Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield another minute to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. COLEMAN. It talks about Karl Rove the ``whistleblower.'' I don't want to read all of it, but in part it reads: For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real ``whistleblower'' in this whole sorry pseudoscandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. I believe what I have read, that Mr. Rove may have said it was Wilson's wife who worked at the CIA. We don't know that. Did he know she was a covert agent. We don't know. It goes on and on to talk about the 1982 law: . . . Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an undercover agent and using information he'd obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists. We don't know what he knows, Madam President. That is why there is a special counsel, and we should wait to find out what he finds. Nobody is arguing about debating these issues, but we are arguing about passing legislation. Contrary to what my friend from New Jersey says, we are writing a law. I want to remind my colleagues that we are writing a law that doesn't, on its face, in the language of it, cover us. As my friend from Alabama said, they say it covers us, but it doesn't. We don't come under the definition of Federal employees. So we are not covered by this hastily crafted, politically motivated amendment. This covers inadvertent, accidental, an act of God, anything, and your career is going to be impacted. There is a reason we have an Executive order that has been in effect for 10 years, which has a standard of knowingly, willfully, and negligently. It covers the kind of conduct that you want to have covered. The bottom line is this is about politics, that we have wasted a lot of the time of this body--the greatest deliberative body in the world-- and this is not a shining moment. Let's get about doing our business and passing appropriations, shoring up homeland defense. Let's put the politics aside and let the special counsel do his work. Let's lower the level of the rhetoric and move on and keep doing the business of the people. With that, I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, before we close, I do want to get back to perhaps some of the underlying facts that motivated this amendment. By the way, we don't know the facts. We just know what we have read. The Democratic leader cited a poll that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. I have an editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, July 13. I ask unanimous consent to print it in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield 2 minutes to the majority whip.

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I understand the frustration of my colleague from Maine. I urge that we lower the rhetoric here and go about doing our business. There is a special counsel looking at this. Contrary to what my colleague from New Jersey said--he said we are not writing the law here--that is what we are doing. We are writing a law here. I have worked with my colleagues across the aisle. I have worked with them on the permanent subcommittee, on the Foreign Relations Committee. I know how studious they are. I know how focused they are in doing the right thing. I know how when they want to do something, they want to make sure it is complete. They want to make sure they have examined it. They can all see what we are doing here. It is about politics. We are writing a law here. We are writing it on the run. We are writing it without clarifying the definition of who is covered. We are writing it without clarifying what the standard of intent is, whether it is beyond negligent conduct. We are writing it without reflection on an existing Executive order that covers the conduct we all want to deal with. My colleague from California was right. Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the agents who risk their lives to protect the American dream and the American ideal, things this body is supposed to stand for, or are you for politics? Today we are about politics. Today we are diverting from a $31 billion bill to protect America's security, and we are debating politics. We don't know the facts. We have a special counsel whose job it is to get the facts. The President is committed to act on that. Instead we are playing politics. This is not a shining moment for the Senate. I have to believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Reid amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. COLEMAN. To be split between both sides?

Mr. COLEMAN. Is that on both amendments?

Mr. COLEMAN. If that is the case, I suggest then we perhaps take a few minutes to work out the language because there may be some technical problems with definitions of Federal employees. The language in the statute talks about receiving security clearances for access to information. We do not necessarily have security clearances, but we do have access, so there may be some technical provisions. I am very pleased if in fact my colleagues on the other side intend to include public officials. We might want to clean this up before we finalize it. The other question I have is, is there an intent element in this statute? Is it intentionally disclosing or unintentionally disclosing? Is it negligently, is it mistakingly, or is there the specific kind of intent one usually needs to have in statutes of this kind? How much time remains?

Mr. COLEMAN. How much time do we have left, Mr. President?

Mr. COLEMAN. Because in that order--again, I am looking at the standard, and I appreciate my colleague's words about going beyond the intent. In the executive order the standard is knowingly, willfully, or negligently. Is that the standard that is intended by this statute? Or is this amendment changing that standard?

Mr. COLEMAN. Is the Democratic leader aware of the executive order issued by President Clinton in 1995 on this issue, on security clearances?

