Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, while the Senate is in recess next month, a remarkable event will take place in Minnesota, the Sid Hartman ``Close Personal Friends'' Celebration. It is worth a few moments of the Senate's time for me to honor this great Minnesota personality. They say that history is just the biography of very significant people. Individuals create history with their words, their style, and their accomplishments. Sid Hartman never ran a company or held elective office. But he has had an impact on Minnesota just by being who he is: a hardworking, opinionated, and irrepressible sports journalist for more than 50 years. Sid's life began the way most great lives start: with humble beginnings and hard work. He worked his way up from being a newspaper delivery boy, to copy boy to reporter. He helped run the original Minneapolis Lakers NBA team. He had a hand in the start of two of Minnesota's other major sports franchises: the Twins and the Vikings. And to this day, his column appears in the Minneapolis Star Tribune every Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Saturday. It is full of news, speculation and prophesies about the world of sports, and everything that touches it. Sid Hartman's popularity and impact comes from three sources we should all tap into: First, he works harder than anyone else. He frequently reminisces that he develops news stories the way he sold newspapers: start early, keep moving and be aggressive. Second, he understands the power of relationships. He is a ``Google'' of first hand sports information about the main figures of sports over the last 50 years. Just mention Bud Grant or Bobby Knight or George Steinbrenner or any famous player to him and you get a fascinating personal download. He builds and maintains relationships. And third, Sid is just who he is: nothing more, nothing less. I don't know if Bill Cosby is a ``close personal friend'' but he sure describes his life with this quotation: ``I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.'' In an era of carefully measured words and hypersensitivity, Sid Hartman just speaks his mind. Half the fun of sports is talking about the games after they are over and anticipating them before they begin. Sid has livened up the conversation. He has made us laugh, made us angry and some times made us wonder where in the world he was coming from. But he always added spice to our lives. Sid Hartman is being honored on August 7, 2005, in Minneapolis. But the event is not about him: it is about bringing people together to support the scholarship fund of the University of Minnesota, Sid's great love. Despite his sometimes gruff exterior, Sid has a soft spot in his heart for the athletes of the U and all Gopher sports. His love and support and his encouragement, public and private, has made a big difference in hundreds of young lives. Growing up, I heard the expression: ``Hearts that are tender and kind and tongues that are neither make the finest company of all.'' Sid has been great company for thousands of ardent and casual sports fans of the Upper Midwest. He has helped make Minnesota the fun, interesting place it is today. Congratulations, Sid Hartman, for your example and your contribution to the quality of life of our State--and Go Gophers!

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the amendment offered by my good friend, Senator Graham, who has been relentless in his determination to secure a fair deal for our Nation's reservists. Our Nation's citizen soldiers are an integral part of the military. They have been called upon to make big sacrifices, sacrifices many didn't imagine when they signed up. Yet time and time again, they have answered the call. Today, the National Guard and Reserve are on the front line of the war on terror. They are on the front line in Iraq and Afghanistan. I say proudly that Minnesota's Army National Guard leads the Nation in recruiting and retention. We want to continue with that high honor. It is something in which we take great pride. But I can tell you that, in my conversations with Guard and Reserve members around my State, the strains of mobilization are beginning to have an effect. With the demands now being placed on the Guard and Reserve, we are going to have to step up our support in order to sustain the manpower we need for the future. What I hear from reservists in my State consistently is that given the rising cost of health care, the option of enrolling in TRICARE is perhaps the most important thing we can do to help them and their families. Thanks to the tireless efforts of my good friend, Senator Graham, we have made good progress in opening up access to TRICARE. But this option ought to be available to all reservists. Every member of the Guard and Reserve has signed up for the same risks, and they all made the same commitment to defend our country. This amendment is fundamentally about two things: The first is fairness--fairness for people facing the same dangers as their Active- Duty counterparts. In today's world, any new reservist can almost count on being called to be there fighting in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So in a sense, it is not that much different from signing up for active duty to begin with. If reservists know they are going to be putting themselves on the front lines just like an Active-Duty soldier, we should be giving them the same benefits. The second is national security. Our country needs a robust National Guard and Reserve. We need them to be relevant, which means part of military engagements overseas. In order to keep this invaluable cadre of citizen soldiers, the least we can do is offer them the same health care as we offer Active-Duty troops. The poet, John Milton, said: ``They also serve, who only stand and wait.'' There is not a lot of standing around for today's reservists, but their value to the Nation is incredible. The key to every endeavor, whether it is military, economic, or personal, is using your resources wisely. The fact that the military planners of the United States have a reserve force of such quality, spirit, and readiness is our crucial advantage. As such, they deserve every honor and support we give our active military. By protecting this vital asset, we accelerate the march of freedom around the world. I am pleased to support my colleague, Senator Graham, once again, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

