Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, we agree on the goals. We need clean energy. We need clean energy. We need renewable energy, wind energy, biomass, and geothermal. The problem is, with the reserve fund there is no certainty. You cannot take the reserve fund to the bank. That would only say if we find offsets in the future to make the extension, we can do that. It is as if I give you $15, and if you find $15 for me some day, you can pay me. If you want the projects to go forth and you believe in wind and biomass and other renewables and you want them to be financed, you need certainty. The 920 fund can provide you the certainty. This doesn't move the ball forward. We are still at ground zero. If you believe in renewables and clean energy, I urge you to vote against this and support my amendment.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I note that there are 235 reserve funds in this budget with over $200 billion over 5 years. The problem is, again, if we believe in getting this done, and we adopt it with the reserve fund, there is no way we can go to the bank and say we are going to have this because it is simply a promise without anything. The reality of the 920 can give certainty if we can get it through conference. Let's fight for it in conference. Let's not do anything that has no effect.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, if you voted for the Conrad amendment before, if you believe in wind energy and biomass and renewables, then you should vote for my amendment. The argument of the Senator from North Dakota is this will never make it out of conference committee, but that is not an argument against what we are trying to do. So let's put that to the test. If you believe this is the right policy and you want to tell those folks who want to do wind energy and who want to do biomass that you are going to support them, you should support my amendment.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Competitiveness Through Education, Technology, and Enterprise Act otherwise known as the COMPETE Act. The bill I introduce today is similar to legislation I have introduced in the 109th Congress. I am very pleased to be joined by my very good friend and colleague, Senator Mark Pryor, who shares my commitment to keeping the U. S. competitive not just for today but for tomorrow as well. Earlier this week Microsoft's Bill Gates came before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to talk about keeping our country competitive. He said that ``the U.S. cannot maintain its economic leadership unless our workforce consists of people who have the knowledge and skills needed to drive innovation.'' Moreover he said that ``we simply cannot sustain an economy based on innovation unless our citizens are educated in math, science and engineering.'' My bill is inspired by the same line of thinking. The COMPETE Act is based on three simple, fundamental ideas: 1. The U.S. needs to remain a leader when it comes to technology and innovation; 2. We must prepare our future workforce and ``up-skill'' our current workforce for our increasingly global and information technology driven economy; and 3. We must better utilize existing private-public partnerships to achieve these goals. The challenges we face are stark especially when it comes to the future competitiveness of our workforce. Today, China graduates four times as many engineers as the U.S. while the small nation of South Korea graduates just as many as we do. In three short years, Asia will be home to more than 90 percent of the world's scientists and engineers. According to a recent poll, 84 percent of middle school students preferred to eat their vegetables than do their math homework. As Tom Friedman wrote in his book the World is Flat when he was growing up as a kid his mother used to tell him to eat all his vegetables because kids in China were starving. Today, his mother would say do your homework because the kids in China are starving for our jobs. As if this were not enough, we also need to concern ourselves with the coming retirement wave of high-skilled workers in the fields of engineering, science, technology and math. According to the National Science Foundation, about a third of American scientists and engineers are over 50 years old. To encourage and promote our students to seek out these types of careers we need to improve the performance of students in science and math. Several reports have indicated that U.S. students do not perform at the level of their international counterparts in math and science. Our fourth graders compare fairly well internationally, but by high school American students slip to 24th place out of 29 developing nations in math literacy and problem solving. We must make sure that our educational system is up to the task in preparing our future workforce. To reward elementary and secondary schools for a job well done, COMPETE provides bonus grants to high performing elementary and secondary schools that show the greatest improvement in their State assessments in math and science. COMPETE also increases the alternative percentage limitation for corporate charitable contributions to the mathematics and science partnership program in order to encourage greater support from the corporate world. To help ensure that more students receive a higher education and have the skills necessary to compete in today's global economy COMPETE puts the Senate on record in support of raising the maximum Pell Grant to $5,400. In addition to undergraduate education, COMPETE also establishes a matching grant program where Federal and private resources will be used to help graduate students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics meet the cost of getting a graduate degree. This grant program will also support outreach and mentoring activities to increase the participation of underrepresented groups in these fields at every level of education. To keep today's workforce competitive and prepare our future workforce, COMPETE creates a tax credit to help ``up-skill'' America's workers so that they can compete in today's increasingly information and technology- driven global economy. COMPETE also creates a workforce development grant pilot program to encourage leading innovative small businesses to provide short-term workforce training opportunities for college students who major in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math. Our employers need more than just raw materials. They need a highly skilled workforce that provides extra value to their products and services. Finally in order to ensure our leadership in innovation, COMPETE makes the research and development credit permanent. We must look at ways to ensure the ability of American companies to stay at the forefront of the