Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill I introduce today, to provide for a hospital in Cass County, Minnesota, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill I introduce today, the Working Together for Rural Access to Mental Health and Wellness for Children and Seniors Act, be printed in the Record.

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 I introduced today, the Critical Access to Health Information Technology Act of 2007, 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 Rural Health Services Preservation Act of 2007, 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 Remote Monitoring Access Act of 2007, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill I introduce today, to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to provide direct and guaranteed loans, loan guarantees, and grants to complete the construction and rehabilitation of critical access hospitals, 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 Working Together for Rural Access to Mental Health and Wellness for Children and Seniors Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill I introduce today, to provide for a hospital in Cass County, Minnesota, 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, today I wish to recognize a hockey legend whose personality and character remind us all of the human side of sports; Lorne ``Gump'' John Worsley. During his years playing professional hockey in Minnesota, beginning his career with the St. Paul Saints and finishing with the Minnesota North Stars, he found a special place in the hearts of fans who knew him simply as ``the Gumper.'' Lorne Worsley was born in Montreal, Quebec, on May 14, 1929. As a child, he was given the nickname ``Gump'' because the cowlick in his hair looked almost identical to that of comic strip character Andy Gump. The nickname would follow him for the rest of his life. Despite growing up penniless during the Great Depression, Gump dreamed of being a professional hockey player, a dream that would lead him into the history books as one of the most memorable and accomplished goalies in hockey. In 1950, Gump Worsley began his professional hockey career, playing for the St. Paul Saints of the U.S. Hockey League. That year, Gump obtained the first of many future accolades when he was named the league's Rookie of the Year. Two years later, in 1952, Gump joined the National Hockey League's New York Rangers, where his debut season earned him the Calder Trophy as NHL Rookie of the Year. As Gump Worsley's career progressed, so did his accomplishments. After being acquired by the Montreal Canadiens, his hometown team, in 1963, Gump helped lead the team to four Stanley Cup Championships in the span of 5 years--winning titles in 1965, 1966, 1968, and 1969. During his time with the Canadiens, Gump was awarded the Vezina Trophy as the NHL's top goalie in both 1966 and 1968. In 1966, his record was 29-14-6 with a goals-against-average of 2.36. In 1968, he amassed a record of 19-9-8, with an amazing goals-against-average of just 1.98. In 1970, Gump joined the Minnesota North Stars, helping fuel the team to the NHL playoffs in three consecutive seasons. Gump Worsley retired from the sport he loved in 1974 with a record of 335-352-150, including 43 shutouts. Over the course of his career, Gump was selected to the National Hockey League's All Star Game four times--in 1961, 1962, 1965, and 1972. After his retirement as a player, Gump remained active in hockey as a scout for the Minnesota North Stars. In 1980, Gump was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame. Sadly, Gump Worsley passed away on January 26, 2007, at the age of 77. The world of hockey and the State of Minnesota now mourn the passing of a legend. Among his many accomplishments, Gump will be remembered for not being the ``prototypical'' athlete and also for not wearing a goalie's mask until the final six games of his career. Fellow hockey legend Lou Nanne described Gump Worsley as ``the most unlikely-looking athlete, but when he strapped on the pads, he was one of the best in the game.'' Gump Worsley's determination to achieve his goals is an example of success that we can all strive for in our lives, and that is why today we honor ``the Gumper.''