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

Mr. COLEMAN. No more than 7 minutes. I can probably do it in 5.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the nomination of a Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States is a solemn and momentous occasion. Our Constitution is the rarest of political documents in human history. Those individuals who are appointed for life to be its stewards and interpreters are extremely important to our future. Each Court is made up of nominees from different political eras, shaped by unique forces and ideas. It is the dialog among the senior Justices and the new ones, those nominated by Democrats and Republicans, and all the backgrounds represented, that gives the Court its legitimacy and dynamism.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for that opportunity. When the Court begins its term in October, we will include nominees spanning seven administrations and people shaped by events from Watergate to September 11 and beyond. The Founders invested the President with the power to make nominations to the Federal judiciary and gave the Senate the role of providing advice and consent with respect to any nominee. I am pleased that after extensive and unprecedented consultation with the Senate, President Bush announced Judge John Roberts as his nominee to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, filling the vacancy left by Justice O'Connor. Judge Roberts has a distinguished record and extensive experience. Judge Roberts graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University and Harvard Law School. Judge Roberts clerked for Judge Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit and later for Justice William Rehnquist at the Supreme Court. After his clerkships, he served in the Department of Justice as associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan before going into private practice. After 3 years in private practice, Judge Roberts returned to the Department of Justice as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, a position in which he briefed and argued a variety of cases before the Supreme Court. Judge Roberts reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16 to 3, and he was confirmed by the Senate for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals by a voice vote. The Presiding Officer and myself were there at that time. By unanimous consent this judge was confirmed. I look forward to learning more about the nominee's views on the proper role of the judiciary at his confirmation hearings, as well as a thorough floor debate in which all are heard. Again, and above all, Judge Roberts' nomination should be handled with the utmost dignity and respect, which the position he has been nominated to deserves. The fact that the nominee is a person of character and integrity will add to the tenor of the proceedings. The nominations process needs to be fair, including a fair hearing, a floor debate in which all views are heard, and then an up-or-down vote on confirmation, so he can be sitting on the Supreme Court when the term begins in October of this year. Judges are like umpires. They should be neutral. We trust them not to pick sides before the game begins but to fairly apply the rules. We should measure our nominees on whether they will give all parties a fair shake and consider the merits of every dispute, not based on whether we like particular results. In carrying out my part in the Senate's role, I have always believed our Founding Fathers intended judges to interpret the Constitution rather than make law from the bench. The law needs to be stable and dependable, for the good of the whole society. I will continue to evaluate nominees based on whether they demonstrate competence, appropriate judicial temperament, and a commitment to the fair construction of our Constitution and our laws. It is important that the Senate act promptly so we have a nine-member Supreme Court in October when the new term begins. There is no reason why that should not happen. I commend the President for both his selection and the process he went through to make it. Sandra Day O'Connor has been a historic and wise figure on the Court. I hope her legacy of grace and class will extend to the process by which her seat on the Court will be filled. When Ronald Reagan appointed her, it changed our Nation for the better, and she has been a remarkably strong and influential figure even outside the confines of the Court. I am honored by the opportunity the people of Minnesota have given me to examine the President's nominee. I will render a judgment on the President's choice with the values and expectations of Minnesotans in mind. It is an exciting time for this country to reexamine our constitutional processes and democratic institutions and come together. I think that is important. We have a unique opportunity to come together and have a dignified process, not to be pulled by special interest groups that will try to dictate what we should do based on their beliefs rather than what is good for the country. What is good for the country is to have a process in which we examine the character and integrity and judicial temperament of a candidate, not their position on a particular case. If you look at the history of Judge Roberts, who was in the Solicitor General's Office, he argued cases there; he did his job. Folks will say he argued that the Supreme Court doesn't require taxpayers to pay for abortions. They will point to a case where he defended U.S. law to protect the American flag. He was doing his job and he did it well. We should be looking at whether he did it well. I commend the President on his choice and look forward to a confirmation process of dignity, respect, and commitment to the best interests of our Nation a generation into the future. We pride ourselves on being the greatest deliberative body in the world. This is our moment to show that to the country and the world. Let us do it right. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, as my colleague mentions, this program seeks to address the health care infrastructure by training nurse practitioners through the University of Minnesota's excellent distance learning program for nurse practitioners. This program will dramatically increase the capacity of Rwandan medical and nursing schools, creating new physicians and nurses with a high standard of training for a permanent, skilled, and sustainable force of health care professionals in Rwanda.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, yes, the distinguished Senator from Alaska is correct in his statement that this is an issue at a crisis point in Africa, and one that the United States has rightly committed ourselves to fighting. I have a particular interest in an innovative proposal by the University of Minnesota to partner with the government of Rwanda to institute a comprehensive training and support program that would provide HIV care to every HIV-infected Rwandan eligible for treatment within 18 months of implementation.