technological revolution. Temporarily extending the R&D tax credit makes it difficult for our businesses to undertake research and development activities necessary for our continued long- term competitiveness in the global economy. Earlier this week, bipartisan comprehensive competitiveness legislation known as the America Competes Act was introduced. I am a proud original cosponsor of this bill which seeks to respond to the recommendations made by the National Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report and the Council on Competitiveness'' ``Innovate America'' report. In an effort to contribute to this important discussion I am introducing COMPETE, which complements the America Competes Act through its emphasis on innovation and workforce development and public-private education partnership in the areas of science, technology, engineering and math. We must realize the fact that our competitiveness relative to the global economy is in real danger. This situation is smoldering--it's not a five-alarm fire yet--I just hope we don't act too late. If you throw a frog into boiling water, it jumps out. If you throw a frog into warm water, it will sit there comfortably until its internal organs overheat and it dies. Let's not let ourselves wake up in a few years to see that our global competitiveness has slipped away. I am committed to working on this issue now. While the challenges to our leadership in the global economy are indeed significant, I am confident and optimistic that we will successfully address challenges to our leadership in the global economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Competitiveness Through Education, Technology, and Enterprise Act otherwise known as the COMPETE Act. The bill I introduce today is similar to legislation I have introduced in the 109th Congress. I am very pleased to be joined by my very good friend and colleague, Senator Mark Pryor, who shares my commitment to keeping the U. S. competitive not just for today but for tomorrow as well. Earlier this week Microsoft's Bill Gates came before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to talk about keeping our country competitive. He said that ``the U.S. cannot maintain its economic leadership unless our workforce consists of people who have the knowledge and skills needed to drive innovation.'' Moreover he said that ``we simply cannot sustain an economy based on innovation unless our citizens are educated in math, science and engineering.'' My bill is inspired by the same line of thinking. The COMPETE Act is based on three simple, fundamental ideas: 1. The U.S. needs to remain a leader when it comes to technology and innovation; 2. We must prepare our future workforce and ``up-skill'' our current workforce for our increasingly global and information technology driven economy; and 3. We must better utilize existing private-public partnerships to achieve these goals. The challenges we face are stark especially when it comes to the future competitiveness of our workforce. Today, China graduates four times as many engineers as the U.S. while the small nation of South Korea graduates just as many as we do. In three short years, Asia will be home to more than 90 percent of the world's scientists and engineers. According to a recent poll, 84 percent of middle school students preferred to eat their vegetables than do their math homework. As Tom Friedman wrote in his book the World is Flat when he was growing up as a kid his mother used to tell him to eat all his vegetables because kids in China were starving. Today, his mother would say do your homework because the kids in China are starving for our jobs. As if this were not enough, we also need to concern ourselves with the coming retirement wave of high-skilled workers in the fields of engineering, science, technology and math. According to the National Science Foundation, about a third of American scientists and engineers are over 50 years old. To encourage and promote our students to seek out these types of careers we need to improve the performance of students in science and math. Several reports have indicated that U.S. students do not perform at the level of their international counterparts in math and science. Our fourth graders compare fairly well internationally, but by high school American students slip to 24th place out of 29 developing nations in math literacy and problem solving. We must make sure that our educational system is up to the task in preparing our future workforce. To reward elementary and secondary schools for a job well done, COMPETE provides bonus grants to high performing elementary and secondary schools that show the greatest improvement in their State assessments in math and science. COMPETE also increases the alternative percentage limitation for corporate charitable contributions to the mathematics and science partnership program in order to encourage greater support from the corporate world. To help ensure that more students receive a higher education and have the skills necessary to compete in today's global economy COMPETE puts the Senate on record in support of raising the maximum Pell Grant to $5,400. In addition to undergraduate education, COMPETE also establishes a matching grant program where Federal and private resources will be used to help graduate students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics meet the cost of getting a graduate degree. This grant program will also support outreach and mentoring activities to increase the participation of underrepresented groups in these fields at every level of education. To keep today's workforce competitive and prepare our future workforce, COMPETE creates a tax credit to help ``up-skill'' America's workers so that they can compete in today's increasingly information and technology- driven global economy. COMPETE also creates a workforce development grant pilot program to encourage leading innovative small businesses to provide short-term workforce training opportunities for college students who major in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math. Our employers need more than just raw materials. They need a highly skilled workforce that provides extra value to their products and services. Finally in order to ensure our leadership in innovation, COMPETE makes the research and development credit permanent. We must look at ways to ensure the ability of American companies to stay at the forefront of the technological revolution. Temporarily extending the R&D tax credit makes it difficult for our businesses to undertake research and development activities necessary for our continued long- term competitiveness in the global economy. Earlier this week, bipartisan comprehensive competitiveness legislation known as the America Competes Act was introduced. I