Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I deeply respect my colleague from Ohio, and I deeply respect the passion that he brings to his concern about this nomination. I also bring passion and concern. I have been involved as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and have been looking at the U.N. and the oil for food scandal--a scandal which allowed Saddam Hussein to rebuild his military capacity, to bribe individuals close to the leadership of member states of the Security Council, to fund terrorism. I have looked at the U.N. over recent years, at the scandals of sexual abuse and child prostitution in Africa, where U.N. officials were not responded to for months and months. I have looked at the world in which we live, and the challenges we face, and I realize the United States cannot be the world's sole policeman, the world's sole humanitarian provider. We cannot do it on our own. We need partners and we need a U.N. that is strong and credible. This President has made a decision that the person who can best do the heavy lifting that is required for U.N. reform is John Bolton. He does that by looking at the record of John Bolton. I respect the President for that commitment to reform the United Nations, and as I look at this dangerous world in which we live, I think it is essential that we seize this moment of opportunity now. I think it is essential that we confirm this nomination. The reality is that John Bolton is a man of strong conviction. Clearly, there are some differences of perspective even in the State Department. There was an editorial in the Washington Post on May 12 of this year in which the writer said: The committee interviews have provided some colorful details without breaking new ground on what has long been a well-understood split in the first Bush administration, a split between those who saw themselves as the pragmatic diplomats, (the Powell camp) and those, like Mr. Bolton, who saw themselves as more willing to bruise feelings here and abroad in standing up for U.S. interests. In the end, the Post concludes: The nominee is intelligent and qualified; we still see no compelling reason to deny the president his choice. Former Secretary of State--perhaps the model of the Secretaries of State--Lawrence Eagleburger, a career foreign service officer, said in an April 22 Washington Post op-ed: The real reasons Bolton's opponents want to derail his nomination are his oft-repeated criticism of the United Nations and other international organizations, his rejection of the arguments of those who ignore or excuse the inexcusable (i.e., the election of Sudan to the Human Rights Commission) . . . And a couple weeks ago the election of Zimbabwe. As to the charge that Bolton has been tough on subordinates, I can say only that in more than a decade of association with him at the State Department, I never saw or heard anything to support such a charge. Nor do I see anything wrong with his challenging intelligence analysts on their findings. My colleague from Ohio and my colleagues across the aisle talked about an incident with an analyst--Westermann--in which Bolton had a speech that he was preparing on the issue of Cuba's capacity to develop biological weapons. That speech then was supposed to be sent to analysts in the process. That is the process--send it around to analysts and they come back and tell you whether you can say what you want to say. In the end, the speeches have to get cleared. What happened with Mr. Westermann is this. What you have heard so far is that John Bolton was angry at Mr. Westermann. My colleague from Ohio said he was quite upset as to why he would change language. That is what happened. What happened is not that Westermann sent something around and then got it back, and then Bolton had a concern with the conclusion. What happened is that when Bolton gave the document with the language to Westermann, he sent it on. What he told Bolton's chief of staff was: I sent your language to the CIA intact and only at its source citations. What really happened, and what the record shows and demonstrates, is that what Westermann did is that he had sent it around, but he inserted language that basically said what Bolton wanted to say would not fly. So Bolton doesn't know, when he gets it back, that that piece is out. Clearly, he wanted to say it, but they said he could not. His concern with Westermann--and the testimony reflects this also--was not about policy. He said: I disagree with you going behind my back. I disagree with you not being honest with me, not telling me up front that in fact this is what you did rather than saying I circulated it, but I find out that, in effect, you lied to me. John Bolton was angry and he said: I have lost confidence in someone who cannot be honest with me, who goes behind my back, and I have to find out about it from another source. That was the conversation he had with Westermann. What you hear and what is portrayed about Mr. Bolton is that somehow there is this pattern of abuse. What is cited is that he had this conversation with Westermann--by the way, after that conversation, Mr. Bolton did check with Westermann's superiors and got an e-mail. We heard about that e-mail. The e-mail said--and this is from Mr. Fingar, one of the superiors of Westermann: We screwed up but not for base reasons. It won't happen again. So Bolton finds out that he has been tooled by somebody who did not tell him the truth about what happened. He checks with his superior and gets an e-mail that says, by the way, we made a mistake, this will not happen again. My colleague from Ohio says they were just doing that because they found out somebody was upset. But if you are looking at it from John Bolton's perspective, what you see is: I was angry because somebody did something which is confirmed by their source, the senior person there, that, in fact, what they did was wrong. It is interesting because Fingar basically said it was not a big deal. As far as I am concerned, that closed it. We get a representation somehow that did not close it, that John Bolton is going around pounding this issue and looking for retribution with Mr. Westermann. In fact, the report shows just the opposite. What happened here is Bolton was upset. He went to the guy who caused the problem. He also tried contacting his superior. He was not around. He eventually got to Fingar who came back with an e-mail--I use his language--``We screwed up,'' and that is it. That is it. Then we hear the testimony of Carl Ford, a long-term, good, loyal employee of the State Department, and we hear about Ford and his representations about Mr. Bolton. John Bolton's interaction with Carl Ford was a 2 or 3-minute conversation in front of a water fountain. So it was not a matter of somebody going around to get retribution and they are angry. That was it, literally Bolton ran into Ford at a water fountain. What Ford was upset about was that John Bolton went to his guy. It was his guy on his team. Ford was upset with that. I guess you have two guys with pretty strong feelings. But that was the conversation. John Bolton did not call the Secretary of State, did not call the Deputy Secretary of State, did not call others in the Department, did not pursue it. If I am angry about something, really angry about something, I want to take care of it and I take care of it, particularly a guy like John Bolton. He is not a soft guy, no question about that. But the interaction regarding Westermann was bumping into someone at a water fountain and having an exchange. Westermann's boss basically said: Don't mess with my