Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, we share a strategic and important relationship with Japan. A relationship that has proven to be vital for both countries, as we enhance our collaboration on everything from economic pursuits to our joint national security interests. On all of these fronts Japan has demonstrated that it is both a committed partner of the U.S. as well as a global leader in its own right. It is because Japan has demonstrated its leadership on the global stage that I support its bid to become a member of the U.N. Security Council. As with any partnership, the U.S. and Japan face the occasional challenges to this cooperation. One might argue this is an opportunity for the U.S. and Japan to strengthen their partnership and increase collaboration and trade. The time is now to push this cooperation. However, I am concerned about a threat to our trade relationship with Japan based on our medical technology industry's market access in Japan. It is crucial to my State of Minnesota that we have access to this market and to our country. Last Congress, I submitted a resolution in the Senate expressing my concern that discriminatory practices and systematic barriers have limited the ability of the U.S. medical device industry to introduce new technologies into the Japanese healthcare system. Today, I am resubmitting similar resolution. I am concerned that insufficient progress has been made by the Japanese to address policies that penalize American companies and ultimately prevent Japanese citizens from receiving the most advanced healthcare. This resolution recognizes that medical technology has driven dramatic productivity gains for the benefit of patients, providers, employers and our economy. It also states that Japan is one of the most important trading partners of the U.S., and urges Japan to honor its commitments under the Market-Oriented, Sector Specific, MOSS Agreement. This agreement calls on the Japanese to improve the reimbursement environment for medical technologies by actively promoting pricing policies that encourage innovation and eliminating policies based on inappropriate comparisons to markets outside Japan. Discriminatory practices targeting the medical device industry directly affect my state and many of my constituents. This is due to the fact that Minnesota is the proud home to a thriving medical technology industry. Minnesota's medical alley is a rich corridor of more than 8,000 medical-related companies--12 percent of our workforce--and is home to over 520 FDA-registered medical technology manufacturers. Employment in the industry increased 33 percent from 1991 to 2001, adding over 23,000 jobs to the State of Minnesota. The jobs produced by the medical technology industry represent a lucrative opportunity for my constituents, as the aggregate figure for wages exceeds $1.3 billion an average of over $56,000 per employee. The benefits that Minnesota has derived from being home to a flourishing medical technology industry are well-deserved and a product of hard work. Minnesota ranks second only to California in device companies, and our State is home to many technology firsts: the first implantable cardiac pacemaker, artificial heart valve, implantable drug transfusion pump, wireless cardiac monitoring system, blood pump, anesthesia monitor and many more examples. The success we have had in Minnesota is also indicative of the positive trends that have been experienced by the entire industry throughout the U.S. The positive trends of American medical technology companies' performance in domestic and international markets are not reflected in their experience with the Japanese market. The fact of the matter is that U.S. medical technology companies are discriminated by Japanese policies. There are numerous examples of these policies, but I will only briefly mention a few. Japan has adopted a foreign reference pricing system to reduce reimbursement prices in Japan's health system, a tool long opposed by the U.S. Government and the medical technology industry. This system calls for the establishment and revision of reimbursement rates on the basis of prices paid for medical technology products in the U.S., France, Germany, and the U.K. This pricing policy therefore fails to account for the high costs of bringing advanced technologies to the Japanese market, and instead bases prices on arbitrary conditions that exist outside of Japan. In addition, Japan's system for approving the use of new medical technologies is the slowest and most costly in the developed world. The backlog in processing applications for medical technology products is staggering, and may be primarily related to the lack of staff dedicated towards the review of applications. Importantly, the end result has been that the medical technologies used to treat patients in Japan are often several generations behind the products utilized in the U.S. These and other regulatory hurdles embedded in the Japanese medical technology industry conflict with regulatory commitments made to the U.S. under the MOSS trade agreement. They also contradict the philosophy underpinning the Global Harmonization Task Force, to which the U.S., Europe and Japan are a party. Even our friends need to be held accountable to the agreements they sign, otherwise they become less valuable than the paper they are printed on. I urge our friends in the Japanese Government to take aggressive action to remedy this clearly unfavorable situation. Non-tariff regulatory and reimbursement policies discriminate U.S. manufacturers. While these policies hurt U.S. manufacturers' economically, ultimately the biggest losers of these policies are Japanese patients. Innovative medical technologies offer the possibility of key health solutions to all nations, including those that face severe health care budget constraints and the demands of aging populations. Past experience has demonstrated that the U.S. and Japan are able to overcome challenges that arise in our relationship, thus making it stronger. I think that both countries stand to gain significantly if the principles of the resolution I am presenting today are upheld. I urge my fellow colleagues to join me in Japan to honor its commitments under the 1986 Market-Oriented Sector-Selective, MOSS, Agreement on Medical Equipment and Pharmaceuticals by supporting this resolution. S. Con. Res. 67 Whereas the revolution in medical technology has improved our ability to respond to emerging threats and prevent, identify, treat, and cure a broad range of diseases and disabilities, and has the proven potential to bring even more valuable advances in the future; Whereas medical technology has driven dramatic productivity gains for the benefit of patients, providers, employers, and our economy; Whereas investment from the United States medical technology industry produces the majority of the $220,000,000,000 global business in development of medical devices, diagnostic products, and medical information systems, allowing patients to lead longer, healthier, and more productive lives; Whereas the United States medical technology industry supports almost 350,000 Americans in high-value jobs located in every State, and was historically a key industry, as it was a net contributor to the United States balance of trade with Japan, which was a trade surplus of over $7,000,000,000 in 2001, and continued to be a surplus until 2005, when the trade balance became a trade deficit of $1,300,000,000, due in part to changes in the policies of Japan that impact medical devices; Whereas Japan is one of the most important trading partners of the United States; Whereas United States products account for roughly \1/2\ of the global market, but garner only a \1/4\ share of Japan's market; Whereas Japan has made little progress in implementing its commitments to cut product review times and improve their reimbursement system in bilateral consultations on policy changes under the Market-Oriented Sector-Selective (MOSS) Agreement on Medical Equipment and Pharmaceuticals, signed on January 9, 1986, between the United States and Japan; Whereas, although regulatory reviews in Japan remain among the lengthiest in the world and Japan needs to accelerate patient access to safe and beneficial medical technologies, recently adopted measures actually increase regulatory burdens on manufacturers and delay access without enhancing patient safety; Whereas the general cost of doing business in Japan is the highest in the world and is driven significantly higher by certain factors in the medical technology sector, and inefficiencies in Japanese distribution networks and hospital payment systems and unique regulatory burdens drive up the cost of bringing innovations to Japanese consumers and impede patient access to life-saving and life-enhancing medical technologies; Whereas artificial government price caps such as the foreign average price policy adopted by the Government of Japan in 2002 restrict patient access and fail to recognize the value of innovation; Whereas less than \1/10\ of 1 percent of the tens of thousands of medical technologies introduced in Japan in the last 10 years received new product pricing; Whereas the Government of Japan has adopted artificial price caps that are targeted toward technologies predominately marketed by companies from the United States and is considering further cuts to these products; and Whereas these discriminatory pricing policies will allow the Japanese Government to take advantage of research and development from the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress-- (1) urges Japan to honor its commitments under the Market- Oriented Sector-Selective (MOSS) Agreement on Medical Equipment and Pharmaceuticals, signed on January 9, 1986, between the United States and Japan (in this resolution referred to as the ``MOSS Agreement''), by-- (A) reducing regulatory barriers to the approval and adoption of new medical technologies; and (B) meeting or exceeding agency performance goals for premarket approvals and adopting an appropriate, risk-based postmarket system consistent with globally accepted practices; (2) urges Japan to honor its commitments under the MOSS Agreement to improve the reimbursement environment for medical technologies by actively promoting pricing policies that encourage innovation for the benefit of Japanese patients and the Japanese economy and eliminating reimbursement policies based on inappropriate comparisons to markets outside Japan; and (3) urges Japan to honor its commitments under the MOSS Agreement by-- (A) implementing fair and open processes and rules that do not disproportionately harm medical technology products from the United States; and (B) providing opportunities for consultation with trading partners.