[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 12, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H435-H441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WHITE HOUSE DRUG POLICY, THE DEFICIT, AND SUPPORTING THE NOMINATION OF
MIGUEL ESTRADA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to
address the House tonight. I wanted to start off by commenting on some
of the comments that were made by our colleagues on the Democrat side
of the House; but before I do that, I wanted to comment about the
message that we just received from the President of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the President has listed as one of his
priority items this year to have a compassionate, conservative model to
end drug addiction. His idea is let us reach out to people who are
unfortunately trapped by drug addiction and let us work it through
local agencies and local volunteers and local charitable groups, get
people off drugs and stop addiction so they can go on to have
productive lives.
I think it is just an example of the compassionate conservative side
of George Bush, attacking drug abuse on one side, but doing it with a
human face and a gentle hand guiding people to get off drugs. I think
it is a good program, and I look forward to working with it and seeing
more of the proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to comment, we heard many Democrats
tonight talking about the deficits. I want the Democrats, the Blue Dog
Democrats who are the more moderate Democrats in this body, I want them
to know that I would like to work with them on reducing the deficit.
I was disappointed last year when the Democrats did not offer a
budget. I think that kind of hurt them, hurt their own credibility of
leadership, frankly, because I think that when you come to Congress,
you have to vote yes, you have to vote no, but you have to participate
and you have got to get involved in the process. I do not believe it is
right just to be present. You have got to engage.
So I hope this year that the Blue Dog Caucus will offer a deficit-
free budget. I know it is very difficult, because we are in a time of
war; and I think in a time of war that deficits, unfortunately, are to
be expected. That is why what we are trying to do with the Republican
budget is make sure that it puts us on the glidepath back into getting
out of the red and into the black.
So I am excited to work on a bipartisan basis with the Democrats on
this, if they can come up with ideas. That is what we are here for. Put
your ideas on the table, and let us do what is best for the American
people. It does not matter which party gets credit for it.
Now, having said that, that I want to work with the Democrats on
that, I also want to work with the Democrats on something else that is
not really before the House per se, but it is before the American
people, and that is the nomination of a young potential judge named
Miguel Estrada.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Democrats are rejecting the
nomination of the first Hispanic on the D.C. court. I think it is
unfortunate for the diversity of the court and for racial relations in
general; but, more importantly, somehow that they seem to be attacking
the American dream.
Here is a young guy that comes to America when he is 17 years old. He
is an immigrant from Honduras.
By the time he is 41, he is nominated to be the first Hispanic to sit
on the D.C. court. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia College
and magna cum laude from Harvard Law. By the age of 40 he had argued 15
cases before the Supreme Court and was rated ``well-qualified'' by the
American Bar Association.
He has worked at the Department of Justice for both Republicans and
Democrats, and he has been called an ``extraordinary legal talent'' and
``genuinely compassionate'' by the Clinton Solicitor General. But he is
held up over in the Senate.
I am joined tonight by some colleagues from the great State of
Florida, just south of the State of Georgia, the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Harris), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-
Balart) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) who is here
somewhere, who is the former speaker of the Florida House.
I would be honored to yield to whoever is ready, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and then the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Harris). I want to hear your comments on this important nomination.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia for yielding.
Would it be all right if before I get into the specifics, I tell you
a little bit about what it feels like to be a freshman, what I have
learned? I have experienced some very interesting things while I have
been here in Washington.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to reclaim the time to say this
to the gentleman from Florida. I am going to be honored to hear what it
is like from both of you as a freshman, but I want to underscore for
the folks back home that you are experienced legislators. The Secretary
of State has been in the limelight many times before, and the
gentleman's brother is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart), who is also a Member of Congress, and who reminded us last
night that the gentleman's family came to America as immigrants when he
was the age of 4.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank the gentleman. The
gentleman is right, I have been in the State legislature for a number
of years, and the private sector; and I have to admit I have been kind
of caught off guard by some things in the few weeks I have been up here
in D.C.
{time} 1900
Some things that kind of hit me kind of in a strange way, I have to
admit, maybe it is just because of the Washington phenomenon, is how I
hear
[[Page H436]]
things thrown out there that are not based on facts. The gentleman just
mentioned some of the qualifications of Miguel Estrada. I do not know
of a more qualified individual.
The man, as the gentleman well said, got here when he was 17 years
old, worked and studied; he was not a rich man, barely spoke the
language, worked and studied and was able to educate himself, was able
to graduate from Columbia University with honors, Harvard Law School
with honors, worked in the Clinton administration. The people that he
worked with have said publicly, in writing, that he is a decent
individual, that he is a hard-working individual, that he is a talented
individual, and yet I say to the gentleman from Georgia, then I hear
some strange accusations coming out there which, frankly, I am not used
to.
Because where we served, and coincidentally, the three others of us
who happen to be here right now, as the gentleman from Georgia
mentioned, are from Florida and the three of us served in the Florida
legislature together, and it was a wonderful experience. And we have
heated debates there, but we are used to at least basing those debates
on facts. Yet, let us kind of analyze some of these ``accusations du
jour'' that we have heard about Mr. Miguel Estrada.
