Norm Coleman

Mr. COLEMAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President and distinguished colleagues, America is the greatest country the world has ever known. And, today, in places across the world, the greatest fighting men and women the world has ever known continue America's legacy of liberating oppressed people. My friends, America went to Bosnia to offer liberation and hope from despair and suffering--we went to Haiti to offer hope to an oppressed people--we went to Somalia to offer America's legacy of a better life for people who had rarely seen a day free of suffering, persecution and torture. Freedom and liberty are two words that should stir great emotions in all Americans. Freedom and liberty are the gift of America to oppressed people everywhere. Freedom and liberty, speak often these words because America's sons and daughters are in Iraq today doing what Americans have done for generations: We offer hope for a better tomorrow. Let's talk about America's sons and daughters. They come from an America today that is no less interested in its own freedom and liberties than the freedom and liberties we wish for all people. They are the sons and daughters of a great American revolution that never ends. The cause of freedom and liberty never ends. We have seen the pros and cons in the streets of American cities these past several weeks. There are great passions on both sides. The great glory of America is that 28 protestors can occupy the office of a U.S. Senator and not fear being put to death for their views. This is the fight that America's sons and daughters wage today. If we may, for a moment, find peace in the haze of conflict between those who support our efforts today, and those who do not, I ask that we do it in the name of America's sons and daughters who have been called upon to duty and service. Perhaps our energies now can be better spent by focusing on the world that we create in America today when our troops return. Get off the couch; stop watching the news; forget the radio broadcasts; turn off the playstation; unplug the TV; get outside, America. We've had our say. Now let's have our say for the tens of thousands of Americans fighting for freedom and liberty. Let us dedicate our energy--our pro and our con--to building the best possible Nation for our troops to come home to. Join hands and voices to help the moms, the dads, the husbands, the wives, the sons, the daughters, the brothers and the sisters to get through these difficult days. Offer more than words; offer hope indeed. Walk with them together during these times, open your homes and open your hearts. Our Nation is at war with an enemy across the world. Let us not be a nation at war with each other within. We have a common goal: Offer comfort and hope and encouragement to those who fight for our freedom, and those who are left behind to pray for their success and safe return home. America, the greatness of our Nation is not that we can survive conflict and division. The greatness of America is that we can build upon our differences and multiply our blessings. For the sake of the families of those who sacrifice, for the sake of the soldiers who are in harm's way, let us build a better America for their return. These are momentous days in the history of this country. They remind me of this remarkable statement by one of our early patriots, Patrick Henry, during our war of independence. He wrote: These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly; tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price on its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated. You can talk about equality or you can make it happen. You can sympathize with the poor or you can help create a job for them. Yes, these are challenging times; we are witnessing the birth of a new century and a new moment of hope for mankind. Yes, these are dangerous, trying times, but it is a great time to be alive. Allow me to share some of my favorite quotes from Abraham Lincoln to guide our thoughts about this momentous time. In the second inaugural, Lincoln said: The dogmas of the quite past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. You don't undertake change for the sake of change. But when the circumstances have changed, it is folly to stick with the old game plan. The fall of the Soviet Union changed the world forever. September 11 changed the world forever. The problem with some at the United Nations and even some in our own Congress is that they are ``enthralled'' with the old way of doing things. To them you don't deal with evil, you just contain it. But that dogma led to the deaths of millions in Rwanda and Cambodia because we were too timid to act. For decades we allowed terror networks to grow and infiltrate even free societies. Because we thought there was nothing we could do about so pervasive an evil, we just hoped for the best. Now we have historic opportunity to strike a decisive blow against tyranny and terrorism in one place and give birth to a new century of hope for freedom and security. We must accept the moral responsibility our power gives us. Lincoln also said: Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let us do our duty as we understand it. Our Nation, more than any other, was born on eternal values--That God had endowed all people with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But as much as we would like to believe it, the power of those ideals do not sweep the globe and enforce themselves. Somebody has to do it. Right now the United States, Britain and a couple of dozen other nations are doing the dirty work of liberty. The lesson of history is: somebody has to do it. Lincoln was right; it takes faith to do it. Certain things can't be proven to people who are devoted to another path. We have a duty to do, and to most of us it is clear. Just because everybody doesn't see it doesn't mean it isn't exactly the right thing to do. Finally, a word about our great President. Here is a message for ``43'' from ``16''. Lincoln said: If I were to read, much less answer all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for business. I do the very best I know how--the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, then angels swearing I was right would make no difference. I am profoundly grateful that we have a President who does not run his life by what the polls say. That is the opposite of leadership. I believe in a free media. I believe in the power of public opinion. But I see red when I see newspaper and Internet polls one week into the war in Iraq, asking about whether we are bogged down or if the President is using the right strategy. So much of the 24-7 commenting and opinionating out there is precisely the substance