Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Connecticut and esteemed colleague from Virginia for their work on this critical issue of climate change. We spend a lot of time in this debate talking about large numbers: the number of species that could be lost, the millions of metric tons of CO2, the billions of dollars at stake for our economy if mitigated incorrectly. But it is smaller numbers I am most concerned about--hundreds of dollars. That is what the annual burden could be for a household making around $15,000 a year should we attempt to transform our energy supply without holding struggling families harmless. One elderly woman waiting at a bus stop in Minneapolis-St. Paul, when it gets to be about minus 15, minus 20, sometimes minus 25, who is on a fixed income, who can't find money for her other needs if energy rates go up--this is the price paid if we do not address climate change responsibly; the young daughter who hopes her dad can keep his job mining taconite up on the Iron Range in northern Minnesota. This is the family we must protect if China decides it won't take responsibility for its emissions. It is the numbers our neighbors count that raise the most critical issues in the climate change debate, the little things that end up becoming the big things. That is why, when I signed on to Senator Lieberman's Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act several months ago, we came to the floor together and signed our names to a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that stated that any comprehensive, mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reduction program enacted by Congress must also take care of low-income Americans, who will see their energy costs rise, prevent U.S. workers from being undercut by foreign industries that produce goods in countries without comparable greenhouse gas reduction programs, and incentivize the production of clean energy technologies so that Americans can create more green jobs at home while diversifying our energy supply. Senators Lieberman and Warner have listened to my concerns over the last few months as they have worked to craft this legislation. This bill is hard evidence that they took those concerns to heart and that they too care about the small numbers that affect our fellow Americans the most. There are several provisions I am particularly proud of in America's Climate Security Act, including provisions to provide an estimated $275 billion for low- and middle-income families to help hold them harmless against increased energy costs, including additional funding for critical programs such as LIHEAP and the Weatherization Assistance Program--programs that the Senator from Maine, who is on the floor, championed, because we know how important they are for those, the least amongst us, who are impacted so greatly by energy costs. This bill includes $30 billion through 2030 for job training for new clean energy jobs that provide new employment opportunities in the new green economy. It authorizes the President to require importers of greenhouse-gas-intensive manufactured products credits if their home countries have not taken comparable action. It incentivizes clean energy technology by investing an estimated $400 billion through 2030 in zero and low carbon technologies, to accelerate our transition to a clean energy future. This bill does not just take care of the environment; it takes care of our children. It is a major step forward in addressing global climate change in a manner that brings the Senate together. This is, a tremendous bipartisan coalition. Some folks were not on this side a while ago, but understand the problem is real and the path we are taking is a responsible path. I am proud to cosponsor this bill. I thank both Senators for their hard work and determination. They have proven they are committed to action. I am proud to stand by their side. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Connecticut and esteemed colleague from Virginia for their work on this critical issue of climate change. We spend a lot of time in this debate talking about large numbers: the number of species that could be lost, the millions of metric tons of CO2, the billions of dollars at stake for our economy if mitigated incorrectly. But it is smaller numbers I am most concerned about--hundreds of dollars. That is what the annual burden could be for a household making around $15,000 a year should we attempt to transform our energy supply without holding struggling families harmless. One elderly woman waiting at a bus stop in Minneapolis-St. Paul, when it gets to be about minus 15, minus 20, sometimes minus 25, who is on a fixed income, who can't find money for her other needs if energy rates go up--this is the price paid if we do not address climate change responsibly; the young daughter who hopes her dad can keep his job mining taconite up on the Iron Range in northern Minnesota. This is the family we must protect if China decides it won't take responsibility for its emissions. It is the numbers our neighbors count that raise the most critical issues in