Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I rise to speak on a matter different than what my friend and colleague from Illinois has spoken about, but before I do, I associate myself with his comments. I stand with him and others on both sides of the aisle in asking the question, Are we doing all that we should be doing in the Sudan? Genocide is occurring. We can have debate about the legal definition of genocide, but for the folks who are experiencing the pain and the suffering, the torture, they are not interested in legal debate. I hope we heed the call of my friend from Illinois, that before we leave, before we go home to be with our families and do the things we do in our State and throughout this country, that we at a minimum speak out, that at a minimum the voice of this Congress be heard, and that we then move forward on the path, beyond speaking out, that will provide some action, that will provide a level of safety, security, and comfort, the basic things that need to be done in the Sudan. As I listened, I want my friend from Illinois to know that his words have had impact. I hope they echo far beyond these halls and that we do what should be done, that we make a statement in this Congress, that statement be turned into action, and that action has some impact. (The remarks of Mr. Coleman pertaining to the introduction of S. 2715 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess until 4 p.m. today.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the United States- Australia Free Trade Agreement. I support the agreement because 8,000 Minnesotan manufacturers, which employ some 350,000 families in my State, list the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement as a top priority in maintaining good-paying Minnesota jobs, and that is important. Like the JOBS bill, the highway bill, the Energy bill, as well as class action, medical malpractice, and asbestos reform litigation, the Australia Free Trade Agreement is about jobs. I was always fond of saying, when I was a mayor--and I am fond of repeating as a Senator--it is about jobs. The best welfare program is a job. The best housing program is a job. Access to health care comes with a job. Jobs are important. While we have seen the hopes of our Nation's manufacturers dashed time and again on these other top priorities--we are still waiting for the JOBS bill to get done; we are still waiting for asbestos reform legislation to get through; we are still waiting for class action reform legislation to get through a filibuster--the reality is, we still have an opportunity to salvage the hopes of millions of working men and women in this country, men and women who could not care less about who gets the credit for keeping the economic recovery going, just as long as it keeps going. We have grown over 1.5 million jobs in the past 10 months and in part because of the policies of this administration: the tax cuts that put money in the pockets of moms and dads, the tax cuts that allowed businesses to invest and to reinvest, the increasing expensing operations, the bonus depreciation, those things that lowered capital gains, those things that allowed businesses to say: We are going to invest, we are going to put it back in the business. In the end, when business grows, when moms and dads have more money in their pockets, they spend that money on a good or a service, and the person who produces that good or service has a job. And that is a good thing. So we have seen more than 1.5 million jobs in the past 10 months, but we cannot afford to rest on our laurels or wait out the results of a Presidential election. The time to act on the jobs agenda, as laid out by President Bush, is now. It is now. The Australia Free Trade Agreement is just one component of the President's jobs agenda. This agreement builds on the $12 billion in manufactured U.S. exports to Australia and the 160,000 American jobs owing to our trade with that very important friend and ally in the global war on terror. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, by tearing down Australian tariffs imposed against 99 percent of U.S. manufactured exports--which accounts for 93 percent of everything we sell to that country--our Nation's manufacturers stand to gain $2 billion a year in increased exports to Australia, giving us a leg up on Europe, Japan, and China. This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff. This is very real to Minnesotans. I have 6,700 exporting companies in my State. In fact, 1 out of every 5 manufacturing jobs in Minnesota is owed to exports, and Australia is our 10th largest export market. Let me give you some real-life examples because I think the problem most often with trade is that we vividly see jobs lost or businesses shut down, sometimes due to trade, and we need to understand that, we need to see that, we need to know the impact, and then we need to do those things to lessen that impact. But rarely do we see or hear about the jobs created or the businesses born as a direct result of our trade policy. It is kind of like talking about tax cuts. We talk about them in abstract. We sound like accountants. We talk about trade and sound like economists. But the reality is, there is a mom or a dad who has a job opportunity because of the trade opportunities we create. Polaris is a good example. It is a Minnesota company of which I am extremely proud. It is located way up in the northwest part of the State, about 10 minutes from Canada in a town called Roseau. Roseau has about 2,756 people at last count, the most famous being the former Secretary of Agriculture under President Carter, Bob Berglund, who is a very good friend of mine. They also grow a lot of hockey players, really talented hockey players in Roseau, MN. Talking about former Secretary of Agriculture Berglund, lots of folks, when they get through being a Congressman or a Senator or a Secretary of this department or that department, retire to some beach in Florida, but not Bob Berglund. He went home to give back to the people of Roseau all the support he had received through his years of distinguished service. Roseau suffered from some terrible floods not too long ago, and there was former Secretary of Agriculture Bob Berglund leading a group of folks in the town, figuring out how to deal with the flooding issue on a long-term basis. So we were not literally sticking our fingers in the dike, but we were looking beyond that. That is Bob Berglund. In any case, Roseau would not be the town it is if it were not for guys like Bob Berglund, an indomitable spirit that pervades that place and everyone I have ever met there, and a company called Polaris. I will go back to the flooding. When the flooding happened, the folks from Polaris did not abandon them. They were there working in the community, seeking to make a difference. They have had serious flooding over the years, and we have had to work to rebuild that town. We are still at it, and so is Secretary Berglund and so is Polaris, which is celebrating, just this year, 50 years of business. Here is what the president of Polaris, Tom Tiller, had to say about the Australia Free Trade Agreement: In 2004, Polaris will do over $10 million in sales to Australia. While the majority of those sales will be conducted by Polaris Sales Australia, all of the machinery sold in that distribution network is manufactured in Minnesota . . . so increased sales in Australia means more jobs in Minnesota. Polaris is especially excited about the opportunity to sell all- terrain vehicles to the Australians under the new access granted under this agreement. I cannot mention Polaris without mentioning another very important manufacturer in the State of which I am so proud, Arctic Cat. Arctic Cat is also located in northwest Minnesota, maybe about an hour away from Canada, in a town called Thief River Falls. Chris Twomey, with Arctic Cat, points out that: Due to high tariffs, Arctic Cat sells less than $5 million in products to Australia. The Australia Free Trade Agreement makes it a lot easier for us to increase our sales there and increase our production here at home. This is another top-of-the-line all-terrain vehicle coming from another top-of-the-line all-Minnesota company. I am proud of those companies. I am proud of the people they employ. And I am proud of the expanded opportunity they will have to sell, to grow jobs, to make profit, to strengthen the lives of their employees and the lives of their communities--all of which are enhanced by the Australia Free Trade Agreement. My paper and wood products industry is also very important to my State, starting a little west of where Polaris and Arctic Cat call home and extending all the way over to northeastern Minnesota. But for this industry and all the jobs it has provided over the years, northern Minnesota--which has seen some tough times--would have been in dire straits. Minnesota's International Paper and Blandin United Paper Mill are strong supporters of the Australia Free Trade Agreement because it will open the doors of Australia and the Pacific Rim to our paper and wood products industries. Again, those industries are part of the economic lifeblood of those communities. I want them to prosper. I want them to grow. I want them to have expanded opportunity. And they will get that from this agreement. But it is not just northern Minnesota with a stake in the passage of this agreement. Eagan, MN, a growing suburb just south of St. Paul, also has a stake, as do communities all over my State. The Lockheed Martin manufacturing