Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the comments of my colleague from Maryland regarding higher education, and my colleague from Massachusetts in regard to Pell grants. We need to support our students. Pell grants are now at $4,050. This amendment will move the maximum grant to $4,500. The cost of this amendment is $1.9 billion. It is paid for by reducing spending in other Federal programs, except education, by a commensurate amount. This is the kind of investment we have to make. This is good for our country. It is good for our young people. It is good for our future. I urge my colleagues to accept the amendment.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk.

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

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 Governmental affairs will hold a hearing entitled ``Profiteering In a Non-Profit Industry: Abusive Practices in Credit Counseling.'' The subcommittee intends to hold this hearing to address the problems facing the credit counseling industry. Once community-based and consumer-friendly, the credit counseling industry has undergone significant transformation during the past several years. New and aggressive profit-driven participants have entered the market, causing a rash of consumer complaints about high fees, misleading advertising, and poor service. The proliferation of for-profit, ``back-office'' servicing companies is threatening to change the industry into a debt collection mill instead of an industry whose focus should be on consumer counseling and education. The subcommittee's March 24 hearing will review the most egregious cases for misconduct among credit counseling agencies and their for-profit service providers and examine what solutions may be available to repair the industry. The hearings will take place on Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 9 a.m., in room 342 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. subcommittee on public lands and forests

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, are we still in morning business?

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. I would like to spend the little time remaining to talk about the economy. I was mayor of St. Paul, MN, for 8 years, and I learned as mayor that the best welfare program is a job; the best housing program is a job. Access to health care quite often came through a job. I also learned nobody jumps on a sinking ship; that hope and confidence yield investment. As we look at the data, look at what is happening in the economy, it is very clear the economy is moving forward. This Nation has come a long way from the terrible day of September 11 and the impact that had both on the infrastructure in New York and in Washington, but also on the psyche of the American public, the confidence. Look at the scandals on Wall Street, the WorldComs and the Enrons. Undermining the trust and confidence in the American system, the way we do business, that has an impact. The reality is we have come so far. In the third quarter of last year we had the greatest GDP growth in nearly 2 decades. The fourth quarter exceeded expectations contributing to 6.1 percent annual growth rate in the last half of the year, the strongest 6 months gain since 1984. It is expected the 2004 economic growth will be between 4.6 and 4.8 percent. We sound like statisticians here. I am not sure the average man or woman worried about their economic future and feeding their family understands the impact of that, but that is the fastest annual growth in this country since 1984. When you try to turn around an economy that has suffered so much, when we try to do the things with the President's leadership--to cut taxes, put more money in the pockets of moms and dads, to allow business to increase expensing that, to generate bonus depreciation--it then results in more economic investment, which results in more jobs, more jobs. Those are the things we have done, and the result is that the economy is moving forward. The statistics show that. I understand that capital expenditures are on the rise. The Department of Commerce reported earlier this week that capital goods orders are rising and are 3.6 percent higher in January than in the final quarter of 2003. We have nearly 660,000 less unemployment claims than we had at our peak figure last summer and, I think, over 336,000 new jobs according to the payroll survey, the most narrow reading--and the household survey shows much more of an increase. If you do something out of your home, if you are individually employed, it doesn't count that. I learned from my 17-year-old that people do business out of eBay, and they are not listed in the payroll survey. But the household survey is significant. Millions of jobs have been created in this country. So we are moving forward. In my State, the last report of the State budget showed very good news. The terrible deficits and gaps we were facing, the fiscal crisis, may be over. The National Conference of State Legislatures recently said that. So we have a lot of good news. Over the last 6 months, in the course of a Presidential campaign, all you heard is the negative, telling people again and again how bad it is. Ultimately, common sense