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to work with the Senator from Georgia. I wish to talk about a piece of this amendment. Before I do, I thank Chairman Enzi and Ranking Member Kennedy for the work they have done on this bill. I represent Minnesota, Big 10 football, big ground game, not fancy passes. The Senator from Wyoming is not a rabbit, not fast on his feet, but, boy, is he solid, steady, and consistent. This is a great bill. There is a piece particularly important to the folks in my State and actually throughout the country. This is not just about my State. Pension reform provisions relating to the airline industry take the burdens off the taxpayers. That is what this is about. Let me be clear, when airlines cannot meet their pension obligations, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, is saddled with the responsibility. Who is the PBGC? It is the American taxpayer. That is who is saddled with the responsibility. In my State alone, Northwest Airlines is struggling to meet its obligations and make good on their promises of pensions to its employees. Minnesota has almost 22,000 people who depend on Northwest Airlines pensions. As the Senator from Montana said a minute ago, this is about promises made and about promises being kept. The Federal law defining underfunded defined pension benefit plans is seriously broken and must be fixed. A number of airlines have already terminated their defined benefit plans in bankruptcy and transferred them to PBGC. Other carriers may well suffer the same fate. I am not going to go into detail as to why it happened--stock market declines, low interest rates, September 11, record oil prices--but as a result, the deficit reduction contribution rules kick in. They require that Northwest and other carriers make massive additional contributions to its defined benefit plans that they cannot afford. It is difficult to overstate how profoundly these DRC rules have impacted the funding of pensions. It would be akin to telling homeowners with 30-year mortgages that if the value of their homes drop below 80 percent of the purchase price, for whatever reason, their loan will be accelerated such that the balance will become due in 3 to 5 years. This is a problem. Common sense is not in play. This amendment provides common sense to pension laws. This amendment provides some protection to the taxpayers. This amendment provides protection to the employees. They should get what they have worked for. Promises made, promises kept. Northwest has worked with the labor unions. They developed a proposal contained in this compromise bill allowing them to proceed in a way to stop adding to the underfunding of airline plans by requiring airlines and their affected unions to freeze their plans, ceasing future benefit accruals, and protect the PBGC by freezing the PBGC guarantee. It would fix the broken DRC rules by extending the term of the pension ``mortgage'' from its current 3-to-5-year amortization period to a longer amortization period. Under this proposal, retirees and plan participants would receive the benefits they earned to the date of the freeze. Retirees would be protected. In addition, the PBGC will be in better shape financially since its liability will be capped, and each airline payment that an airline makes to the plan will reduce that liability. The bottom line is this: Northwest and other airlines are not seeking a subsidy, they are not seeking a bailout from the Government. Just the opposite. They are asking for a responsible alternative to current law that lets them pay their pension liabilities versus shifting those obligations on to a Government agency. It is the right thing to do. It is a fiscally responsible thing to do. It is the right thing to do for the employers and taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, constituents across the country in rural areas face serious health care issues, not only in terms of illness but also in lack of easily accessible services. One out of every five Americans lives in rural areas however only one out of every ten physicians practice in rural areas. Forty percent of our rural population lives in a medically underserved area. With access to care an average of thirty miles away, rural areas have much to gain from the ability to access healthcare information at a distance. We depend on our farmers and ranchers--they are the lifeblood of America and take care of the essentials in our lives such as feeding us and clothing us. We should make sure to take care of them as well. Today, I am proud to be joined by my friend, Senator Bingaman in introducing the Remote Monitoring Access Act of 2005 to overcome the barriers to more rapid diffusion of innovative new technologies that will improve quality and access to care for Medicare beneficiaries, by implementing changes in Medicare fee-for-service reimbursements. Our legislation would create a new benefit category for remote patient management services in the Medicare physician fee schedule. Under this category, Medicare would cover physician services involved with the remote management of specific medical conditions. New technology that collects, analyzes, and transmits clinical health information is in development or has recently been introduced to the market. The promise of this remote management technology is clear: better information on the patient's condition--collected and stored electronically, analyzed for clinical value, and transmitted to the physician or the patient--should improve patient care and access. Remote monitoring technology is also emerging to extend the provision of health care services to areas where there is a shortage of physicians. This technology allows physicians to monitor and treat patients without a face-to-face office visit, thereby increasing access to physicians for patients living in rural areas. In its March 2001 report, ``Crossing the Quality Chasm,'' the Institute of Medicine stated that the automation of clinical and other health transactions was an essential factor for improving quality, preventing errors, enhancing consumer confidence in the health care system, and improving efficiency, yet ``health care delivery has been relatively untouched by the revolution in information technology that has been transforming nearly every other aspect of society.'' Three major areas in which remote management technologies are emerging in health care are the treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF), diabetes and cardiac arrhythmia. Despite these innovations and their ability to improve care, many new clinical information and remote management technologies have failed to diffuse rapidly. A significant barrier to wider adoption and evolution of the technologies is the relative lack of payment mechanisms in fee- for-service Medicare to reimburse for remote, non-face-to-face management and disease management services provided by a physician. Under existing Medicare fee schedules, physicians generally receive a fixed, predetermined amount for a given service. The cost of devices used or supplied in the service is usually bundled into the payment, and payments are primarily provided for face-to-face interactions between the physician and patient. The payment structure creates at least two problems for the wider adoption of patient management approaches using remote management technology. To overcome the barriers to more rapid diffusion of innovative new technology for Medicare beneficiaries, changes in Medicare fee-for- service reimbursements are necessary. This legislation would create a new benefit category for remote patient management services in the Medicare physician fee schedule. Under this category, Medicare would cover physician services involved with the remote management of specific medical conditions. The quality of care provided through remote management would allow physicians to qualify for bonus payments conditioned on specific quality measures. This legislation directs the Secretary, through the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) to develop standards of care and quality standards for the remote management services provided for each medical condition covered. AHRQ would develop these standards working in conjunction with appropriate physician groups. The Secretary is also given the authority to develop guidelines on the frequency of billing for remote patient management services. I urge my fellow colleagues to join me in ensuring rural Americans have the access to remote monitoring and the opportunity to keep pace with health technology by supporting the Remote Monitoring Access Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, constituents