Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

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

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend and colleague, the Senator from South Carolina. We came in in the same class. He served in the Congress. He is more experienced and understands the ways of Washington. But he understands the ways of South Carolina. He is about as real as he can be. People think of Washington as a phony town. I look at my colleague, my friend from South Carolina, and he is very real. That is a good thing. In the discussion we have had tonight--now past 30 hours--I appreciate his effort to humanize the four individuals whose lives have been, in some ways, put on hold, their future put on hold, certainly by the actions of this body. No, they are not lemons and they are not simply numbers. They are people. They are moms, dads, fathers, daughters, sons. They are folks who have the capacity to have an incredible influence on our lives. I was a former prosecutor. The Senator from South Carolina had that experience of doing some prosecution in his time. I can tell you, courts have an impact on your lives, on your family's lives in many ways. So I appreciate it, if as we move now into the morning hours, there will be votes coming up this morning--not tomorrow morning, this morning--to put a human touch on what this is about. I think there was a mood or a feeling in the country at the time that we got elected that really did focus on getting something done. I was running for office and disaster assistance bills were being debated in the Congress. The House was passing bills but the Senate was not. I can tell you my constituents were unhappy. They were concerned. Last year there was a debate over a prescription drug benefit. I was running for office. There were still seniors forced to make the choice between prescription drugs and food. That is a bad thing. That is not a good thing. Hopefully, this year we are close and before we get out of here, assuming folks come together, we can get something done. I think that was the tone. That was the message. By the way, I hope, certainly the message I heard--it should not be a partisan thing. There are a lot of things I heard in the debate tonight from my colleagues on the other side. I don't disagree with all of it. My colleague from Louisiana made a comment that we can't be divisive. She is right. I can tell you we are not trying to be divisive. Being divisive is when you do something that is unprecedented, and that is really what we are talking about today. The fact is, one of the things we did kind of settle tonight is the filibuster. There was a discussion all along about whether they are really filibustering nominees, a lot of discussion about filibusters. First, I say again I was disappointed what I heard tonight. If anything, it was the comment of my colleague from Louisiana saying filibuster was the successfulness of the truth. No. With filibusters we have stopped some very good legislation. We have used the filibuster in a very terrible way in this body in its history. We have filibustered to try to prevent antilynching laws coming into effect. We have filibustered civil rights legislation. We have filibustered against the poll tax. We filibustered about a lot of things and not often good. A filibuster is often to be ashamed of and this one is to be ashamed of. My colleague asked what is the difference between filibustering legislation and judges? The difference is this little book. It is called the Constitution. That is the difference. The Constitution laid out very clearly when the President has certain powers. The President, by the way, doesn't get elected unanimously. He gets elected following the laws. Not everyone votes for him but he then becomes the President. Once you become the President, you have certain powers and the Senate has certain powers and responsibilities. So it is a matter of seeing there is a difference between what one can do legislatively, using filibusters, and what the Constitution provides. There is a reason why, in the history of this country of 214 years, up until this Congress, this body has never used a filibuster to stop circuit court nominees once they got through committee. That is the reality. You can put all the charts up and all the statistics; that is the reality. If folks are listening, they have to be thinking there has to be some reason in over 214 years why folks have not done what is being done today. In part, it is because of the consequences. If we do that, what we do is we let a minority--that is what we have here because in each of these cases the judge is being filibustered, a majority of the Senators, Democrats joining with Republicans--yes, they are going to vote for them. We know that. That is why the minority is filibustering, stopping the vote. So what you have here is a situation where the minority stands up and says: We don't support a person. Maybe it is because of a particular issue. Maybe the issue of abortion comes up again and again, which, by the way--and we will have plenty of time to talk about this--what is so interesting if you look at the record, the nominees who have been criticized or attacked because of their position on abortion, to a person have said that they would follow the law, that they would put personal beliefs aside. You choose a judge and what you ask of them over here is can you put your personal beliefs aside and make a judgment. That is what these folks have all said. Because they have those beliefs, the minority comes together and blocks them. What is the outcome? This, I know, frustrates my friend from South Carolina and it frustrates me. We all look into the future. I campaigned and I wanted to be a charter member of the ``Let's Get It Done Coalition.'' Let us figure out a way to solve problems. The Senator from New Jersey is right. We have to get an energy bill through. I hope we get it through. We have to do something about prescription drugs. We have to do something about jobs, and something about medical malpractice. We should do something about class action. Those efforts are not going to be allowed to come to a vote. Those are the jobs bills. Let us get it done. Let us put the bickering and partisan stuff aside and figure out a way to get it done. The problem we have as we look to the future is who is going to get confirmed. If anybody with deeply held views is going to be filibustered by one side, now the Democrats are in the minority, there may come a point in my time where my friend from South Carolina is sitting in the minority and a Democrat President may propose a judge, and I will say to the body that I intend to use the same standard with a Democrat President. Are judges qualified? Will they commit to uphold the Constitution? I will not support folks who will use the Constitution to create laws of their own beliefs. But if they agree to follow the Constitution and are qualified, then you support them. The President has that authority. If you look at the history of the judiciary, it is kind of a balance. There have been Democrat Presidents and Republican Presidents going back over the last 12 years--8 years of Bill Clinton, 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush, Jimmy Carter. There are about almost equal numbers of Democrats and the Republicans on the judiciary. It is balanced. What is happening here today is we are changing that balance. When we allow minorities to take hold, we change that balance. That is what happens. In the future, you are going to get folks with strongly held beliefs and there may be a Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal who went to my high school, James Madison in Brooklyn, NY. I disagree with some of her reasoning on decisions. She is a good judge. She is bright. She exercises her judgment. I don't think in this environment if the Democrats are in charge that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be confirmed. That would be sad for America. The same would be true with Scalia and a number of members of the Court. What are you going to get? The best and the brightest are going to be cast aside because they may have a strongly held belief, which is what you see in some of the nominees here because a minority says we don't want them to come forward. A minority then filibusters in a way again in contradiction to article II of the Constitution. That is why we are raising this. That is what we are talking about and doing something that has not been done in history. It is interesting. In terms of the Constitution, it is very clear. The President has certain powers--unlike, by the way, in European countries and in contrast to monarchs who would simply make treaties. Leaders in Europe could make treaties. Our folks said, no. The