Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to talk about one of my colleagues, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. Last night, he secured the nomination of the Republican Party to be President of the United States. I must admit that about 6 months ago, I was one of those who questioned whether Senator McCain would be successful in this quest. While his passion for our Nation has never been in doubt, my sense was that his campaign for the Presidency was flickering to a close. What you saw last night is a reflection of character, the character of John McCain, the character that allowed him to persevere through the terrible torture of tiger cages in Vietnam. John McCain has never, ever given up on this Nation. In the end, at a time when there is so much cynicism in the body politic and the public about politicians, it is uplifting, not just for this party or for this body, because the next President of the United States will come from this body, but for this country to have as our candidate a man whose character has been tested in a furnace that has burned hotter than any one of us could possibly understand. At a time when the issues of security are so preeminent, we have as a candidate John McCain, who has been as steadfast on protecting this Nation as one could ever imagine. At a time when the public is concerned about wasteful Washington spending, we have as our candidate an individual who has been a champion in fighting wasteful Washington spending. I wanted to take a few moments to offer my congratulations to our colleague from Arizona and to say to the American public, at a time when there is such doubt and cynicism, such division in this country, we have before them an individual whose character is strong. His courage is unquestioned. He has shown the ability to overcome the deep, divisive, partisan divide that tears this body apart, that tears this country apart. That is a wonderful thing. I offer my heartfelt congratulations to our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today, along with my distinguished colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, I am introducing legislation to restore and enhance our Nation's competitiveness for international students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors, and better facilitate legitimate business travel to the U.S. In the immediate aftermath of the events of 9/11, it was necessary to take the steps we did to improve and enhance our Nation's security. But in the more than 6 years since 9/11, these well-intentioned changes have had unintended consequences, stifling legitimate academic and scientific exchange and international business travel, and tarnishing our Nation's image around the world. Three years ago, Senator Bingaman and I introduced a similar bill designed to reverse the decline in the number of foreign students studying at American colleges and universities. At that time, international applications to U.S. graduate schools and to English as a Second Language, ESL, programs were plummeting, and visa delays were numbering in the thousands. Visa delays were also negatively impacting the scientific and business communities, resulting in billions of dollars of losses for the U.S. economy, as scientific research, conferences, and business meetings had to be canceled and shifted to overseas locations. Over the past 3 years, there have been improvements with visa issuance, and it is the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, particularly Assistant Secretary Maura Harty, who deserves much of the credit. I am pleased with their advancements to enhance consular staff; adopt newer, more efficient technology; offer international students, scholars, and exchange visitors preferential consideration when scheduling in-person interview appointments; and extend security clearance validity. The Department also has established a business visa center to field inquiries from U.S. businesses and their worldwide counterparts, although the center cannot expedite in-person interview appointments or the processing of visa applications. This is not to say that visa delays have disappeared entirely. Delays do continue to occur, albeit not at the huge volume they once were. Because of this, there is a lot of lingering uncertainty about the process which generates a great deal of concern for international students, scholars, exchange visitors, and business travelers, and reinforces a perception that America is not a welcoming place for international visitors. Indeed, serious concerns remain regarding the U.S. position in the competition for international talent, particularly among higher education, the scientific community, and the private sector. Our competitiveness problem is not just a visa problem--we cannot solve it simply by fixing the visa problems that were created after 9/11. The U.S. now faces strong competition for international students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors. The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the European Union all have coordinated, government-led strategic plans in place for attracting international students and scholars to their colleges and universities. Even our neighbor to the north, Canada, plans to announce a strategic plan this year. Meanwhile, traditional sending countries such as China and India are expanding their own higher education offerings, both to retain more of their own students and to attract international students. In the face of this competition, the U.S. still struggles along with piecemeal efforts, with each positive action seemingly cancelled out by a negative action and persistent negative perceptions. The results are worrisome. While international student enrollment in the U.S. declined in both the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 academic years, and remained stagnant in 2005-2006, over the same period, enrollment in the United Kingdom jumped more than 80,000, in Australia and France more than 50,000, and in Germany and Japan more than 20,000. In 2006, then-U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair announced a goal of attracting an additional 100,000 international students to Great Britain in the next 5 years. Although we have started to see the enrollment numbers tick upwards slightly just this past year--in Minnesota, 9,048 international students were studying at colleges and universities last academic year, contributing $186.4 million to the state's economy--it is still below the peak level of 9,143 achieved in 2003-2004, so there is still ground to make up for what was lost over the past 3 years to ensure we regain our place as the most desired destination for study and for research. Even if we return to pre-9/11 numbers, we may find we have lost market share to competing nations. Why should this matter to the U.S.? Recent public opinion polls taken around the world show that the U.S. has fallen out of favor. But these same polls also show that foreigners who have personally visited the U.S. have a significantly more favorable opinion than those who have never visited. International students and scholars benefit greatly from their experiences in the U.S., not only from their studies and research, but also from living in daily American life. They carry these experiences home, often becoming ambassadors of goodwill and understanding. Many go on to achieve leadership positions in their home countries in government, business, or education. These exchanges also benefit American students, researchers and business colleagues, who similarly have the opportunity to learn about another culture in this globalized world. Two expert commissions recently issued recommendations citing international educational exchange as a critical form of public diplomacy outreach. Last November, the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Commission on Smart Power cited international educational exchange as a key element for improving America's declining standing and influence in the world. Just last month, the Secure Borders and Open Doors Advisory Committee, a federal advisory committee tasked by the Departments of Homeland Security and State to provide recommendations on the Departments' missions to protect not only America's security but also our economic livelihood, ideals, image, and strategic relationships with the world, cited the need for a proactive national strategy to mobilize all the tools and assets at our disposal to attract international students and scholars to the U.S. International students and scholars are not only important for public diplomacy, they also are essential for our Nation's global competitiveness. They make significant contributions to our economic growth and innovation. According to recent National Science Board data, nearly half of all graduate enrollments at U.S. colleges and universities in the science and engineering fields are international students. And these students often go on to positively impact future research and technology output in this country. I strongly support efforts to build up America's own supply of science and technology talent, but we also must continue to actively attract international talent to our shores if we are to retain our innovative edge. It is a reality of our time that, at the high-skill level, the temporary immigration system has become a conveyor belt of talent into the permanent immigration system. Most foreign students do want to go home after graduation, but some want to stay and use the knowledge they have acquired at our universities. For example, Ms. Indra Nooyi, the current CEO of PepsiCo, the world's fourth largest food and beverage company, is herself a former international student who received her master's degree from Yale University's School of Management. So it is for all these important reasons that Senator Bingaman and I once again introduce legislation on this important issue: The American Competitiveness Through International Openness Now, ACTION, Act of 2008. This year's bill once again calls for the establishment of a strategic plan for increasing the competitiveness of the U.S. in recruiting international students, scholars and exchange visitors. The U.S. can no longer sit back and rest on its laurels when engaging in this global competition, especially when all of our competitors clearly have stepped up their game. Our biggest problem is our inability to marshal the efforts of all the relevant agencies into one coherent effort. Too often, these agencies work in an uncoordinated manner, or worse, at cross purposes. The PR blunder cases, where one arm of our government sets up exchange programs to attract people and another arm of the government detains them at the border, is only the tip of the iceberg. Our legislation would create a White House-chaired International Education Coordinating Council to guide the work of the myriad agencies that affect our competitiveness for international students and exchange visitors. One of the most important provisions in the legislation would remove the nonimmigrant intent requirement for international students, the so- called 214(b) rule. This outdated requirement that all applicants for student visas must intend to return home after their studies makes no sense, especially when talent-starved high-tech industries actively court international students upon graduation. As I stated earlier, our ability to attract international talent is essential to sustaining our competitive edge in the world. Retaining such a requirement is simply out of step in this day and age, especially when most of our competitors are going out of their way to enact policies to make it easier for international students to stay after graduation. The bill calls for further improvement in the timeliness and efficiency of the visa issuance process for those in the sciences. It directs the Secretary of State to issue guidance to reduce the length of time to issue visas to scientists to a maximum of 30 days, and to provide a special review process for those cases that are delayed more than 45 days. It also directs the Secretary of State to review and update the Technology Alert List on a regular basis, and to consult with academia and the private sector as part of this review, to ensure the list reflects the current state of technology. It also calls for expediting visa reviews for so-called ``Trusted Travelers'': easily identifiable, low-risk frequent travelers who have a history of past visa approvals, haven't violated their immigration status, and have provided their biometric data, plus any additional information required, to the consulate. This would both ease travel for these individuals and permit consular resources to be focused on more important cases. There is also a provision to also allow expedited visa reviews for international students, scholars and exchange visitors who leave the United States temporarily to visit their families or attend conferences and require a new visa to return to the same program. Today, these people can be stranded abroad for months without being able to return to their programs. The legislation calls for the reinstatement of domestic or stateside visa renewals for those here on employment-based non-immigrant visas. This practice was discontinued in 2004, because U.S. consulates abroad were better equipped to collect the required biometric data from the renewal applicant. Given today's available technology, we should seek to reinstate this practice. This would help to alleviate the volume of renewal applicants at our overseas consulates, as well as help renewal applicants who often opt to forgo travel overseas due to the uncertainty of timely and efficient processing of their renewal applications. Finally, there has been much public debate about driver's licenses and Real ID. In our well-intentioned efforts to ensure that only persons in the U.S. legally are able to acquire driver's licenses, we have unintentionally hamstrung the ability of legal nonimmigrants to have licenses. Real ID's unrealistic documentation and renewal requirements for international students and scholars send yet another negative signal about America's openness to them, and frankly ignore technical advances which could provide both better assurances about a person's legal status and licenses of a longer validity. Our bill will correct this problem in a way that will strengthen, not weaken, the integrity of driver's licenses. For all of these reasons, our legislation is endorsed by NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the world's largest professional association advocating for international education and exchange programs, by the National Foreign Trade Council, the Nation's premier business organization dedicated to advancing global commerce, and by USA Engage, a leading broad-based coalition of trade associations promoting global economic engagement. The American way of life owes its success and vitality to its historic ability to harness the best in knowledge and ideas, not only those that are homegrown, but also those that come from outside our borders. The longer we wait to take action, the more we risk missing out on future U.S. academic, business, and research success. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today, along with my distinguished colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, I am introducing legislation to restore and enhance our Nation's competitiveness for international students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors, and better facilitate legitimate business travel to the U.S. In the immediate aftermath of the events of 9/11, it was necessary to take the steps we did to improve and enhance our Nation's security. But in the more than 6 years since 9/11, these well-intentioned changes have had unintended consequences, stifling legitimate academic and scientific exchange and international business travel, and tarnishing our Nation's image around the world. Three years ago, Senator Bingaman and I introduced a similar bill designed to reverse the decline in the number of foreign students studying at American colleges and universities. At that time, international applications to U.S. graduate schools and to English as a Second Language, ESL, programs were plummeting, and visa delays were numbering in the thousands. Visa delays were also negatively impacting the scientific and business communities, resulting in billions of dollars of losses for the U.S. economy, as scientific research, conferences, and business meetings had to be canceled and shifted to overseas locations. Over the past 3 years, there have been improvements with visa issuance, and it is the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, particularly Assistant Secretary Maura Harty, who deserves much of the credit. I am pleased with their advancements to enhance consular staff; adopt newer, more efficient technology; offer international students, scholars, and exchange visitors preferential consideration when scheduling in-person interview appointments; and extend security clearance validity. The Department also has established a business visa center to field inquiries from U.S. businesses and their worldwide counterparts, although the center cannot expedite in-person interview appointments or the processing of visa applications. This is not to say that visa delays have disappeared entirely. Delays do continue to occur, albeit not at the huge volume they once were. Because of this, there is a lot of lingering uncertainty about the process which generates a great deal of concern for international students, scholars, exchange visitors, and business travelers, and reinforces a perception that America is not a welcoming place for international visitors. Indeed, serious concerns remain regarding the U.S. position in the competition for international talent, particularly among higher education, the scientific community, and the private sector. Our competitiveness problem is not just a visa problem--we cannot solve it simply by fixing the visa problems that were created after 9/11. The U.S. now faces strong competition for international students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors. The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the European Union all have coordinated, government-led strategic plans in place for attracting international students and scholars to their colleges and universities. Even our neighbor to the north, Canada, plans to announce a strategic plan this year. Meanwhile, traditional sending countries such as China and India are expanding their own higher education offerings, both to retain more of their own students and to attract international students. In the face of this competition, the U.S. still struggles along with piecemeal efforts, with each positive action seemingly cancelled out by a negative action and persistent negative perceptions. The results are worrisome. While international student enrollment in the U.S. declined in both the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 academic years, and remained stagnant in 2005-2006, over the same period, enrollment in the United Kingdom jumped more than 80,000, in Australia and France more than 50,000, and in Germany and Japan more than 20,000. In 2006, then-U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair announced a goal of attracting an additional 100,000 international students to Great Britain in the next 5 years. Although we have started to see the enrollment numbers tick upwards slightly just this past year--in Minnesota, 9,048 international students were studying at colleges and universities last academic year, contributing $186.4 million to the state's economy--it is still below the peak level of 9,143 achieved in 2003-2004, so there is still ground to make up for what was lost over the past 3 years to ensure we regain our place as the most desired destination for study and for research. Even if we return to pre-9/11 numbers, we may find we have lost market share to competing nations. Why should this matter to the U.S.? Recent public opinion polls taken around the world show that the U.S. has fallen out of favor. But these same polls also show that foreigners who have personally visited the U.S. have a significantly more favorable opinion than those who have never visited. International students and scholars benefit greatly from their experiences in the U.S., not only from their studies and research, but also from living in daily American life. They carry these experiences home, often becoming ambassadors of goodwill and understanding. Many go on to achieve leadership positions in their home countries in government, business, or education. These exchanges also benefit American students, researchers and business colleagues, who similarly have the opportunity to learn about another culture in this globalized world. Two expert commissions recently issued recommendations citing international educational exchange as a critical form of public diplomacy outreach. Last November, the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Commission on Smart Power cited international educational exchange as a key element for improving America's declining standing and influence in the world. Just last month, the Secure Borders and Open Doors Advisory Committee, a federal advisory committee tasked by the Departments of Homeland Security and State to provide recommendations on the Departments' missions to protect not only America's security but also our economic livelihood, ideals, image, and strategic relationships with the world, cited the need for a proactive national strategy to mobilize all the tools and assets at our disposal to attract international students and scholars to the U.S. International students and scholars are not only important for public diplomacy, they also are essential for our Nation's global competitiveness. They make significant contributions to our economic growth and innovation. According to recent National Science Board data, nearly half of all graduate enrollments at U.S. colleges and universities in the science and engineering fields are international students. And these students often go on to positively impact future research and technology output in this country. I strongly support efforts to build up America's own supply of science and technology talent, but we also must continue to actively attract international talent to our shores if we are to retain our innovative edge. It is a reality of our time that, at the high-skill level, the temporary immigration system has become a conveyor belt of talent into the permanent immigration system. Most foreign students do want to go home after graduation, but some want to stay and use the knowledge they have acquired at our universities. For example, Ms. Indra Nooyi, the current CEO of PepsiCo, the world's fourth largest food and beverage company, is herself a former international student who received her master's degree from Yale University's School of Management. So it is for all these important reasons that Senator Bingaman and I once again introduce legislation on this important issue: The American Competitiveness Through International Openness Now, ACTION, Act of 2008. This year's bill once again calls for the establishment of a strategic plan for increasing the competitiveness of the U.S. in recruiting international students, scholars and exchange visitors. The U.S. can no longer sit back and rest on its laurels when engaging in this global competition, especially when all of our competitors clearly have stepped up their game. Our biggest problem is our inability to marshal the efforts of all the relevant agencies into one coherent effort. Too often, these agencies work in an uncoordinated manner, or worse, at cross purposes. The PR blunder cases, where one arm of our government sets up exchange programs to attract people and another arm of the government detains them at the border, is only the tip of the iceberg. Our legislation would create a White House-chaired International Education Coordinating Council to guide the work of the myriad agencies that affect our competitiveness for international students and exchange visitors. One of the most important provisions in the legislation would remove the nonimmigrant intent requirement for international students, the so- called 214(b) rule. This outdated requirement that all applicants for student visas must intend to return home after their studies makes no sense, especially when talent-starved high-tech industries actively court international students upon graduation. As I stated earlier, our ability to attract international talent is essential to sustaining our competitive edge in the world. Retaining such a requirement is simply out of step in this day and age, especially when most of our competitors are going out of their way to enact policies to make it easier for international students to stay after graduation. The bill calls for further improvement in the timeliness and efficiency of the visa issuance process for those in the sciences. It directs the Secretary of State to issue guidance to reduce the length of time to issue visas to scientists to a maximum of 30 days, and to provide a special review process for those cases that are delayed more than 45 days. It also directs the Secretary of State to review and update the Technology Alert List on a regular basis, and to consult with academia and the private sector as part of this review, to ensure the list reflects the current state of technology. It also calls for expediting visa reviews for so-called ``Trusted Travelers'': easily identifiable, low-risk frequent travelers who have a history of past visa approvals, haven't violated their immigration status, and have provided their biometric data, plus any additional information required, to the consulate. This would both ease travel for these individuals and permit consular resources to be focused on more important cases. There is also a provision to also allow expedited visa reviews for international students, scholars and exchange visitors who leave the United States temporarily to visit their families or attend conferences and require a new visa to return to the same program. Today, these people can be stranded abroad for months without being able to return to their programs. The legislation calls for the reinstatement of domestic or stateside visa renewals for those here on employment-based non-immigrant visas. This practice was discontinued in 2004, because U.S. consulates abroad were better equipped to collect the required biometric data from the renewal applicant. Given today's available technology, we should seek to reinstate this practice. This would help to alleviate the volume of renewal applicants at our overseas consulates, as well as help renewal applicants who often opt to forgo travel overseas due to the uncertainty of timely and efficient processing of their renewal applications. Finally, there has been much public debate about driver's licenses and Real ID. In our well-intentioned efforts to ensure that only persons in the U.S. legally are able to acquire driver's licenses, we have unintentionally hamstrung the ability of legal nonimmigrants to have licenses. Real ID's unrealistic documentation and renewal requirements for international students and scholars send yet another negative signal about America's openness to them, and frankly ignore technical advances which could provide both better assurances about a person's legal status and licenses of a longer validity. Our bill will correct this problem in a way that will strengthen, not weaken, the integrity of driver's licenses. For all of these reasons, our legislation is endorsed by NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the world's largest professional association advocating for international education and exchange programs, by the National Foreign Trade Council, the Nation's premier business organization dedicated to advancing global commerce, and by USA Engage, a leading broad-based coalition of trade associations promoting global economic engagement. The American way of life owes its success and vitality to its historic ability to harness the best in knowledge and ideas, not only those that are homegrown, but also those that come from outside our borders. The longer we wait to take action, the more we risk missing out on future U.S. academic, business, and research success. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Mikulski- Coleman-Klobuchar amendment to place a moratorium on CMS's December 4 rule on Medicaid case management services. Last night, Senator Mikulski--and I joined with her--and Senator Klobuchar offered this case management legislation as an amendment to the Indian health bill being debated on the floor. I begin by saying I fully understand the fiscal challenges our entitlement programs face, and I look forward to the day when we can put politics aside and have an honest and productive discussion about how to preserve these programs for future generations. I think we can all agree that the goal of that conversation is to find a delicate balance between fiscal responsibility and making sure our Nation's most vulnerable populations still have access to the health care services they so desperately need. Unfortunately, when it comes to the case management rule, while I support CMS's intent to cut out wasteful spending, it is clear to me that it fails to achieve this delicate balance. I cannot think of a better way to describe case management than to say it is the glue that holds together our Nation's Medicaid system. In my home State of Minnesota, I have consistently heard from social workers, county supervisors, health care providers, and others about how devastating this new regulation will be for at-risk individuals and families. Suffice it to say, when I travel throughout Minnesota and I meet with county commissioners, one of the first things they say to me is targeted case management and they raise the deep concern that the proposed CMS rules will have on their ability to service needy individuals in my State. I suspect if my colleagues across the country talk with a county commissioner, this is what they are going to hear. I hear that without comprehensive case management services, millions of Americans with mental illness will not be able to access the treatment medications they need to survive; that people living with disabilities will find themselves forced to remain in institutions instead of enjoying the dignity of independent community-based living; that our most vulnerable children, those in foster care, will be left alone to navigate a complex and often overwhelming Medicaid system. That is why I introduced the legislation this amendment is based on, and that is why this legislation is not only cosponsored by 19 of our Senate colleagues but also has the support of several advocacy groups throughout the country, including the Child Welfare League, Muscular Sclerosis Society, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Council for Community Behavioral Health, and many others. All these groups recognize the devastating effect this regulation will have on those most in need of important case management services. Let me take a moment to highlight some of the fundamental problems with this rule. This new regulation requires that case management services must be delivered by a single case manager, which sounds reasonable enough. However, we are talking about populations that can have up to four or five or six chronic conditions. If this rule is finalized, it would require that a single case manager provide quality case management services to a person who may be suffering with HIV, mental illness, and diabetes all at the same time. Should we not have a health system that allows a team of specialized case managers to work together to address each of these complex issues? Isn't the kind of care, integrated care a key element of making sure our health care system is keeping people healthy, not just treating them when they get sick? Another concern I have consistently heard is the new limitations on moving people from an institutional setting to a less restrictive community-based setting. Let me remind you that moving people to community-based settings was a key recommendation of the President's own New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Yet under this new rule, case managers would have significantly less time to prepare people to move from an institution to a community. Let me also point out that the administration has made ``home and community-based waivers'' a key element of its Medicaid reform efforts. I could not be more supportive of this initiative. We should, whenever possible, make every effort to allow people to live with dignity and independence in the setting of their choice. Unfortunately, this new rule will stand in the way of these efforts and force many people to remain institutionalized. Finally, this new rule eviscerates case management for some of our Nation's most vulnerable children, those living in the foster care system. By not allowing child welfare workers to provide case management services, many children will be left to fend for themselves when seeking medical services. As I said before, I am all for fiscal responsibility, but I cannot support reforms that will have such a destructive impact on America's foster care system. These children already have enough obstacles to face. Let's not make their lives more challenging by taking away these critical case management services. I should note that this amendment is fully paid for. Actually, the ``paid for'' is a key step forward in preserving our entitlement programs. My investigation, as ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, revealed that thousands of Medicare providers who are supposed to be serving our Nation's elderly and disabled are, instead, cheating American taxpayers in order to line their own pockets. As a solution, a provision in this amendment will save American taxpayers close to $160 million over the next 5 years by ensuring that CMS participates in the Federal Payment Levy Program so that Medicare payments to these tax cheats can be levied. The administration supports this proposal, going so far as to include it in the 2009 budget. This amendment is simple. We recognize that we need to provide more direction in case management services, but all we are asking CMS to do is take another year and work with Congress and the relevant stakeholders to develop a reasonable rule that clarifies the scope of the case management program but still provides the critical services our most vulnerable populations rely on. My father was a carpenter by trade. He told me always that we should measure twice and cut once. In this case management program, what we have is individuals working as a system to deliver, in the most effective way possible, services to the neediest. It makes sense. I understand their concerns. CMS in my State--and I suspect in Wisconsin, the State of the Presiding Officer--our folks do this well. CMS found out that, in fact, we are doing it well. We are doing what the program is supposed to do, with very little waste. If there is waste in other areas of the country, let us have a conversation about it but don't hurt the neediest and penalize the States that are doing a good job in providing coordinated services to those at risk and those in need. As I said before, this is an issue that each and every time I travel and visit with my county commissioners, those involved in the unheralded work of simply dealing with those in need--they don't get a lot of credit being county commissioners, but they are all worried and concerned. They tell me: Senator, we are doing it right and we are about to be penalized. We should be better than that. Let's step back and take a breath and put a hold on the implementation of this rule, and let's figure out a way to do it right. Let's measure twice and only cut once. 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. Madam President, today I want to recognize the accomplishments of Ms. Debra Brown Steinberg. Last year, Ms. Steinberg received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor from the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations for her services in representing the families of noncitizen victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. With this award, she joins past notable recipients such as former Presidents Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. Ms. Steinberg has worked tirelessly to help the families of 9/11 victims. She played a leading role in the creation of the New York Lawyers for the Public Interest 9/11 Project shortly after the attacks. Ms. Steinberg was a driving force in the creation of the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, which provided a total of $7 billion to the families of those killed in the attacks, and she drafted a substantial portion of the New York 9/11 Victims and Families Relief Act. Over the 6 years following that tragic day, her selfless service to these families has never ceased. The Ellis Island Medal of Honor is only the latest in a series of honors that have been appropriately awarded to Ms. Steinberg. In 2006, she received the American Bar Association's Pro Bono Publico award for her many extraordinary efforts on behalf of the families of 9/11 victims, which she performed without compensation. Her public services have also been honored twice by the U.S. House of Representatives, in a New York State Senate resolution, and by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. Ms. Steinberg's work was also featured in the documentary film entitled ``The Legal Community's Response to September 11th'' and in a similar study entitled ``Public Service in a Time of Crisis.'' Ms. Steinberg's service should serve as an inspiration not only her peers in the legal profession but to all Americans.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to my friend, my encourager, my mentor. Mae West once said: Marriage is a fine institution, but I am not ready yet for an institution. Reflecting on the comments of my colleague from Georgia, I think when we get here, I don't know how many of us are ready for the institution. What I had--and what I know my other colleagues had--in Trent Lott was somebody who put his arm around you. He shared with you the importance of your word is your bond, the importance of family--more than things you can read in a rules manual or a procedural manual but the history of the heart and the soul of the institution, embodied by my friend and my encourager, Trent Lott. This Chamber has been home to some of the great statesmen in American history. I say this not with hyperbole or superlatives, but I say it as a matter of established fact: that among the great statesmen in the history of this country, one is sitting in this Chamber today, who will move on to do other great things, I am sure. Similar to me, he governs from the bank of the Mississippi. It is a little colder where I come from, the State I represent. But he is an outstanding representative of the heartland, the heart and soul of America. On my way to the Senate complex, as I walk through, I sometimes stop and take a look at the words that are written in one of the office buildings by Everett McKinley Dirksen. I wish to read these words because this is inscribed on the wall: ``His unerring sense of the possible that enabled him to know when to compromise; by such men are our freedoms retained.'' Such a tribute belongs to Trent Lott. Freedom requires that we all express our views strongly and to do that on the floor. But in the end, you need those who can knit together, who can craft legislation. We all have stories of being in Trent's presence and watching him do that. He truly is today's current master of the Senate. He understands the art of what it takes to get things done. Some of us have said the worst sin in politics is not knowing how to count. If that is the case, then Trent is pure as the driven snow because he knows how to count. And not only knowing how to count, what he does is use that in a way to kind of guide us to ultimately get things done. That is what it is about. I believe what we are suffering from in this country today is a deep partisan divide. So the American public looks at and wonders about our ability to do what we have been elected to do. If there is somebody today who has the antidote to that infection, it is Trent Lott. Because in the end, that is what he strives to do. We all have our stories. I served on the conference committee on homeland security to reshape the way in which we do intelligence, to look at somehow getting rid of the silos that were problematic on 9/11 that the 9/11 Commission talked about, and to figure out a way to put together a system of gathering intelligence which works together, is seamless. I watched time and again, when it seemed like we were not going to get it done--and it was not, by the way, partisan; it was not just Democrat versus Republican; sometimes it was House versus Senate--and I can tell you, almost every time, on every occasion--and Chairman Collins could tell you the same thing, and Ranking Member Lieberman could tell you the same thing--at the moment you needed that, where it seemed like it was not going to get done, the voice that arose was the gentleman from Pascagoula, the Senator from Mississippi, who would offer a little something that would kind of pull us back together and move us forward. In the end, we passed the bill. The Nation is better for it. I had the opportunity earlier this year to be honored with Senator Lott by the Ripon Society, with the Theodore Roosevelt Rough Rider Award. That is, by the way, the progressive wing of the Republican Party. Trent got up there, when he received his honor, and said: Before I got here, I used to be called a conservative. He is still a conservative, a principled conservative. But the reason he was recognized by the Ripon Society--and I think by folks regardless of what side of the aisle they are on, what side of the political spectrum they are on--is because of his incredible ability to find common ground, to pull people together. In Minnesota, we all know of the Scandinavian who loved his wife so much he almost told her. There are many in this institution who care so much they almost get something done. But Trent Lott is one of those who both cares so much and he gets things done. I thank the Lott family for sharing him with our Nation. I know the foundation of Trent's service is commitment to freedom, to faith, and to family. That is about as solid a foundation as one could have. That is something this first-term Senator has seen, has appreciated, and carries in his heart. I thank him for his lifetime of service to all Americans. I ask that God continue to bless Trent, Tricia, and the Lott family. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I am prepared to withdraw my request if we are prepared to vote on the farm bill.

