Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. I understand and agree we have a licensing process.

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield, and I yield to the Senator from Illinois to present the entire question so I can continue.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I say to my learned colleague from Illinois, here is our point of disagreement. There is no question, in fact, that there is a licensing process. I am a former mayor. We licensed a lot of things. But I think one of the basic principles at stake is we don't license and measure content when it comes to speech, and that is my concern. That, in fact, is because of the multiplicity of communications options that are available to citizens today--as I said before, blogs, Internet, broadband, and satellite--which we didn't have 20, 30 years ago. Where my objection lies, and the importance of this amendment says Government should not be monitoring and regulating content. We are not talking about obscenity. There are things the Senator from Illinois understands the Government has an absolute right to monitor or to deal with. When we get to content--and that is my concern, that those who have raised the issue ``bring back the fairness doctrine,'' are bringing it back, and the cry then is to regulate content. And that is what I object to.

Mr. COLEMAN. Two observations. First, I am thrilled I am having this discussion with the Senator from Illinois. My concern is that I just offered an amendment which was objected to. Had the amendment not been objected to, we would have time for a full debate on this amendment. The Senator from Illinois and the Senator from South Dakota have a great interest in this issue. I presume my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--the junior Senator from Massachusetts has raised concerns that we should reinstate the fairness doctrine. He said that publicly. I would love to have this debate, and yet I stand here offering an amendment which is being objected to and so instead we are having this colloquy. I appreciate the question and will respond. But I am disappointed that the other side of the aisle will not give us an opportunity for a full debate on this issue. In fact, I want all sides to be heard. What I don't want, and the fundamental disagreement is, for the regulatory power of Government to sit in judgment as Big Brother, to oversee and take stock with pencil and pad and take notes: Well, we had Sean Hannity over here. Now we have to get somebody on the left over there. Balance should be heard, but we have a marketplace that provides that opportunity. We have folks who support the perspective of the Senator from Illinois, and we have folks who support my perspective. Sometimes we are the same. But for Government to dictate, that is the concern. That is why the FCC got rid of the fairness doctrine in 1987. It is why the Supreme Court raised questions about the necessity of the fairness doctrine. I don't think it is constitutional. We have not gotten to that question.

Mr. COLEMAN. I will yield for one further question.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I will respond to the final question. There is a very clear disagreement here. The Government does not have the responsibility to regulate content of speech. That is what the first amendment is about. That is exactly what the first amendment is about. Government is not supposed to be regulating content, and at a time in 1949 when we had three-network TV stations, basically when we had limited channels of communication, I presume there was a legitimate concern on the part of some that in fact Government needs to step in and ensure balance. But now we are in 2007. I cannot even conceive that the market cannot provide opportunities for differing positions because it does. In the end, consumers also have a right, based on the market, to make choices. So if they make choices that say we want to hear more of one side than the other, that is OK. I think it is very dangerous, I say to my friend from Illinois--I think it is very dangerous for Government to be in the position of deciding what is fair and balanced. As we see on the floor of the Senate, oftentimes amongst ourselves, hopefully learned individuals who have the great and humble opportunity to serve in the Senate, we have differences as to what is fair and balanced. The reason we have a first amendment is we get Government out of measuring, controlling, dictating, and regulating content. That is my concern, and that is what this amendment is about. I would love to have a debate with the Senator from Illinois. I would have hoped that this amendment would simply have been put in the queue, would have been heard. I think Americans love a fair fight. I think Americans love this kind of dialog. There is nothing fair about the fairness doctrine. There is nothing fair if the intent--really, we have to lay it on the table--if the intent is to shut down or to limit the conservative talk radio. That is where the concern is. Yet, as I said before, one can raise questions about balance in the print media, one can raise questions about balance in the broadcast media, but I don't think it is the role of Government to be sitting there listening and then weighing, deciding what is fair and balanced, and then requiring, under penalty, a broadcaster to then have to present an opposing point of view. What is going to happen--and history has shown this--broadcasters are simply going to say: Let's do something else. Why be in that position where there may be a line that may be crossed, and