President's power of making treaties is going to be contingent upon two-thirds of the Senate present and concurring. That is in the Constitution. We wanted to limit the powers of the President. When it came to appointment of judges, it is not two-thirds. Two-thirds is only for treaties. Very clearly there is a delineation. For some reason to date, 214 years into our country's existence, the standard has been changing. That is an important thing. Jobs are important. As a former mayor, I have said 1,000 times the best welfare program is a job; the best housing program is a job; the best health care comes with jobs. Jobs are important. I understand that. What is interesting is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are crying economic--by the way, never once mentioning 9/11. If you talk about what has happened to this economy, you have to talk about the impact of 9/11. You have got to talk about the recession that occurred before the President came into office. You have to talk about the impact of WorldCom and the impact of Enron. The reality is now because of the policies, many of which this Congress passed, policies which cut taxes, which put money in the pockets of moms and dads which give businesses the incentives to invest, the economy is starting to move forward. The last numbers report 7.2 percent gross domestic product growth, and over 200,000 more jobs in the last couple of months. The number is revised upward. Business investment is moving forward, in part in large measure because of the tax cuts. Yet the other side of the aisle says we want to talk about jobs. I am looking forward to that debate. But it is all important. The judiciary is important. What we do with judges is important. In order for businesses to operate and for families to operate, you have to have a judiciary that works. What is fascinating here--and I love that chart of 168 to 4. I love seeing that chart. When the other side puts up a chart showing 168 to 4, that is their argument. They keep coming back with the underlying supposition of, It is false. Their argument doesn't carry weight. Let us talk about 168 to 4. The real discussion here and what is going on here is the President of the United States has the power to appoint district court judges. A little lesson, for those listening, a first impression in the Federal system: What happens when the district court judge issues an opinion, there is a review process. It is reviewed by the circuit courts. The courts of appeal level, by the way, is right below the Supreme Court, which is one of the things I think comes into play here. When you pick judges who may be on the circuit court, what happens is they then became a candidate for the Supreme Court. That is the real deal. They are all the real deal. Being a judge on the court of appeals is an incredible honor. It is a higher court than the district court. What is happening is the President has had 29 circuit court judges confirmed. We as of tomorrow will have six who have been filibustered. There are more in the hopper. That is very clear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They will be filibustered. Out of the circuit court, the other side is saying 168 to 4, and some judge like wearing pink shoes and green shoes--no. The difference between circuit and district court judges is not the color of their shoes. The difference between circuit court and district court judges is these judges are on a higher court. These are the judges who are right below the Supreme Court. District court judges sit in a particular district. Circuit courts sit in a multistate area. They have a broader range and geographic jurisdiction. It is the higher court. What has happened here is it is not 98 percent. Even 98 percent of the time, adherence to the Constitution is wrong. When we took our oath, when the distinguished Senator from Kansas took his oath, and the Senator from South Carolina took his oath on that floor, we swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States 100 percent. It wasn't qualifying. I find it absolutely startling that folks take pride in upholding the Constitution 98 percent of the time. The first amendment, freedom of the press: If there are 172 newspapers in the country and 168 of them are going to have freedom of the press and not the other 4, they wouldn't be very happy and very American. The reality here is we have 29 circuit court judges who have been approved and we have 12 who are being filibustered. I think we are talking around 30 percent, 25 or 30 percent. That is a big number. I believe that is the largest number certainly since World War II. I have to go back in the history books. That is wrong. That is the number here. The other side keeps coming back saying 168 to 4; therefore, no problem. The problem is you can put up all the numbers you want, but the difference is not the difference, whether it is green shoes or pink shoes; these are courts of highest jurisdiction. What has happened here and what is happening is unprecedented in 214 years of the history of this country. This hasn't happened. All we are asking is for these 12 judges to simply have a vote. We are talking about a vote. A cloture vote tomorrow is not a vote on the judges. We are simply saying give--Miguel Estrada, by the way, withdrew. My time may be coming to an end. I want to get back to talking about him--an immigrant, incredible record, education record, incredible performance record, a brilliant man, and withdraws. Priscilla Owen, give her a vote. William Pryor and Pickering, give them a vote. If you do not support them, you vote them down. Your voice is heard. It is not about a rubberstamp. I am not asking my colleague, the Senator from New York, to vote for these folks. Vote them down. If you do not like Judge Brown, vote her down; Judge Kuhl, vote her down. Vote these folks down. But give them a vote. That is what the Constitution requires. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I will continue the Pickering story because I think it is important. My colleague, Senator Graham, has done a tremendous job of laying it out. I don't know Judge Pickering's son as well as Senator Graham does, but I have met him. I have to go beyond that. Senator Graham mentioned when he was in law school that he wrote an article on interracial marriage. That was in 1959. He was assigned to write an article. It was required, not voluntary. It was an academic exercise. The article evaluated various State laws on interracial marriage. He took no position on the moral nature of these laws nor did he advocate or condone the ban on interracial marriage. He was given an assignment and required to do it. In the case of the cross burning--and I am a former prosecutor and I have seen this happen--he simply sought precaution in sentencing. There was a bad investigation done by the Clinton Justice Department. They recommended a plea bargain to the guy in the cross burning who was the ring leader. So he gets off. There is a trial then for the other guy. Judge Pickering is there and he sees it is simply not proportioned. He told the guy he tried, who was not the ring leader--but the other got was off the hook. He said what he had done was heinous and dastardly and would not be tolerated and someone would have to spend time in the penitentiary for his act and ruled according to the sentencing guidelines. On and on. This is an individual who, again, sent his kids to interracial schools in the 1970s. This is a guy who testified against the KKK. This was a death sentence. In 1985, he was president of the Mississippi Baptist Association, and he presided over the first convention addressed by an African-American pastor. I could go on and on and on. Again, what we have here is mainstream, not extreme. This is a person who was supported by the folks who know him best. Many African-American judges have written in support of Judge Pickering, including Justice David Keith, the first African-American Federal judge in Mississippi, Henry Wingate, the first African-American Supreme Court judge in Mississippi, Rubin Anderson, and Mississippi court judge Johnny Williams. What we have is a case where the people who know him best see this is a decent man. This is a man without prejudice. We have special interest groups with their own agenda from outside looking to shoot him down. In doing so, what we have is this Senate undermining the Constitution and our obligation. They are doing something that has not been done before, without legitimate base. Vote them up, vote them down, give them a vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Sometimes the people can rate judges, when judges are up for election. I ask, is it true Justice Owen was elected to the Texas Supreme Court by 83 percent of the vote in Texas?