the climate change debate, the little things that end up becoming the big things. That is why, when I signed on to Senator Lieberman's Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act several months ago, we came to the floor together and signed our names to a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that stated that any comprehensive, mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reduction program enacted by Congress must also take care of low-income Americans, who will see their energy costs rise, prevent U.S. workers from being undercut by foreign industries that produce goods in countries without comparable greenhouse gas reduction programs, and incentivize the production of clean energy technologies so that Americans can create more green jobs at home while diversifying our energy supply. Senators Lieberman and Warner have listened to my concerns over the last few months as they have worked to craft this legislation. This bill is hard evidence that they took those concerns to heart and that they too care about the small numbers that affect our fellow Americans the most. There are several provisions I am particularly proud of in America's Climate Security Act, including provisions to provide an estimated $275 billion for low- and middle-income families to help hold them harmless against increased energy costs, including additional funding for critical programs such as LIHEAP and the Weatherization Assistance Program--programs that the Senator from Maine, who is on the floor, championed, because we know how important they are for those, the least amongst us, who are impacted so greatly by energy costs. This bill includes $30 billion through 2030 for job training for new clean energy jobs that provide new employment opportunities in the new green economy. It authorizes the President to require importers of greenhouse-gas-intensive manufactured products credits if their home countries have not taken comparable action. It incentivizes clean energy technology by investing an estimated $400 billion through 2030 in zero and low carbon technologies, to accelerate our transition to a clean energy future. This bill does not just take care of the environment; it takes care of our children. It is a major step forward in addressing global climate change in a manner that brings the Senate together. This is, a tremendous bipartisan coalition. Some folks were not on this side a while ago, but understand the problem is real and the path we are taking is a responsible path. I am proud to cosponsor this bill. I thank both Senators for their hard work and determination. They have proven they are committed to action. I am proud to stand by their side. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Home Ownership Mortgage Emergency Act, HOME Act, my good friend Senator Martinez. This bill seeks to provide a measure of relief to those homeowners who are having troubles meeting their mortgage payments and as a result are facing the prospect of having their homes foreclosed. As a former Mayor, I know the value and importance homeownership has on our communities. Housing is after all one of the foundational assets of our society. Policies encouraging homeownership is a good thing, not just for our communities but also for first-time homebuyers who through homeownership can be a part of the ownership society. Over the years, we made great progress as the homeownership rate has increased from 64 percent in 1994 to 69 percent in 2006. That is why I am very troubled by the significant increase in the number of foreclosures that have occurred already and the projections of worse to come, as a record number of adjustable rate mortgages are due to reset in the months ahead, putting an increasing number of homeowners at serious risk of losing their homes. According to one estimate, $515 billion in adjustable rate mortgages are due to reset this year and $680 billion next year. To underscore the seriousness of the situation, Mr. President, just consider these sobering figures. My State ranks 4th in the Nation in terms of the percentage of subprime mortgages in foreclosures, and currently 17 percent of subprime adjustable rate mortgages are past due. More generally, the number of foreclosures has increased 183 percent in the last year. Nationally, foreclosures have almost doubled in the last year, and more than 14.5 percent of subprime mortgages are past due. While there is no one single solution to the housing crisis, there are a number of reasonable, measured efforts we can undertake that can help folks stay in their homes in these difficult times. To that end, I am introducing the HOME Act, which would allow low-to-middle income homeowners penalty-free access to their retirement savings and allow tax free distributions from their retirement savings so as long as the withdrawals are paid back to the retirement accounts. More specifically, my bill would allow homeowners who are 60 days late in their mortgage payments to withdraw penalty-free up to $100,000 through 2009 to be used to refinance into an affordable mortgage or avoid foreclosure. Except