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss Coleman-Lugar bill that will effect meaningful and reasonable reform of the United Nations. But before I delve into the issues of U.N. reform, I must take a moment to thank my colleague Senator Lugar for his leadership. As the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar has been at the forefront of these issues for years--working to pass bipartisan, consensus legislation touching a wide range of international matters. In short, Senator Lugar's leadership on the issue of U.N. reform has been crucial. Sixteen months ago, as the chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I initiated a bipartisan, comprehensive investigation into the massive international fraud that flourished under the United Nations Oil for Food Program. You will recall this program was created to help protect the poor of Iraq from the impact of international sanctions. Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein manipulated the program-- siphoning off billions of dollars in under-the-table payments--and used that money to strengthen his murderous regime at home and reward friends abroad. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified at her confirmation hearing, Saddam Hussein was ``playing the international community like a violin.'' It could not have been more wrong: evil prospered while the poor starved; the program designed to control and oust the oppressor actually helped him stay in power and bolster his arsenal. Over the course of our 16-month investigation, the subcommittee has held three hearings and released three reports on the oil-for-food scandal. At those hearings and in our reports, we exposed how Saddam abused the program--we documented how the Hussein regime rewarded political allies by granting lucrative oil allocations to foreign officials, such as Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky and the Russian Presidential Council; we presented evidence of how Saddam made money on the oil deals by demanding under-the-table surcharge payments, and how he generated illegal kickbacks on humanitarian contracts. All of Saddam's abuses occurred under the supposedly vigilant eye of the U.N. How could that happen? Well, over the course of our investigation, an avalanche of evidence has emerged demonstrating that the U.N. terribly mismanaged the Oil for Food Program. That evidence revealed mismanagement ranging from outright corruption to sloppy administration. For instance: Our subcommittee uncovered evidence that Kofi Annan's handpicked executive director of the Oil for Food Program, a man named Benon Sevan, appears to have received lucrative oil allocations from Saddam. Our subcommittee discovered evidence that a U.N. oil inspector received a large bribe to help Saddam cheat on two oil deals. Fifty-eight reports written by the U.N.'s own internal auditors revealed rampant mismanagement by the U.N., describing a program rife with sloppy stewardship and riddled with ``overcharges,'' ``double charge[s]'' and other ``unjustified'' waste of more than $100 million. The U.N.'s investigators, headed by Paul Volcker, determined that the U.N.'s process for awarding three multimillion-dollar contracts in the program was ``tainted.'' The U.N.'s investigators also found that Kofi Annan failed to adequately investigate or remedy a serious conflict of interest-- namely, that the U.N. had awarded a massive contract to the company that employed Annan's son. Perhaps most disturbing, however, was that Kofi Annan's chief of staff ordered the destruction of 3 years' worth of documents. That order was given the day after the U.N. decided to investigate the Oil for Food Program. Such gross mismanagement and corruption in the Oil for Food Program raise serious questions about the U.N.'s ability to administer crucial programs in the future. American taxpayers pay roughly 22 percent of the U.N.'s operating costs. They need assurances that their tax dollars are well spent. This is especially true in light of the fact that the U.N. is playing an increasingly larger role in world affairs. As a result, we must bring about meaningful and reasonable reform of the U.N. Such reforms must include three elements. First is the concept of ``transparency.'' As Supreme Court Justice Brandeis famously stated, ``Sunlight is the most powerful of all disinfectants.'' Today, the U.N.'s operations are shrouded in mystery--not a single ray of sunlight disinfects the internal machinations of the U.N. The U.N. should be transparent to its member states, and use those rays of sunlight to prevent another episode of massive mismanagement. Another necessary element for U.N. reform is ``accountability.'' Specifically, U.N. officials responsible for the operation and management of programs, such as sanctions regimes and humanitarian efforts, must be held accountable for their performance. Such accountability should apply to all U.N. officials from the highest to the lowest. The third element necessary for U.N. reform is effective internal oversight. Simply put, the U.N.'s internal auditor--the Office of Internal Oversight Services, OIOS, needs drastic improvement. The OIOS is woefully underfunded and lacks true independence. With respect to funding, the OIOS receives $24 million per budget--a paltry pittance when compared to the $162 million allocated to U.N.'s press office. Without an effective and independent auditor, the U.N.'s operations will continue to be plagued with misconduct and mismanagement. Those crucial elements are the cornerstones of the proposed Coleman- Lugar bill, the United Nations, Management, Personnel, and Policy Reform Act of 2005. The bill presents a well-balanced and constructive U.N. reform initiative that addresses: (1) a variety of U.N. management weaknesses identified by the subcommittee, a lack of transparency, oversight, accountability, and effective budgetary and personnel systems, and (2) a series of U.N. policy issues that need reform, including peacekeeping and human rights. The legislation strikes an appropriate balance between important goals: effecting crucial U.N. reforms, preserving U.N. administrative discretion, and ensuring limited U.S. government monitoring and oversight. Our proposed legislation underscores that an effective United Nations is in the interest of the United States and that the United States must lead the United Nations toward greater relevance and capability. The bill also emphasizes that the U.S. push for further reform will require bipartisanship and the joint involvement of the executive and legislative branches so that the U.S. presents a unified position toward the United Nations. The proposed legislation exhorts the U.S. to use its voice, vote, and funding in the U.N. to accomplish U.N. management, personnel, and policy reforms. It requires the President to submit an annual report on U.N. reform to ``appropriate congressional committees.'' It also authorizes the President to withhold 50 percent of U.S. contributions to U.N. if he determines that the U.N. is not making sufficient progress in implementing reforms described in the act. While the proposed legislation acknowledges that the U.N. has initiated some reforms, it also recognizes that the U.N. has failed to make many necessary changes. The bill cites past GAO reports on U.N. reforms and recent U.N. reports, including the High-Level Panel Report and the