guys. And that is Mr. Ford. His experience with John Bolton is essentially that 2-minute conversation-- that is it--I think until he leaves. Then the only other conversation on the record that Mr. Bolton had about Mr. Westermann is a number of months later, he was visiting with another official within the agency and asked how are things going and is there anything that troubles you? Only when asked that question does he even bring up the incident again, and that is it. So this image being portrayed about somehow hounding down a lower level employee--by the way, Westermann was a 20-year Navy veteran; he was not a kid wet behind his ears. I have to tell you, if it was the private sector, Mr. Westermann may have been fired for not being honest with his superior, for going behind somebody's back. That is what happened. I want to go back to the Washington Post article, the Eagleburger comment. Here is what is really happening here. When John Bolton's name was put forward as the nomination by the President, my colleagues on the other side made it very clear they were going to oppose this nomination. The issue then was his comments he made about the United Nations. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not think John Bolton was respectful enough of the United Nations and he did not deserve to be confirmed. That was the issue. It was about policy differences between John Bolton and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. What happened is because that argument did not sell, they then began an examination of some of these interpersonal exchanges and what became the Westermann issue, what became a series of contacts with John Bolton, with legitimate concerns, characterized as a series of a pattern abuser. There were concerns raised about North Korea and about John Bolton's comments regarding North Korea, somehow that he was straying off message, that he was saying things that should not have been said, that he gave a speech in July 2000 in which I think he called Kim Jong Il, the North Korean President, a tyrant, which, by the way, he is. The comment was he was straying off message, that he was saying things that should not have been said. I have a copy of a letter from former Secretary of State Colin Powell. It is dated August 26, 2003, when he was Secretary of State. He is sending a letter to Jon Kyl of the Senate. He says: Dear Jon, I am pleased to reply to your recent letter concerning John Bolton's speech in Korea and our reaction. Undersecretary's Bolton speech was fully cleared within the Department. It was consistent with Administration policy, did not really break new ground with regard to our disdain for the North Korean leadership and, as such, was official. `` . . . and, as such, was official.'' ``Fully cleared,'' ``was official.'' If one sat here and listened to what was said before, one would think somehow this guy was off there on his own saying things that were disruptive to policy. That is not the way it works. For the public who may not understand, when we have a senior State Department official making speeches in North Korea, making speeches about Cuba and its policy regarding procurement of biological weapons, these speeches are cleared. There is a process. There is not a single instance in the record where John Bolton is somehow substantiated for having said things that were not policy, said things that were disruptive of policy. At times did he challenge analysts? Yes, he did, and that is probably a pretty good thing to do. Analysts do not speak from a holy mountain. They come in with a perspective. We have seen enough history now in the last couple of years where analysts had a perspective and they were wrong. John Bolton challenged analysts, but in the end, each and every time, what he did was he delivered the message he was supposed to be delivering. There was a question concerning Libya and the allegation, by the way, in Newsweek--an allegation in Newsweek. My colleagues quote Newsweek as if it is the Holy Bible. Newsweek--credible reporting that he was sidelined, and then there was a conversation, an anonymous source, that somehow the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was complaining to Powell about John Bolton. The anonymous source, according to a Bush official, told them that Secretary of State Powell's Under Secretary for Arms Control was making it impossible to reach allied agreement on Iran's nuclear program. Powell turned to an aide and said: Get a different view on the problem, Bolton is being too tough. Jack Straw flatly rejects this. Here is what Straw's press spokesman is saying: Conversations between the Foreign Secretary and our U.S. counterpart are private and we do not normally comment on their content. However, the Foreign Secretary has no recollection whatsoever of telling the U.S. administration or any other whom it should or should not put in charge of its business. John Bolton held a senior position in counterproliferation arms control in the last administration and senior UK officials worked closely with him on a range of issues. The bottom line is Mr. Powell never told Mr. Bolton he was being too tough in dealing with our European allies. Mr. Bolton has continued to represent the Bush administration's firm position that Iran has yet to make their strategic decision not to pursue nuclear weapons capability and, therefore, Iran's violation of its commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty should be referred to the United Nations Security Council. There was another concern about an article 98 issue. The allegation was that somehow Mr. Bolton blocked military aid for Eastern European NATO candidate countries, even though there are article 98 restrictions, concerns for not agreeing to take U.S. servicemen to the International Criminal Court, have been waived. Bolton wanted to pressure them to sign the article 98 agreements. Rich Armitage, the No. 2 person at the State Department under Colin Powell, has refuted this claim. He said: I did not consider this unusual at all. Different fiefdoms at State often have different positions and Deputy Secretaries resolve them. It was part and parcel of daily life. Again, allegation made and claim simply not true. I could go on. I would just like to touch upon a few more. One of them had to do with an allegation that Mr. Bolton, before he worked for the State Department, was involved in a situation where he yelled at a colleague, a woman whom he worked with. I think this conversation was supposed to have taken place in Moscow at the time. This individual said that Bolton had yelled and screamed at her, chased her around. We had a full committee hearing. The allegation was raised. It was raised in front of the press, raised in front of the media that somehow John Bolton--there was a source that said this woman had complained. It ended up that this woman, a very political woman, one of the leaders of Mothers Against Bush, a liberal activist, had made the claim on liberal Air America. Under questioning, when asked about whether she had been chased or harassed by Mr. Bolton, her testimony was: Well, I may have overstated that. We then get letters from the president of the company that held the contract for which this woman worked. He said: I certainly did not hear contemporaneously from any other employee in Moscow that anything occurred between Mr. Bolton and Ms. Townsel in Moscow. Consequently, it is difficult to understand how she could make such accusations with any veracity. He then went on to talk about some of her conduct and was very concerned about that. He concluded that