I don't know what that line is, and that line may change depending on who is sitting as FCC Chair. As I said before, beyond first amendment principles, there are market principles. Talk radio has flourished because of the market. The consumer says, I want to listen, and they have been given choices. They can simply turn off the dial. They can shut off the radio if they don't want to listen, but it has flourished. It has flourished because of demand, and that is the market, not because of Government command, not because of Government control. We don't want the Government regulating content. Like never before, Americans have a wealth of information and viewpoints thanks to cable television, radio, the Internet, and that is a good thing, and let it flourish. John Kennedy stated: We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. Mr. President, I am not afraid of the people. I am not afraid of the people having access to the information and ideas they want access to, but I am afraid of the Government stepping in and regulating content. We have a first amendment that is the underpinning, the foundation, of all the other amendments. The fairness doctrine flies in the face of the first amendment. It was rejected in 1987. The idea of bringing it back today is a very bad idea. This amendment specifically includes the Armed Forces Network. Our folks who are out there on the frontline fighting shouldn't be thinking that back home someone at the FCC is listening and monitoring and deciding what is fair and what is balanced. Let the people decide. Let the market decide. Let the first amendment flourish. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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 rise to speak about the Employee Free Choice Act. Before that, I compliment the Senator from Oregon for the outstanding leadership he provided on this issue. Every American deserves access to affordable health insurance. This is the 21st century. He has worked in a bipartisan way to get important perspectives on the table, and I will add my voice to that discussion. I applaud his leadership on this issue. It is something we have to get done. Time is passing us by and we have it in our capacity to do it. The Senator from Oregon has provided important leadership. Again, I rise to voice my opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act. It is kind of a misnomer. There is not a lot of free choice in what has been labeled the Employee Free Choice Act. It is an awesome privilege for those of us who serve in the Senate to have this magnificent Capitol as a workplace. Its massive dome and perfect symmetry have been an inspiration to generations. Its most vital feature is something none of us have seen: its sturdy foundation, which lies beneath this building. Our democracy has a foundation as well: It is the ability of our citizens to cast their votes freely, fairly, and secretly, without anyone looking over their shoulder. Certainly, that is the expectation when we walk into the booth to vote on election day. All of us have our place in this Senate based on the right of individuals to step forward and cast a secret ballot, which is one of the fundamental underpinnings of democracy. We pull the curtain, mark our ballot in private, and rely on our own personal conscience and convictions, free from any outside pressures. For more than 200 years, the secret ballot has been one of the most fundamental principles of American democracy. As the great revolutionary figure Thomas Paine wrote: The right to vote is the right upon which all other rights depend. That same principle has held true for American workers who have had the right to a secret ballot when it comes to unionization for the last 60 years. I believe in a worker's right to union representation. I served for 8 years as mayor of St. Paul and I worked closely with unions to ensure that their right to organize was protected. But I also strongly believe in a worker's right to a secret ballot election. I will fight to protect that right--a right that the vast majority of Americans and union members support. This fundamental belief in a worker's right to a secret ballot election has long been upheld by the courts. Throughout the years, the courts have spoken of the importance of secret ballot elections. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals said it best in a 1991 case that the ``freedom of choice is a matter at the very center of our national labor relations policy, and a secret election is the preferred method of gauging choice.'' Although the secret ballot process has served workers and unions well, the right to a secret ballot election is now under serious threat. Already passed by the House, the Employee Free Choice Act would take away a worker's right to a private vote for union representation. Simply put, the passage of this legislation would deny American workers the choice to freely and privately choose whether to join a union by replacing the secret ballot process with a card-check process. So we would be telling our workers that instead of having the right to a federally supervised election by secret ballot, that gets tossed aside and we now use a card-check process--somebody coming up and saying, ``do you want to sign this?'' What is fascinating--and I have been involved in this business for 5 years as a Senator, 8 years as a mayor, and in the attorney general office for 19 years. I worked on a lot of issues--I hear a lot of discussion by my colleagues about some of the concerns impacting American workers today, the challenges we face in dealing with