Lincoln wrote back to this lady and said: Ma'am, I want to thank you for your correspondence and thank you for your advice, but isn't it fascinating how the Lord Almighty has given you all the answers but gave me the job. We have a Commander in Chief. We have the right to question and modify the things he proposes. But it is our responsibility, I submit, to work expeditiously and to approve these urgently needed resources. I express my strong hope that this bill will not be held hostage to political ambitions or become the vehicle of high-profile second- guessing. Our effort in Iraq has many challenges, but lack of politics is not one of them. This debate falls in a tempting place on the electoral calendar, but I do hope we rise above a talk show mentality. There was talk this morning: Why do we have to move quickly on the President's request? What is so urgent about it? Does the money need to be spent right away? Kind of a slow walk and no sense of urgency. I do hope those concerns are not raised so that we simply can extend the possibly to have in the political arena debate for the sake of taking political potshots. That is not what this is about. That is not what this body is about. We need to send a message to our troops in the field that we support them and will provide them the resources they need. We need to send a message to the Iraqi people that we are committed to working with Iraq to ensure that democracy is there. You can't have democracy when the lights are out 8 hours a day. We are seeing in Washington and Virginia how difficult it is to operate when the lights aren't on. Multiply that many times over. I am concerned about the nature of the debate that comes with our involvement in Iraq. Debate is what this body expects and understands, but there is a tone about the debate that is of great concern because others watch. There is discussion now about whether this is the President's war. Before you and I entered this body on October 11, 2002, there was a debate about what action we should take regarding Iraq, what authority we should give the President regarding Iraq. There was a full debate. There was a great dialog. There was great discussion. This body voted. The sense of this body was 77 to 23 to support the President and to give the President the authority to do the things that had to be done to make sure Saddam Hussein complied with the United Nations resolutions. Let us not forget that for a period of 10 years he disregarded United Nations resolutions. By a vote of 77 to 23--not 51 to 49, not a 50 to 50 tie asking the Vice President to break that tie--a broad bipartisan coalition, an overwhelming majority of the Senate, said: This is our battle, this is America's battle, and the responsibility we have as elected representatives to speak for the people we represent and give voice to their hopes and concerns was reflected in that debate. When others now talk about the ``President's war,'' it causes great concern. I like the words of the ``Serenity Prayer.'' I hope we have the wisdom to address ourselves in the things we can change and not try to change the past. I say to my colleagues that one of my pleasures as a Senator from the State of Minnesota is to represent the western shore of Lake Superior, the world's largest body of freshwater. If you visit this area during the right time of year, you will see the enormous iron ore boats that transport Minnesota iron ore to the steel plants of the eastern Great Lakes. These gigantic boats are so large that it takes them many hours and many miles to execute a turn into port. The bigger something is, the longer it takes to turn it around. Such is our challenge in Iraq. We are attempting to turn a large society from a generation of tyranny and totalitarianism to democracy and free enterprise. For over 25 years, the people of Iraq suffered under the brutality of Saddam Hussein. For over 25 years, the people of Iraq didn't even have a budget. Its infrastructure was eaten away as resources were simply given to Saddam for his friends and for his palaces, and the country suffered. I find it ironic that some critics of our policy who said we could never defeat Saddam Hussein are now loudly complaining that it takes too long. In our instant-everything, drive-through, microwave society, we perhaps have lost sight of the fact that some things take time. The bigger the thing, the more time it takes. To those who lament our supposed slow progress in Iraq, we are exceeding any realistic expectations of success. Rome was not built in a day and Iraq won't be, either. The lasting social structures in Iraq need to rest on firm foundations and progress. And those foundations are being made. To those who say we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis, we want to turn it over to the Iraqis. We want the Iraqis to be in charge. We want the Iraqis to be guarding the hospitals and the oil wells. We want the Iraqis to be responsible for the future of Iraq. But in order to have that, you have to have a foundation. Iraq has to develop a constitution. It needs to be affirmed. When it is affirmed, it then needs to have free and fair elections. That is how to develop the foundation. As we are developing that foundation, we are making progress in developing Iraqi security forces and police units which can begin to take the load off the American and coalition military units. We are helping the Iraqi oil industry and its power generation come back to some semblance of functionality. The Central Iraqi Bank has taken bold steps to create a secure currency. Some of the most dramatic steps that any government has to set