Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his leadership and the opportunity to work together on something that I hope is a unifying force for this body. Let's agree where we can agree. I think that is what S. 30 offers. I listened to the debate on S. 5. I see my colleague, the Senator from Iowa. I do not know if there is a greater champion in the Senate than the Senator from Iowa when it comes to supporting the rights of individuals with disabilities. I worked on disability discrimination when I graduated law school 30 years ago. One of my heroes in this regard has always been the Senator from Iowa. Coauthor of S. 5 is my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch. I don't know if there is a man of greater moral integrity in this body than Orrin Hatch. He is an extraordinary man. He and I have had long conversations about this bill. Good people disagree. For some of us there is that moral line that says we cannot support Federal funding for the destruction of a human embryo. It is a line that a number of people cannot cross. So what happens is, if we have a concern of just having S. 5--and there is a battle that is being waged there. Again, it will pass. It will pass in this body and pass in the House. Then the reality is it will be vetoed. There will not be enough votes to override the veto. So in the end, those with good intentions who want to move science forward are not going to be able to do that. This message to those who are suffering from ALS and suffering from juvenile diabetes--the research is not going to be moved forward at all. A number of my colleagues have put forth S. 30 as an opportunity. Dr. Hurlbut said: We offer one small island of unity in a sea of controversy, a place we can come together and promote the opportunity and support pluripotent stem cell research, research that has the ability to provide the kind of flexible cell material that offers great hope. Again, hope; it offers great hope. The good news is research is going forward in this area. This research offers an opportunity, not just in the area of stem cell research, but if you talk to some of the scientists, science itself is going to be opened, perhaps, to other advancements. We are going to learn more about stem cells just from doing this research. I have a chart that lays out what ANT is. This is just one of the options under S. 30. S. 30 would provide Federal funding for research that does not involve the destruction of an embryo. Some of it is dead embryo research. This is ANT. Under the natural process you have a fertilized egg, the egg and sperm, the fertilized egg that becomes an embryo. SCNT, as I understand it, is the way we got Dolly the sheep. We have a somatic cell from an adult. It was an animal--or it could be from a human. You put that cellular material, which has all the DNA, all that program in the enucleated egg, the egg gets fertilized, and you get an embryo. What ANT does, and the type of research, among a number of options-- there are some thoughts you could reprogram these cells. You could do a range of things, but what you are doing is altering the cell nucleus. It is kind of a key in there, something that unlocks the cell. If you take it out--I think it is CDX2, but I am not a scientist. But what you essentially do if you take that out before you transfer into this enucleated egg, before you put this genetic material with all the DNA and everything in there, in the end what you are going to get is an inner cell mass with all the ability to produce the pluripotent cells that you would get, but there is no embryo, and it doesn't cross the moral line. The opportunity for this Congress, in a bipartisan way, to support this kind of research is a positive thing. I see my colleague from Missouri. I have some other comments, but I believe we have some time, and I will use that time later. I want to reiterate that I hope my colleagues who support S. 5--we simply have disagreement over crossing that line--I hope they can come with us and support S. 30. My concern is about the House. Last year this body passed a bill similar to S. 5. It also passed the Specter-Santorum bill, which provided, by the way, a number of alternative means of producing cells. Some of those, by the way, are included in S. 5. But, again, S. 5 will not become law. If you want alternative ways to go forward, you have to support S. 30. The House killed the Specter-Santorum bill. Their approach was, they wanted to have 100 percent of nothing--no alternative ways if they didn't get exactly what they wanted in their bill that was similar to S. 5. I hope my colleagues who are looking to provide hope will understand there is a path to move the science forward. There is a path for funding. There is a path to set up, as we have in S. 30, a stem cell bank, a bank of amniotic and placental stem cells. I hope our colleagues in the House do not do a repeat of what happened last year in which an effort to support alternative means was destroyed because they did not get their way in their version of S. 5. This is an opportunity to come together. It is not a whole package. It is not everything. It is not all the research that will come forward in S. 5 because for some of us, there is a line that we should not cross. But I think all of us can agree we want to support alternative means. We want to support dead embryo research, ANT, reprogramming, and create the opportunity to have more research being done next year than is being done this year. That is the promise. That is the hope that S. 30 offers. With that, I see my colleague from Missouri. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield?

