Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be extended until 2 p.m. with the time equally divided in the usual form, and the time between 1:30 and 2 p.m. be reserved for the proponents and opponents.

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 hearing on March 14, 2006, entitled ``GSA Contractors Who Cheat on Their Taxes and What Should Be Done About It.'' The March 14 hearing will be the third hearing on Federal contractors with unpaid tax debt. In February 2004, the subcommittee held a hearing entitled ``DOD Contractors Who Cheat on Their Taxes, which examined the IRS' failure to collect $3 billion in unpaid taxes owed by contractors doing business with the Department of Defense, DOD, and getting paid with taxpayer dollars. In June 2005, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled ``Civilian Contractors Who Cheat on Their Taxes'', which identified an additional $3.3 billion in unpaid taxes and demonstrated that the problem of tax delinquent Federal contractors is not confined to DOD. Because of the potential revenue that could be collected by the Federal Payment Levy Program from non- DOD contractors, the subcommittee expanded the coverage of the investigation to include contractors at other Federal agencies who receive Federal contract payments and are delinquent in paying their taxes. In the continuing investigation of Federal contractors who do not pay their taxes, the subcommittee plans to hold a hearing on March 14 on the General Service Administration's contractors who are tax delinquent. Federal contractors who owe taxes are still allowed to do business with the Federal Government. The hearing will explore the extent to which these contractors are tax delinquent and what can be done about it. The subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 14, 2006, at 9:30 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.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we use an extra 3 minutes of the other side's time for my discussion.

Mr. COLEMAN. I rise to respond to my friend and colleague from Arizona. We are in agreement on the idea that the money should go where it is needed. What I would disagree with is that there is nothing left for those from other States, warm weather States. That is not what we are dealing with here. Two things about LIHEAP: One, it is not just another Federal acronym; it is a lifeline. I held hearings on this in St. Paul, where I heard from a woman named Lori Cooper, a working professional wife, mother of a 21-month-old baby. It is about scraping by on salary alone, and even with assistance paying the heating expense, it was a real hardship. We had a senior named Lucille Olson who told a story of the struggle to balance the cost of high health insurance and prescription drugs with ever-rising heating bills that represent about 30 percent of her monthly income. We are not talking about a Federal acronym. It is a helping hand. You may hear some of my colleagues contending that a warmer-than- usual winter has somehow lessened the need. It may be a mild winter by Minnesota's standards, but certainly not by Virginia's. It was about minus 19 in St. Paul a couple weekends ago. If it is only 25 degrees, mild by Minnesota's standards, you still have to put about an extra 40 something degrees in there to heat your home so seniors and working people can live there with some measure of comfort. We have 60 percent of all LIHEAP households in Minnesota heating their homes with natural gas. The price of natural gas has risen severely. It is a severe winter by national standards. LIHEAP is designed to soften that. We have heard it firsthand. I want to make clear the bill which I cosponsored would designate an additional $250 million for formula funding. But due to the nature of the formula governing allotments to States, this additional formula funding for Minnesota would provide a negligible increase. The 25/75 split is exactly the same split the Senate approved a few months ago in the Deficit Reduction Act. What we do is we change the date assistance is available from 2007 to 2006. Again, 25 percent of the funding goes to predominantly warm weather States. This is about emergencies. It is about meeting the needs of emergencies. I have to say that we have been there. Senators from the northern States have been there when there has been flooding and tornadoes and hurricanes and other crises around the country. We haven't divided up regions. We didn't do that with Katrina and Rita when they swept across the gulf. We didn't do it in areas of Florida hit hard by hurricanes. We didn't do it in western States affected by wildfires. We are one great Nation. We come to the aid of those in need. This is about those in need. It is a severe winter where they can't afford the cost of natural gas, a lifeline, a helping hand, not an acronym for a program. The Senate has a tradition of putting aside its regional and partisan divisions. When Americans face desperate situations, the Senate comes together in the name of the same Nation with the spirit of cooperation. I have heard the President speak eloquently about the spirit of America, of what it is all about. That is what we are asking for today. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have already made natural gas prices worse. In northern States such as mine, this is about hardship. I have seen the faces of those who need this assistance, those who work hard to get back on their feet, to build a better life. A dramatic increase in heating costs like those experienced in Minnesota this year is a cruel burden. They deserve a lifeline, a helping hand. Please support me in providing increased LIHEAP assistance designed to meet the needs of those who need it most.