am a proud original cosponsor of this bill which seeks to respond to the recommendations made by the National Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report and the Council on Competitiveness'' ``Innovate America'' report. In an effort to contribute to this important discussion I am introducing COMPETE, which complements the America Competes Act through its emphasis on innovation and workforce development and public-private education partnership in the areas of science, technology, engineering and math. We must realize the fact that our competitiveness relative to the global economy is in real danger. This situation is smoldering--it's not a five-alarm fire yet--I just hope we don't act too late. If you throw a frog into boiling water, it jumps out. If you throw a frog into warm water, it will sit there comfortably until its internal organs overheat and it dies. Let's not let ourselves wake up in a few years to see that our global competitiveness has slipped away. I am committed to working on this issue now. While the challenges to our leadership in the global economy are indeed significant, I am confident and optimistic that we will successfully address challenges to our leadership in the global economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I understand there is a UC that would have Senator Collins speak next, then Senator Menendez, and then myself. I ask unanimous consent that we alter that so I can speak and then Senator Menendez and then Senator Collins. I would simply switch places with Senator Collins. That is my understanding of the UC agreement.

Mr. COLEMAN. Is there a limitation under the UC?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would ask my colleague from New Jersey how long he would intend to speak. Would he like to alter the UC to speak first and then I would follow?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would simply ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Jersey speak for 10 minutes and then I would speak and then the Senator from Maine would have an opportunity to speak.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I agree with my colleagues from New York and New Jersey about the grave danger, the almost unimaginable horror that would occur if a nuclear device was smuggled into one of the 11 million containers that come into our ports every year. It is an area of vulnerability. It is an issue of great concern. I am not a casual observer of this. I don't just lose sleep over this--which we all should--but for 3 years we worked on this. As chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation, I participated in a 3-year review and then laid out a plan of action, working with the Senator from Connecticut and working with my Democratic colleague from Washington, Senator Murray. Of course, I also worked with the leadership and Senator Collins from Maine, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee last year. As a result of that 3-year effort, we put forth a bill last year to bolster American security. I say to those watching that there was not a 95-percent chance of somebody smuggling a nuclear device in a container. We are not simply looking at 5 percent and ignoring everything else. To raise that kind of level--first, that is simply not true. We have in place a system we need to do better with, no question about it. We passed legislation last year to help us do better. Part of that legislation is a provision that would require the Department of Homeland Security, through the secure freight initiative, to develop a pilot program to figure out can we do 100-percent testing of every container. That is what we should be doing. The idea that somehow there is a lack of resolve is simply not true. It is a matter of figuring out the right thing to do. To quote an editorial in the Washington Post on Tuesday, January 9, 2007: Given a limited amount of money and an endless list of programs and procedures that could make Americans safer, it's essential to buy the most homeland security possible with the cash available. And as the little list above demonstrates, that can be a tough job [if you know anything about border crossing and x-ray machines at airports]. That's all the more reason not to waste money on the kind of political shenanigan written into a sprawling Democratic bill--up for a vote in the House this week--that would require the Department of Homeland Security to ensure every maritime cargo container bound for the United States is scanned before it departs for American shores. I ask unanimous consent to have this editorial printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN. It goes on to say: Container scanning technology is improving, but it is not able to perform useful, speedy inspections of cargo on the scale House Democrats envision [or this amendment envisions]. Congress has already authorized pilot programs to study the feasibility of scanning all maritime cargo. That is what we have done. I offered that amendment last year. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security is putting in place a pilot that will scan all U.S.-bound containers at three ports by July of this year. They are the Port Qasim in Pakistan, which is ready for testing now; Port Cortez in Honduras, which is ready for testing now; and Southhampton in the United Kingdom, which will be ready in July. So the reality is what we are doing in Congress is acting in a rational manner, understanding the needs to go forward as aggressively as possible but not fearing demagoguery and telling the public we are turning a blind eye to 95 percent of the cargo containers that are there. The idea of 100-percent scanning comes from a system we saw in Hong Kong, a system I asked the Senator from New York to look at. I believe he did. When you see that system, what happens is they have a scanning technology where vehicles literally roll through, nonstop, with no slowing up of traffic, and as it scans it takes almost a moving ``CT scan'' to see what is inside. There is a radiation portal device in front of it. Then you have that information. That is what he observed. That is 100-percent scanning. But the reality is that system is in place in 2 of the 40 lanes in Hong Kong. Nothing is done with the information that is gathered it. It is not sent over to Langley or integrated into a more comprehensive review of what we do. Even if there are radiation signals that come off, there is not necessarily a mandated or forced review of the cargo. So what the Senate did, being the world's most deliberative body, is look at the danger of the threat, and I agree with the Senators from New Jersey and New York that it is an enormously high threat. We said, how do we rationally handle that and not do political shenanigans and play to the fear of