globalization and the pressures of working people. We should deal with those, but this is not the answer. This is not the answer to the issues and concerns being raised. Taking away the right to a secret ballot is not the answer. Under the card-check process, there is no ballot, no voting booth, no ballot box, and no privacy for the worker's choice. Rather than a ballot, there is a union authorization card. Rather than the safe confines of the voting booth, the worker is surrounded by union members, and employers, as he or she considers the union authorization card. Rather than the privacy afforded by the secret ballot process, a worker's decision is publicly known. The reality is that unions also fully appreciate the importance of secret ballot elections. For instance, when it comes to union decertification--in other words, when workers want to terminate union representation--the unions believe in secret ballot elections, which the AFL-CIO has characterized as ``the surest means for avoiding decisions which are the result of group pressures and not individual decision.'' I want to protect individual decisions. In the Senate, we should protect the sanctity of individuals' decisions, and we should protect the sanctity of federally supervised secret ballot elections. Certainly, if they are good enough for decertification, they should be good enough for union organizing. I come to this debate with a strong and successful record of working with unions and fighting for American workers, including increasing the minimum wage and supporting collective bargaining rights for public safety workers. Again, I was mayor of St. Paul for 8 years, and during that time we settled every contract at the bargaining table. I am also proud of the support I have received over the years from the police unions, fire unions, building trade unions. That support is very important to me and I remain fully committed to the collective bargaining process. The legislation pending before this body hurts workers, and it is on that basis that I cannot support it. As we soon celebrate the July 4 holiday, we should honor our Nation's freedoms and liberties by ensuring that a worker's fundamental rights to a secret ballot election is protected. We should do so out of respect for our Nation's founding principles, so workers can make important choices about their workplaces and livelihoods without fear of repercussions for expressing their honest opinions. That is the simple fairness on which our whole system has rested.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, it is my great pleasure to welcome the brave and courageous members of the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry back to Minnesota today. For nearly 2 years, these troops have selflessly and honorably served our State and our Nation, demonstrating a level of commitment and sacrifice beyond anything our country could ask of them. To welcome these soldiers home properly, it is important to roll the calendar back to September of 2005, when these men and women learned that they would soon deploy to Iraq for a 12-month mission. The news was difficult for a lot of Guard troops and families in our State. Many of them had already been deployed on active duty to Bosnia or Kosovo since September 11, and they knew how hard it would be to say goodbye once more to their families, friends, and communities. Because of their previous service, many of these troops were not required to go to Iraq. They had already answered the call to defend this great land, and they could have let others take their turn this time, but that is not the spirit of the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry. Instead, with the same commitment that their unit has shown since the Civil War, these troops donned their uniforms, made their arrangements, kissed their moms and dads, husbands, wives, and children goodbye, and returned to the fray to serve their country. For 6 grueling months, these soldiers conducted their mandatory ``uptraining'' on the other side of our country at Camp Shelby in Mississippi and Fort Polk in Louisiana. And just like their Minnesota 1st infantry comrades who mustered at Fort Snelling 144 years earlier, the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry received ratings of ``outstanding,'' ``excellent,'' and ``perfect'' on their various training demonstrations throughout the winter of 2005. In March of 2006, when the unit had already been away from home for half a year, it was time to travel the 6,000 miles to the Middle East and Iraq. Before they left, I had the pleasure of attending their departure ceremony in Mississippi alongside my colleagues of the Minnesota congressional delegation and our Governor. There were steaks, music, beer cans, smiles, flags, hugs, and sadly, a lot of tears. But there was one clear thing everyone had in common that day at Camp Shelby: Pride. Pride in serving their country. Pride in defending our freedom. Pride that their loved one was going to perform their duty in a manner consistent with the finest traditions of the U.S. military. And off they went. Different units and different companies fanned out in locations across Iraq. Some of them in Fallujah and Taqaddum in Anbar Province, some at Camp Scania near Nippur, and the largest number at Camp Adder in Talil. And the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry didn't take much time to make an impact on the ground. By the end of May, when the ink on their transfer authority had barely dried, the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry had already built a reverse