across the country in rural areas face serious health care issues, not only in terms of illness but also in lack of easily accessible services. One out of every five Americans lives in rural areas however only one out of every ten physicians practice in rural areas. Forty percent of our rural population lives in a medically underserved area. With access to care an average of thirty miles away, rural areas have much to gain from the ability to access healthcare information at a distance. We depend on our farmers and ranchers--they are the lifeblood of America and take care of the essentials in our lives such as feeding us and clothing us. We should make sure to take care of them as well. Today, I am proud to be joined by my friend, Senator Bingaman in introducing the Remote Monitoring Access Act of 2005 to overcome the barriers to more rapid diffusion of innovative new technologies that will improve quality and access to care for Medicare beneficiaries, by implementing changes in Medicare fee-for-service reimbursements. Our legislation would create a new benefit category for remote patient management services in the Medicare physician fee schedule. Under this category, Medicare would cover physician services involved with the remote management of specific medical conditions. New technology that collects, analyzes, and transmits clinical health information is in development or has recently been introduced to the market. The promise of this remote management technology is clear: better information on the patient's condition--collected and stored electronically, analyzed for clinical value, and transmitted to the physician or the patient--should improve patient care and access. Remote monitoring technology is also emerging to extend the provision of health care services to areas where there is a shortage of physicians. This technology allows physicians to monitor and treat patients without a face-to-face office visit, thereby increasing access to physicians for patients living in rural areas. In its March 2001 report, ``Crossing the Quality Chasm,'' the Institute of Medicine stated that the automation of clinical and other health transactions was an essential factor for improving quality, preventing errors, enhancing consumer confidence in the health care system, and improving efficiency, yet ``health care delivery has been relatively untouched by the revolution in information technology that has been transforming nearly every other aspect of society.'' Three major areas in which remote management technologies are emerging in health care are the treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF), diabetes and cardiac arrhythmia. Despite these innovations and their ability to improve care, many new clinical information and remote management technologies have failed to diffuse rapidly. A significant barrier to wider adoption and evolution of the technologies is the relative lack of payment mechanisms in fee- for-service Medicare to reimburse for remote, non-face-to-face management and disease management services provided by a physician. Under existing Medicare fee schedules, physicians generally receive a fixed, predetermined amount for a given service. The cost of devices used or supplied in the service is usually bundled into the payment, and payments are primarily provided for face-to-face interactions between the physician and patient. The payment structure creates at least two problems for the wider adoption of patient management approaches using remote management technology. To overcome the barriers to more rapid diffusion of innovative new technology for Medicare beneficiaries, changes in Medicare fee-for- service reimbursements are necessary. This legislation would create a new benefit category for remote patient management services in the Medicare physician fee schedule. Under this category, Medicare would cover physician services involved with the remote management of specific medical conditions. The quality of care provided through remote management would allow physicians to qualify for bonus payments conditioned on specific quality measures. This legislation directs the Secretary, through the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) to develop standards of care and quality standards for the remote management services provided for each medical condition covered. AHRQ would develop these standards working in conjunction with appropriate physician groups. The Secretary is also given the authority to develop guidelines on the frequency of billing for remote patient management services. I urge my fellow colleagues to join me in ensuring rural Americans have the access to remote monitoring and the opportunity to keep pace with health technology by supporting the Remote Monitoring Access Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. I, too, have been informed of the State Department's jurisdictional concern. Given that this issue is more appropriate to the Foreign Operations bill, I wonder if my friend from Kentucky will work with me and the State Department to ensure that this provision is fulfilled, specifically that within 180 days of enactment of the foreign aid bill the Department provide the relevant congressional committees with a report detailing this strategic plan, in consultation with the Departments of Education, Commerce, Homeland Security, and Energy, as well as institutions and organizations involved in international education. The strategy should seek to use innovative media like the Internet to develop a marketing strategy. It should also include policy recommendations for streamlining the procedures related to international student access.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I want to bring the attention of my colleague from Kentucky to a provision Senator Bingaman and I offered to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill regarding a strategic plan for enhancing access of legitimate foreign students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors in the United States for study and exchange activates. Since September 11, restrictive visa policies and negative perceptions of the United States have led to a drastic decline in the number of foreign students studying in the United States, a development which has a negative consequences for both American foreign policy and economic competitiveness. A strategy is needed to pro-actively counter negative perceptions about America as unwelcoming to foreign students, and to enable us to successfully compete with places like the EU, the UK, and Australia, which have developed strategies to recruit the world's best and brightest. In my amendment to the Labor-HHS bill, I initially requested the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretaries of State, Commerce, Homeland Security and Energy and others, to prepare this plan.

Mr. COLEMAN. I thank the chairman of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, as United States Senators, we are well aware of the rising cost of health care and the difficulty of health care access in rural areas. Through the improvement of health information technology, we will see overall productivity and quality improvements to our health care system. New technologies make the system more efficient and effective by diagnosing diseases sooner, providing preventive and ongoing managed care. Today, I am proud to be joined by my friends, Senators Bayh, Cornyn, and Lugar, in introducing the Critical Access to Health Information Technology Act to help Critical Access Hospitals compete for health information technology grants. Our legislation would give smaller rural health hospitals a competitive edge for health information technology grants. A health system technology infrastructure should be encouraged and facilitated as broadly and rapidly as possible to help reduce medical errors, improve quality of care and reduce rising health care costs. A recent American Hospitals Association study shows that while 9 out of 10 hospitals are using or considering using health information technology for clinical uses, most cite cost as a major impediment to broader adoption, especially for small or rural hospitals. The study suggests that the use of health information technology in caring for patients is evolving as hospitals adopt specific technologies based on their needs and priorities, size and financial resources. The Critical Access to Health Information Technology Act creates a grant program administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in conjunction with State agencies for improving health information technology in our Nation's rural areas. In addition, this legislation supports the next generation of coding system, ICD-10, that will modernize and expand Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' capacity to keep pace with changes in medical practice and technology. ICD-10 was developed as an improvement to ICD-9 which has not been updated since 1980. The adoption of ICD-10 will allow for far more accurate, detailed and descriptive coding, and will allow the system to adapt as future changes are warranted. The transition to ICD-10 is time-sensitive, as the number of available ICD-9 codes is rapidly dwindling. Earlier this Congress, I, along with Senator Pryor, introduced the bipartisan ``Rural Renaissance II Act.'' This is a bipartisan piece of legislation, based on earlier legislation introduced last year, which would establish a private-public partnership to provide bonds that will finance grants that will fund key rural development projects to address critical rural infrastructure problems. I am pleased that Chairman Grassley has agreed to include our Rural Renaissance Act II in his tax reconciliation package later this year. These bonds will be made available to small rural communities of 50,000 or fewer for: water and waste facilities, affordable housing, community facilities, including hospitals, fire and police stations, and nursing and assisted living facilities, farmer-owned value-added agriculture or renewable energy projects, including ethanol, biodiesel and wind, distance learning and telemedicine and high speed internet access and rural teleworks projects. I urge my fellow colleagues to join me in ensuring Critical Access Hospitals have the opportunity to keep pace with health information technology by supporting the Critical Access to Health Information Technology Act. 