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

Mr. COLEMAN. A concern we have with nominees is they are competent and able to do justice and do the right thing. There are ways to measure that. I ask the chairman, is it true the three nominees we are debating have been rated qualified or well qualified by the American Bar Association? Is that an objective standard by which nominees can be rated?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I have great respect for the Senator from Nevada and the deep concerns he has for a range of problems and concerns that he talked about. They are real. We are talking about more than just four people. We have to recognize that. It is not just about four people. For people who were confirmed and should be confirmed as court of appeals judges, we will have a tremendous impact on the lives of the folks about whom the Senator from Nevada was talking. That is what the courts do. It is not a personal thing. This is not a measure of whether these nominees have jobs, don't have jobs. It doesn't take away from anyone else. This is about the third leg of the stool of Government: legislative branch, we are part of that; executive branch; and judicial. Those are the three legs of the stool that uphold the system we have. It is not about four people. The Senator is right. There are so many important issues to talk about, such as AIDS. I came back from a trip to Africa with the majority leader and a group of my colleagues. We saw the devastation and destruction. We were in South Africa where 5 million people are HIV positive, and 20,000 of them on treatment. We looked into the eyes of people who were dying and into the eyes of the doctors treating them. We are doing stuff about that; we are acting. We passed in this body a bill that provides over $2 billion--$2.4 billion, and you add in our commitment to the global fund. The President made a commitment of $15 billion, which is unprecedented, and overwhelmingly we are acting on it. It is not enough to simply lay out a litany of problems. Maybe I am more of an optimist and a realist. My favorite quote is from the first Prime Minister to serve Israel, who said that anybody who doesn't believe in miracles is a realist. Goodness gracious, the world is not falling apart. There is a lot of hope and optimism. It is not just enough to talk about problems, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do. We can talk about the economy and jobs. What are you doing about it? That is the question. What is the plan? Their plan has been to roll back the President's tax cut. That is what their nominees for President are talking about--rolling back the tax breaks we are giving to moms and dads, that we are giving to small business, accelerating depreciation, increasing the opportunity to expense capital investment to generate more investment. The latest survey shows that business investment is up by 15 percent. So it is not simply to lay out a litany of woes, how terrible the world is. What are you going to do about it? That is what my colleague from South Carolina and I talked about in our campaigns. We want to do something about it. It is not enough to lay out just how the sky is falling and how the world is falling apart. We are trying to do things here. We will have time to debate the economy. We have debated it, and we passed the third largest tax cut in the history of this country. And what do you see? The GDP is estimated at 7.2 percent, down in the third quarter of 2003. Employment increased by 126,000 in October, while the number of jobs added in September was revised to 125,000 from the previous estimate of 57,000. The unemployment rate decreased from 6.1 percent in September to 6 percent. It is still too high but it is decreasing. There is a downward trend in jobless claims. The stock market, on November 3, jumped to a new 17-month high. We have trillions of dollars of new investment in this economy. The tax cuts we passed here, which were opposed by our friends across the aisle, are responsible for the accelerated growth in opportunity. Spending by businesses grew at an annual rate of 11.1 percent in the third quarter, following an impressive 7.3-percent gain in the second quarter. Again, these are things we have done that have encouraged investment and, in the end, generated opportunity and are generating jobs. That is what it is all about. We have a ways to go, absolutely. But it is not enough just to lay out the litany of how terrible things are. What are you going to do about it? One of the things we do about it is why this debate is important--it is to make sure we have a strong Government, that we have a strong judiciary. That is what this is about. The fact is, when the President of the United States has 30 percent of his circuit court judges and court of appeals judges filibustered, it is unprecedented in 214 years of the history of this country, and it is wrong. The fact is, we should talk about upholding the Constitution. I am a former solicitor general in Minnesota. I had the opportunity to argue before the highest court of my State many times. I have great love and appreciation for its constitution and history, and it is important. To the person who is unemployed and is getting a job, that is important. I say to that person that I am committed to doing everything I can, with every breath that I have, to make sure you have opportunity. I am going to do that. At the same time, we have the ability to do more than one thing at a time in this body. I can tell you, we are debating at 1 in the morning, but to those listening, I hope this is an educational experience. Let's talk about the Constitution now. By the way, to my friends across the aisle, I noted his conversation with the doctor from Utah State, that he was concerned about health insurance, as he should be. One of the keys to getting health insurance is jobs, small business. The things that we have done to generate new investment and grow jobs, that helps people get health insurance. I ask my colleague, the distinguished minority leader, assistant minority leader, whether the doctor talked to him about medical malpractice, whether he talked to him about the impact that medical malpractice has on his ability to practice and to provide quality health care. The cost of that, by the way, on businesses makes it more difficult for them to grow jobs. That is another issue that was filibustered by our friends across the aisle. I think we came within a vote or two on class actions--within a vote of changing that. The fact is, it is not enough just to talk about it. So it is important to talk about the Constitution. That is what we are going to do. The fact is that all of us, when we got sworn in, raised our hands and swore to uphold it. The Congressional Oath of Office is: I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United State against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, so help me God. That is a pretty strong commitment. It is