tells you if you tell somebody something often enough and put enough money behind it, they may actually believe it. The problem is, if they believe it, it impacts their confidence and we all suffer. That is a bad thing. Instead of criticizing, we need to work together to get things done to move this economy forward at a faster pace. The Senator from Missouri recently talked about a highway bill, a jobs bill, a transportation bill that would create 1.7 million jobs while improving the Nation's infrastructure. We need to invest in improving locks and dams so farmers can get products to market and continue to grow a farm economy that is doing a lot better. We need to pass an energy bill to create between 500,000 and 700,000 new jobs--a bill that has been subject to a filibuster. That has to end and we need to stop criticizing and pledge to work together to get something done. We need legal reform. We came within a vote of class action reform. Talk to the folks who create jobs in this country, to the manufacturers. They will tell you the biggest impediments they have are the cost of class actions, the cost of litigation, the cost of regulation and taxation--those things that we impose and that we can fix if we simply came together with a positive vision and commitment to work in a bipartisan way to get something done. If you really care about moms and dads and their ability to put food on the table and to work, then figure out a way to pass an energy bill, a highway bill, class action reform, and deal with asbestos reform, which is a critical issue--pay for those who are hurt, but make sure the lack of reform doesn't drive companies under and hurt jobs, hurt the ability for mom and dad to take care of their family. I found out when I was a mayor that the best thing I could do for kids was to do those things to make sure mom and dad had a job. What we are working on today is another jobs bill. It is going to take working in a bipartisan way, putting aside some of the negative, why we cannot do it, how terrible things are. Let's focus on those things we can do to improve-- and they are very clear--the opportunity for mom and dad to get a job. The way to change an economy this size is not like a race car ripping around the corner. It is more like one of those big boats that travel on Lake Superior. You just get it moving in the right direction. I suggest that we are moving in the right direction. There is more work to be done. Let's get about the business of doing that. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, this week is National Peace Corps Week. It is with great pleasure that I send my congratulations to the Peace Corps volunteers serving throughout the world as we celebrate the Peace Corps' 43 years of service. Forty-three years ago, President John F. Kennedy mobilized a generation to work in emerging nations around the world in education, community development, agriculture, health care, and public works. Since 1961, over 170,000 Americans have volunteered their expertise, time, and energy to foster development and progress in 136 countries. There is no greater symbol of America's generosity than American volunteers living and working in partnership with the people of developing nations to encourage education and opportunity. Currently, over 7,500 volunteers are serving in 71 countries around the world--the highest number of volunteers in the field in 28 years-- and applications have risen by 10 percent. Last year, Peace Corps entered or re-entered Albania, Azerbaijan, Chad, and Fiji, and many other countries have expressed interest in establishing a partnership with Peace Corps. I strongly support Peace Corps entry into Mexico for the first time. It is my deepest hope that we continue to recognize and support the Peace Corps' important work. By honoring the Peace Corps, we reaffirm our Nation's commitment to strengthen freedom and create opportunities around the world. President Bush has announced a goal of doubling the number of Peace Corps volunteers over 5 years. I support this effort and the President's budget request for the Peace Corps. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics Affairs, it is my objective to help the Peace Corps become not only bigger, but also better and safer. The well-being of the volunteer must remain the top priority of the Corps. I believe the Peace Corps must have the resources it needs to ensure volunteer safety. I also believe the Peace Corps should continue efforts to diversify its volunteers. We need to bring into the Corps more older volunteers, and more minorities. Only then can be the Peace Corps truly represent the face of America's melting pot. The Peace Corps is part of Minnesota's heritage--over 5,000 Minnesotans have served as volunteers. And while the Peace Corps has been rightly associated with John F. Kennedy, it was Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey who proposed the idea in the 1950s. I am very happy to join with Peace Corps volunteers, past and present, to celebrate National Peace Corps Week--March 1-7, 2004.