Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. President. I love that chart. Let's go back to Jimmy Carter: 18 percent inflation, 23 percent interest rates, long lines at the gas pump. You talk about turning a sow's ear into a silk purse, that chart does it. But let's talk about reality and let's get away from the abstract. I agree with my colleague from North Dakota: Let's get away from what the economists say. I want to quote Joan Thompson, executive vice president and CFO of Midwest Wire and Cable in St. Paul, Minnesota, a small business. She says: Our company will be stronger, continue to grow and provide more jobs with these type of incentives [we have seen in the tax cut]. She singled out the increase in small business expensing for new investment and increase in first year bonus depreciation as two keys in her company's resurgence. Cirrus Manufacturing, one of the largest private employers in Duluth, MN, an area up north that suffered a lot of job loss right after the tax cut was passed--they sell private airplanes--talked about how they got sales that all of a sudden happened, that had been on hold for ages, because of the increase in depreciation. I am not going to talk about charts. I am going to talk about reality. I have to hit one other thing about reality; and that is, the reality is we were hit with September 11. We were hit with Enron and Worldcom. We were hit with the burst of the dot.coms. And we have come back. And why? That is the choice here today. Do we come back with providing the opportunity for small business to invest and grow jobs or do we continue to tax? Do we continue to regulate? Do we continue to overspend and drive this economy further down? We are moving forward. Business investment is up, consumer spending is up, GDP is up. Housing starts are up. Jobless claims are down. Payroll jobs are up. Productivity is increasing substantially. Total investment is up. The unemployment rate is down. We are moving in the right direction with this President's and this Republican Senate's vision. Let's keep moving in that direction.

Mr. COLEMAN. I deeply appreciate my colleague's concern for fair compensation. I note Senator Dorgan has been one of the chief advocates for trade with Cuba. I hope he would take that same philosophy about human rights and workers rights in dealing with Cuba. I would also reflect a little bit on the comment about trade. NAFTA was signed by President Clinton and the Uruguay Round after being approved by a Democrat House and Democrat Senate. I believe Senator Harkin supported both of those votes. On NTR trade with China, I believe both Senators Dorgan and Harkin supported that. The reality is, we have a trade ambassador going there right now to push for some controls, push for expanded buying by China, cut down the deficit. But the bottom line is, How do we make us competitive? Going back to the National Association of Manufacturers, they say the U.S. industry is burdened by legal and regulatory systems that retard growth and destroy jobs. That is what we have to deal with. We have to deal with the underlying things that make it impossible for businesses to grow in this country.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, Democrats express concern of a loss of manufacturing jobs and our country's ability to compete in the world; again, a concern I share. But then Democrats turn around and oppose each and every policy objective the National Association of Manufacturers says it needs to stay competitive. That is what this is about. How do we stay competitive--including medical malpractice reform, to rein in runaway health care costs killing our small businesses, asbestos reform, class action reform, and a myriad of other reforms. In addition, there is talk of perhaps Democratic obstruction to an Energy bill that will create 500,000 to 700,000 new jobs. Are the Democrats prepared to come around on these issues and finally support the thing our Nation's manufacturers say they need to stay alive?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, first, we can have a great debate about overtime. I can tell you from talking to folks in Minnesota--I get calls from the building trades and others--that the issue doesn't affect them. The fact is what we are looking to do is make business more efficient. That is what it is about. We do not want to hurt workers. I think it is about time we addressed the root causes. What is it that helps business expand or not? I think that is what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle at times just do not seem to get. You talk to business people, and what do they tell you? Cut taxes, cut regulation, give them the opportunity. That is what is in the tax cut. Increasing depreciation, increasing expensing for small business, if we do those things, they will grow jobs. There are a whole range of issues on which I hope we can find common ground when it comes to protecting workers. I will work with you, but in the end, you have to have workers, and you can't have workers unless you do those things that allow small business to grow. If you roll back tax cuts and roll back expanding accelerated depreciation, if you roll back the increased expensing, if you continue to short business and increase regulation, in the end there will be no jobs for folks to work overtime. That is what it is all about. Let us address the root causes of things that grow jobs. That is what this Republican agenda is doing. That is what the President's tax cuts are doing. Let us keep moving in that direction.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the comments of my colleague from North Dakota indicate that they do reject the Dean-Gephardt proposal that will roll back all the tax cuts. Two observations: No. 1, spending. Goodness gracious, the Republican Conference has rejected $1.3 trillion in additional spending proposals from my colleagues across the aisle since the beginning of January. That is like the kid who kills his parents and throws himself on the mercy of the court and says: I need mercy. I am an orphan. You are talking about spending and, in addition, talking about tax cuts. We always hear: Tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich. Seventy-nine percent of the tax cuts at the top bracket are small business people. They are folks in Minnesota I deal with all of the time who come to me and say: This makes a difference; this is important to us. Seventy-nine percent. We have to get away from the class warfare and recognize that we are growing jobs by helping small business.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. I ask the chairman, sometimes judges can be graded by peers, folks who served with them, who know firsthand the quality of the work they do. Is it true Judge Kuhl has the support of over 100 California judges across the political spectrum?