Mr. COLEMAN. I believe the Senator from Oklahoma earlier introduced a RAND study that talked about the number of embryos. I believe there are nearly 400,000 that may be in IVF clinics. Apparently, only 2.8 percent have the potential to be discarded. Is that correct?

Mr. COLEMAN. Is there a sense that the Senator from Oklahoma has in terms of decisions that parents and others are making about the kind of life potential of those 97 percent that are not being discarded, that are being frozen for future attempts at pregnancy?

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. COLEMAN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for both his passion and his expertise. I think he said this morning--how many babies has the Senator delivered?

Mr. COLEMAN. This is one Senator who understands the value of life and has a hands-on approach. It is interesting. President Clinton's bioethics commission concluded, if we have some other alternatives, why wouldn't we use them? They concluded the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following infertility treatments is justifiable only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research. I believe what is happening is the science is moving faster than the politics, that we have today the opportunity through a number of processes to move forward with pluripotent stem cell research in ways that are less morally problematic, that don't cross a line, that don't cross the line that says we should not have Federal funding for the destruction of a human embryo. I know my colleagues and friends who support S. 5 quite often have talked about excess embryos that we have and that may not be used for any other purpose. I would ask them to ask these questions. I believe their intent is this narrow intent, but as you look at S. 5, the question raised is, is this the beginning of the production of embryos? If in fact this is the acceptable path to go, why wouldn't we produce embryos that would then get Federal funding to do the research? Is the use of these embryos only for the purpose of stem cell research? Where would we draw the line? Who draws that line? Why wouldn't we use this to study embryonic growth, cell patterns, a whole range of other things? Once we have crossed the line, where does it end? If it is difficult to coax embryonic stem cells into the desired kinds of differentiated type cell types, would we want to allow the embryos to develop longer so we could kind of coax them into later development so we can see that later stage embryos may be a better source of more advanced cells and tissues and organs? Even if we don't do that, if we move down this path, are there other nations or other countries that don't have the kind of moral concerns we have? Why would they not want to go that route? We have already begun the process. What we offer in S. 30 is a possibility to bring this country together to provide Federal funding for stem cell research that provides the hope of what pluripotent stem cells may be able to do. It sets up a tissue bank for amniotic and placental stem cells which offer great promise without the moral dilemma. At a time when clearly the Nation is divided, we offer a time to come together. My concern is, last year we passed a bill in this Senate that provided for alternatives, Specter-Santorum. It was rejected in the House. I hope my colleagues don't take an all-or-nothing approach. I hope they don't look to get 100 percent of nothing--nothing meaning that S. 5 is going to be vetoed--and then stop us from at least moving forward with the opportunity to put Federal dollars in research and production doing stem cell research that doesn't cross a moral line. I see my colleague from Oklahoma.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Markus Grompe, MD, from the Oregon Health & Science University.

Mr. COLEMAN. In that letter Dr. Grompe talks about what my colleague from Oklahoma just talked about. He talks about producing cells that are immunologically matched to the patient from whom they were derived. He says: These cells could then be used for transplantation without being rejected by the immune system. It is also expected that these approaches will make the production of pluripotent cell lines technically easier and more efficient than methods that rely on embryos. Then he goes on to say: In my own laboratory we would use the alternative methods to produce liver and pancreas cells for the treatment of liver diseases and diabetes. We have an opportunity under S. 30 to move the research forward, to move it forward in a unified way, a way that avoids the culture wars, avoids the great divide, that has the opportunity for moving forward without dealing with the issues of immune reactions that opens up a vision of hope. This is about hope. S. 30 is hope offered through principled and ethical stem cell research--the HOPE Act. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--whatever their position is on S. 5--understand if they want to move the ball forward, if they want to look into the eyes of their constituents and say we are going to give you something, some sense of hope, we are going to move research forward, the only way to do that today is through supporting S. 30. I urge my colleagues to support S. 30. Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. COLEMAN

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