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I yield to my friend, the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Connecticut. I am proud of working with the President to grow jobs. I firmly believe, from my days as a mayor, when you cut taxes, you shape an environment in which folks invest. And when they invest, mom and dad have a job. The best welfare program is a job. The best housing program is a job. Access to health care comes with a job, most often. So we have to do what is necessary to grow jobs. We are moving in that direction. Clearly, more needs to be done. Changing the economy at times reminds me of turning around one of those oar boats in Lake Superior: You have to get it moving in the right direction. I believe we are moving in the right direction, but more has to be done. We have an opportunity with the Dodd amendment to do more, to make sure we use taxpayer dollars wisely, in a way that prevents the outsourcing of American jobs and grows jobs here. The underlying bill we are dealing with, the Jumpstart JOBS Act, is moving us in that direction. We have to do more. We are doing it right here. I am one who has supported and supports expanding markets. I understand the importance of trade in terms of growing jobs. This initiative is not designed to step in the way of our efforts to expand and broaden our capacity to find new markets for our products. On the contrary, what it does is ensures those firms which have exemplary goods and services to sell have a fair shake at contracts involving Federal dollars. This issue has come up in Minnesota. From conversations with my Governor, it is clear--and I understood this when I was a former mayor--we have an obligation to get the best possible value for taxpayers. We have to look at the bottom line. But at the same time we have to be concerned about the impact on our State and national economy of foreign offshoring when other options are available, when the work can be done here. I call this commonsense legislation. Again, I support trade as a way to create wealth and jobs. But for a government at any level to contract out with foreign entities for delivery of federally funded U.S. programs is tantamount to Detroit, MI buying a fleet of foreign- made squad cars. It doesn't make any sense. It flies in the face of common sense. Recent news reports noted that under a $16.8 million contract with an Arizona firm, calls to a Minnesota toll-free number for help with lost and stolen food stamp cards are being routed to Bombay, India. Under a $13.3 million contract, software programs in India are helping build a Web-based system to automate eligibility for Medicaid and other health care benefits to low-income Minnesotans. The administration of U.S. Government programs ought to be done here at home in the U.S. Even if some of the work is outsourced to private vendors, the thought of our Medicaid or food stamp programs being run out of someplace in India would offend most Minnesotans' sensibilities, and it offends mine. We have an opportunity to talk about what we do with taxpayer dollars. Would you use those taxpayer dollars in a way that fosters the growth and development of American jobs or do we send them overseas? I think common sense says we use them here. My colleague and I may disagree at times on tax policy or on a range of issues. But this is an issue that should cut across partisan lines. We have an interest in growing jobs in this country and this is a way to make commonsense use of taxpayer dollars. I am proud to stand in support of my colleague's amendment to this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I pay homage to Minnesotans who are helping the Minnesota National Guard and their families. The National Guard serves our country and the States as a unique organization among all branches of the United States Armed Forces. The Guard is America's community-based defense force, located in more than 2,700 cities and towns across the Nation. Sixty-two of those cities are located in Minnesota. National Guard members are citizen-soldiers and airmen who are integral members of their communities. Minnesota National Guard members live, shop, work, worship, and go to school in Minnesota's cities and towns. This inexorable link between the community and its citizen-soldiers is what makes the National Guard an important and necessary part of their local and national communities. The Minnesota Army and Air National Guard are reserve components of the United States Army and Air Force. During times of national emergency, National Guard members may be called into active Federal service by the President of the United States. Guard members from Minnesota have served in every major conflict involving the United States Armed Forces since the Guard's inception more than 360 years ago. At this time, Minnesota National Guard members are serving in Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Kosovo, as well as in other countries and within the State of Minnesota. For the past 40 years, National Guard members have primarily served within their own communities, helping assist local law enforcement agencies during emergencies. In this capacity, members worked for the Guard on a part-time basis, usually just during emergency situations. Guard members earned the majority of their income from their jobs in the community. In the past couple of years, Guard members have been called to active duty. Because