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

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation, the Foreign Investment Transparency and Security Act of 2006, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation, the Foreign Investment Transparency and Security Act of 2006, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to Anne Brunsdale, a Minnesota native and former chairwoman of the International Trade Commission who died of Alzheimer's disease on January 20 at a nursing home in Denver. She was 82. Ms. Brunsdale was born in Minneapolis and received a bachelor's degree in political science in 1945 and a master's degree in Far Eastern area studies in 1946 from the University of Minnesota. She received a master's degree in comparative government in 1949 from Yale University. In 1950, she moved to Washington to work for the CIA. Following the CIA, Anne was a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and Managing Editor of Regulation, a bimonthly magazine published by the institute, where she worked closely with its two university-based editors, Antonin Scalia and Murray Weidenbaum. Under her guidance, Regulation became an influential publication in policy debates concerning government regulation of the energy, transportation, and communications industries. In 1985, President Reagan appointed Anne to the International Trade Commission where she served from 1986 to 1994, including a term as chairman from 1989 to 1990. She retired in 1994. Anne was a much loved member of a group of friends made up mostly of political scientists and public intellectuals that were notable for being both high-powered and bipartisan. Anne's survivors include a sister, 9 nieces and nephews, 17 great- nieces and nephews and 5 great-great nieces and nephews. Mr. President, Anne Brunsdale will be remembered by friends and family with memorial services in Colorado and Minnesota. I extend my sympathy to them during this time.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague from Pennsylvania on underscoring the urgency that surrounds the threat to our Nation and the entire world community with Iran. I listened to my esteemed colleague talk about the Iranian repression of women. I thought to myself, how sad; Iran was a country that at times led that part of the world in its respect for women and women's rights at a time few talked about it. And how low they have sunk. It was 100 years ago Iran's constitutional revolution was the first genuine democracy in the Middle East, over half of the population of that part of the world. When we look where we are today, I have a touch of sadness in my heart as I reflect upon the plight of the Iranian people. Make no mistake, as my colleague from Pennsylvania noted, Iran is a nation with painful rhetoric, rhetoric of its president, who says: Our goal is to destroy Israel. We should take people at their word that is the goal. This is not, by the way, the rantings of a madman. This is the clear policy of the regime backed by the ruling mullahs. It is the clear policy, not the rantings of some wild man. Take him at his word, that is his goal, his objectives, and Iran's goal and objective. Painful rhetoric is backed by their concrete actions. They are the largest state sponsor of state-supported terrorism in the world. It is not just cheap rhetoric; it is a disconcerting and frightening reality we have to deal with. Now we have a regime that is clearly in pursuit of nuclear weapons. We are dealing with a lot of security issues out there today. There is lots on the agenda dealing with concerns about port security. Let's not let this issue slip away. Some say Washington is a town of a thousand issues and few priorities. This is a priority and continues to be a priority. As I said before, they have been clear about their regime and their desire to destroy Israel and the western civilization. At the conference where Ahmadinejad talked about destroying Israel, I remember the picture behind him vividly, a picture of an hourglass. In this hourglass, the ball is dropping through. This is posted not by accident but by design. In the hourglass, the fragile glass ball is falling through the glass, about to be shattered. That is Israel. But already lying on the floor of the shattered glass is a shattered USA. That is the vision, that is the plan. We have to understand that. Clearly, the vitriolic rhetoric is backed by a clear vision and plan and it merits immediate action by the international community. All in all, the Tehran regime's previous and ongoing activities indicate that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an unprecedented threat to American national security as well as to the existence of the State of Israel. Have no doubt about it; if Iran were to use a nuclear weapon in the Middle East, we are not protected, even being thousands of miles away. We will all be impacted by that. We are all in this. The outcome of Iran's vision and the destruction of Israel is unacceptable. Common sense and responsibility demand that action be taken now. Time is not on our side. The scenario we face with Iran today has many parallels to the 1930s when the League of Nations failed to confront the aggression of the dictatorships in Japan, Italy, and Germany. Hitler said what he would do and the international community chose to ignore that very clear red flag. In ``Mein Kampf,'' Hitler meant what he said. When he had the opportunity, he acted on that. The President of Iran has not written a book such as ``Mein Kampf,'' but he has been very clear about what his intentions are, public about his intentions to destroy Israel and the rest. And at the same time he is pursuing a strategy to campaign to obtain nuclear capacity. Will the international community continue to wring its hands and allow this murderous regime to align its intentions with its capabilities or will it take action? The answer must be yes. The answer must be now. And the United States must be part of leading that charge. The IAEA has taken some action. There is a meeting of the board of governors March 6. They must continue to put pressure on Iran. But that is not enough. The reality is, negotiations are not enough. There is a Russian proposal on the table. The European three have been negotiating with Iran. The problem with this, it may seem as if there is something there, but when you pursue this negotiation you are presuming that the other side wants a solution. They are negotiating with someone who is not looking for a solution to divert a crisis but playing a cat-and- mouse game to buy time. You have to realize enough time for talk and we have to take action. Talk is what the other side wants as it buys time. It is clear they are not looking for a solution to avert a crisis. They have a vision. They have a path. They have demonstrated time and again they are not serious about negotiating. They deserve no further opportunities to prevent them from being held to account for their intransigence. I think it is high time the international community called the Iranian bluff. They have had more than enough opportunities to negotiate and have brazenly violated every agreement. The Security Council must take strong action. This needs to be the focus of our policy now and in the immediate future. While all of us recognize that actions must be taken to deal with the imminent threat of Iran's nuclear intentions, a true long-term solution to the problem with Iran lies in efforts to promote a free and democratic society. As Secretary Rice has noted: Attempting to draw neat, clean lines between our security interests and our democratic ideals does not reflect the reality of today's world. Supporting the growth of democratic institutions in all nations is not some moralistic flight of fancy; it is the only realistic response to our present challenges. In his State of the Union Address, President Bush made a direct appeal to the Iranian people and voiced our country's support for their right to freedom. Here in Congress, we need to act to convert moral support into concrete actions to help foster democratic change in Iran. I commend my colleague, Senator Santorum, for his introduction of the Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005. I am a cosponsor of that legislation. He has talked about that and clearly seeks to support the roots of democratic change in Iran. We need to support democracy in Iran. And supporting them is not being an American voice preaching moralistically about democracy; it is an opportunity to connect with the Iranians around the world, not just there. There are folks who have been fighting for freedom in Iran. Some are still in Iran. We need to figure out a way to connect with Iranian voices, with dissidents in Iran and around the world, to let them know we are there to support freedom, we are there to support democracy. I urge passage of Senator Santorum's bill. It is a step in the right direction. Finally, I would note that March 20 and 21 is the Iranian new year. I say that because the regime is repressing the celebration of the Iranian new year. I want to conclude my comments by wishing the Iranian people a happy new year, one in which, hopefully, they will be closer to freedom, closer to freedom in the year to come. And we will take those steps necessary to help make that happen. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I want to add my voice to this. This is not about theoretical discussions. I understand we have debates about oversight. I held a hearing on this in Minnesota a couple of months ago. By the way, winter is still there. And it is not just a matter of winter still being there. In Minnesota, we have some programs that allow heat not to be turned off and people have to pay that back through the course of the summer. I had a mom come forward who has three kids, who is working and going to school, who is talking about having to give up going to school so she can pay the heating bill. I had a senior woman come forward who is paying 50 percent of her income for heat and medicine. This is not a theoretical debate. This is about life and death. This is about suffering. Clearly, we have an opportunity and an obligation. I hope we do it and simply do the right thing. This is a rich country. Those who need to be heard, those who are raising their voices and asking us to do the right thing in a way that is being paid for, we can debate that all we want. But the bottom line is we have the opportunity to do what is right. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and support the amendment.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, earlier this week, I paid tribute to Mr. William A. Cooper, honoring his career and service to the State at the occasion of his retirement. Today, I would like to have printed into the Record the following statement from the esteemed Minnesotan and former Senator Rudy Boschwitz in honor of our friend Bill Cooper. The statement follows: The Taxpayers' Friend Retires (?) Not many people can say they saved the taxpayers billions. Bill Cooper can. Well, some credit must be given to the team he brought to Minnesota and some locals that he found here and made a part of that team. But Bill was clearly the leader. Without him it is highly doubtful that TCF would have survived. It must be mentioned at the very outset that without his wife, Sherry, it would have been highly doubtful that Bill himself would have survived, much less be able to endure the pressures and hours that first saving and then building a major institution entails. It started about 20 years ago in the midst of the Savings & Loan crisis when S&L's were going broke left and right including some big ones here in Minnesota. The eventual cost to the taxpayer was in the neighborhood of $100 billion. Extraordinarily high interest rates combined with poor management and complicated by the lugubrious sounding phenomena of disintermediation had brought S&L's nationwide to their knees. Twin City Federal Savings and Loan (TCF), the largest and mightiest of them all in the Upper Midwest, appeared to be the next candidate for failure and a Government bailout to protect its depositors. But, finally the Directors of TCF acted. By a single vote margin (many credit Community Activist and Leader, Harry Davis, with casting that vote) their decision was to bring in a fellow named Bill Cooper to save the sinking ship--though I suspect those embattled Directors must have had considerable doubt about the prospects for success. My estimate may be wrong, but I suspect a TCF failure would have been one of the bigger ones nationally and cost the taxpayer $3 billion or more. Instead, today TCF National Bank with its 500+ branches is a strong growing institution with stockholder value exceeding $3 billion. And much to Bill Cooper's credit, that value has been spread generously to his team (and other stockholders) returning riches beyond the dreams of the many who joined under Bill's leadership to create a new TCF. This commendation could as well be entitled ``Only in America.'' I don't know the intricacies of Bill's life from his boyhood forward, but I do know that he was a policeman on the beat in Detroit; that he went to college in the evenings; got his degree in accounting and joined the many other young aspirants as an ``associate'' at a large national accounting firm. There he was put to work auditing bank clients and the rest, as they say, is history. I joined the Board of TCF in 1991. The stock was about $2\1/2\ at the time (naturally I didn't buy enough of it). I served on the Board for about 9 years till my 70th birthday when the by-laws stipulated my retirement, though my feeling of closeness to the institution and its people continues unabated. It should! I continue to contribute to it's PAC and am the recipient (for another 3-4 years) of a retirement income from TCF. I have been a Director of a number of national corporations. None has been as well managed as TCF. A single word summarizes Bill Cooper's role: Leadership. It is a totally focused leadership. At TCF there is no question about who is in charge. It is Bill Cooper (and with Lynn Nagorske as CEO I suspect there will continue to be no question). Bill has no problem in being tough, direct and fair. Bill does not turn away from the vagaries of the most difficult decisions. He is a remarkable leader both at the Bank and in his Community. The fact that in my 15-year association there have been few leadership changes at TCF--other than through retirements--attest to the quality and strength of Bill's leadership which includes delegating responsibility and expecting and very objectively measuring performance. Does such a man really retire? I don't think so. Certainly not entirely. Not a man of Bill's curiosity and drive. Besides, he still has young kids in school and college educations loom ahead. The idea of Bill sitting around, playing golf, and not rising to new challenges is incongruous. It won't happen. And it will be fun watching what develops.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to extend my congratulations to Mr. William A. Cooper for long standing service as CEO at TCF Financial Corporation, a financial holding company based in Minnesota. Bill Cooper came to TCF Financial in 1985 with an impressive financial leadership record which included serving as a senior auditor for Touche, Ross and company, a Detroit firm, and as President of Huntington Bank of Ohio. But based on my personal relationship with Bill, I would say his high school graduating class might have voted him ``least likely to become a banker.'' The banker's stereotype is reserved, cautious, and circumspect. Bill Cooper is bold, innovative, and refreshingly outspoken. Like his hero Ronald Reagan, there is never a bit of doubt as to where Bill Cooper stands. During his tenure as CEO, Bill Cooper directed an impressive expansion of TCF Financial in Minnesota and elsewhere through his innovative leadership. From 1985 until his retirement in January, he helped to transform TCF Financial from a small banking enterprise into a thriving operation offering industry leading consumer services. Bill Cooper is a complete citizen. He not only led a thriving business that provided thousands of jobs and financial services to a big proportion of our Minnesota population, Bill used his voice, his philanthropy, and his influence to improve as many sectors of our State as he could get his hands on. His work on education not only shaped Minnesota public policy, his personal involvement changed the lives of hundreds of disadvantaged students forever. He has always had strong opinions and had the integrity to walk his talk. Although Mr. Cooper has retired as CEO of TCF, he has not completely given himself up to the ski slopes or the golf courses as he continues to remain active in the financial world and in his community. Minnesota has been fortunate to have a business leader like Mr. Cooper who not only has enriched the economy of Minnesota and elsewhere but has also used his good name, time, and money for the good of the community. Minnesota celebrates its lakes and farms and excellent community assets. One of the secrets of our success is community leaders like Bill Cooper who shoulder the burdens of leadership. I congratulate Bill Cooper, the staff of TCF, and his family on his great career and leadership in the community.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce legislation with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, that will help ease the financial burden for American families who open their homes to foreign exchange students from around the world, and offer an incentive to additional families to get involved in international exchanges. Every year, approximately 30,000 American families host exchange students from all over the world. This exchange experience provides the families, their communities, the students and their schools with a unique educational opportunity to increase cultural awareness and understanding. And it often produces lifelong friendship as well. Exchange programs are vital in today's interconnected world to build bridges of understanding. Youth exchange is particularly critical as it allows young people the opportunity to gain exposure to American families, culture and values early in their lives. Participants take home an understanding and often an appreciation for America's people, society and values. At her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee early last year, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared, ``I am a big proponent of student exchanges. It is the best policy we can have.'' She explained that, ``the presence of foreign students'' is ``one of the best things'' for American students; the experience ``changes the way we think about people, and the way they think about us'', and she called student exchange ``invaluable.'' We could not agree with her more. The legislation we introduce today will encourage more American families to participate in exchanges by increasing the monthly tax deduction for host families from $50 to $200 per month. The current $50 tax deduction has been in place since it was first introduced in the 1960s. It has never been increased to allow for inflation or to reflect the increasing costs associated with hosting a student. Our legislation will increase the monthly deduction with an annual adjustment for inflation. While the increase is certainly not enough cover the expenses involved in feeding and housing a teenager, it will offer needed cost relief to American families, and most importantly, it will send a strong message to these families that our Nation values their contribution to increasing international understanding. I hope that my Senate colleagues will join Senator Johnson and me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce legislation with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, that will help ease the financial burden for American families who open their homes to foreign exchange students from around the world, and offer an incentive to additional families to get involved in international exchanges. Every year, approximately 30,000 American families host exchange students from all over the world. This exchange experience provides the families, their communities, the students and their schools with a unique educational opportunity to increase cultural awareness and understanding. And it often produces lifelong friendship as well. Exchange programs are vital in today's interconnected world to build bridges of understanding. Youth exchange is particularly critical as it allows young people the opportunity to gain exposure to American families, culture and values early in their lives. Participants take home an understanding and often an appreciation for America's people, society and values. At her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee early last year, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared, ``I am a big proponent of student exchanges. It is the best policy we can have.'' She explained that, ``the presence of foreign students'' is ``one of the best things'' for American students; the experience ``changes the way we think about people, and the way they think about us'', and she called student exchange ``invaluable.'' We could not agree with her more. The legislation we introduce today will encourage more American families to participate in exchanges by increasing the monthly tax deduction for host families from $50 to $200 per month. The current $50 tax deduction has been in place since it was first introduced in the 1960s. It has never been increased to allow for inflation or to reflect the increasing costs associated with hosting a student. Our legislation will increase the monthly deduction with an annual adjustment for inflation. While the increase is certainly not enough cover the expenses involved in feeding and housing a teenager, it will offer needed cost relief to American families, and most importantly, it will send a strong message to these families that our Nation values their contribution to increasing international understanding. I hope that my Senate colleagues will join Senator Johnson and me in supporting this legislation. 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 Minnesota field hearing, ``Volatility in the Natural Gas Market: The Impact of High Natural Gas Prices on American Consumers,'' originally scheduled for this Friday, February 10th has been rescheduled for Monday, February 13, 2006. The Subcommittee field hearings will examine the natural gas market and allegations that price and supply manipulation have caused increasingly high and volatile natural gas prices. The Subcommittee intends to hold this hearing to examine the impact higher prices have on the economy, business, and families, and the government's role in ensuring that natural gas prices are determined in a competitive and informed marketplace. The Subcommittee hearing has been scheduled for Monday, February 13, 2006, at 8:30 a.m. at 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. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I wish to spend a little time today talking about the economy. When I was mayor of St. Paul, people would say: Mayor, what are you doing for kids? My response would be: The best thing I can do for kids is make sure mom and dad have a job. The best welfare program is a job. The best housing program is a job. Access to health care most often comes through a job. So that was always my goal--jobs, jobs, jobs. I want to talk about the economy, but I want to touch briefly on the budget. The President submitted his budget. There will be a lot of debate. It is the beginning of a conversation. The President submits a budget and then we take a look at that budget and we weigh a number of options and ultimately it concludes. It is the beginning of a conversation. One of the things I find somewhat frustrating is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the deficit. We are all concerned about the deficit. We do not want to pass on debt to our kids. We don't want to put obligations on them from what we do today. We need to be more responsible. So we hear concern about the deficit, about which we are all concerned. Then anytime the President says we have to keep a lid on spending, our friends on the other side of the aisle complain that we are cutting too much. You cannot be so passionate about the deficit if you are not willing to do something about it. It is not enough to complain. It is not enough just to be against. What the President has done is say: OK, we are going to cut the deficit in half by 2009. We are going to have to make some tough choices. We will have to make some very tough choices. But the answer is not simply raising taxes. The answer is not more spending. We are going to have to do the hard act of governing. It is not enough just to complain. It is not enough to say what you are against. What is your alternative? What are you for? The President has laid on the table a budget with the hope of continuing progrowth policies, restraining spending, cutting the deficit and, perhaps most importantly, dealing with the long-term danger, the challenges we face with close to 70 percent of our budget going to things that are mandated. So we have to look at Social Security and Medicaid, and we have to do the right thing--do the right thing for our seniors, do the right thing for those in need. We have to have the courage to look at those things and act. You can't just complain. You can't keep complaining about the deficit and every time there is an opportunity to put a lid on spending you are against that. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up. I wish to talk a little about where we are today and what has happened with what we have done in the past. We passed some tax relief. Mr. President, you and I together had the opportunity to be here during consideration of a number of proposals which have actually cut taxes. What has been the result? Let us look a little bit at the numbers. The President's tax relief has produced more than 4.7 million new jobs since November 2003 when he signed the legislation accelerating broad-based income tax reductions and provided capital gains and income tax relief. Today the unemployment rate is 4.7 percent, lower than the average of the last three decades, and the lowest in 4 years. Home ownership has reached an all-time high. This economic growth would not be possible without the President's tax relief. Recall when we had the tech bubble burst during the last administration--a bubble that should never have been allowed to inflate so high. We had corporate scandals that were nonpartisan but certainly were encouraged by the get-rich-quick ethic of the 1990s. We had the attack of September 11, and now we have the daily war on terror. The President's tax relief, which was fully implemented in 2003, has been critical in helping the economy recover from the recession and the terrorist attacks of 2001. Things such as small business expensing, capital gains tax relief, bonus depreciation--all helped to get this economy back on its feet and helped the economy continue expanding, despite the hurricanes and high prices of 2005. So on September 11, 2001, we faced a recession. We faced the end of the tech bubble. We faced hurricanes and high energy prices. With the tax relief provisions fully implemented in 2003, tax receipts also responded accordingly. In fact, receipts jumped by a remarkable $274 billion or 14.5 percent, the largest increase in the last 24 years. These recent gains in receipts confirm that a strong economy is the most important factor in reducing the deficit. You want to reduce the deficit? Grow the economy. Keep a lid on spending and grow the economy but don't advocate more spending and higher taxes. That is not a way in which you grow an economy. If you compare the economy with the same point in previous business cycles, in many respects the current expansion is even stronger than the growth of the early and mid-1990s. We look back to the mid-1990s, the Clinton years, as the halcyon days of the economy. Boy, things were great 10 years ago. Let me run some comparisons. For example, in April 1995 the unemployment rate was 5.8 percent. Today it is 4.7 percent. The African-American unemployment rate was 10.7 percent. Today it is 8.9 percent. This is a key figure: Productivity growth in 2005, the key to raising our standard of living, is at 3.1 percent compared to 0.3 percent in 1995--10 times today the productivity increase than it was in the halcyon days, the glory days of the nineties. Economic growth averaged 3.5 percent in 2005, while in 1995 it was 2.5 percent. If that picture had been drawn for us 5 years ago, how many would have predicted the economy would be in as good shape as it is today? The reason is sound monetary policy and tax relief that were well timed and sized to stimulate the economy when it needed it the most. Unfortunately, in a scene reminiscent of the movie ``Groundhog Day,'' many on the other side are arguing that we should let this tax relief expire. In other words, we should raise taxes. If you let tax relief expire, you are saying we should raise taxes. This is the wrong prescription for the American people and for the fiscal purse. We are not an undertaxed society. By rejecting tax increases on family and small businesses, we will help keep the economy on a continuing course of job creation and strengthen the foundation for long-term economic growth. For example, a closer look shows that the capital gains and dividends tax relief packages actually paid for themselves. The latest statistics on capital gains tax collections were recently released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and receipts are not way down but receipts are way up--by 45 percent, by the way, to be exact. Recall, one of the things Congress did was to reduce the tax on capital gains from 20 percent to 15 percent. Opponents predicted, as ever, that this would reduce revenue. In other words, since we have lowered the percentage of taxes we are getting on capital gains from 20 to 15 percent, the opponents say you will not bring in as much money; you lower the tax we are taking. It is not even close. The 25-percent reduction actually triggered a doubling of capital gains revenues to over a half billion dollars in 2005 to $269 billion in 2002. In addition, a new report from the American Shareholders Association finds that actual capital gains revenues were $62 billion higher than what was predicted over the 3- year period--$62 billion higher. While this may seem counterintuitive to some, it makes perfect sense to me and confirms that capital gains tax relief increased economic activity, leading to more revenue for the Treasury. When I was mayor of St. Paul I didn't raise taxes in 8 years, and we grew the economy and grew jobs because it was a better place to do business and more moms and dads were working and putting money in their pockets and food on the table and taking care of their families. What we have here is Punxsutawney Phil coming again. My friends on the other side of the aisle again argue that only the rich benefit from this relief. This ignores the fact that capital gains and dividend relief has played an essential role in creating over 4 million new jobs over the past couple of years, in 32 straight months of positive economic growth. Taxes on dividends and capital gains are impediments to capital formation. If you tax too much, you impede capital formation. You have less money going into the economy to grow jobs. They impede entrepreneurial activity, the wellspring of economic growth and wealth creation. Americans across all levels of household income have benefited from these lower rates. Nearly 60 percent of those paying capital gains earn less than $50,000 a year, and 85 percent of all capital gains taxpayers earn less than $100,000 a year, according to the Joint Economic Committee. I know many express concerns regarding the budget deficit. There is no doubt that Congress needs to do all it can to responsibly control the rate at which we spend on mandatory programs--on which we spend on programs. But some advocate that raising taxes is the key to opening the door to fiscal discipline. I am afraid instead of opening the door to prosperity, higher taxes will shut the door on innovation, entrepreneurship, and greater economic growth. I recognize the uneasiness and uncertainty in America today regarding our economic future. But if one looks at the data, it is clear that the economy remains solid. Productivity is strong, employment growth remains robust. Both retail sales and the housing market remain on a path of remarkable growth. The American economy is highly flexible, and thanks to that we have been able to absorb natural disasters and high energy costs that would have easily thrown the economies of other nations into economic recession. To ensure the economy's continued momentum, we must make the President's tax relief permanent or else small businesses, teachers, college students, and hard-working moms and dads will see their taxes go up. Yet tax policy is not the only key to economic growth. As I said before, we face challenges. I know my neighbors and folks in my community in Minnesota are worried about what is happening in India and China. They are worried about the prospect of losing their jobs. Certainly, Mr. President, you are very sensitive to what is happening to the global economy and the impact it has on the good people of South Carolina. We have to understand that we are not going to win the low-wage jobs. There is a recent study by the National Science Foundation entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' The President did not mention it directly in his State of the Union, but he is recognizing that we produced 70,000 engineers last year. China produced 600,000; India produced 350,000. For the cost of one engineer or one chemist in the United States, a company can hire five chemists in China or 11 engineers in India. Of 120 chemical plants being built around the world with price tags of $1 billion or more, one is in the United States and 50 are in China. I could go on and on and on. We face some challenges out there. We rank 17th in the proportion of college-age kids earning science and engineering degrees, down from third place a couple of decades ago. We are making progress. The President is setting the pace. We have bipartisan legislation that follows up on that. There are a number of things we need to do. In addition to that, we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We need to reform our legal system, including completing our work on the asbestos bill that is before the Senate. We need to continue to work toward opening foreign markets to American goods and services. What we do not need to do is to apply the brakes on the economy by raising taxes on hard-working moms and dads, small businesses, college students, and teachers across the country. That is not the prescription for continued economic growth. I have said this many times, but the fact is by cutting taxes you grow jobs. We have been through a recession, national emergency, corporate scandals, and a war. Yet because the President has stepped forward with an economic plan based on the commonsense belief that we should put money back into the pockets of ordinary Americans, the economy is going strong. By providing businesses with incentives such as bonus depreciation and expensing, they will be able to reinvest in their operation, purchase more goods, and hire more employees. That translates into jobs, economic growth, and opportunity for all Americans. Given the good news on the economy, even the most persistent critic must concede that the President's economic program boosted the economy's performance and played a crucial role in helping the economy to rebound from the recession that began during the final months of the Clinton Presidency. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

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

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 ``Volatility in the Natural Gas Market: The Impact of High Natural Gas Prices on American Consumers,'' regarding the subcommittee's investigations into the natural gas market and allegations that price and supply manipulation have caused increasingly high and volatile natural gas prices. The subcommittee intends to hold a hearing to examine the impact higher prices have on the economy, business, and families, and the government's role in ensuring that natural gas prices are determined in a competitive and informed marketplace. The subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Friday, February 10, 2006, at 10 a.m., at the James J. Hill Reference Library at 80 West 4th Street in St. Paul, MN. 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 ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to establish a commission to strengthen confidence in Congress be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to establish a commission to strengthen confidence in Congress be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor to discuss the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito. My purpose is to share with my colleagues and the people of Minnesota my decision to vote to confirm Judge Alito and the reasons for it. This is one of the most solemn and important events in the life of the Senate. From Minnesota, I watched and listened to the hearings closely. Judge Alito's intellect and character are nothing short of remarkable. On day four of the hearings, January 12, 2006, four sitting and two former judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit testified on behalf of Judge Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. They spoke about his independence, judgment, intellect, and character. I remember listening to Judge Timothy Lewis tell us that Judge Alito will be the type of Justice who will listen with an open mind and will not have any agenda-driven or result-oriented approach. I think that is what we want in a judge. What is interesting is that Judge Lewis is a Clinton appointee. He stated: I am openly and unapologetically pro-choice and always have been. Judge Lewis went on to state: I am openly--and it's very well known--a committed human rights and civil rights activist and am actively engaged in that process as my time permits. . . . I am very, very much involved in a number of endeavors that one who is familiar with Judge Alito's background and experience may wonder--``Well, why are you here today saying positive things about his prospects as a justice on the Supreme Court?'' And the reason is that having worked with him, I came to respect what I think are the most important qualities for anyone who puts on a robe, no matter what court they will serve on, but in particular, the United States Supreme Court. It has been said that the most important decision in Government is ``who decides?'' With magnificent simplicity, article II, section 2 of the Constitution lays out the process for placing members on our Highest Court. It says: . . . he [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [justices] of the Supreme Court. . . . For us, elected officials, the process of determining who will lead is long, drawn out, expensive, and sometimes very noisy. But for the selection of Justices, the Founders wanted the process to reflect the dignity of the office. Unfortunately, we have witnessed a deterioration of the dignity and solemnity of that process in the last few years. Despite Chairman Specter's best efforts, the hearing before the Judiciary Committee seemed, at times, to me, at least in some ways, an exercise in futility. I would like to know the breakdown between the amount of time Senators on the committee spent making speeches for the witness to hear and how much time they spent listening to him. The ``advice and consent'' process became ``lobby and confront.'' The Senate should examine the nominee, not dissect him or her. I have read he was asked more than 700 questions. The Presiding Officer should know; he was there. He sat through part of that process. I believe he brought, and others try to bring, a sense of asking the nominee about the process that he would employ in making decisions. It was clear that what Judge Alito brought to the table was not one that says here is what I believe and as a result this is what I will do but, rather, what you would want a judge to do: What do the facts say, what does the law say, what does the Constitution say. In being asked 700 questions, I think that is something like 500 more than Justice Ginsburg was asked. Senators on the committee who had previously counseled nominees not to answer specific questions on issues that will come before them on the Court on this occasion abused the nominee for not doing so. The American people know what this process is supposed to be about. The President nominates and the Senate confirms. The President, who was elected by all the people, did his job. Now it is time for us to do ours. When we approach issues of greatest magnitude, the Senate should be at its very best. I like Stephen Covey's advice to leaders when he wrote: The Main Thing is to keep the Main Thing the Main Thing. Despite all the distractions and attempted detours, there is a main thing to be focused on. This main thing is not a particular issue or political agenda. This main thing should not vary based on whether your party is in the White House. I hope that in my time in the Senate, if there is a President of a different party, I will bring the same approach that I have tried to bring to the judges that President Bush has nominated. My consistent standard throughout my time in the Senate will be this: Is the nominee qualified by relevant experience, proper judicial temperament, and ethical standards which are beyond reproach? Does he bring a perspective that says a judge is to be a judge or referee, not to bring his or her personal opinions to the table to create law as he or she sees it but, rather, does what Judge Alito does, looks at the facts, looks at the law, the Constitution. I would submit that a quick search for the votes and record of judicial nominations over the last 200 years would indicate this is the historical standard almost all Senators have taken. The current circumstance of microscopic examination, politicizing, and threats of filibusters is a major historical aberration. For the sake of the judiciary and the whole constitutional system, I hope we find our way back to the way things have been for over the last 200 years plus, rather than the last 5 years. In my view, Judge Samuel Alito is extremely well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. He has an extraordinary legal mind. There is no doubt about it. He has demonstrated in his years on the bench and in hundreds of cases that he views the judicial role as following the Constitution and interpreting the law, not making the law. Judge Alito told us in his own words that ``no person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law, and no person in this country is beneath the law.'' He also told us that ``our Constitution applies in times of peace and in times of war, and it protects the rights of Americans under all circumstances.'' On results-oriented jurisprudence, Judge Alito stated: Results-oriented jurisprudence is never justified because it is not our job to try to produce particular results. We are not policymakers. We shouldn't be implementing any sort of policy agenda or policy preferences we have. In effect, this was the same standard that Judge Roberts applied. I recall he was asked a question whether he was ruling on behalf of the little guy. And the comment was, if the Constitution says the little guy deserves to win, he will. And if it says that he doesn't deserve to win, then he won't. That is what judges should do. That is the way they should operate. Advice and consent was never intended as a rehash of the previous Presidential election. It was never intended as a means for the Senate to impose its policy agenda on a future court. I worry that we are walking down a dangerous path when Senators start looking at judges and in effect requiring them to say, yes, I will rule a certain way or otherwise you will not get my vote. Advice and consent was never intended as a means to grandstand or placate interest groups. I will proudly vote to support Judge Alito's nomination. His career, his writings, and his class during this less- than-ideal confirmation process are proof that he will be an outstanding member of the highest Court. The President has done his job admirably. He has nominated an outstanding judge. The Senate has examined his qualifications. Now it is time for us to do our job and confirm Samuel Alito as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, Minnesota and the Nation have lost a great leader and deep thinker, Senator Gene McCarthy of Minnesota. He played an import part in the history of this body and of this Nation, and we should carefully consider the lessons of his unique and deeply significant public life. Gene McCarthy has been described as a philosopher who was a Senator. In his youth, many describe Gene as the brightest of scholars and later in his life; he was celebrated as skilled poet. In between, he was a five term Congressman and two-term Senator. His time in Washington and on the national political scene was a display of thoughtfulness, serious inquiry, and passionate pursuit of the truth. In the business of politics where there is safety in conformity, Gene McCarthy celebrated the role of the maverick. He says his role was to provoke thought and debate in our system and ensure we adhere more closely to lasting principles. Eugene Robert McCarthy was born in the town of Watkins, in rural Meeker County, MN, on March 29, 1916. He began a life time of1eing in the schools of Watkins. He graduated from St. John's University, Collegeville, MN, in 1935 with the highest GPA in the school's history. He also studied at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis until 1939. Professionally, he was a high school teacher in Minnesota and North Dakota for 5 years and eventually became a professor of economics and education at St. John's University from 1940 to 1943 an instructor in sociology and economics at St. Thomas College, St. Paul, MN, from 1946 to 1949. In 1944, his service to the United States began during World War II, when he was a civilian technical assistant in the Military Intelligence Division of the War Department. He was first elected to the U.S. Congress as a Representative from Minnesota in 1948 and served five terms. In 1958, he won a seat in the Senate where he remained for two terms. One of the focuses of his Senate career was the work of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has been a common interest of most of Minnesota's Senators and an indication of the strong international character of our State. I first became aware of Gene McCarthy in 1967 when I was campus organizer at Hofstra University. In a time of boiling-over passions, I remember being impressed with Gene McCarthy's thoughtfulness and seriousness. He was an unlikely leader for ``youth revolution,'' but he balanced our youthful over-exuberance with a steady articulation of principles and commitment. He encouraged young people to ``Get Clean with Gene:'' to stop ``tuning in, turning on and dropping out'' and to clean up our act and get involved in the political process. He knew that a movement based on self-indulgence was doomed to failure. Gene McCarthy's life predates the experience of contemporary American youth, but still has important lessons for them. First, political involvement should not rest on raw emotion. Instead, to sustain your position you need to ``do your homework,'' which could mean years of study. Second, you should not be intimidated by the generation in power. The great movements of history have been led and supported by young people, so the force of youthful enthusiasm should never be underestimated. Third, Gene McCarthy demonstrated that you earn the right to have your ideas taken seriously by engaging responsibly in the political process. He believed that the solution to all problems in a democracy is more democracy, which means participation, ideas, hard work and perseverance. His personal experience in 1968, even though it was politically unsuccessful, opened a door into the political process that can't be closed. Young people of all political