Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to address the pending measure, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act. I was proud to join the bipartisan efforts in the Senate to bring this important legislation to conference. This bill is important to me and to the people of Minnesota because it helps make our State and our Nation more competitive in a world market, which can be pretty rough and tumble. That said, however, I am equally opposed to the extension of permanent normal trade relations to Laos, a provision slipped into this trade bill in conference committee, notwithstanding the fact that neither the Senate nor the other body voted to include this provision in their respective versions of the bill. The Laos trade provision was not included in the underlying bill moving through the regular process because, as the saying goes, ``there are some things no amount of sunshine can disinfect.'' That is an apt way to describe the terrible human rights record of Laos. If the United States were to ever extend normal trade relations to Laos under that country's current human rights conditions, it could only be done in this way--without either body addressing the issue head on. It could only be tacked onto a popular piece of legislation that was not amendable, as was the case with the conference committee report, allowing this otherwise unacceptable provision to get a free ride without the scrutiny it deserves. This provision did not emanate from the Senate negotiators but from the negotiators in the other body. I commend Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus, two good friends, for whom I have the greatest respect, for all the hard work they put into the underlying bill. It is a good bill. But because the bill wound up with this Laos trade provision on it, I was put in the position of having to oppose invoking cloture on the bill, a vote I took earlier today. This is the first time as a Senator I opposed cloture. I did not take this position lightly. I have seen too much good legislation in the Senate die not because it didn't have majority support, but because it could not get a simple up-or-down vote. My vote earlier today was also not easy because I strongly support trade. Minnesota is the seventh largest agricultural export State in the Nation, and twelfth in overall exports. Trade is good for America and for Minnesota. Frankly, opposing normalized trade with a country is a tough call, even when trade with that country is of nominal value to the United States, as is the case with Laos. But frankly, there are just some times where the actions of an unapologetic nation are so egregious that is is morally wrong to move forward on trade liberalization with that nation because if would effectively place the imprimatur of the United States on those actions. The actions of Laos rise to this level. I know we will not be able to stop this Laos trade provision today with it being attached to a bill that enjoys such overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. But I am pleased that a resolution I introduced condemning Laos for its human rights abuses will be taken up by the United States Senate today. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feingold, Kohl, and Dayton on this resolution, and I appreciate the assistance of Chairmen Lugar and Grassley, Senators Baucus and Biden as well as the majority leader in helping to work out this very important and very strong resolution. Our resolution essentially says to Laos, you have now got normal trade relations with the United States, now, shape up and rise to that very basic level of human decency expected around the civilized world by today's standards--and probably achieved by most of us in the Dark Ages. Laos is a Communist nation with a disturbing human rights record, particularly with regard to its treatment of ethnic minorities. Laos is home to an ethnic minority, the Hmong. The Hmong are a brave and freedom-loving people. During the Vietnam War, thousands of Hmong aided American soldiers. The CIA trained and armed approximately 60,000 Hmong guerrillas to disrupt View Cong supply lines and rescue downed pilots during the Vietnam War. They served admirably and saved American lives. When Laos fell to the Communists in 1975, the government began to systematically persecute these people, in retaliation for their support of our soldiers and their rejection of communism. Tens of thousands of Hmong were able to flee difficult conditions in Laos, and many have resettled in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and California where they are hard- working, important members of our communities. In fact, this year the U.S. is welcoming another 15,000 Hmong refuges who fear returning to Laos from their camp in Thailand. Thousands of Hmong remain in Laos, however, and fear for their lives daily. The Lao Government continues to employ ruthless tactics against them. Amnesty International has accused the government of Laos of using starvation as a ``weapon of war against civilians.'' More recent reports--and even grotesque video footage--suggest the rapes and killings of several young Hmong girls at the hands of Lao soldiers. Let me give you an example from my State. A constituent of mine, a Lutheran Minister from St. Paul who is Hmong, traveled to Laos last year to translate for two European journalists who were investigating human rights in Laos. During their trip, Reverend Mua and his associates were arrested by the Lao police on suspicion of murder. He was denied consular access for over a week and subjected to a 1-day show trial, after which he was convicted for 15 years in prison. Although he was eventually released after more than a month in captivity--thanks to the hard work of our American diplomats in VientianeReverend Mua's case is one more illustration of the Lao govenment's disregard for human rights and due process, as well as its apparent discrimination against this ethnic minority. The State Department's Human Rights Report on Laos catalogues the many failings of this regime with regard to human rights. Permit me to share some key findings of this report: The Government's human rights record remained poor, and it continued to commit serious abuses . . . Members of the security forces abused detainees, especially those suspected of insurgent or anti-govenment activity . . . Police used arbitrary arrest, detention, and surveillance . . . The Government infringed on citizens' privacy rights and restricted freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and association. . . . The Government restricted some worker rights. Trafficking in women and children was a problem. The report goes on and on. According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom: There continue to be serious religious freedom problems in Laos. The government interferes with and restricts the activities of all religious communities . . . Now the Commission does note some recent improvement by the Lao government. Nevertheless, ``Lao officials, primarily those at the provincial and local levels, have continued to harass, detain, and arrest individuals reportedly for participating in certain religious activities.'' Bear in mind that this state of affairs--harassment, detention and incarceration for one's religious convictions--is apparently an improvement over the Lao Government's performance of last year. My office has received troubling reports from Laos about shocking behavior on the part of the Lao military toward the Hmong minority. As I have mentioned, a new video documents alleged rapes and murders of a number of young Hmong girls. The Lao Government, not surprisingly, has disputed these reports. But the areas in which these atrocities appear to have been committed are not open to outside observation. Outside groups are not allowed to enter these communities to verify--or even dispute--these allegations. The Lao Government certainly has acted as though it has something to hide. This United States is not alone in our concern. In August 2003 the United Nations Committee to Eliminate Racial Discrimination ``deeply regretted that the Lao People's Democratic Republic had failed to honor its obligations . . . expressed its grave concern at the information it had received of serious and repeated human rights violations in that country; was extremely disturbed to learn that some members of the Hmong minority had been subjected to serve brutalities;'' and, ``deplored the measures taken by the Lao authorities to prevent the reporting of any information concerning the situation of the Hmong people . . .'' Finally, they say you can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps. Let us then consider the government of Laos, which counts among its closest friends such nations as North Korea and Burma. Last year Laotian representatives met with representatives of North Korea where, according to the BBC, ``both sides . . . exchanged views on the need to boost cooperation . . . (in) talks (that) proceeded in a friendly atmosphere.'' And according to the Vietnam News Agency and other sources, in May of last year, ``Top leaders of Myanmar and Laos . . . expressed their delight with the two countries' growing friendship and highly valued the mutual assistance and successful cooperation in the spheres of politics, security, economy, trade and socio-culture.'' I am sure I do not need to remind the members of this body that North Korea is a charter member of the ``axis of evil,'' nor need I recall that this very body has voted twice in the last two years to impose sanctions against Burma. A country that seeks to boost ``friendly'' cooperation with North Korea and delights in its ``growing friendship'' with Burma ought to give us some pause, some opportunity to examine this normalized trade relationship, giving us an opportunity to vote against it rather than putting it in a bill we all know will pass. I believe in trade. I believe it helps the people in my state, and that it can help to create a more inter-connected and ultimately more peaceful world. But I am wary about the signals we send by extending permanent normal trade relations to a nation with such an abysmal human rights record. The timing is particularly troublesome, coming as it does on the heels of such highly disturbing reports. I wish we had an opportunity to debate this issue on its face. I wish we had a chance to hold a hearing on trade with Laos, or to debate it as part of an amendable piece of legislation. My colleagues in the other body also wish they had been afforded the opportunities, or even been advised of the inclusion of the Laos measure in what is otherwise a very popular bill. I will be watching Laos closely and if progress is not made, expect to revisit this issue. I know my colleague, Senator Feingold, will expect to revisit the issue. This is a bipartisan issue. Finally, let me say, 99 percent of this bill is good for the country and good for Minnesota. My home State has a strong tradition in support of trade, and normally the underlying bill would be a slam-dunk back home. But Minnesota also has a strong tradition of respect for human rights and the culture of life, and at least with this Senator, and with respect to this extremely egregious case, the human rights and the culture of life must be the first consideration. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Feingold for his leadership on this issue, for his perseverance, persistence and being on the floor, as we discuss the miscellaneous tariff provisions, to make sure that, before we finish our work, we put forth a resolution reflecting the sense of this body that there are problems with human rights in Laos. They have to be recognized. That is what this resolution does. I thank Senator Feingold. I thank my colleague, Senator Dayton, who has been working with us, and Senator Kohl. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the adoption of the resolution relating to Laotian human rights, which I will send to the desk in a moment, that the pending conference report to accompany H.R. 1047 be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, that the preamble be agreed to, that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, as we contemplate reforms to better equip us to prevent and fight terrorism, I hope we will bear in mind the importance of the Western Hemisphere. As chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, I am encouraged by the opportunities we have to work cooperatively with our regional neighbors on issues we all can benefit from. We have shared interests in promoting democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. We are stronger when we stand together as a hemisphere against terrorism, money laundering, and the trafficking of drugs, weapons, and people. Our greatest asset in the war on terror in Latin America and the Caribbean is the fact that we have so many willing partners throughout the region who share our values. I recently came across an interesting study, written by Michael Johnson of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, that discusses the threat of international terrorist groups in the Triborder region of Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina. I hope my colleagues will read this study and reflect upon the importance of addressing terrorism wherever it exists around the world. I ask unanimous consent that study be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the situation in the war on terror. I listened to the debate last night, and I heard the candidate from the other side of the aisle talk about what a mess things were, how terrible everything was, how terrible things are in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is on the verge of having elections. Ten million Afghanis have registered to vote in spite of threats. The Vice President made a compelling case talking about El Salvador. People thought that democracy would never flourish. Yet because of the desire for democracy and the opportunity to vote, we have seen matters turn around. I had the opportunity to be with the President of El Salvador and the Presidents of other Central American countries at a breakfast. We have democracy in Central America. The lure of democracy is so powerful. I was listening to the distinguished minority leader, and he made references to the Great Depression, references to the economic situation today in analogy to the Great Depression. The President has made it clear: As long as any American does not have employment, we have to do better. But the reality is so far from the Great Depression. Some people must walk around and see us surrounded in darkness. In 1996, when Bill Clinton was running for reelection, the January to August average unemployment at this time, where we stand today, was 5.5 percent. It is 5.6 percent today. The unemployment rate for African Americans during that same period, the first- term average of President Clinton was 11.3 percent. It is 9.9 percent today. The unemployment rate for Hispanics during the first term of President Clinton was 9.7 percent. It is 7.2 percent today. America's standard of living is on the rise. Real after-tax incomes are up nearly 10 percent since December 2000, substantially better than the comparable time period in the previous business cycle. Consumer confidence continues to be substantially high. The national home ownership rate was at an alltime high. Minority ownership has set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter and is up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. Core inflation remains low. Mortgage rates remain at historic lows. There are challenges in this economy, but to draw a comparison to the Great Depression is a little excessive. The reality is, we do have things to do. But I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Set us free. Let's get an energy bill passed, an energy bill that had 44 Republicans voting for it, 13 Democrats. The reality is that if the minority leader wanted to get this done, it could get done. I represent the State of Minnesota. We are neighbors of the folks in South Dakota. I know they want an energy bill. Within that energy bill is a renewable fuels standards that would double the production of ethanol and will bring to life the soybean biodiesel industry, a great opportunity for our communities. If you want to grow jobs, get an energy bill passed. Give us the number of votes we need to get through cloture. Let us have class action reform. We came within a few votes of getting that done. You want to grow jobs, talk to the manufacturers in this country, talk to the small business people. They will tell you what they need. They need class action reform. Our friends on the other side won't give it to us. We need asbestos reform. We need medical malpractice reform. We couldn't even get welfare reform done. Again, those on the other side of the aisle were filibustering, saying: We will not allow it to happen. There is no work requirement today in welfare, if the welfare reform change that was previously passed expires. We have a lot of work to do. There is a plan and a vision out there. The vision is to make American business competitive with businesses all over the world. We do that by cutting taxes. We don't do that by raising the tax on small businesses, many of which are subchapter S corporations or sole proprietorships that pay taxes at the rate of the highest level. They pay more than large corporations pay. Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about rolling back that tax cut, which would have a devastating effect on small business. In Minnesota we sometimes talk about the Scandinavian who loved his wife so much he almost told her. As I listened to the distinguished minority leader, I got this sense that folks care so much they will almost do something. We have a path to do something. It lies through an energy bill. It lies through medical malpractice reform. It lies through class action reform. It lies through getting the FSC/ETI JOBS bill through. Right now American manufacturers are paying a double-digit tax, in effect, because of a WTO violation. We can lower that. We can change it. Instead, we find it blocked. No, it is not the Great Depression. There is more work to be done. There is a path, but the path doesn't lie with obstruction. I know the people of Minnesota and of South Dakota need an energy bill, and they want one. In the last few minutes I have, because I want to give some time to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Pennsylvania, I want to talk a little about what is happening in the war on terror and in Iraq. This week, the forces of freedom won a major battle. We reclaimed the city of Samarra. We reclaimed it by working with the 5,000-member joint force of Americans and Iraqis liberating that city from insurgents and foreign fighters. The fact is that we are not out there by ourselves, and the reality is that we need the Iraqis to step forward, and they are doing so. Yet the Prime Minister of Iraq came here and addressed a joint session of this body and the House. He then was disparaged by the Democratic nominee for President; the Iraqi sacrifice was disparaged. Last night, we heard the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate simply dismiss the sacrifice of our strongest ally. We are not in this alone. We are not going to win it alone. But we can win it. We are not going to win it if we take an attitude that it is simply a diversion, if we take an attitude that things are so messed up that nothing will come together. We are not going to win it with folks who don't have the resolve to see this through or have the consistency to say, yes, it is a good thing that Saddam is no longer in power. We are not going to win by dismissing the contributions of our allies--the Polish, the English, the Italians, the Salvadorans, and on and on. We are not going to win it if we dismiss the sacrifice of the Iraqi people. We need them to step forward. We saw in Samarra what happens when you come together: You can liberate a city from insurgents. Mr. President, we have a lot of work to do. The situation is not perfect, but we can get it done with the leadership of this President. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I express my deep gratitude for the kind words of the Senator from Maine and my gratitude for the incredible work she and the Senator from Connecticut did in pulling us together in doing a series of hearings--I believe eight--with countless hours of testimony, a very thorough review of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and then an analysis of how do we take those recommendations and somehow move forward in a way that improves, increases the level of safety and security in this great country of ours. That was the challenge and it certainly is a challenge. I think the chairman has been challenged with drafting a bill that represents a kind of balance here between ambitious reform of our intelligence services and the continuity of the existing intelligence assets we rely upon to keep our country safe. There was discussion during the hearings about the nature of change and some of the challenges of concern--a concern that if we are to make changes, is that going to make us more vulnerable during that period of time. There was great thought that went into the balance we see in this bill: The balance between the creation of a powerful national intelligence director, on the one hand, and this concept of departmental autonomy on the other; and the right balance between centralization of the information sharing and the balance of civil liberties we cherish as Americans. How do you provide those protections without undermining the ability to do the hard work that has to be done in intelligence, and that keeps up the morale of those on the front lines every day making us safer--folks who, in many ways, are simply unknown; we will never know who they are. At one of our hearings, which was classified, even the name of the witness was classified. I sat there as a relatively new Member of the Senate listening to the incredible work that is going on day to day to keep our country safe. I was struck by that, and I am deeply committed to making sure as we move forward in reform that we keep the morale up and the appreciation up, that we strike the right kind of balance. After hours of hearings and countless study, I believe the bill drafted by the chair and ranking member represents the kind of balance we need. Today and tomorrow, we are going to vote on a number of amendments that would unravel this carefully constructed balance by weakening the national intelligence director. I urge my colleagues to oppose any such efforts to undermine this balance. I agree with the sponsors of these amendments that it is vitally important soldiers in combat get timely, accurate information that is relevant to their immediate needs. I also agree the military chain of command needs to be respected. However, I disagree on their interpretation of how the Collins-Lieberman bill would affect the armed services. Last week, we debated and voted on an amendment that would have effectively removed several intelligence agencies from the Defense Department. We defeated the amendment because a strong majority of the body thought, as I do, that the Department of Defense needs to retain its combat support relationship with such agencies as the National Security Agency and National Reconnaissance Office. I think that vote reflects the importance we attach to the Department's role in intelligence. The central finding of the 9/11 Commission was that prior to 2001, the safety of Americans was substantially weakened by the absence of a strong entity to make sure that the use of intelligence assets reflected national priorities and that the intelligence gathered was shared with officials who needed it, even if those officials were located in different agencies. I note that the Chair, on a number of occasions, talked about a George Tenet memo in 1998, where he declared war on al-Qaida and nobody knew about it. There were agencies throughout Government that never got this declaration of war from the head of the CIA. As the Commission put it, no one was in charge. As I say that, I do want to say, having listened to the testimony, today we have a new level of cooperation and collaboration between those involved in intelligence gathering. And because of that new level of cooperation and collaboration, we are moving forward and this country is safer today than it was on 9/11. But the reality of the case is that with no one in charge, institutional silos arose to prevent important pieces of information from being collected into an overall threat assessment that might have alerted officials to the danger we faced. So it is clear to me, and as recommended in this bill, we need a strong national intelligence director, strong enough to enforce common policies throughout the intelligence community whenever and wherever intelligence collected by one agency might be useful to another. We do not need a mere coordinator. That is what we have now; we have a coordinator. We need someone who can focus resources and attention on the most vital threats, national priorities. That person can only succeed if we give him or her the strong powers they need over the budget and personnel. I have heard members point out that the 9/11 Commission did not point to any institutional policy that prevented the sharing of information. The argument is, if we can do all this today, why do we have to make institutional change? They argue the problem is due to individuals who failed to perform their jobs by failing to convey information they were supposed to share. It is true that the commission's report discusses several specific instances of this type of bureaucratic behavior, and in the end things that should have been done were not done, none of which seem to have led to disciplinary action. Nevertheless, there were policies such as the wall between domestic and foreign intelligence that inhibited the full sharing of information. But even that is not quite the full story. It is my belief such insular behavior will always exist, unless and until we have a strong national intelligence director who can effectively enforce common information policies. That is what the Collins-Lieberman bill creates. That is why keeping these powers is so important. In the committee markup, the Senator from Michigan pointed out instances where language could have been made clearer. I agree with him that clearer lines of authority are important. But I fear that the amendments being offered today are not mere clarifications but, rather, represent a fundamental tip in the balance and will result in erosion of the power of the NID. I believe the Department of Defense will have a strong role in the new intelligence constructs that the Collins-Lieberman bill creates. The DOD will retain full authority over tactical intelligence. It will have a seat at both the National Counterterrorism Center and the Joint Intelligence Community Council to argue for institutional interests and ensure that its needs are met. The bill also leaves direct, day-to-day command of the Department of Defense intelligence agencies with the DOD. Most of the staff of