facility in Eagan had $40 million in international sales last year alone, with a part of that figure owing to the construction and sale of the P-3 Maritime Patroller to Australia. Currently, Eagan is in the running for another contract with Australia worth over $30 million to that community, and, according to Lockheed Martin, passage of the Australia Free Trade Agreement puts us one step closer to securing that contract. And 3M, which not everyone knows stands for Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, a great St. Paul company--in the neighborhoods of St. Paul they call it ``the mining,'' but it is Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing--notes that Minnesota companies alone will save some $5 million in Australian tariffs when they come down under this agreement. This is not an abstract topic for Minnesota. It is very real. The Australian Free Trade Agreement has the potential to sustain and grow real, good-paying Minnesota jobs. For me, that is decisive because jobs are what it is all about. I don't want to oversell this agreement because that has been done too often with respect to trade agreements. That is important to repeat. Far too often on both sides we look at a trade agreement and we oversell it. And then if we don't reach those high expectations, people say: Well, it didn't work; it is no good. We are talking about moving the ball forward. We are talking about moving the economy. We are talking about more progress, more economic growth, and more opportunity. We are talking about more jobs. I am not going to sell. A lot is promised under these agreements and, frankly, they usually fall somewhat short of the mark. Let me say what I have heard from my manufacturers, what I have heard from Polaris, Arctic Cat, International Paper, and Lockheed. They have said the Australian agreement means opportunity, give us that opportunity. So today in the United States we have a chance to do just that. We ought to and, fortunately, I expect that we will. We will give them the opportunity when we consider the Australia Free Trade Agreement and get it passed. Having said that, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to underscore a very important point that I hope is not missed by my colleagues, particularly by those who are in charge of negotiating this agreement or any other trade agreement; that is, the importance of U.S. agriculture to trade. Their success is mutually and inextricably linked. I do not believe U.S. agriculture can succeed without moving forward on trade, nor do I believe that trade can move forward without U.S. agriculture. With Minnesota in the top 10 among States for the production of nearly every commodity that can be produced in our climate, the success of my farm families is extremely important to mainstream Minnesota. It is important to me. Let me begin with sugar. Few folks realize Minnesota is the No. 1 sugar-producing and processing State in the country. Folks sometimes think about Florida, Louisiana, and other places, but it is sugar beets which makes the same kind of sugar you buy in your local store. And more sugar is produced from sugar beets than from cane sugar. Minnesota farm families own both the production and processing sides of our State's sugar beet industry, an industry that is directly or indirectly responsible for $2 billion in economic activity and about 30,000 jobs. The exclusion of sugar from the Australian agreement has been much maligned by folks inside and outside the Chamber, but not by this Senator. Let me tell you why. The fact is, the reason we are able to stand here now on the cusp of passing the Australia Free Trade Agreement is in part or in whole owing to how this administration wisely handled sugar. Today, the Australia Free Trade Agreement is on the move. The sad reality is that CAFTA is up on the blocks. CAFTA is another great opportunity. We need to work to strengthen our trade opportunities with our friends in Central America. We have seen the flourishing of democracy there. Our Central American friends and allies deserve the benefit of expanded trade opportunity. CAFTA is up on the blocks. We have to figure a way to move it forward and to deal with the sugar problem in CAFTA. When I say ``deal with,'' this is not about parochialism or protectionism. It is about common sense and equity. Common sense says if you have a world problem, as the distortion in the sugar market most certainly is, you handle the problem in a global context. In other words, the right place to deal with sugar is in the World Trade Organization, not in these bilateral and regional agreements. Equity requires that when our trade team rightly decided that discussions concerning the farm bill's safety net for other commodities, such as corn and soybeans, should be reserved for the WTO and excluded from bilateral or regional agreements, the same should hold true for sugar: Common sense and equity. In regard to the farm bill, I would point out that this legislation is to our farm families in rural America what the JOBS bill we just overwhelmingly passed is to our Nation's manufacturers. To anyone who has gone to see the new World War II Memorial, you will notice all the wreaths that represent the two pillars of industry and agriculture. Those responsible for both are critical to this country. We must not unilaterally disarm against either in global competition, which today is not always free and not always fair. As for my State's sugar farmers, they are among the most competitive in the world. In fact, America's sugar farmers are among the top one- third in the world in overall efficiency, as measured by the cost of production. But what they face is a dump market where the average world cost of production per pound is 16 cents while the average selling price per pound is only 6 cents. As the saying goes, something is rotten in Denmark. I don't want to blame the Danes on that, just an expression. Meanwhile, the U.S. sugar policy has been good to taxpayers and consumers alike. The U.S. sugar policy costs taxpayers nothing and, in fact, the two times in recent history where the U.S. had no sugar policy, consumer prices received the brunt of it when prices spiked to record highs. So my deepest thanks and appreciation go out to the Bush administration and its trade team for doing what is right by America's sugar farmers, right by Minnesota, and right by this Senator. You have a good model now on sugar, one that moves the trade agenda forward. We ought to stick with it. Dairy is another important industry in Minnesota--we are fifth in the Nation--and here again our trade team deserves thanks for working with me and other interested Senators, as well as our Nation's dairy farm families, in arriving at a more workable although not perfect solution. Maintaining the second tier tariff for Minnesota dairy farmers is an absolutely essential part of this agreement. I am pleased that we have worked with our trade team on this issue. I don't want to get into discussions of the complexity of dairy policy on the floor of this body, but this issue of a second-tier tariff was important to my dairy farmers and dairy farmers throughout America. We managed to make sure that we maintained that second-tier tariff. That was a good thing. Under the agreement, in-quota dairy imports are estimated to equal only 0.17 percent of the annual value of U.S. dairy production, and only about 2 percent of the current value of imports. Finally, assurances by our trade team that imports will not affect the operation of the milk price support program are extremely important to me and to America's dairy farmers. Today I have 6,000 hard-working dairy farm families who milk about half a million cows every morning and night, who can breathe a little easier, thanks to the efforts of our trade team. I stress, less than 10 years ago we had about 14,000 Minnesota families. So we have lost over half the dairy farmers in our State. I presume that pattern has been shown in other parts of the country. But those 6,000 hard-working dairy farm families can sleep a little easier tonight thanks to the efforts of our trade team. Again, it is not a slam dunk. This agreement is not perfect, but it is more workable to my dairy farmers and cooperatives at home because second-tier tariffs were maintained and in-quota imports are expected to be low. My cattlemen are about where my dairymen are. They are relieved, but I would say our trade team had to overcome a very difficult issue. On the whole, they worked very hard to address the concerns of Minnesota's cattlemen. They phase down U.S. tariffs over an 18-year period and phase up the amount of in-quota access, all the while providing safeguards to protect against import surges that would disrupt U.S. markets. And at the end of the 18-year period, another safeguard is put in place to protect against import surges that would otherwise depress U.S. beef prices. As a Senator representing nearly 16,000 cattlemen and a State that ranks sixth in beef production, my support for this agreement is couched in part on my reliance that these safeguards for U.S. beef will, in fact, be allowed to work as intended and that any waiver would be undertaken only in the rarest of circumstances, circumstances that I, frankly, can't conceive of now as I speak. Steve Brake, a good friend of mine, is president of the cattlemen. Whenever I get to cattle country, I touch base with him to where things are. He understands. It is extremely important to him and his fellow cattlemen that we strictly enforce these safeguards. I