not a partial commitment. It is not a 98-percent commitment, and it sure as heck isn't a 70- percent commitment. That is what we are dealing with today. My colleagues seem proud of that. You are even using the 98-percent figure. Again, the reality is we are dealing with circuit court judges, and close to 30 percent have not been confirmed and have been filibustered. The fact is that right now it is four but tomorrow it will be six. We know the other six are there. Unless my friends from across the aisle would say we are not going to filibuster another six, I will run the names by them. We will change the chart and say something different. We all know the reality. Let's lay it out here at 1:10 in the morning. Twenty-nine nominees were confirmed and 12 were not. Just think, if we took the approach that it is not important, you know, 98 percent--as I said before on the floor, if the airline that got me to St. Paul told me that I had a 98-percent chance of getting there and a 2-percent chance I would crash, I would not be flying. The Constitution is wonderful. The first amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peacably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance. I want those listening to think why is it that in the 214 years of the history of this great Republic, this great country, the Senate has not done what we are doing now. We are changing the system. It is very dangerous. The second amendment says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, not be infringed. Minnesotans are pretty strong about the second amendment. We like to hunt and we like our firearms. That is OK. Imagine if I went to a group of 172 using my colleagues' chart and said 168 of you are going to have the second amendment, or if I went to 41 and said we are going to give these rights to 29 of you. There would be a revolution. The third amendment says: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Can you imagine if I went to 41 Minnesotans and said 29 of you are going to have a third amendment right, but 12 may be forced to quarter without your consent. I don't think they would do it. They would say, where is America? There is a reason why we have fidelity to the Constitution. The fourth amendment says: The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Can you imagine going to 41 Minnesotans and saying 29 of you will have the right not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure but 12 of you don't have that right? There would be a revolution. On and on. The fifth amendment talks about the right against self-incrimination. The sixth amendment says: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Can you imagine if out of 41 defendants, 29 were told you would have a right to speedy trial? Even if you told 168 they would have that right, but not the other 4, there would be a revolution. We are not just talking about four individuals here. We are talking about one of the foundations and the underpinnings of this Government. I tell the young people listening in the Chamber, this is your future. The greatness of this country is built on its fidelity to the constitutional principles. It has allowed us to kind of grow into the greatest nation in the world with the freedoms we enjoy, and those freedoms we have enjoyed have triggered great entrepreneurial opportunity--growing jobs. It is tied together and it is about growing jobs. You grow jobs when you have a constitution that is adhered to and you have stability. I am chairman of a subcommitte of the Foreign Relations Committee on which we both serve. I can tell you that the concerns I have about some of the countries in Latin America have to do with whether they have rule of law. The reality is, if there is no rule of law, we see there is no investment, you don't grow jobs. So they are related. They are related. In the end, I want to get away from just talking about the principles, these sorts of abstract constitutional principles. They are important and that is why we are here, because we must have fidelity there. We have to get things back in sync. We have to get away from this process, this unprecedented filibuster. By the way, those are not my words. Those are the words, as I understand it, of John Corzine, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. In an e-mail he had--we have a chart here--it says: Senate Democrats have launched an unprecedented effort by mounting filibusters against the Bush administration's most radical nominees. Senate Democrats have led the effort to save our courts. Unprecedented filibuster, that is what this is about. There has to be a better way. This is about being divisive. We have to get away from divisiveness, from everything being a battle. We have to get back to a fidelity to the principles that founded this great country. They are pretty clear. You don't need a Ph.D. or a law degree to understand the Constitution. It is pretty clear, pretty easy reading. So that is what this is about today. In the end, it is not simply about four people; it is not about whether they have a job. It is whether, in fact, we uphold the obligation that we have, that we do our duty, that we do our job. In the end, we should simply give people a vote. If you think that they are good nominees, vote for them. If you think they are bad nominees, vote against them. But you give them a vote. That is what we have done for over 200 years. To fail to do that will have terrible consequences. One last story before I turn the floor over to my colleague from South Carolina. It is about this building and a little bit of history from a number of years ago. There is an old Senate Chamber down the hall. When you walk out of here, it is maybe about 50 yards away. When we get sworn in in here in the official ceremony, we then have a ceremonial picture taking with the Vice President. It is a very special moment for all of us, especially for kids from humble roots. I am one of 8 kids, and to have my mom and dad there was very special. In that old Senate Chamber, in the old days the Supreme Court actually operated on the floor above the Senate. At one time, they were planning on remodeling the Supreme Court chambers. Some enterprising young architect decided that one of the pillars that was kind of holding it up didn't need to be there. So they said don't worry about that. What happened was that the Supreme Court crashed into the Senate, disrupting its work. There is a moral to that story. If you displace or undermine one of the pillars of Government, which is what we are doing here, beware of the consequences. We cannot let that happen. These nominees--100 percent of them--deserve what we have done for 214 years: give them a vote, vote them up, vote them down, but give them a vote. With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from South Carolina.

Mr. COLEMAN. I ask one last question. How is it the opponents of these nominees can claim these nominees are extreme or out of the mainstream, or not qualified?