Mr. COLEMAN. Would it be the truth in regard to these nominees, in regard to Owens and Kuhl and Pickering and Estrada, who we haven't talked about, that in each and every case the measures of their competence, be it the bar association, the gold standard my colleagues across the aisle have talked about for so long, be it the recommendations of their colleagues, other judges with whom they have worked, be it the recommendations of the voters when they put themselves up for a vote--in each and every case, they received the highest recommendation; that is the truth, is it not?

Mr. COLEMAN. Is it true Janice Rogers Brown was retained to serve by 76 percent of California voters?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I have great respect for the Senator from New Mexico and the principles he just talked about: his deep concern of the breakdown of the system, of the tradition of the Senate. It is important. This is a very special place. This is the greatest deliberative body in the world. I believe that. That is really what we are talking about today--the tradition of the Senate. That is part of why this debate is important. This is not a game. This is not a charade. This is important. The past 11 Presidents' judicial nominees confirmed v. filibustered: 2,372 confirmed, 0 successfully filibustered until now--the traditions of the Senate, the traditions of this great institution. We have been up all night. We have had a lot of conversation, a lot of debate. My colleagues across the aisle said it is absolutely, patently false to say we haven't successfully filibustered circuit court nominees. Read my charts. They are real. Here is the list. Judicial nominees subjected to cloture attempts 1968 to 2003 time after time: No. 1, Abe Fortas, rejected. The Senator from Michigan, who was part of that process had a letter saying, by the way, that was a bipartisan effort. The Republican leader supported cloture on that. Of all these, not a single partisan effort where the nomination was successfully blocked. The folks involved in making those decisions who predated me reflect what the Senator from New Mexico talked about--a reverence for the tradition of this body, a tradition I believe that is reflected in the Constitution that says decisions about judges are done essentially by a majority--two-thirds for treaties. As I listened, I understood what was happening here. Part of this tradition is any single Senator can stand up and say: I object. That is who we are. That is a great power for an individual Senator. We talk about advice and consent. I think perhaps the concept now in people's minds is that we all should be part of this advice and consent process; we all should be heard. But the reality is, in the end, and again according to the Constitution, the decision is going to be made by a majority. It is not about the President being successful 98 percent of the time. It is about 100 percent of the time giving an opportunity for an up-or-down vote. That is what this is about, 100 percent of the time giving an up-or-down vote and then let the vote be what it may. In fact, nominees may be rejected. It is not about guaranteeing the outcome, but it is following the Constitution to give people a right to a vote. That is the process, that is the tradition, and that is the history. We run such a terrible risk when we cast that aside. This has been a very sharp debate. There has been a lot of discussion about all sorts of other issues about which we should be talking. I reiterate again, I am deeply concerned about jobs. I am deeply concerned about the economy. Some folks say it is hard, but we can actually multitask around here. We can absolutely uphold our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent and give a vote and do other business. We passed the third largest tax cut in the history of the country, and we are seeing the impact of that now. The economy is moving forward. GDP is up 7.2 percent in the last report. There are over 250,000 jobs over the last couple of months. There is more to be done, but we can do more than one thing. For those of my colleagues who protest, oh, we are spending all this time, we spent 10 or 11 hours on Monday talking about Searchlight, NV, talking about rabbits eating cactus and rocks. That is part of the process. People get frustrated. I understand that. The bottom line is, we stand here after 30 hours of debate, now almost 38 hours, and what do we get out of that? What do we understand? We understand that the history of the Senate is one in which this body up to now has not used a partisan filibuster to block judicial nominees. We see that happening today. We see the record of that. They talk about 168 to 4 and talk about all the judges. Clearly, when we talk about appellate judges, we have 29 confirmed and 6 who have been blocked and 6 who are threatened to be blocked. Now we are talking about 29 and 12. That is 30 percent. Not only is that nothing to be proud of, but it is in contravention to the constitutional direction the Framers and the Founders gave us. The consequences of this are ones about which we should all be concerned. We are talking about our judicial system. This is not a game. This is one of the fundamental underpinnings of this constitutional democracy, and we have a solemn obligation and responsibility to choose men and women of good judgment and good character who bring a willingness to apply the law to the table and to make judgments. The reality is that those candidates before us are folks their own peers have said are of the highest quality. The American Bar Association, the gold standard that my colleagues on the other side talked about so many times, say they are highly qualified. In some cases, the voters, those who have run for office--Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown--have received overwhelming shows of support. That tells you something about the mainstream, the bipartisan nature of the support. Judge Carolyn Kuhl: A bipartisan group of nearly 100 of her colleagues said: We believe her elevation to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will bring credit to all of us and the Senate that confirms her. As appellate judge, she will serve the people of our country with distinction, as she has done as a trial judge. A bipartisan group of 23 women judges of the superior court who served with Judge Kuhl wrote: As sitting judges, we, more than anyone, appreciate the importance of an independent, fairminded, and principled judiciary. We believe Carolyn Kuhl represents the best values of such a judiciary. The fact is, these judges hold strong opinions, there is no question about that, but to a person they said they will do what a judge needs to do and put those personal opinions aside and apply the law. Their colleagues who know them have raised their hands and said: Yes, that is what they have done; that is what they will do. The voters who know them reaffirmed their positions by reelecting them by overwhelming majorities. That is what we should be looking at. That is mainstream. That is not extreme. In the end, we are grasping for something simple: for every Senator on this floor to do what every Senator has the right to do--to be heard, to give your advice to the President of the United States, and if you don't agree with his nominees, do what has been done through the entire history of this country, for 214 years: Give your advice, give a vote; vote them up, vote them down, but give them a vote. It is what the Constitution requires. It is what I believe the future of this institution requires. Let's get beyond the partisan politics. Let's put it aside. Let's do the right thing. Let's come together. Let's focus on getting things done. That is our opportunity, and I hope we don't squander it. I yield to my colleague from South Carolina.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Has my colleague from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania talked to small business owners about the impact of accelerated depreciation?