know I will hear from Steve if we don't. If I hear about it from Steve, our trade team is going to hear about it, too. The safeguards are in place. I have great respect for what has been done, and I think our cattlemen can sleep easier tonight. I am pleased that the sanitary and phytosanitary issues that stood in the way of our pork producers' access to the Australian market have been favorably resolved, leading to the endorsement of the agreement by more than 6,000 Minnesota pork producers. I will repeat that. These issues have been resolved and have led to the endorsement of the agreement by my more than 6,000 Minnesota pork producers. I also appreciate the work of our trade team in pressing the issue of the Australian Wheat Board, a monopolistic state trading enterprise whose time has passed. While I am disappointed we were unable to do away with the board under this agreement, I am pleased the Australians have agreed to discuss this issue in the Doha Round of the WTO. Overall, I believe this administration had a tough job to do and it did it reasonably well--job well done--something evidenced by the likely passage of this agreement. The Australia Free Trade Agreement is a good precursor to the WTO discussions that will take place in Geneva yet this month because it underscores a point: You don't have to give away the farm to negotiate a good agreement, and you may not pass one if you do. So the Australia Free Trade Agreement that President Bush has sent to Congress is about sustaining and growing American jobs. It is about bolstering support in the economic opportunity of our rural families, our rural communities, and the incredible work they do to produce the safest, most affordable food supply in the world. So to the President and our trade team, I say: Job well done. To our Members and colleagues in this body, I say: Let us move forward and pass the Australia Free Trade Agreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I have introduced the Veterans Benefits Outreach Act. Caring for our veterans is a commitment that supersedes politics. The President and Congress are united in our promise to provide veterans with access to quality care and benefits. Spending for veterans medical care has doubled since 1993. President Bush's budget for the VA increased by 9 percent in fiscal year 2002, 13 percent in 2003 and another 4 percent in 2004. We in the Senate passed a budget resolution calling for another 5 percent increase next year. We have begun giving veterans concurrent receipt of their disability and retirement benefits, and are working to fix the survivor benefit plan. But what good are these benefits if people don't know they can apply for them? According to an article that ran on the front page of the St. Paul Pioneer Press today entitled: ``Wounded and Forgotten,'' there are an estimated half a million veterans who are eligible for Federal disability payments but are not receiving them--simply because they don't know that they can. We need to do a better job of educating veterans about their rights. To this end, my legislation calls for the Veterans Administration to develop a strategy each year to reach out to veterans who are not taking advantage of the programs they're eligible for--to give them a chance to make an informed decision about the benefits America has promised them. In addition to veterans who are not getting their benefits because they are unaware of them, there are some veterans who know they are eligible but have been turned away because of lost documents. You see, in 1973, the National Personnel Records Center in Missouri caught on fire, destroying thousands of veterans' personnel records. The law already calls for the VA to give veterans the benefit of the doubt when they are missing documents that had been destroyed in the fire. But it is clear that in practice this is simply not the case. Too many veterans get nothing more than a postcard telling them their case cannot be proven because of the destruction of their records three decades ago. It is simply unconscionable that these veterans should have to suffer because their records were ruined while in the custody of the government. To deal with this problem, my legislation also directs the VA to set up an appeals process for those whose applications are rejected because of documents lost in that fire. My legislation is about going the extra mile to do the right thing. These are not hand-outs, these are not new entitlement programs--these are benefits prescribed under the law for people who have already qualified for them by serving their country. We must do whatever it takes to give America's veterans the benefits we promised them. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I have introduced the Veterans Benefits Outreach Act. Caring for our veterans is a commitment that supersedes politics. The President and Congress are united in our promise to provide veterans with access to quality care and benefits. Spending for veterans medical care has doubled since 1993. President Bush's budget for the VA increased by 9 percent in fiscal year 2002, 13 percent in 2003 and another 4 percent in 2004. We in the Senate passed a budget resolution calling for another 5 percent increase next year. We have begun giving veterans concurrent receipt of their disability and retirement benefits, and are working to fix the survivor benefit plan. But what good are these benefits if people don't know they can apply for them? According to an article that ran on the front page of the St. Paul Pioneer Press today entitled: ``Wounded and Forgotten,'' there are an estimated half a million veterans who are eligible for Federal disability payments but are not receiving them--simply because they don't know that they can. We need to do a better job of educating veterans about their rights. To this end, my legislation calls for the Veterans Administration to develop a strategy each year to reach out to veterans who are not taking advantage of the programs they're eligible for--to give them a chance to make an informed decision about the benefits America has promised them. In addition to veterans who are not getting their benefits because they are unaware of them, there are some veterans who know they are eligible but have been turned away because of lost documents. You see, in 1973, the National Personnel Records Center in Missouri caught on fire, destroying thousands of veterans' personnel records. The law already calls for the VA to give veterans the benefit of the doubt when they are missing documents that had been destroyed in the fire. But it is clear that in practice this is simply not the case. Too many veterans get nothing more than a postcard telling them their case cannot be proven because of the destruction of their records three decades ago. It is simply unconscionable that these veterans should have to suffer because their records were ruined while in the custody of the government. To deal with this problem, my legislation also directs the VA to set up an appeals process for those whose applications are rejected because of documents lost in that fire. My legislation is about going the extra mile to do the right thing. These are not hand-outs, these are not new entitlement programs--these are benefits prescribed under the law for people who have already qualified for them by serving their country. We must do whatever it takes to give America's veterans the benefits we promised them. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I have introduced the Emergency Relief for Rural Borderlands Act. This act deals with a problem which is probably well known to many of my colleagues--the insufficient number of H2-B visas available for temporary seasonal employment this year. U.S. laws governing labor-based immigration have always maintained that employers must give priority to American workers. I support this philosophy, as I am sure the rest of my colleagues do as well. I also acknowledge the reality that sometimes there are jobs that, for a variety of reasons, cannot be filled by American workers. This is a fact of life. We can see it on our farms, in our restaurants, and on our construction sites. My legislation deals with one small sub-set of these foreign workers, temporary seasonal laborers under the H2-B visa program. H2-B guest workers may work in the United States for no more than 6 months, at the end of which they must return to their countries of origin. They fill critical gaps in the labor market, which in turn helps American companies to prosper year-round. They work at summer camps and resorts, for fisheries and for landscapers, and in many other non-agricultural pursuits. My legislation does not propose to fix the H2-B crisis across the board. Some of my colleagues have introduced legislation to this end, and I would not presume to improve upon their proposals. My legislation represents, instead, a commitment to the needs of a unique geographical situation--rural borderlands. In my State of Minnesota, and indeed across the country, rural areas continue to be challenged economically. It would be safe to say that there is a crisis in rural America today. To address the challenges faced by rural communities, I introduced the Rural Renaissance Act, and others in the Senate have also introduced legislation that is directed towards rural America. What the Rural Renaissance Act would do is help rural, small towns develop the infrastructure needed to expand communities and create jobs. It takes a long-term view of what is needed in rural America. But at the same time, there is another, temporary crisis for those in rural America who can't get the H2-B visa laborers they rely on. This kind of labor shortage is the last thing rural America needs. Rural communities located near the border have a special set of challenges, which go beyond even what the rest of rural America is dealing with. Companies who are recruiting workers naturally target the cities and towns closest to them. But when a company is located near an international border, the pool of U.S. workers in close proximity is smaller than for companies located more centrally. For example, take Warroad, MN, in Roseau County. Roseau, like many rural counties in Minnesota, is dealing with a number of challenges-- from out-migration of younger people leaving behind an aging population, to economic sluggishness, to inadequate infrastructure and even flooding issues. The town of Warroad, population 1,722, is located about 6 miles from the U.S.