that covers the floors of Minnesota feedlots. In a long ago war it was said: They also serve who only stand and wait. The same is not true for those who just sit and wait. Public opinion is, as it should be, strongly with this President; strongly with our fighting men and women; strongly that we are doing the right thing in the name of freedom, in the name of liberty; to be an end to terror, to be an end to oppression, to be an end to rape, to be an end to torture, and to open up new worlds of possibilities. But I do ardently wish people would shut off the TV and shut off the computer and get out there and build the best possible great Nation for our troops to come home to. Shut it all off, say a prayer for our troops, say a prayer for our leaders, and go to work building a great America. Finally, one more word from Lincoln and I am done: With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in; to bind up the Nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and all Nations. May God bless our fighting men and women on the front line. May God bless and support and hold and comfort the families of those who have given the ultimate sacrifice. May God bless the United States of America. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, this is a profound moment in all our lives. Words are inadequate, so I will be brief. It is an honor to speak right after my friend and colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota, and to join with him in support of our men and women on the front lines, in support of the President's decision to commence military action to disarm Iraq. In this Chamber it is often said the foreign policy debate ends at the water's edge. This resolution makes clear that debate on the use of force in Iraq ends with the firing of the first weapon. I support our troops and military families to the utmost, praying for their safety, and working with them to achieve the mission our Commander in Chief has given them. This situation represents a balance of risks. War is always costly in human terms on all sides. But the threats of terrorism, mass destruction, are also real. The dangerous nature of the world we now live in was brought home to us by the events of September 11. That reality requires us to act decisively when we are threatened, rather than simply to wait and hope for the best. I agree with the President that it is better to send soldiers into battle than to send police, ambulance drivers, and firefighters to the site of future terrorist attacks. My firm belief is that our Nation is blessed with responsible, principled leadership. Our military is as courageous as it is capable. Our goals in this conflict are both clear and just. Now we are committed and we must carry on our duty to the end. It has been said that courage is fear that has said its prayers. May we all offer our support and praise to our troops, military leaders, and our President until the dangerous days are over. Our hearts and prayers are with all the women and men in harm's way in the Middle East today, and with their families. I ran across this quotation from Thomas Paine from his pamphlet Common Sense, written in 1776: These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price on its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated. No one wanted this to come to war. But it is here. I am proud to join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of our men and women, in support of our Commander in Chief, in support of our families. Our prayers are with all of them.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I do not know if there is an issue we face in this Senate that is as charged and certain to elicit a whole range of emotional responses as the issue of abortion. A lot of us bring very passionate perspectives to this. My wife Laurie and I are parents of two children who were destined to die. Our first son, Adam, was born with a genetic condition that we found out about at the time of birth, at delivery. He lived for a very short time, not more than a couple of months. As a result of that, I can say that my sense about the value of life was forged in steel, that each life is precious, that each life has value. That is the perspective I bring. Ten years ago, our fourth child, our last daughter, Grace--in between we have a son Jacob, who is going to be 17 tomorrow, Thursday, and a daughter Sarah, who is 13, but our daughter Grace was born with the same condition. We knew about a week before that she was going to have this genetic condition which is very rare. My wife gave birth. We cared for Grace for a couple of months. We brought her home from the hospital very quickly. We knew she was destined to die. We made that choice for Grace to be part of our life, because we understand the incredible value that every life gives, that every life has, that every life is a gift from God. I recognize that my friends across the aisle have heartfelt and passionate beliefs on the other side of the abortion issue. I understand that. We disagree. But in this debate about partial-birth abortion, this debate in which we talk about a child partially delivered and then crushing its skull, this debate is one in which Minnesotans certainly, I believe, and Americans at large, can find common ground. This should be an issue which, in spite of one's position on the life issue, in spite of their views on abortion generally--this issue is one in which we should come together and agree to ban partial-birth abortion. As divisive as the issue of abortion is, there are a few things in which we can find common ground. It is not part of this debate, but I have to tell this story. A while ago, my 13-year-old went to get her ears pierced. I received a call from the folks who wanted to pierce her ears wanting to know if dad said it was okay. They had to have parental consent. I think most Americans and most Minnesotans would say that makes sense. If it is true for having one's ears pierced, it should be true for abortion. Even on this divisive issue, there are those things that we, as Americans, can agree on and say let's move together, let's find the common ground, and banning partial-birth abortion is one of them. It is time to put an end to this gruesome procedure that claims the lives of thousands of unborn children every year. It is time to ensure that no child suffers this violent, tragic death. We are under assault in this country. I have watched the debate and I respect the work of my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania. In this debate, we have been besieged by a campaign of falsehoods about what this issue is about. It is about partial-birth abortion. Some say that the procedure is rarely performed; we do not need to deal