the intelligence agencies will remain uniformed service men and women. The Department will remain the intelligence community's largest consumer of information. The Secretary of Defense will remain one of the most senior members of the Cabinet, with close communication with the President. If we are going to create a NID with actual clout when it comes to enforcing common intelligence standards, the NID must have the ability to transfer funds and personnel within the intelligence community. Witness after witness came before us and said: With budget authority, there is power. Whoever controls the purse has power. We understand that in this body. He or she must be able to move assets where they are needed most and ensure full compliance with communitywide requirements. The chairman of the 9/11 Commission has admonished Congress, saying, ``If you are not going to create a NID who has the powers of budget and appointment, don't do it.'' These powers are necessary to ensure that intelligence gathered by intelligence agencies reflects national priorities and is shared among all parts of the Government that need it. The Collins-Lieberman bill gives the national intelligence director a number of important powers. He is supposed to develop common policies of personnel, budget practices, information networks, security classifications, and communication systems. If we want him to succeed in these tasks, we must also give him or her the powers to accomplish them. This body voted last week to retain day-to-day control of the Defense intelligence services with the DOD, and I supported that sentiment. But since the NID will not have direct day-to-day control, it is even more important that he have the ability to transfer money and personnel. We all know that bureaucracies have a natural tendency to resist change. So the question is, Will the national intelligence director be able to enforce his policies in the face of the inertia that normally characterizes existing agencies? Not unless everybody knows he is in charge of the resources and has the power to shift them according to agency performance and his evaluation of needs. The bill contains numerous provisions to ensure that this power is used responsibly. We make it clear that only the national intelligence director can make these transfers of resources and personnel. We also retain Congress's authority to approve transfers before they occur. That way, it will be clear who is responsible for them and who will have to justify them. We create the joint intelligence community council made up of the users of intelligence, including the Secretary of Defense, to advise and evaluate the national intelligence director. We require the NID to notify Congress, including the Committee on Armed Services, whenever there are transfers of personnel to or from the Department of Defense. In light of these protections, it is extremely unlikely that the intelligence community will fail to support our armed services. In fact, it is stronger than that. It simply is not going to happen. We have set in place the kind of measures, the kind of safeguards, the kind of oversight, the kind coordination that will ensure the needs of the armed services are met. The intelligence needs of the armed services will be met. Another amendment would remove the section of the bill that would disclose the total funding for intelligence. I must respectfully disagree with those who believe this disclosure will harm our national security. Again, this was an issue in which we had very clear testimony before the committee. By the way, after all, reliable estimates of this number already appear in the trade press. Moreover, the 9/11 Commission recommended going further. They wanted to disclose the totals for each agency. But here we have a balance. In our history as a nation, we have found the benefits of disclosure usually outweigh the costs. What we have in the way of disclosure makes policymakers accountable to their actions. But again, we have struck a balance. I note in his testimony before the committee last month, then-acting CIA Director John McLaughlin agreed that declassification of the top line figure would make sense. He testified: It reinforces responsibility and accountability on those receiving the money, because you can see whether it's going up, down, or so forth. . . . It also does the same thing for Congress. . . . I don't think declassifying the top line would be a major security threat. Given all this, it is difficult for me to believe that disclosure would weaken our safety in any meaningful way. It would, however, lead to more open debate about how much we need to spend to keep America safe, and I think that is a good thing. There are also proposals to exempt military personnel from the national intelligence director's transfer, detail, and assignment authority. I can understand the desire to maintain the military chain of command, but if we want the national intelligence director to develop and enforce common intelligence policies even in the face of agency silos, then he or she is going to need to draft his or her own players and make sure they are playing on the same team. When the national intelligence director transfers a soldier out of an intelligence agency, that soldier returns to the Armed Forces where he or she will be, once again, safely in the chain of command. But as long as they remain in the intelligence community, they are responsible for meeting the needs of the entire community, not just the Department of Defense, and that is why that individual must have the confidence of the national intelligence director. There is a second reason for keeping personnel authority in the national intelligence director. We all agree on the creation of a National Counter-ter-rorism Center--there has not been a lot of debate over that--and intelligence centers that represent other national priorities. We mean for these centers to contain the best people from each agency. Assuming, for example, that the National Count-er-ter- rorism Center consists of the best terrorism experts from each element of the intelligence community, it makes sense for it to be the forum for negotiating common policies and planning joint operations. But in order to prevent each agency from creating its own counterterrorism unit and sending the NCTC only junior workers or workers sitting out their final years until retirement, the national intelligence director must have the power to bring the best and the brightest to the National Counter-ter-rorism Center. I note that the Chair talked about her visit to the current TTIC, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, the forerunner of the NCTC. She noticed how young some of the personnel there were. At this stage in time, it is not seen as the best place to be, but with a strong national intelligence director and a clear National Counterterrorism Center, we want the best and the brightest, and the national intelligence director should have the right to bring those people to the table to work with him or her. Finally, we will vote on amendments that would take one agency or another out of the definition of ``national intelligence program'' and thereby move their budgets away from the national intelligence director's authority and back under the Defense Secretary's authority. This might be wise if we make the Secretary of Defense responsible for enforcing common intelligence policies and meeting the intelligence needs of the entire Government, but in that case we would not need a national intelligence director. In that case, we ought to also transfer the CIA into Defense. On the other hand, if we want a strong coordinator of intelligence and we do not want that person to be the Secretary of Defense, then the national intelligence director must have the budget power over all parts of the intelligence community that service common needs. It simply would not make sense to break agencies, such as the NSA or NRO, up into pieces depending on whether this program or that fell into the national intelligence program. They should either be part of a coordinated approach to intelligence or they should be totally separate. I submit they are too important not to be brought into the national intelligence policy. I note that even under the Collins-Lieberman bill, these agencies would remain under the day-to-day control of the Department of Defense. Most of their personnel will still consist of uniformed military officers. The relevant congressional committees will remain actively involved in ensuring the needs of the military are met, and the Secretary of Defense will remain a senior Cabinet member with a direct line to the President. With all this, it is difficult for me to believe that the intelligence our combat forces receive will diminish in any material way. It seems more probable that through better coordination and sharing, the Armed Forces will have access to better intelligence under the Collins-Lieberman bill than they would have in a watered-down version, and I think that is the key here. In this post-9/11 world in which we live, where we understand the nature of the importance of intelligence, we must understand the importance of breaking down the silos that in the past prohibited folks from working together. It is clear we all will benefit. The Department of Defense benefits and the intelligence agencies benefit, but most importantly, the people of this great country benefit. When we have and will have a strong national intelligence director, a clear sense of somebody in charge with accountability and credibility, with the support and confidence of the President, we will all be able to sleep easier at night. I urge my colleagues to resist the natural hesitation in the face of major change. Everybody likes change until it happens to them. The events of 9/11 changed the world, and we must change our mindsets in response. I believe the Collins-Lieberman bill represents the right balance and will make America safe. I urge my colleagues to reject those amendments that would weaken the balance, that would weaken the strength of the national intelligence director. Let's move America forward. Let's make the change. Let's support this bill. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, first of all, I thank Chairman Collins and ranking Member Senator Lieberman, for their diligence and hard work on the National Intelligence Reform bill. I would like to say a few words on the Levin-Coleman amendment on terrorist financing. Without question, financial institutions are vital to our economy. Unfortunately, banks can also be used as conduits for terrorist financing and money laundering. In July, 2004, as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I held a hearing on suspicious financial activity in accounts handled by Riggs Bank. The subcommittee uncovered clear evidence of poor bank compliance and lax oversight regarding Federal laws, designed to protect the integrity of the international financial system. Chairman Collins is currently looking at certain Saudi Arabian accounts that may have benefited two of the September 11, 2001 hijackers. I commend her diligence in expanding our investigation and look forward to the results of her investigation. Equally disturbing, PSI's investigation demonstrated that Federal banking regulators took far too long to implement proper controls and procedures to identify, monitor, and combat money laundering, suspicious activity, and terrorist financing. In particular, I was troubled by the actions of a former senior bank examiner of Riggs Bank who began to work for Riggs Bank immediately after retiring from the Office of Comptroller of the Currency. Prior to leaving Riggs Bank, this examiner apparently limited findings of accounts owned by Augusto Pinochet contrary to established policies. Upon taking employment at Riggs Bank, this former examiner attended numerous meetings with bank regulators such that the potential for undue influence was less than to be desired. Certain provisions of this legislation will close the revolving door between senior examiners and the financial institutions they examine, by requiring a cooling off period of 1 year before taking employment at the financial institutions they previously regulated. In a post-9/11 world, we need to ensure that financial institutions and Federal banking regulators uphold Federal banking statutes, including the Bank Secrecy Act and the Patriot Act. This legislation will maintain the separation between Federal banking regulators and financial institutions. Given our concern for terrorist financing, and our heavy reliance on the integrity of the financial system, reducing the potential of harm is necessary because the stakes are too high if problems go uncorrected. I hope my colleagues will all join me in support of this amendment.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on September 28, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. on Media Ownership.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 28, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Combating Corruption in the Multilateral Development Banks (III).

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Tuesday, September 28, 2004, from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space be authorized to meet on September 28, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. on Effectiveness of Media Ratings Systems.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 28, 2004, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``policies to enforce the bank secrecy act and prevent money laundering in money services businesses and the gaming industry.''