We have heard from others in this process, some members of the
minority party, that one of the reasons that Mr. Miguel Estrada should
not be a judge, because he is not qualified to be a judge, is because
he is a Hispanic individual who got here, as I repeat, when he was 17
years old and has lived, really lived, his part of the American dream
through hard work, sacrifice, dedication. He was not given anything. He
earned it. He earned it. Yet, there are some who have said, well, Mr.
Estrada is not Hispanic enough. He is only Hispanic in name.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I am from
Georgia, I am not Hispanic, the gentleman from Florida is Hispanic.
What does not being Hispanic enough mean? Does that mean that one's
mama was not and one's dad was? The Democrat thinking, how could one
not be Hispanic enough? I mean one is either Hispanic or not.
I do not know. I hope the gentleman will tell me, because I would
certainly appreciate him clarifying this, because I am a Republican,
and Democrats probably can understand this better than me, but maybe
the gentleman has some insight for all of us.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I can understand the
reason for that very interesting question.
By the way, let me tell the gentleman a little bit about myself. I
was born in southern Florida of Cuban parents, so I am Hispanic. I am
American, obviously, 100 percent American, of Hispanic descent.
Mr. Estrada was born in Honduras, Central America, came over here,
and he was a naturalized American citizen. He came here when he was 17
years old. He was not born an American here like I was; he was
naturalized. He did not speak much English until after he got here at
the age of 17.
And then there are others, by the way, some of them like me born
here; some of them, by the way, who do not speak Spanish fluently who
then claim that Mr. Estrada is not Hispanic enough.
I consider myself, and I am very proud of my heritage, but I think it
would be ludicrous if I, who was born in the United States, who
obviously was born, thank God, was born in the United States, thank God
was born an American, was born into freedom, was born in the land of
opportunity, I think it would be ludicrous and frankly maybe a bit
offensive if I were to say to the gentleman from Georgia, to somebody
that the gentleman and I know who was not born in the United States,
who got here when he was 17, who is a Hispanic, whose mother, by the
way, got here carrying a 3-year-old child when she came to this
country, I think it would be frankly offensive.
I think, sir, that the gentleman would be offended if I said that
about somebody, that that person is not Hispanic enough. Who am I to
say that a man who got here when he was 17 years old, barely speaking
English, from Honduras is not Hispanic enough. That is irresponsible.
That is offensive to me, sir.
But it is just not only that. Here is a person who got here at 17,
has lived his part of the American dream, and I do not think anybody
can argue that he has been a successful lawyer, who again worked even
in the Clinton administration, and the people that worked with him, his
bosses, his coworkers have said in writing that he is extremely
qualified and he is fair.
But then some of these other people that are accusing Mr. Estrada
with some ridiculous, baseless accusations like the one that I just
mentioned. To me, that one is more than ridiculous; it is offensive. It
is offensive, by the way, to all of us of Hispanic heritage, but it is
offensive and should be offensive to everybody who believes in equality
and the American dream, and that anybody here, anybody here who works
and sacrifices and loves this country can be an American, and we should
not be judging them if they are too Hispanic or not Hispanic enough.
Again, I think that is offensive.
Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, as I understand it, that
seems to be his biggest crime, because he is well qualified. But there
seems to be this racial litmus test that the Democrats are putting on
him.
I wanted to invite the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) or the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) to jump in. The floor is open.
Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the embodiment of an
American dream.
Born and raised in Honduras, Miguel Estrada arrived in the United
States at age 17 as an immigrant who knew little English, but who
understood the essence of America. Five years later, as a result of his
unparalleled drive, perseverance and vision, he earned a Bachelor's
Degree magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia College in New
York City.
Within the following 5 years, he had graduated magna cum laude again
from Harvard Law School, where he had served as editor of the Harvard
Law Review and had become a clerk for the Supreme Court of the United
States. He became an eminent practicing attorney who had argued 15
cases before the Supreme Court of the United States before he was age
40.
He served both in the Republican and Democratic Justice Departments,
demonstrating a matchless strength of character and an incomparable
depth of professional integrity. Ron Kind, who served as chief of staff
to Vice President Gore and the Solicitor General for President Clinton,
described Miguel Estrada as ``An extraordinary legal talent and
genuinely compassionate.''
On May 9, 2001, President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada to serve in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
circuit. He would become the first Hispanic in history to serve on that
court, which is widely recognized as the second highest court in the
land. The American Bar Association unanimously awarded its highest
rating to Miguel Estrada, deeming him well qualified to serve in this
capacity.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate has not acted on this outstanding opportunity
Mr. Estrada's nomination presents to our Nation. As a judge on the U.S.
District Court for the D.C. circuit, his story would inspire Americans
of all backgrounds, while his legal acumen would provide our system of
justice with an eminently talented defender and advocate.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Feeney).
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from
Georgia for joining the Florida delegation this evening, and I want to
thank him for his wonderful dialogue last night with my colleague from
Florida. I am glad to be here with two great friends and colleagues
from the Sunshine State.
I want to tell my colleagues that one of the reasons that my
colleague here tonight from south Florida is so passionate about this
issue is that his family shares something that apparently Mr. Estrada
is now going through, and that is suffering because of their political
philosophy. This is not just persecution of a man by denying him access
to the door of the Federal bench because of his ethnic background or
because he has assimilated into the American dream too quickly.