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to transfer ownership of a 1960s A-12 Blackbird spy plane to the Minnesota Air National Guard Historical Foundation. The legislation will allow the A-12 to stay in the Minnesota Air National Guard Museum and to be displayed for educational and other appropriate public purposes. The A-12 Blackbird planes were in many ways the apex of jet design. No known jet is believed to have flown faster--three times the speed of sound, or higher--above 90,000 feet. It is a landmark in the history of aviation that will never be repeated again. The Minnesota A-12, retired in 1968 and rescued by Minnesota volunteers from a California scrap heap more than a decade ago, is housed at the 133rd Airlift Wing of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Almost fifteen thousand Minnesotans contributed to the restoration of the A-12 and the creation of the Blackbird program. Ever since, it has been the centerpiece of the Minnesota Air National Guard Museum. The aircraft is the only A-12 currently used as a hands-on educational resource with a group of highly trained instructors who provide meaningful insight for the general public into the aircraft's history and meaning. This aircraft is of great significance not only to the volunteers who sacrificed time and resources to restore a great remnant of American history, but also to the citizens of Minnesota and around the country who have benefited greatly from this knowledge of our military history. Unfortunately, the A-12 is considered to be ``on loan'' from the U.S. Air Force, which recently has decided to transfer the plane to the CIA Headquarters as part of the agency's 60th anniversary celebration. If this plan goes ahead, the plane will no longer be available for public viewing. Over the years, volunteers throughout Minnesota have generously devoted their time and resources to maintaining this plane. To transfer the plane away from the very people whose hard work has made the aircraft what it is today is simply unfair. It is necessary that we retain this piece of Minnesota history, and keep the Blackbird in a place where it will always be accessible to the public. I hope the Senate will be able to act on this legislation and help to save a significant piece of history. I ask unanimous consent that the bill I introduce today, to provide for the conveyance of an A-12 Blackbird aircraft to the Minnesota Air National Guard Historical Foundation, be printed in the record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to transfer ownership of a 1960s A-12 Blackbird spy plane to the Minnesota Air National Guard Historical Foundation. The legislation will allow the A-12 to stay in the Minnesota Air National Guard Museum and to be displayed for educational and other appropriate public purposes. The A-12 Blackbird planes were in many ways the apex of jet design. No known jet is believed to have flown faster--three times the speed of sound, or higher--above 90,000 feet. It is a landmark in the history of aviation that will never be repeated again. The Minnesota A-12, retired in 1968 and rescued by Minnesota volunteers from a California scrap heap more than a decade ago, is housed at the 133rd Airlift Wing of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Almost fifteen thousand Minnesotans contributed to the restoration of the A-12 and the creation of the Blackbird program. Ever since, it has been the centerpiece of the Minnesota Air National Guard Museum. The aircraft is the only A-12 currently used as a hands-on educational resource with a group of highly trained instructors who provide meaningful insight for the general public into the aircraft's history and meaning. This aircraft is of great significance not only to the volunteers who sacrificed time and resources to restore a great remnant of American history, but also to the citizens of Minnesota and around the country who have benefited greatly from this knowledge of our military history. Unfortunately, the A-12 is considered to be ``on loan'' from the U.S. Air Force, which recently has decided to transfer the plane to the CIA Headquarters as part of the agency's 60th anniversary celebration. If this plan goes ahead, the plane will no longer be available for public viewing. Over the years, volunteers throughout Minnesota have generously devoted their time and resources to maintaining this plane. To transfer the plane away from the very people whose hard work has made the aircraft what it is today is simply unfair. It is necessary that we retain this piece of Minnesota history, and keep the Blackbird in a place where it will always be accessible to the public. I hope the Senate will be able to act on this legislation and help to save a significant piece of history. I ask unanimous consent that the bill I introduce today, to provide for the conveyance of an A-12 Blackbird aircraft to the Minnesota Air National Guard Historical Foundation, be printed in the record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I would like to respond to my colleague from Michigan. I wish to talk a little bit about the minimum wage, but I would love to debate drug rationing. And that is what we are going to get to. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about adopting the VA system. For those seniors out there listening, you have a limited list of drugs which are available. And by the way, you get them through the VA. You get about 80 or 90 percent through mail order, the rest at the VA, where my dad goes. I think he, also, may have an addition tied into Part D. I have seniors in Minnesota who like to go to the local pharmacy. I am struggling and fighting every day to keep rural pharmacies alive. You want to put a stake through the heart of rural pharmacies, of small business, talk about doing what the House is talking about. We will have that debate another day. Americans and Minnesotans like choice. Under Medicare Part D, the poorest of the poor are dual eligibles, and it is a program that is working. Most of the seniors in my State who have Medicare Part D are pretty happy. We have some challenges with the doughnut hole. But going to a system of limited choice, limited options and somehow saying that that is going to be better than a system where you have millions of consumers and, in effect, the bargaining goes on every day, if you don't like one plan, you can go to the next, this plan has cost us less money. It is giving great choices. Our challenge is to keep our rural pharmacies alive. This is not going to make that any better.