Secretary-General's Report, on the need to expedite existing reforms and implement new urgently-needed reforms. It emphasizes that the U.N. must transform itself to meet current and future challenges and undertake institutional reforms that ensure the effectiveness, integrity, transparency, and accountability of the United Nations system. The proposed legislation recognizes the important findings of the subcommittee in its Oil for Food Program investigation identifying key internal management weaknesses that led to mismanagement, fraud, and abuse of the program. It also cites the June 2005 Gingrich/Mitchell U.N. Reform Report. The majority of the U.N. management, personnel, budget, and policy issues addressed in the proposed legislation are consistent with many recommendations of the subcommittee and the recent Gingrich/Mitchell report. The management section of the proposed legislation stems from the many U.N. management weaknesses revealed in the subcommittee's oil-for- food investigation. The section strengthens the power of the Secretary- General to replace top officials in the U.N. Secretariat and recruit only the highest quality individuals, placing emphasis on professional excellence over geographic diversity. It calls for an updated assessment of the U.N. procurement system and the establishment of a new and improved procurement process that embodies the standards currently present in the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, which prohibit officials from making or receiving payments, gifts, or exchanging other promises to secure an improper benefit. In short, this legislation will help transform the United Nations into a modern and dynamic institution capable of responding to the many complex and varied challenges confronting it. The reforms embodied in this legislation provide the United Nations the opportunity to embrace change and regain its role as a critical institution in today's rapidly changing international environment. This legislation will force the United Nations to be a better managed, transparent, and accountable organization. This legislation will prevent reoccurrences of scandals like the Oil for Food scandal, peacekeeping abuses, and other managerial failures. I must reiterate the importance of a robust and effective U.N. for the future of U.S. relations with the international community. The U.N., when properly led and properly managed, can play an important role in promoting global peace and stability. Real reform, and not mere rhetoric, is the proper course of action to ensure an effective U.N.-- the mission of the U.N. is simply too important to look the other way. As I conclude my remarks, I would like to reiterate my thanks to Chairman Lugar for his leadership on the issue of U.N. reform and for the opportunity to work with him to tackle this important issue.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, the chairman from Maine and the ranking member from Connecticut, for the hard work they have done in working in a bipartisan way and coming up with important, practical, commonsense ways to deal with the threats to homeland security that deal with the threats to major urban centers, that deal with the opportunity--I want to talk about this a little bit today--and the importance of working on a regional basis. As a Senator from Minnesota, I represent the Twin Cities. I will talk a little bit about the Twin Cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul, the experience they had dealing with the urban area security initiatives under the present system. The system needs improvement. I rise today to offer my support for the bipartisan amendment offered by Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman that will streamline and rationalize the State homeland security grant process. My State has a wide range of homeland security interests. We share an international border with Canada. We have two major cities in Minneapolis and St. Paul. We have two nuclear reactors in Red Wing and Monticello. We have a major port in the city of Duluth on Lake Superior, connected through the Great Lakes system to the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Atlantic Ocean. Unfortunately, Minnesota witnessed an average 48-percent reduction in the allocation of Federal homeland security dollars for this year. In addition, when the urban security initiative grants were first announced, Minneapolis's funding was cut from $12.2 million to $5.7 million, and St. Paul's funding was completely eliminated. I am not here to complain about cuts in funding. I am here to raise concerns about the present system, as my colleague from Connecticut discussed, how opaque and changeable it is, and the difficulty of urban centers in planning to meet homeland security needs. As my colleague from Maine indicated, I am a former mayor. I had hands-on involvement in this process. You need a greater measure of certainty. When you talk about communities such as Minneapolis-St. Paul, it is important to understand that you are dealing with regional concerns, that you cannot cut out one city because it is slightly smaller in size than the other city. I grew up on the east coast. I moved to the Midwest 31 years ago. When I moved to the Midwest, when I moved to St. Paul 1976, my mom, who was still in Brooklyn, thought the Twin Cities were Minneapolis and Indianapolis. She didn't realize it was Minneapolis and St. Paul. I excuse my mom. She didn't spend a lot of time out of Brooklyn in those days. But I expect more from the Department of Homeland Security. And in 2004 and 2005, anyone who looks at a map knows the Twin Cities and understands they work hand in hand. They are regional centers. They are divided by the Mississippi River, but they are connected essentially. They share a bus system, an airport, a land grant university. They both have significant major fire departments that coordinate with each other, particularly in dealing with issues of hazardous materials. The two cities work together on responses for infectious disease outbreaks and other public health threats. Fortunately, the Department of Homeland Security, after much concern was raised by the process this year, granted St. Paul eligibility to share in Minneapolis's funding for this year. I don't think you can have effective homeland security when cities endure wild fluctuations in funding such as the 71-percent reduction the Twin Cities face this year. So the Collins-Lieberman amendment makes common sense, practical changes to the homeland security grant process to ensure continuity and accountability in terms of money distributed to States and cities. Again, you can't do homeland security well if you are involved in a process that is opaque, that is changeable, that is prone to the wild fluctuations. This amendment wisely encourages regional cooperation by moving the focus of local funding from individual cities to metropolitan regions. Again, the Twin Cities are an ideal example of that. The reality is that, God forbid we faced a major terrorist attack in the Twin Cities or in one of the surrounding suburban areas, the Mall of America, one of the largest tourist attractions in the United States, 35 million people a year right outside the Twin Cities, if that were ever subject to a terrorist attack, clearly the departments of Minneapolis and St. Paul would be responding to those concerns. That is the world in which we