for itself is to be open to trade, to be open to entrepreneurship, and to be open to opportunity. These are bold moves in any part of the world but certainly in Iraq. The Governing Council has just taken steps to open the country to foreign investment. You heard earlier today my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Domenici, talking about the Ministers of Iraq and the number of Ph.Ds--one of the most educated governments anywhere in the world--and the caliber of folks we are bringing to the table. The Poles have already assumed command of a multinational division in Iraq with NATO support. We have captured or killed over 40 of the 55 most-wanted Iraqis, including one more over the weekend, Saddam's Minister of Defense. I mentioned the Governing Council being formed. I am told there is even a city council in Baghdad. I must say as a former mayor that when I heard there was a city council in Baghdad, my first thought was, Haven't the Iraqis suffered enough? But a city council is there and operating. Thousands of Iraqi policemen and soldiers are being hired and trained to help provide security for their nation. Every hospital and clinic in Baghdad is operating, as are most of the others around the country. Every hospital and clinic in Baghdad is operating. The clinics and hospitals in Iraq have 7,500 tons of medicine distributed by the coalition since May, an increase of over 700 percent over the level at the end of the war. For the first time in its history, all of Baghdad has garbage collection service. No longer is garbage collection a privilege reserved for neighbors favored by the Government. Again, I reflect back to my days as a mayor and the importance of basic services being provided to all of the citizenry and not just for the rich neighborhoods. We are doing that in Iraq. Iraqi workers are producing over 1 million barrels of oil per day, the proceeds of which will benefit the Iraqi people rather than Saddam Hussein's corrupt regime. Ninety-two thousand Iraqis receive social security and welfare benefits at levels four times higher than they received under Saddam. One point three million Iraqi civil servants are drawing salaries under a new salary scale. Many of them, such as teachers, are being paid four times what they were paid under Saddam. The test of our efforts is that the Iraqi people are voting with their feet. They are staying put. There has been no humanitarian crisis. There has been no flood of refugees as had been predicted. The $87 billion in this bill will bolster all of these critical efforts. We all need to put the daily events so effusively reported in Iraq in perspective. We see this, by the way, even in our own Nation. A lot of good is being done but somehow that doesn't always qualify as news. I believe the President's leadership is beginning to pay dividends, even at the United Nations. It is a slow boat to turn as well, but I believe we will soon see progress towards broad international cooperation for the rebuilding of Iraq. Even the French say they will not now veto a resolution. The President met with the head of Germany yesterday and had a good conversation. Let there be no mistake. We are in a state of war against terrorism. Our decisions and the tone of our debate must recognize that fact. Forces that seek to destroy us are measuring our will and our resolve at each turn. Their view is that we are weak and easily distracted and divided. We must prove to them the truth--that we are not. We do that by what our military does on the ground every day. We do that by how we as leaders conduct this debate in this body. Again, I recognize the importance of debate and challenging ideas and propositions. But there is a tone about debate and I worry that we are crossing the line. I worry that when we talk about this being the President's war, again disregarding the fact that this body, in a broad bipartisan way, raised its hand and understood the dangers of Saddam, understood the evil of Saddam and the evil impact he had on the Iraqi people, the impact that it was having on the region, the impact it was having on Israel, and the impact it was having on terrorism; understood that we had in Saddam and Iraq a nation which took care of and catered to the persons who masterminded the terrorist acts in the airports in Rome and Vienna; a nation that coddled, took care of and exalted the terrorists responsible for the execution of an American in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer on the Achilles Lauro in Athens--everybody understood what we were dealing with. We rose together in unison. Let us not now forget. Let us not now pull apart. Let us not now send the signal that we are weak and in disarray. It is important to have a sense of strength and purpose. Let us have the debate but let us make decisions. In World War I, the French soldiers came up with the saying that ``the difference between a hero and a coward is the hero is brave 2 minutes longer.'' We cannot afford to lose our nerve at the point of victory or all the sacrifice and the progress to date could be lost. For those who question this amount of money being spent at times of economic difficulty and high deficits, I understand that concern. It is so easy to say, with anything we do, if we put dollars into something, why aren't we taking care of the needs of kids? Why aren't we taking care of the needs of schools? Why aren't we taking care of seniors? The arguments can certainly be made, and they touch a sympathetic chord, a sympathetic note. The reality is we have to understand again and again that you cannot have economic security, you cannot have