with it. If it was performed even one time, most Americans would say is wrong and must be stopped. So we are doing the right thing by finding common ground on this divisive issue and banning partial-birth abortion. A recent survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, released in January of 2003, reported that 2,200 partial-birth abortions were performed in 2000. In 1997, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers estimated that approximately 3,000 to 5,000 abortions were performed by that method annually. This means that anywhere between 6 and 14 children die every day as a result of partial-birth abortion. This bill is a significant piece of child protection legislation and, again, one in which we should find common ground in spite of and regardless of one's position on abortion. Abortion providers would have people believe this procedure is currently only performed when the mother's life is threatened or the fetus is deformed. This is simply not the case. Ron Fitzsimmions, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, has stated: In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus, as reported in the New York Times. My colleague, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, has offered an amendment that he believes offers a reasonable compromise to provisions contained in S. 3. Sometimes your friends want to love you to death. In the guise of saying they will help, they want to kill what we are trying to do. What we are trying to do is very simple in this bill. It is very specific. It is very clear. It is uncomplicated. We are trying to ban a gruesome procedure known as partial-birth abortion. That is what this is about. The Senator's amendment seeks to make it unlawful to abort a viable fetus unless a physician, prior to performing an abortion, certifies the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health. In this case, the exception swallows the rule. The word ``viable'' makes the ban on partial-birth abortion virtually meaningless, as a large majority of the procedures are believed to be performed during the second trimester, and the term ``viable'' will likely be read by the courts to include only third-trimester abortions. Further, there is no requirement to certify whether the unborn child is, in fact, viable. The capacity for a baby to survive independently of the mother with technological assistance is currently reached in the late weeks of the second trimester. Without certification of viability, there is little or no new protection against the partial-birth abortion procedure. Equally alarming, this amendment requires that there be a risk, not significant risk--not even slightest risk--but risk to the mother's health. There is a risk involved in almost every type of medical procedure, including delivering a baby. In the guise of seeking to offer some common ground, what we really have--and folks have to understand it for what it is--is an attempt to try to kill what is a very clear, very straightforward, very unequivocal, very heartfelt, and a very strong consensus-building effort to move together on this divisive issue of abortion. We want to say that in the Senate we understand there is common ground, and that common ground is to put an end to partial-birth abortion. The amendment from my distinguished colleague from Illinois offers no new protection against this violent procedure for unborn children, as the loopholes in the amendment are so large. It is time to stop this inhumane, gruesome procedure. It is the right thing to do, and this is what the American people are asking us to do. The people in Minnesota are asking it. I have received scores of messages and letters from folks saying move forward on this effort. It is the right thing to do. Again, this issue is divisive. We bring deep, personal stories to the debate. In the final analysis, we have before us a common ground, clear common-sense thing to do, and that is put an end to this gruesome procedure. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania and stand in solid support with him. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, many years ago when the Senate was the Supreme Court's upstairs neighbor in this building, a significant event took place which provides us with a warning. A young Architect of the Capitol wanted to improve the sight lines in the Supreme Court Chamber on the first floor. Calculating that one of the support pillars was unnecessary, he brought in a crew to remove it. Halfway through the project, the ceiling fell in on the Supreme Court Chamber, which was also the floor of the Senate above, destroying both Chambers for a period of time. The lesson is that when you tamper with one branch of Government, it can affect others in a way you cannot anticipate, and any attempt to tamper with the delicate balance of power must be met with suspicion and repelled with conviction. We are tampering with that balance when we now, through filibuster, require a supermajority to confirm a Federal court of appeals judge. President Bush did not get all the popular votes or all the electoral votes. The election was decided in an unprecedented manner. But when he was sworn in, he received all the constitutional powers of the Presidency. His ability to be the Commander in Chief is not partial. His ability to sign or veto legislation is not compromised. His ability to submit judicial nominees to this body for an up-or-down vote, something every President has exercised for over 200 years, is in no way limited. Politics has its place, but not to the extent of stopping a vote on a judge at any and all costs. Let's discuss the merits of this nominee, his qualifications, his judicial temperament, but then let us follow the constitutional process we have followed for two centuries and vote yes or no on advice and consent for the President's nominee to the court of appeals. For my colleagues who have concerns about Mr. Estrada's answers, or if you didn't like the things he didn't answer, vote against him. But give him a vote. Let's follow the Constitution. Let's not change the constitutional standing. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, the Senator from Alaska, in raising my voice in concern and dismay about the recent decision of the 24-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declaring the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional. You have to ask yourself: What is the problem? Is the problem the pledge or is the problem the Ninth Circuit? The distinguished Senator from Tennessee today in his maiden speech talked about what it is to be an American and made reference to this particular issue. The Pledge of Allegiance does speak to what is great about America, our sense of unity and--to quote the Senator from Tennessee--our sense of faith, our value of freedom. It is who we are as Americans that joins us. If we reflect on the prayer that opened the session today, the pastor talked about prayer and whether it is Allah or whether it is Jesus, whether it is Yahweh, we are joined with a common sense in faith. Walking through the doors to the Chamber across from where the Presiding Officer sits is the phrase: ``In God We Trust.'' We acknowledge that. We accept that. We understand it is not the State saying this is State-sponsored religion. It is simply our recognition of faith as being part of who we are and that it is OK. If I would take out a dollar bill, if I had one in my pocket, we would see reference to God. This decision defies common sense. It is because we have a court that substitutes its judgment, its own perhaps personal political perspective in ruling from the bench, and that is not what courts are supposed to be. I speak as a former Solicitor General of the State of Minnesota. I understand the Constitution. I respect the Constitution. I revere the Constitution. Clearly, our Founders and Framers, in their brilliance, in their foresight, and I believe in their being divinely inspired, understood that it was in God we trust. A decision somehow that says it is unconstitutional truly defies common sense. If I may, I think this decision highlights the importance of confirming Miguel Estrada to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I say that because if you look at the criticism that Mr. Estrada is getting from some of my distinguished colleagues on the other side, they are concerned that he is not articulating his personal political perspective on a given issue. When Mr. Estrada is asked about legal precedent, he says: I will follow it if it is the established law of the land. That is what judges are supposed to do. They are not supposed to take their own personal political belief, a belief that may defy common sense, and bring it to the fore, in this case the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the phrase ``under God'' is unconstitutional. When Mr. Estrada was asked about the divisive issue of abortion-- clearly divisive, and I am one who would love to find common ground. I believe in America today there is common ground over banning the horror of partial-birth abortion. Most people find common ground. On this divisive issue, when Mr. Estrada was probed and pushed to say what his personal beliefs are, he stepped back and said: It is the established law of the land. It is a constitutional right to privacy. It is not within the province or responsibility of a judge to bring their personal political perspective or belief to the table. To do that would constitute judicial activism. That is not what I believe the Constitution intended judges to be. They are supposed to interpret the Constitution. I truly believe this decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which I am hopeful, if not confident, will be overturned--I am supportive of the efforts of the Senator from Alaska and this body speaking out and saying this is the wrong decision; this does not reflect common sense; this does not reflect American values. This is the wrong lesson to be sending our children about what it means to be an American and the greatness of America. Clearly, we cannot have courts substituting their judgment. We cannot have decisions that are so devoid of common sense that they cut away at the core of the fabric and the heart of what it means to be an American. I join in speaking out. I join in support of the resolution that says this is wrong, and the Senate recognizes it is wrong. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I also join in thanking the Senator from Tennessee for his very inspiring comments. I am part of the new class of Senators. I will have an opportunity to give my maiden speech, though obviously I have spoken on the floor before. I thought this was an important maiden speech. This was the first of the speeches of the new Senators of the 108th, and I think it was the right speech. We are going to discuss a lot of issues in these very challenging times--a time when we are on the edge of war, a time in which the values we hold so dear are challenged by terrorists, are challenged by oppression, and challenged by hate. We live in a time of great uncertainty about the economy, about jobs, with moms and dads who worry about their economic futures. So we are going to debate a lot of issues. We are worried about the future of health care and the future of prescription drugs for seniors. We are worried about baby boomers who are going to get old--and do we have a national policy dealing with long-term care? But at the core of all that we debate is this very fundamental concept that the Senator from Tennessee has raised; that is, What does it mean to be an American? What does it mean to celebrate freedom, to celebrate opportunity, and to be an optimist and have a hopeful spirit? So I applaud the Senator from Tennessee for, in his maiden speech, setting forth the seminal concept that binds us. I have noticed, with a little bit of sadness, the very partisan tone of so much of what we do. And I have always believed if we spent more time focusing on the things upon which we agree, rather than things on which we disagree, we would get through those. I think there is great agreement in this body on what we agree on, and that is what it is to be an American. I think it is important to transmit those values to the next generation so that the next generation can reinforce that to our generation because sometimes we forget. So, again, I add my voice of thanks to the Senator from Tennessee for raising this issue. It is so appropriate at this point in time. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor on the Senator's legislation.

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. I ask the distinguished Senator from California, is it not true that in those instances when she talks about ``filibusters''-- and I was not here, but I understand that those ``filibusters'' did not last more than a day or two--that in fact both of those nominees had a chance to be voted on by this body. Is that true?

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator from California yield for a question?

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, will the Senator from California yield? Mrs. BOXER [continuing]. There was actually a vote to indefinitely postpone one of those nominees, the Hispanic nominee, Richard Paez.

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

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator from California yield for two more questions?