he found Bolton to be very intelligent, hard working, loyal, ethical, and there was nothing to this. Ultimately, my colleagues on the other side kind of dropped that but after it was made public, after they discussed it in public, though I believe they had in their hands the same letters, the same rebuttal. That is one of the problems. There are individuals who--John Bolton, by the way, has been before this Senate three and perhaps four times. He has been before this body, been scrutinized, been confirmed three to four times. Now we reach a point, and maybe it is the atmosphere around here, maybe the partisan divide has gotten so great, but what starts out with a concern over policy then slips into attacks on the personal. People's character is disparaged, even though there is no basis for it, disparaged publicly, disparaged in the media. Folks then rely upon credible reporting in Newsweek magazine, when the sources then who are close to the issue come back and say that credible reporting simply is not very credible. People go through a ringer. If I was listening to some of these allegations, I would come to some conclusions about character, but then when one looks, for instance, at the Westermann incident and hears about serial abuse, they find out it was one conversation because Mr. Bolton believed he got stabbed in the back; that the other conversation took place over a water fountain and that was it, except when asked, about 6 months later, ``Is there anything that bothered you?'' and he said, ``He has not bothered me.'' But we get a characterization of temperament and loss of temper and somehow being impolitic. It is simply not credible. I was there for just about every portion of every hearing and heard all the evidence. For all of these claims that are made, if one looks, as they say, at the rest of the story, they find out that they are not credible. It really gets back perhaps to where we started, that in the end this is about policy. We should end where it began. There are those who simply disagree with Mr. Bolton's approach. When I say ``approach,'' Mr. Bolton has made it very clear that he believes in the institution; that he is committed. He made the commitment--and I am going to take him at his word--to work with the institution. That is what he is going to do. I think we have to take him at his word, and we have to accept the fact that the President believes that U.N. reform is important and Mr. Bolton has the capacity to do the job. He negotiated the Treaty of Moscow, negotiated the U.N. reversing its position on a resolution that had been in place a number of years which said Israel was a racist state. Everybody said that would be impossible to change, and John Bolton provided the leadership to get the U.N. to reverse itself on that issue. He clearly has the qualifications and the skills. He has the support of the President. He has the support of the Secretary of State. He has my support. I know how important this job is. I know we have this window of opportunity and we have to seize it. I was a former prosecutor, and I know how it works. In Minnesota, the prosecution gives a closing argument and the defense goes after. There is no prosecution rebuttal. So I would often go in front of the jury and I would say: What you have to watch out for is the ``rabbits in the hat'' approach, that what you are going to hear come out on the other side is they are going to unleash a number of rabbits that are going to come running out of that hat. In this case, the first rabbit is of positions on the U.N.; the second rabbit is of policy positions; the third rabbit is saying things that should not have been said; the fourth rabbit is personal behavior, et cetera, hoping that somebody on the jury chases one of those rabbits. Instead, what we need folks to do is keep their eye on the main thing. The main thing, as Steve Covey said: One thing is keep the main thing the main thing. The main thing is that this President has a belief that this U.N. needs reform. The main thing is that John Bolton has a long and distinguished record of service to this country and an ability to get things done. He has the toughness it is going to take to get 191 nations to stop putting Zimbabwe and Sudan on the Human Rights Commission. He has that ability. He has the confidence of the President. In the end, elections matter. The President of the United States won the election. He has chosen someone to carry out that vision, and that person has the record and the ability to do that. There is nothing in this record that undermines that. There is nothing in this record that he ever said he changed intelligence. There is nothing in this record that he ever got anybody fired. What is in this record is a distinguished record that has been attacked, savaged, and abused. I hope that does not have the chilling effect on others who want to serve this country. John Bolton is willing to serve this country. He deserves the right to do that, and I hope that my colleagues agree and they support his confirmation. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I will speak very briefly and yield to my colleague from Virginia. Mr. President, I would note that the chairman of the Intelligence Committee is here, and I suspect he will respond to some of these issues. There is just one point the distinguished Senator from West Virginia raised again and again, and I just want to make the Record very clear; that is, again, he stated that it is clear, in his words, that the Under Secretary criticized this employee ``because his analysis did not support Bolton's view.'' I want to make it clear, the record does not support that. In fact, it was very clear that John Bolton said to the intelligence analyst: You are welcome to disagree with me, but not behind my back. That is what this was about. In fact, the analyst himself gave some conflicting reasons of why he did not tell Bolton that he had tubed his language before he sent it around. He never told him that. That is what this is about. In fact, when the analyst was asked whether he disagreed with the statement ``You are welcome to disagree with me''--it is Bolton speaking to the analyst--``but not behind my back,'' his comment was, ``That does ring a bell.'' So that is what this is about. It is about process, it is not about policy. The last thing I would note is that we have had 10 hours of hearings, 35 separate staff interviews, 2 business meetings, 29 different people producing 1,000 pages of transcripts and 800 pages of documents from the State Department. This individual has gone through a very thorough review. I appreciate my colleague from Connecticut not holding us up. Clearly, if cloture is invoked, we could wait another 30 hours. I thank him for that. But the record is clear it is time to move forward. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. I take it my colleague from Kansas was not at the business meeting when the Bolton nomination was discussed. My colleague from Kansas was not at the hearing where the Bolton nomination was discussed. I do not know if it would surprise my colleague to note that in the business meeting, other Senators, not the Senator from Connecticut--this issue of intercept was raised again by another Senator and a similar question was asked. So it is not just the Senator from Connecticut who raised the issue during the questioning of Mr. Bolton. But, in fact, during the business meeting this came up again and again. I presume my colleague from Kansas must have been informed of that, to raise the level of concern he has.

Mr. COLEMAN. We have no objection.