But there also is a component here, as we know, that has a
philosophical
[[Page H437]]
component. There is a litmus test not just on how Hispanic one is that
is being set up by the critics of Miguel Estrada, this incredible
leader and a great American, but there is an also a litmus test that is
based on a certain philosophy that they are terrified will be lived
from the bench, and that is that there are some that would like to see
the bench turned into a completely activist judiciary, full of biases
where unelected judges would become a super legislature. They would
rewrite the Constitution. They would ignore the laws passed by Congress
or ignore those that they did not like.
For example, if we look at the First Amendment alone, there is an
establishment clause that basically is very clear. It says that
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' Because of that, we have
liberal activists saying that judges should impose, because they know
full well elected members in our great democracy that would never
impose a provision that would say you cannot recite the Pledge of
Allegiance, words like ``one Nation under God.'' This is a liberal
activist judiciary. And the real goal here, if I can tell my colleagues
and the Speaker, is that we want to have a litmus test, according to
the critics of Miguel Estrada, so that unless you are prepared to
substitute your political bias and your judgment for that of the
elected representatives of the people, then they do not want you on the
bench.
And I will hopefully engage in a dialogue with the gentleman from
Georgia and with my colleagues from Florida so that we can talk about
some of the real, underlying reasons why this is going to become such a
huge battle here in the Capitol.
I will finish with this, if I may, and that is that lot of us do not
want; we joined a great justice, Antonin Scalia who, in his wonderful
book, ``A Matter of Interpretation,'' says, you should not have a judge
who is going to have a conservative interpretation of the Constitution
or a liberal interpretation or a strict interpretation or a loose
interpretation, but a textural interpretation.
In other words, we want judges that will apply the rule of law, that
will read the statutes that we as an elected body pass, that will look
at the text of the United States Constitution, that will, in their
fairness and wisdom and incredible credentials like Miguel Estrada has,
will be able to protect the wonderful Constitution that we have.
Unfortunately, there are some critics of Miguel Estrada that do not
want an independent judiciary; they want a litmus test by philosophy of
judicial liberal activism, and I find that offensive as well.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to get back to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), because I wanted to say I was talking
to the gentleman's brother last night, and one of the things we
discussed is that I was blessed as a child growing up in Athens,
Georgia. There were a lot of Cuban families who had to leave Cuba
because of Castro, and they came to Athens, Georgia, among other
places, but a lot to Athens. Many could not speak English, and they
were very similar to families all over Georgia and Florida. Their
parents, regardless of what their jobs were in Cuba, they basically
lost often their professional licenses. A doctor or a lawyer, they had
to step down a notch or two. But their kids assimilated quickly.
Those kids never forgot what freedom was and what it was like to lose
it, those families. If anything, I found, particularly among, I would
say, those types of immigrants, more patriotism than they afford
Americans. They were all Americans, but still they did not forget that
lesson of having freedom pulled out from under them.
So, in my opinion, you have somebody who lives in America by choice,
like Miguel Estrada; he came here when he was 17, he could have left
when he was 21. He could have told his parents, I am not staying here
in America. But he left Honduras, he came here.
I never met the man, but I would be willing to bet that he is
probably one of the most patriotic, God-fearing, pro-American citizens
that we have out there today. That has been my experience with so many
of the wonderful immigrants who have made this country what it is
today.
I wanted to hear what the gentleman has to say, because it is just
amazing that the gentleman's family, two sons who grow up to be United
States Congressmen, the gentleman was telling me earlier, one is an
investment banker, probably making more money than the ones in
Congress, and then the other one is a newscaster, probably reporting to
the world what the two in Congress are doing wrong, so you are covered
either way. But that is a wonderful American success story and American
dream, just like Miguel Estrada.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Democrats are not just attacking Hispanics
with this, they are attacking the American dream.
{time} 1915
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
honorable gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for those words.
I have had the opportunity to speak to Miguel Estrada, and what you
say is just so on target. He is a patriot. He is 100 percent American.
He is one who came here by choice, who did not ask for anything other
than an opportunity to live in freedom. And he worked hard and he
studied hard and he has become one of the most prestigious attorneys in
the country.
And a little while ago you were also saying how strange is the
distinguishing factor that Miguel Estrada has that he is treated
differently for.
My distinguished colleague from Florida mentioned, I think, some of
the reasons why he is being treated differently, but I must add a
couple facts to this conversation that we are having today. I have
mentioned in the beginning how that is something that I have not seen a
lot coming from the other side.
I have heard stories. I have heard accusations, but no facts because
one of the accusations that I keep hearing is that, well, Miguel
Estrada cannot be a judge in this court because he has not been a judge
in a different court and, therefore, he is not qualified. But I did a
little bit of research, and I found that five of the eight judges on
that same court where the President has nominated Miguel Estrada were
not judges before. They had no previous judicial experience, with all
due respect. If that is what makes you qualified, where was the outrage
for the other five judges, or is it only if you are Hispanic do you
have to have previous experience as a judge? And if you are, you cannot
serve on that court and there is no outrage.