peace of mind, you cannot have the opportunity for your kids to go to good schools, and folks to live in peace in their neighborhoods and go about their daily lives if we live in fear. The world changed after September 11. We have to reflect on the impact of September 11, not just psychologically but economically. What happens when we allow terrorism to visit our shores? The folks in Washington, DC, saw this very graphically during the terrible period when the sniper was on the loose in Washington, and people would not go out of their homes. They were afraid to go to a gas station, afraid to shop, afraid to go to a restaurant. I have not seen the final bills, but I am sure the economic impact was enormous. When people live in fear, they cannot prosper economically or emotionally. America has a responsibility at this point in history--for the sake of our kids, for the sake of our seniors, for the sake of our parents-- to do those things necessary to live in peace, to confront and deal with terrorism. We learned on September 11 we cannot contain terrorism. We have to aggressively reach out to make sure we do all we can to make sure terrorism does not visit our shores. It is not a matter of saying, if we did not put this money here we would put it there. The reality is, of the $87 billion, $67 billion goes directly to the military. It is also to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq so that the military ethics can take hold. We cannot have such short memories. Ambassador Bremer visited with many Senators this last week and gave a little historical lesson. He said: Look at what we did after World War I. We did not step in. We did not have the sense of heart and purpose to come together and say we were going to deal with the destruction left in the wake. We gave rise to Nazism, to fascism. What happened is, ultimately, millions of lives were lost. I am of the Jewish faith. In our faith we say: We shall never forget; we shall never forget the Holocaust. The seeds of that were laid in the actions after World War I that were not taken to deal with the plight, deal with the economic plight, deal with the disarray, deal with the disintegration. After World War II, we took a very different path. After World War II, we enacted a Marshall plan, and we came together, with the United States taking the lead; the international community then joining in building up and restoring the economy, doing things that restored hope, doing things that restored water and electricity. The result is Europe has been safer. We have been safer until the rise of terrorism. Let us not forget those models. Let us not forget that history. Success will build world confidence and investment far beyond this investment in Iraq. Failure would cost far more. All of these practical arguments notwithstanding, I close with a simple argument for the passage of this supplemental appropriation: It is the right thing to do. Our troops need our support. The people of Iraq, present and future, need our help. The world that hopes for far more freedom and less terror needs what only the United States can provide. We can reach out and set an example to the international community to join with us. This bill is the right thing to do. It is the right for the people of Iraq who are free from the torture chambers so they may never come back again. It is the right thing to do for the young women of Iraq who are raped and assaulted by Quday and Usay Hussein. It is the right thing to do for the memory of thousands murdered and buried in mass graves, and for their justice; for the millions of Iraqi people who will choose their own path, live their own lives, and decide their own faith when we set the foundation, set the table for restoration of democracy, firm and lasting in Iraq. It is the right thing to do for the millions of neighbors of Iraq who will not fear the unbearable fanaticism of a dictator more concerned about power than the moral obligation of leadership. It is the right thing to do for our democratic ally in Israel who no longer will face the threat of Scud missiles from Iraq. It is the right thing to do for the courage of our American soldiers who have performed their duty and lived up to their oath to defend and protect the national interests of their Nation. It is the right thing to do for the memory of American soldiers who have given their lives so that others may live in freedom. It is the right thing to do for the millions of Americans and the 3,000 who died on September 11 that American determination, resolve, and will are not things of the past but are ironclad promises for the future. It is the right thing to do for the message it sends to those who support terrorism, that they will have no refuge; for the message it sends to those who kill, who terrorize, who destroy the hopes, dreams, and happiness of men and women and children that this is a new day, a better world. Their days are numbered. No more can we accept the crying faces, parents holding their dying children, parents burying their dead children. To those who seek to destroy, those who choose to unravel the fabric of society and civilization, this bill is the right thing to do because it makes it clear their time will come; our resolve is strong. We will support our fighting men and women and give them what they need to do the job. We will work with the Iraqi people to rebuild and create a foundation where democracy and hope will take place. Good will triumph over evil. Democracy will triumph over tyranny. Security will triumph over terrorism. Peace will come to Iraq. And all of us in America will be safer as a result.