Mr. COLEMAN. Reserving the right to object, I ask I be permitted to follow for 10 minutes, also as in morning business.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice to the important floor debate that has just occurred with respect to FHA reform and the subprime crisis. Mr. President, this subprime crisis is one that is affecting folks all across the country, including my State of Minnesota. This isn't just a one-State issue or a regional issue, this is a national issue. This is a serious problem for States from Minnesota to Ohio to Florida to Nevada. And when you look at the current foreclosure numbers and the mortgage reset projections for the next 2 years, it is clear that the problem is not just short term but also one that will become worse in terms of the additional number of homeowners who will be affected. Mr. President, when you consider my State of Minnesota, it may come as a surprise to some to learn that while Minnesota has consistently ranked as a leader in homeownership, Minnesota also unfortunately ranks up there in terms of the subprime crisis. For the third quarter, Minnesota ranks third in the Nation in terms of subprime mortgages in foreclosure. In this year alone, foreclosures are expected to increase by 84 percent to 20,573. In the State, the subprime crisis isn't just affecting folks in the Twin Cities. This is affecting people in the suburbs and in greater Minnesota. Just the other day, the Star Tribune ran a story, ``Mortgage Foreclosures Ripple into Rural Minnesota,'' about how rural Minnesotans are being hit by the subprime crisis. Behind all the terrible numbers are people like Ms. Shoua Yang, who spoke at last month's housing town hall forum I hosted in Minneapolis. Ms Yang spoke about how her mortgage payment has gone through the roof, from $800 to $1,300 per month, because her adjustable rate mortgage has reset. Now she and her three children are close to losing the roof over their heads. But it isn't just homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages who are suffering. It is renters, whose homes have been foreclosed through no fault of their own. It is construction workers--Minnesota has now lost nearly 7,000 construction jobs over the year. One of those families who has been directly impacted by the housing downturn is the Buchite family of Zimmerman, MN. At last month's town hall forum, Audrey Buchite heart-breakingly spoke of how the loss of her husband's job as a house framer has left the family in dire financial straits, even though they have a fixed, 30-year mortgage. In order to make ends meet, they have dropped their health insurance and their college-bound daughter has decided to help with the family finances instead of going to college. And it is also folks in the timber industry. I was recently up in Aitkin in northern Minnesota, timber country, as part of my tour of all 87 Minnesota counties this year. While I was up there, loggers were telling me how the housing downturn is hurting their business by depressing softwood lumber prices. Mr. President, as a former mayor, I strongly, believe that home ownership brings about a boat load of social good. So it goes without saying that if home ownership does so much good, anything that threatens this social good threatens the whole community, not to mention the economy at large. And so, Mr. President, with the worst still ahead of us, I approach this crisis with a sense of urgency and commitment to helping at-risk and distressed homeowners in a fair and responsible way. To that end I am pleased that we just passed FHA reform legislation to enlist the Federal Housing Administration in efforts to stem the surge in housing foreclosures and also prevent buyers from resorting to risky mortgages they may not be able to afford. This is an important step in addressing the subprime crisis--the legislation will increase FHA single-family loan limits across the board, at both the high and low ends and will help people refinance into safer mortgages. I am also pleased that the administration has rightly helped to bring industry together to come to terms on a voluntary, market-driven mortgage relief plan. Some would argue that the relief plan amounts to a bailout; that it violates free-market principles; that it merely kicks the can down the road. And others claim that it doesn't go far enough. Well, the way I see it, mortgage servicers and investors have a collective self-interest in preventing mass foreclosures from happening. No one wins in a foreclosure. Under the plan, as many as 1.2 million folks can be helped either by refinancing their mortgage or having their interest rates frozen for 5 years, which for many should give them the time needed to keep their homes. To put this in context, 1.8 million subprime mortgages will reset in 2008 and 2009. It is important to also have the big picture in mind. If mass foreclosures happen, it isn't just the homeowner who has lost his or her house who is affected, but also the surrounding homeowners whose property values may decline, not to mention the impact on our communities. The key is to help folks who can be responsibly helped to keep their homes. So the way I see it, the administration's mortgage relief plan is an important, responsible step towards preventing what could be a foreclosure catastrophe. In no way however, is the administration's plan the entire solution. There is no one single solution. Rather it will require a comprehensive set of solutions including: the just passed FHA reform bill; making mortgage debt forgiveness tax free; allowing middle-income homeowners penalty-free access to their retirement savings in order to save their homes from foreclosure, as I propose through the HOME Act, the Home Ownership Mortgage Emergency Act S. 2201. This legislation is modeled after the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005; and providing temporary, middle-class mortgage bankruptcy relie as proposed by Senator Specter's ``Home Owners Mortgage and Equity Savings Act,'' HOMES Act, of which I am a cosponsor. We also clearly need better consumer safeguards, and to that end I am encouraged the Federal Reserve is planning to issue new rules relating to unfair or deceptive mortgage lending practices and mortgage disclosures. But as we work to address the subprime crisis, we need to be careful that we do not unintentionally do harm with policies that could restrict mortgage credit to future home buyers. We have to be mindful of the unintended consequences of the policies we pursue. I am just concerned that we could very well end up 5 years from now wondering why mortgage credit is not readily available to first-time home buyers. Mr. President, I want to take some time now to speak to one aspect of the fallout from the subprime crisis which is near and dear to my heart as a former mayor, and that is the collateral damage that is being inflicted upon communities by the subprime crisis. The on-the-ground reality is that the subprime crisis is setting off a terrible chain reaction in our communities that, if not mitigated, has the potential to affect communities' standard of living for years to come. According to Mayor Tim Howe of Coon Rapids, a suburban community just north of Minneapolis, one of the greatest effects of the subprime crisis has been the vandalism of foreclosed homes and associated petty crime in the hard-hit neighborhoods. To give you a sense of how quickly a foreclosed home can become the target of crime and a problem for communities, consider that in Cleveland a home is looted and vandalized in just 3 days. I am sure this is a similar story for communities all across the country. I believe in the broken windows theory that it takes just one small act of crime to set in motion bigger troubles down the road. So the sooner we address the small problems, the better off we are. For some communities in particular, the subprime crisis also has the potential to reverse years of hard-won economic and community revitalization progress, and in no time at all. As mayor, CDBG grants helped fund the Main Street Program helped to revitalize St. Paul, creating thousands of jobs and bringing people back to the city. However, the current mortgage crisis threatens to undo this very progress. Another aspect of the subprime crisis is how renters, usually of modest means, are finding themselves without a home due to foreclosure. These are just one of the unintended victims of the subprime crisis. So in an effort to enable communities to better deal with the impact of the subprime crisis, I introduced this week with Senator Leahy the Community Foreclosure Assistance Act, S. 2455, which would provide emergency community development block grant funding. From the housing town hall forum to my conversations with community leaders, I have been told this funding will provide critical support to communities ranging from renter assistance to mortgage counseling to dealing with abandoned, boarded-up homes. Due to the unique flexibility of CDBG, communities will able to respond as they need do and quickly. CDBG is a program that has served our communities well overall, and in particular, during extraordinary economic distress. We turned to CDBG to provide $16.7 billion in response to Hurricane Katrina and $2.7 billion to New York following 9/11. Back home, Minnesota was helped by CDBG following the terrible 1997 Red River flood. In a situation like this we cannot be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Bottomline, this funding can help limit the terrible chain reaction that can be set off by a foreclosure. For if we do not reach out and help communities in trouble today, the cost to communities will be far greater and far more expensive to deal with in the future. And so, Mr. President, as I have led the bipartisan fight against CDBG cuts in past years, I will fight to provide this emergency funding as a tool to help communities manage the mortgage crisis. Just because a foreclosure happens does not mean the entire community needs to suffer. That is the intent of this proposal. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of support from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National Community Development Association, National Association for County Community and Economic Development, and the National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, and letters of support from the Minnesota Association of Counties, the League of Minnesota Cities, and Mayor Mark Voxland of Moorhead, and an article from the Star Tribune.