of this, they no longer earn their civilian incomes. For the most part, their civilian pay far exceeds their pay on active duty. In addition, when Guard members are deployed, they and their families need to support two households--the Guard member in their remote location and the family the Guard member leaves behind. While employers are encouraged to meet the pay differential for the Guard, oftentimes small companies cannot meet this obligation. Many Guard members and their families are caught in an unanticipated set of circumstances due to long terms of deployment overseas while supporting and protecting our country. Inspired by the National Guard's members' dedication, patriotism, and selflessness, many Minnesotans have stepped forward to help Minnesota National Guard soldiers and their families. The efforts of Bill and Teri Popp, of Minnetonka, MN, deserve special praise. Long-time supporters of the Guard, they gave generously and challenged other Minnesotans to join them in supporting the Minnesota National Guard. Bill, founder and owner of POPP Telecom, believes that his company can and should improve the quality of life for everyone in his community. To that end, the Popps donated $1,000 to every Minnesota National Guard member who was serving in Iraq, as of November 14, 2003. The gift the Popps made to Guard members in Iraq totaled $166,000. A true patriot, Bill included a thank you letter to each Guard member that received the donation that provided: ``Thank you for putting your life on hold, and on the line, in service to our country. Thank you for . . . risking your life to advance liberty and justice for all people of the world.'' To then set an example to the community, the Popps made an additional donation to the Minnesota National Guard Foundation to help Guard members in financial need. Bill, through his company, also prepared and ran announcements on Minnesota radio stations encouraging other people and companies in Minnesota to make donations to the foundation to support members of the Minnesota National Guard and military reserves who have been impacted economically by extended periods of active duty service. The Popps not only have promised to make sure the sacrifices the Guard and other military personal make in service to our country will not be forgotten, they have followed through to help that promise come true. They epitomize the strength and patriotism of our great Nation. On behalf of all Minnesotans, I express my heartfelt appreciation to Bill and Teri Popp for their generosity and patriotism. They deserve all our thanks.

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.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to recognize and pay tribute to my good friend, a great Minnesotan, and a real American hero, the late Herb Brooks, whose memory, accomplishments, and contributions are being memorialized today for all time in St. Paul. Herb Brooks and I cam from two different worlds. I am so glad I got to know him in this place. Like a lot of sports fans, he gave me the greatest spectator moment of my life in Lake Placid. But what he has taught me about life is so much more significant. Herb was a son of the East Side of Saint Paul. It's neighborhood that has produced mayors, Governors, and two Supreme Court justices. I wonder if there is a neighborhood that has touched more lives for good than the East Side. Herb had a lot to say, and not all of it would go in a PG movie. He told his hockey team, ``Gentlemen, we're not talented enough to win on talent alone.'' That was pretty autobiological, I think. Tonight, we in Minnesota, Herb's home State that loved him so much, have the honor to unveil a permanent tribune to Herb's remarkable career, a career devoted not only to athletic excellence, but character and integrity. Then, we get to relive and relish the moment that reminded all Americans to start believing in miracles again at a screening of the new Hollywood feature film ``The Miracle,'' based on the USA hockey team's shining moment in Lake Placid under Herb Brooks. I learned a great deal about leadership from Herb Brooks. He was not a man of many words, but when Herb spoke, people listened, because what he had to say was always profound. More importantly than what Herb said was what he did. He was the kind of leader we need more of, the kind that leads by example. Herb Brooks lived an amazing, remarkable life. He is a hero of mine, and was to millions of other Americans. But what summed Herb Brooks up for me was this Brooksism: ``Everybody is important, but not too important.'' That was how he articulated his team concept. If we could all go through life seeing every person we meet as important and not seeing ourselves as too important--who knows, maybe there would be a lot more miracles. Herb will always be remembered in the hearts and minds of my fellow Minnesotans. But tonight we unveil a statue--in a city that Herb loved and loved him back--that will forever immortalize Herb Brooks's image in Minnesota history. This is a wonderful tribute, and one I am deeply honored to be a part of.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COLEMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes of the manager's time on this bill.

Mr. COLEMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, Minnesota is home to Northwest Airlines as well as Ispat Inland Steel Mining Company. I rise today in support of the pension legislation before us and to urge my fellow colleagues to vote for this bill today. Let me be clear. This legislation is about protecting American workers and their pension benefits. We are discussing this today because of the long arm of September 11 that continues to swipe through the economic landscape and affect the hard-working people of this country. On January 1, 2000, airline workers' pension plans were over 100 percent funded and business was good for their companies. This, of course, changed dramatically in the days following September 11, and the economy is now beginning to show signs of life again. The airline industry, because of its cyclical nature, always reacts strongly to the economy. This, coupled with the rise in costs because of new security measures, a dropoff in passengers, and Eisenhower administration interest rates, has made it difficult, if not impossible, for airlines to keep their pensions fully funded. With regard to steel, Ispat Inland Mining Company is a key component of one of the largest operating integrated steel manufacturers in the Nation and a highly productive mine in my State. Ispat Inland Mining Company and its parent company employ close to 7,000 people who have had the benefit of a defined pension plan since 1936. While funding of this plan has often exceeded 100 percent of the total obligations, funding levels have never fallen below 90 percent of the obligation until 2003. I think all my colleagues are aware of the impact that the economy and foreign imports have had on the steel industry in the last couple of years. The problem for these companies is the deficit reduction contribution, DRC, which requires companies to close the underfunded gap on an accelerated basis. This results in materially higher pension contributions during periods of economic decline. So what sounds like tough medicine turns out to be poison--poison--for the airline and steel workers. A major risk is that the accelerated deficit reduction contributions could force the airlines and steel companies to seek chapter 11 protection, force them into bankruptcy. Companies, such as Northwest, that are coming back could be forced into bankruptcy by this required accelerated payment. Unfortunately, I think many understand that in chapter 11 bankruptcy the most likely outcome is the termination of pension plans and the transfer of unfunded liabilities to the PBGC. In effect, we would be destroying the very pension plans that Congress is seeking to preserve. We must take immediate action to ensure that pension plan termination is a phrase that never enters the corporate boardroom. People who have invested their lives in a company should not have to live in fear that they will be left out in the cold when they retire. This legislation represents a commonsense approach to help solve the problem. We are providing temporary 2-year relief from some of the cashflow requirements of the DRC, and during this period it is important to understand that companies are still going to make their normal required pension contributions. Pension benefits being accrued by active workers will continue to be funded during this temporary period and lessen any potential risk to the PBGC. I reiterate that the relief is for a portion of the deficit reduction contribution payment, not the regular pension payment. Pension payments are going to be made. I am also extremely pleased that my amendment to include iron ore in the definition of steel was included in the managers' amendment. Minnesota is the largest producer of iron ore and taconite in the United States. These products are essential for integrated steel companies. Advances in technology have found a use for a lower grade iron ore called taconite. Taconite is crushed, processed into hard, marble-size pellets, and shipped to steel mills. The taconite pellets are melted in blast furnaces and then blown with oxygen to make steel. As a result, a healthy steel industry means a more viable taconite industry and more jobs for this economy. The AFL-CIO, the Airline Pilots Association, and the International Association of Machine and Aerospace Workers support this legislation. With this bill, we are not letting businesses off the hook but we are taking the appropriate steps to provide retirement security for constituents across this Nation. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation that will help restore long-term health to American businesses and protect the retirement money for millions of American workers. Mr. President, 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

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I am proud to submit, along with my good friend and colleague Senator Corzine, a bipartisan resolution dealing with the unfair treatment of Israel at the United Nations. For too long, Israel has been singled out for castigation by the United Nations General Assembly. Israeli defensive actions are condemned, while terrorism against Israeli civilians goes largely unnoticed. There are whole bodies designed to do nothing but produce anti-Israel materials. There is a Division of Palestinian Rights which sits at the same level in the U.N. organization as a single division for the Americas and Europe, a single division for Asia and the Pacific, and two Africa divisions. Of all the resolutions adopted by rollcall vote at the last session of the UN General Assembly, one-third singled out Israel. Let me be clear on this point: I do think it is appropriate to help the Palestinian people, and I do share President Bush's vision of two states living side by side in peace. But for the United Nations to spend so much of its time on this one crisis, with an unbalanced approach, ultimately undermines its ability to contribute constructively to the peace process. To accord the Palestinian people--however serious their problems are the same level of attention as entire continents is inappropriate in a world where there are so many other oppressed groups and nations. Why is there no Division of Tibetan Rights? Why no Division of Chechen Rights? If you look at the General Assembly voting records, there are too many one-sided resolutions dealing with Israel that pass with only a handful of negative votes--cast by the U.S., Israel, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Nauru and Palau. Last Friday, I was pleased to note Australia joined us as well. The good news is that we are starting to see some progress. A joint U.S.-European-Israeli effort to consolidate seven resolutions on UNRWA into one resolution recently was a good start. The resolution was passed out of the committee by a vote of 109 to 0, albeit with 54 abstentions. True, several superfluous resolutions on UNRWA were also approved by the committee. But this year, it was five resolutions instead of seven. When the U.S., Europe, and Israel can work together on a resolution dealing with Palestinian refugees--and one that is passed without any negative votes--we get a glimpse of the U.N.'s potential for bringing parties together. I would be remiss if I did not commend the work of U.S. diplomats, and applaud their increased attention to this issue. This resolution gives them a tool to use with their diplomatic counterparts--a strong statement from the U.S. Senate that we are paying attention to these votes, and that we support a more balanced approach toward the Middle East at the United Nations. It should be a goal we can all agree upon. By reducing the number of anti-Israel resolutions passed by the General Assembly, the United Nations can live up to the promise of its charter: ``to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.''

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill I introduce today--the Voluntary Support for Reservists and National Guard Members Act, which creates a voluntary check-off on tax returns to support the income lost to reservists who are called to active duty--be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the people of Guatemala went to the polls on November 9 to elect a new President, Members of the Guatemalan Parliament, local officials, and representatives to the Central American Parliament. These elections attracted attention, in large part, due to the candidacy of Efrain Rios Montt, a former coup leader who under the Guatemalan constitution should have been banned from running for the Presidency all together. Rios Montt presided over a troubled part of Guatemala's history, during which time too many innocent lives were lost. Now these elections were not perfect. Long lines and confusion over where to vote made it difficult for many Guatemalans to express their political views. Some polling stations stayed open for as long as 5 hours after they were scheduled to close; other did not. The time period leading up to the elections was marked by violence and intimidation linked to some Rios Montt supporters. But in the end, these were important and hopeful elections for a number of reasons. Rios Montt was defeated in the ballot box--and he accepted defeat. The willingness of losers to accept defeat is one sign of a maturing democracy. And the result of this defeat for Rios Montt should not be overlooked; he will lose his immunity from prosecution for crimes committed under his watch. There is much more to the story than Rios Montt's candidacy, however. Approximately 60 percent of Guatemala's 5 million voters went to the polls on Sunday--the largest turnout since 1985. By turning out in such numbers, Guatemalans showed they understand the power of the ballot box. As one woman put it, ``You have to vote if you want things to change.'' Overall, these elections were fair and open. Ballots were not rigged, and vehicles carrying them were monitored by satellite. Violence on election day was isolated. In spite of an insecure climate during the campaign season, threats of violence were not carried out on a large scale over the weekend. The violence many had feared--and some observers have come to expect from elections of this sort--did not take place. In the words of Guatemalan Nobel Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu: ``This first round was about saying no to violence.'' These