osmosis water plant for the people of al-Feiz. It would be the first of many success stories they would accomplish and be proud of. Over the course of the next few months, the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry endured the trials of a unit at war. With every successful patrol, there was a longing for far away loved ones. For every completed reconstruction project, there was anticipation of a return trip home. And on the hardest of days, there was the mourning of a fallen comrade. And so it went with these selfless soldiers through the end of 2006 and into 2007. When the New Year broke, it brought with it a new energy and a refocused eye on their March 2007 return. But their March return was not to be, as the story of these men and women veered onto a different path. On January 10, of this year, these soldiers and their families endured a shock that none of them expected. Afternoon reports from CNN and Fox News began to trickle through our State and Nation, indicating that the unit would be extended until this summer. When the official word from the Pentagon confirmed this fact later that day, it shook all of us to our core and left us with more questions and concerns than we could find answers to. But like Minnesotans always do, they somehow found a way to move forward. The support of their families strengthened them. The spirit of their communities rallied around them. And the countdown from January to July gradually went from months to weeks to days while the moment that seemed like it would never get here finally did: Their return. Their deployment kept them in Iraq 25 days longer than any other unit serving in this war. During their time, they drove over 4,500 round trip convoy missions completing 99 percent of them on time. That's over 2.2 million miles of convoys in Iraq from the south central part of the country to the Jordanian and Syrian borders. And I don't think anyone needs a reminder of the dangers of IEDs on these convoys, but just for the record, this unit discovered over 350 of them before they were detonated. In other areas they fought al-Qaida and provided critical security to our military bases, saving countless lives of their comrades in arms. They also worked hard to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. In their time in Iraq, the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry completed over 90 reconstruction projects from water and powerplants to road construction and media expansion. And now, after nearly 2 years of sacrifice and dedication, on behalf of a grateful State and Nation we have the privilege to welcome these fine men and women back to the North Star State. With their return will come new challenges. As MAJ John Morris, Chaplain of the Minnesota National Guard, often says, we have to support our troops before, during, and after their deployments. I look forward to joining with my colleagues in the Minnesota delegation to do our part to energize the State to bring these troops all the way home. I have no doubt there will be plenty of handshakes, hugs, and welcome home ceremonies across our State in the coming days and weeks for this admirable group of Americans. I hope I am there to personally welcome home as many as I can, but because I know I can't make it to all of them--and because I would rather they get home and go fishing than spend their time talking to me--I want to express in the Record the eternal appreciation I have for the service of the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry. You gave up time, income, and family togetherness. You risked everything so all our lives could be safer and more free from fear. When your Nation called you to serve, you didn't take a poll, you didn't equivocate, you didn't even question why. You served because you were called to and you did your duty with perseverance, excellence and strength. Your active duty service is now complete, but our debt of gratitude will never end. On behalf of all Minnesotans, we welcome you home. Thank you and may God Bless you.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to express sorrow on behalf of the Somali community of Minnesota, which is currently mourning the death of an important figure for Somalia, former President Aden Abdulle Osman. Aden Abdulle Osman, known by many Somalis as Aden Adde, passed away at the age of 99 on June 7, 2007. Aden Abdulle Osman became the first President of Somalia in 1960 after the country gained its independence on July 1. Mr. Osman served as President of the newly formed Somalia until June 10, 1967. President Osman led his country during the critical time of its formation and development into a full-fledged state. When he lost the Presidential election in 1967, President Osman graciously ceded his position to his opponent, Abdirashid Ali Shermarke. In doing so, Aden Abdulle Osman set an example for the peaceful transfer of democratic power, which is a critical aspect of all democratic systems. For this reason, Aden Abdulle Osman is viewed throughout Somalia and Africa as a model of statesmanship that seeks the greater good. I am privileged to represent the State that has the largest Somali community in the U.S. The Somalis of Minnesota represent a thriving community that has enriched the fabric of our State through its vibrant culture. I would like to join my Somali constituents in expressing sorrow for Aden Abdulle Osman's death. It is my sincere hope that the current leaders of Somalia will look to his leadership as an example, and that such leadership will serve to usher Somalia towards peace, stability and democracy.