Mr. COLEMAN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, following up on the comments of my friend and colleague from South Carolina, you have to ask yourself, 214 years and the Senate has not done this, has not stopped a judicial circuit court nominee by filibuster. That is a fact. My colleagues on the other side can argue with charts but that is the reality. You have to ask yourself, for 214 years was the Senate a rubberstamp for the President? I don't think so. I don't think anyone could make that argument. What you have is the reality that the Senate was exercising its constitutional responsibility. And doing it in a constitutionally responsible way. That is what is important, doing it with respect for the Constitution, respect for the authority of the President to set forth the nominee, respect for the obligations upon the Senate to advise and consent, by a majority vote. Again, the Constitution, article II, says treaties need a supermajority, not a simple majority vote. What we have here is the minority saying we are not living by majority votes when it comes to judicial nominees regardless of what is in the Constitution. That is unfortunate. It is more than unfortunate. It undermines the principles upon which this democracy is based. My colleague from Minnesota, the senior Senator from Minnesota, talked about this not being unprecedented. We have done it before. Here are the facts. This is a listing of judicial nominations subject to cloture attempts from 1968 to 2003. I will go through every one of them. The first one is Abe Fortas, Chief Justice. Cloture was rejected. I will come back to whether that was even a filibuster. That was not a partisan filibuster. In fact, it was a bipartisan effort because of ethic complaints about Fortas but it was not a partisan filibuster. A letter was sent to John Cornyn, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution from the former Senator from Michigan, a predecessor of my colleague, Mr. Levin, who is sitting there, talking about the Fortas nomination and basically saying that it was not a filibuster. What happened, in a letter he says, while a few Senators might have contemplated use of the filibuster, there was no Republican Party position that it should be employed. Indeed, the Republican leader of the Senate, Everett Dirksen, publicly expressed his support for the Fortas nomination shortly after the President announced his choice. Our position in 1968 to the Fortas nomination was not partisan. Some Republicans supported Fortas; some Democrats opposed him. Go through every listing on this chart. Outcome of cloture attempt, may have been rejected, may have been invoked, may have been withdrawn, but every nominee got a vote. That is what this is about. Vote them up or vote them down but give a vote. We have a minority for the first time in the history of this body basically saying, regardless of what is in the Constitution, regardless of the language of the Constitution that makes it clear that the advice and consent is based on majority, they are changing the rules of the game. The argument is that these candidates, these nominees are outside the mainstream. What is the mainstream? Who is the mainstream? Priscilla Owen received 84 percent of the vote in the last election for the Texas Supreme Court. I have to tell you, I would love to see an 84 percent in any election. Just about anybody in this body would love to see 84 percent. They would tell you that is mainstream. That is mainstream. That is the ``wholestream.'' What is left is extreme. And that is what you have. Bill Pryor, 59 percent in his last election for Alabama Attorney General--59 percent. Janice Rogers Brown received 76 percent in her last election to the California Supreme Court. I would note one of the Senators from California, Mrs. Boxer, received 53 percent. Who represents the mainstream in California? Seventy-six percent of the vote. The other Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, by the way, former mayor of San Francisco--I am a former mayor. I have great respect and appreciation for mayors. It is a tough job. She is a great Senator. I do not always agree with her, but she is a great Senator. She got 56 percent of the vote. Janice Rogers Brown, who supposedly is the extreme, got 76 percent in her last election for the California Supreme Court. That is mainstream, not extreme. Charles Pickering was confirmed to the Federal district court in 1990 by this body by unanimous consent. What that means is no one objected; everybody agreed. And today he is described as extreme? If I could go through some of the candidates, Priscilla Owen--a whole bunch of these nominees are out of the mainstream? I am not sure what they are talking about. She has served in the State of Texas on the highest court. She has been given the support of 15 past presidents of the State Bar of Texas, a bipartisan group. We are talking about the folks who know them best. Justice Owen was unanimously rated as well qualified by the American Bar Association. Apparently, this unanimous rating of the American Bar Association is out of the mainstream as well. I would submit, by the way, the American Bar Association is not a conservative interest group. I do not know who the members are, but I have to guess it is a bipartisan group. I have to guess there are some Democrats in that group. It is clear the so-called mainstream being portrayed by some in this body is not only an incorrect reflection of the average American but a single-issue extreme which flows only in the direction of special interest groups. That is really what this is about. You have to go through the records of these folks. I went to law school. Senator Graham went to law school. I went to the University of Iowa, did fairly well, and served 17 years in the attorney general's office, and solicitor general, chief prosecutor of the State of Minnesota. But you would love to have the qualifications and credentials of the folks here, the folks the President has nominated. These are quality, quality, quality folks. Then you read the statements of some of their supporters. Mary Sean O'Reilly, lifetime member of the NAACP and a Democrat: I met Justice Owen in January, 1995, while working with her on the Supreme Court of Texas Gender Neutral Task Force. . . . I worked with Justice Owen on Family Law 2000, an important state-wide effort, initiated in great part by Justice Owen. . . . In the almost eight years I have known Justice Owen, she has always been refined, approachable, even tempered and intellectually honest. That is what you want from a judge. That is what you want from a judge. You do not want fidelity on a single issue. What you want is the judge to be tempered, to be intellectually honest, to apply their best judgment, to interpret the Constitution. Raul Gonzalez, former Democratic justice on the Supreme Court of Texas. In Texas they elect their justices. In the elections, Democrats run, Republicans run. Senator Cornyn, one of our colleagues, also elected with us, is a former member of the Texas Supreme Court, former attorney general. Raul Gonzalez, former Democratic justice on the Supreme Court of Texas: I found her to be apolitical, extremely bright, diligent in her work, and of the highest integrity. I recommend her for confirmation without reservation. John L. Hill, former Democratic chief justice on the Supreme Court of Texas: After years of closely observing Justice Owen's work, I can assert with confidence that her approach to judicial decision-making is restrained, that her opinions are fair and well reasoned, and that her integrity is beyond reproach. That is what it is about: integrity beyond approach, opinions that are fair, well reasoned. That is what you look for in judges. You cannot allow a minority of folks in this body to toss about the label mainstream, fueled by folks with special interests. They are kind of pounding the drum, and people follow that drum. But you have to ask, who is in the mainstream? Folks who get overwhelmingly elected by the people of their State, who receive bipartisan support. Another former Democratic justice on the Supreme Court of Texas, Jack Hightower: I am a Democrat and my political philosophy is Democratic, but I have tried very hard not to let preconceived philosophy influence my decision on matters before the court. I believe that Justice Owen has done the same. That is what you want. The reality is, judges are people. They have heart and soul like everyone else. If you are a defendant in front of them, you may worry about that. But they are people. They bring a life experience. They bring a perspective. They bring a philosophy. You cannot divorce that. You do not divorce that. Some may have been active in politics. There is no question about that. They bring positions on issues. They are not issue neutral. They have not been lobotomized. They bring a life experience and perspective. What we ask of them is to do what these folks--their colleagues, by the way, are from a different political perspective--say they do. We look to their ability to be well reasoned. We look to their ability to have integrity. We look at their ability to put aside the preconceived notions and simply say they will examine each case on the facts, and apply the law, the law that is done by--yes, that is what we do. That is what legislators do. That is what you are looking for. Former law clerk of Justice Owen, Lori Plager: During my time with her, I developed a deep and abiding respect for her abilities, her work ethic, and, most importantly, her character. Justice Owen is a woman of integrity who has a profound respect for the rule of law and our legal system. That is what it is about: respect for the law and the legal system. To be described as extreme, when you have this body of opinion of folks who know you, who have worked with you, who have been your colleagues, who sit side by side, who have watched you process and reason, and then to render judgments, when they are willing to put aside their political predisposition--and what we are asking for is our colleagues to put aside the politicization of this process, put aside what we have done. Do not go back on a history of 200 years. We have not allowed this to happen on the floor of this Senate. We have not rejected judges on the floor of this Senate by virtue of filibuster for 214 years. Hector De Leon, past president of Legal Aid: As the immediate past president of Legal Aid of Central Texas, it is of particular significance to me that Justice Owen has served as the liaison from the Texas Supreme Court to statewide committees regarding legal services to the poor and pro bono legal services. Undoubtedly, Justice Owen has an understanding of and a commitment to the availability of legal services to those who are disadvantaged and unable to pay for such legal services. It is that type of insight and empathy that Justice Owen will bring to the Fifth Circuit. That is what you are looking for. You cannot do any better than that. Do not allow folks to wave a flag and say ``extreme'' when you have folks who in their own community, overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly-- voted, reelected her to the Supreme Court of Texas in overwhelming numbers, and her colleagues coming forth and saying: Hey, this is a woman who is right. This is a woman who is talented. This is a woman who will not put the life experience she brings, perhaps preconceptions about issues--you have folks saying she will do what judges need to do. That is what it is about. Before the night is over, we will talk about others. We will talk about Bill Pryor. We will talk about Judge Kuhl. We will talk about Miguel Estrada, who has withdrawn. We will talk about Judge Pickering. But the common denominator in all of these, what the President has done is he has exercised his authority under the Constitution to nominate people who have integrity, who have the qualifications, who have the support of those with whom they have worked, and who, in many cases, when they have had to go before the people of their State, have been overwhelmingly endorsed as being part of the mainstream, not the extreme.