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 rising cost of health care and the difficulty of health care access in rural areas. Through the improvement of health information technology, we will see overall productivity and quality improvements to our health care system. New technologies make the system more efficient and effective by diagnosing diseases sooner, providing preventive and ongoing managed care. Today, I am proud to be joined by my friends, Senators Bayh, Cornyn, and Lugar, in introducing the Critical Access to Health Information Technology Act to help Critical Access Hospitals compete for health information technology grants. Our legislation would give smaller rural health hospitals a competitive edge for health information technology grants. A health system technology infrastructure should be encouraged and facilitated as broadly and rapidly as possible to help reduce medical errors, improve quality of care and reduce rising health care costs. A recent American Hospitals Association study shows that while 9 out of 10 hospitals are using or considering using health information technology for clinical uses, most cite cost as a major impediment to broader adoption, especially for small or rural hospitals. The study suggests that the use of health information technology in caring for patients is evolving as hospitals adopt specific technologies based on their needs and priorities, size and financial resources. The Critical Access to Health Information Technology Act creates a grant program administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in conjunction with State agencies for improving health information technology in our Nation's rural areas. In addition, this legislation supports the next generation of coding system, ICD-10, that will modernize and expand Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' capacity to keep pace with changes in medical practice and technology. ICD-10 was developed as an improvement to ICD-9 which has not been updated since 1980. The adoption of ICD-10 will allow for far more accurate, detailed and descriptive coding, and will allow the system to adapt as future changes are warranted. The transition to ICD-10 is time-sensitive, as the number of available ICD-9 codes is rapidly dwindling. Earlier this Congress, I, along with Senator Pryor, introduced the bipartisan ``Rural Renaissance II Act.'' This is a bipartisan piece of legislation, based on earlier legislation introduced last year, which would establish a private-public partnership to provide bonds that will finance grants that will fund key rural development projects to address critical rural infrastructure problems. I am pleased that Chairman Grassley has agreed to include our Rural Renaissance Act II in his tax reconciliation package later this year. These bonds will be made available to small rural communities of 50,000 or fewer for: water and waste facilities, affordable housing, community facilities, including hospitals, fire and police stations, and nursing and assisted living facilities, farmer-owned value-added agriculture or renewable energy projects, including ethanol, biodiesel and wind, distance learning and telemedicine and high speed internet access and rural teleworks projects. I urge my fellow colleagues to join me in ensuring Critical Access Hospitals have the opportunity to keep pace with health information technology by supporting the Critical Access to Health Information Technology Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing on October 31, 2005, entitled ``Corruption in the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program: Reaching a Consensus on UN Reform.'' The October 31 hearing will be the fourth hearing the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has held on the United Nations' Oil-for- Food Program (``OFF Program''). The Subcommittee's first hearing on the OFF Program laid the foundation for future hearings by describing how the OFF Program was exploited by Saddam Hussein. A second hearing examined the operations of the independent inspection agents retained by the United Nations in the OFF Program and examined issues related to inadequate management, audit, and procurement oversight. The hearing also examined issues related to why the U.S. and U.N. did not interfere with Iraq's open exports of oil to Jordan and Turkey, in violation of U.N. sanctions. The Subcommittee's third hearing detailed how Saddam Hussein manipulated the OFF Program to win influence and reward friends in order to undermine sanctions. In particular, the hearing presented evidence detailing how Saddam rewarded foreign officials with lucrative oil allocations that could be converted to money. The hearing also examined the illegal surcharges paid on Iraqi oil sales, using examples involving the recently indicted U.S. company, Bayoil. In addition, more detailed information was provided on the nature and extent of the 2003 Khor al-Amaya incident in which oil tankers loaded a large amount of Iraqi oil circumventing U.N. sanctions. The Subcommittee's October 31 hearing will address: 1. The findings of the Subcommittee's October 25, 2005, Oil-for-Food Program Report covering illegal payments to individuals; 2. the findings of the October 27, 2005 final report of the Volker Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC) on the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program; 3. a Government Accountability Office (GAO) status report on two Subcommittees requested investigations of the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) and the United Nations Procurement System; 4. the findings of a supplemental Minority report on Bayoil oil diversions; and 5. progress toward implementing United Nations management reforms resulting from the September 2005 UN Summit on Reform. The hearing will also examine the oversight by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to stop misconduct by U.S. persons doing business under the OFF Program. The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Monday, October 31, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Raymond V. Shepherd, III, Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, at 224-3721.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the passing of Rosa Parks is an important occasion for us to remember her life and understand in a deeper way how history changes America. While we grieve the loss for her family, every American should be grateful that someone like her lived among us. As we look at the challenges and injustices of the world around us, we often ask the question: how can we change the world? I think we often look in the wrong place for change. We look to big government, big business, big entertainment or big publishing to bring about change. But when we look at history, almost every big change started small. The arrival of a few dozen Pilgrims on the North American continent was not newsworthy in 1620. I doubt that the battles of Lexington and Concord made the London Times in April of 1775. The arrival of Dred Scott at Ft. Snelling in the free territory of Minnesota was not a big local event. But all three were part of something historically big that changed the world and our lives dramatically. The Pilgrims created a fabulously idealistic vision of a new form of society which attempted to rise above corruption and create a ``shining city on a hill.'' The farmers and townspeople of eastern Massachusetts challenged the world's great superpower from behind stone walls and groves of oak trees. Dred Scott would stand before the United States Supreme Court, just down the hall from where we stand today and assert that because he had lived in free territory he was not property, but a person entitled under God--with unalienable rights. Though he lost his case, he galvanized the Northern states to fight a civil war for a Union based on freedom. On December 1, 1955 Rosa Parks ``sat down'' for her principles in Montgomery, AL. She was arrested, tried, convicted, and assessed a fine of $14 and $3 in court costs. Her actions precipitated the Montgomery bus boycott that lasted more than a year. That event brought young Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to national prominence. As someone has said, if it were not for Rosa Parks, we might never have heard of Dr. King. She stood as an example then and she does today. Perhaps we are too quick to see an injustice and run to the Courthouse or the Statehouse or the TV station. The wisdom of our Founders was that a single person armed with the truth is a majority. Legislation we passed in the Congress has been crucial: the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and a series of more measures right into our own decade. Obviously, vigorous enforcement of those statutes is essential. But if citizens push their own responsibility for social justice off on government, we will not have the change we seek. We need to speak up for equality when we hear a racially oriented joke. We need to challenge the status quo and bring up the subtle forms of racism that stereotype or demean or set low expectations for people. We need to open our mouths to challenge the phobias, misconceptions and prejudices that block the progress of people based on race, gender, age, creed or disability. The Rosa Parks history reminds me of President Lincoln's reported remark when he met Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of Uncle Tom's Cabin: ``So this is the little woman who started this big war.'' In America, there are no ``ordinary people.'' Every one of us has the power to bend history in the little circle of people around us, and we never know when one act of principle will commence a movement of historical significance. On the steps of the Alabama State Capitol building, not far from Rosa Parks' bus stop, Dr. King gave a speech in 1965. It summed up what Rosa Parks was all about, and what we each one of us ``ordinary Americans'' should be about. He said: Let us therefore continue our triumphal march to the realization of the American dream . . . for all of us today, the battle is in our hands. The road ahead is not altogether a smooth one. There are no broad highways that lead us easily and inevitably to quick solutions. We are still in for a season of suffering How long? Not long. Because no lie can live forever . . . our God is marching on.