-Canada border. The largest company in Warroad is a first-class window manufacturer, Marvin Windows. Because of its relationship to construction, the window industry has a seasonal element to it. During the summer, Marvin hires hundreds of American college students to work at its factory in Warroad. But when these students go back to school, there are short-term positions which need to be filled through December. For the last 8 years, Marvin Windows has relied on Canadian workers to fill these critical positions. This year, because of the early date when the cap on H2-B visas was reached, Marvin Windows is looking at a big gap in their employment--which not only could hurt their revenues this year, but also threatens to undercut their long-term reputation as a reliable supplier of windows. I am aware that my colleague Senator Hatch has introduced legislation to remedy the H2-B visa shortage. I support this legislation. But as we have seen, there is not yet consensus on it. Companies like Marvin Windows cannot afford to wait much longer. That's why I have proposed the Emergency Relief for Rural Borderlands Act. This legislation is admittedly less ambitious than Senator Hatch's legislation, or Senator Kennedy's bill. My legislation would simply observe the unique circumstances facing rural areas--which are challenged economically already--as well as the realities of the labor pool for companies located near our borders. My legislation would relieve these rural borderlands from the visa cap for this year only. Moreover, my legislation would only give relief to those companies who can demonstrate that they have relied on the program in the past, by limiting eligibility to only those companies which have made use of H2- B workers in at least 2 of the last 5 years. My legislation is not a permanent fix, nor is it a comprehensive fix. I know that there are deserving companies that are not going to be able to qualify under my legislation. My legislation is only applicable this year, and I am sure we will need to revisit this issue again next year. But if we in the Congress cannot reach agreement on a comprehensive solution for this visa shortage, perhaps the time has come to look at a more limited approach. Rural America has unique labor requirements, and borderlands have challenging recruitment conditions. If we begin by looking at the needs of areas that are both rural and close to the border, we can help the economies that stand to be hurt the most by the shortage in H2-B visas this year. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. How much time remains?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I will talk about good economic news, the optimism that my friend and colleague from Arizona has discussed. I have always been a believer in looking at the cup half full rather than half empty. This cup is pretty full right now and is filling every day. It tastes good to drink from it. There is good news out there and we need to talk about that. We used to have an expression that politics ends at the water's edge. We did not allow debates between candidates to confuse the way foreign policy was conducted abroad. There is something akin to that with the economy. Certainly the issue of jobs and economic growth are appropriate for political discussion. No doubt about that. I worry when it reaches a point that the volume and nature of the debate is actually hurting the economy. Maybe we have gone too far. So much of our economic activity is based on the way we perceive the direction of the economy. Perception does have some impact on reality. Those who try to shape the negative perception for political ends should reflect a little more on that. It is the political season, the Presidential race is coming up, but the volume of negative statements in absolute denial of what is happening with this economy is a little disconcerting. I am concerned about those who are tempted to believe good economic news is bad political news, and bad economic news is good political news. We should be better than that. It reminds me of the Lutheran Church in Minnesota that got their first female pastor. Some of the older guys in the congregation were skeptical. They thought she would not be able to preach. After her first sermon, they were very impressed. Then they said, Well, she will not work very hard. But after she balanced the congregation's books, organized the church picnic, and got the Sunday school on track, they were impressed. Then they thought, Well, she will not relate to guys like us. Then she asked if she could go fishing with them. They did not like the idea, but they could not say no. After a couple of hours on the water, the pastor said: Guys, I need a restroom. A little annoyed, they started pulling up their line. She said: That's okay, and stepped out of the boat and walked on water to the shore. And one of the guys said: Figures, she can't even swim. For those who continue to be skeptical about the progress of this economy, I am beginning to think they would be discouraged even if it walked on water. I read an estimate that the economy will grow at a rate of 4.8 percent this year. That sounds good. It would be the highest growth in two decades. This is an economy that is carrying on its back a war on terror, the aftermath of September 11, the corporate scandals, the uncertainties of a Presidential campaign. The economy is not just walking on water, it is running. Economic growth is at a 20-year high. Work and productivity rose by almost 4 percent last quarter and remains above its historic average as businesses continue to utilize technology in a more efficient manner. We are increasing productivity at the same time. We are growing jobs. The manufacturing sector on balance has grown since the beginning of the year as factories have boosted employment to meet strong consumer demand. Why do we have strong consumer demand? Because we cut taxes, because we put more money in the pockets of moms and dads. And when moms and dads spend that money on a good or service, the person producing that good or service has a job. That makes it more likely, more profitable, easier for small business folks to reinvest in their business. By cutting capital gains, providing bonus depreciation, you increase expensing, opportunities and options for small business. They invest in the business and they grow jobs. The manufacturing employment index is pointing to an expansion in hiring. The National Association of Business Economics, at its quarterly survey on business conditions, shows that 41 percent of the respondents expect their companies to increase employment over the next 6 months, up from 34 percent 3 months earlier. Consumer and producer confidence remains solid. In fact, consumer confidence got a huge boost last week, reaching a 5-month high. Consumers are optimistic. The politicians who benefit, unfortunately, seem to think they benefit from bad news. They are the pessimists. The reality is, this economy is moving forward. The consumers understand that. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to find it difficult to accept that, difficult to admit that, difficult to recognize that there is consumer and producer confidence today. That is good for the economy. That helps grow jobs. The housing market is strong. The national home-ownership rate in sales of new homes are at a record high. My friend from Arizona talked about per capita, aftertax disposable income; in other words, the amount of money people get to spend themselves after they pay taxes. It has increased 7.1 percent. This is higher than it was after the first 4 years of the Clinton administration during this boom period that folks talk about. Last month, 112,000 jobs were added to the economy. In the past 4 months, payrolls have grown by almost 1.1 million, a pace of more than 3 million jobs annually. It is fascinating that although the amount of jobs increased last month by 112,000, the pessimists will say that is less than what was projected, as if that is a negative. Over 1.1 million jobs in the past 4 months. I remind the pessimists that in every year of the job boom of the late 1990s, it included at least 1 month where payroll growth fell below 150,000 and in a few instances it went even negative. This is the ebb and flow of the economy. Everyone can forecast but no one can guarantee economic growth. The trends are clear, the movement is clear. It is like you have a chance to do a little fishing over the break. You kind of watch that stream and it is moving in a direction. The economy is moving in the right direction. There was an article printed