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I rise to speak about an issue that is very dear to me and my home State of Minnesota: the reintegration of our returning soldiers into their families and their communities. I begin my remarks by citing a letter to the editor published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press last Saturday by Army National Guard Chaplain MAJ John Morris. The letter is titled, ``It Takes Communities To Bring Soldiers All The Way Home.'' I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN. Major Morris is a member of the Minnesota Army National Guard. There are currently 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard serving in Iraq as members of the 134th Brigade Combat Team. They were deployed to Iraq last March after spending 6 months at Camp Shelby, MN. When I visited them in December in Fallujah, Taqqadum, and Tallil, Iraq they were all very excited to return home this month to see their families--some of them returning home for the first time since September of 2005. But they didn't get to come home this month. On January 10 of this year it was announced the 134th would be extended 125 days, hopefully returning home sometime later this summer. With this additional deployment time, the deployment of the 134th in Iraq will be 35 days longer than that of any other unit that has served in Iraq. That is a long time. It is interesting to talk to our National Guard folks. They are not complaining. They are doing their duty. But I know it weighs heavily on my fellow Minnesotans, on their families, and those of us who get to represent them in the Congress. When the extension was announced, I shared the great frustration over the fact that our young men and women would not be coming home as scheduled, and we had deep concerns about the way it was noticed. I think the families heard about it before the folks in Iraq heard about it, and heard about it watching a press conference. The Army apologized. Certainly we have to do better when issues such as this come up. I struggled to find the best way forward as the troops I had visited weeks earlier would not be coming home until much later than they had planned. I struggled to find ways to ease the hurt. But now the initial shock and frustration of the extension has subsided, and it is time to address the challenges they and their families have faced since their deployment and the challenges they will face when they return home. In the last few weeks, many of my colleagues have taken to the floor and to the airwaves to speak about the commitment we must make to our returning heroes. There aren't many things we can agree on here in this body, but I think all 100 of us agree we need to support our troops when they come home just as much as we support them when they are defending our Nation and our freedom abroad. We need to support our troops and their families before, during, and after their deployments. So the question is not if we should maintain this strong commitment to our returning warriors but, rather, how. How do we provide the highest level of medical care to our soldiers, our veterans? How do we assist military families that are readjusting to their loved one returning home--a difficult readjustment. How do we streamline the bureaucratic challenges our soldiers face? How do we sustain our support over the long haul? As these young men and women are returning home, some of them are badly wounded. How do we sustain our support over the long haul? As Chaplain Morris states in his letter: If you are a politician, don't politicize the shortfalls in the VA or the military medical system. We aren't pawns in an election cycle; we are your constituents and we are counting on you to fix the problems. Energize the community on our behalf to do right by us. We're not asking for showy programs. We are asking for tangible signs of support in terms of services offered. The challenges our returning heroes face are not going to be solved simply by throwing more money at the problem. They aren't going to be solved by finger pointing and playing the blame game. They are going to be solved with thoughtful and concentrated efforts aimed at fixing the problems we face one at a time. I have been seeking answers to these challenges and others by reaching out to leaders in my State on this issue and the leadership of those involved in the VA health care system. I have had long conversations with directors of VA hospitals in Minneapolis, St. Cloud, and Fargo, ND to see if there is anything we can do to help deliver the highest level of care. One of the good things that came out of the horrible stories we heard about what was happening in one of the outpatient buildings at Walter Reed is in my State and the Chair's State, folks went back and they did a room-by-room review to find the failings and the things that needed to be fixed. How can we improve the quality of our care? I can tell you in Minnesota, folks have a high degree of confidence in the care at our VA facilities in Minneapolis and in St. Cloud, and we count Fargo as ours because it services so many Minnesotans. I met with veterans organizations, including the VFW, the Minnesota American Legion, and the Minnesota Paralyzed Veterans, to hear their questions and concerns. Most importantly, I spent some time over the last few weeks touring my State to meet with military families, to talk to active-duty soldiers, National Guard members, and veterans. Many of them have a loved one stationed overseas, while others have a loved one who has just returned. There are tremendous support groups in our State for those who have a lot of pressures. Many families didn't know each other beforehand and they have united now with a special bond. A lot of them were saying they and their husbands didn't know each other before the deployment, but now we are friends. So they have now a new kind of almost extended family. I wish to say that the good Lord gave us all two ears and one mouth and it is amazing what can happen when we use them in that fashion. I wish to take some time to talk about some of the many concerns I hear from folks across my State and how we can better address them. More than anything else, one thing has been made clear by our military families: Education benefits for our soldiers continue to be of paramount importance. Unfortunately, the National Guard and Army Reserve are still operating under an antiquated system of education benefits that does not reflect the additional and critical role they are playing in the global war on terror. Under current policy, our National Guard and Reserve soldiers have to use their education benefits while they are actually in the National Guard and Reserve. I had the mother of a National Guard soldier visit my office in Washington and tell my staff about her son's particular situation. Her son had been in the National Guard for almost 6 years. His 