live. We cannot isolate ourselves and live in little bubbles anymore. So the importance of focusing on the regional level reflects the reality of the world in which we live and the geographical reality, and it simply makes sense. Under the new formula, communities are given considerable flexibility in forming regions that make the most sense locally. I would encourage other areas such as Minneapolis-St. Paul to do that, to understand that it is important to be able to combine resources, to maximize resources to deal with common threats to the region. Within the amendment, a region must be made up of two or more neighboring municipalities, counties, parishes or Indian tribes and must include the largest city in the metropolitan area. This will enable cities such as Minneapolis and St. Paul to be considered as one region rather than separate entities and benefit from the same funding stream. This makes sense. For our Nation to be prepared, all States must be able to meet a basic level of preparedness. This amendment will double the funds that would be distributed based on threat, risk, and need while maintaining a predictable and meaningful level of funding for each State. A predictable stream of funding is critical for States and local and tribal jurisdictions to embark on a long-term strategy of preparedness. That is the path we are on in a world in which we are so much more vulnerable. We need to plan as well as we can--plan for the long term-- and to have a strategy of preparedness and to encourage cities and municipalities, counties, parishes, and Indian tribes to work together to meet the threats that are out there. We currently require States to submit 3-year plans to the Department of Homeland Security and it is unrealistic to expect States to effectively plan ahead without providing some certainty on the funding they should expect to receive. This amendment also creates new audit provisions, requires mandatory reporting, coordination among grant programs at different Federal agencies, and that individual expenditures be tied to achieving nationally established essential capabilities. So we are tying funding to meeting needs that are out there, tying funding to maximizing coordination, tying funding to achieving certain levels of preparedness. Tying spending to achieving national preparedness goals and holding States accountable to how funds are spent will prevent wasteful expenditures on other items that are not needed. Homeland security funding is not simply about getting more equipment in a Federal agency; it is not a Christmas tree; it is meeting needs. What we have in this amendment is to measure and make sure spending is tied to meeting the levels of preparedness and effectiveness. Requiring coordination among different Federal grant programs for first responders will prevent recipients from purchasing duplicative or incompatible equipment or training. The bottom line is that homeland security dollars will be spent more wisely and effectively, and that is what we should be doing. This amendment is a great step forward in terms of contributing funds on a regional basis and ensuring that communities have the tools they need to work together to provide greater security for their residents. I look forward to supporting this amendment today and I urge my colleagues to support it as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of CAFTA. There are a lot of reasons to support this trade agreement. I came to this decision, by the way, in the last couple of days. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics Affairs of the Foreign Relations Committee, I understand how pivotal CAFTA is on U.S. foreign policy goals, not just in Central America but Latin America and the Caribbean. There are folks in Latin America looking at this agreement and what we do with it. I think they are going to judge us as to whether we are committed to strengthening this hemisphere, committed to strengthening the democracies that are now in Central America. There have been decades of civil war. We have democracies flourishing in Central America. Every President in those countries was democratically elected. These leaders have come to us and said: We want to reform, we want to grow our economies and strengthen democracy. CAFTA is important. Democracy in Central America is still fragile. Poverty is endemic. There is weakening enthusiasm for democracy. Pressures are already present in Nicaragua. That is what we have. We have to be realistic about CAFTA. It alone is not going to ensure democracy or prosperity in Central America, but it will put in place building blocks for economic growth in the future. It will help these nations compete with the face of a rising China and, perhaps most of all, CAFTA is a political message that the United States recognizes how far these nations have come and stands shoulder to shoulder with our democratic hemispheric neighbors. That is important. I try to guide myself at times by the physicians' adage, which is, ``Do no harm.'' Up until 2 days ago as I looked at CAFTA, it did harm. It did harm to an industry that is very important to me in Minnesota. I represent probably the largest production of sugar beets in the country. People say: You are protectionist of an industry. It is not about an industry, it is a matter of 40,000 moms and dads whose economic livelihood is dependent on what happens with sugar. There is $2 billion a year injected into that economy in that region, and that is important. As my colleagues know, yesterday the Agriculture Committee chairman, Saxby Chambliss from Georgia, and I secured a commitment from the White House to address the serious concerns we had regarding CAFTA and sugar. Chairman Chambliss--I don't think they grow a lot of sugar beets in Georgia. In fact, I was expecting by the end of that negotiation that there would be a peach-to-ethanol program coming out of that arrangement, but that did not happen. Chairman Chambliss made it very clear that he is going to protect the farm bill, see the continuation of the farm bill which is set to expire in 2007. As we looked at CAFTA as we negotiated, it would have violated the farm bill in that it had the prospect of having sugar from CAFTA countries entering this country, if it reaches a certain level and goes over that--I will not get into the technicalities of the sugar program--one sees the collapse of the sugar program. One sees sugar forfeited to the Government, prices falling, economic disaster for those involved in the sugar industry. So Chairman Chambliss showed great leadership and great courage in saying he was not going to support CAFTA because it had this hole in the agreement that would in the end perhaps amount to a violation of provisions of the farm bill. He stood firm. Together, then, with a number of our other colleagues, both in the House and the Senate, he had a series of discussions with the administration, with the sugar industry, and got a commitment. Again, I want to thank Chairman Chambliss, who stood with those of us who represent sugar, though that was not a personal thing. It was simply the right thing to do. That is the way he operates, with good Georgia common sense and that incredible Georgia strength. The commitment we have from the administration pledges to ensure that the maximum sugar import cap established under the 2002 farm bill will never be violated through the life of this farm bill. So that magic level of 1.532 million tons that we call short tons is not going to be violated. This commitment was made in the context of CAFTA, but the commitment is not limited to CAFTA and that is important. During the course of our discussions, we became aware that other things were going on regarding sugar, that under NAFTA we were facing a situation in which resolving a high fructose corn syrup issue that involves the ability for us to bring more of that into Mexico, the result would have been more Mexican sugar coming into the United States and, again, then going over this level and triggering the collapse of the program. In the end, as I stood there working for my sugar growers and those whose livelihoods depend on sugar, I wanted to make sure our folks were held harmless by CAFTA. We got that commitment from the administration. We wanted to make sure they were held harmless by the impact of what is happening with NAFTA. We got a commitment to hold them harmless during the course of this farm bill. Then we were concerned about other trade agreements that are being negotiated at this time. There are discussions with Panama, discussions with Thailand, all of which could have had the same effect of reaching that maximum sugar import cap and violating and causing a collapse of the program. We wanted to be held harmless for that, our sugar growers did, and we got them that commitment. Under this agreement any sugar imports above the current cap established by the farm bill, whether under CAFTA, NAFTA, or any other trade agreement, would be denied entry into the United States altogether unless an equivalent amount of U.S. sugar is converted into ethanol or other nonfood uses with at least 109,000 tons--and that is what we would have gotten from NAFTA--being converted to ethanol under a pilot program run by the USDA. In addition, we received a commitment to begin a study on the long- term promise of the sugar-to-ethanol program. That promise is real. I was in Brazil not too long ago. Fifty percent of all the new cars in Brazil run on ethanol. Those cars are manufactured--the largest manufacturer is General Motors, an American manufacturer, and all the ethanol in Brazil is done by sugar. So we know the rest of the world does it. We can do it here. The commitment has been made. The commitment stands. It is through the length of the farm bill. The farm bill goes for another 3 years, but if it should be extended--and I think it should be--the White House commitment is also extended. The bottom line is this: Not only do we prevent CAFTA from breaking the farm bill limit on sugar imports, but we prevent NAFTA and all future trade agreements from breaking the farm bill cap as well. In addition, what we do--and I think this is so critically important--is lay the ground for the long-term future of the U.S. sugar industry which lies not just in production in the United States-- because we do not export sugar to other countries; it is for domestic consumption--but production to fuel our country through renewable fuels right alongside corn and soybeans. That is the future. This country is beginning to understand that we simply cannot deal with the continuing increase in imports of foreign crude. A barrel of oil is $60. A price of a gallon of gas is $2.30, $2.40, $2.50, $2.70. We have our own oilfields, and there are cornfields, soybean fields, and sugar fields, beet and cane. They are providing an opportunity--we have sugar now on the path. I know many of my sugar farmers and cooperatives do not agree with me on this commitment, do not agree with me on this solution. I respect that. What we have is a concern that they would much rather see a permanent solution. We have permanent solutions now with corn into ethanol and soybeans into ethanol. These are dedicated folks. They sat at the table the whole time. One of the critics of this proposal or commitment that I have, and I take it seriously, said, this is a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. I would say to my friends at American Crystal, at Minn-Dak, at Southern Minnesota, and other cooperatives and other places throughout the country that, in fact, there is a gaping wound; that the sugar industry is one that is right now in a fragile place. I would argue that rather than a Band-Aid, this is a tourniquet; that for 3 years we stop the bleeding; for 3 years we then will be able to begin to develop a nascent sugar-to-ethanol industry; that we then get ourselves to focus on the next farm bill and try to make sure we have a program that has greater permanence, that has greater long-term security so the kids in Fisher and Hallock and throughout, certainly. Western Minnesota can go to school with moms and dads not worrying about their jobs. I am talking not just farmers but truckers and factory workers and seed dealers and implement dealers. The list goes on and on. Up and down Main Street, sugar makes a positive mark on communities throughout my State. So, for me, this is worth fighting for. It is worth defending. That is what I believe we have done with this commitment. Without it, the Red River Valley has zero protection from NAFTA, zero protection, obviously, from CAFTA which we are talking about today, zero protection from future trade agreements. Again, under NAFTA alone there is some discussion of perhaps 900,000 tons of Mexican sugar pouring in over the border the next couple of years. Without this protection, without this commitment, prices would tank and the U.S. sugar policy would be placed in serious jeopardy. That keeps me up at night. That worries me. I am going to sleep a little easier knowing that my farmers are protected with this commitment. That is what we have then, this 3-year window to turn all the attention and energy we had to focus on the past on putting our fires toward creating a positive solution and a future for this industry. That is my choice. That is the future that I choose. That said, let me be very clear about something, and I want to lay this on the line, kind of talk as we look to the future. Two years ago, I said sugar should not be included in these bilateral regional agreements. We would not have these discussions, if that was the case. Just as domestic support for every other American farmer is not included in these kinds of agreements, sugar was not asking for anything special. The fact is, sugar should not be included in these agreements because the distortions in a global sugar market cannot be addressed fairly in any other setting other than WTO. This has to be addressed on a global perspective; otherwise, what we have is little bits and pieces come in. Ultimately, we flood this country without dealing with what is happening in this global environment. Europeans have a lot more protective interests and support they provide for their sugar growers than what we face right here. So every sugar-producing country in the world subsidizes and supports this industry, which is why American sugar farmers, who are among the top third in efficiency, need a strong U.S. sugar policy to stand with them. We did what is right in the Australian agreement, which is why it passed so quickly. For some reason, this common sense did not show through when CAFTA was negotiated. Again, the good news is in the near term we have a commitment from this White House to hold the U.S. sugar program harmless not only under CAFTA but under NAFTA and any future trade agreements. At the end of the day, let me say that I share the disappointment of those in the sugar industry who want something more permanent, but I do feel I have to grab hold of the possible when the optimal seems to be out of reach. I think politically it would be easy for me to just cast a ``no'' vote, just say to my producers the industry does not like this and kick the can down the road. Then, if 900,000 tons of NAFTA sugar gets dumped in, I can maybe pretend that it is just enough to be angry, just enough to say why did we not do something. The easy thing is not always the right thing to do. Sometimes when one is dealing with friends, they have to be told they are wrong. Sometimes leadership is letting people know that we have to go to a certain place even if they do not yet see the righteousness of going there. The right place to be is to have this insurance policy, to have protection from CAFTA, from NAFTA, from future trade agreements, and really important, get us involved in the sugar-to-ethanol industry. Last comment: I listened as I sat in the Presiding Officer's chair to a lot of debate. I heard so many of my colleagues today saying we have to be doing more for Central America, except the one thing Central Americans say they want and need most. It reminds me of a joke we have in Minnesota about the Scandinavian guy who loved his wife so much he almost told her. I listened to my friends across the aisle and they tell me they care so much, and we have to be doing more, but they do not want to do anything. They want to protect the workers, those in Central America, give them economic opportunity. Listen to their elected leaders who say this is important rather than lamenting what we should have done or could have done but did not do. We have an opportunity to do something, and that is what we are doing. In the end, my decision was only made in the last couple of days because the concern about sugar has been so great. Maybe it is the dad on me who focuses not so much on the ones who are doing well but the ones who need a little help. Our friends in sugar needed a little help after this agreement was negotiated. We provided that help. Doing that, I can then stand with all the other producers in my State: the commodity groups, the cattlemen, the corn growers, the soybean growers, the pork producers, the businesses, the chambers of commerce, the high-tech folks, the 3Ms--all who say this is a good thing for jobs in Minnesota, this is a good thing for the economic future, and as a result I will cast my vote for CAFTA. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

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

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, over 12,000 children are diagnosed with cancer each year and sadly, cancer will claim the lives of over 2,000 of these children each year. Today, I am proud to be submitting the Childhood Cancer Awareness Resolution with my friends Senators Lieberman, Brownback, Allen, Lincoln, Landrieu, Salazar, Reed, and Mikulski to help raise awareness about childhood cancer and support children and their families who are suffering from this terrible disease. Cancer is the number one disease killer of children. Every day 43 children will be diagnosed and approximately 10 of those children will not survive. Until we meet the day when every child can live a life free of cancer, we must continue to promote awareness and strengthen our investment in childhood cancer research, diagnosis and treatment. I urge my fellow colleagues to join me in raisipg awareness of childhood cancer by supporting The Childhood Cancer Awareness Resolution.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, as United States Senators, we are well aware of the difficulty in making tough decisions. But, a tough decision for a thirteen-year-old foster care child shouldn't be choosing between being adopted and having a permanent loving, stable, and secure family, or attending college for a promising future. Today, I am proud to be joined by my friend, Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana in introducing the Fostering Adoption To Further Student Achievement Act because we believe all youth deserve both a loving family and a future of hope. Our legislation promotes older adoptions of foster care youth by not later penalizing the adopting family when their student applies for student Federal financial aid. We've heard from former foster teens across our Nation who have stated that they were better off ``aging'' out of the foster care system than being adopted by a family because of a fear of losing student Federal financial aid because as a foster student they don't have to report any parental income on their student financial aid application. Our legislation provides a solution by amending the definition of ``independent student'' to include foster care youth who were adopted after the age of thirteen in the Higher Education Act of 1965. Thus, the family and student would not be penalized on their Federal financial aid as their classification would be determined by only the student's ability to pay. Most prospective adopting parents would not have financially planned for an older teen becoming part of their family. Our legislation offers an incentive to promote older adoptions rather than having the teen stay in foster families until they ``age out.'' The numbers are startling and its time we act. Currently, 20,000 youth ``age'' out of the foster care system each year with 30 percent of these youth incarcerated within 12 months of doing so. There are 523,000 children in foster care with nearly half the kids over the age of 10. Children in foster care are twice as likely as the rest of the population to drop out before finishing high school. Several foster care alumni studies indicate that within three years after leaving foster care: only 54 percent had earned their high school diploma, only 14 percent had graduated from a four-year college, and 25 to 44 percent had experienced homelessness. Statistics show youth that are adopted out of the foster care system attend college, have stable lives, have a permanent family, and have a future of hope. One to two years of community college coursework significantly increases the likelihood of economic self-sufficiency. A college degree is the single greatest factor in determining access to better job opportunities and higher earnings. The Fostering Adoption To Further Student Achievement Act ensures that children don't have to make a tough decision between choosing to have a family or an education. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, as United States Senators, we are well aware of the difficulty in making tough decisions. But, a tough decision for a thirteen-year-old foster care child shouldn't be choosing between being adopted and having a permanent loving, stable, and secure family, or attending college for a promising future. Today, I am proud to be joined by my friend, Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana in introducing the Fostering Adoption To Further Student Achievement Act because we believe all youth deserve both a loving family and a future of hope. Our legislation promotes older adoptions of foster care youth by not later penalizing the adopting family when their student applies for student Federal financial aid. We've heard from former foster teens across our Nation who have stated that they were better off ``aging'' out of the foster care system than being adopted by a family because of a fear of losing student Federal financial aid because as a foster student they don't have to report any parental income on their student financial aid application. Our legislation provides a solution by amending the definition of ``independent student'' to include foster care youth who were adopted after the age of thirteen in the Higher Education Act of 1965. Thus, the family and student would not be penalized on their Federal financial aid as their classification would be determined by only the student's ability to pay. Most prospective adopting parents would not have financially planned for an older teen becoming part of their family. Our legislation offers an incentive to promote older adoptions rather than having the teen stay in foster families until they ``age out.'' The numbers are startling and its time we act. Currently, 20,000 youth ``age'' out of the foster care system each year with 30 percent of these youth incarcerated within 12 months of doing so. There are 523,000 children in foster care with nearly half the kids over the age of 10. Children in foster care are twice as likely as the rest of the population to drop out before finishing high school. Several foster care alumni studies indicate that within three years after leaving foster care: only 54 percent had earned their high school diploma, only 14 percent had graduated from a four-year college, and 25 to 44 percent had experienced homelessness. Statistics show youth that are adopted out of the foster care system attend college, have stable lives, have a permanent family, and have a future of hope. One to two years of community college coursework significantly increases the likelihood of economic self-sufficiency. A college degree is the single greatest factor in determining access to better job opportunities and higher earnings. The Fostering Adoption To Further Student Achievement Act ensures that children don't have to make a tough decision between choosing to have a family or an education. 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 ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, for the past 64 years, Minnesota has had the good fortune to be blessed with Dr. David L. Tiede. When I was first elected Mayor of St. Paul, the first thing I did was travel around and meet the men and women who made the city tick. I encountered ordinary men and women, working moms and dads, who had tipped the scales to make a real difference. It was the first time I truly realized the ability of a single person to change the world around him for the better. David L. Tiede is such a person. He is a leader and a visionary, and thanks to his presence, Minnesota will never be the same. Recently, David announced that he is retiring from Luther Seminary. Times like this are bittersweet. It is bitter because we are bidding farewell to somebody who has meant so much to us. It is sweet because we have an opportunity to pay tribute to someone who has given us so much and deserves acclaim. A native Minnesotan, David earned his bachelor's degree at Northfield's own St. Olaf College, only a few miles away from his home in Le Center. After earning his Master of Divinity degree from Luther Seminary in St. Paul, David left Minnesota to complete his graduate study and eventually earn his PhD. After earning his doctorate from Harvard in 1971, Massachusetts' loss was Minnesota's gain as he returned to serve as the associate pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Minneapolis. At Trinity, David was not only a pastor, but also a teacher. Each Sunday he would teach Christ's lessons to his parish enabling them to realize God's calling and commission. This is David's genius. Too often we are told that there is no right and wrong, that everything is subjective. The truth is that there is a right and a wrong, and there is something called the good life, which is not an easy life. It can be hard to do the right thing and can be even harder to lead others to do the right thing. However, that is exactly what David did. David continued his commitment of teaching God's lessons when he joined Luther Seminary to teach the New Testament. Working first as a member of the faculty and then as president, David brought his expertise of teaching and leadership to Luther Seminary, giving the school a strong mission focus in the preparation of pastors and other professional leaders for the Lutheran church. David taught his students that a pastor without a mission is just a guy talking. In other words, David realized that the old saying that a leader without followers is just a guy taking a walk is as true in a church as it is in life. I remember shortly after being elected mayor of St. Paul being invited by Dr. Tiede to be a part of a program launching Luther Seminary's new Islamic Studies program. It was worth noting that this was probably the first time that a Jewish mayor of a Roman Catholic city was speaking at a Lutheran seminary to inaugurate an Islamic studies program. David's leadership is recognized throughout the theological world. In 2002, he became only the second Lutheran to be elected president of the Association of Theological Schools, an organization of accredited theological schools in the United States and Canada. In addition, he serves on the board of IN TRUST, Inc., which provides resources for governing boards of theological institutions and has received the Outstanding Executive Award from the Association of Lutheran Development Executives. This spring, Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Ohio awarded him the Joseph A. Sittler Award for Theological Leadership. Most recently, Augsburg College in Minneapolis named Dr. Tiede to the newly established Bernhard M. Christianson Chair of Religion, the college's first endowed chair. In this capacity, Dr. Tiede will be able to teach, write and continue his study of the New Testament even as he continues to work to strengthen the institutions of the Lutheran church. David Tiede's retirement will be a great loss to Luther Seminary and Minnesota. Certainly he has been one of the finest, most skilled religious leaders in our state. David will be missed, but will never be forgotten as his teachings and philosophy have been passed on through the Luther Seminary to a new generation of religious leaders.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing on June 16, 2005, entitled ``Civilian Contractors Who Cheat On Their Taxes And What Should Be Done About It.'' The June 16 hearing will be the second hearing the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will hold on tax delinquency problems with Federal contractors. On February 12, 2004, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled ``DoD Contractors Who Cheat on Their Taxes And What Should Be Done About It'' which examined the Department of Defense's (DoD) failure to levy contractor payments for unpaid taxes owed by contractors doing business with DoD and getting paid with taxpayers dollars. The February 2004 hearing also demonstrated that the problem of tax delinquent Federal contractors may not be confined to DoD. The Subcommittee requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) determine if Federal contractors at civilian agencies were tax delinquent. At the June 16th hearing, the Subcommittee will present the results of this expanded investigation. Additionally, the GAO will be releasing two reports which were requested by the Subcommittee on this matter. The first report covers the extent of tax debt among civilian contractors. The second report covers the extent to which the Federal Government and the states have entered into reciprocal agreements to collect delinquent Federal or State taxes. The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Thursday, June 16, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Raymond V. Shepherd, III, Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, at 224-3721.