elections also marked the first time a nation-wide network of over 3,000 independent election observers, Mirador Electoral, monitored Guatemalan elections--no easy feat in a country ravaged by 40 years of civil war. The group was so highly regarded, they were asked by the Guatemalan election commission to release their ``quick count'' projections of the winners. And the results of Mirador Electoral matched those reached by the election commission. Guatemalans will go to the polls again on December 28, and will choose between top vote-getters Oscar Berger and Alvaro Colon to be the next President. I would call upon the Guatemalan Government to maintain their commitment to fairness, and to make adjustments to better prepare for a high turn-out of Guatemalans. While Guatemala still has many problems, these elections give me hope for the future. I congratulate the Guatemalan people for their commitment to democracy.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill I introduce today--the Voluntary Support for Reservists and National Guard Members Act, which creates a voluntary check-off on tax returns to support the income lost to reservists who are called to active duty--be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, contrary to specific evidence that shows the economy is growing, Alan Greenspan's positive comment about the 2001 tax cut, and most observers crediting the 2003 tax cut for creating the recent 7.2 percent GDP figure, some of the leading Democratic candidates for President, Dean and Gephardt, have said we should repeal all the tax cuts, in effect raising taxes just as our economy is beginning to grow. Senator Edwards has said that Governor Dean misses the point. On that, I quote: Unfortunately, instead of addressing the problem, he makes it worse by raising taxes on the middle class and families that work. Senator Lieberman has said repealing all the Bush tax cuts, as Dean and Gephardt have proposed, would hurt the middle class. I wonder if my colleagues will join me by rejecting the proposals by Dean and Gephardt to roll back the entire tax cut, which would raise the lowest tax bracket back up to 15 percent from 10 percent, reduce the child tax credit from $1,000 to $500, and force 4 million working poor people to pay taxes.

Mr. COLEMAN. Again, I thank my Democratic colleagues for participating in this debate. Much of the reasoning I have heard this evening reminds me of the definition of an economist: Someone who sees something beginning to work in reality and tells you why it won't in theory. Simply put: The President's tax cuts have begun to stimulate the economy and grow jobs. I will go out on a limb here and say as a fact that the sky has not fallen, that we are not in the worst economy since Herbert Hoover, and the United States is not selling off the Grand Canyon to cover its debts. Facts are facts. The business cycle lives. The economy started down long before George Bush became President. After a relatively short time of negative growth, the economy began to recover. Despite serious setbacks not of the President's making, such as 9/11, the economy is coming back strong. Jobs and deficits are the remaining problems. In the aftermath of recessions, they always are for a period. But we are headed strongly in the right direction. What every person knows is what matters is what we do here. This is the question: Which do you think helps the economy and which hurts, raising taxes on everyone, especially on small business and job creators and then increasing Federal spending, or leaving that money in the pockets of consumers to consume or save or invest? Tax increases would clearly hurt the economy more than increased spending would help. Today we need to look forward. To my Democratic colleagues, I ask you to join your Republican colleagues to keep the wheels of economic progress turning. I ask you to join us in enacting class-action reform, medical malpractice reform, asbestos reform, all of which the National Association of Manufacturers says is absolutely critical to this country's ability to maintain domestic manufacturing jobs. Help put an end to the perception that Democrats care about manufacturing jobs, just not enough to offend the trial lawyers. As for the deficit, talk about the kid who killed his folks and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan. Here we have Democrats offering $1.3 trillion in new spending above and beyond what the budget will allow since January. The question before us is whether Democrats will roll up their sleeves and help get the job done by passing an Energy bill or will more obstruction be the order of the day?