Furthermore, I did a little bit more research, and I found that two
current Justices of the Supreme Court were not judges before either,
wonderful members that we respects and admire: former Justice Byron
White, a respected member of that illustrious body; and the other one
by the way is the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States. So if the requirement, if what makes you acceptable to
be a judge and that you are not acceptable, I should say, if you do not
have previous experience, where was the outrage from these individuals
who say that Miguel Estrada is not qualified because he did not serve
as a judge before when the other five in that same court were nominated
and approved and when those Supreme Court Justices were nominated and
also approved?
See, there is a double standard. And I do not know if the double
standard is because of his idealogy. I can state that his nomination
has been sitting there for about 600-plus days. The distinguished
members of the other party had ample opportunity to sit down with him
to discuss these issues because now they are saying, we should have
more hearings. Why is it now? They were in control of the Senate until
just a couple months ago. Why did they not have hearings before if they
wanted some questions answered? Oh, no, they did not want hearings then
because they were just trying to torpedo the nomination of this
individual. He is a fine American and a fine human being.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pearce). The Chair must remind Members
that remarks in debate may not include characterizations of the Senate
or its actions.
Mr. KINGSTON. As tempting as it might be.
[[Page H438]]
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I am a freshman. I apologize for
that.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to underscore what the gentleman
is saying that Mr. Estrada is on 632 days awaiting action by the other
body, and yet it is not happening.
Now a similar nominee about 3 years ago, and I mean exactly similar,
a man named Merrick Garland, who was also Phi Beta Kappa, also editor
of the Harvard Law Review, also graduated from Harvard Law School magna
cum laude, was a clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals, a law clerk of the
U.S. Supreme Court, everything except this guy was 44. Mr. Estrada is
41. Everything else is similar, and it took him 100 days to get
through. And Mr. Estrada comes along, seems like the only difference is
he is Hispanic, 632 days.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, it begs a difference. You
have these incredible double standards. You have the double standards
of judges that did not have previous judicial experience, were
nominated and approved for the same court that Mr. Estrada was
nominated before. They were not judges before, and yet now there are
some people saying that that is what disqualifies Mr. Estrada.
You have certain people saying that Mr. Estrada, who, I repeat, was
born in Honduras who came here at age 17, barely speaking English,
worked hard, studied hard, became a model American and a wonderful
attorney, even worked in the Clinton administration and actually for
more than one President. And now they are saying that, well, this
individual is not Hispanic enough. Why this double standard?
You have some people that have said that, for example, that the ABA's
rating provided the gold standard, American Bar Association's rating
provides, they said, the gold standard for how a judge should be
measured, whether one is qualified or not. Well, now those same people
are saying that Mr. Estrada is not qualified even though Mr. Estrada
got the highest possible rating from the ABA unanimously. So why the
double standard? Why is this individual being treated differently than
others just like him with the same or less qualifications, with the
same or less merits? Why is he being treated differently?
The gentleman mentioned the case a little while ago of a very similar
case where he went right through the process. Nobody asked him any
questions, and if you look at those questions that were asked, they
were pretty amazing they were asked. They were total softballs. And yet
Mr. Estrada, who nobody has been able to say anything negative about
his record, about his integrity, about how he has lived his life, how
he has really lived a piece of this American Dream. And for these
accusations that come out of left field, ridiculous, unfounded, kind of
really almost funny accusations to come out against this fine human
being, this wonderful gentleman who has done nothing but work hard,
study hard, work hard, live the American Dream, has given of himself
because he has worked with two different Presidential administration,
for false accusations, for baseless accusations, for double standards
to be used against him, so that he does not become the first Hispanic
on that court, it is frankly very sad.
Mr. KINGSTON. It is an outrage.
Mr. FEENEY. It is not just the fact that Miguel Estrada, if the
critics have their way, will be denied the opportunity to be the first
Hispanic ever to serve on that great court but it is the way it is
happening.
There have been several committee hearings. Normally judges at this
level receive at most one or two committee hearings. They have had many
more than that. But with respect to the problem and the issues they
have had, they have been unable to identify any sin that this man is
guilty of, either philosophically, with respect to his integrity, his
background, his impeccable qualifications. And so what they have
engaged in, the critics of this great man, is a whispering campaign.
And they are trying, not to vote down the nominee, what they are
suggesting, these critics, is that we will not have a vote at all. And
after all, if the real reason you are sabotaging the opportunity for
Miguel Estrada to go to the bench is not something you will admit in
public, then do not have a vote. If it is something that you are
willing to stand up with honor and respect in debate in a free forum in
front of the entire world, then go into debate and have that vote. That
is the democratic process.
But to use a procedural mechanism to deny the opportunity of a great
man to get a fair vote up or down, my great colleague from Florida
suggested that this incredible, a man has a 15-to-nothing highly
qualified vote from the American Bar Association, but on top of that
the American Bar Association says this: ``Vote them up or down. But do
not hang them out to dry.''
The people that want to hang Miguel Estrada out to dry are afraid to
explain to the American people in a public vote why they oppose the
nomination.
Now, whether it is for, as some of us suspect, that terror that a
great Hispanic leader that loves the Constitution and a textual defense
of the Constitution may not be the liberal activist they want or
whether it is some other political reason, that this would be a great
opportunity to show the American people that folks from all different
backgrounds, diversity, ethnicity, religions and philosophies can be
great jurists, I do not know exactly what their real motives are and we
will never know until we have a fair vote under the democratic process
that all of us can all judge up or down.