Mr. COLEMAN. Will my colleague from Kansas yield?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, again, I remind my colleagues that it is a nomination with 10 hours of hearings, 2 business meetings, 35 staff interviews with 29 different people, a thousand pages of transcripts and 800 pages of documents, the opportunity for the chairman and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee to look at this information, and they came to the conclusions they came to. In the end, I think perhaps--I agree with my colleagues on crossing the line. I agree. You should not be harassing intelligence officials because of policy disagreements to the point where you drive them out of the job. But that just didn't happen here. In fact, Mr. President, if you look at the statement of Carl Ford, he himself in the minority report said this incident didn't turn into the politicization of intelligence. Carl Ford--and I was there and listened to the testimony--said this incident didn't turn into the politicization of intelligence. We can walk through this again and again. We had the discussion over Cuba and the issue of biological weapons capacity. Again, the allegation was made that somehow Mr. Bolton took views that were his own and disregarded the views of the administration in regard to Cuba. Carl Ford testified before the Foreign Relations Committee on March 19, 2002. He stated that the United States believes that Cuba has at least limited developmental offensive biological warfare and research capability--on and on. What does John Bolton say when he gives his speech? He says the same thing. The point is, in each and every instance when colleagues raise a concern about Mr. Bolton giving his own opinion versus that which is approved, it is simply not the case. I think my colleague from Kansas said this is a case of ``the rest of the story.'' It is true on the Cuba issue. It is true on Mr. Bolton's testimony about Syria. Again, the same concern was raised. The record is saying something very different--that in each and every instance, there may have been discussion and challenges, but in the end Secretary Bolton delivered the approved language. North Korea, the same thing. Allegation was made that he was off on his own, and Secretary Powell came back and said, no, he delivered the opinion of the administration, of the Secretary of State. What we have here--and the record is clear--is an individual with strong views and strong opinions, who challenged personnel, but never, never took any action against a single individual. Phrases are thrown out that there were threats to be fired or transferred. The reality is when Mr. Westermann back-doored Mr. Bolton, he lost confidence in him and said: I want him transferred. That is all you have. In the end, Mr. President, what we have is an individual who has served this country well, who has a record of distinguished service, who has the support of a litany of Secretaries of State, of individuals who have worked with him for years and years, who negotiated the treaty of Moscow and got the U.N. to reverse itself on the odious resolution declaring Zionism as racism, who has the support of the Secretary of State, who has the confidence of the President of the United States to do what has to be done, and that is the heavy lifting in reforming the United Nations. From the very beginning, my colleagues on the other side simply have said he is not acceptable, he has the wrong political perspective on the United Nations, he has the wrong political perspective perhaps on the war in Iraq and other issues, which morphed into allegations which, in the end, when we look at the rest of the story, simply are unsubstantiated. John Bolton deserves our support. He deserves to be confirmed. I will proudly vote for his confirmation tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the remainder of our time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. As I recall the statement from the ranking member, he said these incidents were not new to them. Some of these had been raised before. One was regarding Cuba. They had knowledge of this. Again, I would defer to the good judgment of the chair of the Intelligence Committee, who said we looked at it and it wasn't relevant. And then on and on in the letter again, and again he comes to the same conclusion: nothing inappropriate, nothing unusual, no violation of procedures. It is very clear. I urge my colleagues to let us pursue this issue. I don't think there is a reasonable basis for holding up this confirmation based on the concern of getting this type of information.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the concern over the institutional issue of having access. I join my colleague in getting that information. Where I disagree is that when we have the chairman of the Intelligence Committee stating to us in this letter--saying: After reviewing the content of each report, it was apparent to us both that it was not necessary to know the actual names to determine whether the requests were proper. Ultimately, he found no basis to question the justification nor appropriateness of Mr. Bolton's request for the U.S. persons contained therein. So we have an individual we all deeply respect, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, saying ``it was apparent to us,'' the chairman and the ranking member, and then the letter went on. I would say there is an institutional issue that we should resolve at some point. In the context of this nomination, where we have a very clear statement that this specific information that was requested--it was ``not necessary to know the actual names to determine whether the requests were proper.'' Then it is basically saying the requests were proper. Let us move forward with this nomination because we have a statement saying the information wasn't needed to make a determination. Let us pursue with great vigor the right of Members of this body to have access to that kind of information. I think we really have to separate the two, based on the statement of the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Mr. COLEMAN. No objection.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will hold a hearing entitled ``The Container Security Initiative and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism: Securing the Global Supply Chain or Trojan Horse?'' In light of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, concern has increased that terrorists could smuggle weapons of mass destruction in the approximately 9 million ocean going containers that arrive in the United States every year. As part of its overall response to the threat of terrorism, the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (Customs) implemented the Container Security Initiative, CSI, to screen high-risk containers at sea ports overseas, thus employing screening tools before potentially dangerous cargoes reach our shores. Customs also implemented the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, C-TPAT, to improve the security of the global supply chain in partnership with the private sector. Both CSI and C-TPAT face a number of compelling challenges that impact their ability to safeguard our Nation from terrorism. The Subcommittee's May 26 hearing will examine how Customs utilizes CSI and C-TPAT in connection with its other enforcement programs and review the requirements for and challenges involved in transitioning CSI and C- TPAT from promising risk management concepts to effective and sustained enforcement operations. These important Customs initiatives require sustained Congressional oversight. As such, this will be the first of several hearings the Subcommittee intends to hold on the response of the Federal Government to terrorist threats. The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Thursday, May 26, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Raymond V. Shepherd, III, Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, at 202-224-3721.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help millions of Americans enjoy the gift of sound. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Gordon Smith, Olympia J. Snowe, Mark Dayton, and Tom Harkin, who I know care as deeply about these issues as I do. Hearing loss is one of the most common and widespread health problems affecting Americans today. In fact, thirty-three babies are born each day with hearing loss, making deafuess the most common birth defect in America. According to the National Council on Aging, as many as 70 percent of our elderly experience hearing loss. All told, 31.5 million Americans currently suffer from some form of hearing loss. The good news is that 95 percent of individuals with hearing loss can be successfully treated with hearing aids. Unfortunately, however, only 22 percent of Americans suffering from hearing loss can afford to use this technology. In other words, over 24 million Americans will live without sound because they cannot afford treatment. That is why we are introducing the Hearing Aid Assistance Tax Credit Act. This legislation provides help to those who need it most, our children and seniors, by providing a tax credit of up to $500, once every 5 years, toward the purchase of any ``qualified hearing aid'' as defined by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Hearing aids are not just portals to sound, but portals to success in school, business, and life. That is why a number of diverse organizations, including the Hearing Industries Association, Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, the International Hearing Society, the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Alliance, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, and the American Academy of Audiology support the Hearing Aid Assistance Tax Credit Act. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support be printed in the Record. Hearing loss may be one of the most common health problems in the United States, but it doesn't have to be. We can tackle the problem head on with the Hearing Aid Assistance Tax Credit Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues this Congress to approve this commonsense solution to a serious problem.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help millions of Americans enjoy the gift of sound. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Gordon Smith, Olympia J. Snowe, Mark Dayton, and Tom Harkin, who I know care as deeply about these issues as I do. Hearing loss is one of the most common and widespread health problems affecting Americans today. In fact, thirty-three babies are born each day with hearing loss, making deafuess the most common birth defect in America. According to the National Council on Aging, as many as 70 percent of our elderly experience hearing loss. All told, 31.5 million Americans currently suffer from some form of hearing loss. The good news is that 95 percent of individuals with hearing loss can be successfully treated with hearing aids. Unfortunately, however, only 22 percent of Americans suffering from hearing loss can afford to use this technology. In other words, over 24 million Americans will live without sound because they cannot afford treatment. That is why we are introducing the Hearing Aid Assistance Tax Credit Act. This legislation provides help to those who need it most, our children and seniors, by providing a tax credit of up to $500, once every 5 years, toward the purchase of any ``qualified hearing aid'' as defined by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Hearing aids are not just portals to sound, but portals to success in school, business, and life. That is why a number of diverse organizations, including the Hearing Industries Association, Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, the International Hearing Society, the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Alliance, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, and the American Academy of Audiology support the Hearing Aid Assistance Tax Credit Act. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support be printed in the Record. Hearing loss may be one of the most common health problems in the United States, but it doesn't have to be. We can tackle the problem head on with the Hearing Aid Assistance Tax Credit Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues this Congress to approve this commonsense solution to a serious problem.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to take the floor again on the matter of judicial nominations. As the emotions and politics of this issue keep building up, it is important we not lose sight of what this is all about. We have all heard the grim, little joke about the doctor who said: The operation was a complete success, but the patient died. Sometimes we get so caught up in process that we ignore the reasons we are here in the first place: to achieve an outcome for the American people to get things done, to make a difference. The outcome the people want, the outcome the President deserves, and the outcome the Constitution demands is an up-or-down vote--a simple up-or-down vote--on each of the appointments the President has submitted to us. A couple years ago, I stood right over there, in front of that desk, and swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution directs each Senator to ``advise and consent'' on judicial appointments by the President, not to advise and obstruct, not to advise and block, but simply advise and consent--which simply means, and has always meant in the history of this country, up until last year, the opportunity for an up-or-down vote. If you ask me, the term ``nuclear option'' belongs to the tactics taken by the minority, unfortunately, in the last 2 years. I would say they are treading on the traditions of this body, the balance of power between the branches, and the Constitution that we are sworn to uphold. As the Bible says, what you sow, you will reap. When some in the minority decide to flaunt the historical procedures and understandings of this body, they should not be weeping and wailing and gnashing their teeth when the majority steps up to restore--to restore--200-plus years of accepted practice in this body, which is an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees once they have passed through committee. If the minority is feeling injured, they brought it on themselves. Mr. President, I want to illustrate what a dramatic departure from historical precedent some in the minority have embarked upon in the last year when 10 of the President's judicial nominees were filibustered. For the first time, 10 circuit court nominees, at the level right below the Supreme Court, were filibustered. Just look back a few years to the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court in 1991. It was a media circus, riven with charges, accusations, and controversy. Clarence Thomas was confirmed with a vote of 52 to 48. If the Democrats had wanted to defeat him, they simply could have filibustered his nomination. But they did not. They could have filibustered his confirmation, but they did not. Did they fail to do so because they simply wanted to be nice? No. It is fair to state that they didn't filibuster because at that time, in 1991, it wasn't even conceivable, it wasn't in the history and tradition of this body that nominees who get through committee or to the floor would fail to get an up-or-down vote, 52 to 48. Have no doubt about it, if what is going on today was going on then, Clarence Thomas would have been filibustered. It did not happen. At that time, my colleagues did the right thing. They honored two centuries of tradition and allowed him an up-or-down vote. I have done some quick research. Of the 109 Justices of the Supreme Court, my staff counted 55 Supreme Court Justices who could have been defeated if one of the parties had adopted the nuclear option, the filibustering of nominees, now employed by some in the Senate minority. Half of the Supreme Court Justices in our Nation's history might never have served. Who could that have cost us? Benjamin Cardozo, nominated by President Hoover, who gave us proximate cause, a cornerstone of today's tort law. Every college kid in America, including me, read Cardozo's opinion. How about Justice Marshall Harlan, appointed by President Hayes. He was the lone dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson which upheld segregation policies. Fortunately, we did not force Justices Cardozo or Harlan or other Justices to overcome a partisan filibuster. It was not done. In fact, not only did we not filibuster the other party's nominees, we often elevated them, as was the case with Harlan Fiske Stone, who was appointed by a conservative President, Calvin Coolidge, and then elevated to Chief Justice by Franklin D. Roosevelt. I could go on. Does anybody in this Chamber doubt in today's environment that William O. Douglas would never have made it to the Supreme Court, that his nomination would have been filibustered? Does anyone in this Chamber doubt for a moment today that Justices Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist would not have a chance to serve on the Supreme Court because of a filibuster? We have to think about the consequences of this dangerous precedent that unlimited debate be used to deprive the whole Senate of an up-or- down vote. The consequences are that individuals with strong opinions-- and they may be liberal or conservative--and great intellect would not have an up-or-down vote. There has been an ebb and flow in American politics. The Bible says there is a time for every season. There are Republican Presidents. There are Democratic