Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 6, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. to conduct a markup of ``The Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act.''

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 6, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. in closed session to mark up the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 6, 2004. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss Biomass Use in Energy Production: New Opportunities for Agriculture.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 6, 2004 at 10 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Trimming the Fat: Examining Duplicative and Outdated Programs and Functions.''

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the issue of the confirmation of the nomination of John D. Negroponte to be ambassador to Iraq. I serve on the Foreign Relations Committee. During my short time in this esteemed body, I have had the opportunity to listen to, to engage in conversation, and to question Ambassador Negroponte on a number of occasions. He is an extraordinary man to whom this Nation owes a debt of gratitude for his service in the past and whose confirmation should swiftly be approved so he can continue with the distinguished career he has in Government. His Government career started in 1960 at the age of 21 when he entered the Foreign Service. He has 37 years of experience at the Department of State. He has clearly played a leadership role in American foreign affairs. That leadership is needed today and certainly he can bring that skilled leadership to the challenges he will face as Ambassador to Iraq. He has served on four continents at the highest levels. Of course, he is serving as Ambassador presently to the U.N., Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations. He served this country five times in ambassadorial positions, including Ambassador to the Philippines, Ambassador to Mexico, Ambassador to Honduras in 1977, in 1979 as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Fishery Affairs, with the rank of Ambassador. His service to this country covers an extraordinarily wide spectrum of regions and functions. He has received numerous commendations, including two President's Meritorious Service Awards, an honorary doctorate from Adamson University in the Philippines, the Homeric Award from the Chian Federation, and on and on. He truly is an extraordinary man. He brings the right vision for what America needs in Iraq. His vision of the role of ambassador is different from what we have now with Ambassador Bremer. Whereas the CPA today is the ultimate political authority in Iraq, the Embassy will be in a supportive, as opposed to a commanding, role. He understands and believes a U.S. mission will support democratization and rule of law, economic reconstruction and security and counterterrorism. He believes the U.N. role does not come at the expense of United States influence or interests but, rather, the efforts will be coordinated and complementary. That is what we need in an ambassador. That is the nomination we have before the Senate. I hope there is a resounding voice of support from this body. It sends out the right message to the world as to the kind of individual we want working with the government of Iraq after the transfer of sovereignty on June 30. I am thrilled Ambassador Negroponte is willing to continue his service, a difficult service. He brings the right skills to the task. The skills certainly are needed. These are challenging times in Iraq. There is no question about that. In those times of challenge, oftentimes in this great free land of ours, folks have different opinions and different perspectives. Those are often played out in the Senate or in the House Chamber on the other side of this magnificent Capitol Building. With dissent come tough, probing questions that make our Nation stronger, make it freer, and democracy more durable. I have great respect for those who dissent, to offer a different perspective than me. Certainly the challenge in Iraq, the war in Iraq is evoking a great deal of concern in different perspectives. There is a lot of 20/20 hindsight. It is easier to be a critic. But dissent is not a validation of one's position. On the contrary, one can be just as easily wrong in their dissent as they may be right. I will say while American lives are on the line, those who dissent must choose the moments to determine whether their dissent will help make this Nation stronger or freer or if it will undermine the very foundation of what holds us together. I said it before and I will say it again, these days we are observing a mixture of Monday-morning quarterbacking, in some cases, political opportunism, exaggeration, which threatens to deprive us of perspective and resolve when we need it the most. There are challenges in Iraq. We are all reeling over the photographs we saw of the treatment of some prisoners in an Iraqi prison. It is not what America is about. We rejected that. The President rejected it. The military has rejected it and will hold those responsible. At the same time, as we speak today, men and women are still in uniform fighting for freedom, fighting against terrorism. This President, our President, did not ask for a war on terror. September 11 happened. We have come to understand that no longer could we escape terrorism, that our shores did not protect us, that we had to be vigilant. We had to resolve and take the battle to the enemy. We have done that. War is never pretty. War is never something clean and concise. At times, bad things happen. Lives are lost. But in this case, we should never forget the underlying purpose. The underlying purpose is America is in a war on terrorism. There are people who hate us because we enjoy freedom, because we respect freedom, because of who we are, because of what democracy is all about. There are folks who will go to great ends to make sure democracy never takes hold in Iraq, who will do everything they can to destabilize what we are trying to accomplish, to make it not happen. But Americans have understood--even if we disagreed on the original purpose of going in, et cetera--that when our men and women in uniform are in battle, we stand with them. I have grown fond of Teddy Roosevelt, for many reasons, because of this, one of my favorite quotations: It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause. . . . Let me reiterate the worthiness of the cause we have undertaken. This morning, like many of my colleagues, I awoke to an article in Roll Call in which one of the Members of the Democratic minority in the House has decided that comments he made in private should be trotted out to be heard by the entire world. His comments were that the war in Iraq is ``unwinnable.'' In private conversation those words are troublesome enough, but his willingness to allow those comments to be put in the public domain for partisan political purposes is not only outrageous but it is indecent. Over the course of the last several days, we all have been horrified by the images of prisoners being tortured in Iraqi prisons. They are shameful, they are reprehensible, and they should make all of us who are fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters say this is not what America is about. And we have said that. There are not enough apologies today to be given to the Iraqi people for that, but we have done that. But today, as American blood is shed in the cause of freedom and liberty across the world, a Member of Congress' utterances of a war as ``unwinnable'' does not just demoralize American soldiers, I fear it emboldens America's enemies. Imagine being on a sports team that is losing badly to their opponent and hearing one of the leaders of the winning team all of a sudden say the game is unwinnable for them, even though they control almost every aspect of the game. To those thugs and monsters who killed with Saddam and now kill without Saddam, the ``unwinnable'' jersey on their back has just been put on ours by a Member of Congress. I find that so troublesome. Every day in Iraq, and in most of the country in Iraq, things are going on in which people are getting their lives together. Their schools are operating and their hospitals are operating. The city is operating, with a city council. Twenty-some million people are going about their lives. There are areas in which there is conflict, but the country is operating, is moving forward. Oil production is back to the way it was, just about at prewar levels. There are 130,000 American soldiers there, and they are doing great things. When you talk to them, when you talk to the folks who come back, they tell you morale is high. They believe in the mission. When an elected Member of the Congress stands up and says, ``I don't believe in the mission. We can't win the mission,'' something is wrong--not with the mission, not with those who are putting their lives on the line, who believe in the mission. Something is wrong with uttering that kind of statement. Shameful. Outrageous. It demands the collective condemnation of all of us that we should give comfort to the enemy because of those seeking to score partisan political points. There is an election coming up on November 2. We all know that. There is no way to avoid it. But because of that, it does not mean we put good common sense behind us. It does not mean that everything that goes on gets caught up in a political perspective and a political battle to make points for those who are for or those who are against. There is one thing about this country that I have always believed and I have always seen: that in times of difficulty, America comes together. I think what has been so uplifting about what we have seen in regard to the situation in Iraq is that, though there may be debate over the nature of the policy, there may be debate over a range of issues, there has been little or no debate about what our young men and women are doing in Iraq and how well they are doing it and how proud we all are of their courage, of their fortitude, of their commitment. To undermine that in any way, to talk about it being unwinnable, is something that I find difficult or impossible to fathom. It is time this awful language of defeatism in our Nation's Capitol comes to an end. It is time America comes together, as we do in times of war, to stand with our men and women on the front line, to stand with those who are willing to give the ultimate sacrifice--and many have--and to say to them: We appreciate what you are doing. We appreciate your commitment. We appreciate your service. We appreciate your courage. And we know that America will prevail. We know that justice will prevail. We have faith. We have faith in what you are doing and your ability to get it done. Shame on those who would say otherwise. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the world has witnessed something in the last few weeks about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq that does not represent what America is all about. It doesn't represent our cause. It doesn't represent our mission. It doesn't represent our hopes and dreams for the Iraqi people and for all of us--ultimately for democracy in Iraq. I applaud the President of the United States for his speaking out, condemning without qualification what has occurred. He, as I understand it, went forth to speak to the Arab world, face to face, the leader of the free world speaking to the Arab world to let them know this is not what America is all about. I think that is important. We all, at every level, have to reject it. Those who are responsible at every level have to be held to account. I know the Commander in Chief will do that. As we deal with this terrible situation, I hope we do not lose focus on our mission. Our men and women are in harm's way and our mission is freedom and security in Iraq. The critics of this war, do they want us to cut and run? Do they want to create a place of instability, a haven for terrorism? I can't believe that. Someone once said a critic is someone who thinks he knows the way but doesn't know how to drive the car. It is not a time for critics. Let us deal with this terrible incident. Let us show America has standards and America is there for a reason. The reason is one of hope. The reason is one of freedom. What occurred is something that will never occur again. I am confident our President will make sure of that. At the same time, we have to stand with our President, stand with our troops. Teddy Roosevelt once said it is not the critic who counts, but it is the person in the arena. It is a tough arena right now. But the cause is just. We have lost life and it is a sacrifice, but the cause is just. We have seen that with Qadhafi giving up his nuclear weapons programs, Iran understanding the serious consequences of their action. Let us be true to the cause. Let us ferret out those who committed these reprehensible acts. Let us support the President going forth to the world, to the Arab community, to say this is wrong. Let us continue to stay true to the course, to understand that the lives that have been sacrificed have not been sacrificed in vain, that the world is safer today. It is safer with Saddam gone. It will be safer with peace and stability and democracy in the Middle East. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Central Contractor Registry Act of 2004 whose purpose is to establish a centralized contractor database within the Department of Defense and to require federal contractors who register in that database to provide their taxpayer identification number and their consent to verifying that number with the Internal Revenue Service as a condition that must precede the awarding of a contract by the Department of Defense. This bill will close a $3 billion tax loophole and will help to recover over $100 million annually from federal contractors who have not filed federal tax returns or who have not paid the taxes they owe the government. I am joined by Senators Carl Levin, Susan Collins and Jack Reed. In a hearing before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the General Accounting Office testified that over 27,000 contractors at the Department of Defense owed over $3 billion in unpaid Federal taxes. Normally, these taxes could be collected through the Federal Payment Levy Program by levying fifteen percent of the contractors' payments. In fiscal year 2002, the Financial Management Service should have collected over $100 million from tax delinquent Department of Defense contractors. However, actual collections for the year were less than $500,000. Further, in 2001, the Department of Defense provided the Internal Revenue Service with over 26,000 information returns that could not be used to determine contractors' tax liability. One of the principal reasons for this anemic state of collections and the large volume of unusable information returns has been and remains the inability of the Department of Defense and the Internal Revenue Service to reach an accord on verifying the taxpayer identification numbers of the contractors who have registered in the Department of Defenses's Central Contractor Registration database. Under current law, the Department of Defense's authority to verify contractors' taxpayer identification numbers is limited to those contractors who have contracts with the Department of Defense and for whom the department is required to report miscellaneous income to the Internal Revenue Service on a Form 1099 information return. However, there are contractors who have registered in the Central Contractor Registration for whom the Department of Defense lacks authority to verify their taxpayer identification numbers including individuals and companies who would like to contract with the federal government and contractors who have contracts with agencies and departments other than the Department of Defense. On the other hand, current law also allows a taxpayer to consent to the verification of their taxpayer identification number with the Internal Revenue Service and allows the Internal Revenue Service to provide a validated taxpayer identification number. My bill will resolve the impasse between the Department of Defense and the Internal Revenue Service by requesting contractors' consent to the validation of their taxpayer identification number as part of the registration process. Contractors will not be required to provide their consent. But if they do not, they will not be awarded a contract by the Department of Defense. Further, my bill requires the Department of Defense to warn contractors as part of the registration process that if they do not provide a valid taxpayer identification number they may be subject to backup withholding. This would apply to those contractors who list an invalid taxpayer identification number, have a contract with the Department of Defense, and will earn miscellaneous income that is required to be reported to the Internal Revenue Service. I would like to briefly summarize the major provisions of my bill. It provides a statutory basis for the Central Contractor Registration and renames the database as the Central Contractor Registry. It requires that the registry contain contractor's taxpayer identification numbers, their consent to verifying their numbers with the Internal Revenue Service and for the Internal Revenue Service to provide a corrected number if possible. It requires that registrants furnish this information as a condition for registration, and requires the Department of Defense to warn contractors who fail to provide a valid taxpayer identification number that they may be subject to backup withholding and requires implementation of backup withholding in cases where it is required. It precludes awarding a contract to any registrant who has not provided a valid taxpayer identification number and excludes from coverage any registrant who is not required to have a taxpayer identification number. It directs the Secretary of Defense to apply to the Internal Revenue Service for inclusion in the Taxpayer Identification Number Matching Program and directs the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to provide response to the Department of Defense. It directs the Secretary of Defense to provide any registrant who is determined to have an invalid taxpayer identification number with an opportunity to provide a valid number. It further requires that the Central Contractor Registry clearly indicate whether a registrant's taxpayer identification number is valid, under review, invalid, or not required. Finally, it requires that contractors taxpayer identification numbers be treated as confidential by federal contract officers who have access to the Central Contractor Registry. My overall objective in introducing this bill is to ensure that tax cheats are not rewarded with federal contracts. If the Department of Defense and the Internal Revenue Service do not have accurate and reliable taxpayer identification numbers then we will not be able to stop this practice. My bill takes the necessary first step toward ensuring that the Department of Defense and the Internal Revenue Service have valid taxpayer identification numbers in the Central Contractor Registry database. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Central Contractor Registry Act of 2004 whose purpose is to establish a centralized contractor database within the Department of Defense and to require federal contractors who register in that database to provide their taxpayer identification number and their consent to verifying that number with the Internal Revenue Service as a condition that must precede the awarding of a contract by the Department of Defense. This bill will close a $3 billion tax loophole and will help to recover over $100 million annually from federal contractors who have not filed federal tax returns or who have not paid the taxes they owe the government. I am joined by Senators Carl Levin, Susan Collins and Jack Reed. In a hearing before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the General Accounting Office testified that over 27,000 contractors at the Department of Defense owed over $3 billion in unpaid Federal taxes. Normally, these taxes could be collected through the Federal Payment Levy Program by levying fifteen percent of the contractors' payments. In fiscal year 2002, the Financial Management Service should have collected over $100 million from tax delinquent Department of Defense contractors. However, actual collections for the year were less than $500,000. Further, in 2001, the Department of Defense provided the Internal Revenue Service with over 26,000 information returns that could not be used to determine contractors' tax liability. One of the principal reasons for this anemic state of collections and the large volume of unusable information returns has been and remains the inability of the Department of Defense and the Internal Revenue Service to reach an accord on verifying the taxpayer identification numbers of the contractors who have registered in the Department of Defenses's Central Contractor Registration database. Under current law, the Department of Defense's authority to verify contractors' taxpayer identification numbers is limited to those contractors who have contracts with the Department of Defense and for whom the department is required to report miscellaneous income to the Internal Revenue Service on a Form 1099 information return. However, there are contractors who have registered in the Central Contractor Registration for whom the Department of Defense lacks authority to verify their taxpayer identification numbers including individuals and companies who would like to contract with the federal government and contractors who have contracts with agencies and departments other than the Department of Defense. On the other hand, current law also allows a taxpayer to consent to the verification of their taxpayer identification number with the Internal Revenue Service and allows the Internal Revenue Service to provide a validated taxpayer identification number. My bill will resolve the impasse between the Department of Defense and the Internal Revenue Service by requesting contractors' consent to the validation of their taxpayer identification number as part of the registration process. Contractors will not be required to provide their consent. But if they do not, they will not be awarded a contract by the Department of Defense. Further, my bill requires the Department of Defense to warn contractors as part of the registration process that if they do not provide a valid taxpayer identification number they may be subject to backup withholding. This would apply to those contractors who list an invalid taxpayer identification number, have a contract with the Department of Defense, and will earn miscellaneous income that is required to be reported to the Internal Revenue Service. I would like to briefly summarize the major provisions of my bill. It provides a statutory basis for the Central Contractor Registration and renames the database as the Central Contractor Registry. It requires that the registry contain contractor's taxpayer identification numbers, their consent to verifying their numbers with the Internal Revenue Service and for the Internal Revenue Service to provide a corrected number if possible. It requires that registrants furnish this information as a condition for registration, and requires the Department of Defense to warn contractors who fail to provide a valid taxpayer identification number that they may be subject to backup withholding and requires implementation of backup withholding in cases where it is required. It precludes awarding a contract to any registrant who has not provided a valid taxpayer identification number and excludes from coverage any registrant who is not required to have a taxpayer identification number. It directs the Secretary of Defense to apply to the Internal Revenue Service for inclusion in the Taxpayer Identification Number Matching Program and directs the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to provide response to the Department of Defense. It directs the Secretary of Defense to provide any registrant who is determined to have an invalid taxpayer identification number with an opportunity to provide a valid number. It further requires that the Central Contractor Registry clearly indicate whether a registrant's taxpayer identification number is valid, under review, invalid, or not required. Finally, it requires that contractors taxpayer identification numbers be treated as confidential by federal contract officers who have access to the Central Contractor Registry. My overall objective in introducing this bill is to ensure that tax cheats are not rewarded with federal contracts. If the Department of Defense and the Internal Revenue Service do not have accurate and reliable taxpayer identification numbers then we will not be able to stop this practice. My bill takes the necessary first step toward ensuring that the Department of Defense and the Internal Revenue Service have valid taxpayer identification numbers in the Central Contractor Registry database. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. I do want to talk briefly about the economy and perhaps from the same perspective. I begin my remarks on the progress of the American economy with an observation of H.L. Mencken in 1921. He said: The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led safely) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. Much of the economic commentary we are hearing from the other side of the aisle in the Senate and out on the campaign trail seems to fit this description very well. Among the hobgoblins: that the President is encouraging companies to move overseas; that his tax cuts are intended to primarily help his rich friends; and that this is the worst economy in who knows how long. There is just one problem with these and other claims: The facts. They are alarming for sure, but they are also imaginary. The economy is strong and growing, posing annual growth rates of 8.2 percent, 4.1 percent, and 4.2 percent in the last three-quarters. Jobs are being created, 308,000 last month. The recalculation of job creation the first 2 months in this year is another 200,000. I believe the figure is 750,000 in the last 7 months. Housing sales are at an alltime high level, and so is home ownership. Inflation is low. Mortgage rates continue to be low. I wonder which of these economic indicators the Senator from Massachusetts wants to be less positive. The truth is, we should not be comparing our economy to perfection and asking: Why not? We should be comparing our economy to reality and asking: Why? We had the tech bubble burst, a bubble that should never have been allowed to inflate so high. We had corporate scandals. We had corporate greed. We had Enron and WorldCom. They were certainly nonpartisan, but they were encouraged by the get rich quick ethic of the 1990s. They were reprehensible and we have dealt with them. We had the attacks on September 11. My colleagues across the aisle talk about losing jobs and what a terrible economy. Every single time we have to reflect, we remember September 11 and the devastating impact that had both on our hearts, on our souls, on our confidence, and on our economy. Now we have the daily war on terror. If that picture had been drawn for us 5 years ago, how many would have predicted the economy would be in as good shape as it is? The reason is sound monetary policy and tax cuts that were extremely well timed and sized to stimulate the economy when it needed it the most. Talk to small business folks. They understand the importance of bonus depreciation, increased expensing, cutting the top bracket, reinvesting in the business, and then growing jobs. That is what has happened. As that stimulus is running its course, we in this body need to enact a jobs bill, a transportation bill, and the Energy bill. We need to enact tort reform to build upon our current progress. We have to stop the filibustering and get some work done. Unfortunately, some in this body and on the campaign trail are obsessed with talking about and addressing the economic situation that existed 2 years ago and administering medicine to a disease we are already curing. The President deserves credit for economic policies that weathered America through to better times. Some may have political reasons for keeping the people alarmed, but the mounting evidence of economic strength is convincing to the American people, and the American people understand that reality is preferable to all those hobgoblins. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I had the opportunity yesterday to be in Eden Prairie, MN, at a senior citizens center to talk to people gathered there about the opportunity they now have to obtain a discount card to lower the cost of prescription drugs. This is done less than 6 months after the law was changed. I want to applaud Secretary Thompson and the folks from CMS for moving so quickly. What I find so troubling is I was on the Senate floor yesterday and I heard the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and today the distinguished minority leader talking about how terrible this is and lambasting something that is just beginning. I ask that we put aside the partisan rhetoric and see if we can work together to give seniors an opportunity to get prescription drugs at lower costs. The card in question is one, by the way, if one is a senior at the lower end of the economic ladder and as an individual they have an income of under $13,000--I think it is about $12,500 for an individual and about $16,500 for a couple--that discount card has contained within it a $600 credit. That $600 credit will cover the cost of prescription drugs from now until the end of the year and then $600 starting again in January; so, in fact, it is $1,200 for 18 months. With this card, seniors have an opportunity to get a list of the pharmacies at which they shop, get a list of the drugs they need, and then be able to price compare. I am not very computer literate, but many of us have complained about the complexity of the Medicare law. There is certainly a lot of debate about the complexity of the statute, but there is very little debate about the simplicity of the process that is involved in seniors figuring out what their options are under this card. If seniors call 1- 800-MEDICARE, they can speak with someone, tell the folks at Medicare where they live, what their income is, what drugs they need. They will be given a list with a whole range of opportunities, and then they can pick the program that is at the lowest cost to them. If a senior is computer literate themselves or they have a kid or even a grandkid who understands how to work computers, or in our case we had folks from AARP and from the Board of Aging--they were all there to work with these seniors--it makes it very simple. For those who talked about mystifying phases of confusion, why do we not just give it a chance to work. Can we not put aside partisan rhetoric and lambasting for a little bit of time and simply come together to say seniors deserve lower cost prescription drugs? I would like to see an opportunity for seniors to get safe drugs from anywhere, and if we can figure out a way to do a pilot project to get drugs from Canada, I would support that. We know that is not the panacea, that is not the cure all. We have passed a bill now that for the first time gives seniors the opportunity to get prescription drug coverage. Over 187,000 in Minnesota will get that coverage, and over 119,000 will have this $600 benefit. I was taken aback by the comments of the Democratic leader when he talked about the Federal Government as a model in regard to military procurement and getting things at low cost. Goodness gracious, we have all heard the stories of $500 wrenches and toilets. There is a better way to do it. We have an opportunity now for seniors to be able to price shop. We have urged our seniors and I urge seniors, do not get the card right away, do not make their choice right away. Window shop for a couple of weeks, 10 days, figure out what is the lowest cost, and do the price comparison. We have an opportunity, and I hope we take it, to put aside the political hits and being negative about things even before the program is given a chance to work.