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the champions of CDBG and Section 8 are the ranking member and chairman of the committee. We are in an awkward position. We are all trying to get to the same place. I accept those assurances. These programs are vitally important. We had over 68 votes for supporting full funding for CDBG when it first came up this year. We are all marching down the same path. I appreciate the work that the chairman and the ranking member have done and their commitment to look for more money when we get to conference.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to a Minnesota hero and an American hero, Robert Sparboe, who passed away last week. If anyone around the world wanted to know why this is the greatest country in the world, I would tell them: Take a look at the life of Bob Sparboe. He is proof positive that the surest path to success is working hard in a free society. Bob Sparboe found his success in the egg business. He went from a $5,000 investment after the Korean war to a $260 million operation employing 600 people in four States. If anyone in the sound of my voice has ever eaten an egg in a Midwestern restaurant, you are one of his customers. He has presided over 10 million hens laying over 2 billion eggs a year. I often wonder from where Americans are getting their values. I sure hope it is not from overhyped rock stars, movie stars, and media creations. One of the values of our State of Minnesota is people are usually only one generation or one set of relations removed from the farm. We learn what farmers know; there are four seasons to life: planting, growing, harvesting, and resting. Not much of value is produced by people who cram. There are seasons and rhythms to life that must be understood and respected. Bob was a wealth of wisdom. Here are a few of his gems collected from an article written honoring him last year: The smartest thing you can do is hire someone who is more capable than you are. It's better to have an average plan with superior execution than a superior plan with average execution. A good leader creates leaders out of his followers. And a really good leader creates moral agents. Leadership is about coping with change. Management is about coping with complexity. You need to adopt the attitude that ``I will succeed, not only in spite of my limitations, but because of them.'' We get pretty full of ourselves in this city, imagining that we are running the world. But all the success our Nation achieves comes from the hard work, risk taking, and character of regular folks like Bob Sparboe, who achieve beyond their wildest dreams. His life was the American dream incarnate. We offer our condolences to his family and friends. And we are grateful to have had the privilege to know a person of such great character, drive and wisdom. Mr. President, I ask that the following statement from former United States Senator Rudolph E. Boschwitz be printed in the Record. The statement follows: Picture a young Bob Sparboe, just back from the Army, his head full of dreams, eager to start his own business eager to make his first deal, and there he was young Bob sitting across the desk from the banker in Litchfield, Minnesota. Bankers always appear in this kind of story as a scowling, unfriendly, bunch of fellows. Bob never commented about that, but he needed $1,400 for just 21 days. Scowl or not, the banker must have had some doubts. The normal borrower didn't come in for a 21-day loan. Bob eventually solved the problem by buying the bank-- something he never would have believed that day many years ago. He got the loan. He made the deal. And he paid the banker back on time. His head was full of dreams. And one of the endearing and enduring elements of Bob's life was that he never stopped dreaming. Ambition didn't fade as he aged. And he lived his ever-enlarging dreams to their fullest. Not only with regard to his business, but with his wonderful family as well. Not everybody knew Bob and I would occasionally introduce him as a man who had six million chickens laying eggs and doing so with regularity. Not too long ago, Bob corrected me to say with quiet pride, ``It is now twelve million, Rudy.'' Bob and I both admired Ronald Reagan and Reagan would often say, ``If you give people enough freedom and opportunity, ordinary people will achieve extraordinary things.'' Bob was such a person Bob proved Reagan right. Bob recognized what the promise of America had given him and it filled his heart with a deep and abiding love for this great country. It was in that way--through the political process-- that I met Bob and Deanna and other members of their family and the Sparboe Farms family as well. Some may believe that our country's greatness was achieved by politicians sitting in Washington or St. Paul and indeed it is their names that fill the history books. But they were not the builders. Their actions preserved and enhanced the opportunities and freedoms, but the builders of democracy are and were the Bob Sparboes of our country. People who had dreams. People who were willing to take risks--even for 21 days--and then never stopped dreaming and working full time to achieve those ever-enlarging dreams. So Bob will be missed not only by a very loving family, but America will miss Bob as well. We have lost not only a friend, a father, a husband and grandfather, but America has lost one of the finest builders of its greatness. One of its proudest sons. Bob Sparboe--an extraordinary life, an extraordinary example of the wonders of democracy.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to recognize an individual who has made a significant positive difference in U.S. agriculture, agribusiness, rural communities and cooperative enterprise. That individual is Land O'Lakes' President and Chief Executive Officer Jack Gherty, retiring after a 35-year career with the cooperative and 16 years as its President and CEO. During his tenure as CEO, Land O'Lakes was transformed from a regional to a national farmer-owned business and membership organization--giving producers a powerful presence in the marketplace and, from my experience, an equally powerful and positive voice in the policy arena. Jack Gherty's role in Land O'Lakes' transformation comes as no surprise, for agriculture, rural communities and cooperatives have always been close to his heart. Gherty grew up on his family's western Wisconsin dairy and livestock farm, in a close-knit rural community, where the local cooperative was at the center of agribusiness activity. He learned the importance of diligence and teamwork. He learned to value family, community and the land. And, he learned the important role farmer-owned businesses can play in helping preserve the integrity of family-based agriculture and rural communities. Jack carried these lessons with him when he left the farm in the mid- 1960s and earned business and law degrees from the University of Wisconsin. They were also part of his work in the late 1960s as a VISTA volunteer on the tough, poverty-stricken south side of Chicago. In 1970, Jack joined the Land O'Lakes law department. Over the next several years, he held a number of executive positions within the cooperative. In 1989, the board selected him to serve as Land O'Lakes' President and CEO. In this leadership role, Gherty continued to be driven by a strong set of personal values. He combined this with the belief that the most critical role a CEO must play is defining organizational culture, and he immediately began working with the board and his leadership team to set the foundation for Land O'Lakes' future--the organization's vision, mission and values. Over the past 16 years, Gherty's vision, mission and values have served Land O'Lakes and its members well. Not only has Land O'Lakes built business success while remaining true to its cooperative principles, the company has gained a reputation for uncompromising standards of ethics and integrity and has established a strong record of corporate social responsibility. As a Minnesotan, I am proud to count Land O'Lakes as a Minnesota- based company. I am proud of its ethics. I admire its contributions to the success of family-based agriculture and producer-owned agribusiness. I share its rural and family values. I applaud its commitment to community. I am equally proud of Jack Gherty's record as its leader and of the values that have shaped his career--and, in turn, the Land O'Lakes of today. A few years ago, Jack Gherty traveled here to Washington D.C. to speak at the 35th Anniversary celebration for VISTA. At that time he said, ``The most successful and satisfied people are not those who are out to make an impression, but rather those who are out to make a difference.'' Jack Gherty has made an impression by making a difference, and I am pleased to share his achievements with you today.