Presidents. There is ultimately a balance. What is happening today, what happened last year with the unprecedented filibustering of judicial nominees was an attempt to change the Constitution, to require a supermajority for Supreme Court and circuit court nominees. We are changing the flow, changing the balance. We are getting rid of and will deprive this Nation of people with great intellect and passion because they won't be able to get past the roadblock of the minority. The caution I hope some in the minority will take to heart is, what happens when the shoe is on the other foot. How would they feel if a future Democratic President's nominees were treated in the same fashion? In this body, we have to live with the precedents we set. The whole concept of due process is about guaranteeing a set of procedures which reach a fair outcome. It is not about guaranteeing one particular outcome. Some in the minority are so bent on defeating a few of the President's nominees that they will distort the process to achieve the outcome. They will distort precedent and tradition. They will distort what has given us a balance of great intellect and passion and great minds on the Supreme Court. We will lose that. That would be a terrible thing. We are stewards not only of government but of the Constitution. It is our solemn oath to maintain the orderly completion of the Senate's business, specifically the fulfillment of our constitutional responsibility. Today, we are on the cusp of having to assert the constitutional option. I hope it will not come to that. Now I hear rhetoric from some Members of the minority that they are prepared to compound their error by killing the remainder of the jobs agenda that we are ready to pass in the Senate. The National Association of Manufacturers said this week that passage of the jobs agenda items--including the highway bill, the Energy bill, the asbestos reform bill, and telecom rewrite--would be a $1 trillion jolt to the American economy, to the U.S. manufacturing industry. Any Senator from States that don't need manufacturing jobs should feel free to object. We need to focus not on the process but the result. I have a responsibility to advise and consent on the appellate judges the President has submitted. I will exercise that responsibility whether there be a Democratic President or a Republican President. I will look to their qualifications and then give them what they deserve: an up-or- down vote. If need be, I support my leadership taking necessary steps to allow me to reach that constitutional decision with a simple up-or-down vote. That is all we are asking for. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help the United States compete in an increasingly global economy in order to keep and to grow good paying, high quality jobs here at home. I am very pleased to be joined by my very good friend and colleague, Senator Mark Pryor, who cares as deeply about these issues as I do. In recent years much has been written about globalization--especially the ``outsourcing'' of American jobs overseas. In fact, my hometown paper, the St. Paul Pioneer Press recently ran an editorial highlighting a survey done by the Federal Reserve that shows despite all the talk of ``outscouring'' and ``lost jobs'', globalization has resulted in more jobs and more money for Minnesota's workers. I ask unanimous consent that this article be included in the record along with my statement. However, that same editorial warned that as China, India and the European Union work to expand their own market opportunities by modernizing their infrastructure and improving the skills of their workforce, there is no guarantee that the world's best companies will continue to invest here at home. Yet, at the same time that the Labor Department has projected that new jobs requiring advanced science, engineering and technical training will increase four times faster than the average national job growth rate, only 36 percent of 9th-12th graders in Minnesota are taking upper level math courses, and only 22 percent of are taking upper level science. Moreover, in a high tech economy that values knowledge and ideas as much as the products they produce the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has reported that the time it takes someone to get a patent is exploding. The facts read loud and clear: in order to maintain our place as the leader in tomorrow's economy, America must act now to maintain our competitive advantage and remain ahead of the curve. That is why we are introducing the Collaborative Opportunities to Mobilize and Promote Education, Technology, and Enterprise Act of 2005 or the COMPETE ACT of 2005. The COMPETE Act is based on three simple, fundamental ideas: 1. The U.S. needs to maintain its competitive advantage in robust technology and innovation; 2. We must continue to ``upskill'' our workforce to ensure they have the skills necessary to remain competitive in a global economy that is more reliant on technology than ever before; and 3. We must utilize private-public partnerships to help improve education in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. America's economic strength is rooted in its ability to innovate, and so the COMPETE Act strengthens and expands the R&D tax credit. Expanding the R&D tax credit will help American companies to stay on the forefront of the technological revolution. This credit helps fuel job creation here at home and enables companies to bring more products and services to market. The COMPETE Act also reforms and improves the U.S. Patent Trademark Office (PTO). It is no secret that patents and trademarks are the currency that drives America's high-tech economy. Unfortunately, the PTO estimates that it will take an average of 49 months by 2009 for it to issue a patent. This is a lifetime when you are innovating, and discourages new ideas. Furthermore, the current backlog on patent applications now totals almost a half million--the highest ever. Fortunately, the PTO has come up with a solution to this problem. However, it does not have the money to implement it. The COMPETE Act provides the PTO with the crucial funding necessary to reform the patent and trademark process so that U.S. companies remain on the forefront of the technological revolution. Today, our employers need more than just raw materials; they need a highly skilled workforce who adds that extra value to their product. That is why the COMPETE Act establishes a tax credit that will help ``upskill'' America's workers so that they can compete in an economy increasingly more dependent on information, communication and technology (ICT) skills. Indeed, ICT skills are today's newest raw material and are the infrastructure America needs to be a leader in today's global market. To help close the math and science gap, the COMPETE Act creates a public-partnership that will leverage the expertise and resources of the private sector and those in the university community to establish joint regional training and research centers. These centers will provide training and technical assistance to teachers so they will be better equipped to get students interested in math and science at an early age. The COMPETE Act rewards high performing schools in math and science and at the same time provides an incentive for businesses to get more involved in helping high-need schools to improve in the areas of math and science. Finally, the COMPETE Act 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. Today is the time to prepare for tomorrow and the COMPETE Act represents an important step in helping to prepare the U.S. to succeed in meeting the challenges of a rapidly changing world. The COMPETE Act will help the U.S. remain ahead of the curve when it comes to competing in today's global economy. That is why a number of diverse organizations, including the R&D Credit Coalition, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Science Teachers Association, Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA), American Association for the Advancement of Science, National Association of State Universities & Land-Grant Universities, ASSE Engineering Deans Council, Council of Graduate Schools, American Society for Training & Development, Association of American Universities, and the Intellectual Property Owners Association support one or may of tile provisions of the COMPETE Act. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support be printed in the Record. Today our economy is both more vulnerable and more successful than it has ever been. To ensure that we are maximizing our chances for success, we need to help employees and individuals innovate. We need to have a workforce that has the skills necessary to compete in a worldwide economy that is increasingly dependent on technology. We need to focus on math and science education to ensure that America continues to produce the best engineers and scientists in the world. And above all, we need to do those things necessary to make the U.S. the best place to do business in the world. The bottom line is we all want America's moms and dads to enjoy good paying jobs here at home so they can do what every mom and dad wants to do and that is give our kids a better life than we had. That's what the COMPETE Act is all about.