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I have been a Senator for a little less than 2 months. The same is true for the Presiding Officer. And we ran at a time when I believe the message from the people--and not just of Minnesota but I believe the people in America--was one that it is important the Senate should get things done. The 170th Congress had not passed appropriations bills, had not passed disaster assistance, had not passed a prescription drug benefit for seniors, and had not passed a budget. A lot of serious work needed to be done. That was the message. We are here now--in a little less than 2 months--and we are caught up in a filibuster. I read about filibusters when I was a kid. This basically means the Senate is spending a lot of time debating the nomination of Miguel Estrada to be a judge in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the distinguished members of the minority party are not going to allow that nomination to get to a vote unless there are 60 Senators who vote for cloture to put an end to the filibuster. During the course of the discussion about Miguel Estrada, there have been some wonderful presentations on both sides of the aisle about the importance of the Constitution, the very sacred obligation of the Senate to advise and consent on nominations made by the President of the United States on judicial appointments. In those wonderful discussions talking about this sacred obligation, my fear is that the public may not understand that obligation is not to have 60 Senators vote to confirm a nomination, that to require 60 votes is what is known as a supermajority. The Constitution reserves supermajorities to very specific instances--the approval of treaties-- but not for the confirmation of Presidential nominees to the Federal courts. That should take a simple majority. So what we are faced with today is the very serious issue of an effort to change the constitutional standard for the selection of judges. And for all of us who love this Constitution, who understand its greatness--and I think through Divine guidance given to those who stood before us in chambers and in the Old Senate Chamber--to change the standard for Miguel Estrada is simply wrong. It is not the right thing to do. What our distinguished colleagues in the minority party should do is the right thing and simply give the Senate a chance to vote on the nomination of Miguel Estrada--vote and say you need 51 votes to confirm this nomination. That is the constitutional standard. The Web site of one of the most egregious liberal Washington interest groups has a number of troubling statements regarding the nomination and confirmation process for members of the judiciary. One memorandum discusses ``the approaching armageddon on judicial nominations.'' This extreme and inflammatory headline suggests an all-out, no-holds-barred, anything-goes campaign against judicial nominees by those opposing the President's choices. Another headline on the same Web site demands its members and visitors to ``tell Senators: Filibuster the Estrada nomination.'' I do not believe there has been, in the history of this esteemed body, a filibuster of a circuit judge. I do not believe there has been a partisan filibuster of the type we are experiencing right now in the Senate. On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, the Washington Post published an editorial referencing this Web site and condemning such tactics and urged a vote on the nomination of Miguel Estrada. The editorial in the Washington Post correctly points out that a filibuster would be ``a dramatic escalation of the judicial nomination wars.'' It states that Democrats who disagree with the nominee may vote against him, but they should not deny him a vote. The editorial concludes that Mr. Estrada's nomination should not be stalled any longer, stating: It certainly doesn't warrant further escalating a war that long ago got out of hand. As I listen to the debate, it seems that there are a lot of feelings that somebody did something in the past and now we are going to pay back today. There was an earlier time of feuds between the Hatfields and the McCoys, and the Earps and the Youngers. That is not the way to act in the 21st century, when we face the challenges of a potential war with Iraq and with a struggling economy and with moms and dads worried about feeding and clothing their kids and sending their kids to good schools. We should not be caught up in this kind of partisan feuding, saying you did something in the past to our nominees, so now we are going to do the same to yours today. Put it aside. I am a product of the sixties philosophy. Let today be the first day of your life. We are never going to be younger than we are today, Mr. President. I think we have to put the past behind us. I don't know who was at fault in the past. I don't know about other nominees and the time it took them to get to the floor of the Senate, why they were delayed, for whatever reasons. All I know is that, today, Americans are crying out for the Senate to simply get the work of the people done. We can get the work done if we give Miguel Estrada a chance to simply have an up-or-down vote. That is all it is. We should not change the constitutional standard. We should not be requiring 60 votes to confirm a judicial nominee. That is not what the greatness of this institution is about. That is not what the Constitution, which has preserved this country and set the standard for democracy, intended. Let us have a clear understanding of what a modern day filibuster means. Those advocating this obstructionist tactic aren't demanding the opportunity for extended debate; that is already available to all Senators. The practical matter of a filibuster is to prevent a vote on the nominee, unless cloture is obtained. Of course, cloture requires 60 votes. As I said before, those calling for a filibuster on this nominee are demanding a supermajority vote. That is not what the Constitution says. That is not what the Constitution dictates. That is not the precedent and pattern we should be following. This is against the traditions and practices of this body. In fact, in only one instance did the Senate reject cloture and defeat a judicial nominee. That was in 1968, on the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. As I noted before, that was a bipartisan filibuster--not the party- line filibuster we are seeing waged here today against Mr. Estrada. I agree with the previous chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a Democrat, who said in a speech on the Senate floor--I believe it was the Senator from Vermont: I have stated over and over again on this floor . . . that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported, that I felt the Senate should do its duty. Let the Senate do its duty. Let those who oppose the nomination of Miguel Estrada have their right to cast their vote, have a right to have their say, for whatever reasons. It is within their discretion to choose their reason to say no. On the other hand, let us follow the dictates of our Constitution and not change the constitutional standard. Let us give Miguel Estrada the opportunity simply for an up- or-down vote, and let a majority of Senators in the Senate--and I believe that a majority, which would be a bipartisan majority, not just folks of one party, but distinguished members of the minority party who support the nomination, would not change the constitutional standard. During the course of this debate, there have been many serious misrepresentations of the record on Mr. Estrada. I want to address