in USA Today a couple weeks ago by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, author of ``Reason: Why Liberals Win the Battle for America.'' He wrote this at the request of the Kerry campaign. What is the title? ``Gloom Is Reality for Citizens.'' Senator Kerry talks about misery indexes. Robert Reich, ``Gloom Is Reality for Citizens.'' That is not the reality of what is happening in the economy today. Part of this discussion Reich talks about is saying, well, we have a lot of jobs. They recognize there is an increase--1.1 million jobs--but they talk about the quality of jobs. They talk about wages that are stagnant. If you look at, again, the facts--look at the facts, the facts, ma'am, the facts--three-quarters of the new jobs created in May were in industry categories that pay an hourly average rate in excess of the overall average hourly rate in the private sector. Inflation-adjusted hourly earnings have increased 2.3 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 the first Clinton administration. I mentioned before that the aftertax disposable income is way above what it was during the Clinton administration. Then the pessimists say: Well, these aren't full-time jobs. They are a lot of part-time jobs, but ``jobs'' they call it. Again, as I said before, three-quarters of the new jobs created in May were in industry categories that pay an hourly average rate in excess of the overall average hourly rate in the private sector. Since the start of the Bush administration, full-time employment has averaged 82.57 percent, nearly a full percentage point higher than full-time employment during the period of the first Clinton administration. In the past year, the number of part-time positions has declined about 240,000, while full-time positions have increased by more than a million. More than 80 percent of part-time workers in May indicated they have chosen part-time employment for noneconomic reasons. Some people choose to work part time. But, again, the number of full-time jobs is increasing at an all-time high. The number of unemployed is decreasing. In Minnesota, a few months ago, the drop in the rate of unemployment went from 4.8 percent to 4.1 percent in 1 month. That .7 percent drop was the largest monthly drop since we began keeping records in over 20 years. That is significant. Does that mean there are people out of work? Absolutely. As long as one American is out of work, then we have to do something about it. That is why, by the way, we have to pass the class action bill. It is being filibustered. That is why we have to pass an energy bill. It is being filibustered. That is why we have to get a highway bill through this Congress. We have to get some things done, but we are moving in the right direction. And again, in Minnesota--back at home--the President's tax relief led to the creation of 7,200 new jobs in May. Over the months of April and May, Minnesota gained almost 20,000 new jobs, leading to the highest 2- month gain in the last 5 years. Both the construction and manufacturing sectors in Minnesota continue to improve. Construction employment grew by 2,200 in May, building on April's 2,800 new jobs, and 1,600 new manufacturing jobs were created in May, while 7,400 manufacturing jobs have been created in the last 10 months. The employment outlook for the third quarter for Minnesota employers is the strongest in more than 25 years; 30 percent of Minnesota employers expect to hire more employees. There is an article in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune talking about: ``Analysts expect excellent economy.'' I will read from the article: The economy appears headed for a banner year despite a springtime spike in energy prices and a recent increase in interest rates. In fact, many analysts are forecasting that the economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades. There were strong 4.5 percent growth rates in 1997 and 1999, when Bill Clinton was president and the country was in the midst of a record 10-year expansion. But if this year's growth ends up a bit faster than that, it will be the best since the economy roared ahead at 7.2 percent in 1984, a year when another Republican President-- Ronald Reagan--was running for re-election. A survey of top economists showed further optimism: Ninety-one percent said they expected the economy to grow at an annual rate of anywhere from 2 to 5 percent in the second half of this year . . . Forty-one percent said they expected stepped-up hiring in the next six months . . . ``By almost any measure--output, employment, profit margins, capital spending--this economy is strong,'' said Duncan Meldrum, the association's president and the chief economist for Air Products and Chemicals Inc. The reality is the economy is moving forward. More needs to be done. I do hope we get class action passed here. A report by the National Association of Manufacturers found that domestically imposed costs, including tort litigation, reduced America's manufacturing cost competitiveness by 22 percent in the world market. There is no doubt about it, our legal system puts American jobs at a competitive disadvantage with foreign firms. Money it has spent fighting frivolous lawsuits should be spent back in the business growing jobs and growing the economy. So instead of making speeches downplaying the positive economic numbers, instead of casting about with doom and gloom, instead of writing articles about gloom being reality for Americans, instead of talking about misery indexes, let's celebrate what we have. Let's commit to keep moving forward. Let's get the class action bill passed. Let's get the Energy bill passed. Let's get the highway bill through. And let's keep doing the things we are doing. Let's make permanent the Bush tax cuts that increase particularly the low and middle class, the per-child tax credit, get rid of the marriage penalty, make sure we make permanent the expansion of the 10-percent bracket, do those things that put money in the pockets of moms and dads so when moms and dads spend that money, the economy grows. If we do that, if we keep moving forward and we get some stuff done, and put the politicking aside, we put the election-year politics aside, and we put the doom and gloom and negativity aside, this country can be all that it is and all we know it to be: the greatest country in the world, the economically strongest country in the world. But we have to keep moving in the right direction. We are committed to doing that. Let's stop the pessimism. Let's stop the gloom and doom. We have a job to do, and I hope we can work it in a bipartisan way, to finish the work we need to do. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I have introduced the Emergency Relief for Rural Borderlands Act. This act deals with a problem which is probably well known to many of my colleagues--the insufficient number of H2-B visas available for temporary seasonal employment this year. U.S. laws governing labor-based immigration have always maintained that employers must give priority to American workers. I support this philosophy, as I am sure the rest of my colleagues do as well. I also acknowledge the reality that sometimes there are jobs that, for a variety of reasons, cannot be filled by American workers. This is a fact of life. We can see it on our farms, in our restaurants, and on our construction sites. My legislation deals with one small sub-set of these foreign workers, temporary seasonal laborers under the H2-B visa program. H2-B guest workers may work in the United States for no more than 6 months, at the end of which they must return to their countries of origin. They fill critical gaps in the labor market, which in turn helps American companies to prosper year-round. They work at summer camps and resorts, for fisheries and for landscapers, and in many other non-agricultural pursuits. My legislation does not propose to fix the H2-B crisis across the board. Some of my colleagues have introduced legislation to this end, and I would not presume to improve upon their proposals. My legislation represents, instead, a commitment to the needs of a unique geographical situation--rural borderlands. In my State of Minnesota, and indeed across the country, rural areas continue to be challenged economically. It would be safe to say that there is a crisis in rural America today. To address the challenges faced by rural communities, I introduced the Rural Renaissance Act, and others in the Senate have also introduced legislation that is directed towards rural America. What the Rural Renaissance Act would do is help rural, small towns develop the infrastructure needed to expand communities and create jobs. It takes a long-term view of what is needed in rural America. But at the same time, there is another, temporary crisis for those in rural America who can't get the H2-B visa laborers they rely on. This kind of labor shortage is the last thing rural America needs. Rural communities located near the border have a special set of challenges, which go beyond even what the rest of rural America is dealing with. Companies who are recruiting workers naturally target the cities and towns closest to them. But when a company is located near an international border, the pool of U.S. workers in close proximity is smaller than for companies located more centrally. For example, take Warroad, MN, in Roseau County. Roseau, like many rural counties in Minnesota, is dealing with a number of challenges-- from out-migration of younger people leaving behind an aging population, to economic sluggishness, to inadequate infrastructure and even flooding issues. The town of Warroad, population 1,722, is located about 6 miles from the U.S.