Mr. COLEMAN

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

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Bayh amendment No. 1508 that is rooted in one of the most basic responsibilities we have as Members of this body, and that is to preserve the security of the American people. For over a year, I have been working with a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senator Bayh, Senator Lieberman, Senator Brownback, and Senator Salazar, on a plan that will create oil savings for this Nation. By the way, the bill before us does that. Senator Domenici is right. Congress needs to do the hard work, there is no question about that. This bill has already been strengthened, and there have been provisions with CAFE that will add to the strength of this bill. The approach we are offering is a more aggressive approach than the savings target in the bill. It is a more aggressive approach than CAFE or other oil savings that we see. We offer this amendment today to replace the gasoline savings goal in H.R. 6, the underlying legislation we are now considering, with title I of what we call the DRIVE Act, which we have offered as an amendment. It would direct the executive branch of our Government to identify within 9 months and to publish within 18 months Federal requirements that will achieve a 2.5-million-barrel-per-day reduction of U.S. oil consumption by 2016, which is the amount of oil that we currently import from the Middle East. The amendment goes on to achieve a 7- million-barrel-per-day reduction by 2026, and a 10-million-barrel-per- day reduction by 2031. That is about 50 percent of the per-day oil consumption in the United States today. The amendment would also direct the Office of Management and Budget to publish an analysis to ensure the Government's action plan will achieve the oil savings targets, and the amendment will hold the Government accountable by including specific requirements to the executive branch to evaluate, review, and update the plan. The question that is probably on the minds of most Americans is, Can we do this? Is America up to the challenge? Can we summon the leadership and resources for a task of this magnitude? The simple answer for us as Americans is: We can because we must. The handwriting is on the wall. Failure to address our energy dependence will mean a future for our kids which is less prosperous, less safe, and less free. We should be motivated not by fear, however. We need to dream of the better America we can build. This bill before us does that. It moves us in that direction. This amendment moves us more aggressively in that direction. It makes sure the Federal Government has all the tools at its disposal, the tools that the underlying text provides. The American people will make it possible. For every voice of concern I hear about foreign oil dependence, I hear about another instance of Americans' innovative spirit. All I have to do is look at my home State of Minnesota where entrepreneurs are inventing new renewable fuel processes, hydraulic-powered vehicles, new revolutionary energy-saving technologies, the list goes on and on. The DRIVE Act, upon which this amendment is based, includes a blueprint of a plan for oil independence that centers on three principles: energy conservation, vehicle technology, and renewable fuels. H.R. 6, the underlying text, has included many components of our plan, and, again, I give great credit to both the chairman of the committee, Senator Bingaman, and the ranking member, my friend, Senator Domenici, for the work they have done and all that they have pulled together to help America lessen its dependence on foreign oil. We need an oil savings target that is bold. We need one that will hold Government accountable to achieving cuts to our foreign oil dependence. We have the tools, but now we need the leadership. We need to give the leadership direction, and that is what this amendment does. This amendment would express that leadership in terms of what we think is a more relevant standard, one that focuses on our problem--oil consumption. The underlying bill will reduce gasoline use, but it is possible it could result in an increase in diesel which is, of course, made from oil. So our amendment, which is based on oil reduction, is, in our opinion, the more appropriate goal for this law, and that is why we are offering this amendment to H.R. 6. The gasoline savings goal currently in H.R. 6 amounts to about a 20- percent reduction projected oil consumption by 2030, 23 years from now. But the oil savings in our amendment amounts to a 35-percent reduction in projected oil consumption in 2030. That is a significantly greater reduction, and I believe it is one we can achieve if we set the goal as high as it should be--high enough to cut our dependence on foreign oil and free America from dependence on the oil of tyrants. We put petrodollars--oil is a malleable product. We may not buy directly from Iran, but the fact is, the addiction we have to foreign oil puts petrodollars in the pockets of thugs and tyrants such as Chavez in Venezuela and Ahmadinejad in Iran. The reality is that 97 percent of transportation in the United States is fueled by oil we buy from a unified global oil market. Saudi Arabia holds 20 percent of the world's oil reserves, Iran 10 percent, and Venezuela holds 6 percent of the world's oil reserves. It is time to stop funding Hugo Chavez and start sending that money to America's entrepreneurs. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan oil savings amendment. Again, I applaud the chair and the ranking member, the Senators from New Mexico. They have strengthened this bill. There will be a CAFE piece that we know will achieve greater savings. But, clearly, what we are doing is about oil consumption not just about gasoline. I think we should set the higher standards. If we tell Americans this is the goal we have to reach, they will get it done, and we will benefit from it. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, most of the fuel we consume, I think over 60 percent, is gasoline. But the issue is dependence. Our concern is not just about gas. It is about oil, oil dependence. So we push a little further on the large issue. I certainly agree with my distinguished colleague from Mexico that gasoline is a major part of what we are consuming.