in some detail one of the most serious distortions, which concerns the answers that Mr. Estrada gave to questions that members of the Judiciary Committee asked him. The charge being leveled against Mr. Estrada is that he did not answer questions put to him in general, and he did not answer questions about his judicial philosophy in particular. I have to say, that charge is pure bunk. I sat here and listened as some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said he didn't answer questions. I have the transcript in front of me. He was there for a full day. He answered question after question. He answered followup questions, written questions. He answered the questions. Again, it is important to remember the circumstances under which this hearing took place. That hearing was held September 26, 2001, chaired by my Democratic friend, the senior Senator from New York, with whom I went to grade school and high school in Brooklyn. Both Democratic and Republican Senators asked scores of questions, which Mr. Estrada answered. If any Senator was unsatisfied with Mr. Estrada's answers, every member of the committee had an opportunity to ask Mr. Estrada followup questions. I believe only two of my Democratic colleagues did that. A number of questions that Mr. Estrada was asked directly or indirectly tried to pry from him a commitment on how he would rule on a particular case. Previous judicial nominees who were confirmed by the Senate have rightly declined to answer questions on that basis, as Mr. Estrada did. Let me give you some examples. In 1967, during his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall responded to a question about the fifth amendment by stating: I do not think you want me to be in a position of giving you a statement on the Fifth Amendment and then, if I am confirmed and sit on the Court, when a Fifth Amendment case comes up, I will have to disqualify myself. If I may digress, one of the other charges against Mr. Estrada is that he did not have judicial experience. During the course of this debate, it has been highlighted again and again that many distinguished judges--Supreme Court Judges and circuit court judges--did not have judicial experience before they were appointed to the court. Mr. Estrada, in fact, clerked for both a Federal court judge and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. When Thurgood Marshall was appointed, I believe, to the District Court of Appeals, he did not have prior judicial experience. I think it was Justice Holmes who did not have it. I could go on and on. So that charge, too, is pure bunk. During Sandra Day O'Connor's confirmation hearing, the Senator from Massachusetts, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, defended her refusal to discuss her views on abortion. He said: It is offensive to suggest that a potential justice of the Supreme Court must pass a presumed test of judicial philosophy. It is even more offensive to suggest that a potential justice must pass the litmus test of any single- issue interest group. It is interesting, if you look at Mr. Estrada's response on the question of Roe v. Wade, he said very clearly in response to a question of the Senator from California that he has his views, but his view of the judicial function ``does not allow me to answer that question.'' But he said he has a personal view on the subject. Again, he goes back to his view of judicial function. Then he goes on to say: And the reason I have not done any of those things is that I view a system of law in which me as an advocate and possibly if I am confirmed as a judge, have the job of building on the wall that is already there, not to call it into question. I have no particular reason to go back and look at whether that decision was right or wrong as a matter of law, as I would if I were a judge that was hearing the case for the first time. Then he goes on to say: It is there. It is the law and it has subsequently been refined by the Casey case, and I will follow it. The Senator from California asked: Do you believe it is settled law? The answer is: I believe so. So again, he has done what other nominees have done and he will not discuss his personal feelings. He will not discuss his personal philosophy on that issue, but he says it is settled law--settled law. Likewise, Justice John Paul Stevens testified during his confirmation hearing: I really don't think I should discuss this subject generally, Senator. I don't mean to be unresponsive, but in all candor, I must say there have been many times in my experience in the past 5 years when I found that my first reaction to a problem was not the same as the reaction I had when I had the responsibility of decisions, and I think if I were to make comments not carefully thought through, they might be given significance they really did not merit. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was confirmed. Justice John Paul Stevens was confirmed. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also declined to answer certain questions, stating: Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or to preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions before the Supreme Court. Were I to rehearse here what I would say or how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. In addition, as my colleague from Nevada yesterday noted, Justice Ginsburg just last year said in dissent in the case of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White: In the context of the Federal system, how a prospective nominee for the bench would resolve certain particular contentious issues would certainly be ``of interest'' to the President and the Senate. . . .But in accord with a longstanding norm, every Member of this Court declined to furnish such information to the Senate and presumably to the President as well. I believe I recall in reviewing the transcripts of the hearing of Mr. Estrada--I am not a member of that committee, but I have taken the time to review some of the transcripts--he was asked by one of my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle whether he was a strict constructionist. I believe his response was he was a fair constructionist. A further discourse by my distinguished colleague from the other side of the aisle, I think from North Carolina: Did the President talk about strict constructionist? I am paraphrasing. Mr. Estrada came back and said: I did not talk about that with the President, but he talks about being a fair constructionist. That is the kind of judge the people of the United States want to sit on the Circuit Court of Appeals. I also note, in contrast to the characterization of my colleague from Nevada, however, Justice Scalia in his majority opinion did not take issue with that description, as Mr. Gonzales pointed out in his letter. Justice Scalia said: Nor do we assert that candidates for judicial office should be compelled to announce their views on disputed legal issues. Like these previous nominees, all of whom the Senate confirmed, Mr. Estrada refused to violate the code of ethics for judicial nominees by declining to give answers that would appear to commit him on issues that he would be called upon to decide as a judge. Again and again, he provided answers in direct response to questions that make his judicial philosophy an open book. Let me share some specific examples. Responding to a question to identify the most important attribute of a judge, Mr. Estrada answered that it was to have an appropriate process for decisionmaking. That, he said, entails having an open mind, listening to the parties, reading their briefs, doing all the legwork on the law and facts, engaging in deliberation with colleagues, and being committed to judging, as a process that is intended to give the right answer. These are not extreme views. I do not think we could ask any more from any judge. When asked about the appropriate temperament of a judge, he responded that a judge should be impartial, openminded, and unbiased, courteous, yet firm, and one who will give ear to people who come into his courtroom. These are the qualities of Miguel Estrada. He testified that he is and would continue to be the type of person who listens with both ears and would be fair to all litigants. Again, that phrase he used, he would be a fair constructionist. Mr. Estrada was asked a number of questions about his views and philosophy on following legal precedent. Let me highlight a bit of that exchange. Question: Are you committed to following the precedents of higher courts faithfully and giving them full force and effect even if you disagree with such precedents? Answer: Absolutely, Senator. Question: What would you do if you believe the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals had seriously erred in rendering decision? Would you apply that decision or use your own judgment of the merits, or the best judgment of the merits? Answer: My duty as a judge and my inclination as a person and as a lawyer of integrity would be to follow the orders of the higher court. Question: And if there were no controlling precedent dispositively concluding an issue with which you were presented in your circuit, to what sources would you turn to for persuasive authority? Answer: In such a circumstance, my cardinal rule would be to seize aid from any place where I could get it--related case law, legislative history, custom and practice, and views of academics on analysis of law. That is the kind of judge we want. That is the kind of judge I think the Constitution intended us to have when it gave us this solemn responsibility of advising and consenting on judicial nominations. Again, not by changing the constitutional standard, but advising and consenting, allowing a majority of Senators in the Senate to advise and then consent on a nominee presented by the President but not requiring a supermajority. These exchanges I have laid out clearly illustrate Miguel Estrada's respect for law and his willingness and ability to faithfully follow the law. He further testified, in response to other questions: I will follow binding case law in every case. Even in accordance with the case law that is not binding, but seems instructive on the area, without any influence whatsoever from any personal view I may have about the subject matter. This is what we expect judges to do. I can see no good reason why anyone would be opposed to a nominee who promised to follow the law, a nominee who is highly qualified, a nominee who the American Bar Association in rating judges gave a unanimous--every person on the committee, and I presume they were not all conservative Republicans, every person on that review committee unanimously gave him the highest rating, the highest recommendation, which many of my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle have called the gold standard. That is the way in which we should measure judges. Now we have a judge in front of them who has passed the gold standard unanimously, who is highly educated, who at 17 years of age came to this country from Honduras and did not speak English well, graduated magna cum laude from Columbia, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, was editor of the Law Review, clerked for Federal and Supreme Court judges, worked, and came back to public service. Talk about the American dream. Miguel Estrada, being given such great opportunity of education, is coming back and saying: I am going to give back to the community; I want to work in public service. I had the chance to serve as solicitor general of the State of Minnesota. It is a solemn, high honor to represent your State or to represent your country, to work for your State or your country, to uphold its constitution. It is important to note that every living former Solicitor General of the United States, four of whom are Democrats, stand with Miguel Estrada on one of the other issues that my distinguished colleagues from the other side have raised. They said they want some of his opinion papers. Yet Democrat Solicitors General--every one of them-- say, no, that is not appropriate; those should not be given up. That is not Miguel Estrada saying that. Those are the Solicitors General of the United States. Again, that is another argument that is a bogus argument, if I may be blunt. When asked about the role of political ideology in the legal process, Mr. Estrada replied with a response that, in my view, was entirely appropriate and within the mainstream of what all Americans expect from their judiciary. He said: [A]lthough we all have views on a number of subjects from A to Z, the first duty of a judge is to self-consciously put that aside and look at each case with an open mind and listen to the parties. And, to the best of his human capacity, to give judgment based solely on the arguments of law. I think my basic idea of judging is to do it on the basis of law and to put aside whatever view I might have on the subject to the maximum extent possible. When asked about his views on interpreting the Constitution, Mr. Estrada was forthright and complete in his responses. For example, in exchange regarding the literal interpretation of the words of the Constitution, Mr. Estrada responded: I recognize that the Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions in the area of privacy and elsewhere that there are unenumerated rights in the Constitution. And I have no view of any sort, whether legal or personal, that would hinder me from applying those rulings by the Court. But I think the Court has been quite clear that there are enumerated rights in the Constitution. In the main, the Court has recognized them as being inherent in the right of substantive due process and the liberty clause of the fourteenth amendment. Mr. Estrada was asked questions about the appropriate balance between Congress and the courts. His answers made clear his view that judges must review challenges to the statutes with a strong presumption of the statute's constitutionality. For example, in responding to a question about environmental protection statutes, he stated: Congress has passed a number of statutes that try to safeguard the environment. I think all judges would have to greet those statutes when they come to the court with a strong presumption of constitutionality. At the same time, he recognized that as a circuit court judge he would be bound to follow the precedent established by Lopez and other Supreme Court cases. So it is clear from the record that Mr. Estrada did answer the questions put to him at his hearing. His judicial philosophy is an open book. But if my Democratic colleagues are still inclined to vote against him, misguided as I believe that choice to be, then they should have that right. Let them vote against him. Vote for him, vote against him. Do what their conscience dictates. Just vote. Do not change that magnificent, most wonderful constitutional standard that has guided us and kept this country together for over 200 years. Allow the Senate to exercise its duty. Allow each Member to vote their conscience. Just vote and end this filibuster. I yield the floor.

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I have no further questions for my distinguished colleague from California.