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, I will work with my colleague to gain funding for this important program. Safe Drinking Water

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. I wonder if my colleague from Michigan will yield for a question.

Mr. COLEMAN. Those questions that my colleague from Kentucky has raised are what we would like some answers to. Are we intending to cover public officials, U.S. Senators, by the provisions of this amendment, and do we include----

Mr. COLEMAN. Absolutely.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, we have had a very productive day dealing with homeland security, which is a $32 billion bill. In the past couple of weeks we passed an energy bill, a highway bill, and a trade agreement. We have a consultation process going on now for a Supreme Court appointment that I think is going fairly well. There has been a pretty good atmosphere in this body. My concern is that the oxygen is being sucked out of that good atmosphere as we get involved in partisan political attacks. The circumstances that have motivated this statute are ones that are being reviewed right now by special counsel. That is the way it should be. We have somebody, the President, who says he has confidence in that special counsel, and it seems that rather than play partisan political games that we should let the special counsel do his work; that we should cool the rhetoric and we should focus on the business of the people, which I think we have been doing, which is a good thing. I would really love to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle some questions about the statute. There is a reason we do things through committee and we review them. Perhaps one of my colleagues on the other side would yield to a question. There is an existing Federal law that makes it a crime to reveal the identity of agents. There are some very specific intent provisions in that statute. The law states that for a violation to occur, a Government official must have deliberately identified a covert agent. As I read this statute, I am not sure whether there is an intent requirement. The criminal statute requires that they must have known the agent was undercover and that the Government was trying to keep that agent's identity a secret. That is the criminal law. As I read this statute, I do not see any indication of intent. So when the amendment says ``no Federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed information,'' does that mean intentionally disclose? Does that mean unintentionally disclosed? Are we mirroring the criminal provisions to then apply them to a security clearance? I am not sure, and I would hope that on the time of my colleagues on the other side they will respond to those questions. If we went through the normal committee process, I think those are the kinds of questions we would sort out. As I look at the amendment, it talks about ``no Federal employee.'' Does that mean public official? I would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree that this amendment should cover public officials. It should cover us. Is the intent of my colleagues to specifically preclude Senators from losing their access to classified information? I think that is the intent. If one goes back and looks at definitions of Federal employees, that is the conclusion one would come to. If one comes to that conclusion, I think that is a pretty poor conclusion. If we are going to talk about being outraged by the fact that classified information has been revealed--and, again, I think we have to answer this question of intent or not, but I would hope that my colleagues would look at this and say, yes, we mean to include public officials. And if we do include public officials, there is some other construction language we would have to deal with because public officials do not necessarily have clearances, but we have access to classified information. So we would have to work on it. I know my colleague from Kansas would like to speak.

Mr. COLEMAN. I suggest to my friend from Alabama that is the reason, in the Executive order, we have a standard of knowing. In fact, if you do something negligently, there is a standard and you can be held accountable. But there is no such standard, whatever, in this hastily crafted political amendment and, as such, my colleagues should reject it.

Mr. COLEMAN. The Senator from Alabama, based on my reading of this, is correct.

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, once again, let's be very clear. It is about politics. That is all this is about--politics. We have an Executive order that has been in place for 10 years that talks about dealing with classified information, talks about what happens when classified information is revealed. An Executive order, by the way, has a standard, deals with a situation: knowingly, willfully or negligently. We have a standard. My colleagues on the other side talk about a coverup. We have a matter that is being investigated by special counsel. The President of the United States says: I have confidence in the special counsel. Let's see what he does. We have Karl Rove, who is cooperating with the special counsel, who openly said: Whoever I talked to, talk to them. There is no cover. This is about politics. I just came from a press conference a little while ago with the head of the campaign committee of the Democratic Party about this issue with Joe Wilson. It is about politics. We have an amendment in which on the first blush it talks about Federal employees, and then after questioning they say: Well, yes, it means public officials. It is not in there. But what happened to the greatest deliberative body in the world? This is about politics. We have an amendment crafted as an ex post facto. Will that pass muster? I don't know. I have questions about it. Again, I go back to the Executive order. It is very clear. It talks about knowingly, willfully, negligently. That makes sense. If you are an individual with your wallet stolen with a piece of information in there that led to the agent being uncovered, you are impacted by this. What about if your office is in a secure facility, somehow it was burglarized; are you covered? There is a reason you have an Executive order that has been in place 10 years that provides a knowing standard, a logical standard, an effective standard. This is a poorly crafted piece of political propaganda. That is all it is. Listen to the facts. They are based on what I read in Newsweek. Instead of doing what you would think we do in this deliberative body, we wait to see what the special counsel has to say. We wait to get the facts before the Senate. If, in fact, we find this Executive order is lacking in scope, is lacking in effect, is somehow not doing the job it needs to do, we can provide some legislation to deal with it. We have none of that. What we have is ``gotcha politics'' in Washington in 2005. So we are dealing with something that is hastily crafted, poorly crafted, that does not explicitly say who it covers, that does not have a clear standard of intent, that is simply unnecessary--unnecessary when the conduct that was supposed to be concerned about, or should be concerned about is already covered by Executive order.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield to the Senator from Alabama such time as he needs.