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be introducing the bipartisan Treatment of Children's Deformities Act. I am pleased to be joined by many of my friends and colleagues, including Senators Landrieu, DeWine, Snowe, Cochran, Vitter and Bayh. Imagine being a parent with a child who has a cleft lip and palate or another more severe congenital facial deformity that requires reconstructive surgery to achieve a sense of normalcy and function. Now imagine receiving a letter from your insurance carrier that states the following: The reviewer determined that although the procedures listed above would enhance the appearance of the patient, the procedures listed are not necessary to correct a functional disorder and therefore do not meet the criteria for benefits as outlined in the medical plan. Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of children and families around the country that have been confronted with this kind of heart wrenching situation. Examples of congenital deformities include cleft lip, cleft palate, skin lesions, vascular anomalies, malformations of the ear, hand, or foot, and other more profound craniofacial deformities. It is essential for children with these problems to receive timely surgical care in order to have a chance at leading normal, healthy, happy lives. And yet, an increasing number of kids go without life changing treatment because treatment is regarded as ``cosmetic'' or ``non-functional.'' It's unfortunate that legislation is necessary. However, this legislation will ensure that children who are born with a congenital deformity--whether a cleft lip and palate or a more severe deformity-- receive the reconstructive surgery they need to achieve a sense of normalcy and function. According to the March of Dimes, 150,000 newborns suffer from birth defects each year. Of the 150,000 born, approximately 50,000 require reconstructive surgery. Although surgeons are able to correct many of these problems, an increasing number of these children are denied access to care by the labeling of the procedures as ``cosmetic'' or ``non-functional'' in nature. A common Federal definition of reconstructive surgery, based on the American Medical Association's definition, will help clarify coverage nationally and reduce the delay for children in need of surgery. It is essential for children with these problems to receive timely surgical care in order to have a chance at leading normal, healthy, and happy lives. Also, many times these surgeries are best performed while children are young and their bodies can more readily recover and respond to the corrective surgery. The Treatment of Children's Deformities Act differentiates between cosmetic and reconstructive surgery. The legislation defines reconstructive surgery as that being performed on abnormal structures of the body, caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors or disease. Cosmetic surgery, in contrast, is defined by the American Medical Association as being performed to reshape normal structures of the body in order to improve the patient's appearance and self-esteem. Children born with deformities should receive the help they need and this legislation will make it happen. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation that will improve the quality of life for children born with congenital deformities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be introducing the bipartisan Treatment of Children's Deformities Act. I am pleased to be joined by many of my friends and colleagues, including Senators Landrieu, DeWine, Snowe, Cochran, Vitter and Bayh. Imagine being a parent with a child who has a cleft lip and palate or another more severe congenital facial deformity that requires reconstructive surgery to achieve a sense of normalcy and function. Now imagine receiving a letter from your insurance carrier that states the following: The reviewer determined that although the procedures listed above would enhance the appearance of the patient, the procedures listed are not necessary to correct a functional disorder and therefore do not meet the criteria for benefits as outlined in the medical plan. Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of children and families around the country that have been confronted with this kind of heart wrenching situation. Examples of congenital deformities include cleft lip, cleft palate, skin lesions, vascular anomalies, malformations of the ear, hand, or foot, and other more profound craniofacial deformities. It is essential for children with these problems to receive timely surgical care in order to have a chance at leading normal, healthy, happy lives. And yet, an increasing number of kids go without life changing treatment because treatment is regarded as ``cosmetic'' or ``non-functional.'' It's unfortunate that legislation is necessary. However, this legislation will ensure that children who are born with a congenital deformity--whether a cleft lip and palate or a more severe deformity-- receive the reconstructive surgery they need to achieve a sense of normalcy and function. According to the March of Dimes, 150,000 newborns suffer from birth defects each year. Of the 150,000 born, approximately 50,000 require reconstructive surgery. Although surgeons are able to correct many of these problems, an increasing number of these children are denied access to care by the labeling of the procedures as ``cosmetic'' or ``non-functional'' in nature. A common Federal definition of reconstructive surgery, based on the American Medical Association's definition, will help clarify coverage nationally and reduce the delay for children in need of surgery. It is essential for children with these problems to receive timely surgical care in order to have a chance at leading normal, healthy, and happy lives. Also, many times these surgeries are best performed while children are young and their bodies can more readily recover and respond to the corrective surgery. The Treatment of Children's Deformities Act differentiates between cosmetic and reconstructive surgery. The legislation defines reconstructive surgery as that being performed on abnormal structures of the body, caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors or disease. Cosmetic surgery, in contrast, is defined by the American Medical Association as being performed to reshape normal structures of the body in order to improve the patient's appearance and self-esteem. Children born with deformities should receive the help they need and this legislation will make it happen. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation that will improve the quality of life for children born with congenital deformities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.