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I wish to talk about a bipartisan effort to increase the minimum wage. Last week, the House overwhelmingly passed legislation to increase the current minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. We will have a chance to deal with that in the Senate. We are going to get a better bill out of the Senate. We are going to have some small business protection which is important. But we do need to increase the minimum wage. I have long supported increasing the minimum wage. I strongly believe that Congress should ensure that the benefits of our strong economy go to everybody. My State of Minnesota is 1 of 29 that have sought to ease the burden for minimum wage workers by increasing the minimum wage above the Federal minimum wage. But it is well past time that Congress acted. It has taken more than 9 years to finally reach the point where we will be increasing the minimum wage, and it is about time. As a result of congressional inaction, the Federal minimum wage is actually at a 50-year low, when we factor in inflation. That is simply not fair. It is not fair for our minimum wage workers who must deal with the ever- rising cost of day-to-day living. There are some who argue that the vast majority of those receiving the minimum wage don't come from poor families. They claim that those receiving the minimum wage are middle income families, young, and work part time. I don't think the facts support that proposition. If Congress increases the minimum wage to $7.25, we are talking about helping about 50 percent of the workers who come from poor and low- income families. We are talking about helping out those Minnesotans who work in the nearly 230,000 low-wage jobs who would benefit from an increase. We are talking about 40 percent of hourly workers who are making $5.15 or less who are uninsured. Congress needs to find bipartisan solutions to reduce the ranks of the uninsured. We need to act to improve health care accessibility and affordability for all Americans, not the least of which are low-wage workers. It is important to make the point that these same uninsured Americans are also the ones who will benefit most from a hike in the minimum wage. While I support increasing the minimum wage, I, also, support targeted small business protection. I want to see the hit of an increase in the minimum wage lessened. It is no good to increase the minimum wage if you are going to take away somebody's job. You have to look at the impact on small business. I am a former mayor, a member of the Small Business Committee. I understand the importance of small business to our economy. I believe that America's future is tied to the growth of small business. Small businesses become big businesses, but they have to start small. They need the kind of protection we are talking about, bipartisan relief. I have introduced legislation--and apparently a bill will come out of committee--that will provide some protection. I want to make sure a couple other things are in there, such as increasing expensing for small business. My small business owners tell me this is important. Under this sort of expensing, businesses can take an immediate depreciation deduction of up to $112,000 on taxes for qualified business purchases. This is important to do the right kind of protection and ensure that businesses can continue to hire workers and continue to grow and expand. I applaud the Finance Committee today for passing small business relief. I think it includes an extension of increased expensing and a 15-year straight-line cost recovery period for qualified leasehold and restaurant improvements. I am not going to get into the nitty-gritty, but we are making progress. That is good. I wish to comment on one other aspect of the minimum wage debate that is not included in the bill out of the Finance Committee. It is called the tip credit. Although this is somewhat of a technical issue, at the end of the day this is about jobs, plain and simple. So what is tip credit? With tip credit, employers can count a certain part of their employees' tips toward meeting their employees' minimum wage. Tip credit has long been on the books. Labor laws recognize it. I know the State of New York has tip credit. I think there are 7 of the States that do not have a tip credit; 43 States have it. Again, labor laws recognize it, tax laws recognize it. It is an issue that impacts about 10,000 Minnesota businesses and their workers--mostly in the hospitality industry, such as restaurant workers. Those are important businesses. They are gathering places in the community. They are the cornerstone of many of the communities. They form an important part of the State's tax base. The restaurants and those folks employed there are active in the community. They sponsor the local youth teams and support schools and neighborhood projects. Restaurants are where Little Leaguers celebrate victories, families celebrate special occasions, and tourists spend good money, as in my State of Minnesota. This is a way of life which is increasingly under threat. Minnesota is one of seven States that do not have tip credit. My hospitality industry is at a competitive disadvantage with respect to those States which surround us which allow for tip credit. Those in the hospitality industry in our border areas are in competition with other States. Minnesota has a minimum wage of $6.15 an hour. That is a good thing, but it is not the case in our neighboring