for very limited cases, a 10 percent penalty is applied to early retirement distributions. As the tax code currently waives this penalty for distributions from Individual Retirement Accounts for first-time home purchases, I think it is only fair that we waive this penalty for those who want to keep their homes. Bottom-line, this bill is about helping homeowners help themselves. While the 10 percent penalty is well-intentioned in that we want people to avoid using their retirement savings during their working years, times like these require us to recognize that sometimes such rules can be counterproductive. Both on a homeowner level and on a community level, I believe that it makes sense to enable those, who can, to keep their homes. Ultimately it is up to the homeowner to decide whether it makes financial sense to turn to their retirement savings to keep their homes. At the very least however, for those who do decide to do so, we should not penalize them for trying to keep a roof over their heads and wanting to remain a part of the community they have called home. I urge my colleagues to support this measure as we seek to help out homeowners in trouble. 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 today to introduce the Home Ownership Mortgage Emergency Act, HOME Act, my good friend Senator Martinez. This bill seeks to provide a measure of relief to those homeowners who are having troubles meeting their mortgage payments and as a result are facing the prospect of having their homes foreclosed. As a former Mayor, I know the value and importance homeownership has on our communities. Housing is after all one of the foundational assets of our society. Policies encouraging homeownership is a good thing, not just for our communities but also for first-time homebuyers who through homeownership can be a part of the ownership society. Over the years, we made great progress as the homeownership rate has increased from 64 percent in 1994 to 69 percent in 2006. That is why I am very troubled by the significant increase in the number of foreclosures that have occurred already and the projections of worse to come, as a record number of adjustable rate mortgages are due to reset in the months ahead, putting an increasing number of homeowners at serious risk of losing their homes. According to one estimate, $515 billion in adjustable rate mortgages are due to reset this year and $680 billion next year. To underscore the seriousness of the situation, Mr. President, just consider these sobering figures. My State ranks 4th in the Nation in terms of the percentage of subprime mortgages in foreclosures, and currently 17 percent of subprime adjustable rate mortgages are past due. More generally, the number of foreclosures has increased 183 percent in the last year. Nationally, foreclosures have almost doubled in the last year, and more than 14.5 percent of subprime mortgages are past due. While there is no one single solution to the housing crisis, there are a number of reasonable, measured efforts we can undertake that can help folks stay in their homes in these difficult times. To that end, I am introducing the HOME Act, which would allow low-to-middle income homeowners penalty-free access to their retirement savings and allow tax free distributions from their retirement savings so as long as the withdrawals are paid back to the retirement accounts. More specifically, my bill would allow homeowners who are 60 days late in their mortgage payments to withdraw penalty-free up to $100,000 through 2009 to be used to refinance into an affordable mortgage or avoid foreclosure. Except for very limited cases, a 10 percent penalty is applied to early retirement distributions. As the tax code currently waives this penalty for distributions from Individual Retirement Accounts for first-time home purchases, I think it is only fair that we waive this penalty for those who want to keep their homes. Bottom-line, this bill is about helping homeowners help themselves. While the 10 percent penalty is well-intentioned in that we want people to avoid using their retirement savings during their working years, times like these require us to recognize that sometimes such rules can be counterproductive. Both on a homeowner level and on a community level, I believe that it makes sense to enable those, who can, to keep their homes. Ultimately it is up to the homeowner to decide whether it makes financial sense to turn to their retirement savings to keep their homes. At the very least however, for those who do decide to do so, we should not penalize them for trying to keep a roof over their heads and wanting to remain a part of the community they have called home. I urge my colleagues to support this measure as we seek to help out homeowners in trouble. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I have two very brief unanimous consent requests. On rollcall 367, I voted ``yea.'' It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 368, I voted ``nay.'' It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to change my vote, since it will not affect the outcome.