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 Governmental Affairs will hold a field hearing in Minnesota entitled ``SARS: Is Minnesota Prepared?'' This hearing will be the third hearing the Subcommittee has conducted on the issue of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). At this field hearing, the Subcommittee will focus on what Minnesota has done to prepare for a possible outbreak of SARS this year and what still needs to be done; how the Federal Government can help; and how schools, businesses and communities should respond when someone they know develops a possible case of SARS. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, October 8, 2003, at 10 a.m. at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, MN. For further information, please contact Joseph V. Kennedy of the Subcommittee staff at 224-4198. subcommittee on water and power

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 Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled ``Privacy & Piracy: The Paradox of Illegal File Sharing on Peer-to-Peer Networks and the Impact of Technology on the Entertainment Industry.'' At the September 30 hearing, the Subcommittee intends to take testimony regarding the music industry's initial salvo of copyright infringement lawsuits and its amnesty program; what steps the music industry is taking besides ligation to preserve its intellectual property in this digital age; whether those steps unduly infringe upon consumer's privacy rights; how peer-to-peer networks plan to move from a business model predicated upon stealing copyrighted works to a business model based upon trading licensed music, movies and software; how the illegal trading of copyrighted works has hurt the music industry; and how to inform and educate a whole generation of children and young adults that trading copyrighted music on peer-to-peer networks is illegal. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 10 a.m. in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Raymond V. Shepherd III, Staff Director of the Subcommittee, at 224-3721. permanent subcommittee on investigations

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the important work that is being done to aid victims of torture, in particular the work of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, IRCT. IRCT will be honored in a ceremony today, in New York City, where the Dalai Lama will present them with the Conrad N. Hilton Humanitarian Prize. Torture is a sophisticated form of social and political control designed to stifle dissent through terror. It violates the basic rights of human beings and is contrary to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental nature of our republic. Freedom from torture is a universal and fundamental human right. Yet torture continues to take place in more than 120 countries. It is estimated that one-third of the world's 12 million refugees are victims of torture. Politicians, journalists, teachers, students, religious leaders, trade union and human rights activists are all targets. The aim of torture is not to kill the victim, but to break down the victim's personality. Crippled, traumatized, and humiliated, the victims are returned to their communities as a warning to others. That are an estimated 500,000 torture survivors in the United States alone--refugees and asylum-seekers who have fled repressive regimes. And in recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of victims of torture seeking help at U.S. rehabilitation centers. The IRCT has been a vital part of the global effort to aid torture victims. The Council began with a group of four doctors in Denmark who responded to a call by Amnesty International in 1973 to help diagnose torture victims. Today the IRCT is a global network of 200 rehabilitation centers operating in 80 countries to meet the needs of some 100,000 victims of torture each year. IRCT's mission is to support and promote the rehabilitation of victims of torture, to advocate for the prevention and eradication of torture worldwide, and to provide documentation and research that will ultimately bring perpetrators to justice. Minnesota is home to the Center for Victims of Torture, CVT, the first comprehensive torture treatment center in this country--and third such facility in the world. The CVT helped establish National Consortium of Torture Treatment Programs, under which the 34 torture rehabilitation centers and programs in the United States operate. As mayor of St. Paul I worked together with the CVT to build a torture treatment center on the east side of the metro area. The work of IRCT and the U.S. torture treatment programs is all the more relevant given pending legislation. I am proud to be the chief Senate author of the Torture Victims Relief Act, TVRA, of 2003, which will enable the U.S. to continue its leadership in caring for victims of torture. This reauthorization of the TVRA is included as an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Foreign Relations authorization bill, and I look forward to the passage of this bill. Once again, I commend the IRCT for their tireless work on behalf of torture victims in the U.S. and around the world.