the public by saying 95 percent of the cargo containers are coming to this country without being dealt with. We said, how do we put in place a system where we see whether we can get 100-percent scanning to work and integrate it into our other systems. That is part of the point the public should understand. We do have systems in place. When the Senator from New Jersey talks about algorithms, he is saying that cargo--every single container gets rated at a level of risk; based on that, determinations are made as to the level of review. We have what would be called a delayed approach to security. We don't have the capacity, resources, or ability to scan 11 million containers today, so 100-percent scanning should be our goal, to be done in a way that we can use the information integrated into the system. By the way, it is done in a way that doesn't stop the flow of commerce. The mayor of New York testified before the Homeland Security Committee. I asked him the question about 100-percent scanning. His quote was: Al-Qaida wins if we close our ports, which is exactly what would happen if you tried to look at every single 1 of the 11 million containers that come here. We don't want al-Qaida to win or to close our ports. We want 100- percent scanning, but we want to do it in a way that doesn't raise the level of fear and somehow communicate to the public that there is a lack of resolve or a lack of will. It is a matter of us trying to proceed in a very rational way. By the way, there is nothing in our amendment of last year that stops the Department of Homeland Security from moving forward quicker. Our amendment last year requires the pilot projects to be done within a year of passage of the bill last year. It says the Department has to come back to us, to Congress, and explain to us what it is going to take to move forward. We have in place today a mechanism that will accelerate the opportunity for 100-percent screening as fast as is possible. There is no lack of resolve, no lack of will, no bureaucratic obfuscation. There is simply the reality of trying to figure out a way to take the technology that is out there and incorporate it into the defense system we have so it is doing something. Again, we do it not because we want to tell people we are looking at 11 million containers. We certainly should not be telling people we are turning a blind eye to--or there is a 95-percent chance of something coming in without being considered. That is not reality. As the mayor of New York also said when he testified, we cannot give a guarantee. No matter what we do, the enemy is going to try to attack us. They may succeed. But it would be a terrible tragedy if somehow it were conveyed that we are sitting on our hands and this Senate is not responding to the real, grave, and terrible threat of a nuclear device or a weapon of mass destruction coming here in a cargo container. We have in place a pilot project. Let the agency do what the Senate and Congress has dictated it do. Let it test the technology, see if it can make it work. Let it come back and tell us how quickly they are going to get it done. If it is not done quickly enough, I will join with the Senators from New York and New Jersey, and other colleagues, and say you have to accelerate the pace. Let there not be fear mongering about this issue. Let there not be what the Washington Post called ``political shenanigans.'' Let us play to our best instincts and let the public know we have resolve on this issue. Let's give the pilot program a chance to work. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I extend my congratulations to the Peace Corps on the occasion of its 46th anniversary this week. I know that in doing so I join a countless number of past and present Peace Cops volunteers in commemorating the fruitful history of the organization. Since the establishment of the Peace Corps over four decades ago, its volunteers have served as unofficial U.S. Ambassadors, representing the best of what America has to offer abroad. Their mission could not be more important than it is right now, during a time when our nation is so misunderstood in many parts of the world. With its global presence and tangible impact, the Peace Corps has worked to combat misperceptions about what America stands for and reaffirm American values. I have no doubt that these good deeds on behalf of others have made a tremendously positive impact on the communities in which our Peace Corps volunteers serve. I am a strong believer in investing in cross-border relationships through programs such as the Peace Corps, which places American volunteers in the heart of communities throughout all corners of the world. Who knows how the interaction and good works completed by Peace Corps volunteers will change the world as a result? Perhaps the example set by a Peace Corps volunteer will correct a distorted perception, or prevent someone from sliding into hatred and extremism. Perhaps an American volunteer will acquire a new understanding of the needs in other parts of the world which will lead to a critical humanitarian intervention. The Peace Corps, through the impact on the community and the volunteer, is a win-win investment in stability. The Peace Corps has a daily direct impact by meeting the needs of foreign communities with its volunteers serving as teachers, business advisors, information technology consultants, agriculture workers, and HIV/AIDS educators. Indeed, these services directly contribute to the strategic priorities of our national security, because addressing poverty and public health issues helps promote global stability. As one of many examples, today the Peace Corps volunteers are playing an important role in implementing President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. In recent years the Peace Corps has increased in size, in response to a growing need for its services. I am happy to see that it has over 7,700 volunteers working in 73 countries, and hope it continues to expand its reach. I am especially proud of the Minnesota volunteers who are currently serving around the world, of which there are currently over 200. To them, and to the over 5,000 returned Minnesotan volunteers, I want to express my heartfelt thanks, for their great efforts to spread Minnesotan values of dedication, integrity, and hard work to another part of the world. Among these veterans is Mr. Robert Tschetter, the current director of the Peace Corps and one of my constituents. I was honored to help confirm Mr. Tschetter during my tenure as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps and Narcotics Affairs. A medieval Spanish Rabbi named Maimomedes said he believed that the world is held in balance between good and evil and a single act of goodness and virtue tips the balance. I believe that the actions made by Peace Corps volunteers all over the world work to tip the balance towards good everyday. It is because of this belief that I have consistently been a strong supporter of the Peace Corps. Again, I would like to express my deepest admiration and best wishes to the Peace Corps leadership and its volunteers. Thank you for making the world a better place.