Announcement of the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members to refrain from
remarks that characterize actions of the Senate.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 35 minutes.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. The honorable gentleman from
Georgia, if I may, I want to make sure everybody understands something
very important, as I think most people know. With a name like Diaz-
Balart, yes, I am of Hispanic heritage. It is something I am very proud
of. And with a name like that, I cannot hide nor do I want to. But I am
not here to support Miguel Estrada because he is a Hispanic. Absolutely
not. I think it would be a sad day if we were here pushing for people
based on their race or their religion or their ethnicity.
I am here to support Miguel Estrada because of his qualifications,
because he is highly qualified. The honorable gentleman from Florida
just mentioned that the bar association, what they said and how they
qualified him as the highest qualifications that a lawyer can have,
unanimously again, that is why he should be a judge. Because he has
worked in the Solicitor General's office and he has been in front of
the Supreme Court of the United States 15 times, I believe, has been
fighting in cases in front of the Supreme Court in front of the United
States, something that many lawyers do not do once in a lifetime. He
has done it, I believe, approximately 15 times. Because his academic
credentials are unbelievable, unbelievable, I know that a lot of the
critics that he has cannot compare his experience in front of the
Supreme Court, his academic credentials with theirs, his success as a
lawyer with theirs.
I am supporting Miguel Estrada because of his qualifications. But
what I have to admit, sir, is hard for me to swallow. Just like I am
not supporting him because he is a Hispanic, I am supporting him
because he is so highly qualified as everybody has said, including, by
the way, people like Seth Waxman, the former Solicitor General to
President Clinton who has said, ``He was a model of professionalism and
competence.'' Like Ronald Klain, the former counselor to Vice President
Al Gore, a familiar face to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) and
I in the State of Florida, as we well recall, not one who can be
accused of being a right winger by any stretch of the imagination. He
said, ``Miguel will rule justly towards all.''
The former Assistant General for the Office of Legal Counsel for
President Clinton, Mr. Randolph Moss said, ``A very principled guy,
very honest and ethical.''
That is why I am here supporting Miguel Estrada. That is why the
President of the United States nominated him for this important
position. But I have to tell you something. Just like he should not be
supported, endorsed or get that position because he is Hispanic, he
should not be denied that position simply because he is Hispanic. And
that I think is highly offensive.
[[Page H439]]
Mr. KINGSTON. And that, I believe, that is why House Members are
speaking out on something that really does not come before the House.
But we see it as the Democrats are after this guy, apparently because
he is Hispanic, apparently because they do not like his views as an
American, apparently because he challenges their concept of the
American Dream.
In the welfare state mentality you do not want people to climb the
ladder. In the welfare state, the big-government approach is keep
people down, keep them low. You do not want them upwardly mobile, and
then they will depend on the government. They will depend on our
largesse. But that is the pattern he has broken. He has shown in
America that you can make it in America. It is a great country. In
America you can be proud and free and independent. I think that
challenges so many of the liberals in this town; and they do not like
him, particularly because he is Hispanic. And I think that is just a
sad situation.
Mr. FEENEY. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). I
think that is especially true, that this man is a great role model.
As we have been discussing here tonight, Miguel Estrada was not born
in America, much like Secretary Mel Martinez of Housing and Urban
Development who comes from my community. We are so proud of our home
son here in the Cabinet.
{time} 1930
This is a wonderful man who was not born on American soil, but I can
tell my colleagues Mel Martinez defines what it is to be part of the
American spirit and to be a success story. Much like Secretary Powell,
who was not born specifically on the continental mainland of the United
States, but now is a model for all of us, not just in the military, but
his leadership internationally.
Now here is an opportunity for a young Hispanic man at the age of 17
to come live the American dream and be the first Hispanic on this very
prestigious court, and some people are terrified that the bottle of
success without handouts or welfare or any system of, for example,
racial quotas, this man can have a huge success and a wonderful career
because of his own merits and his deep belief in the United States
system and our government.
One thing, if I may, I want to talk about not just the litmus test
that we mentioned earlier of whether Miguel Estrada is Hispanic enough,
because we do not understand what that means, but I want to talk about
the fact that the litmus test is based on a certain nominee's judicial
philosophy.
I would suggest to my colleagues that everybody I know supports the
notion of judicial independence. The problem is, some of the critics of
Miguel Estrada support the notion of judicial independence meaning the
judges should be independent by the written words in the statutes and
the Constitution and they should be free to essentially make it up as
they go along.
Others of us believe deeply that judicial independence is critical,
that we not have an over-excessive interference from one branch to the
other. I do not believe the executive, for example, ought to be able to
fire justices when they do not agree with them. The Constitution
prohibits that. I do not believe that the Congress, if we were mad at a
particular judge or a bench, should be able to reduce their salaries to
punish them, and our Constitution prohibits that.
The Founding Fathers thought deeply about the judicial independence
from other branches, but they also believed deeply that the judges
should never be independent from the laws and the Constitution as
written, and I want to quote Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Thomas
Ritchie, ``A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a
good thing, but independence of the will of the Nation is a solecism,
at least in a republican government.''
The bottom line here is that I believe that many of the opponents of
Miguel Estrada are terrified of this man because he believes deeply
that the Founding Fathers wrote what they meant and meant what they
wrote. And I will share one more example of a judiciary. I am still
with the First Amendment. We will go through all of the amendments, if
my colleagues like, in terms of judicial excessiveness and lack of
willingness to stick to the text, but I already started with one
portion of the First Amendment, and I want to go to another, the
freedom of speech clause.
Liberal activists have argued, for example, that freedom of speech
protects Nazis that want to march through Skokie, Illinois, a place
that had many victims of the Holocaust reside there, and yet the
freedom of speech provision prohibits and the First Amendment prohibits
school children from singing Silent Night as part of a Christmas choir
play. I think that sort of overreaching is the kind of liberal activism
that the opponents of Miguel Estrada are insisting on as their litmus
test before they will support his or any other nomination.
Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I agree with the gentleman. The last thing we
need is more whacked-out judges from California, no offense to the good
judges there, but they seem to certainly have their quota of people who
say we cannot pledge allegiance under God, and it is really not, let us
keep public buildings religious-neutral.
What they want is religious free zones, and yet here we in Congress,
this very day as we will tomorrow, as we did yesterday, we started out
with a prayer. I am standing beneath the sign that says In God We
Trust. Our money says, In God We Trust, and yet these same judges would
have all that purged from the land because it is apparently harming
somebody somewhere somehow.
Mr. FEENEY. If my colleague will yield on that point, I just said
that the people that are criticizing Miguel Estrada, when they do not
even want to have a vote, they want to suggest we ought to have these
weird interpretations of the establishment clause, and yet the very
people that enacted this Constitution, in my hometown where I was born,
in Philadelphia, thanks to Ben Franklin, a great Philadelphian, who
said this at the Constitutional Convention when he suggested that they
ought to begin every day, as they put together the most wonderful
document that ever defined the relationship between free individuals
and their government, here is what he said as they suggested that they
start with prayer.
He said, How can it be, basically referring to Matthew, that a
sparrow cannot fall to the earth without God's watchful eye, and yet we
can create this document without his watchful assistance? I am
paraphrasing Mr. Franklin because, of course, we do not have the
specific records from that convention.
But the bottom line is that the people who put our Constitution
together do not want us here today, as they lie above us in heaven for
their great deeds, they do not want us to allow the legislative branch
to hijack the judicial branch and impose a litmus test that judges have
to ignore, the written words of either statutes or the Constitution.
We are doing our constitutional duty by speaking out, and I thank the
gentleman for the opportunity to be here.
Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I thank the gentleman and Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I do want to just
leave one thought here tonight, which is a sad thought because the
facts speak for themselves.
We are seeing what is going on with the nomination of Miguel Estrada
and the false accusations, baseless accusations, almost funny
accusations, that have been leveled against him. But what is really sad
to me is that while our friends, the partisans on the Democratic side,
claim to advocate for diversity, they fight to block the nomination of
a well-qualified Hispanic. While our friends, our partisan Democrats,
take credit all the time for helping the advancement of minorities to
high positions in government, they block the first Hispanic, I repeat,
the first Hispanic on the Nation's second highest court.
It is important to note, though, that a filibuster, a parliamentary
process to avoid the votes against Miguel Estrada is not only the
rejection of a highly qualified Hispanic, it is a rejection of
diversity. It is a very sad day, very sad day, for our country if this
stands. I am optimistic that it will not. I am hopeful that they will
dig deep in their souls and realize what they are doing.
[[Page H440]]
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pearce). Members should avoid any
improper references to Senate proceedings.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me give this quote from a member of
the other body. ``The country is at Orange Alert. People are
stockpiling water and duct tape.''
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman must refrain from that
quotation.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I can quote somebody without attributing
it to it, I thought. Point of clarification, excuse me.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may not quote the Senator by
name or otherwise.
Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will stand admonished.
Think about this. The country is at Orange Alert. People are very
concerned about what is going on in Washington, D.C. In the district
that I represent, we have 18,000 soldiers who are already in Kuwait in
the Middle East. We have thousands of wives and children and family
left behind. We have an economy where the interest rates are not
seeming to get the thing going. We have got a budget that is going to
be in deficit.
We have got problems, and yet there are those in the other body that
want to filibuster somebody who has graduated from Harvard magna cum
laude, who was rated by the American Bar Association as highly
qualified, and that is the priority during an Orange Alert, wartime, of
a bad economy?
I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), it
is a sad day, but I am hoping that we can get this thing turned around,
and I am hoping that people like the gentleman speaking out is going to
make a difference.
I wanted to, if the gentlemen have time, make a comment on a piece of
legislation we are going to be passing tomorrow in the House, and I
think it is very important, and I want their comments because when the
gentlemen were elected as freshmen in December, we were all up here
meeting them and one of their members said to me, I think it was the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), he said, Tell me, you have been in
Congress 10 years, what do you think the most important thing that you
have done is, what is the most significant piece of legislation?
It is a hard question. There are a lot of things that have gone on
that I voted for and I voted against and debated on and had the
privilege to debate on, and yet I said, probably welfare reform is the
most significant, the one that has affected the most lives in a very
positive sense.