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, shares the same objective; that is, strong adjustment assistance. I maintain that what we are trying to do in this amendment is to simply strengthen what we have seen over 2 years has not been working. That is what is going on here. Fewer than 5 percent of eligible TAA workers are using the existing tax credit. That is not what we intended. I don't believe my colleagues intended that when it was originally passed. When this was originally passed, we focused on manufacturing jobs. We have all come to understand that about 80 percent of the jobs today in America are service jobs. We are simply looking at something with which we had experience over 2 years, identifying those things that are not working, those things where folks are not taking advantage of the opportunities which were our intent to provide, and giving them that opportunity in a way which will work. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for his efforts in working in a bipartisan way and simply trying to do the right thing. I happen to be a very strong supporter of trade. I understand that if one does not trade, they do not grow and the economy does not grow. In the end, I have always believed the best thing we can do as public officials, moms and dads, is give people the opportunity to work. Trade has been an opportunity for jobs. Trade has created those opportunities. Along the way, there have been some casualties. Along the way, due to policy choices we have made, not because of lack of productivity, not because of inefficiency but because of policy decisions regarding trade, workers have had jobs impacted. A couple of years ago, in 2002, my colleagues did a review and relooked at this whole issue of trade adjustment assistance, something that has been around since the times of John Kennedy, and said we should strengthen this. In doing so, one of the things that was done is it focused simply on the production of goods on manufacturing. Now, when I talk to many of my colleagues and say if someone is providing a service, if they are driving a truck to a facility that is no longer to be manufacturing lawnmowers, then they are not eligible for trade adjustment assistance, they are not eligible for retooling, for retraining, for health insurance, for tax credits. If one is providing the janitorial service for the lawnmower production facility, they are not eligible for the kind of assistance that would allow them to train for a job so they can be back in the workforce and taking care of their family. As my colleague from Oregon has indicated, in the course of the last few hours we received one letter from one insurance company raising some concerns. Again, I am not going to repeat what my colleague has said, except to reiterate we are not changing the opportunity that exists now in any State. It is still there. There is a provision which provides discretion for OPM, a Federal agency, to come in under limited circumstances. They probably do not want to come in, but again this is not the wholesale change that some have talked about. There were two other issues that came up today that I want to make very clear what the facts are to my colleagues. No. 1, there has been discussion about retroactivity. It has been mentioned along the way that we are going to provide retroactivity for 10 years or 12 years. No. TAA was established--if we go back, I believe it was 2 years in two limited circumstances, service workers being the principal one, but it is not 12 years of retroactivity. Then the other issue that has been raised that I want to make very clear is we are only talking about providing TAA, trade adjustment assistance, to folks who lose their jobs because of trade. This is not open-ended, that if one loses their job all of a sudden they are going to be eligible for all sorts of Federal benefits. That is not the case. Under current law, if one loses their job and it is with countries that have a trade agreement with the United States, Canada and Mexico, then one is eligible. Under this improvement, this modification, if one loses their job because of trade with China or India, they are now eligible, as it should be. That is Minnesota common sense; that is American common sense; but it is not an open-ended expansion of a Federal program. It is specifically focused on job loss that is related to trade, and I think that is important. If my colleagues believe in trade, they should support this because what this does is it allows those of us who believe in trade to say that workers who are harmed are going to have some opportunities for health insurance by way of a tax credit. They are going to have an opportunity for wage insurance which will get them back into the marketplace quicker, get them back to being more productive, get them back to taking care of their families. That is the right thing to do. Regardless of one's position on trade, the bottom line is we all should agree that those who are negatively impacted should have access to the opportunity to be retrained and reschooled and get back into the workplace, to be able to take care of their family, and it should not depend on whether one is manufacturing a lawnmower or whether one is providing a service, a call center, whether one is involved in a software firm. The nature of the job should not be the difference. What is important here, common sense and I think consistency would say, if job loss is due to trade, we are going to make these opportunities available. We have identified an area in the budget which would offset the cost. It has to do with the earned-income tax credit and the way that is applied. There is, I believe, $5.7 billion we have identified. By correcting and dealing with this issue of earned-income tax credit, who is eligible, we should more than offset the opportunity we are creating here for folks who are involved in service kinds of jobs to get the kind of coverage that would allow them to take care of their families, get back into the workplace, be productive, and help move this economy forward. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I urge them not to be swayed at the last minute by some arguments that, if you look at them carefully, simply do not hold up to the light of day. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend and colleague from Montana for his kind words and for giving me the opportunity to work with him in a bipartisan manner on this important amendment. Actually, earlier this year, I was able to join with my friend, Senator Baucus, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, in introducing legislation to extend trade adjustment assistance to American service sector workers. I call that good Minnesota commonsense legislation. Today I rise to join Senators Wyden and Baucus to offer a modified version of this important legislation as an amendment to the JOBS bill. Our amendment not only extends trade adjustment assistance to service sector workers, but also improves and strengthens the TAA program for all American workers. I say to my colleagues, if you care about the issue of offshoring and outsourcing and are searching for a positive, constructive, forward- looking way of addressing these challenges, this is it. I say to my colleagues, if you support trade and expanding trade opportunities, but recognize that along the way there are going to be some workers who are going to be hurt as we grow and expand--and we need to grow and expand; and trade is part of that--we can address that. I am a strong supporter of trade adjustment assistance because trade adjustment assistance is critical to achieving a balance: the expansion of trade but meeting the needs of those workers who are negatively impacted. Earlier when Senator Wyden, my colleague from Oregon, spoke, he talked about the bipartisan support this amendment appreciates and enjoys. Senator Smith has supported this legislation, and Senator Snowe, Senator Brownback, and many others. It is also important to note this legislation has received industry support--most notably support from the Information Technology Industry Association and the Business Roundtable--for extending TAA to service sector workers. The TAA program has a history that dates back more than 40 years. The program was created in the early 1960s, and it is fascinating to go back and review the speeches President Kennedy and Members of Congress made on this same topic more than 4 decades ago. We often assume issues such as globalization and the offshoring and outsourcing of jobs are new issues, but it is striking to note how some of the arguments we hear being made today were made 40 years ago. Of course, some of the terms used, such as ``globalization,'' are of recent vintage. But the underlying desire to address the needs of these who are harmed by trade