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, we take this floor at different times for different reasons, to debate bills and talk about the condition of our country and its future. At times, we tend to exaggerate the importance of the laws we pass to the progress of our society. I say that because there is no law to make people do the most important things: love their families, sacrifice for their communities, or create a legacy that will last for generations. Today I rise to honor a great man who did those things and changed life on the Minnesota prairie for thousands of people who maybe never even heard his name. Today I want to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Earl B. Olson, an innovator for Minnesota agriculture, a leader in the Nation's turkey industry, and a man of great faith. There is a passage in the Book of Isaiah that truly captures his life. In the midst of difficult times for Israel, it talks about a future day of blessing when God will: . . . bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the LORD for the display of his splendor. If ever there was an ``oak of righteousness,'' it was Earl Olson, who brought beauty, gladness, and praise to the hearts of many. Earl Olson founded the Jennie-O Turkey Store in 1949. At that time, the Minnesota turkey industry was a tiny fraction of what it is today. Currently, Jennie-O is the largest turkey company in the United States, with Minnesota leading the Nation in turkey production. Born on May 8, 1915, Earl was the son of Swedish immigrants. He grew up on a farm outside of Murdock, MN, and attended the West Central School of Agriculture in Morris, MN, graduating in 1932. Earl's first job, at the age of 17, was at the Murdock Cooperative Creamery. Within 1 year, he became the manager of Swift Falls Creamery. As the story has been told, one day a woman came into the Swift Falls Creamery to purchase some ice. As Earl was chopping away at a small block of ice, another employee spilled 100 gallons of scalding hot water on him, burning much of his body and sending him to the hospital. Fortunately, the company had health insurance and Earl was compensated with $1,000. With this money, Earl began his empire by purchasing 300 turkeys. After earning a dollar for each turkey, Earl soon began purchasing more. Fifteen years later, Earl found himself selling a half million turkeys annually. By 1970, Jennie-O turkeys were being sold across the entire Nation. Earl B. Olson saw the impossible as an opportunity; he turned a tragedy into a success. Faith was always a central part in the life of Earl Olson. When Earl was young, he and his family were founding members of the Bethesda Lutheran Church. Earl was later a member of Vinje Lutheran Church and helped lead the church's efforts in building a new facility. Throughout his life, his generosity helped countless troubled youth and prison inmates find their path to a better life. He always found time and resources to help people in their time of need. Earl undertook many leading roles in the turkey industry. He served as the president of the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association, director of the National Turkey Federation, and director of the National Poultry and Egg Association. This past spring, I was privileged to have lunch with Earl. Even at the age of 90, I found him sharp and forward-looking. We had an engaging conversation about the future of the Minnesota turkey industry and the health of the Minnesota agricultural economy. It was an inspiration to still see the passion in his heart. Today, Jennie-O Turkey employs nearly 7,000 people and creates more than 1,500 products. Minnesota has been truly blessed to have a visionary leader like Earl B. Olson live in Minnesota and work to make our State a better place. America has many assets: abundant natural resources, good systems of health and education, and a great democratic tradition of the rule of law. We can never forget though, that part of our greatness comes from the ``oaks of righteousness'' among us. I am thankful to have known one: Earl B. Olson, who helped make Minnesota great.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the legislation that I am introducing today along with Senator's Kennedy and Kyl will install tougher penalties on those who commit terrorism hoaxes. This is a very important issue to me given the September 2001 bomb threat to the Mall of America and because St. Paul is hosting the 2008 Republican Convention. We need to send a clear message to those planning a terrorism hoax that they will pay for it dearly by spending a number of years in prison. Terrorizing the public through false threats is not a joke and should be treated as criminal conduct. The threats may be fake but the consequences are very real in costs to first responders, lost revenues and sometimes the loss of human life. The problem is the current federal statute only punishes hoaxes involving an unduly restricted list of terrorist offenses. This list does not include: hoaxes related to the taking of hostages in order to coerce the Federal Government; hoaxes related to blowing up an energy facility; hoaxes related to attacks on military bases aimed at undermining national defense; or hoaxes related to attacks on railways and mass-transportation facilities, such as the recent London bombings. The Kennedy-Coleman-Kyl legislation fills these gaps by expanding the hoax statute to punish hoaxes involving any offense included on the U.S. Code's official list of federal terrorist offenses. Specifically, this bill: expands on the current terrorism hoax statute so this punishes hoaxes about any terrorist offense on the U.S. Code's official list of terrorist offenses; increases the maximum penalties for hoaxes about the death or injury of a U.S. soldier during wartime; expands current law's civil liability provisions to allow first responders and others to seek reimbursement from a party who perpetrates a hoax and becomes aware that first responders believe that a terrorist offense is taking place but fails to inform authorities that no such event has occurred; and clarifies that threatening communications are punishable under federal law even if they are directed at an organization rather than a natural person. The bill increases the penalties for perpetrating a hoax about the death, injury, or capture of a U.S. soldier during wartime. Under the bill, the maximum penalty for such hoax would be 10 years' imprisonment, and a hoax resulting in serious bodily injury could be punished by up to 25 years' imprisonment. I urge my colleagues to pass this bipartisan measure.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the legislation that I am introducing today along with Senator's Kennedy and Kyl will install tougher penalties on those who commit terrorism hoaxes. This is a very important issue to me given the September 2001 bomb threat to the Mall of America and because St. Paul is hosting the 2008 Republican Convention. We need to send a clear message to those planning a terrorism hoax that they will pay for it dearly by spending a number of years in prison. Terrorizing the public through false threats is not a joke and should be treated as criminal conduct. The threats may be fake but the consequences are very real in costs to first responders, lost revenues and sometimes the loss of human life. The problem is the current federal statute only punishes hoaxes involving an unduly restricted list of terrorist offenses. This list does not include: hoaxes related to the taking of hostages in order to coerce the Federal Government; hoaxes related to blowing up an energy facility; hoaxes related to attacks on military bases aimed at undermining national defense; or hoaxes related to attacks on railways and mass-transportation facilities, such as the recent London bombings. The Kennedy-Coleman-Kyl legislation fills these gaps by expanding the hoax statute to punish hoaxes involving any offense included on the U.S. Code's official list of federal terrorist offenses. Specifically, this bill: expands on the current terrorism hoax statute so this punishes hoaxes about any terrorist offense on the U.S. Code's official list of terrorist offenses; increases the maximum penalties for hoaxes about the death or injury of a U.S. soldier during wartime; expands current law's civil liability provisions to allow first responders and others to seek reimbursement from a party who perpetrates a hoax and becomes aware that first responders believe that a terrorist offense is taking place but fails to inform authorities that no such event has occurred; and clarifies that threatening communications are punishable under federal law even if they are directed at an organization rather than a natural person. The bill increases the penalties for perpetrating a hoax about the death, injury, or capture of a U.S. soldier during wartime. Under the bill, the maximum penalty for such hoax would be 10 years' imprisonment, and a hoax resulting in serious bodily injury could be punished by up to 25 years' imprisonment. I urge my colleagues to pass this bipartisan measure.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislation, Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Aging Health Services Act of 2007, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislation, Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Aging Health Services Act of 2007, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. COLEMAN. I ask further unanimous consent that the additional time of the Senator not be charged against the minority. It was our time. I want to be sure his time is not charged against the minority so we can finish morning business.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I intend to speak in morning business and to talk about an issue of great importance in Minnesota, access to health care in rural communities, but I have to make one comment in response to my colleague from New Jersey. Iraq is the most important issue facing America today. There is no question about it. I want to raise some concerns about the surge in Baghdad. I understand we are fighting a war against insurgency and foreign fighters in Anbar Province. If those commanders on the ground need more, I am going to give it to them. I have great concerns about the surge. We need to debate this. It is absolutely mind boggling to watch what is going on with this playing around with rules. The bottom line is Senators should have the right to debate. Senators should have the right to offer amendments and we should be voting on whether you support a surge, we should be voting on whether you support continued funding, we should be voting on whether there should be benchmarks. We should do what the Senate does, which is debate, have discussion, and then vote. What the majority is attempting to do is to forestall that, offering something that they know is something the Senate does not do, offering something they know the American public--the public wants us to debate this and vote on it. So instead they offer a resolution which, they know, will gather objection, a resolution on which they will allow no amendments, no discussion about other things other than a proposal that comes out from them. That is absurd. That is not the Senate. It is not the greatest deliberative body in the world. We should do better. The American public deserves better, and I hope our leaders can come together and figure out a way to structure a debate so opinions can be laid out and they can be discussed and then we can vote--not on one thing that a 51-person majority says, but the way the Senate does it: We put it on the table and vote. I may disagree with some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle on some of that, but everyone has a right to lay out their amendments and their proposal, and we should do so on Iraq.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Let me focus on an issue of concern to me. I represent the State of Minnesota. They call it the ``flyover country.'' They may say the same thing about Colorado on occasion. I saw a New Yorker's view of the world. No offense to my colleagues from New York. It is New York, Florida, L.A., maybe Chicago was in between. I didn't see Denver or St. Paul. There are smaller towns on there, but they are on the map and they are important. William Jennings Bryan once said: Burn down our cities and leave our farmland and the cities will rise up again like magic, but burn down our farms and grass will grow up in the streets of every city in America. The Presiding Officer understands that. He comes from a family which has worked the land. He gets that. Like many great orators, there is some hyperbole there, but it still rings true, whether it is food, values, or leadership--all of America depends on what our rural communities produce So what happens in America's small towns is a big deal. I would like to take this time to speak on behalf of Minnesotans and other folks living in rural communities. These families face some daunting challenges when it comes to accessing health care. The urgency of this issue is brought home to me by the upcoming closure of a rural hospital in Ivanhoe, MN. The town in southwestern Minnesota, county seat of Lincoln County, got its name from Sir Walter Scott's novel. Ivanhoe is filled with hard-working people who have survived generations of drought, grass hoppers, blizzards, and unreliable farm prices and policies. This is yet another difficult blow. As a result, this community will lose jobs, access to health care and part of their community identity. There is an array of issues facing hospitals like Ivanhoe. For them, it was the declining number of admissions at the hospital and declining reimbursement payments that put them at a severe competitive disadvantage in the health care market--and ultimately led to the decision. Unfortunately, their story is not unique. About 21 percent of the population lives in rural areas, but only about 9 percent of doctors work there. Only 2.4 percent of specialists work in rural areas. Nearly half of all rural residents have at least one major chronic illness. Yet they average fewer physician contacts per year than those in urban communities. I believe that access to health care should not be dependent on where you live. Every person in America deserves the same quality care. Unfortunately, as it stands right now, many rural communities in Minnesota and across the country don't have the personnel capabilities, technology or money to provide their residents with the health care they need-- they are getting squeezed at every angle. For the stability of rural communities and the health of the Americans that live there, we need to find solutions. That is why I am taking this opportunity to introduce a package of bills which seek to give rural areas access to some tools they can use to promote the health of their communities. The burden of chronic illness is heavier in rural areas. Rural areas report higher rates of chronic diseases, including heart disease and cancer. Mental health issues are also significant. For example, a national study that 41 percent of rural women were depressed or anxious compared to less than 20 percent of urban women and that 40 percent of all visits to rural practitioners are due to stress. Providing adequate mental health care in rural communities has become a national problem. In rural areas, where specialized mental health services are scarce, accessing the proper mental health care is difficult. Primary care is often the only system for delivering mental health services and providers are seeing an increase in mental health issues in their clinics. Today I introduced the Working Together for Rural Access to Mental Health and Wellness for Children and Seniors Act. This legislation would allow Federal grants to be given to States to provide assistance to rural communities to conduct collaborative efforts to improve access to mental health care for youth, seniors, and families. Grants could go toward operation of mobile mental health services vans or telemental health. Rural residents face serious health care issues not only in terms of illness but also in terms of lack of easily accessible services. One in 5 Americans lives in rural areas but only 1 in 10 physicians practice in rural areas. Forty percent of the rural population lives in a medically underserved area. Critical access hospitals are the foundation on which is built the health of our Nation's rural communities. I don't have the time right now--we are kind of pushing the envelope on morning business--but it is important that my colleagues understand. The critical access hospital program was enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 in order to preserve access to health care services in rural communities. Critical Access Hospitals represent a separate provider type with its own conditions of participation as well as a separate reimbursement method for Medicare. With 80 Critical Access Hospitals in Minnesota, the third largest number of Critical Access Hospitals in the Nation, this program is of crucial importance to the health care infrastructure of my State. Minnesota's Critical Access Hospitals provide care to 1.6 million patients a year. They are there to provide health care to their communities 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. I have visited these hospitals throughout my State and have been impressed time and time again by their commitment to the health of their communities and their stewardship of the resources that they have been given. I appreciate the work of the Minnesota Hospital Association in representing their Critical Access Hospital members and for being a great resource in protecting this important program. The Critical Access Hospital program continues to make an important investment in the safety net of our rural communities. This program has been the single most important factor in helping our Nation's rural hospitals not only survive also provide new quality health care services and resources. Without the Critical Access Program, rural communities had been having a difficult time supporting a local hospital. People were driving hours just to receive basic health care. Just talk to Al Vogt, CEO of Cook Hospital & C&NC. He will tell you that the Critical Access Hospital program has preserved care in Cook and many other small communities across Minnesota. As his community ages, Al has seen many seniors have to choose between gas or food money. If leaving town to get the very basics of health care was the only option, there are a number of folks who would forego the needed care. Seniors and others living in rural areas deserve better. Critical Access Hospitals provide for them. Despite the growing disparities in access to health care for Americans in rural areas, support for Critical Access Hospitals has not been what it should be. Critical Access Hospitals are not being reimbursed in a way that allows them to fully account for their costs of offering services. These health providers, already stretched thin, are being asked to absorb the difference. With that in mind, today I introduced the Rural Health Services Preservation Act, which ensures that Critical Access Hospitals get reimbursed the same amount under Medicare Advantage Programs as they would under Medicare. Right now, interim Critical Access Hospital payments reflect the previous year's costs--not the current year's costs. Factoring in inflation and the rapid growth of the medical economy, rural hospitals are being left to pay a bill that is much larger than their share. Specifically, my Rural Health Services Preservation Act ensures Critical Access Hospitals receive not less than 101 percent of cost for inpatient, swing-bed, and outpatient hospital services provided to Medicare patients covered under a Medicare Advantage plan. This bill would create certainty in terms of payments, and accurately reflect the true cost of health care in our Critical Access Hospitals. Critical Access Hospitals are important regional hubs in rural areas. These hospitals serve as medical homes to the folks that live nearby, but also provide patient care to visitors who are in town to do some fishing, camping or hunting. When a critical medical event occurs, it is crucial that the physicians who care for a patient have information about their medical history in order to avoid medical errors. Let me tell you a story I heard recently from Lori Wightman, president of the New Ulm Medical Center. Recently, a 55-year-old arrived in the New Ulm Medical Center emergency room with chest pain. He was having a heart attack. Within 82 minutes this same patient was assessed, transported, and had his heart vessel opened at a tertiary hospital 100 miles away. This situation was a success because New Ulm Medical Center had the ability to transmit information about the patient quickly and easily. Not all hospitals are fortunate enough to have this vital service. That's why I introduced the Critical Access to Health Information Technology Act to help Critical Access Hospitals compete for Federal health technology grants. Essentially, this bill would give smaller rural hospitals a competitive edge for H-I-T grants. Even when a situation is not immediately life-threatening, technology can play an important role in disease management in rural communities. As I mentioned earlier, rural areas are facing serious personnel shortages. They have around 20 percent of the population, and only 10 percent of the docs and only 2.4 percent of the specialists. Remote monitoring technologies collect, analyze, and transmit clinical health information. These technologies are emerging to extend the provision of health care services to areas where there is a shortage of physicians or where patients are homebound. Essentially, these technologies allow physicians to monitor and treat patients without a face-to-face office visit, thereby increasing access to physicians for patients living in rural areas. We have the ability today, if you simply lift up the phone the doctor can tell what your blood pressure is and how you are feeling. Minnesota prides itself as being the center of medical technology. We have the Medronics, Boston Scientific, St. Jude's cardiac pacemakers--we can do a lot with remote access technology. We have to make sure it is in our rural communities. For that reason, I also introduced the Remote Monitoring Access Act, which would allow Medicare to cover physician services involved with the remote management of specific medical conditions, such as congestive heart failure and diabetes. Specifically, my bill would create a new benefit category for remote patient management services in the Medicare physician fee schedule. Under this category, Medicare would cover physician services involved with the remote management of specific medical conditions. Not only are physicians in short supply in many of rural communities, but other health professionals are as well. That is why I introduced today a bill that focuses specifically on issues related to increasing nursing faculty. I am told by my friends in nursing that the problem is not that people don't want to go into nursing, but that it is difficult to get nurses to leave the clinic to spend time in the classroom. Personnel is one piece of the puzzle and building up our health care institutions in rural area is another. The Critical Access Hospital program has provided financial stability to many struggling rural hospitals that are the cornerstones of their communities. It is essential that Congress protects this program now and into the future. Prior to this program, hospital closures were common and the rural health care system was fragile. Without the Critical Access Hospital program and support for rural providers, there would be a floodgate of small community care systems closing and potentially converting many small towns into ghost towns. Debra Boardman, president and CEO of the Riverview Healthcare Association in Crookston has shared her story with me: The Critical Access Hospital program has afforded many rural hospitals the opportunity to modernize their facilities and helps assure they will remain viable and accessible to the residents of rural America. Prior to receiving Critical Access Hospital designation in 2001, RiverView Healthcare Association had not done a major building project since 1976. With this designation we were able to afford to physically restructure our building and update our infrastructure to accommodate the way health care is provided in the 21st Century. Since that time we have also been able to add new physicians, vital new health care services and programs. As the largest employer in the county, a secondary benefit of the program is that it has made RiverView Healthcare Association a more secure economic engine for our local rural community. Because of the important role that Critical Access Hospitals play in community stability, I have introduced a bill to provide direct and guaranteed loans to complete the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the Nation's Rural Critical Access Hospitals within the 5 years covered by the new farm bill. In more ways than we can possibly measure, rural communities are the heart of America. They provide us with food, energy and more importantly the values and leadership that keep our Nation on track. Just as we care for our bodily heart, we need to care for our spiritual heart in rural America or the whole Nation will suffer. That is why my legislation attempts to raise the needs of our small town neighbors to become a national priority. I encourage all of my colleagues to consider joining me in ensuring that every American has access to the care that they need to lead healthy and productive lives. I invite you to cosponsor one of my seven bills aimed at doing just that. From birth, through chronic disease management, to end-of-life care Critical Access Hospitals meet the health-care needs of our communities. And our communities trust that we will continue to do so far into the future. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill I introduced today, the Critical Access to Health Information Technology Act of 2007, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill I introduce today, to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to provide direct and guaranteed loans, loan guarantees, and grants to complete the construction and rehabilitation of critical access hospitals, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill I introduce today, the Rural Health Services Preservation Act of 2007, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill I introduce today, the Remote Monitoring Access Act of 2007, be printed in the Record.