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit the Better Hearing and Speech Month Resolution with my friend and colleague Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. By passing this resolution, Congress will recognize May 2005 as National Better Hearing and Speech Month which will help raise public awareness, encourage prevention and treatment of hearing impairments, and commend those States that have implemented routine hearing screening for every newborn baby before the infant leaves the hospital. One in every ten Americans has hearing loss making it one of the most prevalent chronic health conditions in this country. In addition, every day 33 babies are born in the United States with permanent hearing loss, making it one of the most frequently occurring birth defects. The impact of delayed detection and intervention can last a lifetime. When hearing loss is found early, intervention and treatment can produce dramatic improvements in child speech and language development by school age. This Resolution will raise public awareness of the 28 million Americans who suffer from hearing loss and the importance of early detection and treatment. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this Resolution as research shows that children identified with hearing loss early and those who receive appropriate early qualified intervention by the age of six months have significantly improved speech skills than children whose hearing loss is identified later.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I was one of those new Members of the Senate elected in the class of 2002 my friend and colleague from Louisiana talked about. We did lament the partisan divide that certainly has been growing in this body for a while but has been clearly reflected in the battle over judicial appointments. The President has the constitutional authority to appoint judges. That is very clear. It is an authority that has never, in the history of this country, up until last year, when my colleague across the aisle decided to filibuster those appointees, it has never in the history of this country required anything more than a majority vote. We are talking about judicial appointments. The President must appoint folks who are qualified. There are standards by which one can review that. The American Bar Association is involved in that process and they, in fact, grade nominees. In the case of the President's appointees, each of those nominees received the endorsement--in effect, the label, the standard--of ``qualified'' or ``highly qualified.'' They met the basic test that has to be met. What has happened in the last year is now a new political test put in place, a political test that has then required a new standard, an unprecedented standard in the history of this country. I repeat, in the history of this country, nominees who could get a majority vote have not been filibustered until last year. The other side has said: We have confirmed so many judges, hundreds of judges, but when it comes to appellate court judges, the level below the Supreme Court, last year I believe it was 30 percent of those were filibustered, were stopped, and a higher percentage then face that this year. Our obligation in the Constitution is to advise and consent. It is not to advise and construct. Nominees deserve simply an up-or-down vote. That has been the process that has served this country so well for nearly 250 years. I support the right of filibuster. I love that movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' I thought Jimmy Stewart was fabulous. I watched that as a kid, and I thought being on the floor of the Senate, standing and not stepping down, fighting for what you believe, is part of the history of the Senate. It is not, by the way, the history of the United States for its entire existence. It was not the history of the United States, contrary to the words of the distinguished and learned minority leader from Nevada, it is not the history when this country began. But it has been part of our history. I recognize that. By the way, it has not always been as glorious as when Jimmy Stewart was in that movie, standing on the floor of the Senate. The history of the filibuster, which now is being paraded as this icon of protection of rights, this history, unfortunately, has a history of being used to block anti-lynching legislation. It was used to block civil rights legislation. That has been the history of the filibuster. But I respect that history. I respect that tradition of filibustering legislation even if I disagree with it. But never before has there been a tradition of using that filibuster, that tool, to block judicial nominees. That is what is different today. I do believe the last effort to limit the filibuster occurred when Republicans took control of the Senate about 1994 and 1995; there were efforts to limit the filibuster. There were 19 votes for that effort. Every one of them were Democrats. Every one of them were my colleagues across the aisle, some of whom still serve in this institution today. That has been the history of limiting the filibuster. But the history is clear that, up until last year, the filibuster has not been used to block a nominee who has majority support. I am also deeply concerned about what we are doing to civics with this discussion. I think we are confusing young people. When I grew up and studied civics, I understood what checks and balances were. I am watching commercials today that talk about the effort of the Democrats to block judicial appointees is somehow applying the concept of checks and balances. I have to gather my 15- year-old daughter Sarah and tell her that is not what checks and balances are about. The concept of checks and balances has to do with the wisdom of our Founders to balance the power of the executive branch against the power of the legislative branch and the power of the judicial branch. That is checks and balances--a magnificent concept. But checks and balances does not mean, and has never meant, that somehow the minority can block the majority from governing in an Executive Calendar, where the President has the authority to appoint individuals who he thinks are qualified, and then we measure that qualification--not politics, not their views on certain political issues, but their competence, their integrity, their capacity to do the job--and we then advise and consent, we give the up-or-down vote. But checks and balances have nothing to do with the attempt of the minority, right here, to block the majority from simply confirming Presidential appointees. We are not talking about changing the legislative calendar. We are not talking about interfering with the right to filibuster on legislative issues. We are talking about upholding the Constitution. It is interesting, if you go back--and like the Presiding Officer, I have been here only a few years--we have learned from some of our colleagues about the history of what went on before. In the past, the Senate did not filibuster judicial nominees. There were times when you had very liberal judges coming up for confirmation by Democratic Presidents, and you had Republicans controlling the process, and you had majority leaders such as Trent Lott supporting cloture for liberal nominees who, on the basis of ideology, they would not support. Judge Paez, in the Ninth Circuit, I believe was one of the judges involved in the decision that you cannot say ``one Nation under God.'' I know many of my colleagues felt Judge Paez's views were extreme. But they respected the power of the President to make an appointee, and they respected the history and tradition of this institution that says: Give nominees an up-or-down vote. Paez got that up or down vote and was confirmed. So my deep concern is somehow we are involved in almost this Orwellian doublespeak today that we are talking about checks and balances in a process that has no relationship to what checks and balances have always meant. Again, our young people should understand that. We have bent over backward to protect minority views in this Senate. When it comes to appointments, the majority has a right and a responsibility to act. Then all of us have the right to vote yes or no. Let's do the right thing. Let's uphold the tradition of this institution. Give people the right to get an up-or-down vote when they are nominated for a judicial office.