6-year investment ends in September of this year. In 6 years he has been deployed to Bosnia and now Iraq with substantial ``uptraining'' time spent away from home within the United States. Because of his extension, he will not be able to finish school before his enlistment ends, and because National Guard troops cannot use their education benefits after separating from the service, we will leave him on his own to find a way to pay for the remainder of his studies and his graduate school, should he choose that path; all this after serving extended time on active duty defending our country. There is a bill in the Senate to correct this discrepancy. It is my honor to join Senator Lincoln on her Total Force Education Assistance Enhancement and Integration Act. That is a mouthful, but it is important. This bill would allow National Guard and Reserve troops to use their education benefits up to 10 years from the time they separate from their service. It also increases their benefits commensurate with their time on active duty. This is a good start to adjusting education benefits in a changing environment. Another concern I heard during this listening session was about the difficulty our troops are having applying for college when they are overseas. Many of our troops want to begin their education, but going through the college application process is hard enough if you are working on your home computer in your living room. It is even harder if you are stationed 7,000 miles away from home with limited access to phone, e-mail, or free time for that matter. We need to find a way to help our deployed soldiers utilize their education benefits by helping them through the difficult application process. Not only will this improve participation in the program, it will improve our soldiers' morale and their ability to reintegrate when returning home. One of the good things I heard is that some of the colleges are getting this. Some in the State system and now even the private college system in Minnesota are understanding these challenges and are becoming more flexible on the public side, and I applaud this kind of public-private partnership. A final note on education is the lack of benefit structure or program for spouses--for spouses of those who are now in the Armed Forces. With over 2,600 Minnesotans currently stationed in Iraq, we have hundreds of military spouses working to keep their families together while their loved one is overseas. Many of them, by the way, were going to school, but now their husband or wife is overseas and they have to take a job and give up their education. They have less income, but they have to take care of their families. One spouse told me at one of our listening sessions she had been both a single mom and a military wife while trying to go to school, and being a single mom was much easier. We need to look at ways to extend benefits to military spouses who are working at home to keep their families together while they try to continue their education. We all know the importance of investment in education. Why should we deny benefits to military spouses who have sacrificed so much? Another critical issue I continue to hear about is health care for our returning soldiers and veterans. Again, we were all shocked to see the conditions revealed at Walter Reed Hospital at the end of February, and I am pleased those who are responsible are being held to account. While the conditions at the outpatient facility at Walter Reed are being fixed, it is a good time to revisit the overall structure of health care for our troops and our veterans. I share the concern Chaplain Morris states in his letter to the Pioneer Press that we will: ``Fix the crisis and forget the problems'' in regard to health care and what I hope can be done to fix them. I continue to hear about the difficulties associated with Tricare. On my visits around the State, I learned that only 40 percent of healthcare providers in Minnesota are Tricare providers. Though this is an improvement from the past, it is still unacceptable. From our healthcare providers, we hear that the program is painful and cumbersome to work with, and it costs them significant amounts in staff time and energy to navigate the paperwork. For our military families, especially those in rural areas, traveling to a provider that will take Tricare is often a lengthy process that is simply not possible. We need to look at ways to streamline the Tricare system, and, if necessary, further incentivize providers to accept Trice. Another problem I heard from my visits around the State is the inability of returning troops to have marriage counseling covered by their benefit plans. Under current regulations, Tricare does not cover the counseling that is often necessary when our warriors return to their homes and families. Many of our troops have been deployed for extended periods of time, and when they return home, it is difficult to readjust into life with their families. If a returning soldier wanted to receive marriage counseling, for instance, they must go to their family doctor and get a referral for mental health issues caused by marriage. Then, after substantial effort and delay, it becomes possible for a soldier to act on the referral for stress and mental health concerns and see a marriage and family therapist. We have to do better than this for our returning warriors. Another major issue we confront with Tricare is the lack of Tricare- certified Chemical Dependency Treatment Centers. Because of the burdensome certification process for these centers, we have 257 Chemical Dependency Treatment Centers that are certified by the State of Minnesota but not a single one of them is certified by Tricare. So if any of our returning heroes comes home and develops a problem with substance abuse, there is not a single place in Minnesota they can go for help. This is a critical oversight which needs to be corrected. Another issue we need to be prepared to handle is post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. We all know PTSD is going to be an issue we will face for years to come as more of our soldiers return from abroad. And if we