In 1994, when so many of us got to Congress, there were 14 million
people on welfare; in 2001, 5 million. That is 5 million too many, and
yet the reality is, 9 million less people are on welfare. It appears to
be significant, the principles in our welfare reform package which we
will be voting on tomorrow, promoting work, improving child well-being,
promoting healthy marriages and strengthening families, fostering hope
and opportunity. Those are the principles behind welfare reform which
we have stuck to, and I think it is very important to keep these in
mind.
And, of course, none of this was easy.
The Democrat leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), in
1995 said, I hope children throughout this country never have to feel
the pain of this legislation. I hope it does not pass, and indeed, she
and so many others of the liberal welfare supporting establishment, the
status quo supporters, they fought against the legislation, and yet
here is a real case.
Tanya, a single mother, went on public assistance when her twin girls
were a year old, but since completing her program with CalWORKS, which
is a job training program, she completed it last year, Tanya has been
able to earn enough money to purchase her own home. Here is Tanya and
here are her two girls. I wonder if that is who the distinguished
Democrat leader was referring to, because they do not look like they
are miserable or in pain or unhappy. In fact, they are probably very
proud to have their own home.
I know the gentlemen, as members of the Florida legislature, were
involved in this, and they saw many successes from welfare reform on
the State level.
Mr. FEENEY. The gentleman from Georgia is so right. This is one of
the greatest success stories of my legislative career. I am sure my
colleague from south Florida will tell the gentleman the same thing.
Because of what the Congress did, we in the State of Florida were
able to enact reforms that actually took some 780,000 Floridians off
the welfare rolls, off of complete dependence on government and
basically created opportunities and freedom and work and jobs for them.
And we now are down to less than 150,000, almost a 75 percent
reduction. We are so terribly proud of that.
As the gentleman knows, the old system of welfare was set up by
compassionate people, by people with big hearts, but what they really
did not realize is what the effect of the system that they built
actually had on individual decision-making. Because as the gentleman
from Georgia knows, poor people are not dumb. They respond to the same
incentives as the rest of us.
If we look at the old welfare state in America, what it told,
particularly and primarily young women with children, what it told them
was this, look at it like a contract lawyer would look at it. It said,
we will give you free gifts from government. We will give you AFDC
checks, housing assistance, food stamps. We will give you health care
for your children, some 72 other entitlement programs that you may be
eligible for. But in order to get these free gifts for taxpayers, you
have got to promise us a couple of simple things.
Number one, promise that you will not get married to anybody who is
working because if you do, we will take all of your health care for
your children away; we will take your AFDC checks, your food stamps.
All these other benefits will disappear.
Number two, you have to promise us that you will not go to work
yourself, because if you go to work, we will take away your health care
benefits for your children; we will take away your food stamps, your
AFDC checks, your housing assistance.
The third thing that this contract wants you to know is that if you
have additional children while you are stuck in the system, we will
give you bonuses.
Poor people are not dumb, my colleague knows that. They responded to
the incentives we set up.
So we took advantage of the opportunities provided by the great
leadership here in the Capitol, allowing the States, under the 10th
amendment and principles of Federalism, to try to solve our welfare
mess, and what we have done is this. We have gone from 750,000
Floridians stuck on this horrible system of perverse incentives that
got them into a trap that they just could not crawl out of, and we have
gotten them into free opportunities.
Let me tell my colleagues who the beneficiaries are of this, if I may
as I close, on how grateful I am that you gave Florida the opportunity
while I was there and while my colleague from south Florida was there.
Taxpayers are huge beneficiaries because they do not have to support
people that are out there successfully working in their environment.
Families are beneficiaries because many men actually are no longer the
enemy of people that need help. We have designed a system that can
reunite the mom and dad. That is great for the entire family. It is
especially great for the mom and the dad that can spend time together
and the children that can have the benefits of a two-parent family,
which we know is so important.
{time} 1945
Third is the huge benefits to single moms, who now get up at a
certain time, get cleaned up, get showered, get off to a job where they
are contributing members of society and taxpayers. They do not have to
feel like they are enslaved by a system they cannot get out of. Those
are all beneficiaries.
But the most important benefits I would suggest we have not even seen
yet. Because we have a whole generation of young children in Florida
and throughout the country that are growing up not watching their role
model or their main parent watching TV all day or engaging in some more
pernicious behavior, such as drugs, prostitution or black-marketing.
They are watching the people that are raising them get into the work
system, be part of the
[[Page H441]]
American Dream, pay taxes, and be contributing members of society. I
believe that there is a long-term dividend in the psychology and the
culture of young children thanks to what we accomplished on welfare
reform.
I am so honored to be here now as we work hard to reenact this
liberating bill, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments,
and I now yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that
my dear friend and colleague, the honorable gentleman from Florida,
central Florida, and, if I may add, a wonderful part of the State, that
is a free plug while I can, stated something that is very true. The
poor who are stuck in this cycle of dependence to this horrendous
system that we had before, the old welfare system, did not want to be
that way. We have to be very clear about this. Poor people that were on
welfare did not want to be dependent on government.
Unlike what some would like to believe, that these are people that
did not want to work, that were just there because that was their
choice, that was their number one choice, no, these are good people.