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

Mr. COLEMAN

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

Mr. COLEMAN

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

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, winter is fast approaching. The Senator from Minnesota was out there with his snow blower and shovel already this weekend. We had from 6 to 10 inches of snow in some portions of the State, 6 inches in the metro area. It was minus 2 when I woke up one day in the Twin Cities, in St. Paul. I traveled around the State. I think it was around minus 8, minus 9, and that is not getting cold yet. In that weather, we actually button the top button but no more. The reality for many families is cold weather has a lot of people deeply concerned about their ability to keep the heat on. Most of us look forward to the coming of the holiday season as a time we get together with loved ones. For many Americans, this holiday season comes at a time when the cost of energy is skyrocketing. It is raising the level of anxiety as to whether they are going to be able to pay these ever-rising heating costs. I will never forget a hearing I held for the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. I actually did a hearing on the issue of energy costs in my home State last year. I got a chance to listen firsthand to folks who, last year, were impacted by rising energy costs. They bear down on young and old alike. I had the opportunity to meet Deidre Jackson, a single mother, working professional, and college student who saw her heating bill go through the roof. Meanwhile, Lucille Olson told a story familiar to many seniors of the struggle balancing the high cost of health care, prescription drugs, with heating bills that represented 30 percent of her monthly income. Unfortunately, for many seniors, this is not a balancing act that is easily maintained. Stories abound of grandmothers and grandfathers having to choose between food, medicine, clothing, and heat. This should not happen in America in the 21st century. It is for stories such as these that we have the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program--LIHEAP--to provide heating and cooling assistance for folks who are struggling to get by. To many Americans, LIHEAP is a real lifeline. More than 70 percent of families receiving LIHEAP assistance have incomes of less than 100 percent of the Federal poverty level. That is about $21,500 for a family of four. These are truly families who cannot afford to see their heating bills double. In fact, the majority of households have at least one member who is elderly, disabled, or a child under 5 years of age. These are the most vulnerable. Unfortunately, current Federal funding levels are only sufficient to meet the needs of about 16 percent of the eligible households. Many States are trying to meet the needs of more households by providing smaller benefits to each household. Meanwhile, rising energy prices are rapidly reducing the purchasing power of program grants. This is a bad combination. In other words, folks in need are receiving less assistance while the cost of heating increases. Again, this is simply an untenable situation. Consider that home heating prices are projected to reach almost $1,000 a year for a typical family, representing an increase of almost 80 percent from the average cost during the winter of 2001-2002. It is in just 5 years that we have seen this incredible 80-percent increase in cost. In fact, data show we are looking at heating costs rising 15.2 percent this year and record levels for heating oil, propane, and electricity. Experts predict that Minnesotans who use heating oil will probably see an increase in their bill of 47 percent higher than last year's level. Meanwhile, the cost of natural gas, which most Minnesotans rely on for their heating needs, is up 38 percent from the average cost during the winters of 2000 to 2005. The heating oil crisis we are facing this year is certainly partially due to America's need to import more and more oil. I have always said there is a national security need to end our dependence on foreign oil. There is also a very focused need in terms of the impact it has on those who simply cannot afford to pay their heating bills. We need to end their dependence on foreign oil. At the same time, we have to make sure to take care of those families in need today. We have the tools to produce clean and renewable energy here at home, and our heating crisis is only one of the many reasons we need to finish work on the bold energy package the Senate passed this summer and the strong farm bill we have before us now. Those are two important pieces of legislation. I hope we can overcome this partisan divide in Washington that kind of tears us apart and precludes us from getting things done. I have sat with the Presiding Officer. We talked about renewables and energy and seeing if we can find common ground. We need it in Maryland, we need it in Minnesota, we need it in America. Unfortunately, as much as we would like to transform our energy production before this winter begins, we don't have that option. But we can make sure Americans having a tough time getting by have the assistance they need to make it through a cold season. For many, it really is a matter of survival. The large percentage of increases in heating costs don't really hit home until you look at a utility bill. A lot of folks will see hundreds of additional dollars on their heating bills this winter. That is a huge expense for a family below the poverty level or for the elderly on fixed incomes. I drive by a bus stop on Grand Avenue in St. Paul, about four blocks from my house. There is a bus that stops there that takes you to downtown St. Paul. On a cold winter day, I look as I drive by. There may be a senior, a working mom--and it is cold. I look at the cost of energy and realize we have an obligation to try to do the right thing. That is what LIHEAP is about. In life, sometimes the unexpected happens. No matter how much we try, sometimes we just need a helping hand to get back on our feet. During my hearings back home, I heard a story from a courageous woman from St. Paul, Lori Cooper, who, as a working professional, wife, and mother of a 21-month child, had to figure out how to make ends meet when her husband's health prevented him from working. With heating costs rising, LIHEAP was critical in helping her family make it through the winter. Tragically, it is getting harder for States to help families like this one get through winters like this because the appropriation levels have not risen with the inflation since the 1980s. The Labor-HHS- Education bill that the Senate has produced includes a welcome increase, but it is still below the real amount provided 20 years ago. If you look at where we were 20 years ago and factor in inflation, we are below that today. This would be much less problematic if we were not dealing with skyrocketing heating costs, which is why this winter, as in the winter of 2005-2006, families need emergency LIHEAP assistance. In 2006, I came to the floor with Senators Collins and Snowe to make the case to this body that no one should have to make the choice between basic necessities and heat. Rising to that challenge, we delivered an increase of $1 billion additional LIHEAP funding in 2006. Today, I proudly stand with my colleague from Vermont who, along with 17 Members, introduced the Keep Americans Warm Act to meet the heating crisis we will face this winter. This bill provides $1 billion in emergency LIHEAP assistance in addition to the funding currently included in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to join the 19 of us who are standing behind this bill, who are committed to meeting this urgent need. It took a lot of work to get emergency LIHEAP assistance passed in 2006. We worked very hard. It was difficult. I know it will take a lot of effort this time as well, but I am certain this Senate can come together to aid those who are struggling to provide the bare necessity of heat. I have faith in the potential of this body to act for the greater good, and I look forward to working together to pass this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COLEMAN

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

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Good Government Contractor Act of 2007. This legislation represents my continuing efforts targeting federal contractors with tax debt. For several years, as Chair and now as Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I have led a bipartisan Subcommittee effort, with the assistance of the Government Accountability Office, that has uncovered tens of thousands of deadbeat civilian and defense contractors. What we are dealing with here are not everyday tax delinquents, but rather federal contractors who do not pay their fair share of taxes-- despite receiving billions of dollars from American taxpayers each year. So far, since PSI began this effort, we have learned that 27,000 Federal contractors at the Department of Defense owed about $3 billion in unpaid taxes; 33,000 Federal contractors at civilian agencies owed back taxes amounting to $3.3 billion; 3,800 Federal contractors who contract with the General Services Administration owe back taxes amount to $1.4 billion. These contractors are not just cheating the American taxpayer but in many cases cheating their own employees by using payroll taxes for their business or personal use. The Subcommittee has learned of contractors who have bought luxury cars, boats, and multi-million dollar properties, even though they owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes. At the end of the day, these contractors are not only shifting the burden to honest taxpayers but also depriving the Treasury of funds that could be used to address critical priorities from education to health care to the fight against terrorism. Accordingly, as part of my on-going effort to safeguard the interest of the American taxpayer and honest federal contractors, I am introducing legislation to better target tax cheating contractors. More specifically, my legislation will amend the Federal Acquisition Regulations to consider a responsible contractor as one without any tax debt; require the Department of Defense, GSA and NASA to issue a final rule relating to tax delinquency; establish a national electronic tax lien filing system; create a Federal tax conviction database for the purposes of verifying contractor tax information; and establish as cause for debarment or suspension for knowingly making false statements regarding Federal tax information or prior convictions or civil judgments for Federal tax evasion or other Federal Tax offenses. My bill will also repeal the indiscriminant three percent tax withholding requirement on all contractors, something which the vast majority of responsible, tax-paying government contractors, as well as State and local units of government, will appreciate. Last year, Congress passed into law a well-intentioned but highly problematic measure establishing a three percent withholding tax on all government contractors. Section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 will impose a 3 percent withholding tax on Federal, State and local payments for goods and services beginning in 2011, except for local governments with annual spending of less than $100 million for goods and services. While this measure will obviously capture the bad apples, it unfortunately will also hit honest contractors--some of whose business livelihoods could well be jeopardized as a result. Another serious side effect will be the administrative burden on State and local governments, which could ultimately heighten the cost of doing business in a much larger sense. Rather than this broad and cumbersome approach, my Good Government Contractor Act of 2007 will replace the blanket three percent withholding requirement with measures focused on just the bad actors. In closing, my bill will protect taxpayers, State and local governments, and law-abiding government contractors by holding deadbeat contractors accountable in a strict but fair way. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I graciously yield the floor to the two leaders.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I take the opportunity to turn this body to the attention of a matter that has bipartisan support that will bring us together. There are some very contentious and challenging issues that we have to deal with, but what I am going to talk about now in the moments I have is something that is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is an issue that concerns all of us. It was the poet Carl Sandburg who said: Each young child is God's opinion that the world should go on. In our busyness and preoccupation that we have with the affairs of state, we should remember there is probably nothing more important to the future than making life better for a child, something we all agree with. I am talking on the floor today to share a simple way we can all do that in the Senate and in the country. I am pleased to have the opportunity to join my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, in supporting a resolution to recognize National Adoption Day, which is coming up this Saturday, November 17. I would say my colleague from Louisiana brings not only the passion and the intellect to this issue, but she brings a lot of heart to the issue. And I think that is most powerful. I applaud her for her leadership. It is a pleasure to work with her on issues of adoption. National Adoption Day is an annual series of events designed to draw attention to this crucially important social service of uniting kids who need loving families and families who need kids to share their love. Adoption is one of the greatest win-wins because it fulfills two of the greatest needs of human kind: receiving and giving love. Adoption, since it involves the welfare of the vulnerable children, is a process that must be handled with care. The challenge is not to make it so legalistic and bureaucratically demanding that it keeps needy kids apart from worthy families. Many legal professionals and nonprofit agencies put in countless hours to facilitate adoption. This is a day to thank them for their efforts and focus our attention as a society on what we can do to create greater opportunities for adoption. Last year, for the first time, National Adoption Day was celebrated in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In total, more than 300 events were held throughout the country to finalize the adoptions of more than 3,300 children in foster care and to celebrate all families that adopt. This year, the partners are anticipating an even greater number of finalized adoptions as a greater number of cities and communities participate in NAD events. This Saturday, hundreds of volunteer lawyers, foster care professionals, child advocates, and local judges will come together to celebrate adoptions and to draw much needed attention to the 114,000 children in foster care still in need of adoptive homes. I am thankful my friend from Louisiana showed us the faces of those kids so we understand it is flesh and blood that we are dealing with. I would like to encourage my colleagues in this Chamber to invest more of their time and effort into this special area of constituent service throughout the year. Each December, my staff and I hold a party in Minnesota to gather and celebrate all of the families, Minnesota families, that we have assisted in adoption. It is the most joyous event that I participate in. The expressions of love and gratitude are simply overwhelming. One by one, as I see the kids and imagine the circumstances they have come out of to the place where they have found a home, it makes all of the frustrating and seemingly futile hours of this job just melt away. I also thank my colleagues for their support earlier this year in a provision that Senator Landrieu and I championed to ensure adopted teenagers who seek an education were not forced to choose between a loving family and financial aid for college. Previously, youth who ``aged out'' of the foster care system qualified for virtually all loans and grants, while those who were adopted were essentially penalized in terms of college financial aid eligibility. Our measure simply amended the definition of ``independent student'' to include foster care youth who were adopted after their 13th birthday. This will ensure that a student does not see his or her financial aid eligibility decline as a result of being adopted. Since taking office, I have taken great satisfaction in helping hundreds of families navigate the international adoption process. Many of my colleagues are aware of the potential crisis relating to the completion of over 3,000 adoptions between the United States and Guatemala. Due to the implementation of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, which is an internal agreement intended to safeguard adopted children from trafficking, significant and necessary changes are taking place in adoption law in the United States and Guatemala. The Government of Guatemala previously announced their nation will implement The Hague Convention standards as of January 1, 2008, and will require all adoption cases to meet those standards. This would have effectively stopped the processing of all adoption cases with non- Hague countries, including the United States. The United States is expected to complete Hague implementation this spring. However, in the meantime, it is imperative we work to ensure that families currently in the process of adopting have the ability to continue with that adoption. To highlight these concerns, 52 of my Senate colleagues joined with Senator Landrieu and me in sending a letter to the President of Guatemala encouraging an interim measure for pending adoption applications in Guatemala. This action by the Guatemalan Government will help ensure that orphaned children do not remain outside the care of a loving family for lengthy periods of time. Additionally, I have been in close contact with the Department of State, the Guatemalan Government, and anxious Minnesota families as this issued progressed. The Guatemalan Government is currently debating provisions that would allow U.S. adoptions that are in process to continue, despite the implementation of The Hague Convention in Guatemala. I know that matter was being debated. I received a message from the State Department. Originally, I thought the measure was passed, and then I was told they hadn't. The State Department informs me there will be no action taken today, as it was not on the agenda, but both versions of the law are under consideration and do contain grandfather clauses that would protect the in-process cases. This bill apparently will be coming up next week. We have been in touch with the consular general, with the Ambassador. If no bill is passed, The Hague Convention will become effective on December 31. But we have assurances from senior Government officials responsible for implementation that pipeline cases will continue to be processed under the old system. I will be traveling to Guatemala right after Thanksgiving in order to discuss these critical issues with key United States and Guatemalan officials. They have a new President-elect who was elected in November, President Colom. We will continue to work on this. I will not be traveling alone. Traveling with me will be countless stories of affectionate Minnesota families who are hoping to complete this process so they can receive and give love. I have also had the privilege of working with families on other international adoptions. Many are unaware of the devastating human tragedy of decades of unrest and civil war in Liberia. Recently, I had the honor to escort a new young Minnesotan, Miss Patience Carlson, adopted by a Chaska, MN, family to the White House to be in the Oval Office and to meet with the President. The Carlsons had been within days of completing the adoption of their soon-to-be daughter Patience--what a perfect name for this young lady--when violence broke out in Liberia. As rebel forces moved into Monrovia, the orphanage began to run low on supplies and the Carlsons became desperate to unite with their new daughter. It was an honor to work on their behalf with the U.S. Embassy in Liberia to help complete the adoption. I have traded stories with Senator Landrieu about how we have both been in those situations. We said we are going to get the kids out of the war zones and do what has to be done. That is the passion she brings. The Carlsons got to meet the President of the United States. I have often related the story about an event in northern Minnesota called the Great Think-Off. Scholars, religious leaders, and regular people gather together to debate the great issues of the day and search for a common solution. One year the question was: What is the ultimate meaning of life? After several days of long-winded attempts by great philosophers and professors and others, a young girl who had patiently waited her turn went up to the microphone and said: The ultimate meaning of life is to do permanent good. She sat down and the meeting was adjourned. Adoption is such a permanent good. It changes the lives of kids who have been through more in their short lives than most people could handle in a lifetime. It changes the lives of parents and siblings who make room in their lives for another, through which they learn the more you love, the more love there is to give. I urge my colleagues and those who read this record to find time to reflect on the importance of adoption, visit the Web site at www.nationaladoptionday.org, and find a way they can contribute in a small way to this unique social service that makes such an important difference in the lives of so many people. I am grateful for the work that the partners of National Adoption Day do. The Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, the Alliance for Children's Rights; Children's Action Network, Casey Family Services, Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption and the Freddie Mac Foundation have once again come together to provide resources, guidance and encouragement to the cities planning events this November. In the end we all have a responsibility to make sure the world goes on and we do that every time we give a child access to the love every child needs. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader. A few months ago, I stood on the floor of the Senate to decry the practice of sanctuary cities. Municipalities across this country had identified a loophole in the law and banned the practice of police officers inquiring about a suspect's immigration status, allowing cities throughout this country to become sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. I said that following the attacks of 9/11, we made a promise to the American people to make this country safer; that we identified, on all levels, cracks in our system; and that we found when the left arm doesn't know what the right arm is doing, the consequences can be disastrous. I stand here today again to condemn another policy that flies in the face of post-9/11 thinking. The State of New York will join eight other States in issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. New Mexico is setting up a program where they will doublecheck the illegal immigrant's identity with the Government of Mexico. Polish language newspapers have advertised the ease by which licenses from the State of Maine can be acquired. Tennessee recently stopped the practice of issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants in the wake of evidence that illegal immigrants from other States were coming to Tennessee to get licenses. To some, issuing licenses to illegal immigrants may seem harmless, if not commonsensical. If they are going to be driving on the streets, why not ensure that they know the rules of the road? The answer is licenses are much more than a permit to drive. The driver's license is a gateway document to a myriad of other services. Providing illegal immigrants with a driver's license affords them access to bank accounts, airline flights, and other resources that the 9/11 hijackers used to attack this Nation. Beyond national security, driver's licenses allow a person to enter a Federal building, vote in elections, and apply for Government benefits. There is also a considerable question of fraud-- when we cannot verify the materials brought to the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish a person's identity, which is certainly the case when we are dealing with noncitizens in an illegal status, you open the doors to corruption, multiple identities, and criminality. In the Senate, we have been grappling for several years with the issue of what to do with the 12 million or so undocumented people already in the United States. This Senator would like to find a solution that brings these folks out of the shadows. But the message we have received loudly and clearly from the American public is we cannot get the comprehensive immigration reform until we secure the borders and get serious about enforcing the rule of law when it comes to immigration. Similar to sanctuary cities, the issuance of driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is a setback for those who want to see comprehensive immigration reform because it shows we are not serious about enforcing the law. It flies in the face of what the American people expect their Government to do, which is to control our borders, know who is in the country, and appropriately penalize those who have broken our laws. I was at a coffee this morning with a columnist, Tom Friedman, a native Minnesotan, who addressed a group today. Immigration came up, and he said in passing that to deal with the illegal immigration, he is for a wall but one with a big gate. We need to remain a country that is open to foreign talent. We benefit from having those with Ph.D's and advanced degrees and what they bring in terms of job creation. We need to look at the issue of immigration and at changes in our laws to encourage the best and brightest to come and contribute to our economy. Until we reestablish the rule of law in immigration policy, we will not be able to get the political consensus that is needed to make any reforms, let alone deal with the 12 million illegals here already. Sooner rather than later, America is going to have to ask itself: Do we want to take immigration and the State of our Nation's security seriously? To the States that issue licenses to illegal immigrants and the cities that have sanctuary city policies on the books, we must ask the question: Why are you undermining immigration laws at the expense of the safety and security of this country? Today I am joined by several of my colleagues in introducing a sense- of-the-Senate resolution to make the official position of the Senate that States that issue government identification to illegal immigrants, issue driver's licenses, are disrespecting and disregarding Federal immigration laws. The measure also finds these actions present a national security risk and enables election fraud. Our colleague, Iowa Congressman Tom Latham, has introduced identical legislation in the other body. I am a former mayor. I am, frankly, deeply concerned, that if there is another attack on U.S. soil and we find that the terrorist was here illegally, if the terrorist was able to obtain a license, if the terrorist was able to move freely about the country, was able to open a bank account, all without the slightest bit of resistance, we are going to have to take a long look in the mirror and ask how we could let it happen. We shouldn't let it happen. It belies common sense to have a policy of States to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. It makes it difficult to maintain the commitment we have to the American people, that we are committed to enforcing the rule of law. It makes it difficult for us who want to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform if we get to that point.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. There has been a lot of discussion about this being a costly bill. It was worthwhile for me to sit here and be reminded again of the nature of this investment, the fact that things we are doing in renewable energy are the future of America. It is not just about taking care of some Minnesota and North Dakota farmers. Every gallon of gasoline we replace with ethanol is less money in the pockets of thugs and tyrants such as Chavez and Ahmadinejad. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. If you recall the last farm bill, there was a lot of discussion about whether the President should veto that. Now we look back and across the board folks are saying that was a good farm bill. That was a bill that in the end cost less. It kept the safety net in place. We moved forward with a new world of opportunities with things such as renewables. So we have this discussion again. I hope we pass this farm bill, and I hope it gets signed. The farm bill begins by stating its necessity due to the fact that ``the present acute economic emergency being in part the consequence of a severe and increasing disparity between the prices of agricultural and other commodities, which disparity has largely destroyed the purchasing power of farmers for industrial products, has broken down the orderly exchange of commodities, and has seriously impaired the agricultural assets supporting the national credit structure . . . '' This is not the start of the 2007 farm bill. It is an excerpt from the very first farm bill of 1933. When that farm bill was written in 1933, net farm income was only one-third of what it was 3 years prior. Food went wasted in the field, while Americans went hungry because of depressed commodity prices. There was no safety net. It was such a time of crisis that folks from across my State of Minnesota came together with farmers from the Dakotas, Iowa, and Nebraska to protect each other's homes, farms, livestock, and machinery from being taken through foreclosure. The Senate Agriculture Committee has proven that like minds from these States still collaborate to save the family farm. Today I come to the floor as part of a bipartisan multiregional coalition not just from the Midwest and upper Midwest but from all across this great Nation. On the Ag Committee, we came together under the leadership of Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss and my friend from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, to build a stronger food safety net for working families, an ag safety net for farm families. Over the next several days, the U.S. Senate will have the responsibility to pass a farm bill that will ensure Americans can meet the bare requirements of human subsistence. In today's world, relentlessly focused on the future, it can be difficult to reach back into the past and conceive of a time before food stamps, conservation programs, and a farm safety net. It doesn't seem possible that in this country hunger was widespread, massive clouds of dust roared from State to State, and farmers couldn't make enough money from their crops to even make harvest worthwhile. Yet our past bears witness to these struggles. Since these difficult years, Congress has struggled to perfect the omnibus legislation we call the farm bill. In 2007, with the bipartisan bill produced by the Senate Agriculture Committee, I believe we move closer yet to our final goal of crafting a smarter, stronger safety net. As the Ag Committee has labored over the last several months to build this bill, I have worked with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to secure a number of priorities for my State of Minnesota. This bill not only strengthens the farmer safety net but helps meet the food security challenges of America's low-income families, makes a bold commitment to renewable fuels, and boosts investment in renewable fuels and conservation. As the ranking Republican on the Nutrition Subcommittee, I am proud of this bill's efforts to assist those Americans dealing with food security issues. This bill now provides an additional $5.3 billion in funding for nutrition programs, such as stamps and the emergency food and assistance program, TEFAP. The Food Stamp Program, which assists over 260,000 Minnesotans, will be significantly strengthened. We will stop inflation from creating greater benefit erosion in the Food Stamp Program and encourage savings among low-income families. During the markup, I fought to bring the bill's funding for TEFAP, which provides valuable resources to our food banks and homeless shelters, up to the same levels as the House bill. We have found the funds to meet this need, providing an additional $10 million a year. If you believe everything you read in the editorial pages, you might conclude that this bill funds farmers at the expense of the poor, but that isn't true. Nutrition spending now makes up over 66 percent of the farm bill, while we have found in the Ag Committee $7.5 billion in savings in the commodity title. These savings come from programs that cost $22 billion less than was expected when the 2002 farm bill was passed. My colleague from North Dakota has laid that out. This is a bill wherein the commodity program baseline is lower than the estimate of the 2002 bill. This is a bill where the percent of dollars that goes to farms as a percentage of Federal spending is substantially lower than in the 2002 farm bill. Meanwhile, we manage to preserve the basic structure of the safety net for our farmers who feed and fuel this Nation. For years now as I have driven across the great State of Minnesota, I have been hearing from farmers who have told me the 2002 farm bill worked. Families growing various crops told me we needed to make some adjustments. This bill makes needed updates for sugar, barley, wheat, and soybeans, among others. The bill includes a reauthorization of the dairy safety net, including the MILC Program, restoring it to the 45- percent payment rate. The committee included my proposal to create a farm storage loan program that works for today's farmers. I proudly support the new permanent ag disaster program we now have, thanks to the leadership of Senators Baucus and Conrad, that will lend farmers a helping hand when faced with natural disaster. The faces of thousands of hard-working farmers I have seen over the years come to mind as I consider the importance of the farm bill safety net. I also reflect on the health of my State's entire economy, the survival of small towns on country roads. In Minnesota, the agriculture and food industry is the second largest employer, with two-thirds of all agricultural jobs being off farm in processing, distribution, supply, and service sectors. We rank fifth nationally in farm exports and lead the Nation in sugar beet and turkey production. All of Minnesota needs a strong safety net for our farmers. Nationally, the farm safety net is critical to every taxpayer, to every American. First, we all need food. Thanks to our farmers, U.S. consumers spend 10 percent of their income on food, the lowest percentage in the world. For every dollar Americans spend on food, farmers get only 20 cents. Our entire economy benefits. Some folks forget that agriculture employs 20 percent of the U.S. workforce, accounts for roughly 20 percent of the Nation's GDP, and is America's No. 1 export. Beyond preserving the safety net for rural Americans who work in agriculture, this bill provides significant mandatory funding for key rural development programs to build vibrant rural communities, including $50 million to rehabilitate small rural hospitals, $20 million to protect rural drinking water, and provisions to encourage local ownership of ethanol plants. To revitalize our rural economy, this includes the rural renaissance legislation I worked hard to pass with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, that will provide $400 million in tax credit bonds to finance rural infrastructure projects such as water and wastewater treatment projects. I have no doubt Minnesota is similar to Colorado. We have small towns that simply don't have the tax base to do the infrastructure they need. This bill will provide some opportunity to assist those small rural communities with infrastructure. Another key to renewing Minnesota's rural communities has been the production of renewable fuels as our farmers work to reduce dependence on foreign oil. In the Ag Committee, we worked to take the next step in helping power ethanol plants with crop biomass and diversifying our biofuels feedstocks to include cellulosic and sugar. All in all, this bill delivers over $1 billion in additional investment in the energy title. It will also help equip our existing corn ethanol plants with the latest in renewable technologies, with $422 million for competitive grants and loan guarantees. The future is cellulosic. We know that with corn we can do about 15 billion gallons of ethanol. We consume 140 billion gallons of gasoline each year, projected to go up to 180 billion. Cellulosic is the future. This bill provides a pathway to accelerate us reaching that future. This bill helps farmers transition to the production of biomass crops. We provide over $200 million to help farmers with production, harvesting, transportation, and storage costs. I am hopeful one day we will see a cellulosic ethanol plant in Kittson County, MN. This bill will bring us closer to that reality. Meanwhile, this bill includes a sugar ethanol program which I have long advocated. If Brazil can do it, we can do it. They made a commitment in the early 1970s to ethanol. They do it with sugar. They didn't let up to that commitment when oil prices went down. They stayed the course. As a result today, Brazil is not dependent on foreign oil. We need to have that same commitment, that same persistence. Sugar should be part of it. That opportunity is in this bill. Finally, I have been concerned that those living near ethanol plants continue to have an opportunity to invest in these renewable opportunities. I am thankful to the chairman and ranking member for including my local ownership amendment to ensure communities continue to hold more of the value created by these plants in their small towns through ownership. On top of all these investments, this bill still manages to include the single largest investment in conservation this Nation has ever seen. Specifically, the bill increases funding for major programs such as the Wetland Reserve Program, the Conservation Stewardship Program, and the Grassland Reserve Program, as well as protecting 39.2 million acres allotted for the Conservation Reserve Program. This bill also includes Open Fields, a critical, voluntary program to encourage property owners to allow public access for hunting and fishing. All in all, the bill increases conservation funding by $4.4 billion above the current budget baseline, which will mean increased wildlife habitat, cleaner water, and a healthy environment for all of us and it is paid for. No bill of this size is going to be perfect. But I believe when the sum of these accomplishments is measured, folks will realize what an achievement this is. Of course, some will continue to criticize. Despite including what I consider to be great advances in farm nutrition, conservation, rural development, and energy policy, coupled with dramatic reforms, there no doubt will be detractors who look at this farm bill and cry that more reform is needed. They will argue that money should not to go factory farms. It should go to nutrition, conservation, and energy instead. As I have traveled around Minnesota, I don't see factory farms. Instead, I meet family after family, such as the Meyer Family in Nicollet County. They let me know how important the farm safety net is to them. They told me the advent of renewable fuels, what it has meant to them in terms of transforming their farming operation, has had the same impact that electricity had for their grandfather. That is the path to hope and opportunity we are on. That is the path this farm bill fosters. I wholeheartedly agree this farm bill should invest more in nutrition, conservation, and energy. This bill makes remarkable strides in these areas. In fact, nutrition spending will grow to represent two- thirds of the bill's total spending. I also believe we need to reform to prevent nonfarming millionaires from getting farm payments and close loopholes to get around payment limitations. Ted Turner and Scottie Pippen should not get farm subsidies. This bill closes the loophole. It succeeds in doing that by the most aggressive farm payment reforms to date, by lowering the adjusted gross income limit from $2.5 million to $750,000 by 2010, while eliminating the three-entity rule and commodity certificate loopholes. No one wants multimillionaires to be getting farm subsidies. This bill says that doesn't happen. Again, some critics will say reform is not enough. I urge these folks to talk to Senator Chambliss, talk to my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln. Ask them how tighter restrictions under the banner of reform will throw a disproportionate burden on their farmers, rice farmers and cotton farmers who have a greater cost of production for cotton and rice than in other regions of the country. Farm bills are about achieving broad bipartisan compromise for the good of the American people. This bill meets that standard and deserves this body's support. I finish by asking my colleagues to take a look at the frescos that line the corridors of the hall of columns next time they find themselves on the House side. Written near the top of one of the walls, there is a quote by Carl Sandburg that reads: Whenever a people or an institution forgets its hard beginnings, it is beginning to decay. The Senate must not forget this Nation's struggles on the farm and on the dinner tables before our farm and nutrition safety nets existed. We cannot afford to forget how far our farm bills have come since 1933. We have come a long way over the last 75 years in building a thriving agricultural economy, responsible conservation policies, and responsive nutrition programs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this farm bill, which builds on the steady gains agriculture has made and continues the economic prosperity it has fueled. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, as I travel and talk to folks across Minnesota, one thing is abundantly clear--Minnesotans, like most Americans, are more concerned about health care than just about any other issue--and for good reason. As a Nation, we are spending about $2.2 trillion on health care each year, about 16 percent of GDP. This is more than twice what many other developed countries spend, yet 47 million of our fellow Americans are uninsured. And even those with insurance are worried. Worried about the escalating cost of premiums, whether their children will be covered, or whether they will lose their health plan at work. One thing we can all agree on is that inaction is not an option. As these concerns grow and the costs continue to increase, the problem will only get more complex and more difficult to solve. The time for solutions is now. It is in the spirit of finding a solution to our Nation's health care crisis that I recently joined four of my Republican colleagues as a cosponsor of Senator Ron Wyden's Healthy Americans Act. While this is certainly not a perfect solution, it is not ``Government-run'' or ``single-payer'' health care. It is a private market, consumer-focused proposal that serves as a good place to start the discussion. Yet, as a cosponsor, I think it is also important that I point out some of the areas where I disagree with this legislation. One area of concern has to do with transitioning people from employer-based insurance to the private market. The Healthy Americans Act severs the ties between employment and health insurance and shifts everyone into the individual market. Instead, I think the Government should level the playing field regarding taxation of health benefits, so workers can leave their employer, start a new business, change jobs, or spend more time at home with their family without risking their health care coverage. Another area where I strongly disagree with Senator Wyden is his requirement that health insurance companies cover abortions. I have never wavered in my support for pro-life policies. While I am willing to work with Senator Wyden on this bill in the interest of improving access to health insurance, I will absolutely not support passage of any legislation that requires coverage of abortions. This is one area of the bill that must be reconsidered. I have also expressed concerns to my colleagues about using the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, FEHBP, as the standard for health insurance. While I certainly believe people should have access to this level of coverage, I don't think it should be the only option. My vision of health reform does not include this one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, I support giving people access to a variety of health insurance options and the ability to make informed choices. While these are a few of the areas where I disagree with Senator Wyden, there are definitely provisions in this bill that I will work to preserve or even expand upon. I am pleased that the legislation focuses on more than just expanding coverage but also on reforming the health care system and providing peace of mind that a person's coverage won't end when his or her employment situation changes. The Healthy Americans Act provides incentives for preventive health care, expands wellness programs, and emphasizes important cost containment measures. It also promotes greater adoption of health information technology and enacts vital medical malpractice reforms. As you can probably see, the Healthy Americans Act is a work in progress. But as I said before, it is a good place to start the discussion. That is why I look forward to working with Senator Wyden and all of the cosponsors of the Healthy Americans Act to make sure we come up with a proposal that provides the health care choices we all want, the quality we need, and the health care security the American people deserve.

Mr. COLEMAN

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

Mr. COLEMAN

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

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I want to rise to take the floor for a few moments to reflect and to pause to think about the life and legacy of former Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila. It was 5 years ago today that we suffered the terrible tragedy of Senator Wellstone's death, tragedy for my State, for the entire Nation. Senator Wellstone and I had been engaged in a very hard-fought and vigorous election contest. We were about 10 days from the election. I think everybody in our State reflects on where they were at the moment they heard the news. We were both, Senator Wellstone and myself, on the way to a debate in Duluth, MN. I was up in Grand Rapids flying in on a King Air plane, the same type of plane Senator Wellstone was flying when it went down and caused his death and the death of his wife Sheila, their daughter Marcia, and five others. We were about to get in our plane, probably about 25 miles, somewhere in the same area as the Senator. We heard the news with a great sense of disbelief, we knelt down and said our prayers for the Senator, for his wife, for the others who died. The news was met by disbelief, shock, and sadness. In the hours that followed, it was as if the entire State of Minnesota had stopped. For so many Minnesotans, regardless of where you stood politically or whether you agreed with Senator Wellstone's politics, you admired him and his unwavering commitment to the things he cared about most. He was so passionate about what he believed. That admiration is evidenced in folks such as Mary Oberg, who lives not far from me in St. Paul. I was looking at a piece on Public Radio today. She was not far from being in St. Paul. In a news story I read, she said she did not necessarily support all of Paul's views, but she liked the fact that there is still a memorial bench in her neighborhood, in my neighborhood, that honors Senator Wellstone to this day. It shows respect, Mary said. And that is what is lacking in the world today, is a lack of respect for others. This is a magnificent institution. I see my colleague from West Virginia is here. He has been here a long time, has a great sense of history--I try to visit with him as often as I can--a great sense of collegiality. In a world that has become so divisive and so partisan, so angry, whether in this Chamber or in the House Chamber, Senator Wellstone reflected in the passion for his belief that politics was not a death sport, it was something which you could agree to disagree and still shake a hand and ask: How are you doing? And move on. The kind of respect that Mary Oberg reflected on was that hallmark of Senator Wellstone himself. His passion, enthusiasm, and energy for public service is something that inspires me, as it inspired so many folks that have followed his footsteps into public service. Nowhere was that passion more clear than in his unyielding support for those individuals who suffered the ravages of mental illness. Since he arrived in the Senate, he worked day in and day out to pass mental health parity legislation; put an end to the discrimination against people with mental illness and chemical addiction. Paul was also willing to put aside politics on this important issue. He worked hand in hand with another champion for mental health issues, Senator Pete Domenici, another individual who has been around here for many years and was and is so passionate about that issue. Working together, Senators Domenici and Wellstone helped millions of Americans overcome the stigma surrounding mental health disorders. Millions of Americans were able to seek treatment and gain hope through their powerful commitment to this issue. I cannot imagine a better way to honor Paul's legacy than sending a strong mental health parity bill to the President of the United States and have him sign it into law. I also want to comment about a unique living memorial to the Wellstones, and that is the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center for Community which opened its doors a year ago. It is truly a Paul and Sheila Wellstone kind of place. It stands literally where the East meets the West. Since Paul came from the East, as I did, he probably felt very much at home in our ethnic neighborhoods, filled with middle- class working families. It was constructed, in large measure, with $10 million generously provided by this Chamber. The Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center is a 100,000 square foot facility with meeting places for a variety of cultural, social, and civic activities for people of all backgrounds. It also serves as an education and training center. The west side is kind of like our Ellis Island. It is the place where, in the Midwest, immigrant groups came in in the old days. It was the Jews and Lebanese; today it is the Hmong and the Somalis. A community center is a poor substitute for the real thing, Paul and Sheila themselves, but it is worth doing, providing a safe place where kids can learn and play, families can receive training and support, community members can be organized to fight injustice and partake in the American dream. These and so many other issues that Paul cared about transcended partisan politics and ideology. The greatest legacy to Senator Wellstone is to stay rooted in his belief that Government has an obligation to do what it can do, which is to help those who need help the most. Five years later, I certainly have a greater understanding and appreciation for the challenges that Senator Wellstone faced and others that came before him of serving in a Congress that is too often governed by partisanship rather than a culture and a commitment to getting things done. I have made a commitment to follow in that tradition of working hard and being a vocal advocate for our great State. This anniversary should be an occasion to celebrate the Wellstones' lives and to remember the commitment Paul and his family made and continue to make using public service to improve the lives of all people. On this anniversary of their death, I hope everyone can continue to hold Paul, Sheila, their family, and the others who died in their terrible crash, hold them close in your hearts, hold them in your prayers, as my family and I will.