are committed to dealing with it, we need to be committed to the facilities and the people who will be working to cure the disorder on a daily basis. One way we can do this is to incentivize mental health care professionals to join our veterans and military hospital system. I have learned in my outreach across the State that it is difficult to recruit these professionals, especially qualified psychiatrists, to VA and military hospitals in rural areas. I have always said that the quality of your healthcare should not depend on your ZIP Code, and this is especially true for our veterans and military families. We also need to make sure we have adequate facilities for the influx of participation in veterans' programs for the next few years. While most of the veterans I have spoken with over the past months have told me that the care they receive at the facilities in Minnesota is nothing short of excellent, we need to plan for the strain an increasing number of veterans will have on our facilities that are operating near capacity . Finally, I would like to address the importance of a comprehensive strategy for reintegrating our returning heroes into society. Quite frankly, this is bigger than any one single issue confronting our veterans and military families, but it encompasses everything I have talked about so far today. In my home State of Minnesota, the National Guard has developed an innovative program known as Beyond the Yellow Ribbon to conduct reintegration academies for the families and their loved ones who are returning from Iraq. We have watched with great pleasure as this program has helped countless families deal with the everyday challenges that are not touched by Washington rhetoric. Through this program, we have been able to engage our families, our communities, and most importantly, our returning heroes, to ensure that they are comfortably shifting back to life out of the combat zone. I will continue to work with our Minnesota National Guard and the families, communities, and veterans across our State so that we can continue this program and use the experience we gain from it to benefit our Nation as a whole. Inscribed on the base of the Korean War Memorial is the following: ``Our nation honors her sons and daughters who answered the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met.'' These words ring true today as so many of our service men and women are fighting overseas in the war on terror. We need to make sure the sacrifice they make is met by a commitment here to do all we can to ease their reentry and take care of their concerns as they return. We need to provide support for these soldiers. We need to provide support for their families. And we need to do it before, during, and after they return from abroad. It is not about rhetoric, and it is not about politics. It is about a commitment to listen and a commitment to get things done. I look forward to working with my colleagues to this end during the coming months and years. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to amendment No. 648, offered by my colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma. The Senator from Colorado and my colleague from Minnesota have already spoken in opposition to the amendment. I wish to add one other perspective and that is the perspective as a former mayor of the city of Saint Paul. I have in my hands a letter from the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, dated March 5, 2007, in which he says: After careful consideration, this letter is to advise you that the Republican National Convention, which will be held in St. Paul, MN in 2008, will be designated as an NSSE. That is a National Special Security Event. As a result of being designated a National Special Security Event, done by Presidential directive which was established in 1998, you will have the Secret Service designated as the lead agency for design and implementation of the operational security plan, you will have the FBI designated as lead agency for crisis response, you will have FEMA designated as the lead agency for crisis or consequence management, working hand in hand with folks at the local level. The bottom line is what we have here is designated a National Special Security Event. In effect, I view this almost as an unfunded mandate-- very similar to that; that local agencies in St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Denver will face the responsibility of dealing with the national security event, working hand in hand with the Secret Service, the FBI, and FEMA, who will be leading the way. They simply do not have the resources to deal with the magnitude of security that will have to accompany this convention. In conventions in Boston and New York, I was looking at some of the data, you are looking at 165,000 people passing through magnetometers, almost 10,000 packages screened, dealing with demonstrations, 9,500 U.S. Secret Service credentials be issued to local law enforcement, 200 Members of Congress, 20 to 30 Governors, national delegates, and obviously Presidential candidates. The bottom line is some have characterized this as booze rather than bullets. This is not about booze. This is about security at an event in which there will be 14,000 international media present, in which much of the leadership of each of our parties will be present across the board, Federal, State, local. In the past in this post-9/11 world, it has become very clear that local communities do not have the capacity to deal with this, so this Congress acted wisely in providing resources to the city of New York, acted wisely providing resources to the city of Boston. I have trouble with the underlying bill. I oppose the language calling for withdrawal. I hope, after the President vetoes this bill, that this bill then comes back to us and we can vote on it without that language in it. But this is a security issue. This is something that has to be done in a timely fashion. You can't wait until next year to develop these security plans. I am raising my voice in concert with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I am raising my voice in opposition to amendment No. 