States. I think if we look at the other chart, for instance, Wisconsin has an even higher minimum wage. Ours is $6.15 an hour, with a tip credit of $4.17. In Wisconsin, an employer pays a minimum hourly cash wage of $2.33 and can apply $4.17 of their employees' tips toward meeting the minimum wage of $6.50. The employers in Wisconsin, Iowa, South Dakota, and North Dakota in the hospitality industry can pay employees less. There is a lower cost of doing business, which puts my employers at a competitive disadvantage. We are at risk of losing jobs in these areas. As I have always said, the best welfare program is a job program and a housing program. Consider dining out in the border town of Moorhead, MN. Just across the river in Fargo, ND, there are more than 50 national chains, and there is only 1 in Moorhead. Operating on an unfair playing field with North Dakota and Wisconsin, hospitality establishments have to make tough decisions, such as raising prices, cutting the workforce, reducing employee hours or, worse, shutting down in the State. Peggy Rasmussen, the owner of Countryside Cafe in Hamel, is seriously considering closing down her business because of this tip credit issue. When businesses such as Peggy's shut down, their workers are left behind and so, too, are our communities. This is a fundamental question of fairness. Forty-three States have tip credit. All of Minnesota's neighbors have tip credit. Minnesota does not. I wish to make it clear that any change in the tip credit law is not going to result in a lowering of this wage for Minnesotans. Anything we do needs to be prospective. I want to defend our restaurant employees. This is what they are making. Over time, we can equalize some of the disadvantage. We can do it in a way that doesn't support a tip credit that would lessen a worker's minimum wage. As we increase the minimum wage, which I have consistently said is the right thing to do, let's also ensure that States such as Minnesota can operate on a more level playing field with the rest of the 43 States that have the tip credit. Without the tip credit, Minnesota's hospitality businesses and workers will continue to be hurt. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have sought to improve the living standards of America's hard-working families. Increasing the minimum wage is one way to do so. I look forward to voting with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to increase the minimum wage. It is my hope that the minimum wage proposal will also allow for tip credit, which is critical to the future of Minnesota's businesses and workers, which is, in the end, about fairness and, most importantly, about keeping jobs in the States that need them. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation to extend increased expensing for small businesses be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation to extend increased expensing for small businesses be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill I introduce today--to amend Public Law 87-383 to reauthorize appropriations to promote the conservation of migratory waterfowl and to offset or prevent the serious loss of important wetland and other waterfowl habitat essential to preservation of migratory waterfowl, and for other purposes--be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill I introduce today--to amend Public Law 87-383 to reauthorize appropriations to promote the conservation of migratory waterfowl and to offset or prevent the serious loss of important wetland and other waterfowl habitat essential to preservation of migratory waterfowl, and for other purposes--be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

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

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, having recently returned from another visit to Iraq serving as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I come to the floor this afternoon to express my views on the most pressing issue facing our country today: our path to success in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group recently stated the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. When the current path isn't working, you have to be flexible. You have to shift. You have to make a change. And, clearly, in Iraq today we have to make a change. The President of the United States, on Friday, said the same thing. In December I met with Iraqi political leaders, U.S. troops and their leaders, as well as our diplomats on the ground. Our conversations with this broad range of individuals helped me draw various conclusions that are key to evaluating the proposals currently being debated. In light of the President's upcoming announcement of his strategy for Iraq, I think it is important to share these conclusions. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that we are in Iraq as part of a Global War on Terror. There is no question that Iraq has become the key battleground of this war. Failure cannot be an option in either the overall war on terror or in Iraq. As the President has correctly stated, this is the battle of this generation. With menacing regimes in Iran and Syria, we cannot dismiss the fact that a failed state in Iraq would lead to much more than chaos and collapse in that nation. It would destabilize a critical region of the world and, most alarmingly, would create a breeding ground for terrorists whose ambitions do not stop at Iraq's borders. Americans--all Americans--have a direct stake in winning this war. We know the United States will be involved in the war on terror for the foreseeable future. The question is, How do we move forward in Iraq? How do we fight this war? And, where do we put our troops? From my experience in Iraq, I know now, or at least I believe, that we are fighting it essentially on two fronts. The first is the war we intended to fight: a war against terrorists, primarily Sunni extremists and foreign jihadists linked to al-Qaida--foreign terrorists. The other war is a war between