These were people that wanted to work, but all they needed was an
opportunity; and yet they were stuck in this system that forced them to
stay in that system. They could not save money to buy a piece of
property because they would lose their benefits. So, therefore, they
had to stay in the system. That is the cruelty of this sad joke that
was the old welfare system. And the people that really hurt, yes, the
taxpayers had to pay a lot of money for this broken system, but the
people that were really hurt were those that were forced into the cycle
of dependence, dependence on government.
So now, where are those people? Where are they? Millions of them,
millions of Americans, are now working. They are earning a living in
the free marketplace. It is not easy; it is tough. Hey, life is
difficult. They have got to work hard. We know that. But they are
working hard, and they are proud of it. They are paying taxes and they
are leading by example. So, yes, this is wonderful for the taxpayers,
but let me just say that it was even more wonderful for those millions
of Americans that were finally allowed to break out of this vicious
cycle of dependence and of poverty. That is the untold story, I think,
in this wonderful experiment that was called welfare reform, that I
think worked better than any of us ever suspected.
We knew that the system was broken. In Florida, we knew that the old
system was broken. I did not expect the results to be so dramatic, so
unbelievably dramatic. Imagine if in the rest of government we could
get increased performance by 75 percent, or close to 75 percent, as we
did in Florida of people getting off welfare and getting to work. That
would be a miracle in government. We would all be ecstatic. That
happened in welfare reform. And the true recipients of this wonderful
experiment, the ones that broke out of the cycle of poverty, are those
poor people, poor decent Americans that for a generation were told that
they would always be there.
My colleagues may well recall the naysayers. The gentleman just
pointed out a couple of those naysayers, saying this is going to
destroy the country; that it was going to destroy the poor people. No,
it helped more than anybody else those poor people who are now working,
earning a living, and are a part of the American Dream. It helped the
taxpayers by giving them a little bit of relief, and it was a wonderful
thing for the country.
And as my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), just
said a little while ago, I am so proud first to have been a part of it
in Florida when the United States Congress and the leadership of the
United States Congress gave our State the opportunity to participate
and break the dependence on government and that cycle of poverty for
millions of people, hundreds of thousands of people in the State of
Florida. I am also so proud to now be here; and, hopefully, we will be
a small part in making sure that this wonderful reform moves forward so
that we can continue to help those that are truly needy; those that
really need the help; and, yes, also create a system that breaks that
cycle of dependency and of poverty.
Mr. KINGSTON. Well, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman spoke of naysayers.
Here is what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) said, who is the
ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means, a distinguished man,
but clearly wrong on this: ``The only losers we have now are the
kids.''
And yet here is another face of poverty, another success story: Mr.
Bruce Mullins lost his home and entered the Welfare to Work program in
September 1998. He now has a life of joy and promise for himself and
his two children. Here is a picture of Mr. Mullins and his kids, and
they do not look like losers. They look very happy.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a friend of mine, as they
all are, but friends can be wrong, in 1996 said, ``I am saddened that
today it seems clear that this House will abdicate its moral duty and
knowingly vote to let children go hungry in America.'' Pretty harsh
words. Pretty wild predictions.
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for just a
second. Sadly, the truth of the matter is we have been told by our
Surgeon General and other experts that the biggest problem children
have in America today is not hunger but obesity. After 6 or 7 years of
welfare reform, we need to get back to exercising, working out, and
into good nutrition. But certainly hunger is not the major problem we
have with today's youth after 6 years of welfare reform.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, here are some interesting statistics: 3.6
million fewer Americans live in poverty today than they did in 1996;
2.7 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1996,
including 1 million African American children. These are statistics,
incidentally, by the U.S. Census Bureau, not by the Republican Party or
the committees in charge; but these are stats that I think people in
the honest spirit of debate need to talk about.
I think it is good to have criticism and opposition on legislation,
because I would think that it makes the legislation better. We should
bring our ideas to Washington. Both of my colleagues are from Florida
and have served in the State legislature together, but one is from
south Florida and the other from central Florida. When I served in
Georgia, I was from south Georgia, or coastal Georgia, which I still
am, but when we come up here we are taking on a bigger role. We bring
our ideas, be it from south or central Florida or coastal Georgia, we
bring them up here and, if they are so good, doggone it, we ought to be
able to get 218 people to agree with us. And if they are not founded in
substance and fact, probably we are not going to get that to happen.
So I think criticism is good, but I think it has to be founded on
facts; and that is one of the things we do not have around here.
Mr. Speaker, we are running short on time, but I know we have a few
minutes, and certainly if the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-
Balart) wanted to add a few comments.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank
my dear friend, the honorable gentleman from Georgia, for this
opportunity.
I do want to end just again reminding all my friends and all our
friends in this august Chamber and also the Chamber next door that we
have a historic opportunity, a historic opportunity to pass welfare
reform in order to continue the gains that we have made in the past. We
also have a historic opportunity to do something that has never
happened, which is to have the first Hispanic in the D.C. Court of
Appeals. It would be a wonderful thing for all Hispanics, but more
importantly it would be a wonderful thing for the entire country, a
beautiful sign that diversity is acceptable and accepted.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank both gentlemen from Florida, and I
appreciate their time this evening.
____________________