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I second what my colleague has said. I applaud the underlying work on this bill. It is progressive. It is going to make a difference. What we are doing is simply building on that foundation and understanding that the issue of oil dependence is about oil dependence, and if we can move the ball forward, if we can give some specific tools to the administration--Congress is going to do the hard work. The Senator from New Mexico has done the heavy lifting. This is a very broad-based bill. There is a lot in this bill. I believe this amendment certainly has some responsibilities, and the executive branch needs to be part of the solution. I believe it is appropriate for Congress to give them this kind of direction. We will all benefit. But it certainly builds on a very steady foundation that the Senator from New Mexico has put forth, and I applaud him for doing that. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, with a combination of great sadness and admiration, I join my colleagues in honoring the life of Craig Thomas, a person of strength, passion, and integrity. Those who have had the blessing of traveling to the State of Wyoming appreciate its amazing beauty and variety. Craig Thomas reflected the geography of his State. He could be as peaceful and serene as Wyoming's rolling prairie grass lands, and he could be as striking and powerful as its majestic mountains. Growing up, he learned the creative dynamic of frontier life: rugged individualism joined with an ethic of neighbor-helping-neighbor when the need was great. In this sometimes stuffy and frustrating Washington world, he was a fresh breeze of unconventionality. He maintained his Wyoming vision of life throughout many years in this city, and the people of Wyoming deeply appreciated his strong immunity to the political disease called Potomac Fever. Craig Thomas lived a very meaningful life and made the State and country he loved a better place to live in. From his young days as a marine to his last days as a Senator, his heart was service and he put everything he had into making a difference for generations to come. Because of his service here, our national parks are a legacy that will be passed to future generations in better shape than he found them. Because of his fiscal conservatism, fewer dollars of debt will be passed on to our children. Because of his vision and integrity, a model of public service will be available to those who come after. Laurie and I send our prayers to the Thomas family. We thank them and the people of Wyoming for sharing Senator Thomas with the Nation. Every one of us on this floor can learn a lesson from his life and remember Craig Thomas by living the values and commitments he taught us.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, every day, millions of American make sacrifices for their families and friends. Yet the man I honor today has made the ultimate sacrifice for neither kin nor kind. Earnell Luster is a former Marine and a great American. As a lifelong resident of Minneapolis, MN, he exemplified the role of a Good Samaritan within his community. Mr. Luster sacrificed his own life for the sake of another, and his bravery and courage makes him a hero. On February 15, 2007, Mr. Luster was walking by an apartment building in south Minneapolis when he came across two women who were being repeatedly beaten by a male attacker. Being the man he was, Mr. Luster could not walk away from what he was witnessing. He sprang into action by demanding the attacker halt his assault upon the women. By doing so, he gave the women enough time to escape their attacker. Tragically, the attacker turned his anger on Mr. Luster and delivered several blows to his head that proved to be fatal. That evening, in an act of true selflessness, Earnell Luster gave his life for another. His actions that evening exemplify the life he lived. As a well- respected elder in his church and within his community, Mr. Luster lived a life full of joy, duty, and great conviction. His service to the Marines in the mid-1970s demonstrates the strength of his character. Mr. Luster enjoyed life, especially the opportunities that he had to go fishing with his twin brother Earnest. Earnell Luster's tragic death is evidence that crime can affect each one of us. Our commitment to fighting crime must not ebb and flow with the statistics. My thoughts and prayers remain with Earnell's twin brother Earnest, his mother Lorraine Scott, and his entire family. Mr. Luster's selfless act of bravery earns him a place in the hearts of Minnesotans and Americans everywhere.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to join in this body's hearty congratulations to our colleague from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, as the longest serving Republican Senator. The remarkable thing about Ted Stevens is not the number of years he has served but the amount of service he has put into those years. The Founders did a unique thing when they created the Senate. They knew that democracy should both let the majority rule most of the time but also protect minority viewpoints from the tyranny of the majority. They created a House of Representatives based on proportional representation. Meanwhile, in the Senate, they gave every State, large and small, exactly two votes. They then went a step further, and created the Senate as a body that operates by consensus. The result is a place where one person with a good idea can impact the entire body. Ted Stevens is a living embodiment of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. He is precisely the kind of Senator they hoped for: forceful, persevering, principled and indefatigably devoted to his State's interests. Alaska is a unique State and Senator Stevens reflects its style and unlimited potential exceptionally. In every aspect, Alaska is a long, long way from Washington, DC, and its unusual bureaucratic culture. We all benefit from the independent, self-reliant spirit of Alaska that the Senator brings, reminding us of the pioneer heritage of the West. I am personally appreciative of the Senator's hospitality when visiting in his home State. I thought we had ``wide open spaces'' in Minnesota, but Alaska's are certainly both wider and more open. When President Abraham Lincoln's Secretary of State, William Seward, finalized the purchase of Alaska, it was thought to be a folly. How blessed we all are as Americans to have its abundant wilderness and natural resources as part of our national experience. I have found that when people want to learn something really important, they prefer an example to an explanation. As I have tried to learn my way around this institution, Senator Stevens has been a role model, an example, and a friend. I thank him for his kindness. But even more I thank him for his service which has made this Nation safer, stronger and freer for all. He makes his great State and all his colleagues proud to say they know Ted Stevens.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is a unanimous consent agreement that says the vote starts at 12:15. I want to make sure everything is pushed back accordingly, if there is an extra 2 minutes here.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I first ask unanimous consent that the McCain amendment, No. 1190, which was called up as modified, with the changes at the desk, be adopted.