-Canada border. The largest company in Warroad is a first-class window manufacturer, Marvin Windows. Because of its relationship to construction, the window industry has a seasonal element to it. During the summer, Marvin hires hundreds of American college students to work at its factory in Warroad. But when these students go back to school, there are short-term positions which need to be filled through December. For the last 8 years, Marvin Windows has relied on Canadian workers to fill these critical positions. This year, because of the early date when the cap on H2-B visas was reached, Marvin Windows is looking at a big gap in their employment--which not only could hurt their revenues this year, but also threatens to undercut their long-term reputation as a reliable supplier of windows. I am aware that my colleague Senator Hatch has introduced legislation to remedy the H2-B visa shortage. I support this legislation. But as we have seen, there is not yet consensus on it. Companies like Marvin Windows cannot afford to wait much longer. That's why I have proposed the Emergency Relief for Rural Borderlands Act. This legislation is admittedly less ambitious than Senator Hatch's legislation, or Senator Kennedy's bill. My legislation would simply observe the unique circumstances facing rural areas--which are challenged economically already--as well as the realities of the labor pool for companies located near our borders. My legislation would relieve these rural borderlands from the visa cap for this year only. Moreover, my legislation would only give relief to those companies who can demonstrate that they have relied on the program in the past, by limiting eligibility to only those companies which have made use of H2- B workers in at least 2 of the last 5 years. My legislation is not a permanent fix, nor is it a comprehensive fix. I know that there are deserving companies that are not going to be able to qualify under my legislation. My legislation is only applicable this year, and I am sure we will need to revisit this issue again next year. But if we in the Congress cannot reach agreement on a comprehensive solution for this visa shortage, perhaps the time has come to look at a more limited approach. Rural America has unique labor requirements, and borderlands have challenging recruitment conditions. If we begin by looking at the needs of areas that are both rural and close to the border, we can help the economies that stand to be hurt the most by the shortage in H2-B visas this year. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled ``Money Laundering and Foreign Corruption: Enforcement and Effectiveness of the Patriot Act.'' The Subcommittee hearing will examine current enforcement of key provisions in the Patriot Act combating money laundering and foreign corruption, using a single case study involving Riggs Bank. The hearing will examine Riggs' anti-money laundering program, administration of accounts associated with senior foreign political figures and their family members, and interactions with its primary regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The hearing will also examine the OCC's anti- money laundering oversight and enforcement actions. In addition, the hearing will examine the activities of some oil companies in Equatorial Guinea. The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 15, 2004, at 9 a.m., in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise J. Bean, Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Minority, of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, at 224-3721. subcommittee on public lands and forests

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs will hold a second hearing on the danger of purchasing pharmaceuticals over the Internet. The Subcommittee held a hearing on June 17, 2004, on this issue and will hold a second day of hearings, entitled ``Buyer Beware: The Danger of Purchasing Pharmaceuticals Over the Internet-- Federal & Private Sector Response.'' The Subcommittee hearings are examining the extent to which consumers can purchase pharmaceuticals over the Internet without a medical prescription, the importation of pharmaceuticals into the United States, and whether the pharmaceuticals from foreign sources are counterfeit, expired, unsafe, or illegitimate. In addition, the Subcommittee hearings are examining the extent to which U.S. consumers can purchase dangerous and often addictive controlled substances from Internet pharmacy websites and the procedures utilized by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Food and Drug Administration, as well as the private sector to address these issues. The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 9 a.m., in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Raymond V. Shepherd, III, Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, at 224-3721.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the esteemed and greatly respected Senator from West Virginia concerning military and civilian personnel strength in Colombia. I have been to Colombia, I have been to Bogota, and I have had a chance to personally visit with some of our troops that are doing training, and to visit with President Uribe on a number of occasions. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, I believe the situation in Colombia is of paramount importance to the entire region. I must state very clearly this is not a civil war in Colombia. Colombia is not engaged in a civil war. Colombia, today, is engaged in a fight against narcoterrorists. That is what this is about. It is not about ideology anymore. It is about money. It is about drugs that are being used to fuel the insurgency. But this is not a civil war. I think that is important to understand. If you reflect a little bit on the history of what has happened in Colombia, President Pastrana did everything in his power to try to negotiate a settlement. He even set aside a parcel of land, known as a ``despeje,'' as a token of good faith, but it was to no avail. You see, the narcoterrorists had no interest in negotiating a political solution because, again, it is not a civil war. Their objectives were and remain to intimidate the public and to make money through criminal means. Let me be perfectly clear, all three of the groups--the FARC, the ELN, and the paramilitary AUC--are all terrorist organizations in the eyes of the United States and must continue to be treated as such by the Government of Colombia. During my last visit to Colombia, I was speaking to the Ambassador from one of the Scandinavian countries who has been involved in trying to create some opportunities for peaceful negotiation. I said to him: Historically, in the past, there may have been a civil war here. There may have been those in some of these organizations who were carrying some ideological belief and fervor that somehow they could change the system of government in Colombia. But today you have a democratically elected President with overwhelmingly high approval ratings, I think around 80 percent. Anybody in this body would like to have those kinds of approval ratings. You have a very active opposition party, a very active democracy in Colombia. Speaking to this Ambassador, he admitted: Yes, today it is about drugs, and it is about money. That is what we are dealing with today. That is the passion. That is the common link of those who are engaged in a battle with the government. The top fundraising enterprise of all three of these organizations is drug trafficking. They also are involved in extortion, kidnapping, and intimidation. There are few, if any, legitimate political objectives. They are narcoterrorists. In fact, this Senate has voted to treat the guerrillas as such. Expanded authorities passed by this Congress allow the U.S. to support the Colombians in their efforts against the insurgents, not just for the purpose of fighting drug trafficking, but also for opposing the terrorist insurgent threat. All three of these groups appear on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. As I said before, President Uribe, who enjoys a great deal of popularity in Colombia, was elected with a clear mandate--that the narcoterrorists can be dealt with only from a position of strength. They must be weakened militarily to the point where they abandon their enterprise. Under the leadership of President Uribe, the tide has begun to turn. Kidnappings are down. Murders are down. The terrorists in many instances are laying down their weapons. Coca eradication has reached record levels. But the task is not yet finished. It is important. It is not a matter of: Well, we have put resources into Colombia; when are we going to get it done? As we well know, in this country the battle about drugs and narcotics is an ongoing battle. It is something where what we have to do is maintain the pressure, maintain the commitment, maintain the consistency, and not send a signal that somehow we are putting a cap on it. Again, the numbers we are talking about here are very minimal, whether it is the Armed Services Committee recommendation of increasing the military cap from 400 to 800 and the civilian cap from 400 to 600, with a total increase of 600, versus the distinguished Senator from West Virginia talking about 500. But the message is not minimal. The understanding of this body of the importance of what we are doing in Colombia, and continuing to build upon