the Iraqis themselves: Shiite against Sunni, in a seemingly endless cycle of grisly violence. Our military must continue the battle against extremists and terrorists, but we have no business being caught in the crossfires of an Iraqi sectarian conflict. The good news is we have had great success in fighting the war on terror, imposing crippling losses on the international jihadist network which today operates in Iraq. Indeed, during my visit in December with marines from Minnesota stationed in Anbar, they reported they were making great headway against the insurgency there. I am proud of their accomplishments, and I firmly believe these military victories directly enhance our security at home. But to secure the ground that these marines have cleared of insurgents in places such as Fallujah, they need Sunni police officers. They need Sunni members of the Iraqi Army. They need reconciliation between Sunni and Shia. So as we continue to fight the first war, the war against terrorists, we need also to address the second war, that of Iraqi against Iraqi. The overall consensus I found in Iraq is that we will be unable to hold on to the ground we have gained on the first front without addressing the second front: Iraqi sectarian violence. This violence is spiraling rapidly and is undermining the success we have made against the terrorists. If the Iraqi security forces, both Army and police, are to someday soon take over the fighting of the insurgency from U.S. troops, it is clear that intergroup violence must be brought under control. The Iraqi security forces must include all Iraqis: Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, and others. To be certain, our efforts cannot succeed if sectarian hatred is not addressed at the highest level of the Iraqi Government immediately. The only long-term solution for bringing stability to Iraq must be centered on national reconciliation. It is true that after decades of Sunni violence led by Saddam Hussein and his regime, the Shiites still have unaddressed grievances. But this does not call for, nor permit, neighborhood-by-neighborhood ethnic cleansing, nor a refusal to work together for the future of all Iraqis. Shiites may be able to win short-term victories through the use of violence, but in the long term they will not have a unified country if they continue to do so. Iraqi leaders should focus on reining in all sectarian groups under the umbrella of a national and inclusive political process. This is a solution that can only be led by the Iraqis themselves. With no doubt, this sectarian violence was left to grow unchecked for far too long. Even so, it is not too late to get Iraq back to stable footing. But it will come from dialogue and political compromise enforced by a central government prepared to take on militias under the control of religious sects, clans, and even common criminals. We must get to the point where Iraqi citizens express their views through political channels instead of through violence. The Iraqis are the masters of their own destiny, and it is important that our strategy regard them as such. Since my trip to Iraq in December, I have been calling for the Iraqi Government to establish a series of benchmarks that will diffuse the sectarian violence and stabilize the country politically and economically. These benchmarks would include an oil revenue-sharing agreement and economic assistance to areas that have been neglected in the past. The reality is not putting resources in Anbar Province because it is Sunni, and so as a result, what you get is a feeding of insurgency by the actions of a government that has not been prepared to address the issue of sectarian violence. We will be a better supporter of the Iraqi Government if we pressure them to create and adhere to these benchmarks rather than assuming that this fractured Government will take this on by themselves. I fear that up to this point the Iraqi leadership has not stepped up to the plate to make the difficult decisions that are necessary to pave the road for a political solution. When I was in Iraq with Senator Bill Nelson from Florida, we met with the Iraqi National Security Adviser to Maliki, Dr. Rubaie, who contended that sectarian violence wasn't the main problem, but the problem was the foreign terrorists and was the Sunni insurgency. That is not the case. As a Senator responsible for looking after the best interests of my constituents and all Americans, I take seriously the responsibility of Iraqi political leaders to honor the sacrifices that are being made by American soldiers. I refuse to put more American lives on the line in Baghdad without being assured that the Iraqis themselves are willing to do what they need to do to end the violence of Iraqi against Iraqi. If Iraq is to fulfill its role as a sovereign and democratic state, it must start acting like one. It is for this reason that I oppose the proposal for a troop surge. I oppose the proposal for a troop surge in Baghdad where violence can only be defined as sectarian. A troop surge proposal basically ignores the conditions on the ground, both as I saw on my most recent trip and reports that I have been receiving regularly since my return. My consultations with both military and Iraqi political leaders confirms that an increase in troops in areas plagued by sectarian violence will not solve the problem of sectarian hatred. A troop surge in Baghdad would put more American troops at risk to address a problem that is not a military problem. It will put more American soldiers in the crosshairs of sectarian violence. It will create more targets. I just don't believe that makes sense. Again, I oppose a troop surge in Baghdad because I don't believe it is the path to victory or a strategy for victory in Iraq. I recognize there are those who think otherwise. The Iraqi Study Group, in their report, said that they could, however, support a short-term deployment, a surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such standards would be effective. I sat with the President with Democratic colleagues and Republican colleagues. I know that he has weighed this heavily, and I know he has looked at this issue for a long time. Apparently, he has come to the conclusion that, in fact, a troop surge would be helpful. I believe his comments will contain--hopefully contain--discussions about benchmarks and contain a commitment to do those things to rebuild the economy and create jobs so that we get rid of some of the underlying causes and frustrations that feed the insurgency. But the bottom line is, again, at this point in time, it is sectarian violence that I believe is the major issue that we face and more troops in Baghdad is not going to solve that problem. As one of the final conclusions to share of my experience in Iraq, I would also like to emphasize the significant role of Iran in fomenting instabilities. Across the board, my meetings with Iraqi officials revealed that the Iranians are driving instability in Iraq by all means at their disposal. We had a hearing today in the Foreign Relations Committee and one of the speakers, one of the experts said that it may be, and it is probably clear that, the Iranians have a stake in American failure in Iraq and its stability in the region, and they feed on that. Indeed, there are credible reports that Iran is currently supplying money and weapons to both its traditional Shiite allies and its historic Sunni rivals, all for the purposes of ensuring a daily death toll of Iraqi citizens. It is clear the Iranians have concluded that chaos in Iraq is in their direct interest. Iran's role thus far, not to mention their pursuit of nuclear weapons, makes it hard to believe that they might suddenly become a constructive partner in the stabilization of Iraq. I want to point out that my commitment to success in Iraq has not changed, nor my willingness to consider options that would realistically contribute toward our goals there. In my trips to Iraq, I have gone with an open mind as to what next steps could be taken as we work with the Iraqis to stabilize their country. I have said all along that the stakes of our mission in Iraq are such that failure is simply not an option, and I will only support proposals that will steer the United States toward victory. Abandoning Iraq today would precipitate an even greater surge of ethnic cleansing. It would, as I indicated before, precipitate an episode of instability and chaos in the region that would be in no one's interest. But my most recent trip to Iraq also reaffirmed to me that it is the Iraqis who must play the biggest role in any strategy for success. Our investment must be tied to their willingness to make the tough choices needed to pave the way to stability and for them to act on them. I represent Minnesota, but if I represented Missouri, I think I would simply say to Maliki: Show me. Show me your resolve. Show me your commitment. Show me that you can, in fact, do the things that have to be done to deal with the sectarian violence, and then we can talk about enhancing and increasing the American effort. I haven't seen it. I don't see it today, and as such, I am certainly not willing to put more U.S. troops at risk. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to assist the families of our reservists and National Guard members. With our reservists and National Guard members bravely answering our country's call to service, we must do all we can to meet the calls of help from those families left behind who are struggling financially as a result of their loved ones' wartime service. All too often, the families of reservists and National Guard members must contend not only with the physical absence of a loved one but also with the loss of income that makes paying house, car, medical and other bills too great of a burden to bear without help. According to the latest available statistics, some 55 percent of married Guard members and reservists have experienced a loss in income, with nearly 50 percent experiencing a loss of $1,000 in pay per month and 15 percent experiencing a loss of $30,000 or more in pay a year. With our Guard and reservists putting their lives on the line, they should not also have to put their families' financial lives on the line due to their service. In an effort to provide relief to these families, I am introducing today the Voluntary Support for Reservists and National Guard Members Act that would bolster the financial assistance available to these families. More specifically, the Voluntary Support for Reservists and National Guard Members Act would provide taxpayers the option of contributing part of their tax refund to the Reserve Income Replacement Program which provides financial assistance to those families who have experienced an income loss due to a call-up to active duty. In 2005, the IRS issued 106 million refunds that totaled $227 billion with the average refund coming in at $2,141.36. Even a small percentage of this amount could make a significant difference in the lives of these reservist and National Guard families. While we can do little to ease the emotional burden experienced by families regarding the service of their loved ones, we can at least try to give them some peace of mind when it comes to their day-to-day finances. These families already have made a great sacrifice to the nation, and they should not also have to sacrifice their financial well-being due to their loved ones' service. Beyond our gratitude, care packages and gifts, we can thank our troops for their service by helping to meet the everyday needs of their families who are facing financial hardships. My bill would provide Americans a convenient way to thank our troops by contributing a portion of their tax refunds to give much-needed help to the loved ones of our reservists and National Guard members . I ask unanimous consent that my legislation, the Voluntary Support for Reservists and National Guard Members Act, and the accompanying remarks be printed in the Record.

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