[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.

                          ____________________