Mr. COLEMAN

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

Mr. COLEMAN. We will talk to the Members over the lunch hour and see if we can work this out. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I want to congratulate my colleague, the Senator from Delaware, for the outstanding work he has done on this amendment and, in fact, as the Senator from Maine noted, his work involved in the series of hearings that we had to allow us to come before this body with a piece of legislation that will make America safer. If I may reflect first on the process of the underlying bill, we had a series of I believe eight hearings. Sometimes folks say we move too slow in these hallowed halls. There was a concern that in less than 2 months we would come before this body with a bill that provides major restructuring of the way in which we handle the threat of terrorism in this country, that some might say we moved too hastily. But one wouldn't say that if they observed the process. Within those eight hearings, we had a wellspring of information. We heard from heads of the CIA in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s across party lines. I think of that hearing. We talked about the ``three wise men'' who came before us. We heard from agents who were active in the field in hearings that were not open to the public in which in fact the names of the agents themselves were still kept confidential. We heard from members of the Commission. We heard from representatives of the families of the victims. It was for me, relatively new in this body, who served as a mayor, as the Presiding Officer has served as a mayor, and involved in politics at what I call the bottom of the political food chain, a fascinating educational experience. I learned a lot. I think my colleagues, no matter how long they were in this body, learned a lot. We have all learned a lot in the post-September 11, 2001 world. As a result of what we heard, we come before this body with some needed reform--reform that has broad bipartisan support. I believe the process we used represents the best of what this body is all about, working in a bipartisan way dealing with some difficult issues, issues of life and death, truly life and death, coming to some conclusions, and in the end making America a safer place. I associate myself with the comments of my colleague from Delaware as he talked about the process because I shared that experience. I also want to talk about the underlying amendment, the Collins- Lieberman-Carper amendment, again from the prospective of a former locally elected official who appreciates one-stop shopping. When I was dealing with licensing in the city of St. Paul, one of the things we did was set up one-stop shopping so folks didn't have to go to 16 different places to fill out where the application was, what had to be in it, who you had to talk to, and it made a difference. I talked with our consumers. I know because I talked to them. When you are mayor and go down the street, people will grab you by the elbow and tell you about the experience. They appreciated it. With a matter as complex, as serious, and as profound as dealing with the issue of homeland security in a time when our Nation faces threats of terrorism, we managed in this amendment to do a number of things which I believe are very helpful. We simplified a process. We have taken something that was a 12-step process and made it a 2-step process. We have accelerated the process requiring States to provide 80 percent for the homeland security resources they receive at the local level within 60 days without moving the money forward. There are needs out there. People deserve to know that the resources are there. We provided flexibility, targeting the most vulnerable areas, and also making sure that all parts of the country and all States have an opportunity to do what needs to be done to provide a greater measure of safety against the threat of terrorism. Minnesota is a big State. Wyoming is a big State geographically, but not a big State in population. Much of the area of Minnesota is rural. Yet within the State of Minnesota, which is a big State but not a highly-populated State, with about 5 million people, we have the Mall of America, probably one of the most frequented tourist places in the United States. Every year 35 million people visit the Mall of America. We have, of course, the Mississippi River in Minnesota which starts as a little stream right up there in Itasca and becomes the great Mississippi of legend, of Mark Twain, and eventually finds its way to Louisiana and into the gulf. Along the Mississippi, we have a nuclear powerplant on an Indian reservation, the Prairie Island Reservation right on the Mississippi River in Minnesota. We have Duluth, which is located on Lake Superior, which is the gateway to the Great Lakes and transatlantic shipping. We have miles and miles of border between Minnesota and Canada, a border that is not heavily populated, that is easily crossed, a border which in certain conditions is pretty tough to police. It is pretty tough up in International Falls where it is minus 28 or 30 degrees Fahrenheit without wind chill. Border agents up there have to learn how to pull a trigger on a pistol when it is very cold. It is not that easy. They have to learn how to use snowmobiles and float planes, and all sorts of things that may not be seen in other parts of the country. But we face challenges. Obviously, we heard from Delaware, and the Presiding Officer would be on the floor now talking about Wyoming. He would talk about the challenges that are faced there. This is an amendment that provides the targeting of resources in the areas where clearly there is the greatest threat but provides the needed flexibility so that places such as International Falls in Minnesota or the Mall of America or a nuclear powerplant on the Mississippi River can also be protected. This is an amendment that is a product of the process I talked about. It has bipartisan support. It has the support of Senators from large States and small States. It is something I believe my colleagues will and should overwhelmingly support. I am honored to speak on behalf of this amendment and to urge its adoption. In doing so, I truly believe it will make this country a safer place and it will make it easier and make it quicker. It will make it much more practical for folks throughout this country to access the funds they need to provide a greater measure of protection against the threat of terrorism. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to address two provisions in the underlying bill that were the subject of much debate, much discussion during our hearings on the 9/11 Commission recommendations. One of them had to do with the recommendation as to whether the national intelligence director should serve at the pleasure of the President or should serve a fixed term. The 9/11 Commission recommended that the national intelligence director serve at the pleasure of the President. Some observers, however, have suggested that making the NID serve a fixed term would help preserve the independence of the national intelligence director. The Collins-Lieberman bill creates a NID who will be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and who will serve at the pleasure of the President. This is one of those discussions where the words of the Senator from Delaware ring true: the importance of making sure we keep the main thing the main thing. We had come before us, as I indicated earlier, three former Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency: William Webster, James Woolsey, and Stansfield Turner. Each of them testified that among all the powers of the NID and the variables we needed to consider when deciding whether to create a national intelligence director, the most important quality, the most important variable for the national intelligence director to be effective is to have the support of the President of the United States. The national intelligence director will be responsible for overseeing a broad range of intelligence functions and operations in this country. His ability to provide that kind of leadership and direction in many ways will be contingent upon having the support of the Commander in Chief, having the support of the President of the United States. Robert Mueller, who served a 10-year term as FBI Director, testified that the NID should serve at the pleasure of the President. Director Mueller distinguished the FBI, which is expected to be an independent investigative agency, from the office of the NID, which will be responsible for advising the President on intelligence matters, and that advice will be shaping the President's policy decisions. Among the responsibilities of the NID is to be the principal adviser to the President himself. Some believe that having the NID serve a fixed term could help insulate the national intelligence director from political pressure. However, what it would do is to insulate the national intelligence director from the President. We cannot afford, in these difficult and challenging times, at a time when America is under the threat of terrorist attack, to have the national intelligence director marginalized by a President who does not trust the national intelligence director. The national intelligence director will be one of the most powerful individuals in the U.S. Government, and he will be one of the President's closest advisers. As such, the President has to be able to select his own national intelligence director. And all those in the intelligence operations, all those in other branches of Government who are involved in intelligence gathering, intelligence processing, and intelligence formulation of operation need to understand that the national intelligence director has the absolute confidence of the President of the United States. There are a number of alternative mechanisms to protect the objectivity and the independence of the national intelligence director. But, again, I think it is critically important that the national intelligence director have the support of the President. And those thoughts are not just the thoughts of this Senator, but they were the expressed opinions of three former Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency who came before our committee and the opinion of the current head of the FBI who himself has a 10-year term. One of the other issues that was the subject of a great deal of discussion and focus was what type of authority the national intelligence director should have to develop and execute the budget for national intelligence. It was said many times, whoever controls the money has the power. We have made a judgment in this bill to have a strong national intelligence director, a national intelligence director who has the confidence of the President of the United States, but also a national intelligence director who will have control over the development of the budget for the national intelligence program, including the authority to coordinate, prepare, direct, and present to the President the annual budget for the national intelligence program. This bill gives the NID the authority to manage and oversee the execution of the national intelligence program, including visibility and control over how money is spent. It ensures that the core national intelligence agencies--the CIA, NSA, NGA, NRO, FBI Office of Intelligence, and the Department of Homeland Security Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection--are entirely within the budgetary authority of the national intelligence director. And it gives the national intelligence director influence over the budgets of intelligence-related activities and organizations that are outside the national intelligence director. Our approach is consistent with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which said the NID must be given--and I quote--``control over the purse strings,'' including the power to submit a unified budget for national intelligence, to receive the appropriation for national intelligence, and to apportion the funds to the appropriate agencies in line with the budget. The Commission viewed these budget authorities as absolutely essential to achieve the objectives of intelligence reform. One of the chairs of the Commission, Mr. Hamilton, said: We would not create the national intelligence director if he or she did not have strong budget authority. Former Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency who testified before our committee also supported giving the national intelligence director strong budget authority. William Webster, who was both head of the CIA and the FBI, said: Control of the budget is essential to effective management of the intelligence community. James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA, said: If budget execution authority is given to the [national intelligence director], he will or she will have a much better ability to say to the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense, ``Look, I sympathize. I understand. I know this fluent Arabic linguist is a very rare asset, but you did not hear me. I really need her or him.'' Again, who controls the money has the power. As Chairman Hamilton said: The Commission would not have created a national intelligence director if he or she did not have strong budget authority. Senior officials in the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence also believe that stronger budget authority is needed in order for the national intelligence director to truly be in charge of the intelligence community. John McLaughlin said the person responsible for the intelligence community should ``have full authority to determine, reprogram and execute all funding for the core national intelligence agencies, principally CIA, NSA, the NGA and NRO.'' On and on, the advice the committee received was very clear: If you want to have a strong national intelligence director, you must give him or her strong budget authority. Consumers of intelligence also testified that it would be desirable for the national intelligence director to have strong budget authority. Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the hearing of our committee on September 13, 2004, said: The [Director of Central Intelligence] was there before, but the DCI did not have the kind of authority [needed]. And in this town, it's budget authority that counts. Can you move money? Can you set standards for people. So you have access to the President? The [national intelligence director] will have all of that, and so I think this is a far more powerful player. And that will help the State Department. Some of those who have brought a different perspective have said that the Director of Central Intelligence already has the needed authority but simply has failed to use it, and that if budget execution authority is needed, it should be given to the national intelligence director by Executive order. With respect to the NFIP budget, the testimony before our committee-- much of it in closed session--demonstrated that the Director of Central Intelligence authorities in practice are considerably weaker than they might appear on paper. So what we heard was how things work in the real world. What we heard was the day-to-day reality of how authority can be used, how it can be challenged. If it is not crystal clear, if it is not absolutely clear, if it is not unequivocal, as laid out in this bill, then, in fact, it may not in practice be as strong as one would desire. The testimony also demonstrated considerable confusion about the actual extent of the Director of Central Intelligence legal authority which I found to be quite interesting. We would have before us various members of the intelligence community, and there would actually be a cross-discussion going on as to whether there was, in fact, this authority that one person believed was there but that the other person didn't believe was there. What we do in this bill is to get rid of the confusion and make it clear. We clarify any ambiguity in the existing language and make unmistakably clear Congress's intent that the national intelligence director, not the Department heads, will have the final say in developing the national intelligence budget. With respect to receiving the appropriation and budget execution, the Director of Central Intelligence clearly does not have these key authorities today. Neither the administration nor we believe these authorities could be given to the Director of Central Intelligence, much less the national intelligence director, which has not yet been created by Congress, without congressional action. There is simply no excuse for Congress not to act. This bill provides the kind of action that was clearly laid out before our committee as needed, as supported by those both in the intelligence network and the system, those who are making the decisions and those who are working with the decisions that are being made. I do hope this body supports the recommendation of the Commission, the recommendation that is part of the bill before us. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the McCain amendment No. 3702, with no second degrees in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided further that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote. Finally, I ask consent that following the vote, Senator Stevens be recognized in order to make a statement.