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I just want to, in perhaps less than 5 minutes, address the amendment we are going to vote on in a little bit, at 12:35. It is a simple amendment. There is existing Federal law which says that municipalities may not restrict in any way--the language is very clear--in any way prohibit or restrict any governmental entity from sharing information with Federal authorities about immigration status. It is the law. The law says you can't restrict from sending, maintaining, or exchanging. What has happened is that some cities--referred to as so-called sanctuary cities--have adopted policies to circumvent what has been Federal law since 1996. I want my colleagues to understand that this is an amendment to a bill that, if passed, will end the need for sanctuary cities. If passed, this bill will allow folks to come out of the shadows and into the light. The only folks who won't come into the light will be those folks who have criminal problems. In other words, if this bill is passed with this amendment, it will allow folks to come out of the shadows, a concept that I support, and I want to make sure we do the right thing. In the existing bill, we are telling employers they cannot create a sanctuary, they cannot create a haven for illegal aliens. We are saying to them that if they do, they will be penalized. If we do that, we should also then go to those cities or communities which are creating these sanctuaries and say to them that everyone is going to follow the rule of law, everyone is going to. I think one of the challenges we face in getting the public to accept what we are trying to do is that there is a sense that somehow we are not following the rule of law. So this is very simple. If we are telling employers that they cannot provide a sanctuary, that they cannot shield individuals, then we have to tell the same thing to cities and to communities. Lastly, there are those who say: Well, this is going to impact crime victims. The reality is that these sanctuary cities protect criminals. They are not limited. It protects criminals. So if we pass the underlying bill, folks can come out of the shadows. And for those who want to stay in the shadows, they should not get sanctuary by a city policy that is in contravention to existing Federal law. I believe those policies violate existing Federal law and in doing so protect criminals. Let's uphold the rule of law. Let's do what is the right thing and the fair thing, and let's support this amendment, which, again, very simply--very simply--requires cities and communities to comply with what has been Federal law since 1996. Let's tell the public that this bill is about respecting the law at every phase. I hope my colleagues will support my amendment to get rid of this concept of sanctuary cities.

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I want my colleagues to listen. I want my colleagues to understand there is nothing in this amendment that requires teachers, hospital workers, anyone, to do anything. What it simply does is it lifts a gag order. It lifts a policy and a practice in some cities that gags police officers from doing their duty, from complying with what has been Federal law since 1996. There is no requirement that anybody do anything. It lifts the gag order. There was testimony by Houston police officer John Nichols before the House Judiciary subcommittee. He said this: When we shackle law enforcement officers in such a manner, instead of protecting U.S. citizens and people here legally, the danger to society greatly increases by allowing potentially violent criminals to freely roam our streets. If the underlying bill is passed, there should be no need for sanctuary cities. The only folks who will want to remain in the shadows will be those who do not want anyone to know they are in the shadows. These present sanctuary cities, if the law passes, will protect criminals, and we should again get rid of the gag order. That is all this amendment does.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, due to a family medical emergency, I am returning to Minnesota this evening and will be unable to cast my vote in favor of the supplemental appropriations bill. I believe the Senate is taking responsible action by passing critical funding for the troops without attaching it to arbitrary timelines for withdrawal. Moreover, this bill contains critical agricultural disaster assistance funding that I have been fighting to deliver for Minnesota's farmers for over a year. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the supplemental.