Mr. COLEMAN. I ask unanimous consent we use 5 more minutes of the majority's time and we subtract it from the next hour.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for my colleague, the Senator from Michigan. He serves as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, and serves this body as ranking member of Armed Services. He is a credit to this institution. I disagree with him, however, in his interpretation of the reality of the history of this body. It is very clear that this body has not successfully filibustered a circuit court nominee in its history. The one case that is mentioned again is Abe Fortas. As I indicated earlier, this was a bipartisan effort. It was not a partisan filibuster. So what we have here on the floor today is the first partisan filibuster, and the purpose is clear. My colleague has said this is the only tool that the minority thinks they have to stop the President from exercising his authority, but I think that he is right when he says the historic role of the Senate is what is at stake here. I say that because we have to reflect upon how our colleagues who preceded us--by the way, some of them are still here in some of the cases he talked about--what was going through their minds when they were faced with the same circumstances we are faced with today; that is, a group of folks in the majority in many cases who objected to a particular nominee. We can use the Clinton years as an example. There was a Republican majority for 6 years of President Clinton's term. No judicial nominee, not one judicial nominee, was ever deprived of a vote on the floor of the Senate. That is what we are talking about, a vote on the floor--not one. My colleague and friend from Michigan made reference to the cases of Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez in the year 2000, Ninth Circuit. Although most Republicans opposed their confirmation--and we heard some of my colleagues earlier tonight. Senator Sessions talked about that case. Senator Lott talked about that case. He was majority leader at the time. They also opposed any effort to prevent the full Senate from voting on their nominations. They did so and they told you it was because of their reverence and respect for the historic role of the Senate. That is what is at stake. That is the principle that has guided us for 214 years before today, before this 108th Congress. Colleagues had the opportunity to invoke cloture only if the Republican majority said we were to go along, and it was not because, as my colleague from Michigan somehow inferred, that they could not kind of put together the necessary votes to block it. No. What happened is that they were not willing to ignore the history and the tradition, and I think most importantly what the Constitution says, and that is that supermajorities are not required to confirm nominees for circuit courts. Debate on each of these nominations, Berzon and Paez, lasted only 1 day and a majority of Republicans joined all Democrats in supporting cloture motions for debate on each nomination, including over 20 Republicans who would eventually vote against confirmation and a majority of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee. Senator Hatch talked about that. So our colleagues at that time faced two candidates in the Ninth Circuit. By the way, that is the same circuit that ruled the phrase ``under God'' unconstitutional. That is the same circuit that initially was going to prevent the California recall from taking place until finally en banc the entire circuit had to come together and change that. In neither case did Republicans mount a party-line filibuster effort to prevent voting on a nominee. In fact, Majority Leader Lott filed the cloture motions for the above debates. So what we have is not what my friend and colleague from Michigan would infer, that somehow before there was simply an ability--yes, there were cloture motions and either they were invoked or they were rejected, and that somehow they were invoked and that is why you were able to vote on it. No. Here you had the Republican majority leader file the cloture motions for Berzon, for Paez. My colleague, Senator Sessions, said: I opposed them. I voted to support cloture. I voted against the nomination, and that is what we are asking for. Follow the history. That is what is at stake, as Senator Levin said, the historical role of the Senate. If it has changed it, it has changed it at great risk. The situation was similar in 1994 when some Republicans voiced objections to President Clinton's nomination of H. Sarokin to the United States Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit. A majority of Republicans supported a cloture motion after a relatively brief period of debate and cloture was invoked by a vote of 85 to 12. Judge Sarokin was then confirmed by a vote of only 65 to 35. Twenty-three then of my colleagues supported cloture. The majority supported cloture. Yet at the same time they voted against the candidate. That is the history of this body. That is what the Constitution requires. I am told that the only judge nominated by President Clinton who faced a partisan filibuster was that of Brian Theodore Stewart, a nominee to the Federal district court in Utah. However, it was Senate Democrats who filibustered the nominee in protest over purported delays in bringing other judicial nominees to the floor. A cloture motion was voted upon on September 21, 1999, and failed, falling short of the 60 votes by a vote of 55 to 44, with all Democrats except Senator Moynihan opposing cloture. Once again, Democrats' objection was not to Judge Stewart himself and on October 5, 1999, the Senate confirmed him by a vote of 93 to 5. So for all the handwringing that we heard about the treatment of President Clinton's nominees, one is very clear: Every single one of them got a vote. The fact is that what happened here is that my colleagues followed the history and tradition of this body and said they would make sure they got a vote because that is what the Senate is called upon to do, advise and consent. There is a principle of majority rule, a principle, again, espoused in this document, in this Constitution, of the United States. My colleague also implied that it is just fine to prevent an up-or- down vote on at least 4 of these nominees because we blocked 60 of President Clinton's nominees. I have two observations about that, and I know this is what frustrates me and my colleague Senator Graham. The fact is that there is and has been a tradition in this body, shortly before the end of the President's term. What happens is that folks kind of say, well, let's see who the new guy is, see what happens, and they slow it up. The numbers are even more stark, by the way, if we