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to congratulate VADM John B. Totushek upon the completion of his career of service in the United States Navy and Naval Reserve. Throughout his 36-year military career, Vice Admiral Totushek served with distinction and dedication, ultimately becoming the first Naval Reservist Commander of the Naval Reserve Force to wear three stars, achieving the rank of Vice Admiral. Vice Admiral John B. Totushek is native of Minneapolis, MN. A 1966 graduate of the University of Minnesota, he earned his commission through a Navy ROTC scholarship and was designated a pilot upon completion of flight training in June 1968. Vice Admiral Totushek began his Naval Aviation career in 1969 flying the F-4 Phantom with Fighter Squadron 41 based at Naval Air Station Oceana, VA. He continued his career as an F-4 instructor pilot and Landing Signal Officer with Fighter Squadron 101, also based at Naval Air Station Oceana. In November 1973, he resigned his regular commission and accepted a commission in the Naval Reserve. During the next 24 years, Vice Admiral Totushek served in numerous capacities with the Naval Reserve and several civilian companies. As a Reservist, he served as commanding officer of three Virginia- based air-combat training squadrons, including Squadron Reinforcement Unit VC-1006, Squadron Reinforcement Unit VC-686, and Fighter Composite Squadron VC-12. He served as commanding officer of several Atlantic Fleet air support commands, including Naval Air Atlantic 1086 and Naval Air Forces Eastern Atlantic. As his Reserve career advanced, he served in several senior strategic and management positions within the Navy, including command of the Atlantic Fleet's Logistics Task Force and the Naval Reserve Readiness Command Region Eight. Upon successful completion of these command tours, he served on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations as the Deputy Director for Naval Air Warfare, Reserve Programs, In early 1997, Vice Admiral Totushek was asked to return to active duty to lead the Navy's environmental, safety and occupational health programs. He then was selected as Commander, Naval Reserve Force on October 17, 1998. His duties include command of 88,000 Naval Reservists and 181 nationwide Reserve facilities. Vice Admiral Totushek also represents the Naval Reserve before Congress as Chief of Naval Reserve, and on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations as Director, Naval Reserve. He was promoted to vice admiral on 24 May 2001, becoming the first Naval Reservist three-star admiral in history to lead the Naval Reserve. During his tenure, Naval Reserve Forces were mobilized three times: the Kosovo Campaign in 1999, Operation Noble Eagle in 2001 and Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Under his leadership, Naval Reservists served with great honor, dedication and sacrifice during the global war on terrorism, in war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, and here at home as part of the homeland defense network. His family and fellow shipmates can be proud of his service. Vice Admiral Totushek, his wife Jan, and children Courtney and Chris have made many sacrifices during his Naval and civilian careers, and we appreciate their contributions of conscientious service to our country. As he departs the Pentagon to start his third career, I call upon my colleagues to wish John and his family every success, and the traditional Navy ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to engage the Senator from Mississippi in a colloquy regarding section 189 of the conference report in order to clarify the intent of the conferees.

Mr. COLEMAN. It is my understanding that this section is a very limited, temporary funding restriction that will not affect noise mitigation funding in any significant way. Federal airport improvement program monies from the ``Noise set aside'' have not normally supported noise mitigation projects below a Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) of less than 65. This is because under the FAA's system of ranking projects for the use of the noise set aside, projects to reduce higher levels of noise having funding priority and projects below 65 DNL have not normally ranked high enough to get such funding. I further understand that nothing in this section or any other provision of the FAA conference report would prohibit an airport from using either passenger facility charges, PFC, or other locally generated monies to fund noise mitigation projects below a DNL of 65. It is also my understanding that the provision is not intended to change the FAA's current approach of not disapproving an airport's entire part 150 noise program, where there is only a portion or portions of the program that are problematic. The FAA would continue to be able to disapprove portions of a port 150 program, while approving other portions, as they do today. Furthermore, the provision would not affect noise set-aside funding that would not require part 150 approval, such as school soundproofing or noise mitigation for an airport expansion project in an FAA environmental record of decision.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, with respect to rollcall vote No. 323, I was recorded as voting ``nay.'' I ask unanimous consent to change my vote to ``yea.'' This change will not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill I introduce today, the Eric and Brian Simon Act of 2003, to provide compensation to veterans, their spouses, and children who contract HIV or AIDS as a result of a blood transfusion relating to a service-connected injury, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill I introduce today, the Eric and Brian Simon Act of 2003, to provide compensation to veterans, their spouses, and children who contract HIV or AIDS as a result of a blood transfusion relating to a service-connected injury, be printed in the Record.