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

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, of the 27 million working uninsured, 63 percent are working in firms with fewer than 100 employees. It is crucial that we develop a comprehensive plan to remedy the problem of the working uninsured. For this reason I support legislation that would allow for the creation of association health plans, which would allow small businesses to band together to purchase health insurance for their employees. Because of the current structure of the health care industry, too many small business owners and their employees do not have access to affordable health insurance. When I talk to small business owners as I travel the State, I have found that most of them want to provide this benefit because it not only helps provide the uninsured with coverage but it also helps small businesses retain good employees. A recent Census Bureau report says slightly more than 45 million Americans now lack health coverage. While Minnesota is out front in tackling the issue of the uninsured, with uninsured in my State at about 7 percent, I still believe that providing affordable access to health care is a critically important national interest, that there are no silver bullet solutions, and so we need as many tools to fix this problem as possible. According to Kaiser Family Foundation, employer- based health insurance has decreased markedly from covering 66 percent of the non-elderly in 2000 to 62 percent by 2003. The Census Bureau says the drop-off in employer health coverage occurred in the small business sector, largely in firms with fewer than 25 employees. It's no coincidence that these events are taking place as the cost of insurance continues to skyrocket double-digit increases year after year, pricing more and more small firms out of the market. I want to thank the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, Senator Snowe, for her strong leadership and sponsorship of S. 406, The Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005. I also want to thank my very good friend and colleague, Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, who has long championed this issue in the same thoughtful and forward looking way that he is renowned for in tackling all important public policy issues in which he gets engaged. I look forward to working with members of the committee to enact this legislation.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will hold a hearing entitled ``The Container Security Initiative and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism: Securing the Global Supply Chain or Trojan Horse?'' In light of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, concern has increased that terrorists could smuggle weapons of mass destruction in the approximately 9 million ocean going containers that arrive in the United States every year. As part of its overall response to the threat of terrorism, the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (Customs) implemented the Container Security Initiative (CSI) to screen high-risk containers at sea ports overseas, thus employing screening tools before potentially dangerous cargoes reach our shores. Customs also implemented the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) to improve the security of the global supply chain in partnership with the private sector. Both CSI and C-TPAT face a number of compelling challenges that impact their ability to safeguard our Nation from terrorism. The Subcommittee's April 26 hearing will examine how Customs utilizes CSI and C-TPAT in connection with its other enforcement programs and review the requirements for and challenges involved in transitioning CSI and C-TPAT from promising risk management concepts to effective and sustained enforcement operations. These important Customs initiatives required sustained Congressional oversight. As such, this will be the first of several hearings the Subcommittee intends to hold on the response of the Federal Government to terrorist threats. The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, April 26, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Raymond V. Shepherd, III, Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, at 224-3721.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Help Expand Access to Recovery and Treatment (HEART) Act of 2005 with my friend and colleague, Senator Clinton of New York. By passing this life-saving legislation, Congress would provide equitable access to substance abuse treatment services for 23 million adults and children who need treatment for the disease of alcoholism and other drug dependencies. HEART would put the decision of whether or not consumers are granted substance abuse treatment services in the hands of doctors and trained addiction professionals, and patients. At least 75 percent of individuals who suffer from alcoholism have access to private health insurance. However, fewer than 70 percent of employer-provided health plans cover alcoholism and drug treatment at the same level as other medical conditions. Our bill eliminates this inequitable coverage of medical conditions so those who need treatment receive it. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation that is not just important to our nation's economy and the health of our workforce but to the quality of life for millions of Americans and their families. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Help Expand Access to Recovery and Treatment (HEART) Act of 2005 with my friend and colleague, Senator Clinton of New York. By passing this life-saving legislation, Congress would provide equitable access to substance abuse treatment services for 23 million adults and children who need treatment for the disease of alcoholism and other drug dependencies. HEART would put the decision of whether or not consumers are granted substance abuse treatment services in the hands of doctors and trained addiction professionals, and patients. At least 75 percent of individuals who suffer from alcoholism have access to private health insurance. However, fewer than 70 percent of employer-provided health plans cover alcoholism and drug treatment at the same level as other medical conditions. Our bill eliminates this inequitable coverage of medical conditions so those who need treatment receive it. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation that is not just important to our nation's economy and the health of our workforce but to the quality of life for millions of Americans and their families. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a field hearing in St. Paul, MN entitled ``Tax Related Financial Products Can Be Costly,'' regarding the Subcommittee's investigations into tax-related financial products. These bank products include refund anticipation loans (RALs), refund anticipation checks (RACs) and refund transfers that are offered by tax preparers such an H&R Block and Jackson Hewitt. Also included are products offered solely by the tax preparation companies such as tax preparation guarantees. The Subcommittee field hearing will examine these products' costs, the extent to which these products are fairly marketed, and whether the costs of these products are fully disclosed. Additionally, the Subcommittee will examine the refunds, incentives and rebates that are paid by banks to tax preparers for selling these products and the ethical implications that can be presented from a client service perspective. The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Friday, April 15, 2005, at 1 p.m. in ``The Reading Room'' of the James J. Hill Reference Library at 80 West 4th Street in St. Paul, Minnesota. For further information, please contact Raymond V. Shepherd, III, Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, at 224-3721. Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

Mr. COLEMAN

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

Mr. COLEMAN

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