success, is important. That is not minimal. What we do here will be heard in Colombia. It will be heard around the world. We have to do the right thing. Under the Colombian Constitution, President Uribe is limited to one term in office. What this means is during the final 20 months of President Uribe's term, there is a limited window of opportunity to seriously weaken these groups and to move beyond this conflict that has devastated the Colombian people for decades. That is why I believe the time is right to increase the cap, again slightly increase the cap, on the number of United States military and civilian personnel in Colombia who are assisting the Colombians. We are not talking about lifting the cap entirely. We are talking about increasing the number of military personnel who can be in Colombia at any one time to 800 and civilians to 600. I applaud the chairman for including this necessary provision in the underlying bill. This is not a blank check. Human rights protections are still very much in place. The United States Government works only with Colombian security forces who have been thoroughly vetted. I am a strong believer in human rights, and in each and every one of my meetings with Colombian officials I raise the human rights issue. I talk about the importance that human rights has in this country and has for our support of what is going on in Colombia. Human rights protections must remain essential to our involvement in Colombia, and the Colombians understand that. President Uribe understands that. Moreover, the activities of U.S. troops are limited. They are there to train the Colombians. Our troops will continue to operate from secure sites only and will not be exposed to combat. United States activities in Colombia and the region will continue to deal with the nonmilitary facets of Colombia's crisis as well. We are supporting programs for internally displaced people. We are encouraging alternative crops so farmers are not growing coca and they can make a living for themselves and their families. We are supporting human rights and rule-of-law efforts across the board. For anyone familiar with the situation in Colombia, it is clear President Uribe is bringing security, stability, and law and order to a country that so desperately needs it. Plan Colombia is a Colombian strategy to retake the country from the grip of narcoterrorists. United States support for Plan Colombia is predicated on a mutual understanding of what is at stake in Colombia, and a belief that the United States and Colombians can work together to address the crisis. We have a critical window of opportunity here to make a major push against narcoterrorists in our own hemisphere during these final 20 months of President Uribe's term. When President Uribe was elected and sworn in, there were mortar attacks on his life. I think there have been about 10 to 15 attempts on his life. He is an extraordinarily brave individual. So often we look around the world and say: America will be there to support you, but you have stand up for yourselves. Colombians are standing up. They are saying they want to win this battle against narcoterrorism. Ninety percent of the cocaine in this country comes from Colombia. We Americans--our kids, our families--have a stake in the success of what happens in Colombia. Again, this is the time. This is the place to send a strong signal that we will strengthen our efforts against narcoterrorism. The risk is the risk of doing nothing, the risk of sending a signal that somehow we are going to cap this and limit our effort, that somehow this battle against narcoterrorism is a short-term, we-are-in- it-this-week and we-are-out-next-week approach. This is not about that. Again, we are not talking about a civil war. We are talking about working hand in hand with a government that is deeply committed, that has put its own troops on the frontline, that personally has made the commitment not just of fighting narcoterrorism but to economic reform, pension reform, a commitment to human rights, to the rule of law. The right thing to do is to support the Armed Services Committee recommendation. The right thing to do is to reject the amendment of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the recommendation of the Armed Services Committee is a proper, cautious, moderate increase. That is what we are talking about. The numbers are not that great, but the message is significant. The message is significant. What we have is a recommendation, developed by General Hill from SOUTHCOM, saying this is what we need to make sure we are living up to our commitment and to modestly strengthen our commitment, that we have seen success. Let's reward success. Again, in a proper, cautious way. I agree with my distinguished colleague from Michigan. That is the kind of increase we need. But we are seeing success with murder down, kidnapping down. We are seeing great courage from President Uribe. We see Colombians step to the plate. We have to maintain the pressure. We are not talking about civil war. We are talking about a battle against terrorist organizations. Winning this battle will have a direct impact on the lives of Americans. It will have a direct impact on slowing the flow of cocaine and narcotics into this country. On both sides of the aisle our colleagues are seeking the same outcome; that is, to have a proper, cautious, moderate increase in strength. But it would be wrong to send a signal to reject the recommendation, the thoughtful, reasoned, rational, proper, cautious recommendation of the Armed Services Committee on this issue. Let us send the right message and let us do the right thing by upholding the judgment of the Armed Services Committee, by not stepping back, not by placing the caps that this amendment would place. Let's reaffirm our commitment to Colombia, to the world, about fighting narcoterrorism and winning this battle. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on the Committee on Governmental Affairs will hold 2 days of hearings entitled ``Buyer Beware: The Danger of Purchasing Pharmaceuticals Over the Internet.'' The Subcommittee hearings will examine the extent to which consumers can purchase pharmaceuticals over the Internet without a medical prescription, the importation of pharmaceuticals into the United States, and whether the pharmaceuticals from foreign sources are counterfeit, expired, unsafe, or illegitimate. In addition, the Subcommittee hearings will examine the extent to which U.S. consumers can purchase dangerous and often addictive controlled substances from Internet pharmacy websites and the procedures utilized by the Food and Drug Administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and private stakeholders to address these drug safety issues. The Subcommittee hearings are scheduled for Thursday, June 17 and Thursday, June 24, at 9 a.m. each day, in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Raymond V. Shepherd, III, Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. subcommittee on public lands and forests

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I share that sense of humility that has been so eloquently expressed by my friend from Oklahoma, to be able to stand on this Senate floor and to thank God for Ronald Reagan, for what he gave us and what we learned from him. I must admit to being a bit envious to be in the Chamber with my friend from Oklahoma who knew Ronald Reagan when he was a young man. My friend, the Presiding Officer, on the way to the Chamber--again, we were all fellow mayors--talked about when he was mayor of Cleveland. There were some difficult times, and he talked to the President. He talked about what a good man the President was. What a good man, that he really cared, that he listened, and that he wanted to do things, wanted to make a difference. Sometimes when those around him were not making a difference, he took care of it and got it done. I think my colleagues were part of history being made. I was able to watch history during that time. But I am honored and humbled to be here today. To those of us who grew up in the Midwest and for those like myself who made it our home, Ronald Reagan has a very special significance. Places like Dixon, IL have been dubbed fly-over zones by sophisticated, powerful people who live on the coast. But we know places like that are the heartland, strong, simple, and true. That was Ronald Reagan. What we love about the Midwest is what America and the world came to know and understand and love about Ronald Reagan. To go on and on in flowery rhetoric about Ronald Reagan would not fit the subject matter. Like he did so well, his life deserves a few well- chosen words. Oscar Wilde once said: Life is not complex. We are complex. Life is simple and the simple thing is the right thing. Ronald Reagan could have said that because, surely, he lived it. Democracy is superior to communism. America is the world's best hope. Liberty requires limited government. The best is yet to come. Those were Ronald Reagan's moral anchors from the start of his public life to the end. Without deviation, they shaped his outlook and actions for half a century. He certainly didn't originate any of them, but we all know they are far more prominent in the fabric of American life today because of the power of his witness, as he lived his life, the power of what he did with those moral anchors as part of him. In the last few days, we are hearing a lot about Reagan as the Great Communicator. I think we put too much emphasis on the craft. As far as Ronald Reagan was