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 rise today to discuss a challenge facing our military forces on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. These forces are facing an urgent need for a precision indirect fire munition organic to the Infantry Brigade Combat Teams and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. In the last 3 months there have been two Operational Needs Statements submitted by the units deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have included these statements for the Record. Both of these documents highlight the urgent need to field a precision capability for the 120mm mortar: the main, and in some cases the only, indirect fire support available to our infantry in the close fight. The commander of the XVIII Airborne Corps wrote in July: This capability is critically needed within the next 12 months. As troop levels in theater begin to drop, our units can not afford to miss any opportunities to kill the enemy due to lack of organic precision indirect fire. Without it, IBCT's must resort to: slower reinforcing fires; committing soldiers to an assault; or missing the opportunity altogether. In August the Commander of Joint Fires in Afghanistan described the problem starkly: The Rules of Engagement for the Afghanistan Theater of Operations limits the use of conventional artillery and mortar projectiles in support of combat operations. Recently, COMISAF restricted all preparatory fires and pre-assault fires to precision guided munitions and systems. Currently, Afghanistan requires two Light Brigade Combat teams with no organic surface precision strike capability. Our enemy takes advantage of that gap by hiding among the local populace. Additionally, the COIN environment in Afghanistan requires the minimization of collateral damage. Both of these field commanders specifically call for the fielding of precision guided mortars for the existing 120mm mortar system as quickly as possible. It is my understanding that since the precision guided mortar munition, PGMM, fell prey to the Army budget cutters, the program has demonstrated remarkable test results. In fact, I thank the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for rejecting the Army's request to reprogram additional funding away from PGMM. I ask that the subcommittee continue to carry this item forward to be considered as part of a final conference report or supplemental, pending the results of ongoing Army reviews of the program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the two documents which I referred to 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 would like to take the opportunity to submit for the Record an article published today in the Miami Herald regarding the situation in Cuba. The article captures the situation imposed on the Cuban people by the authoritarian rule of the Castro brothers, as well as challenges the international community to stand firm in its commitment to true democratic change in Cuba. For decades Fidel Castro, and now his brother Raul, have deprived the Cuban people of freedom and the hope of a better future. It is clear that Cuba finds itself in a time of transition, yet surely the Castro brothers will do everything in their power to ensure that the system of repression that they have built up for the past half century will remain in place whenever Fidel Castro passes away. For this reason, it is incumbent on all of us who aspire for a free and democratic Cuba to ensure that this moment of opportunity for democratic change on the island is not lost. I ask unanimous consent to have the following article printed in the Record. There being no objcection, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Flood Insurance Disclosure Act of 2007. I thank my Minnesota colleague, Senator Klobuchar, for her cosponsorship of this bill. Last month, the southeastern part of my State of Minnesota was the scene of devastating, historic flooding that claimed seven lives, caused widespread damage to the area's homes, businesses and infrastructure and disrupted the day-to-day lives of countless Minnesotans. As I traveled in the flood ravaged areas, I was troubled to hear and learn that only a few residents had flood insurance. Even more troubling were reports that some residents had been told they could not get flood insurance. One telling statistic is that in the seven Federally declared disaster counties, which include Olmsted and Winona counties, less than 1 percent of all households had flood insurance. Certainly we can do better and must do better. In an effort to increase the number of residents with flood insurance and to make sure residents get the information they need about flood insurance, today I am introducing legislation to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to require insurance companies to disclose noncoverage of flood insurance in homeowner's and renter's policies, as well as the resident's eligibility for flood insurance. The Federal Government long ago recognized the importance of flood insurance and that is why we have the National Flood Insurance Program which makes available, in partnership with insurance companies, flood insurance to households. At the end of day, flood insurance can serve as a financial life saver in flood disasters, while federal disaster assistance is, at best, a lifeline. At the end of the day flood insurance is really about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. It is my hope that through this legislation more Minnesotans and Americans will obtain flood insurance in order to protect their financial well-being in the event of a flood disaster. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Flood Insurance Disclosure Act of 2007. I thank my Minnesota colleague, Senator Klobuchar, for her cosponsorship of this bill. Last month, the southeastern part of my State of Minnesota was the scene of devastating, historic flooding that claimed seven lives, caused widespread damage to the area's homes, businesses and infrastructure and disrupted the day-to-day lives of countless Minnesotans. As I traveled in the flood ravaged areas, I was troubled to hear and learn that only a few residents had flood insurance. Even more troubling were reports that some residents had been told they could not get flood insurance. One telling statistic is that in the seven Federally declared disaster counties, which include Olmsted and Winona counties, less than 1 percent of all households had flood insurance. Certainly we can do better and must do better. In an effort to increase the number of residents with flood insurance and to make sure residents get the information they need about flood insurance, today I am introducing legislation to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to require insurance companies to disclose noncoverage of flood insurance in homeowner's and renter's policies, as well as the resident's eligibility for flood insurance. The Federal Government long ago recognized the importance of flood insurance and that is why we have the National Flood Insurance Program which makes available, in partnership with insurance companies, flood insurance to households. At the end of day, flood insurance can serve as a financial life saver in flood disasters, while federal disaster assistance is, at best, a lifeline. At the end of the day flood insurance is really about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. It is my hope that through this legislation more Minnesotans and Americans will obtain flood insurance in order to protect their financial well-being in the event of a flood disaster. 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 an amendment offered by my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, and myself. The amendment is only a few lines long, but it truly embodies the Minnesota spirit of perseverance and rebuilding in light of enormous tragedy. Most of us in the North Star State won't ever forget the tragic event that befell our largest city on ``eight one'' of this year. Just after 6 p.m. on that day, the main transportation artery in the heart of Minneapolis, the Interstate 35W bridge, fell into the Mississippi River, killing 13 people and wounding more than 100 others. The images that began to appear on national news within minutes of the collapse are still too difficult to describe with words, and the view behind me only begins to outline the magnitude this disaster has had on the Twin Cities and our entire region. The pictures hardly describe the extent of the tragedy. As I mentioned on the floor of this body when Senator Klobuchar and I returned from surveying the damage of the bridge collapse firsthand within hours of the tragedy, this area of the Mississippi River is one of Minnesota's most historic. It was here that Father Louis Hennepin named the falls of St. Anthony, pictured behind me upstream from the wreckage. You can also see Cadwallader Washburn's and Charles Pillsbury's flour mills that sprang up along these falls, defining an era of growth in our State and earning Minneapolis the title of ``The mill city.'' These structures, these falls, and this river include so much of our State's history and identity, sitting on the headwaters of North America's greatest waterway. This is truly the heart of the heartland. As I said on August 2, when this bridge fell, part of our Minnesota identity fell with it. Within 60 hours of the bridge's collapse, we in the U.S. Senate took action and committed the necessary Federal resources to rebuild this structure and to rebuild it quickly. I thank my colleagues once again, as I thanked them before we adjourned for the August recess, for their commitment to the people of Minnesota and to reacting decisively when an emergency strikes in our Nation. The actions we took in this body before recess set out a blueprint for the future of the I-35W bridge and the entire Twin Cities region. We provided authorization for emergency funding, $55 million of which was sent to the Minnesota Department of Transportation almost immediately to begin reconstruction of the bridge. We provided immediate assistance in transit funding, including $5 million to assist the Twin Cities in their most immediate transportation needs including detours and temporary busing, and other Federal resources, such as Navy dive teams used to recover bodies under conditions in which there was no visibility, with current, twisted metal, steel, and concrete. Without these resources, we would not have been able to move so quickly to bring some measure of closure to families who have suffered so much. Regional transportation administrators descended upon the Twin Cities. Across the board, we reacted in a way that showed we were there to help and assist in recovery and in rebuilding. That was a good thing. But while these efforts were an important start, the bridge rebuilding process is steaming ahead with bid letting for the bridge this week. I received a letter today from Assistant Transportation Commissioner Bob McFarlin from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to display four charts during debate on the Klobuchar amendment.