persuasions should seize that opportunity and help shape the world in which they will grow old. In 1968, Gene McCarthy certainly seized opportunities. He announced that he was willing and available to be President in November of 1968 and two months later stunned President Johnson, and the political world with a close second place finish in the New Hampshire primary. His success encouraged Robert Kennedy to enter the race and President Johnson withdrew shortly thereafter. McCarthy did not win the nomination, which went to fellow Minnesotan Hubert Humphrey, but he changed the dynamics of politics in America. He helped create the phenomenon of bringing young people into the process in large numbers to challenge the power of the ``smoke filled room.'' When Gene McCarthy left the Senate, he returned to the place he always was most at home: the world of ideas and words. When you look at the list of the 15 books he published, it is remarkable to see that they are either challenging works of non-fiction policy analysis or poetry. As a poet, Gene McCarthy probably knew Samuel Johnson's statement that ``poetry is the art of uniting pleasure with truth.'' That sums up his life. Like a lot of Minnesotans, Eugene McCarthy took great pleasure not in the usual ways, but through service. He served as a teacher. He served as a scholar. He served as a public policy leader. He served as a motivator and organizer of youth. He served as a brave voice, challenging the powerful status quo. And he served as a poet, rendering great ideas into beautiful words. Gene McCarthy lived a bold and uncompromising life, which is the only kind of life that creates real change. He was always more interested in the truth than in people's opinion of him. He lived out Amelia Earhart's statement that ``Courage is price that life exacts for granting peace.'' His life was about living out the courage of his convictions and that was his peace. He changed a nation by choosing that tough road instead of a life of compliance. We are grateful for his service and memory, and we should all be inspired to take up his courage of conviction for the new chapters of American challenge and progress ahead.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, Freedom is Worth Fighting For. That is the headline of a full page advertisement today in The New York Times. I was proud to add my name to this strong statement in support of our troops and our President in fighting the war on terror. The ad is sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition, a grassroots organization based in Washington, DC, with five full-time offices, 41 chapters, and over 20,000 members across our Nation. The ad takes strong exception to a resolution approved last month by about 2,000 members of the Union for Reform Judaism--URJ--at a convention in Houston. The URJ resolution said, ``American Jews, and all Americans, are profoundly critical of this war and they want this administration to tell us how and when it will bring our troops home,'' and called the Iraq war ``unjust.'' The resolution reversed a 2002 URJ endorsement of the war and, according to news accounts, was adopted with very limited debate and only one person speaking against it. As the Republican Jewish Coalition ad states, the URJ statement that American Jews oppose President Bush on Iraq is misleading and wrong. The URJ does not speak for me. Nor does it speak for all reform Jews or for the American Jewish community. The Republican Jewish Coalition ad carries the signatures of 180 leaders and prominent figures in the Jewish community. In addition to my name, among those signing the newspaper ad are my colleague in the other body Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle, and two former chairmen of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, James Tisch and Kenneth Bialkin. Other signers include rabbis and cantors; as well as State and local elected officials. The Republican Jewish Coalition ad contains several other important messages. It notes that we support the President and the war on terror. We stand behind our troops and their mission of creating a safe, democratic Iraq. This mission is vital, says the ad, not only for the continuing fight against terrorism and the stability of the Middle East, but also for making the world a safer place for our children. I believe this message of support is particularly important as the Iraqi people prepare to vote for a permanent government later this week. We can never surrender to terrorism. Those who attacked us on September 11, 2001, will not hesitate to do so again if given the opportunity. We dare not encourage them by weakness and vacillation in our unrelenting war on terror. I commend the Republican Jewish Coalition for its leadership on this vital issue. I am proud to stand with them in defense of freedom.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, in recognition of Human Rights Day on December 10, I rise to pay tribute to some of the bravest human rights advocates in this hemisphere Cubans who have dared to raise their voices to protest a regime they rightfully see as antidemocratic and harshly repressive. Cuba is the only country in the Western Hemisphere that has not held democratic elections in recent decades. Fidel Castro has served as dictator for over four decades, and his regime does not permit free speech or free enterprise. What is particularly reprehensible is the treatment Castro doles out to those who desire freedom on the island. This week, the EU will present its Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to the Ladies in White, the mothers and wives of Cuban political prisoners who hold peaceful demonstrations each Sunday to protest the imprisonment of their husbands and sons, some for more than 20 years, for political reasons. I extend my congratulations to these worthy award recipients and to the Sakharov Prize selection committee for their continuing attention to Cuba. Three years ago, the same prize was awarded to Oswaldo Paya, organizer of the Varela Project, which seeks a referendum on open elections, freedom of speech, freedom for political prisoners, and free enterprise. Despite the imprisonment of more than 50 organizers and continuous government harassment, the Varela Project continues to gather more signatures. To date, more than 35,000 ordinary Cubans have signed the petition at great personal risk and joined a historic national grassroots movement. Mr. Paya also continues to work with other dissidents to plan for Cuba's transition to democracy. I have met with Mr. Paya and found him to be an extraordinary individual. All this is happening in a context of increasing demands for freedom by the Cuban people. This year's edition of the report entitled ``Steps to Freedom'' by the Miami-based Directorio chronicled 1,805 acts of nonviolent civil protest and 1,371 vigils for the freedom of political prisoners throughout Cuba, including one major conference on May 20. This represents a significant increase since the first such report in 1997, which found only 44 acts of civil protest, all of which were limited to Havana only. The increasing courage of the Cuban people to stand up for their human rights is all the more remarkable since it is happening in the midst of continuing arrests and ``actos de repudio'' organized by the Castro government. In 2003, I traveled to Cuba with an open mind about U.S. trade and travel policy. During my trip I was touched by the stories I heard of people imprisoned for such ``crimes'' as opening a library, belonging to an independent trade union, or being members of Doctors Without Borders. Since that trip, I have come to believe that supporting those who are working for freedom is the single most important policy we can espouse toward Cuba. Democracy in Cuba is not something the United States can or should impose. What we can do is support the efforts of the Cuban people to achieve their God-given right to live in a free society. On this Human Rights Day, I salute the Ladies in White, Mr. Paya, and all the other Cubans working for human rights and freedom in their country.