concerned, the key to being a good communicator was having something to say. He was the message he delivered, and so he touched hearts and changed minds. He understood the key to American progress was our spirit. Resources, wealth, and past accomplishments have ruined more people and nations than they have made. He knew we needed a sense of the heroic, a stirring of our souls to rise above selfishness, division, and fear. He inspired us. He restored our confidence in the idea of leadership. Vietnam, Watergate, inflation, gas lines, and the hostage crisis were causing many to wonder if the American hour had passed. Not Ronald Reagan. He stubbornly held onto a wonderful vision of the future rather than focus on temporary negative circumstances. He led us. And perhaps of greatest importance, by his own choice, Ronald Reagan was not the star of our dramatic national resurgence. Neither was Government. In Reagan's mind and words, the heroes who restored the American economy and won the cold war were ordinary Americans doing simple things, doing their duty--kind of like a national bond raising. He united us. Mr. President, I also grew up as a Democrat. President Reagan deeply inspired me, and he had a lot to do with the fact that I am standing on this side of the aisle today. He inspired me with ideas, such as if you want to grow an economy, you cut taxes and put money in people's pockets; they will spend it on a product or service, and there is a job connected to that. He understood that. He showed the power of it. I understood that. It wasn't just about policy, it was about optimism. When I ran for mayor in St. Paul in 1993, my slogan was ``St. Paul's best days are yet to come.'' When I switched parties in 1996, Jack Kemp came over to my house, and I made the announcement. It was that spirit of hope, optimism, entrepreneurship, and opportunity that he showed worked. That was the key, by the way. For him, it was not about politics; it was about results. My friend from Oklahoma quoted President Reagan saying that solving the energy crisis wasn't easy, but that it can be done. He understood the importance of getting it done. I think Ronald Reagan would be honored to know we are shutting down the Federal Government on Friday. His only concern might be that we are starting it again on Monday. He changed us and transformed the world, without a doubt. Some days, Mr. President, I get concerned that we are changing back. As we remember his life, I hope we all remember that the simple things are the right things: Freedom, hope, liberty, and optimism. I thank God that he gave us Ronald Reagan when we needed him most. Now, this is our time. I pray that we will courageously follow his example and embrace America's destiny in this challenging hour. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, tomorrow, the Senate will be in a period of morning business throughout the day. Senators who have not had a chance to deliver their statements commemorating President Reagan are encouraged to do so tomorrow. In addition to tribute statements, at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow, the Senate will vote on a resolution honoring our former President. That vote will be the first and only vote of tomorrow's session. As the majority leader stated this morning, when we adjourn early tomorrow afternoon, we will remain adjourned until next Monday to accommodate the services and ceremonies surrounding President Reagan's funeral. We will be back on the Defense bill next week, and Senators should expect rollcall votes to occur Monday evening.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow, the Senate proceed to a resolution introduced by Senator Frist, the text of which is at the desk, relative to the death of former President Reagan. I further ask the Senate then proceed to a vote on the resolution's adoption; provided that there be no amendments in order to the resolution or preamble, and no intervening action or debate prior to the vote.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 9. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the Senate begin a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 116, which is at the desk; further, that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the provisions of S. Res. 371 as a mark of further respect for President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about continued progress for the American economy, especially back home in Minnesota. I have been coming down to the Senate floor now from time to time to talk about how the policies of President Bush and a Republican majority, working across the aisle with some like-minded Democratic friends in the Congress, are putting America's economy back on track and Americans back to work. I remember back in October when I came down to the floor and talked about early signs of economic growth that would set the stage for the job creation we have been witnessing in the last 8 months. Right after I spoke, my friend the assistant Democratic leader challenged me a bit, questioning whether my prediction for a brighter economy were not a little premature. As the saying goes, ``There is nothing more horrible than the murder of beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts.'' What may have been a trickle of good economic news last October has cascaded into a steady stream of good news. Even that most persistent critics of the President's economic program must now concede. The economic engine of America is humming. Job growth is a reality. Two weeks ago, I talked about a Minneapolis Star Tribune article appropriately entitled, ``Minnesota Jobs Roar Ahead,'' which reported that Minnesota broke all kinds of jobs records in April when Minnesota experienced the largest one-month drop ever in its unemployment rate and more manufacturing jobs were created at a record pace as well. Today, I want to talk a little about an article in my home town paper, the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, entitled ``Factories on a Roll.'' The article highlights that U.S. Manufacturing activity expanded for the 12th consecutive month last month, and factories boosted employment to meet strong demand for their products. This is true back home in Minnesota. A regional survey by Creighton University economists found that Minnesota's ``Business Conditions Index'' rose to a 10-year high. Also, Minnesota enjoyed its best month-to-month gain in jobs in April since October of 1999. The progress of the last few months has led number of economists to describe Minnesota's economy as ``spectacular'' and ``breathless,'' and indicates that employment opportunity in the manufacturing sector will continue to improve. I stand by what I said in October. The President's commonsense tax relief has played the crucial role in helping the economy to rebound from the recession that began during the final months of the Clinton presidency. More than 1.9 million Minnesota taxpayers saw their taxes decline this year under the President's tax relief. More than 1.2 million couples in Minnesota will benefit from the reduced marriage penalty and more than 475,000 couples and single parents will see an increase in their child tax credit. I wonder if some folks on the other side of the aisle would still prefer I hold my tongue while we wait for more evidence. If so, I would suggest that perhaps ``irrational exuberance'' has given way to ``unreasonable pessimism.'' I would even go so far to say that one of the economy's chief risk factors today is those who continue to talk it down. And why? Could it be perhaps that for some, economic good news might be political bad news? Much of the howling about the economy has fallen silent. But where is the consistency? If the President was to blame for the economy before, isn't he to be praised for its performance now? I can't wait to see how this one is spun. The economy has overcome great obstacles and is firing on all cylinders in Minnesota and elsewhere. No, we have not died and gone to economic heaven; problems remain. There is good and bad in every economic period. But considering where we are and what we have come through, this is solid, broad-based and even historic progress. I was optimistic last October. Why? Because this is what always happens when you give people control of more of their own paychecks. Federal programs are not the engine of economic growth: Regular folks who save, invest and consume are. But that doesn't mean there aren't things we can do right now to help. For the sake of working families across the country, we need to focus on maintaining that economic growth and jobs creation through a forward looking legislative agenda. We need to pass an energy bill, a highway bill, and important legal reforms that alone would create 3.5 million new, and good paying jobs. We need to make permanent the President's tax code in enforcing this economic growth. We need to keep the economy going down the track it is on. The optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel. The pessimist assumes it is an oncoming train. With all the evidence in hand, it is time to doubt the doubters and call them to account. Although we saw the signs last fall for the economic growth and jobs creation that was beginning to unfold, some folks had doubt. But, as President Franklin Roosevelt put it better than a half century ago, ``The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith.'' Hopefully this continued good news from Minnesota and across America will help the doubting Thomas's still among us. I yield the floor.