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I support the intent of what my colleague from Oklahoma wants to do. He wants to clean up this system. We had a hearing on this issue last week. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations had a hearing on this issue, and we have questions out to the DOD, out to the GAO, and we have a commitment from the Under Secretary of Defense to work with us. I have said if we cannot get the right answers we should pull the plug, but now is not the time to pull the plug. We do oversight for a reason. We are in the process of oversight. Let us get answers to the questions, but clearly then we want to have the right kind of system. So I agree with the intent of what my colleague is trying to accomplish, but this is not the way to do it or the time to do it. Let us finish our investigative work. Let us get the answers, and then we can bring this issue up at another time.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, will my colleague from Michigan yield time? I wish to speak on this issue in support of it.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, there are many kinds of heroes in our world. Some create magnificent works of art which raise our spirits to nobler visions. Some make tremendous scientific discoveries which revolutionize our understanding and our use of nature for human good. Some reach unprecedented achievement by adventuring where humans have never been before. But today we are honoring the late Simon Wiesenthal, a different kind of hero who didn't achieve in the realm of beauty, science or adventure. His life achievement instead was to hold up to humanity the truth about one of its ugliest chapters. He faced what is worst in humankind, and triumphed over it. In almost every culture the concept of justice begins with finding the truth. Simon Wiesenthal was a principled and indefatigable pursuer of the truth of the Nazi holocaust. He was not content to let the stain of the Nazi murder of Jews and others to be washed away with the passage of time. He sought to document their acts so that they could be recorded forever. But his life's work went beyond finding the truth. He traveled the globe to make sure surviving members of the Third Reich were held accountable for their monstrous crimes. He summed up his life with the words ``Never forget. Never again.'' He made us recognize that the simple act of forgetting opened the door for the unthinkable to recur. World history tells us that every terrible evil starts small and grows to the point where it cannot be controlled except by extraordinary means and cost. Simon Wiesenthal's life teaches us to deal with anti-Semitism wherever it rears its head so that we don't allow it to grow into something we can no longer stop. He urged us not only to face the truth, but to act upon it. Centuries ago a Spanish Rabbi named Maimomedes said this: Each of us should view ourselves as if the world were held in balance and a single act of goodness may tip the scales. Simon Wiesenthal did countless acts of goodness and tipped the scales of world history and we honor him for that. But he also places a burden on all of us, for posterity's sake, to do our part, to raise our voices and to take action whenever we see hatred rear its head. We honor him best by devoting ourselves to the work of justice and action he accomplished.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled ``The Defense Travel System: Boon or Boondoggle?'' This Subcommittee hearing on the Department of Defense's (DOD) Defense Travel System (DTS) is part of its continuing investigation of DOD's travel policies and practices. The DTS was intended to be a seamless integrated computer-based travel system that would facilitate travel for DOD employees and lead to increased efficiency and substantial cost savings. However, reports by the DOD Inspector General, the DOD Program Analysis and Evaluation Division, the Government Accountability Office, The Corporate Solutions Group and Citizens Against Government Waste have questioned whether DTS is effective and provides a cost benefit to DOD. These reports indicate that DTS has cost more than was anticipated, has not been fully deployed, does not appear to be widely used, does not list all available airfares and may end up costing more than it has saved. The questions raised by these reports remain largely unanswered by DOD. The hearing will explore whether DTS can deliver on the increased efficiency and cost savings that were anticipated when the program was established. The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Thursday, September 2, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Raymond V. Shepherd, III, Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, at 224-3721.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friends Senators Lugar and Bingaman, today in submitting the National Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Awareness Week Resolution. Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) is a devastating lung disease affecting over 80,000 Americans with 31,000 more Americans diagnosed each year. IPF scars the lining of the lungs and makes it hard for oxygen to be transported to the rest of the body. It negatively affects the ability of major organs to function normally and impairs breathing. The National Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Resolution seeks to increase awareness, encourage further research, and support the goals of National Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Awareness Week. Until the day when every American can live a life free of lung disease, we must continue to promote awareness, and strengthen our investment in research, diagnosis and treatment. I urge my fellow colleagues to join me and Senators Lugar and Bingaman in raising awareness of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis by supporting the National Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Awareness Week Resolution.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the people of Minnesota I have taken the floor today to express our condolences to Rehnquist family for their loss and gratitude and admiration for his extraordinary life of service. The Midwest, where William Rehnquist was born, does not have the high mountains or the pounding ocean surf of other parts of the country. We learn from our geography the value of moderation and dependability. William Rehnquist was a solid human being whose consistency and resolve as a member of the Supreme Court benefited the whole country in turbulent times. The historian Whitehead has written that the essence of leadership is maintaining order in the midst of change, and change in the midst of order. William Rehnquist lived out the principle that both change and order are necessary in the law and he knew when we needed each. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist served America with great distinction on the Supreme Court for 33 years. His profound respect for the Constitution and his collegial relationships throughout the judiciary will be a standard for future justices. He knew that his role was more than deciding cases: it was to raise the knowledge of and respect for the rule of law. Mr. Rehnquist took his seat as an associate Supreme Court justice in 1972 after being appointed by President Richard Nixon, and became Chief Justice in 1986, during the Reagan administration. His opinions reflected a staunch adherence to the constitutional principle of State's rights. He also displayed an untiring willingness to work with his colleagues to find a compromise without minimizing his position. Chief Justice Rehnquist will be remembered as one of our most influential chief justices in history. As the Court's most junior justice, Rehnquist made state sovereignty his central principle of American constitutional law. At times, especially in those early years in 1973, he stood alone in his support of State sovereignty but continued this fight to the end of his time on the bench. Chief Justice Rehnquist succeeded in shifting the balance of power between States and the Federal government. The control and limitation of Federal control will always be a legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist. He protected the Constitution in his application of the law and took great pride in his protection of civil liberties and the importance of freedom and the democratic spirit in our Constitution. As Chief Justice, Mr. Rehnquist made his mark on the Court with grace in an environment where justices of varying opinions could express themselves free from personal attacks and or ideological stalemates. His was a Court of strong personalities who operated in profound respect for each other and the country gained from their wisdom and discourse. He was a great leader and effective administrator of the Supreme Court. I was personally touched by Chief Justice Rehnquist's determination and heroic passion to serve while battling cancer. As we often hear, we are a government of law and not men and women, and that is true. But our constitutional principles are not self enforcing. We depend on men and women of good hearts and sharp minds to steer us through difficult moments when the issues of the day collide with our Constitution of over 200 years of age. He was to the end a midwesterner: strong, reliable and devoted to the idea of leaving things better than he found them. The whole Nation, and future generations of Americans should be deeply grateful for the legacy he has left.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I rise to join Senator Levin in introducing the Tax Shelter and Tax Haven Reform Act of 2005. This bill addresses abusive tax shelters and offshore tax havens which allow tax evaders to avoid paying their fair share. These abuses increase the amount of taxes for everyone else. By increasing the penalty for these shelters, this legislation will do much to ensure that the public trust in our tax laws is restored. Two years ago, as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I held Subcommittee hearings on abusive tax shelters. It became clear to the Subcommittee that some tax avoidance schemes are clearly abusive. These abusive shelters relied on sham transactions with no financial or economic utility other than to manufacture tax benefits. Abusive tax shelters hurt the American people. For example, a recent IRS study estimates the Nation's ``tax gap''--the difference between the amount of taxes owed and the amount collected was $353 billion in 2001. The study also found that over 80 percent of the ``tax gap'' is due to taxpayers underreporting their taxes. This means that honest taxpayers are forced to pay more to make up for those taxpayers who dodge Uncle Sam. The use of abusive tax shelters exploded during the high-flying 1990s, when many firms were awash in cash and were more concerned with generating fees than remaining compliant with the code. The lure of millions of dollars in fees clearly played a role in the decision on the part of tax professionals to drive a Brinks truck through any purported tax loophole. Abusive tax shelters require accountants and financial advisors who develop and structure transactions to take advantage of loopholes in the tax code. Lawyers provide cookie cutter tax opinions deeming the transactions to be legal. Bankers provide loans with little or no credit risk, yet the amount of the loan creates a multi-million dollar tax loss. This became a game. Reputable professionals were able to earn huge profits by providing services that offered a ``veneer of legitimacy'' to the transactions. The parties involved were careful to hide the transactions from IRS detection by failing to register and failing to provide lists of clients who used the transactions to the IRS. It was clear to the Subcommittee that the promoters of these tax shelters failed to register transactions with the IRS partly because the penalties for failing to register were so low compared to the expected profits. In other words, the risk-benefit ratio was entirely lopsided in the favor of the promoters. This bill will end this advantage and will strengthen the enforcement tools that are at Uncle Sam's disposal. Current law provides for penalties that amount to 50 percent of the gains of those who market, plan, implement and sell sham tax shelters to individuals and corporations. However, I agree with my esteemed colleague, Senator Levin, that even stronger penalties are needed. The provision to substantially increase penalties to the promoters and aiders and abettors who manufacture and implement these sham transactions so that they must give back more than just half of their ill-gotten gains is vital to restoring the integrity of our tax laws and deterring future tax avoidance. This is not a victimless crime. It is not the government that loses the money. It is working moms and dads who bear the brunt of lost revenue so that a handful of lawyers, accountants, investment advisors, bankers and their clients can manipulate legitimate business practices to make a profit. We need to give honest, hard working Americans a better deal--by cracking down on those who choose not to pay their fair share of taxes. This bill is a step in the right direction.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I rise to join Senator Levin in introducing the Tax Shelter and Tax Haven Reform Act of 2005. This bill addresses abusive tax shelters and offshore tax havens which allow tax evaders to avoid paying their fair share. These abuses increase the amount of taxes for everyone else. By increasing the penalty for these shelters, this legislation will do much to ensure that the public trust in our tax laws is restored. Two years ago, as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I held Subcommittee hearings on abusive tax shelters. It became clear to the Subcommittee that some tax avoidance schemes are clearly abusive. These abusive shelters relied on sham transactions with no financial or economic utility other than to manufacture tax benefits. Abusive tax shelters hurt the American people. For example, a recent IRS study estimates the Nation's ``tax gap''--the difference between the amount of taxes owed and the amount collected was $353 billion in 2001. The study also found that over 80 percent of the ``tax gap'' is due to taxpayers underreporting their taxes. This means that honest taxpayers are forced to pay more to make up for those taxpayers who dodge Uncle Sam. The use of abusive tax shelters exploded during the high-flying 1990s, when many firms were awash in cash and were more concerned with generating fees than remaining compliant with the code. The lure of millions of dollars in fees clearly played a role in the decision on the part of tax professionals to drive a Brinks truck through any purported tax loophole. Abusive tax shelters require accountants and financial advisors who develop and structure transactions to take advantage of loopholes in the tax code. Lawyers provide cookie cutter tax opinions deeming the transactions to be legal. Bankers provide loans with little or no credit risk, yet the amount of the loan creates a multi-million dollar tax loss. This became a game. Reputable professionals were able to earn huge profits by providing services that offered a ``veneer of legitimacy'' to the transactions. The parties involved were careful to hide the transactions from IRS detection by failing to register and failing to provide lists of clients who used the transactions to the IRS. It was clear to the Subcommittee that the promoters of these tax shelters failed to register transactions with the IRS partly because the penalties for failing to register were so low compared to the expected profits. In other words, the risk-benefit ratio was entirely lopsided in the favor of the promoters. This bill will end this advantage and will strengthen the enforcement tools that are at Uncle Sam's disposal. Current law provides for penalties that amount to 50 percent of the gains of those who market, plan, implement and sell sham tax shelters to individuals and corporations. However, I agree with my esteemed colleague, Senator Levin, that even stronger penalties are needed. The provision to substantially increase penalties to the promoters and aiders and abettors who manufacture and implement these sham transactions so that they must give back more than just half of their ill-gotten gains is vital to restoring the integrity of our tax laws and deterring future tax avoidance. This is not a victimless crime. It is not the government that loses the money. It is working moms and dads who bear the brunt of lost revenue so that a handful of lawyers, accountants, investment advisors, bankers and their clients can manipulate legitimate business practices to make a profit. We need to give honest, hard working Americans a better deal--by cracking down on those who choose not to pay their fair share of taxes. This bill is a step in the right direction.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. In closing, I thank Eyan and all of the Boy Scouts of America for their service not only to God and country, but also to their homes and committees.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to welcome over 30,000 young men to Washington D.C. for the 2005 National Boy Scout of America Jamboree. I would also like to give my sincerest condolences to the families of the four Boy Scout leaders who were tragically killed Monday afternoon in an accident while setting up camp. Occurring every 4 years, the national jamboree is one of Scouting's grandest traditions. It is a chance for thousands of young men to come together and celebrate our shared values and traditions as Americans. In a world that too often celebrates our differences, the National Boy Scout Jamboree is a unique opportunity to celebrate the qualities we all share as Americans. It is also a chance for these young men to visit our Nation's Capital to be inspired by the monuments, to learn from our Nation's artifacts, and to see democracy in action. To those of us who work in Washington it is sometimes easy to forget just how amazing it is that a place like this, where free men can gather, debate, and decide their own fates, even exists. I was recently reminded of the significance of Washington by a young boy scout from Plymouth, MN, named Eyan R. Lason. In anticipation of his trip to the National Boy Scout Jamboree this week, Eyan wrote an essay on what the trip and Washington mean to him. Eyan did not write his essay as a requirement or to win a prize. In fact, until the other day Eyan didn't even know that I had read his essay. No, Eyan wrote his essay because he has a true appreciation for the values and spirit that this city represents. Eyan began his essay by describing his trip as ``A journey back to where America was made, an expedition to see and feel everything that this country was based on, and is destined to become.'' Eyan is right. During his time here in Washington he will see our Nation's values. But he would not find them in the architecture of our buildings, or the history on display in the Smithsonian. No, Eyan will find our Nation's values in the hearts of his fellow Scouts. These young men represent the heart and soul of the American people. They know that courage is not the absence of fear, but strength and capacity to go ahead in spite of fear. They understand that you can not have justice for one without justice for all. They believe in the equality of opportunity, not results. And they know that freedom is not free. Boy Scouts are our friends and family, but as Eyan's letter shows us, they are also our role models and leaders. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Eyan R. Lason's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, on July 14 the United Nations' Working Group on Internet Governance, WGIG, issued its final report. WGIG was formed following the December 2003 U.N. World Summit on Information Policy with the intention of simply developing a consensus definition for ``intent governance'' and identifying relevant public policy issues. Ultimately the task force exceeded its mandate and laid out four policy recommendations for the future of Internet governance. One unifying theme for all these options is that there should be ``a further internationalization of Internet governance arrangements'' because of WGIG's belief that ``no single government should have a pre- eminent role in relation to international Internet governance''. In other words, this U.N. task force report suggests that the historic role of the United States in overseeing the Internet's growth and shepherding its development should be terminated and that Internet governance should be politicized under U.N. auspices. The most extreme of the options laid out by the WGIG would transfer the authority and functions of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN, a respected nonprofit organization which is currently overseen by the U.S. Department of Commerce, to a new body linked to and controlled by the United Nations. This would put international bureaucrats in charge of the Internet and relegate the private sector to a mere advisory role. And it raises the very troubling possibility that the United States would have no more say over the future of the Internet than Cuba or China. I am firmly opposed to any proposal to hand control of Internet governance over to the United Nations. The continuing investigation of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations into the scandal-ridden Oil-for-Food program has revealed management of the U.N. to have been at best incompetent and at worst corrupt. Any suggestion for a greater U.N. role over the Internet is hopelessly premature. The first priority for the United Nations must be fundamental reform of U.N. management and operations rather than any expansion of its authority and responsibilities. The Internet was created in the United States and has flourished under U.S. supervision and oversight. The United States' fair and lighthanded role in Internet governance has assured security and reliability. While the roots of the Internet lie in the ARPANet project launched by the Department of Defense in 1969, the true birth of the modern Internet began 10 years ago, in 1995, when the National Science Foundation opened the Internet to commerce, and the Netscape browser became available so that the general public could ``surf'' the World Wide Web. The explosive and hugely beneficial growth of the Internet over the past decade did not result from increased Government involvement but, to the contrary, from the opening of the Internet to commerce and private sector innovation. Subjecting the Internet to the politicized control of the U.N. bureaucracy would be a giant and foolhardy step backwards. The Internet today is an unprecedented and tremendously beneficial avenue for the free flow of information and commerce. Why would we want to even consider turning any degree of Internet control over to a politicized and failure- prone multinational bureaucracy that cannot possibly move at ``Net speed''? Some of the nations involved in the WGIG deliberations have established pervasive Internet censorship and monitoring systems to suppress the ability of their citizens to access the truth, and to stifle legitimate political discussion and dissent. Others maintain a state monopoly over telecommunications services, or subject them to excessive taxation and regulation. Allowing such nations a voice in fundamental Internet governance would be dangerous and imprudent. The WGIG report also contemplates an expanded U.N. role on cybersecurity matters. This is also deeply troubling. We simply cannot risk a disruption of the information economy by cyberterrorists. One thing we have learned at the start of the 21st century is that some organized groups hate democracy and wish to inflict grave injury upon the people and economies of freedom-loving nations. It would be naive and foolhardy if we did not assume that some of the individuals active in these terrorist organizations possess the technical expertise to plan and execute crippling attacks on the Internet, and that they are pondering how to crash the net with the same diligence that Osama bin Laden gave to bringing down the World Trade Center. The Internet assumes greater economic importance with each passing year, both in the value of the commerce it facilitates as well as the functions it performs. Today, for example, traditional telephone service is making a rapid migration from dedicated proprietary circuits to Voice Over Internet Protocol, VOIP. It is true that the Internet was designed to be resilient against outside attacks, as ARPANet was conceived as a communications system that could survive the exchange of nuclear weapons. But we have learned in recent years that the greatest threats to Internet security are generated from within. The vital national security interests of the United States and our allies demand that we maintain an Internet governance regime capable of taking effective preventive measures against any attack that could wreak havoc upon us. The continued assurance of competent and depoliticized Internet governance is clearly a matter of strategic importance to the security of the United States and to the entire world economy. I was therefore pleased that the Bush administration announced on June 30 that the United States would maintain its historic role over the Internet's master ``root'' file that lists all authorized top-level domains. The U.S. Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System issued last month are: (1) The U.S. Government will preserve the security and stability of the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System, DNS. It will take no action with the potential to adversely affect the effective and efficient operation of the DNS. (2) Governments have a legitimate interest in the management of their own country code top level domains (ccTLD). The U.S. will work with the international community to address these concerns in a manner consistent with Internet stability and security. (3) ICANN is the appropriate technical manager of the Internet DNS. The U.S. will continue to provide oversight so that ICANN maintains its focus and meets its core technical mission. (4) Dialogue related to Internet governance should continue in relevant multiple fora. The U.S. will encourage an ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders around the world, and in the ensuing discussions the U.S. will continue to support market-based approaches and private sector leadership in the Internet's further development. I applaud President Bush for clearly and forcefully asserting that the U.S. has no present intention of relinquishing the historic leading role it has played in Internet governance, and for articulating a vision of the Internet's future that places privatization over politicization. At the same time the administration has recognized the need for a continuing and constructive dialogue with the world community on the future of Internet governance. I intend to closely monitor further U.N. actions in this area, especially the upcoming November meeting of the World Summit on the Information Society, WSIS, in Tunisia. I also plan to consult with experts and stakeholders regarding Internet governance, and will assess whether a legislative approach is needed to ensure the principles laid out by the administration remain the basis of discussion on this critical issue. The growth of the Internet over the past decade, under the leadership and supervision of the United States, has been extraordinary. Over the next decade we can expect to see the global population with Internet access grow far beyond the 1 billion persons who presently enjoy that ability. The population of the developing world deserves the access to knowledge, services, commerce, and communication that the Internet can provide, along with the accompanying benefits to economic development, education, health care, and the informed discussion that is the bedrock of democratic self-government. Inserting the United Nations into Internet governance would be a dangerous detour likely to hinder, if not cripple, the fulfillment of the full promise of the most dynamic and important communications infrastructure in all of human history. We simply cannot afford the delay and diversion that would result from such an unfortunate deviation from the path that has brought the Internet to its present and almost miraculous state of success.