Mr. COLEMAN. I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, on the issue of malpractice litigation regarding doctors and the impact that has on the cost of health care, and the impact the cost of health care has on small business and growing jobs, does he see a correlation between the increased litigation costs and the impact it has on the condition of the economy?

Mr. COLEMAN. Would it be fair to say that our friends on the other side of the aisle have obstructed our efforts to pass malpractice reform?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Utah, for yielding. I have a question that reflects upon the implications, changing the constitutional standard. The Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania noted that of the past 11 Presidents' judicial nominees, 2,372 were confirmed, zero filibuster. The President was elected and he has served his responsibilities on the part of his office; we have our responsibility. I take it that the Senator from Utah would say part of those responsibilities in the Constitution give us the opportunity to vote, a majority vote to confirm or deny the confirmation of judges. The question I have concerns a comment that appeared in a Minnesota paper. Like the Senator from Colorado, Minnesota papers have commented on this problem. There was a column by George Will, a nationally syndicated columnist, that appeared in the Duluth News Tribune. He said the following, and I ask the Senator from Utah whether he would agree with this statement: If the Senate rules, exploited by an anticonstitutional minority, are allowed to trump the Constitution's test and two centuries of practice, the Senate's power to consent to judicial nominations will have become a Senate right to require a 60- vote supermajority for confirmations by thus nullifying the President's power to shape the judiciary, the Democratic Party will yield a Presidential power without having won a Presidential election. Would the Senator from Utah agree with this statement?

Mr. COLEMAN. Will the Senator, if I could just follow up--so the record is clear----

Mr. COLEMAN. If the Senator will yield the floor--and I would very respectfully disagree with his last assertion that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have no plan; they have a plan. The plan is to roll back the President's tax cuts. Listen to the candidates. They want to roll back that tax cut. The lowering of the tax rates has generated more income in the pockets of Americans.

Mr. COLEMAN. It is clear, in the history of this great Republic, the Senate has not denied a confirmation of a circuit court nominee by filibuster?

Mr. COLEMAN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania yield for a question? I want to talk about judges in a second.

Mr. COLEMAN. Is the distinguished Senator familiar with some of the statistics that came out recently regarding jobs and growth in the economy?

Mr. COLEMAN. I believe about 50,000 double to over 100,000. As the distinguished Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is aware, that payroll employment increased by 126,000 jobs in October.

Mr. COLEMAN. Is the distinguished Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania aware that the gross domestic product--by the way, the gross domestic product is the way we measure growth in this economy-- increased at a 7.2-percent annual rate?

Mr. COLEMAN. Is the Senator from Pennsylvania aware of the actions that this Senate has tried to take to grow jobs? One of the things we attempted to do was to pass a bill regarding class action reform. Does the distinguished Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania believe that class action reform, if it were passed, would help grow jobs?

Mr. COLEMAN. Is the distinguished Senator aware that business investment increased in the last quarter about 15 percent? Does that have a relationship to growing jobs?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would respectfully suggest again that our friends on the other side of the aisle have a plan. The plan is to roll back the tax cuts. Again, look at the statistics. Look at what is happening in the economy. Any American being out of work is a terrible thing. I am a former mayor. I always understood the best welfare program, the best housing program, and the best health care is jobs. But you have to plan a vision. The Bible said people without a vision will perish. This President has a vision, and that vision is producing results. We are seeing it. There is an increase in consumer spending as a result of tax cuts.

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield.