Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. I have no problem with that.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. In deference to my colleagues, the Senators from Nebraska and Michigan, I will shorten my comments with regard to the Estrada nomination. I want to say this to America. I hope they are listening. They should be listening. These are important times. What my colleagues on the other side are doing by engaging in this filibuster is really changing the constitutional standard. And we love this Constitution. It talks about the Senate's role in providing advice and consent. In practice that has always meant 51 votes--a majority. The Constitution specifically lays out when a super majority is needed. What we are witnessing now is a change in the way we abide by this important document, where we will now require 60 votes to get our nation's judges confirmed. That is not good for America, and that is certainly not what our Founders wanted to do.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, if I may, in contrast to the very partisan tone of the Estrada filibuster and this partisan divide that is stopping us from moving forward, I want to spend a few minutes talking about an issue in which we come together and perhaps which should be a model. I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, Senator Hagel and minority leader Daschle, as an original cosponsor of this landmark renewable fuels legislation. Senator Daschle is from our neighboring State. We have mutual interests. We understand the needs of our farmers. We are looking at working together, which I think is such a good thing. The Minnesota AgriGrowth Council points out renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel promote the 3 E's: economic development, environmental protection, and energy independence. Let me talk briefly about the economic development benefit first. I ran for the Senate on jobs. The best welfare program is a job. The best housing program is a job--creating jobs--and economic development. That is what mayors do. That is what they understand is important to moms and dads. We get results. There were 18,000 more jobs in St. Paul when I left than when I began. The legislation we introduce today means economic development--it means jobs, revitalization, and new businesses--particularly for rural Minnesota. Minnesota is a leader in renewable fuels. Not only do the people of my State make Minnesota the top 10 among States of nearly every agriculture commodity that can be produced in our climate, but Minnesota leads the way in renewable fuels, and I am proud of that. Today, Minnesota has 14 ethanol plants in production--more than any other State in the Nation. Preliminary planning is underway for at least a couple of biodiesel production facilities in my State as well. So the importance of this legislation to my State and to the health of the people in my State and to the lives of our farmers and their economic opportunity is clear. But, let's take a look nationally to see what every American has to gain through this legislation. According to at least one economic analysis, the renewable fuels standard we propose today would, over the next decade: Reduce America's trade deficit by more than $34 billion; increase America's Gross Domestic Product by $156 billion; create more than 214,000 jobs throughout the entire economy, including places important to me like Little Falls and Winnebago, MN; and increase net farm income by nearly $6 billion per year. That the renewable fuels standard legislation we introduce today promotes the first ``E'' of the 3 ``Es''--economic development--is evident. The second ``E'' I want to talk a little about is energy independence. As a member of both the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, I have had the opportunity, in my first month in the Senate, to hear from a number of experts on homeland security and on conditions around the world that affect our security. And, with this experience as a backdrop, I can say I am not comfortable at all with America's level of reliance on oil imports--now at 56 percent of our supply, and expected to be about 70 percent by 2020 unless something is done to turn things around. Back on September 19, 2001, former CIA Director James Woolsey, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer, and former National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane all wrote the Senate on this very issue, stating: One of the critical actions that must be taken now is to advance America's energy security through transportation fuels like ethanol [and] slow the dollars to the Middle East, where too many of those dollars have been used to buy weapon and fund terrorist activities. The legislation we offer today takes to heart the admonition of Director Woolsey, Admiral Moorer, and Mr. McFarlane by advancing renewable fuels to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And, finally, but not least, is the ``E'' for environmental protection that got the whole reformulated gasoline ball rolling in the first place. Ethanol is an important tool for improving air quality in America's cities by reducing carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, NOX, toxics, and particulates. Proof of ethanol's clear air benefits was seen in Chicago last year where exclusive use of ethanol reformulated gasoline helped the city attain federal ozone standards--the only area under such standards to see this kind of improvement. What is more, ethanol continues to be the only liquid transportation fuel that can help to reduce global warming. In 2002 alone, ethanol use in the United States reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 4.3 million tons--the equivalent of removing more than 636,000 vehicles from the road. These are the 3 ``Es''; economic development, energy independence, and environmental protection--all three worthy objectives furthered by the legislation we offer today. Naturally, there are places here and there where this bill can and should be improved, and we can work on it. But, this is a good starting place. It is a bipartisan effort. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, if I may, in contrast to the very partisan tone of the Estrada filibuster and this partisan divide that is stopping us from moving forward, I want to spend a few minutes talking about an issue in which we come together and perhaps which should be a model. I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, Senator Hagel and minority leader Daschle, as an original cosponsor of this landmark renewable fuels legislation. Senator Daschle is from our neighboring State. We have mutual interests. We understand the needs of our farmers. We are looking at working together, which I think is such a good thing. The Minnesota AgriGrowth Council points out renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel promote the 3 E's: economic development, environmental protection, and energy independence. Let me talk briefly about the economic development benefit first. I ran for the Senate on jobs. The best welfare program is a job. The best housing program is a job--creating jobs--and economic development. That is what mayors do. That is what they understand is important to moms and dads. We get results. There were 18,000 more jobs in St. Paul when I left than when I began. The legislation we introduce today means economic development--it means jobs, revitalization, and new businesses--particularly for rural Minnesota. Minnesota is a leader in renewable fuels. Not only do the people of my State make Minnesota the top 10 among States of nearly every agriculture commodity that can be produced in our climate, but Minnesota leads the way in renewable fuels, and I am proud of that. Today, Minnesota has 14 ethanol plants in production--more than any other State in the Nation. Preliminary planning is underway for at least a couple of biodiesel production facilities in my State as well. So the importance of this legislation to my State and to the health of the people in my State and to the lives of our farmers and their economic opportunity is clear. But, let's take a look nationally to see what every American has to gain through this legislation. According to at least one economic analysis, the renewable fuels standard we propose today would, over the next decade: Reduce America's trade deficit by more than $34 billion; increase America's Gross Domestic Product by $156 billion; create more than 214,000 jobs throughout the entire economy, including places important to me like Little Falls and Winnebago, MN; and increase net farm income by nearly $6 billion per year. That the renewable fuels standard legislation we introduce today promotes the first ``E'' of the 3 ``Es''--economic development--is evident. The second ``E'' I want to talk a little about is energy independence. As a member of both the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, I have had the opportunity, in my first month in the Senate, to hear from a number of experts on homeland security and on conditions around the world that affect our security. And, with this experience as a backdrop, I can say I am not comfortable at all with America's level of reliance on oil imports--now at 56 percent of our supply, and expected to be about 70 percent by 2020 unless something is done to turn things around. Back on September 19, 2001, former CIA Director James Woolsey, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer, and former National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane all wrote the Senate on this very issue, stating: One of the critical actions that must be taken now is to advance America's energy security through transportation fuels like ethanol [and] slow the dollars to the Middle East, where too many of those dollars have been used to buy weapon and fund terrorist activities. The legislation we offer today takes to heart the admonition of Director Woolsey, Admiral Moorer, and Mr. McFarlane by advancing renewable fuels to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And, finally, but not least, is the ``E'' for environmental protection that got the whole reformulated gasoline ball rolling in the first place. Ethanol is an important tool for improving air quality in America's cities by reducing carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, NOX, toxics, and particulates. Proof of ethanol's clear air benefits was seen in Chicago last year where exclusive use of ethanol reformulated gasoline helped the city attain federal ozone standards--the only area under such standards to see this kind of improvement. What is more, ethanol continues to be the only liquid transportation fuel that can help to reduce global warming. In 2002 alone, ethanol use in the United States reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 4.3 million tons--the equivalent of removing more than 636,000 vehicles from the road. These are the 3 ``Es''; economic development, energy independence, and environmental protection--all three worthy objectives furthered by the legislation we offer today. Naturally, there are places here and there where this bill can and should be improved, and we can work on it. But, this is a good starting place. It is a bipartisan effort. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I was an urban mayor of a vibrant, diverse community, including Chicanos, Salvadorans, and Puerto Ricans. Is it true that Miguel Estrada was attacked by Democratic Hispanic Members of the House as being Hispanic in name only?

Mr. COLEMAN. Is it true that Miguel Estrada--we have heard this before--came here as a teenager, learned to speak English, overcame a disability, graduated with honors in college, graduated with honors magna cum laude in law school, was editor of the law review, and he came back to public service? Is it true, then, that he is supported by many Hispanic organizations, really as a role model of the American dream?

Mr. COLEMAN. Will the Senator yield for one more question?

Mr. COLEMAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. At the maximum.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, this morning the distinguished Senator from New York made some statements about the Senate's constitutional advice and consent responsibility. I would like now to respond to those statements because some of her views of the Senate's appropriate role in judicial nominations are different from mine. I speak as a former solicitor general of the State of Minnesota. I had an opportunity to argue on many occasions before the highest courts in my State. I have a great love and appreciation for our Constitution and its history. In its enumeration of the President's powers, the Constitution has provided a role for the Senate in the appointment of various Federal officials, including Federal judges. The relevant text, which is set forth in article II, section 2, of the Constitution, reads: The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law[.] As one scholar has noted: a reasonable reading of the text suggests that because the Senate's role in the appointments process is outlined in Article II enumeration of presidential powers, rather than described in the Article I enumeration of congressional powers, the Senate plays a more limited role in the appointment of judges. A reading of Alexander Hamilton's commentary on the Appointments Clause sheds some additional light on how the Framers viewed the Senate's duty of advise and consent. Hamilton acknowledged the danger that the Senate's advise and consent role could create an overly indulgent Senate relationship to appointed officeholders engaged in malfeasance. Hamilton rebutted this point by arguing that the Senate would have a strong interest in appointing qualified leaders and in protecting its reputation for appointing quality officeholders. He further pointed out--and this is important--that the Senate does not have the power to choose officeholders, but only to advise and consent. In a moment of amazing prescience, he stated that he felt that Senators might have political reasons for confirming or rejecting a nominee. He nevertheless observed--or perhaps hoped--that since the President alone makes the nominations, Senators would be somewhat constrained in their voting decisions and that self-interested decisions would be offset by other Senators. He predicted that voting decisions on the merits would become much more the norm. I wonder what Alexander Hamilton would say about the debate we have had over Miguel Estrada's nominations. I can't imagine that he would be pleased. Hamilton believed that the appointments powers were wisely vested in the hands of two parties, the President and the Senate. On one hand, Hamilton believed the President, acting alone, would be the better choice for making nominations, as he would be less vulnerable to personal considerations and political negotiations than the Senate and more inclined, as the sole decision maker, to select nominees who would reflect well on the presidency. On the other hand, he argued that the Senate's role would act as a powerful check on unfit nominees by the President. As he put it, Senate confirmation ``would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.'' So there you have it, straight from Alexander Hamilton himself. The role of the Senate is a limited one of protecting against the appointment of nominees who are unfit for the federal bench. I agree that the Senate owes some deference to the President's choices. Hamilton also believed that the Senate would act on judicial nominees with integrity in order to avoid public disapproval. Now, the last thing I want to do is cast aspersion on the integrity of my colleagues who oppose Mr. Estrada's nomination. But I must say that the amount of misinformation being repeated here on the Senate floor about Mr. Estrada, and the manner in which his opponents have ignored his vast legal experience and record, is cause for grave concern. Historically, deliberation by the Senate on judicial nominations was quite short, especially when compared to what we are seeing on the Senate floor on Mr. Estrada's nomination. Take, for example, the 1862 nomination and confirmation of Samuel F. Miller to the United States Supreme Court. The Senate formally deliberated on the nomination for only 30 minutes before confirming him. Confirmations on the same day, or within a few days of the nomination were the norm well into the 20th century. Contrast this with what we are seeing on Mr. Estrada's nomination. We are now on our fourth day of debate with no end in sight. The Republicans have offered at least two generous time agreements to set a vote for Mr. Estrada's nomination, but the Democratic leadership rejected both of them. I have taken the time to share with my colleagues some of the historical details of the judicial confirmation process in order to put the debate over Mr. Estrada's nomination into perspective. What was enumerated in the Constitution as ``advice and consent'' has in practice devolved to ``negotiation and cooperation'' in the best cases, and ``obstruct and delay'' in the worst cases, aided and abetted by the liberal Washington special interest groups. I fear that we are seeing the latter at work in Mr. Estrada's case. I was recently elected to get things done. I was elected, and I heard my voters say: Put aside the bitter partisanship that is stopping the Senate from moving forward and that has prevented the Senate from getting a prescription drug benefit and Medicare for seniors, that stopped us from getting disaster relief assistance, that stopped us from getting a budget and appropriations bills passed. Now we are facing the first partisan filibuster of a circuit court judicial nominee. Now we are facing a new standard--not the gold standard of the American Bar Association but talks about qualified, or well-qualified, of which Mr. Estrada has received the highest ranking-- a new Federal standard. But, instead, we are facing a standard of political acceptability. Our Constitution is being tested. It is being tested by the reaction to Mr. Estrada's nomination. He is someone who comes to us as an immigrant who worked his way up, who became the top of his class in college, the top of his class in law school, magna cum laude from Harvard, editor of the Law Review, clerked for Federal judges, clerked for Supreme Court Judges, and comes to us with the highest qualification rating by the American Bar Association. But now we are facing a new standard. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject the political considerations and get back to that view and that perspective on whether they are fit, whether they are qualified, and whether they have the right kind of judicial temperament. Let us put an end to this debate. Let us support and confirm Mr. Estrada's nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I say to the Democratic whip, I have about 2\1/2\ pages typed, probably no more than 10 minutes, 5 to 10 minutes maximum.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, it was my sad privilege to attend the memorial service for our great astronauts in Houston yesterday. As best I could, I carried the love and prayers of Minnesotans to that solemn occasion. It was heartbreaking; yet it was awe inspiring at the same time. There was a lot of love in Houston yesterday that surrounded the families of the brave astronauts. I should note how blessed we are to have the President we have at times such as this. His words are good and true, but it is his heart that communicates to the hearts of Minnesotans. How much we all owe to the explorers, the inventors and the pioneers. In Minnesota, we marvel at the thought that a Charles Lindberg from Little Falls, a small town on the Mississippi, was the one who opened a new door by traveling solo across the Atlantic. For almost every one of us, our presence in this country is a reality because some brave souls conquered their fears and headed off to an unknown place with the only hope that it meant a better life for their families. The pain of this tragedy is made more acute because of the purity of the sacrifice of these seven extraordinary and ordinary folks. They did not climb into that rocket to get rich or to gain power or to become celebrities. They assumed the risk to their lives for science, for discovery, for the pushing out of the horizons of mankind. As we mourn, may we in this Chamber and throughout this society seek that purity of motive and courage to take risks on behalf of others and in pursuit of a better future. May we express our appreciation far more freely for all those who take enormous risks on our behalf. May we embrace a spirit of service and sacrifice for others rather than idealize safety and security for ourselves. Thousands of years ago, an ancient Hebrew writer put down these words, expressed as a prayer: Where can I go from your spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; If I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, If I settle on the far side of the sea, Even there your hand will guide me, Your right hand will hold me fast. We pray for that comfort, we pray for that embrace for the families who are enduring this loss and that encouragement for all as we move on from here. Mr. President, I 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, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman for his assistance on this matter that is so important to me and all the people of the State of Minnesota. I know Senator Wellstone and his wife will be honored by the tribute we pay them today. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I know it is late, but I did want to say a few words about Paul and Sheila Wellstone before we left today. I am deeply gratified one of the first subjects that brings me to my feet in this Chamber is the memory of Paul and Sheila Wellstone. I knew them both well. I was their mayor. I campaigned for them. I campaigned against them. At times I agreed with them, and at times I strongly disagreed with them. It is a measure of the humanity and integrity of Paul and Sheila Wellstone that even those who disagreed with them always respected and admired the enthusiasm, the passion, and the courage with which they pursued their vision. This fall I had planned to contest an election against the Senator. I never dreamed I would be mourning his death. I was his political opponent. And, as two fighters at the end of a boxing match who embrace each other after the final bell has rung, I am sad for myself we never had that moment. This body began the good work of providing a living memorial to Paul and Sheila and the others who died. We are proud that it will be in St. Paul, the city I served as mayor. It is a Paul and Sheila Wellstone kind of place. It is literally where the East meets the West. Since Paul came from the East, as I did, he probably felt very much at home in our ethnic neighborhoods, filled with middle-class working families. It has been a destination for immigrants, as were the Wellstones a generation back. It is a city of hard work and big dreams, the soul of who Paul and Sheila were. We have the opportunity to retain that spirit; and that is the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center for Community Building. It will be a 93,000-square-foot building. A community center is a poor substitute for the real thing--Paul and Sheila themselves--but it is worth doing, providing a safe place where kids can play and learn, where families can receive training and support and community members can be organized to fight injustice and partake in the American dream. In the spirit of Paul Wellstone, I should probably be out here trying to triple the funding because he was always pushing the edge, but I was sent here by my constituents with a more conservative vision. I simply urge my colleagues to support the funding level for the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center authorized last year. I honor Paul and Sheila's memory today and will strive to be worthy of the example they set throughout the time I am in this place. I had introduced an amendment and intended to offer it today to increase the appropriations amount for the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center from $3 million currently in the bill to the full funding level of $10 million. However, I understand and very much appreciate the fact that my good friend, the chairman of the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee, along with other distinguished managers of this bill, has agreed to increase the amount to $5 million and to ultimately provide full funding at $10 million in the conference report to accompany this legislation.

Mr. COLEMAN. I am happy to yield to my friend, the distinguished chairman of the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business and Senators be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. As announced earlier, the Senate will be in a pro forma session tomorrow--no business will be conducted--there will be no session on Monday, and the Senate will reconvene on Tuesday. The Senate will be in a period of morning business on Tuesday. Also as a reminder, the President will deliver his State of the Union Address on Tuesday. Members are asked to be in the Senate Chamber no later than 8:30 on Tuesday evening. The majority leader has announced that there will be no rollcall votes prior to Wednesday of next week. The Senate could consider any legislative or executive matters that become available.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:45 a.m., Friday, January 24, for a pro forma session only. I further ask consent that immediately upon convening at 9:45, the Senate automatically adjourn over until 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, January 28. I further ask consent that on Tuesday, following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period for morning business until 12:30, with the time equally divided and with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. Further, I ask that the Senate recess from the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly policy luncheons to meet; further, that when the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, there be a period of morning business until the hour of 5 o'clock, again, with the time equally divided and with Senators limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 2 through 16, and 19. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Illinois for yielding the floor and giving me this opportunity. Two weeks ago yesterday, I was sworn in as a Senator. This is the very first amendment I signed onto. I appreciate this opportunity. All too often, we talk about all politics being local, but there is a global aspect. We are touched by what happens around the world. The Jewish philosopher Maimonides said we each should view ourselves as if the world were held in balance and any single act of goodness on our part can tip the scales. The reality is the impact of this amendment will tip the scales again and again and again and it will change the world. As my colleague from Ohio discussed, we reach one mother, we save one child. I believe this is a national security issue. If we do not deal with the plague and the plight of AIDS, it will have a tremendous impact upon our security here. I believe this is a humanitarian issue. We are doing the right thing. I thank my colleague from Illinois for his leadership in helping me be part of doing what is right. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding the time. I rise in support of the Cochran amendment. Last year when I was running for the U.S. Senate, I promised to get something done in the way of relief for Minnesota farmers. The picture the distinguished Senator from North Dakota showed is a picture that is close to the heart of Minnesotans who suffered disasters. They have suffered flooding. They have been hurt. They have suffered losses. Last year, the House and the Senate attempted to pass the Daschle legislation, but it never became law. Those two bills looked good on paper, but they never became law. They never lightened the load of one farmer. They never comforted one farm family. They never provided a single auction. When I ran for the Senate, I promised to get to work to get something done for disaster relief for Minnesota farmers. I never promised to vote for something that everyone knows is going nowhere, and then shrug my shoulders and say: Gee whiz, I tried. I promised to shoot straight for the people back home and to be honest about what I think can be done and then help it become law. No one believes the alternative disaster package now scored by the Congressional Budget Office at nearly $7 billion has support to become law. I think it is irresponsible to raise hopes and expectations to that level. I was elected to get something done. I have some serious concerns about the $3.1 billion disaster package in the Cochran amendment. In my view, the help provided in this bill needed to be better targeted to farmers hit by disaster. I was among a number of Senators who expressed concerns to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. He went back to the drawing board. He made some changes to better target the help. Although he didn't go as far as I would like, we are going to get something done for Minnesota farmers. Farmers can't cashflow on promises alone. They need help now. I am told this $3.1 billion relief package can get help to our farm families within weeks. I am going to support this $3.1 billion package. I was elected to get things done. The Cochran amendment gets things done. Let's pass it and let us move on. I yield the floor.