is almost identical to those discussed 40 years ago. At that time, the President and Congress agreed to go forward in the pursuit of free trade, but they also agreed to provide financial support to workers who lose their jobs and to provide retraining benefits to assist them in finding new jobs. Over the years, some of the specifics of the program have changed. Some initiatives have worked and others have not worked so well. The TAA program has evolved as we have learned more and faced new challenges. The most comprehensive effort to update TAA was in the Trade Act of 2002. In much the same way they had 40 years ago, the President and Congress decided to pursue a policy to go forward, seeking the benefits of free trade, and decided to build a comprehensive program to deal with the needs of those harmed by trade. I will not try to list every single amendment to TAA made in that legislation; There are simply too many to mention. But in the 2 years that have passed, we have seen things that have worked and seen things that need improvement. Addressing the shortcomings is the impetus for the amendment we are offering now. This amendment may not address all the problems with regard to TAA. In a number of areas, such as the new program for farmers, the solution may simply be more vigorous congressional oversight to ensure the program lives up to the law. The Court of International Trade has criticized some of the administrative decisions made in implementing the program. This may be a place where Congress should step in to see that the ideas it put into legislation become a reality. Our amendment makes at least one commonsense fix to a problem our dairy farmers are having with the program. We worked closely with the National Milk Producers Federation on a solution to this problem. I would add that although President Kennedy advocated TAA for farmers some 40 years ago, it did not come about until a couple years ago, and probably never would have come about but for the hard work and efforts of the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. Senator Grassley said at that time: I am very concerned that if we lose farm support for free trade it will be very hard for us to win congressional support for new trade deals when they are concluded. Some good food for thought for the folks who administer this program: We have to make this program work for the farm industry. With regard to the taconite workers in my State, I believe vigorous oversight can help the Department of Labor find ways to use TAA to address their concerns. Here again, we have made one legislative modification in hopes of putting this issue to bed for good. This is good news for the Iron Range in Minnesota. In other areas, new problems requiring legislation have become apparent. There have been numerous newspaper stories in recent months covering the tragedy of computer programmers and others who have seen their jobs move to India and elsewhere. From reading these stories, one might think these are obvious cases for TAA, but most of these computer workers have been denied TAA because they produce ``services'' and TAA presently only covers ``goods.'' Since the overwhelming majority of working Americans are officially classified as service workers, this is an enormously significant distinction. I note that in conversation with many of my colleagues, I am not sure they are even aware the current law does not cover service workers. There was a sense, when we passed TAA, that we covered the needs of those who were impacted negatively by trade. But the reality is, 80 percent of the workers are service workers. They are not currently protected. This amendment would do that. This is an area where I understand some litigation is underway, but we do not have to wait for a court to decide. It seems obvious that workers employed as computer programmers are just as unemployed as workers in a textile factory when they lose their jobs. They should be entitled to the same benefits. Splitting hairs in defining services and goods misses the undeniable point that service workers deserve no less than workers in the ``goods'' sector. Specifically this amendment would make three important changes to the TAA program to ensure service workers are treated fairly. First, in cases in which service workers lose their jobs because of service imports, these workers are made eligible for TAA. The best known example of a situation similar to this is the case of Mexican trucking firms which are striving to carry freight within the United States. U.S. truck drivers that might lose their jobs to such competition would be eligible for TAA under this amendment. Second, service workers who lose their jobs when the facility they work in moves out of the United States--the problem we have read about in recent months--would be eligible for TAA. Thus, under this amendment, if a call center or computer programming facility moves from Minneapolis to India, the workers would be eligible for TAA. Finally, in those cases where the service workers provide services to a plant or facility that closes, moves, or reduces employment, these workers are eligible for TAA if the primary plant or facility is eligible for TAA. This simply parallels the so-called secondary workers provisions now in the law for workers producing goods. For example, under present law, if a U.S. plant producing lawnmowers closes due to import competition, the workers at the plant and the workers at the facilities that supply lawnmower parts to the manufacturing plant would be eligible for TAA. But if the closed lawnmower plant contracted for janitorial services, the janitorial workers that lose their jobs would not be covered. This amendment eliminates this obvious inequity and treats the workers that provide services to the lawnmower plant just as it does those who assemble lawnmower motors. The issue of TAA has special significance to airline workers from my State and around the country. Last night members of the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association flew from Minnesota to Washington to share their stories and the stories of workers they represent from all around the country with some of my colleagues who represent their membership. These folks represent service workers who, when they lose their jobs, receive little if any help in getting back on their feet. Folks like George Sleva of Forest Lake, MN, and Kurt Kulschar from Lakeville, MN, are just some of the airline mechanics left out in the cold under the current TAA program. One of the guys described it this way: I worked hard. I was a great taxpayer. Everything was going well. And then the table turned and now I'm in a world of hurt. Our amendment would take some of the sting out of this world of hurt that thousands like George and Kurt have had to go through. The second major feature of this amendment provides TAA benefits to all workers who lose their jobs when the plant or facility that employs them closes and moves out of the United States, regardless of where the plant moves. Thus, if the lawnmower plant closed and moved out of the country, its workers and those supplies would be covered regardless of whether the plant moved to Canada or to China or to India. I was disappointed to learn recently that the 2002 law apparently requires that if a factory closes and moves to Mexico, its workers are automatically eligible for TAA, but if the same plant moves to China, they are not. This is one of those things that Lincoln talked about, a ``skunks giving their own publicity'' kind of thing. It doesn't make sense. It is obvious to make the change, and this amendment makes that kind of change. But we can clear up the air, if you will, or any ambiguity by rewriting the law to clearly state that all workers who lose their jobs when their employers leave the country are eligible for TAA regardless of the country they move to. That makes sense. That is what this amendment does. I want to applaud President Bush's strong leadership in this area. I appreciate the administration's shared goal that TAA coverage should be expanded to include workers affected by shifts in production to any country, not just Mexico or Canada. One of the most valuable portions of the 2002 act was the extension of a tax credit for health insurance to TAA workers. Without some assistance to gain health insurance for themselves and their families, it is hard to imagine that workers could really take advantage of TAA. The amendment we are offering improves this health insurance provision in several important ways. First, it makes a series of technical amendments to ensure that TAA recipients get a meaningful opportunity to really obtain health insurance. The most important provision on this topic, however, raises the percentage of health insurance costs covered by the program from 65 percent in existing law to 75 percent. This is the same level of health insurance premium assistance that workers in the private sector receive. I understand this was the provision when TAA was passed in 2002 that the Senate advocated at 75 percent. Affordability of health insurance is a problem for everyone, but for people who have lost their jobs, it is of particular hardship. This amendment improves affordability of health insurance, which will improve access to care, a goal we all can agree upon. One of the problems that have limited the effectiveness of the current health care system is dislocated workers have had difficulty finding the 35 percent of the health insurance bill that must come out of their pocket. I am sure that for many workers it will still be a challenge to find 25 percent as required under this amendment, but our amendment will make it a little bit easier. I know that some will say that including health care provisions in TAA is controversial, but it is important for all Senators to understand that this concept was originally advanced by a bipartisan Trade Deficit Review Commission, a bipartisan group with some very prominent Republican members, including Ambassador Robert Zoellick, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former President Bush's Trade Representative Carla Hills. I emphasize that the recommendation for transitional health insurance was supported unanimously by the Commission. Finally, this amendment would allow wage insurance to be extended