648, which seeks to strip out the funding for this National Special Security Event. As a former local elected official, I understand folks at the local level simply do not have the capacity for what would be imposed on them in many instances, with national law enforcement directives telling them you have to do this and you have to do that. That, as we said before, was what we used to call unfunded mandates. It is something locals cannot do. Every dollar will be focused on security. There will be an accounting process for it. The beginning of that process dealing with the security issues has to be now. This is something that should be dealt with. I think it is appropriate to be in this supplemental. Again, I have problems with other parts of the supplemental, other language. I suspect we will have a chance to vote on it again. But in whatever form it leaves this body, this language should be there. It is the right thing to do if you care about national security. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff, declaring the Republican National Convention to be a National Special Security Event.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the world has changed since Atlanta. Since 9/11, this type of funding was available to Boston and it was available to New York City. There is absolutely no flexibility in scheduling the security in these cities. This month, the Director of Homeland Security declared Minneapolis-St. Paul a National Special Security Event. Secret Service will be the lead agency for one part of it, the FBI will be the lead for another, and FEMA for another part. I say to my conservative colleagues, this is an unfunded mandate. These cities don't have a choice. The Feds tell them what they have to do. There is no flexibility in scheduling. This money needs to be put into place. We know the uncertainty of the appropriations process.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to spend a few minutes talking about March Madness. Millions of Americans are glued to their televisions to watch basketball this time of year, and I want to talk about a No. 1 seed that wasn't closely followed nationwide. Everyone knows how Florida, Georgetown, UCLA, and Ohio State are faring in their tournament games, but the Winona State Warriors may not be on everyone's radar. Well, they should be. The Warriors set a Division II record by winning 57 straight games over the last two seasons. This breaks the previous record of 52 games which has been intact since 1946. Over this stretch, the Warriors have dominated most teams that they met with the average margin of victory being almost 20 points--including one victory by 81 points. Unfortunately, this streak ended on Saturday as they came just a few points short of winning back- to-back Division II championships when their opponents made a buzzer- beating shot. I commend Coach Mike Leaf for his accomplishments. In the 9 years he has coached at Winona State, he has lead the Warriors to five regular- season Northern Sun Intercollegiate Conference titles, four tournament conference titles, four Division II tournament appearances, and the 2006 national title. He was also named national coach of the year after leading his team to the national championship last year. It takes a great deal to bring together a championship basketball team. Coach Leaf has done this while serving as an inspiration to his players and the entire Winona community. He has taught his players to work hard and enjoy themselves while winning with class. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Coach Leaf, his staff, his players, the students of Winona State, and all the Warrior fans. I look forward to the continued successes of Coach Leaf and his team next year. Go Warriors!

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 522.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, this amendment deals with veterans. Many States have first-time home-buy programs. They have tax-exempt programs that allow people of low income to get access to mortgages at low interest rates. By the wisdom of the Congress in 2006, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 allowed veterans to participate, even if they are not first-time home buyers. It is a benefit that expires January 1, 2008. It allows veterans to participate in first-time home buyer mortgage programs, even if they are not a first-time home buyer. This is not the time to cut benefits for our returning heroes. I hope my colleagues agree.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I am ready to go forward.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside so that I may send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, as we all know, budgets are about setting priorities for the Nation. As we continue to work on the resolution today, I offer an amendment to address a key priority for our Nation: providing for our Nation's energy future. We all know America's energy needs are growing rapidly. We need clean energy, and high energy prices threaten our national security. This is now a national security issue. A few years ago, when I was talking about ethanol, I would get some patronizing pats on the back for taking care of some Midwest corn growers. That has changed today. Clearly, this is a national security issue. High energy prices threaten our economic security. It is imperative then that Congress work to promote energy technology that will offer clean energy solutions and, if anything, Congress's budget should provide for new opportunities to address these issues. Yet in addition to seeking new legislative opportunities, we must address the oncoming expiration of current energy tax incentives that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. At the end of 2008, tax incentives for wind, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, and other clean energy technologies will expire, as well as tax provisions for energy-efficient residential and commercial buildings. In my home State of Minnesota, we take a lot of pride in our leadership on renewable energy issues from biomass to wind. It has been said southwest Minnesota is the Saudi Arabia of wind. Our State has made a massive investment in renewables and it is paying off. Renewable energy allows Minnesota to diversify and expand. It has reduced Minnesota's carbon footprint, and has also created jobs and put our State on the leading edge of renewable technology. At one point, I believe Minnesota had half the E85 pumps. We have had success I would like to see continue in my State and replicated across the Nation. The United States should be a leader of renewable energy in this world. But much of the success would not have been possible without a little assistance. The production tax credit, for example, has enabled the wind industry to explode over the last several years. I talked with so many folks involved in the wind energy business, farmers who farm wind today, small-town mayors who are depending on wind energy to help them. We are at the point now where there is a waiting list for wind turbines. This is a great success story that would not have been possible without the production tax credit which is set to expire at the end of 2008. Another renewable energy incentive that is new but has generated a lot of interest is the CREBs, clean renewable energy bonds. These are enabling local governments and rural electric co-ops to make a contribution to the need for renewable energy. I know there is a case in Minnesota where several school districts actually combined to use these bonds to put up a wind turbine project. There are great renewable success stories waiting to happen, but this wind energy tool, set to expire in 2008, will be short lived if not extended. A lot of times, we focus on the production side of the energy issue, when, in reality, promoting energy efficiency can do more than anything to lower energy prices and protect the environment in the short term. In fact, the American Council for Energy-Efficient Economy has found if a massive energy efficiency effort were undertaken, we could reduce natural gas use by 1 percent and cut prices by well over 30 percent--in fact, they said a 37-percent potential cut in prices. Energy efficiency is the quickest, cheapest, and cleanest way to bring down energy costs for consumers. Meanwhile, as consumers save money, they also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Although we should always look for additional policies that promote energy efficiency, Congress has passed tax provisions for energy- efficient homes and commercial buildings that have made a real impact. One such provision is a deduction for energy-efficient commercial buildings that reduce annual energy and power consumption by 50 percent, while another tax provision provides a credit to eligible contracts for construction of a qualified new energy-efficient home. Unfortunately, these, too, will expire in 2008. At a time when Congress should be sending clear signals to the marketplace to move forward with renewable energy and energy efficiency, the very tax incentives targeted to these endeavors will expire shortly. Meanwhile, how is business supposed to make long-term, responsible decisions with such little certainty about the existence of these provisions? That is the point. If you talk to farmers, talk to groups of farmers who are coming together, they can't get the investment, they can't pool investment, work with banks and others unless they know there is a long-term tax incentive in place. That 1 percent per kilowatt is absolutely critical, and it is set to expire in 2008. The tremendous advantage we are making--and the Senator from North Dakota understands well--is important to our part of the country. There is the possibility of cutting the legs out from under them, and we simply should not let that happen. From my State, there is a very clear example. My State of Minnesota has adopted--and is setting the standard--a 30 by 20, 25 requirement. In other words, cut emissions by 30 percent. Yesterday I sat in on a conversation with the head of Xcel Energy, one of the largest energy providers in the State of Minnesota, and I said: How are you going to get to 30 percent? His answer was wind energy. Wind energy will play an important part. It used to be a boutique form of energy, just a couple of wind farmers, but today it is an important part of the whole package, the whole piece we need to have in place in order to meet the standards that have been set that will provide for a cleaner environment and that will cut our dependence on foreign oil. Without incorporating these extensions into its fiscal blueprint, I do not believe this budget is setting a responsible course for our Nation's energy policy. As we look for additional ways to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency, I urge my colleagues to recognize the need to ensure that we do not take a step back. If these tax incentives expire, we will be taking a terrible step back. We need to extend these energy tax provisions, and I urge support for my budget amendment.

Mr. COLEMAN. I would note, Mr. President, that I think the underlying budget provides about $36.4 billion in section 920 funding. I think that is the figure. I know, as the Senator from North Dakota knows, that there have been a number of other proposals. I think Senator Bingaman's amendment uses section 920. I do think this is a priority that should have been in the underlying budget. I think it is that essential. I believe the Senator from North Dakota understands and knows the importance of the extension of these tax credits. This will not be voted on now for a couple of hours, but I will certainly go back and explore and look at some of the possibilities. In the end, I believe this needs to be part of this budget. It is important for our Nation's energy security. It is important, certainly, from an economic perspective. And it is a win-win for everyone. So let me explore other alternatives, but I do hope my colleagues support this amendment, either with the 920 section we are looking at or we will explore whether there is another potential.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I will certainly work with the Senator from North Dakota and see if we can figure out a way to get this done.