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, before I arrived here, I read many times about the Senate as the ``world's greatest deliberative body.'' Over my first 10 months, I would say that I have not experienced as much deliberating as I'd hoped. And I am glad my colleague, Senator Allen and I are doing this today--and that we are doing it deliberately. The subjects of jobs and the economy are very personal and important to every American family. With the lone exception of maintaining national security at home and abroad, we have no greater responsibility as a government. I note to my colleague from North Dakota that, by the way, consumer spending is up 6.6 percent in the last quarter. Confidence is up. It must tell you something about the way the American people are thinking. I want to begin by making a general observation. It seems to me that as a country we are awakening to a set of stark realities after what I'd call a decade of unrealism in the 1990s. In the 1990s we came to believe that somehow we had conquered the business cycle--that we had ended the age old rise and inevitable fall of economic activity. In the 1990s we came to believe that we are safe behind our borders from the violence and chaos that is a daily reality of many in the world because of the scourge of terrorism. We have had a rude awakening. The speculative bubble of dot com industries burst. Revenues generated by our highly progressive tax system fell rapidly at the national and State level. We were attacked, at the very symbol of our commercial strength. How can you talk about job loss without once mentioning 9/11? Every conceivable threat to the confidence of the American people was leveled at us. But like the residents of the Massachusetts countryside in 1775, when Paul Revere rode by, we were awakened, and we are fighting a difficult war to restore our safety and our prosperity. On Minnesota's Lake Superior; huge ore boats ply the world's largest body of fresh water. It literally takes miles and hours to turn around one of their massive boats. So it is with the American economy. The bigger the object, the longer it takes to turn. As we look at the American economy, we need to recognize a few critical facts. First, the economic difficulty we are in began in 2000, the year before President Bush took office. In March 2000, the NASDAQ lost 44 percent of its value. In the year before the President took office, economic growth in this country fell from 3.9 percent to .9 percent. Second, we have not repealed the laws of economics. The aftermath of a long expansion and a speculative economic bubble is recession, a slow recovery and large Government deficits. Even it its peak, our unemployment rate is substantially below that of previous recessions. In 1983 unemployment was over 10 percent and in 1992 it was almost 8 percent. And the difference between 6 percent and 8 percent or 10 percent represents millions of families back at work. And third, the economy is now moving forward. The American economy has been bent, but it did not break. Historic growth in the GDP--a growth rate of 7.2 percent--is nothing to scoff at. Yet, my Democratic colleagues seem to be able to find gloom and doom even during the brightest days. We've added 225,000 new jobs in the last 2 months. A jobless recovery? I think not. Job growth is still a challenge, but a we have always seen, employment gains are the lagging feature of recovery. I have not been the White House as often as some of my colleagues. But as far as I know there is not a brake pedal or a throttle for the economy under the president's desk. But the President has done good work with the tools at his disposal. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has lauded the 2001 tax cut, which the Treasury Department has reported saved some 1.5 million jobs. The most recent tax cuts for both mom's and dad's and small businesses have been key to the 7.2 percent growth in GDP in the last quarter. More than a generation ago there was Nobel Prize winning economic research done at the University of Minnesota. It seems obvious to us now, but the point of that research was that raw numbers and events are not the only thing that moves the economy. An equal or greater affect is the way people perceive what is happening. At this point, I am forced to point out there is a drag on the economy from nine candidates for President constantly standing up and bad mouthing the economy. It seems they are living in that weird political world where good news is bad news and bad news is good news. I would like to remind these Democrats of something a hero of theirs and mine one said in a similar situation. ``We have nothing to fear,'' said FDR, ``but fear itself.'' Those who talk tough and breed fear and cynicism to get notice in a political environment bear some responsibility for the fear they spread. Tough times are not new to the American people. Each generation has its own new challenges. Ours is that we are asked to deal with overlapping threats to our national security and our economic security. But almost all of the key economic indicators; job growth, business investment, consumer spending, have shown that we are making progress on both fronts. We need to listen to the voices of hope and optimism at such times, or we can become our own enemy. Today we face unparalleled challenges to our security--and concerns about our economy. We will only get through them if we say yes to the things Republicans are working on now, such as tax cuts, continuing our jobs agenda by passing an energy bill; stemming the costly litigation mentality, keeping the lid on spending, and say no to those who would snatch defeat from the jaw of victory. I yield the floor.