to workers who are 40 years of age or older. The current law only applies to workers over 50. In my opinion, wage insurance makes sense for workers over 50, but I think it also makes sense for workers who are 20 years old. It may be that traditional retraining will also benefit workers in their 20s just as it might workers in their 50s, but I think that is a decision best left to the individual worker and not one best made by government. Given the fact that we are still building a record on wage insurance, this amendment only lowers the requirement to 40 years of age. This is certainly a step in the right direction and is likely to allow many workers to make choices with where they want to go in their career and how best to prepare for their new jobs. Also I note the maximum cost of wage insurance under the law is less than the maximum cost of traditional TAA under current law. In other words, wage insurance might also be a cheap approach to retraining. We should make it available to as many TAA recipients as possible for their own good and to limit the burden on the Federal budget. There are many other good ideas for improvement in the TAA program, but this amendment makes some important steps forward and deserves the support of the Senate. In my opinion, TAA is an honest, responsible, productive way to directly address the needs of those harmed by trade and globalization. There are real needs out there as evidenced by the hundreds of applications from my home State of Minnesota alone, hundreds of which have been certified and probably nearly as many denied for the reasons this amendment today seeks to address. When I was mayor of St. Paul, I used to point out that the best welfare program was a job; the best housing program was a job. Access to health care often comes with a job. Putting people back to work in a job is exactly what TAA is designed to do. Of course, there is no single solution to all the problems, but TAA is a real solution not just a snake oil suggestion. It is a real chance to address the needs of workers, and as such it can do a great deal to help Americans adjust and prosper through the challenges of globalization and offshoring. TAA is not free. It will require an investment of resources to make it work. But if it can help all Americans grow and prosper in a competitive global economy, it is money well spent. I note in this regard that we have identified a full budget offset for our amendment, an offset recognized by Treasury and OMB as saving about $5.7 billion over the course of 10 years. America cannot turn its back on trade. To do so would be bad policy. But America must not turn its back on our working men and women either. To do so would be wrong. Trade adjustment assistance is a way to embrace both trade and our Nation's hard-working men or women. It is the right thing do. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. If the Senator will yield for another question, in addition to updating this law, would it be fair to say it would make it easier for folks to use? Today, for instance, current law makes it automatic that you get TAA if it is with a country that has an agreement with the United States. So Mexico and Canada fit into that law. As we read the papers, so many jobs we are talking about today that negatively impact workers are jobs that may be lost to China and India. Would it be fair to say in addition to updating, we make it easier for workers negatively impacted to take advantage of provisions under law?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, my friend, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, is absolutely correct. We have the strongest economy in the world. The way we are going to keep that strong economy and keep moving forward is if we have the best training and the best skilled workers. The reality is the jobs of yesterday may not be the jobs of today or tomorrow. So my friend from Montana is correct in what this amendment does. It provides opportunity for those who may be impacted by a job that may be a job of yesterday, to give them an opportunity to have a job of tomorrow to take care of their families. I also note in response to the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, in talking about the health insurance provisions, we are talking about a tax credit. This is a tax credit. I think that is important. I support tax credits. I think that is a very fiscally responsible way to provide opportunities. I also note that under the existing TAA, I believe less than 5 percent of those eligible are using this tax credit. The Senate originally intended to do better than that. I was not here in 2002. I am still relatively new in this body, but I have to believe that my colleagues, when they enacted the tax credit, the health insurance provision, anticipated that more folks would take advantage of it. The reality is they have not. What we are doing here is providing an opportunity to make use of something that I believe was the intention of my colleagues. As I noted earlier, I found it fascinating in talking with many of my colleagues about the idea that we should extend this to service workers that many of them actually presumed they were included. I think there was an intention in extending TAA 2002 to cover those impacted. What this amendment does is expand it. I ask a question of my colleague from Oregon, and Oregon is a State known as one of the high-tech centers of this country, is it correct, as I understand, that both the Business Roundtable representing employers and the High-Tech Council have indicated their support of extending TAA to service workers?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, again I thank the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Montana for the opportunity I had to work with them on this amendment. I am pleased we are able to include Senator Snowe's TAA for communities bill and Senator Allen's Homestead Act that will protect dislocated workers' mortgages and their homes. Those are also included. I think it adds to the broad bipartisan support this amendment enjoys. I thank the Chair.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Hickey, who is an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges during my discussion of this amendment.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, it has been a great winter when it comes to Minnesota athletics. Last week I had the privilege to congratulate and recognize the achievements of the University of Minnesota Twin- Cities women's hockey and basketball teams. Today, I switch schools and genders to recognize and congratulate head coach Scott Sandelin and the University of Minnesota-Duluth Men's ice hockey team for their appearance in the NCAA Frozen Four. The Bulldogs will be making their third NCAA Frozen Four appearance tomorrow, having previously appeared in 1984 and 1985. The team and many of its fans are in Boston today, gearing up for the fast pace and the emotion that comes with playing in the Frozen Four on national television. The road to the Frozen Four can be difficult and demanding. I say ``can be difficult'' only because--well, the Bulldogs made it look somewhat easy. In convincing fashion, the Bulldogs defeated Michigan State 5 to 0 and the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities 3 to 1 to earn their first Frozen Four bid since 1985. Against arch-rival Minnesota-Twin Cities, the Bulldogs stuck to a solid game plan, scored timely goals, and received phenomenal goaltending from Isaac Reichmuth, who also should be recognized for his stellar shut-out of Michigan State. While absent 19 years from the Frozen Four, the Bulldogs appearance in this year's Frozen Four is no surprise. After finishing the season 28-12-4, and placing second in the Western Collegiate Hockey Association, the Bulldogs earned the second seed in the Midwest Regional of the NCAA tournament. They are coached by Scott Sandelin. Coach Sandelin is a finalist for the Spencer Penrose Award, the official award of the NCAA for Division 1 coach of the year, and recently received Inside-college-hockey's award for Coach of the Year. On the ice, the Bulldogs have been led all year by Hobey Baker finalist Junior Lessard, who currently leads the Nation in goals and scoring. Lessard has also racked up two prestigious Player of the Year awards by Inside-college-hockey and U.S. College Hockey Online. On the blue line, the Bulldogs are led by first team WCHA all- conference selection Beau Geisler, and as I mentioned before, Isaac Reichmuch, himself a second team all conference selection, has been unbeatable in the pipes for the Bulldogs. The Bulldog ice-hockey tradition runs deep. The program has placed over 34 of its student-athletes into the National Hockey League over the past 35 years. Thanks to Bulldog legends such as Curt Giles, Pat Boutette, Brett Hull, Chris Marinucci, Derek Plante, and Shjon Podein, Minnesota-Duluth is one of the premier hockey schools in the Nation and a source of deep pride for Duluth and all of Minnesota. These young men, 15 of whom are native Minnesotans, are continuing this tradition of excellence and deserve the recognition and excitement that is accompanying their trip to the Frozen Four. Charter buses of Minnesotans have made the long trek to Beantown to cheer on their team and I, like them, look forward to a great match-up between the Bulldogs and the University of Denver tomorrow in Boston. Congratulations to the University of Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs for what has been a stellar season, and best wishes on their ongoing quest for the national championship.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with many mixed emotions and with a firm conviction. Foremost among these emotions is a deep sympathy for the families who have lost loved ones during the recent surge of violence in Iraq. I believe there were 32 deaths of our servicemen in the last 96 hours. We lost one brave marine over the weekend who is from Minnesota. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and with others. America will forever be in the debt of the brave men and women who volunteered. Every man and woman in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan is a volunteer. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice. It is with a heavy heart I reflect on that. But my prayers are with them and my thoughts are with them. My admiration is with them, and the thanks of every Minnesotan and every American is with them for their sacrifice and their courage. I am of the Jewish faith. We just celebrated the Passover tradition, celebration and commemoration of Israel's deliverance from Egypt and from slavery almost 6,000 years ago. One of the things about that holiday is in that service we have a dinner which is a ritual dinner, and we celebrate. We thank God for deliverance. But in that service we also talk about not only ourselves; it is not enough that God delivered us from slavery, but we need to exert ourselves in the deliverance of others. I think that is more than a Jewish tradition. It is more than an American President. Our President reminded us it is a universal principle; that freedom is not America's gift to the world, but it is God's gift. This is also a solemn time to remember the genocide in Rwanda 10 years ago when we as a Nation stood by and over 1 million people were slaughtered. This is the anniversary of the fall of Baghdad for which the whole civilized world should rejoice. It has been a year without new mass graves being filled. A half million Iraqis were slaughtered by Saddam Hussein, by the brutal tyrant. It has been a year in which the torture chambers and the rape rooms are now silent. It has been a year when the wealth of Iraq, a nation with millions of poor people, has not been plundered to sustain the obscene decadence of a sadistic dictator and his maniacal sons. It has been a year that kids returned to school and teachers actually got paid, hospitals reopened, and food and water restored. It has been a year in which clear intent to threaten the region and the world has been stopped. The violence in the last several days has been grievous, but it only stands to confirm the truth of what America has been committed to for the last 3 years: the choice of this state for the uprising in terms that we were battling the remnants of a regime we went there to destroy. The attacks in Spain a short time ago confirm our conviction that Iraq is a battle in the global war on terror. Why else would terrorists target Spain, except to undermine our coalition? Let us never forget that terrorism at its heart, at its evil heart, is a psychological war. It endeavors to break the spirit and the resolve of those it attacks by creating a lose-lose situation. It uses deadly force. By using deadly force it creates a dilemma for its enemy. To not respond validates those attacks. To respond in kind, they believe, will create further unrest and cause for the next round of attacks. Our resolve is what they are attacking. We must show them no hint of resignation. I must say, I felt a great sense of remorse over comments made yesterday by Members of this body who raised the specter of Vietnam. I will be direct: To raise the specter of Vietnam as 10 families learn of the deaths of young sons is regrettable. To attribute a political motive to the President's June 30 deadline to return control of Iraq is extreme. I know the target audience of these comments, but its unintended witnesses are those we fight against today in the global war on terror. Am I the only person struck by the absurd irony of the last week's national debate? On the one hand, the President is being roundly criticized by those claiming he failed to act aggressively prior to September 11 and used only diplomatic efforts to combat terrorism. And, in almost the same breath, he is criticized for being far too aggressive after September 11 and not relying upon diplomacy enough. So he was supposed to be tougher on terror before the attack and easier afterwards? It is hypocrisy. We have an all-sports radio station in the Twin Cities that pokes fun at itself by saying it is ``the home of the best second-guessing.'' I don't think it can match this town of late. It is intellectually dishonest to look backwards with all the facts and judge the decisions that were made with almost none of the facts, or the facts that existed hidden in the normal cloud of endless speculation of what might happen. To compare perfect hindsight with imperfect foresight is unfair. The American people understand that. I have heard the story about a woman who wrote many letters of advice to President Lincoln during the Civil War, giving him direction she received in a prayer of who to attack and who to defend, which general to keep and which to fire. Lincoln replied something to the effect: Don't you find it curious that the Almighty gave you all the answers and gave me the job? It is easy to second-guess. It is easy to criticize, particularly in a political season. But to lead is something altogether different. The leader must live in the real world of the price that might be paid for the goal that has been set. Our young men and women are on the line today defending freedom, fighting terror. We are having discussion and debate about an April 30 deadline. One can raise questions about the plan. We should discuss that. But to call it arbitrary and unilateral, knowing there is an expectation of the Iraqis that we need to turn over political power--not leave, not cut and run. We are still in Germany 50 years later, in Kosovo, in South Korea, not to cut and run--hand over, get rid of the specter of occupation, which is what the international community wants. Yet there are those today who will criticize that second-guessing because you need something to second-guess. It should not work that way. America awakened on September 11 to a harsh reality. After a decade of talking tough, diplomatic efforts, occasionally sending a cruise missile to blow up a factory, or camp in the desert and hoping terrorism would go away, we were brutally attacked. Our good will, our love of peace, and our broad oceans did not protect us. As much as some may want to return to the illusory sense of security we had before September 11, we cannot. Giving people false hope is the antithesis of leadership. The prior judgment of those who attacked us was that America was weak, that we were corrupt, that we were divisible. The destruction of the Taliban in Afghanistan was lesson No. 1. They were wrong. The invasion of Iraq and the fall of Baghdad was lesson No. 2. The attempt to secure peace in Iraq is lesson No. 3. The terrorists are making up their minds what we are made of. They tested the Spanish. They tested the British. They will test the Russians, the Poles, the Italians and every other nation that has been participating in the coalition and the multilateral effort to put Iraq back on its feet. No doubt they will test us. We will meet that test. We will show resolve. We will not cut and run. Terrorism will be defeated. Freedom will prevail. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, my colleague from Texas noted we need a united country. I want to briefly respond to my colleague from New Jersey who talked about the economy before I talk about the situation in Iraq. We had great news: 308,000 new jobs were created in March. Yet my colleagues from across the aisle say, Great news, but; they talk about all the celebration, but; and all the spinning, but. But there is no spinning about 308,000 jobs. The spinning is in the light of good news at a time which we should celebrate. Americans are worried and concerned about their economic future and job growth and opportunity. We have good news. Why can't we simply be united? Why do we have to take the ``Chicken Little'' approach and say ``the sky is falling, the sky is falling''? We have 308,000 new jobs, but; Pell grants have risen, but; 308,000 jobs, but. We have challenges in Social Security; 308,000 jobs, but. The reality is not only 308,000 jobs in March, but the Labor Department went back and recalculated the job growth in January and February. What we have is 500,000 jobs over the last 3 months. Why can't we come together for a moment and try not to create darkness out of light? Why do we have to dim the hopes of the people of this country? Confidence makes a difference. Our economy runs on confidence. We should have confidence based on the facts, and based on all the evidence that has been there for many months about manufacturing growth, investment, and about consumer spending, and now about job growth. Why do we have to spin and twist and turn and create dark clouds for political purposes? I hope we can do better.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize and congratulate head coach Scott Sandelin and the University of Minnesota- Duluth Men's ice hockey team for their appearance in the NCAA Frozen Four. The Bulldogs will be making their third NCAA Frozen Four appearance, having appeared in 1984 and 1985. Since the Bulldogs will be leaving Minnesota early Tuesday morning, I take note of their remarkable accomplishments prior to their departure. In convincing fashion, the Bulldogs defeated Michigan State 5 to 0 and the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities 3 to 1 to earn their first Frozen Four bid since 1985. Against archrival Minnesota-Twin Cities, the Bulldogs stuck to a solid game plan, scored timely goals, and received phenomenal goaltending from Isaac Reichmuth, who also should be recognized for his stellar shut-out of Michigan State. While absent 19 years from the Frozen Four, the Bulldogs appearance in this year's Frozen Four is no surprise. After finishing the season 28-12-4, and placing second in the Western Collegiate Hockey Association, the Bulldogs earned the 2nd seed in the Midwest Regional of the NCAA tournament. They are led by Coach Scott Sandelin, who was just today announced as a finalist for the Spencer Penrose Award, the award for NCAA Division 1 coach of the year. Coach Sandelin has achieved tremendous praise in just four years at Minnesota-Duluth and is recognized in the hockey community as one of the most promising young coaches in college hockey. On the ice, the Bulldogs have been led all year by Hobey Baker finalist Junior Lessard, who currently leads the nation in goals and scoring. On the blue line, the Bulldogs are led by first team WCHA all- conference selection Beau Geisler, and as I mentioned before, Isaac Rechmuch, himself a second team all conference selection, has been unbeatable in the pipes. The Bulldog ice-hockey tradition runs deep. The program has placed over 34 of its student-athletes into the National Hockey League over the past 35 years. Thanks to Bulldog legends such as Curt Giles, Pat Boutette, Brett Hull, Chris Marinucci, Derek Plante, and Shjon Podein, Minnesota-Duluth is one of the premier hockey schools in the nation and a source of deep pride for Duluth and all of Minnesota. These young men, 15 of whom are native Minnesotans, are continuing this tradition of excellence and deserve the recognition and excitement that is accompanying their trip to the Frozen Four next Thursday in Boston. Charter buses of Minnesotans have already been filled to make the long trek to Beantown. Congratulations to the University of Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs for what has been a stellar season and their ongoing quest for the national championship.