Mr. COLEMAN. At the impressive pace the Minnesota Department of Transportation is moving toward rebuilding this essential structure, this letter states the funding we have already appropriated for reconstruction will likely run out by the middle of October, thwarting the otherwise amazing progress we are making in recovery from this horrible tragedy. The Minnesota Department of Transportation will in all likelihood receive funding someday from the Federal Government to complete reconstruction of this bridge. That is not at question. We authorized that funding before we adjourned. What the amendment before us would do is simply expedite receipt of this funding so the State can continue its reconstruction process on this critical project. We all know it is not easy to pass a bill around here. The people of Minneapolis and the Twin Cities are still dealing with an emergency, and they need emergency funding now. The reconstruction of the bridge stops when the money runs out. Who knows when we will have another chance to provide funding for this horrible tragedy. The time is now. We have a Transportation appropriations bill before us with a transportation emergency in our backyard. I ask my colleagues to help us rebuild, to help us recover, and to do so today for a brighter future and a brighter tomorrow for the people of Minneapolis and the people of Minnesota, and, in fact, the people of the entire region. I urge support for the Klobuchar-Coleman amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry before my time begins: Has the amendment been called up and read?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, my friend from Kentucky. I want to respond to a couple of concerns he raised. First, I am in total accord with my friend that we need to reevaluate how we fund conventions in the future. There is absolutely no question about that. In a post-9/11 world, these conventions are targets for terrorism. These conventions, by the way, are designated as national special security events, which means the Federal Government actually has overall responsibility for the security, through the Department of Homeland Security, Secret Service. They then direct the folks at the local level. But we need to figure out, in the future when these conventions are bid for: How are we going to pay for security? In this case, there are three things that should be responded to. First, there are appropriations in some other bills, but the total sought here is $100 million, and that anything else in any other bill will not be pursued, will be dropped. So the figure--and I think we should be in agreement on that--is $100 million, which is what it was in New York and Boston; but we are 4 years later, $50 million for each of the cities. I should also note all funds will be audited. That has not been the case in the past. All funds will be audited. We will find out. I think we need to do that for the future to know what are the security needs, and, again, to make sure--I have been very insistent to ensure--we have an auditing mechanism which we have not had in place before. Third, it is an emergency because the planning for security has to begin now. We have not dealt with it up to this point in time. I would note that the city of St. Paul--and I was the mayor of St. Paul--I believe their entire budget is $500 million. Their overall budget for police in the course of a year--law enforcement--I think is about $68 million. Cities do not have the capacity to meet the security needs that are being imposed on them by the Federal Government, by the Federal authorities. Where I disagree with my friend is, I see this as an unfunded mandate. The Department of Homeland Security or the Secret Service tell local law enforcement: You have to do A, B, C, or D, and that is the Federal Government telling folks at the local level to do something without giving them the resources. Those are unfunded mandates. We live in a world where conventions are natural targets for those who wish to do us harm. As we saw in Germany, the threats are very real. We have a situation where security is the first responsibility of Government. That is what this is about. It is about security. It is the primary responsibility of Government. National conventions are events that if we are going to continue to have them--and I think we should have them; we could do away with them, if that is what some are suggesting, and I don't think they are--but if we are, we have to have security at a level that ensures those who are there--the President will be there, elected officials, citizens, and they are targets. They have been designated national special security events and, therefore, we have to fund them. This will fund the conventions. I will work with my friend from Kentucky as we work forward in the future to make sure we address up front the cost of security. But it is not reasonable to argue the city of Denver or the cities of St. Paul-Minneapolis would have the capacity to institute the security they are required to do. So we stepped forward at the first post-9/11 convention in New York. We had security there. The Federal Government played a role. We will continue to play a role in the future. It is the right thing to do. I think it is the responsibility of Government. Again, as a former local elected official, were I sitting in the mayor's office, there is no doubt I would be saying, yes, we have this opportunity, but we need to make sure, in the end, it can be funded. This is clearly a Federal responsibility. The States and cities will do their part, but we have a part to play also. With that, Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky and yield the floor.

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

Mr. COLEMAN. I call up my amendment No. 2687. It should be at the desk.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, first, two points of clarification. Both New York and Boston received $50 million each. There were apparently two separate appropriations, but they each received $50 million, and that is what Denver and St. Paul-Minneapolis are seeking here. The second point I wish to tell my colleagues is that all funds in here will be ordered. There is a specific ordering provision in this amendment that has not been in previous amendments or previous funding of conventions. Third, the Department of Homeland Security has designated these conventions as national special security events. As such, the Secret Service will be directing the local units of government regarding security needs. Without Federal assistance, the security costs associated with these events are essentially unfunded mandates. I urge my colleagues to ask themselves what are the consequences of not providing this critical emergency funding. The planning has to start now. We all know security risks are real. Look at what happened in Germany yesterday. It is our responsibility as Senators to make sure local law enforcement offices that will be working tirelessly to protect these events have the resources they need. Security is the first responsibility of Government. This funding is for security. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be standing on the Senate floor a year from now saying I wish we had done more.

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, my colleague from Minnesota is here. I will yield to her if she wishes to proceed first. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3311, which was received from the House.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment that is at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.