compare the number of nominees left hanging at the end of the first Bush administration by Senate Democrats with the number of Clinton nominees awaiting confirmation at the end of the Clinton administration. The Democrat- controlled Senate left 54 of the first President Bush nominees unconfirmed at the end of 1992. In contrast, at the end of the Clinton administration, 41 nominees remained unconfirmed. Let's stop that practice, unless a game is being played, unless these are clearly unqualified nominees, unless there is some reason to suspect we are not having qualified folks coming before us and we are playing politics. On the other hand, well, they did it to us and we are going to do it to them. It is like the Hatfields and McCoys, like Montague and Capulet. It is like a family feud. It is futile and it needs to stop. It needs to change. I appreciate the comments of my friend Senator Levin at the end saying maybe we can get beyond this. I hope we can get beyond this. I hope we can do what Senator Graham talked about when we started this conversation a little over 3 hours ago and he said let's look to the future. The future is only going to be a bright future if we, one, follow the dictates of the Constitution, understand that there is this concept of majority rule, that the Constitution dictates that these nominations be dealt with on a majority basis, and that this body respect the history and tradition. That is what we have. Then, of course, it is the responsibility of the President to bring forth qualified nominees and get past the rhetoric of extreme. I dealt with Priscilla Owen. Let me talk about Bill Pryor, for example. Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, nominee to the Eleventh Circuit, has earned a reputation as one of America's most experienced and esteemed State attorneys general. His nomination has received overwhelming support from across the ideological and political spectrum. Mr. Pryor was appointed attorney general of Alabama in 1997 and was overwhelmingly reelected; outstanding credentials. He was a law clerk for civil rights legend, the late Judge John Minor Wisdom. Senator Lamar Alexander, also one of our newer brethren, fraternity of those who just got elected this year, had an opportunity to work with Judge Wisdom, who is, by the way, one of the great civil rights legends. Attorney General Pryor worked for him. Pryor graduated magna cum laude in 1987 from Tulane University School of Law and was then chief of the Law Review. What is interesting is that Attorney General Pryor is being attacked as being extreme. He is a man, by the way, who does have very strong beliefs. He is human. He has strong beliefs. That is not a bad thing. That is a good thing. He is a person who has shown that he is willing to put his beliefs to the side to look at the law and to interpret the law, and that is what we expect a judge to do. My friend Senator Graham and I have talked about this. We talked about Bill Pryor. There is the chief judge in Alabama, who was involved with the case about the Ten Commandments in court. The courts have said that is unconstitutional. Now, I suspect General Pryor believes that is probably a good thing, but General Pryor then leads the effort to challenge--in effect, to prosecute--the chief justice saying the law has to be enforced. That is what it is about. Bill Pryor has also been a moderate voice in the partial-birth abortion debate. By the way, that is a mainstream position, but a court decision came down and challenged the Alabama law. General Pryor, in accordance with his duty to defend the statute, that is what he did. He then exercised that authority putting aside what I am sure are personal opinions to enforce the law. That is not extreme. That is mainstream. That is what we want on a court. Yes, we have people of character, principle, and strong beliefs. What the other side has done is they take folks who have these strong beliefs, who then espouse them. Along the way they may give a speech, they may give a writing, and then they wave that around to see how extreme they are, but we have to judge people by their actions. We have an attorney general who puts aside his personal beliefs to say he will enforce the law. That is what you do. My distinguished colleague who will take the floor after me, Senator Pryor, was a former attorney general. I know he operated in the same way. That is what he would expect of his colleagues, put aside personal beliefs to enforce the law. That is what makes a good judge. Vote them up, vote them down. Give them a vote. I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator Graham.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. COLEMAN. I listened to the Senator from Louisiana. She was talking about filibusters. I was glad to hear her say unequivocally that it was a filibuster. We will filibuster these nominees. There is no question.

Mr. COLEMAN. She also said, I believe the only way filibusters survive is the truth--truth. I have only been in this body for less than a year. I know there is history in this body. The history is not always the greatest history when it comes to filibusters. There were attempts on the floor of this Senate to make sure that minorities didn't have certain rights; that minorities had poll taxes; that anti- lynching laws were filibustered. I have a chart here that talks about filibusters. I ask the distinguished chairman whether under F.D.R. civil rights was filibustered; under Truman, civil rights was filibustered; under L.B.J. civil rights was filibustered. Again, would it be the Senator's belief that necessary laws that were filibustered is something to be ashamed of and they were not the truth; filibusters were not the truth; the attempts to provide civil rights and opportunities for Americans for good things and they were filibustered, and filibustered was not the truth?

Mr. COLEMAN. Again, I listened to the words of my friend from Louisiana, where she made the comment that the only way a filibuster survives is if it is the truth. I was reflecting on the history of filibusters. I read about it when I was a young man. Certainly preceding my youth, going back to the times of Harry Truman and FDR, unfortunately, there is a terrible history in this body of opposing efforts to provide civil rights opportunities, opposing efforts to ensure that there were antilynching statutes, opposing efforts to get rid of things like the poll tax. This is a sad part of the history of this body. I ask the distinguished chairman, who has a much better sense of history than I, is it true the tool that was used to oppose those efforts, oppose good things, the tool was the filibuster, and the filibuster did not represent the truth? Would that be a fair statement?