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, in these challenging times, it is always nice to rise to the floor of the Senate to speak about some good things, about the accomplishments of some of the folks from your State that elicit a great sense of pride. Minnesota is the home to more than 15,000 lakes. It says on our license plates ``10,000 Lakes,'' but there are more than 10,000 lakes. Judging from the performance of our homegrown college athletes this winter, there might be something very special in the water. I congratulate Coach Laura Halldorson and the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers Women's Ice-Hockey team, which claimed its first NCAA championship this Sunday with a convincing 6-to-2 victory over Harvard University. Finishing with a record of 30 wins, 4 losses, and 2 ties, a conference championship, and the top seed in the NCAA tournament, the Gophers did what so many No. 1 seeds often fail to do, they finished the job and they brought home the hardware. I think Americans love an underdog, but we also enjoy marveling at excellence, and the women Gopher hockey team achieved this and they deserve our congratulations, they deserve our plaudits. I wish to highlight the recent progress of women's hockey for a moment. Hockey is to Minnesota what basketball is to Indiana or football is to Texas. Minnesota has been the center of the hockey universe for almost 100 years. Until very recently, women's college hockey was dominated by Eastern schools. In fact, Augsburg College was the first Minnesota school to field a women's hockey team in 1995. I can proudly say that since the inception of a NCAA Division I National Championship in 2001, no school outside Minnesota has won the national title. The first three tournaments were won by the University of Minnesota- Duluth, which I had the pleasure of meeting last year. The hockey rinks of Minnesota--and almost every town has at least one--have always been full of young ring rats wearing hockey jerseys with the names of Minnesota legends such as Broten, Bonin, Pohl, and Gaborik. Today, however, it is as common to see young ring rats skating around the ice with ponytails coming out of their helmets. I got my 14- year-old daughter her first pair of Betty hockey skates this winter, and she uses them proudly. They have the ponytails coming out their helmets. They are wearing names such as Brodt, Darwitz, Wendell, and Potter on their backs. Minnesota has always been the State of men's hockey. Now, thanks to the pioneers of women's hockey such as the women who just won the national championship, Minnesota can rightly claim to be the State of all ice hockey. Switching from the hockey rink to the basketball gym, the story that has all of Minnesota abuzz right now is the Minnesota Golden Gophers women's basketball team's appearance in the NCAA Final Four. After earning a seventh seed in the regional tournament, Minnesota defeated the No. 3 seed, the No. 2 seed, and finally top-ranked Duke, 82 to 75, on Tuesday night. Prior to this year, the Gophers had never made it past the Sweet Sixteen in three previous NCAA tournaments. Now the Gophers will be the highest seed to play in a Final Four since No. 9 Arkansas in 1998. I believe they are the first No. 7 seed to play in the Final Four. I had a chance to watch--not watch, I watched here in Washington--the game against UCLA with my daughter in Minnesota who, in addition to wanting to be a hockey player, wants to be a basketball player. On the phone, play by play, as we were talking about it, I just loved the sense of excitement. I was unable to watch the game against Duke the other night; I had a speaking engagement at the time of the game. But I was anxious, when I checked my cell phone as soon as that speaking engagement was over, to hear first a message from my daughter, with just a couple of minutes left, that we were ahead and then this excited message that we won. We won. It is great to see young kids, young women look at other young women and look at their sense of accomplishment, athletic accomplishment and say, Boy, I would like to be like that. It is great to have role models, and we have them at the University of Minnesota now, led by second year coach Pam Borton and Most Valuable Player Lindsay Whalen, a young woman who broke her wrist and was out for a while and I believe the first game back in the tournament scored 31 points. The Gopher women will face the University of Connecticut at 8:30 Minnesota time. I wish the team all the best of luck, and the thanks of millions of Minnesotans who will be glued to the television, cheering you on, including me and my daughter. The University of Minnesota women's ice hockey and basketball teams have made all Minnesotans proud. A source of intense pride for all Minnesotans is that these championship teams are overwhelmingly comprised of Minnesota-grown young women. Eleven of the 14 players on the Gopher basketball team, and 12 out of 20 on the hockey team, are from Minnesota. These young women represent cities from corners of Minnesota, such as Fosston, Marshall, Stewartville, Moorhead, Hibbing, and the Twin Cities. Congratulations to the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers women's ice hockey and women's basketball teams for their athletic success, and for, really, making all of Minnesota proud, doing such a fabulous job of representing Minnesota on the national stage. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I had a chance to hear my colleague from Ohio speak in humble terms about the work he did, the commitment he made when he was working in Ohio at the State level and now in the Senate regarding issues of domestic abuse and sexual violence. I don't know if there is a stronger champion in the Senate than my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, on these issues. I know where his heart is. I know where his passion is. When I look at the Murray amendment, there are provisions in this amendment I would like to support. There are principles in this amendment on which I would like to work with her and I would like to see happen. I believe--I know my colleague from Ohio feels the same way, and we have to be very candid, we have to be very blunt--that the reality is that the effect of the Murray amendment, if it were to pass, would simply kill the underlying bill. We have an opportunity to do something today for unborn victims of violence. We have an opportunity to do something. Or we can do what I see going on far too often in this Chamber, and that is to--I don't know whether it is political gamesmanship, I don't know if it is ``gotcha'' policy, I don't know what it is, but it is not about getting something done. We can get something done today. We can pass a clean Unborn Victims of Violence Act. For those of us who would like to work with my colleague from Washington on some of these important principles, who really want to get something done, let's be honest and let's do it in a form and manner in which we know something will happen. If this amendment is attached to this bill, this bill dies. Some of the principles I may believe in and want to work on that are in the Murray amendment will go nowhere, and we all know that. I did not come here to play a game, to participate in endless debates for the sake of debating, to cast votes to be measured on ``you are for sexual violence or you are against.'' That is not what this is about. I got elected on a belief that we could get some things done, and that is hard in this body because it is so easy to kill a bill. It is so easy to tack on an amendment that is so hard to vote against because we are afraid of being accused of being against domestic violence. I am passionate about dealing with domestic violence. I was a prosecutor in the State of Minnesota and prosecuted some of the early child abuse cases. I was mayor of the city of St. Paul. I thought we did cutting edge things to deal with domestic and sexual violence. I want to do more about domestic and sexual violence while I am here in the Senate, but we are not going to do more about it by voting for the Murray amendment today. I am going to cast my vote against the Murray amendment, even though I share a belief in some of the principles the good Senator from Washington is trying to raise. I am going to vote against it because I want to get something done, and the one opportunity we have today, I say to my colleagues, to get something done is to pass out of this body a clean Unborn Victims of Violence Act. If we pass this bill and it is signed into law, we have provided protection on the Federal level--by the way, it is similar to what many States do and what we do in the State of Minnesota--for a mom and an unborn baby, such as the Laci and Conner Peterson case. We all know many cases like that. Again, I appreciate the principles my colleague from Washington is attempting to raise, but I think it is time to be very blunt and very honest. If you want to do something about that issue, this bill is not the place to do it. It will not go forward. It will not further the ends about which we are talking. We have an opportunity to do something today, and that is to pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I support this bill in a clean manner. Tomorrow I will work with my colleague from Washington and my colleague from Ohio and do what needs to be done to further some of the very laudable goals she desires. Mr. President, I yield the floor.