Mr. COLEMAN. Is it not true the Republicans filed cloture for both of the distinguished judges my colleague from California has mentioned, both Judge Paez and Judge Berzon? Secondly, if that is true, I ask my distinguished colleague from California if she would vote for cloture and support putting an end to this filibuster on the nomination of Miguel Estrada.

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I ask the distinguished colleague from California again, in both instances is it not true that cloture was filed--we are talking about filibuster, not 4 years but filibuster debate on this floor--and both nominees were confirmed after cloture was invoked?

Mr. COLEMAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I say to the Honorable Democratic whip, I will speak not more than 10 minutes if this understanding is accepted.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the Honorable Senator from California laid out a very touching and moving litany of the times in which we live. These are difficult times, with the prospect of dealing with a brutal dictator in Iraq, a dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, has shown no hesitation to use poison gas, chemicals, and biological weapons, a dictator who clearly has ignored resolution after resolution of the United Nations over a 12-year period, who poses a threat to all of us. That crisis looms out there. The day of decision is coming soon. As the President has noted, Saddam Hussein will either disarm or be disarmed. We have to be concerned about what is happening in North Korea where they are talking about restarting a nuclear program that they agreed to abort. We have problems of recession. A lot of folks in my State are worried about where the next paycheck is going to come from, worried about the state of the economy. We have a lot of concerns out there. This is a time of great uncertainty. This magnificent, august body, the Senate, one of the greatest deliberative bodies in the world, instead of focusing its efforts on dealing with those issues of great concern, we are involved and engaged in trying to break off a filibuster from my honorable colleagues on the other side who are not going to allow us to have a vote, a simple up-or-down vote--that is all we are asking for-- on the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the circuit court of appeals. I have been here a little over a month. I don't have that great sense of history that my colleagues, such as Mr. Byrd, the Honorable Senator from West Virginia, has. He is a walking history of the Senate. I sit here in awe as I listen to him. I listen to the honorable chair of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, who has been here a long time. I still get chills standing where I am standing, looking at this great sense of history. Yet we are sitting here, and I was listening last night, and we are talking about the nomination of the first Hispanic to serve on the circuit court, and what I am listening to is a litany of who did what to whom before. You would almost think that we were the Hatfields and McCoys instead of Democrats and Republicans. You would think we were the Earps and Youngers at the OK Corral. I don't know who did what in the past. I don't know why a particular judge in the past perhaps took a long period of time before they got a chance to have a vote on the floor of the Senate. I don't know who was right yesterday and who was wrong. But this is today. This is a time when I got elected. I can tell you the citizens of Minnesota were saying they wanted to get past the bitter partisanship that stops the Senate from doing its business. They want public figures to simply get something done, move on, take care of the flood problem, the disaster problems we have had in northwest Minnesota, the drought that is affecting other parts of the country, get an energy bill through, get a budget--that would not be a bad thing for the U.S. Government--get a budget passed. Moms and dads have to deal with that all the time. We have folks out there clamoring for us to just do what we have been elected to do, to do our business. Instead, I listened last night to the Honorable Senator from New York and the Honorable Senator from Illinois, and they had pictures of candidates in the past who, for some reason or other, did not get through the Judiciary Committee fast enough. We went back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. You know, that was yesterday. We are never going to be younger than we are today. The proverbial: Today is the first day of the rest of your life. What would be so hard for us, as a deliberative body, to say we are going to start with today, we are going to make sure--we are going to put aside all the sins of yesterday and make sure that, from here on, when folks come up, they have a hearing and they have a vote? By the way, I have to say I have heard my honorable colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about Mr. Estrada not answering questions. This has been shown last night; Senator Hatch showed it many times. This is the transcript of the hearing, the all-day hearing in which he answered question after question after question. Maybe he gave answers folks on the other side of the aisle did not like, but he answered questions. He answered questions. Then, after the hearing itself, a few Senators--I understand two Senators on the other side of the aisle--sent written questions, which he answered. So he has answered the questions. What we have today, unfortunately, is we are getting caught up in the worst kind of partisan wrangling based on what folks did yesterday. I think we are better than that. I think this august, deliberative body is better than that. I think it would be good for America today, in this new millennium, this new century, to forget what happened in the last millennium. Let's move forward on this one and say what we are going to do and say a nominee of any President, whether it is a Republican President or President not of my party, will get a fair hearing and a vote, up or down. In fact, when I ran for office, I answered a question in one of the debates, and I said I would use the same standard to judge a nominee from the President of another party as I would to judge a nominee from President Bush. That is what I think we were elected to do. If we can just get past what happened yesterday, if we can stop talking about who said what to whom and when, then we can kind of move on here to act fairly, act deliberately, and, by the way, act with great respect for this Constitution that we all love. I heard a wonderful discourse from the Senator from New York yesterday about the Constitution. I love the Constitution. What we are asking for Mr. Estrada is follow the dictates of the Constitution. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania have a question?

Mr. COLEMAN. I yield for that purpose.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I say to the Honorable Democratic whip, less than 10 minutes. I can move to the other portion of what I was going to speak about if the Senator from Nebraska seeks the floor.