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. COLEMAN. How much time do we have left?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my good friend and colleague Senator Bond, the Chairman of the Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. I had intended to offer an amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill today. However, I understand that Senator Bond has agreed to work with me on the issues contained in my amendment in order to address tax cheats in the Transportation, Treasury Appropriations bill instead. I appreciate Senator Bond's interest in this important issue and I also appreciate his willingness to work with me to ensure that this common sense, bipartisan amendment is included in his appropriations bill. This is a commonsense, bipartisan amendment that will address two problems the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations identified in separate hearings. First is the issue of Federal contractors who continue to get new contracts even though they owe millions of dollars in unpaid taxes. And second is the Government's inability to monitor the unnecessary expenditure of millions of dollars by DOD personnel on first and business class airline tickets. I am pleased to be joined by my good friends and colleagues, Senator Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator Wyden, Senator Akaka and Senator Coburn. If my colleagues are concerned about the deficit, concerned about saving the taxpayer money, then our amendment should be an easy one to support. Who doesn't support making certain that those who do business, with the Government pay the taxes they admittedly owe? And who doesn't think that Government employees like those at DOD should fly coach rather than first or business class? This is common sense. Let me get into the specifics. On June 16, 2005, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, learned there are problems that prevent the Government from collecting unpaid taxes from Federal contractors. Even more troubling is the fact that these contractors who have not paid their taxes continue to receive new contracts from the Government. When the Government pays a Federal contractor, it has the option of paying directly from the Treasury or by using a credit card. Last year, the Government paid $10 billion to Federal contractors using credit cards. One of the problems we identified is that the Financial Management Service, which is responsible for collecting unpaid taxes from Federal contractors, cannot collect these owed taxes unless the contractor is paid directly from the Treasury. When the Government makes purchases with a credit card, the bank that issued the card acts as a middle man between the Treasury and the contractor. Thus, the contractor is only known to the bank. For the Government to collect unpaid taxes, we need to know which contractors are being paid. For example, a NASA contractor who owes nearly $200,000 in unpaid taxes was paid $570,000 last year. Because they were paid directly from the Treasury, this contractor had $6,600 withheld from their contract payments to reduce their tax debt. This same contractor also received an additional $30,000 but the Government was unable to withhold money from this payment for tax debt because the contractor was paid with a credit card. To fix this problem, the first section of my amendment would require the Government to develop procedures for collecting unpaid taxes when credit cards are used to pay Federal contractors. Again, this is not rocket science. This is commonsense, smart government that I think our constituents just expect from us. At a second hearing on November 6, 2003, the subcommittee heard testimony that the Department of Defense had spent $123.8 million on first and business class travel in 2001 and 2002 and that 73 percent of this travel was not properly authorized or justified. This resulted in a loss of millions of dollars. The Office of Management and Budget requires all Federal agencies to annually report their first class travel to the General Services Administration in order to monitor travel for potential abuse. However, $120.9 million of the $123.8 million that DOD spent was for business class travel. For example, one DOD traveler spent $9,500 on a business class ticket which could have been purchased for $2,500 in coach class. Because this traveler used business class it would not have been reported. Given that the preponderance of DOD's abusive travel was business class, the abuse at DOD could not have been identified from DOD's annual travel report. The second section of my amendment corrects this for all Federal agencies by requiring the annual travel report to include both first and business class airline travel and further requires that the report be furnished to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the House Government Reform Committee so we can more closely monitor Federal travel for potential abuse. So, we have an opportunity to do some smart savings to reduce the deficit and that is simply to make sure that contractors doing business with Uncle Sam pay the taxes they owe, and that DOD personnel travel coach when it is on the Government's dime rather than high on the hog as has been the case. I appreciate the strong bipartisan support we have for this amendment, and particularly for the good work of Senators Levin, Wyden, Akaka, and Coburn. I hope this commonsense, good Government amendment that will help reduce our deficit can be adopted by the Senate as part of the Transportation, Treasury Appropriations Bill.

Mr. COLEMAN. I am happy to work with Senator Bond on these issues with, a goal of including these reforms on the Transportation, Treasury Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006, I will not offer the amendment I filed and intended to offer to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill. I thank Senator Bond for his strong leadership on the Appropriations Committee and his support of this important amendment. explosive detection equipment

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield such time to the majority whip as he needs.