Mr. COLEMAN

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

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, my colleague from Colorado talked about the economy. Although I want to talk about Iraq, I want to follow up the comments made by the very distinguished Senator from Massachusetts who talked about all the negative things that are happening to this economy. I find it so stunning that folks can continue to be so negative. America has come such a long way from the attacks of 9/11 that took a trillion dollars out of this economy, and the corporate fraud generated from Enron and WorldCom, and from the recession President Bush inherited from the last administration. We cut taxes and we grew jobs, over 1.7 million in the last year. We are not where we have to be. The President has said on many occasions that as long as one person is out of work, we have work to do, and we do that work and do it here, passing legislation such as class action reform, medical malpractice reform, the JOBS bill and the Energy bill, many of the legislation being filibustered, being blocked by my friends on the other side of the aisle. One point that comes up again and again is that in spite of the steady stream of job numbers, now there is an argument made they are not quality jobs. I note that the facts belie that assertion. Three- quarters of the new jobs created, for instance, in May were in the industry categories that pay an hourly rate in excess of the overall average hourly rate in the private sector. Inflation-adjusted hourly earnings increased 2.37 percent during the first 3\1/2\ years of the Bush administration, compared with only a 0.13-percent increase during the same period of time in the first Clinton administration. Per capita aftertax disposable income adjusted for inflation has increased 7.1 percent since President Bush took office, well above the 5.2-percent increase during the same period of the first Clinton administration. I could go on and on. The fact is, this economy is moving forward. The fact is, housing home ownership is at an all-time high. The fact is, the tax cuts have made a difference, and yesterday there are still those who would like to somehow have the American public believe that all news is bad news. I think the biggest challenge this economy faces is from the naysayers who keep saying again and again how bleak things are and you then undermine confidence and that, Mr. President, hurts the economy. ``60 Minutes'' Documents One other note. My friend, the Senator from Iowa, was on the floor, and I note that he and a number of others had some very harsh words about the President based on something that was in a ``60 Minutes'' report which we now know was not true. Dan Rather came on last night and noted that he no longer has confidence in the documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them. These are documents related to the service of the President in the National Guard. He noted that ``we did use the documents.'' He said, ``We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry.'' I hope my colleagues, who had such harsh words for the President based on those documents, will come forward and express the same sentiment that Mr. Rather expressed. Iraq My colleagues also somehow would have us believe the world would be better today, would be a safer place if Saddam Hussein were still in power. I find that stunning. I find that striking. My colleague from Colorado expressed a hope that I share: That the President go before the U.N. today and reiterate the inherent right of the United States of self-defense. My colleague from Colorado challenged some of the statements of Secretary General Kofi Annan about the U.S. effort in Iraq. He noted and I note that the Secretary's comments were both factually wrong and ill advised. The fact is, Saddam Hussein violated 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions. Saddam Hussein is the one whose actions were illegal, reiterated again and again by the United Nations. The fact is, the United States took our case to the United Nations on more than one occasion, and the final example on November 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted Security Council Resolution 1441. This resolution declared that Iraq was in material breach of its obligations to cooperate with inspectors who were looking into Saddam's efforts to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The resolution warned of serious consequences if Iraq ignored its last chance to comply, but Saddam did not comply. I repeat, Saddam Hussein is the one whose actions were illegal. The fact is, Saddam Hussein's list of other offenses is a long one and does not compare favorably with documents such as the U.N. charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is a man who twice invaded his neighbors, used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and the people of Iran, who killed tens of thousands of political opponents, tortured thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens. These were the illegal actions, and we should be glad they are all over once and for all. The fact is, the U.N. did not have credibility with Saddam Hussein's regime. It never succeeded in enforcing its own resolutions or gaining unfettered access for weapons inspectors. Worse yet, it allowed a well- meaning humanitarian program to devolve into a money-making operation for Saddam and his cronies throughout the world. The U.N. Oil for Food Program became a personal bank account for Saddam Hussein in which, by a GAO report estimate, he got at least $10 billion--that is with a ``B''--for his own personal use. Right now, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, is looking into that $10 billion theft, that $10 billion fraud, that $10 billion corruption, and checking to see where that money went, has it been used to fuel an insurgency, has it been used to impact the policies of some nation states that did not allow the Security Council to vigorously oversee and enforce that program the way it should have been done. No, there is nothing wrong or illegal about liberating 25 million people from tyranny, and there is certainly nothing illegal about fighting for their freedom and liberty today. Regardless of the U.N. Secretary General's comments, America will remain a supporter of the U.N. and many multilateral organizations. It is in our interest. More often than not, we can accomplish greatness when we work together. The U.N. can offer great promise or cooperation in peacekeeping and humanitarian work and shining a light in dark places, efforts that are often more effective when many are united rather than when countries go it alone. But we are not going it alone in Iraq. We have over 30 nations that are sacrificing with us. The failure of the United Nations to enforce its resolutions against Saddam, the failure of the United Nations to act vigorously to genocide that is going on in Darfur and the far region of Sudan, the failure of the United Nations to do nothing more than talk when brutality and oppression shows its ugly face around the world undermines confidence in the United Nations. That puts the United Nations in a position where many are comparing it now to the League of Nations, a place where people just talked but never acted. Sometimes real leadership means having the courage to do what is necessary and not just what is popular. In his State of the Union Address, the President said there is a difference between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country. While the United States and its allies have carried the burden of freedom's work, we cannot ignore the fact that soldiers and might cannot do the job alone. I understand that diplomacy is crucial to world order. It should not descend into finger- pointing and gainsaying, especially at a time when so much is at stake and we ought to be joining together, not pointing fingers. It is the terrorists in Iraq who want to deprive the citizens of that country their basic human rights. What Saddam Hussein could not take from them the terrorists are hoping to steal. What Saddam Hussein did not do to terrorize the people of that country, what he did not finish, the terrorists will do and are doing. They are continuing that. Saddam killed, murdered, and tortured as many Iraqis he could who did not agree with him, and probably a few who did, and the terrorists hope to finish off the Iraqis he did not get to. In spite of that, in spite of the insipid rhetoric of those who wish to be President who feel a gust of wind gives them the moral authority to change their stand on a war time and time again, America must hold its ground because on that ground stands the promise of a free and liberated Iraq. Iraq is preparing to hold its first truly democratic election. Prime Minister Allawi, who will have a chance to address us in the coming days, is working to get control throughout the country. He is trying to counter a clear effort by terrorists to turn Iraq back into a nation of fear. The Prime Minister is also trying to get out from under Iraq's heavy foreign debt and create an environment for jobs and for hope. Coalition members, together with Iraqi forces, are working daily to create a better future for the people of Iraq, and at the same time protect the safety of our soldiers and civilians serving in that country. The world is a better place without Saddam in power. That is a reality. If one cannot grasp that concept, then they cannot grasp any concept. If anyone in this body, or anyone of this body, believes Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq, murderer of women and children, tormentor of his neighbors, plotter of destruction, mercenary of the world, is better for the world in office than out of office, they should heed the words of the junior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, who had this to say during the Democratic primaries: Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be the President or the credibility to be elected president. The Senator from Massachusetts was right then. In spite of his changing positions, those words last year still ring true today. Today, there are those who embolden terrorists in Iraq. They have pointed their fingers at us and said: You are to blame for the terrorism insurgency in Iraq. The day after 9/11, there were those across the world who pointed their fingers at us and said: You are to blame for the destruction of your homeland. These statements are absurd. Somebody tell me how the hundreds of horrified boys, girls, babies, mothers, and fathers in that Russian school were responsible for the terrorists who tormented and killed them. Somebody tell me how the Nepalese contractors, 12 of them, who were slaughtered as though they were nothing more than cattle were responsible for their deaths. Somebody tell me how the American citizens who had their heads sawed off on a videotape while sick, evil men listened to their screams of horror were somehow responsible for their death. There are those who say things are not going as well as they could be in Iraq. We know they are right, but let the first person come forward who will say that it will be going better in Iraq if we let Mohamed al Sadr or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi be in charge. Now is not the time for those with the courage of the meek to come to the rescue of the strong. Now is the time for strong, determined leadership to work with our allies, those who agreed with our efforts, and those who did not, to bring this world together. Our President, the leader who has liberated 50 million human beings and has stood resolute when even the strongest among us would look for a way out, goes to the U.N. today. He goes there not as an adversary of that august body but as an ally of the civilized world. He goes to stand with the world, those who have suffered from the terrorists, those who have fought them, and those who fear them. He goes to the U.N. not preaching the gospel of global despair but of the obligation of a mighty nation to not only fight those with guns with guns, but to bring peace to so many others who simply hope and pray that their children will live to see a better day. He will stand with those who stood with us in the liberation of Iraq, and with those who stood against us, because this President knows that as important as it is to sometimes lead even when others are not prepared to follow, it is important to walk together when many will agree to do so. It is important for us to mind the words of China's U.N. Ambassador, who opposed the war, who said: I think all of us have views on