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Even if it was 2 percent, we don't disregard the Constitution. Certainly if you are looking at 30 percent, that is outrageous. That is outrageous. One of the things that troubles me as a new Senator, as is my colleague from Missouri, as is my colleague from Arkansas--I think we still have this great kind of sense of awe, but one of the things that troubles me--and I haven't been here, but I have heard so much of the debate--they say, they did it to us in the past. Let the record be very clear. Of the past 11 Presidents' judicial nominees, there were 2,372 confirmed. None were stopped by a filibuster. This whole thing about what you did to us in the past, of course, now we are doing to you. Then what will those who follow us do? What are the consequences of that? I will tell you, I will stand on the floor of the Senate and say I will apply the same standard to judges with a Republican President that I will if there were ever to be a Democratic President and I am serving in this institution. Are they competent? Are they committed to preserving and upholding the Constitution? That is what the judges we are talking about all have said. You have to get right to it. They are being opposed because there are special interest groups who don't like their position on a particular issue, most probably abortion. Judge Pickering, by way of example, is somebody. When I ran for the Senate, I had a debate with the former Vice President of the United States, Walter Mondale, a magnificent American, a great public servant, who I simply disagreed with on certain issues. But in the debate that came up, I talked about it at that time, saying: We can't obstruct.

Mr. COLEMAN. I object.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs will hold two days of hearings entitled ``U.S. Tax Shelter Industry: The Role of Accountants, Lawyers and Financial Professionals.'' The Subcommittee's hearings will examine the role of professional organizations like accounting firms, law firms, and financial institutions in developing, marketing and implementing tax shelters. The hearings will take place on Tuesday, November 18 and Thursday, November 20, at 9:30 a.m. each day in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean, Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Minority of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, at 224-9505.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I first want to thank my colleague, the Senator from Ohio, for the incredible work he has done. He has been tireless and steadfast on this issue. I was proud to be a cosponsor of his amendment. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Illinois, for his passion on this issue. I have the greatest respect for what he is trying to accomplish. Today, I had an opportunity to meet with Ambassador Tobias. We talked about this issue of capacity. He said he was in a warehouse--either in Botswana or South Africa--but he was in a warehouse. The warehouse was full of antiretroviral drugs. They were close to their expiration date. These drugs had been donated by a company. The drugs were there but they didn't have the capacity to get them all out. Those drugs were in danger of being wasted. We were in South Africa this summer. I was with Leader Frist and others and dealing with the issue of AIDS. There are 5 million people in South Africa who are HIV positive. There are approximately 20,000 receiving antiretroviral treatment. We visited Anglo Gold, one of the largest gold mines in the world. They made a commitment to each and every employee to cover the full cost of treatment. Money is not the issue. They believe they have perhaps 30,000 employees HIV positive. They were hoping to get in the first year 10 percent, 3,000 to come in for treatment. They have a third of that and less to date. They said to us: The money is not the issue; we do not have the capacity to do it right. You have to do it right. I will fight very hard to keep our commitment of $15 billion over 5 years. As my colleague from Pennsylvania said, we have met our commitment that is in the authorization of $2 billion by the DeWine amendment. We have met our commitment to the global fund. We are meeting our commitment. We are doing it the right way. We are going to have to ramp up. The needs are great. In my own experience, having visited Africa, the capacity is not there. You simply cannot throw money at a problem. We have to do the right thing. We are doing the right thing by the commitments we have made by supporting the DeWine amendment. I oppose the Durbin amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled ``DOD's Improper Use of First and Business Class Airline Travel.'' The Subcommittee's hearing will focus on a recently completed General Accounting Office investigation of the Department of Defense's use and monitoring of premium airline travel during fiscal years 2001 and 2002. The hearing will identify the types of abuse, discuss the causes, determine the magnitude of the problem, and identify what corrective action is required. The hearing objective is to conduct continuing oversight over the use of government-issued travel cards to ensure that expected cost savings are realized. The hearing will take place on Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 2 p.m, in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Raymond V. Shepherd, III, Staff Director and Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee, at 224-3721.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill I introduce today, the rural Renaissance Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill I introduce today, the rural Renaissance Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I was back home in St. Paul a couple weeks ago during our last recess, and on late Tuesday afternoon of that week, I met with my friend Randy Kelly, mayor of St. Paul. Since I used to call his office my own, I look forward to these meetings. They give me the chance to get a first-hand update of the city. As my colleagues here in the Senate who also used to be in a mayor's office would attest, once you leave it's hard to not think and care about what you used to pay attention to so closely. A former mayor will always have an interest in the affairs and goings-on of his city. On that note, the meeting I had with Mayor Kelly immediately began with what was to us a situation of great sadness for the city of St. Paul--the passing of Jim Reiter earlier that afternoon, a friend of ours and member of St. Paul's city council. As you can imagine, this is unfortunate news to come home to. But during times like this, I think home is the best place for a person to be, surrounded by those who understand what it is like to lose the friend we all had in Jim. Being with my family and reflecting with others on Jim's time and accomplishments at the council were consoling, as was reading the Twin Cities' newspapers the next two mornings and seeing their fitting recognition of Jim as a caring family man and dedicated servant to the people of St. Paul's North End and Como Park neighborhoods. The papers reported that Jim ``represented'' these people at the city level, and that is true. But because I believe he did more than just represent the residents of these neighborhoods, I would use a different phrase to describe his efforts. I would say that Jim ``took care of'' these people. For neighborhoods, he knew what was important, and that includes having both a sense of pride in where you live and a sense of safety. As a result, he saw to it that the housing conditions of his neighborhoods improved and that his residents had what all should--a library and a community center. He also made it a point to have police officers regularly patrolling the streets, and if they weren't present, Jim would take matters into his own hands by driving around in his ``Crime Watch'' car, a surplus police cruiser he bought with his city council car allowance. Jim and I shared the same vision for St. Paul, and I couldn't have done what I did during my eight years as mayor without him. Jim understood my priorities to make St. Paul an even better place to live and work, and he made sure his ward measured up. Not only has St. Paul's North End, Como Park area, and city council experienced a loss after Jim's passing, but so has the city as a whole, which was noticeable the next day when I went to a field hearing and saw flags lowered at half-staff throughout the city. More importantly, he was my friend. I will miss his smile. I will miss his humor. I will miss his independent speech. I will miss him. Finally, my thoughts are with Jim's family: his wife Darlene; son Jim Jr.; daughters Linda, Debby, Jean, and Kris; and his four grandchildren. Their husband, father, and grandfather was a true civic leader and a great friend that I--and I know many others--will never forget.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, how much time do we have?