the Iraqi war. I think definitely the views are different among council members. What is important now is to help achieve peace and stability in that country. There will be better days in Iraq, and there will be worse days. There will be better days in the war on terror and, God willing, there will be far fewer worse days. But whatever the future brings, we must stand with this President and with this nation and its soldiers and diplomats, and we must on bended knee pray that our efforts bear the fruit of a more prosperous and more peaceful world. Let me finish with this. Yesterday, I missed my first major vote as a Member of this body. At home, before I left Minnesota for Washington, I attended the wake of the son of one of the folks who works in my office, one of my staff, Bart Cedergren. His son David died in Iraq. While the cause of death remains unclear, let there be no doubt that he died in the cause of freedom and liberty for the people of Iraq and the people of America. As I stood there contemplating the loss of the life of this young man and the loss of his life from those who loved him, as I stood there trying to comfort a father who did more to comfort me and those around him, I was once again reminded of the fact that freedom is never free. Petty Officer 3rd class David A. Cedergren, 25, who was assigned to the Second Marine Division Marine Forces Atlantic, did not join the military to fight war or kill people. He joined it to bring peace and comfort to those afflicted and tormented. David was a medic. He was trained to be a licensed nurse, his heart was filled with compassion. Yesterday, as I watched those whom he loved and those who loved him and his Navy comrades who stood there side by side, all grieved in his passing, I saw in their grief great pride in this young man. He liked this Nation. He did not join this war on terror to fight a war of killer people. He didn't ask for this war to be fought. We joined it and we lead it to bring peace and comfort to the afflicted and the tormented. May God bless America and David Cedergren and that we prevail. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the Republican time in this morning session.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, let me start by thanking my colleague from Ohio for his passion and for his commitment on this issue. As you know, my colleague from Ohio is very tenacious when he digs into something. It is easy in many ways, perhaps, for me to speak about anti-Semitism. I am of the Jewish faith. It is a very personal issue for me, but if we just talk about it, it is not enough. I have been through Yad Vashem, which is the museum on the Holocaust in Israel. And there is part of Yad Vashem that is dedicated to the righteous gentiles, those not of the Jewish faith who showed great courage and at times risked their lives and were outspoken in opposition to the Holocaust and helped the Jewish people and other victims of the Holocaust. I have a deep and profound respect for my colleague from Ohio for all that he has done. That passion is real. It is reflected in all he does, and it is greatly appreciated by all of us concerned about this issue.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, over 200 year ago, it was written: The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt. Mr. Jefferson came up with the short version: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. The message is clear and it is urgent. We need to be constantly on the look out for hatred of any kind. And like the spouting of a dangerous weed, we need to deal with it when it is small and before it grows. That is why a number of us have taken the floor to call attention to a disturbing rise in incidents of anti-Semitism. This is not a fringe expression of free speech. It is the leading edge of danger that has appeared all too often in the last 2,000 years of human history. One of the ironies of this subject lies in the word ``anti-Semitic.'' In common usage it means prejudice or bigotry against Jews. But when you look up the root word ``Semite,'' you see it refers to members of the Jewish and Arab peoples. Strictly speaking to be ``anti-Semitic'' could mean expressing hatred of Arabs. That illustrates an important point. A statement of hatred against any group of people should be abhorred by freedom loving people from every group. Because hatred has a way of spreading and hurting people all around its intended target. As Dr. King wrote in his famous letter from the Birmingham jail, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' Six million Jews were killed in Europe during the Holocaust. We vowed we would never let it happen again. But the new millennium has brought to Europe a wave of anti-Semitism unlike anything we have seen since the 1930s. In France, which is home to Europe's largest Jewish community--with about 600,000--there have been and continue to be more anti-Semitic attacks than elsewhere in Europe. Just last month the Jewish cemetery in Lyon was spray-painted with swastikas, and other anti-Semitic symbols. In Paris this spring, a 12-year-old girl coming out of a Jewish school was attacked by two men who carved a swastika into her face. Excuses abound for the rise in European anti-Semitism: The changing demography of Europe, as more Muslim immigrants arrive; anger about the renewed Intifada between Israel and the Palestinians; anti-Americanism or anti-globalism manifest as anti-Semitic behavior; and a resurgence of Neo-Nazis and skinhead movements. At the end of the day, though, there is simply no excuse. Anti- Semitism takes many forms: defaming of Jewish cemeteries; arson of synagogues and Jewish schools; Holocaust denial or inadequate Holocaust education; biased media coverage; and graffiti that says ``Sharon=Hitler.'' This comparison is not only grossly unfair to the Israeli Prime Minister, but more ominously minimizes what Hitler did and stood for. Ominously in this country, we have seen bumper stickers making similar comparisons with our President. The winning entry in the British Political Cartoon Society's 2003 competition was a picture of Ariel Sharon eating the head of a Palestinian baby with a burning city in the background. ``What's wrong,'' reads the caption, ``you've never seen a politician kissing a baby?'' This is not humor, this is hate. Some will say, ``Surely a person can criticize the policies of the Israeli government without being an anti-Semite?'' And the answer is of course, yes. But when criticism of Israel is so prevalent and one-sided, when fully one-third of votes at the U.N. General Assembly criticize Israel and Israel only, when a European public opinion poll finds Israel to be considered the top threat to world peace--ahead of North Korea or Iran, when a U.N. conference in South Africa on racism devolves into a diatribe against Israel--and only Israel, when even non-violent responses by the government of Israel to defend its citizens against terrorism are disparaged, then you have a problem. Natan Sharansky--a great man for his advocacy for the Soviet Jews and today an Israeli government official--has talked about three ways to determine whether criticism of Israel rises to the level of anti- Semitism. He talks about three Ds: Demonization, double standards, and delegitimization: Demonization--when Israeli actions are blown so far out of proportion that the account paints Israel as the embodiment of all evil; Double Standards--when Israel is criticized soundly for things any other government would be viewed as justified in doing, like protecting its citizens from terrorism; Deligitimization--a denial of Israel's right to exist or the right of the Jewish people to aspire to live securely in a homeland. When European criticism of Israel is so one-sided and so filled with exaggeration, it reflects a broader bias. And while this kind of criticism of Israel may not always equal anti-Semitism, it certainly creates an atmosphere that tolerates and breeds anti-Semitism. In recent years, Europe has seen a marked increase in anti-Semitism, but Europe is not alone. Anti-Semitism abounds in the Middle East. It abounds in the Nadrasas, the schools, that teach hate. We have our own problems here in the United States, particularly on our college campuses. And one of the deadliest acts of terror in South America remains the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Argentina--a crime for which not one perpetrator has yet been brought to justice. The good news is that things in Europe have improved in the last year, and the key to that improvement is leadership. The Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe has held important conferences on anti-Semitism. My colleague from Ohio has talked about that, introducing into the Record some of the evidence of the works which have drawn attention to anti-Semitism and those that have led to the identification of anti-Semitism as a specific human rights issue as well as a commitment to track anti-Semitic incidents in order to build a better understanding of the problem. French President Jacques Chirac, to his credit, has said when a Jew is attacked in France, it is an attack on the whole of France. He is right, not just because it is so morally repugnant to target any one group for this kind of violence and hate but because Jews are the canary in the coal mine. Remember, Hitler was not satisfied to simply wipe out the Jews; he set his sights on the disabled, gypsies, Blacks, and others. Let me reflect about the situation in the United States, particularly on our college campuses. College is supposed to be a place where young people are exposed to diverse experiences and other peoples. Tragically, anti-Semitism in America has found a home on college campuses. There, anti-Semitism at times is fashionable and politically correct. We can forget about diversity of opinion when it comes to Israel. On our campuses, anti-Semitism looks like virulently anti-Israel professors of Middle Eastern studies; harassment of Jewish students; pro-Palestinian rallies have crossed the line into anti-Semitism, with slogans like ``Hitler did not finish the job;'' fliers around campuses depicting Palestinian children slaughtered according to Jewish rites under American license; vandalism of Hillel buildings at Rutgers in September of this year, at UC Berkeley in the winter of 2002, at the University of Colorado in March of 2002 and again in September of that year. The poster behind me is of a photograph taken at Cornell University: Weapons of mass destruction. Leader is a war criminal. U.N. resolution occupies foreign countries, with a notation ``bomb Israel.'' It crosses the line. This is not about free speech. This is about hate. This is not something we should see on college campuses, but we do, far too often. That is unfortunate. That is wrong. A professor at UC Berkeley presented the following course description for a poetry class: The brutal Israeli military occupation of Palestine [ongoing] since 1948, has systematically displaced, killed, and maimed millions of Palestinian people. And yet from under the brutal weight of occupation, Palestinians have produced their own culture and poetry of resistance . . . This class takes as a starting point the right of Palestinians to fight for their own self-determination. That is for a poetry class. And the posting ends with the suggestion, ``Conservative thinkers are encouraged to seek other sections.'' In 2001 to 2002, anti-Semitic incidents at college campuses increased to a worrisome 24 percent, according to the Stephen Roth Institute at Tel Aviv University. I read an account of a Berkeley student, Micki Weinberg, who was walking to campus September 12, 2001, the day after the horrific attacks on our Nation. At the entrance to the campus there were huge sheets of blank paper spread out at an impromptu memorial for students, faculty, and others to write thoughts. He saw a message written in big letters. Micki Weinberg set out to add his own thoughts, until he saw one message written in big letters: ``It's the Jews, stupid.'' In closing, I return to the idea that hatred against Jewish people is everyone's concern. I was in Israel a couple weeks ago. The vision that this President has and so many have had is Israel living side by side with a Palestinian state, people free to live their lives and raise their families and grow up with the sense of safety and security. That is what it is about. Safety and security is a prelude to peace and people living together, but the level of hatred, which in the end is a denial of the existence of Israel, simply goes too far. That level of hatred is spread throughout Europe. It has spread to college campuses. It is wrong. The Reverend Martin Niemoller was a Lutheran pastor living in Germany in the 1930s. His words should be taken to heart by all: First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me. We have seen genocide in Europe. We have seen it in Rwanda. We are seeing it today in Sudan. We need to speak up against hatred wherever it rears its head because it literally threatens everyone. The question is, How do we get the hate genie back in the bottle? The genie is out. There is too much hatred. We see it all around us. We see it certainly in what we are seeing today with anti-Semitism. We are seeing it on the American political scene. We have to get the genie of hate back in the bottle. We can do it by educating. We can do it by strengthening our families. We can do it by strengthening our faith, by doing what we are doing today, speaking out on the floor in the hallowed Halls of this great institution and telling the people of this country and telling the people of this world that anti-Semitism is wrong, that we must do all in our power to speak out and make sure it stops. And when it does, the world will be a safer and better place. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan amendment offered by my good friends and colleagues from Montana, Senators Baucus and Burns, and am proud to be an original cosponsor of this measure important to my State of Minnesota. Earlier this year, heavy precipitation and moisture prevented many farm families from planting a crop at all and not long afterward, many of them lost what they had planted. This led to a disaster declaration request for three especially hard hit counties along the Canadian border: Lake of the Woods, Roseau, and Marshall Counties. Then, after a late start in the growing season, my State's farm families were hit with a bizarre August, yes August, freeze that took its toll on another at least 29 counties for which disaster declarations are being sought. This includes pretty much everything north of Interstate 94 that runs from the Twin Cities northwest toward Fargo Moorhead. It's been said that Minnesota is a place with 9 months of winter and 3 months of poor sledding but a freeze in August even surprised us. But all kidding aside, this has been a rough season for my farm families and depending on what happens in the next few weeks, it could get a lot worse and become a statewide problem. My farm families tell me, particularly south of I-94, that they need an extra 15 days of growing season beyond what is normal in order to get the heat units necessary to produce a decent crop. If they don't, they are looking at some of the lowest yields since the great flood of 1993, which I remember as the newly minted Mayor of Saint Paul when the same flood ripped up parts of our capitol city. Now, I know some folks think that we should not be providing disaster assistance to my farm families. They note that my farmers already have insurance. In fact, better than 95 percent of my farm families do carry crop insurance. But, those who face other kinds of disasters also carry insurance, and yet this does not bar them from disaster relief--nor should it. In fact, folks who carry insurance on their cars, on their boats, on their businesses, and on their houses carry insurance that-- save the deductible--allows them to recoup the market value of what they have lost. Not so with farmers. Our farmers have to absorb as much as 15 percent, 25 percent, 35 percent, and sometimes even more of their loss alone before they even begin to qualify under their insurance policy. So, disaster assistance is meant to help bridge the gap that exists for farmers but not for others. This disaster assistance amendment is not out of bounds. It is the traditional level of disaster provided in past years. There is a crop disaster payment covering crops of every kind; a livestock assistance program that helps our livestock producers recoup feed costs resulting from natural disaster; and a quality loss program to help producers who do not suffer yield losses but suffer quality losses that cut into the price they receive in the market place. Frankly, I believe it is time for us to put our heads together in a bipartisan fashion and craft a more coherent, predictable, fiscally responsible, and long-term policy that better addresses natural disasters. I know that this has been attempted in earnest numerous times in the context of crop insurance--with considerable success--as well as in the context of an emergency reserve or standing disaster program, albeit with less traction in this regard. But, clearly, we need to take another hard look at this issue and see what we can do about alleviating the need for ad hoc relief like this, which is not very reliable to those it's intended to help and not the best option in terms of Federal budgeting. I urge the amendment's adoption, but I do so looking down the road a ways in hopes that, in the future, we find a new and better way of addressing these crises whose timing we can not always predict but whose occurrence we can certainly all foresee.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, it is truly an honor and a privilege to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Paul Molitor, an incredible individual and a tremendous baseball player from the city of Saint Paul, MN. Paul will forever be remembered as one of the greatest to ever play the game, but most of all he will be remembered as a hometown hero to many Minnesotans. In recognition of his achievements and dedication to the sport, Paul has been inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY. This is a tribute not only to his abilities on the field, but also to his commitment to the community. It is my great privilege to highlight his accomplishments before the United States Senate and this Nation. Paul's humble beginnings were that of many young Minnesotans. At the age of four, it was clear that a passion for baseball was developing in the heart of this young Midwestern boy. Every where he went, Paul would carry his mitt with him. He shined as a star athlete for the Raiders of Cretin-Derham Hall High School in Saint Paul. For his college education, he stuck close to home and became a Golden Gopher by attending the University of Minnesota. At the U of M, Paul was a three- year starter and a two-time All-American before he made the decision to sign with the Milwaukee Brewers as the third overall pick in the 1977 Major League Baseball draft. After only a short time in the minor leagues, Paul earned a role as the starting shortstop and leadoff hitter for the Brewers. This position would be one of many that this versatile athlete would play throughout his record-breaking career. Paul reached many milestones that few players would ever meet. He is one of only five players with over 3,000 hits and over 500 steals, the others being legendary players Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Eddie Collins, and Lou Brock. Paul is in the top ten all-time in at-bats, hits, singles, and doubles, and in the top twenty all-time in runs scored, triples, and stolen bases. Paul also tops the list as the only player in Major League Baseball history with 3,000 hits, 500 stolen bases, and 200 home runs. All of these are great accomplishments, but perhaps his greatest feat came in 1993, when the Toronto Blue Jays won the World Series and Paul was recognized as the most valuable player. Outside of baseball, Paul is well-known as one that actively gives back to his community. In 1998, he was honored with the Branch Rickey Award, which is given to baseball players that show unparalleled devotion to serving their community. In addition to this, Paul was also recognized for his strength of character when he was awarded the Lou Gehrig Memorial Award, given to those who best exemplify the giving character of Lou Gehrig, another hall-of-famer. Paul Molitor has come a long way from the sandlots of Saint Paul to the ballparks of Major League Baseball. In twenty-one seasons, Paul played with three major league clubs, before coming back home to play for his hometown team, the Minnesota Twins, in 1996. It is quite clear that Paul Molitor is a person whose dedication and hard work brought him to the pinnacle of Major League Baseball. His talent, commitment, and love for the game have led to his selection into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. It is my distinct pleasure to recognize his achievements before the United States Senate, and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors. Paul, you have made many proud--your fans, teammates, and the State of Minnesota. You are a true hometown her. Congratulations on your induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, September 11, 2001, was a day that changed America forever. It taught us that oceans cannot protect us from those who are fanatically devoted to harming us. The world has changed after September 11. The American experience, realities, changed after September 11. We live with greater uncertainty. We live with greater fear and concern about attack. We have, even those in this Chamber, gone through the process of thinking the unthinkable, thinking about attacks on our soil, on our towns, on our country. The good news is that in the last 2\1/2\ years since September 11, America has not experienced another experience like that. It appears as if the measures we have taken have had some effect. The PATRIOT Act was passed with overwhelming support. It is now the subject of some debate, but let's not debate the importance of doing those things that protect this country from attack. The PATRIOT Act has clearly been part of that. The efforts of our President in rooting out the Taliban and getting rid of Saddam have all had an impact on making this country safer. But there are no guarantees. Clearly, even today--we have the September 11 Commission report coming out tomorrow; we have the Senate Intelligence Committee report coming out, reviewing what we did, should have done, and what we could do better. The bottom line is we want to make sure this never happens again. The effort to improve our safety and security is important. This is not a game. This is not to raise the fear for political purposes; this is the reality of the world in which we live. But I do believe there is at least one area where our policy regarding security and measures we are taking to improve security should be examined and changed. That is why today I am introducing the International Student and Scholar Access Act. Again, we all know there is absolutely no such thing as an absolute guarantee of absolute security in a free society, so what we do is measure the level of threat against the loss of certain other values and then we try to strike a balance. In the area of student visas, I believe we have pushed security concerns beyond the logical point and need to make adjustments to our policy. This is what I am talking about. America has been home to foreign students in great numbers for many years. If you go to the University of Minnesota, you see students from all over the world. The same is true in our private schools in Minnesota. The University of St. Thomas has a great international student program. Those are good programs. What those programs do is provide young people from around the world an opportunity to study in America, to understand the American experience, to understand American values, to understand the American way of life. That is a good thing. Unfortunately, I believe one of the terrorist hijackers on September 11 was an individual who had a student visa. He did not attend school. No one followed up. As a result of that, what happened is we looked at that student visa policy and said: We have to make changes. I understand that. I understand we have to tighten up standards. I understand we have to be more careful about those who claim to be students who come into our country. But I believe the result of what has been well intentioned--what is important, the security of our country; nothing is more important than the role of Government to make sure we are secure--in regard to student visas has been to push the ball a little too far. I think what we are seeing now is there are scores of young people who would like to be part of the American experience, who would like to study in our schools, who would like to understand American culture and American values, young people who, 20 or 30 years from now, when they are the Presidents and Vice Presidents and Ambassadors and Ministers of their country, would have a relationship, saying: I went to the University of Minnesota. I went to the University of Maine. I went to the University of Saint Thomas. I went to Bowdoin College. I understand what you are about and would like to be a partner with you. I think we are at a point now where, in reaction to 9/11, what we are doing with student visas is to have kind of turned it around. Now that it is a national security issue, I think we are missing the opportunity for a lot of young people to become part of and understand and share in the American experience. So now we have visa processes that are structured in a way that produces results that I don't think we want. They require that consular officers in our Embassies spend far too much time on people who do not threaten this country and excluding too many of them. That does not leave them enough time to deal with those folks who are a genuine threat. It is the equivalent of a police roadblock. We are stopping so many innocent people that it calls into question if this is a good use of Government resources and power. Again, it is in the interest of the United States of America to bring in the best and brightest foreign students to study in America. These are people who will lead their nations one day. The experience they gain with our democratic system and our values gives them a better understanding of what America is and who Americans are. I had an opportunity the other day to spend time with a young woman from Iraq, a Kurd from Kirkuk. She was there to kind of shadow us and understand a little bit about American--this system of government. I thought--she had 1 day--just think if we had 4 years of her being here, or 5 years, and she came to understand this country and its history and its people and its culture and its ways and its values, and she carried that in her heart back to her country, with the opportunities we would have along the way to strengthen those relationships. We hear so much today about anger at Americans, about hate directed toward Americans. But this is in a world that, at times, I think may hate us because they don't know us. They don't know us. They know what they see on Al-Jazeera or they know what they hear from some political leader who may disagree with the kind of government and the democracy and the values we have. International education represents an opportunity to break down those barriers. I think some who hate this Nation do so out of ignorance. Foreign students who return to their nations many times become ambassadors of good will and understanding. And don't discount the personal relationships. In our lives, we may see friends who we met back in college, people we have not seen in 20 years. When we run into those friends, there is a bond. Our young educated people become our leaders, not just in Government but in business, in industry, in education. The same is true throughout the world. The world is not such a big place. It is not such a big place when you have these human connections. So these young people go back to their countries, young people who studied here, who learned of our ways, and they become ambassadors of good will and understanding, and they speak with credibility about the freedoms that spur American success. Foreign students also help our economy. Higher education is a major service sector export, bringing in $12 billion to the U.S. economy every year. Competitors, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia are gaining market share while the United States is losing. Total international applications to U.S. graduate schools for the fall of 2004 declined 32 percent from the fall of 2003. Fifty-four percent of English as a second language programs have reported declines in applications. When you think about the economy, it is not just a tourist economy. People are coming here to spend money. I had an opportunity to be involved in a series of meetings with some of my colleagues, chaired by Senator Baucus, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, and bringing in leaders of American industry, the CEOs of some of the largest corporations in America, to talk about what we have to do to ensure American competitiveness in this global economy. One of the issues these CEOs mentioned was the difficulty in having foreign students come to our country and the impact it has on their opportunities for success and innovation, and the impact that has on the American economy. It is not just a long-term national security issue; it is an economic development and opportunity issue. We are shortchanging ourselves by losing access to talent. The legislation I introduce today is an effort to reverse the decline in foreign access to U.S. education. My legislation seeks to promote foreign study in America by urging strategic thinking and by making commonsense changes to the way we process visa applications. This legislation would help to clarify the often overlapping roles between lead agencies that work on international education--the Departments of State, Commerce, Homeland Security, and Education. It proposes improvements related to SEVIS fees for tracking foreign students, by prorating fees for short-term students and allowing them to make payments in their local currencies. There is a process of payments that are made. If you are here for a short term, you pay as much as for a long term. It is another barrier, another impediment to providing an opportunity for foreign students to be here. It would set goals for more timeliness and certainty in the visa process. It would press the State Department for commonsense improvements to give more discretion on personal appearance requirements and on the duration of security clearances. It would improve the interoperability between databases of the FBI and the State Department. Perhaps the most critical part of my bill deals with the criteria for student visas. Currently, consular officers have to prove that a student visa applicant has essential ties which will ensure his or her return to his or her own country after study is complete. This requirement poses an unrealistic burden on students who are typically not yet sufficiently well established in their societies to be able to demonstrate a likelihood of return. In reality, international students are often encouraged to stay in the U.S. after they have completed their studies, by changing their status to that of H-1B, for example. An observation on this, and let me go just a little bit more about the legislation, because what it does is it calls for a more realistic standard for student visas. That is what we really need. My legislation replaces the criteria of expected return with two other criteria. Students would have to demonstrate that they intend to come to the U.S. to complete a legitimate course of study, and that they have the financial means for doing so. Let me explain why that makes so much more sense. The reality is, if we have a bright and enterprising student from Africa, from Uganda, or from Argentina, from Latin America somewhere, the issue we need to be concerned about is whether they are really coming here to study. The concern over 9/11 is, you had folks who came here who were using that to gain entry into this country. Are they coming here to study? Is it a legitimate course of study? Do they have the means to do so? Are they coming here for the purpose they intended? Afterwards, if we have a highly trained and highly qualified college graduate from Uganda and they do whatever has to be done legally in terms of dealing with immigration, what is the issue? Why would you not want to have them here a little longer if they are going to contribute to the economic growth, to the increase in brainpower, to all the things that need to be done to make sure America stays competitive in this new global economy? America is never going to compete with low-scale wages. We are past that. There is no way we can compete with China. Mexico can't compete with China today. America's economic success is tied to innovation and brainpower. That is our future. What we do to encourage that, certainly among folks here but also students from other countries who become part of that pool, who help us become more creative and entrepreneurial, is important. I have to say--and I wouldn't be surprised if the Senator from Maine has not had the same experience--this issue consumes a lot of my time and that of my case workers back in Minnesota. Time and again they are asked by Minnesota colleges and universities to make a plea to the State Department to help process a foreign student's visa. These are students who want to come to the United States, who have the intellectual assets that all can gain from, who have scholarships or other resources to take care of themselves while in America. But because they don't have spouses or homes in their native lands, they are rejected for their student visas. What sense does that make? How does that further the interests of those in the United States? How does it further the interests of our colleges and universities that benefit from quality students, benefit from the diversity brought by students from Africa or from Asia, benefit from having a broader kind of dialog and exchange about what this world is all about? I had a particular case of a talented young man from Uganda named Humphrey. Humphrey had a full ride to St. Thomas University in St. Paul, MN, which--I note with great pride--my son entered. He had his orientation just the other day. I have a personal interest in St. Thomas, but that is not the reason I advocated for Humphrey. Humphrey was a research assistant with Professor Martin O'Reilly at Uganda Martyrs University. Dr. O'Reilly stated: With service for 22 years in African countries, this is the most impressive student and human being I have ever known. He is one in a million. Humphrey is a psychology student. His goal is to return to Africa and offer counseling services on a continent where the psychological scars are so deep. We just heard my friend and colleague from Illinois talking about the brutality, the genocide in Sudan. We know of what happened in Rwanda. We know the scars that need to be healed. Humphrey wants to go back and offer services where psychological scars are deep. Yet his visa application was rejected more than once because he could not prove to a consular officer that he intended to return to Uganda. I called that consular officer at one time, not to pressure as a Senator but just to ask them to take a look at the application. Don't let it just kind of get processed run of the mill because we have a process now that makes it difficult for students to come here. Take a look at it and then make a judgment, if the judgment is pretty clear. I am happy to say that Humphrey's visa application was finally accepted and he began study in January. I fear that there are too many people like him who will not be educated in America. We will lose not only their wisdom but also the chance to show them what makes America so great. I believe in the tougher measures we implemented after September 11, but I think we have to be smarter with how we use these tools. I think we can strike a better balance between security and the value of bringing the world here to be educated. And that is in America's long-term interest. I urge my colleagues to consider this important issue and to support this legislation. It is in many ways a national security issue, national security not just in having a process in place that weeds out those who shouldn't be here but long-term national security, making sure that America has those relationships and those contacts with the future leaders of countries around this world and gives them the opportunity to be educated here. Right now they are being educated in other places, in England and France and Germany. We are missing an opportunity. There is no reason. We can do better than that. Let us look at this issue. It is still my first term, and I haven't finished yet. I haven't finished the second year. I know it takes a while to get things done. But I think the clock is ticking on this issue. Each and every day we are missing an opportunity. Each and every day as we see the numbers of international student applications decline, as we see less and less of the opportunities to establish those relationships because of the policies we have in place, it cries out for change. My legislation offers that change. I hope this body considers it, and I hope we make the change. As a result, I know we will build a stronger America. We will build a better America. That is the reason I think we are all here. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.