[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 25, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2643-S2646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              The Economy

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to discuss for a few 
minutes with the Senate, and those who are interested in what we are 
doing here, first, the issue of the American economy and what we ought 
to be doing about it because the other side of the aisle--the 
Democratic leadership in the Senate--has decided that they are not 
going to permit us to vote on a most eminently qualified nominee, whose 
qualifications I will discuss shortly.
  They come to the floor and discuss an issue--to wit, the American 
economy and the plight of the American worker--as if they can do 
something about that problem, as if they have a solution to the 
economic woes in this country, as if they could do something in the 
Senate that would help the working people.

  They have no plan. The plans they have submitted are, according to 
most economists, far inferior to the only plan we have, and that is the 
plan of the President of the United States.
  Nobody should be fooled by this discussion. We can take to the floor 
for the next 5 weeks and have speeches by the other side of the aisle 
claiming that they are concerned about the working people, that we have 
problems in the economy, but none of that will do anything to help the 
American people. If we know how to help them, we have to do something. 
And to do something, we have to act in the Senate and the House or the 
President has to act. As a matter of fact, the Budget Committee, which 
is currently chaired by the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. 
Nickles, which I used to chair, and which 3 years ago was chaired by a 
Democrat because they were in control, has to produce a budget before 
we can do anything.
  So in response to all the rhetoric, we can take no action until we 
have a

[[Page S2644]]

budget that lays forth what we will do, when we will do it, and how we 
will do it.
  I submit that the chairman of the Budget Committee this year will 
produce a budget on time. It will come to the floor on time. I predict 
it will be passed on time, as compared with last year when the other 
side of the aisle was in charge of the budget. They produced no budget. 
They came to the floor and said: We can't produce it because it is too 
hard and we don't have the votes. So we did nothing. Isn't that 
spectacular, that the leadership on that side of the aisle, the last 
time they were charged with doing something for the American people 
with a budget, punted? They punted. They had no plan. They produced 
none.
  Today, when we have a bona fide issue that we can do something 
about--that is, appoint a circuit court judge who is qualified--they 
have the effrontery to come to the floor and engage in a discussion as 
if a discussion about the plight of the American worker would solve the 
problems of the American worker. What will their discussions do for the 
American worker? Do they have some grand plan they want to come down 
here and talk about? They have been doing it in spite of whatever the 
debate is. They have been talking about whatever plan they had. I have 
not seen it foment any great enthusiasm on the part of those who are 
worried about the American economy, unless it is themselves talking to 
themselves. I have heard no great group of American economists saying: 
Boy, they have a great plan to help the American workers. Quite to the 
contrary.
  There is only one plan around that has significant support. And if 
they want to change it, they will have their opportunity. But it will 
not get changed with speeches. It will get changed when the bills come 
to the floor. They will be here in due course. As a matter of fact, 
they will be here faster than they ever got here when the Democrats 
were in control.
  We have a commitment from the chairman of the Budget Committee that 
it will be here on time and that it will be a plan that will be voted 
on by that committee and presented to us so we can vote on it on behalf 
of the American people. That side will have their chance to amend it, 
if they can. That is what we are going to do. We are going to start 
that and then move it right along. We will move it more expeditiously 
than it has ever been moved before because we have the will, we have 
the leadership in the White House, and we understand that we have 
to produce a budget resolution with the requisite mandates to the 
committees of the Senate to reduce taxes in whatever way we 
collectively want, be it the President's wishes or some other plan. But 
we have to do it--not speeches, not coming down here and creating 
something sort of a let's have another showdown here on the floor, 
let's talk about the economy because we don't want the Senate to vote 
on the issue that is justifiably before us--to wit, whether or not 
Miguel Estrada is entitled to have a vote.

  I thought it might be interesting to look at a few comparisons. I 
took some of these judges who sit on the DC Circuit. Let's see how they 
compare with the nominee and what happened to them as they came before 
the Senate.
  We have Karen Henderson, appointed by George Bush; we have Justice 
Rogers and David Tatel; then we have Miguel Estrada. Let's look at a 
comparison. These judges are there on the bench, they were appointed 
and confirmed. Here is one from Duke University, Judge Henderson, who 
attended the University of North Carolina Law School. It is 
interesting, as far as other things are concerned that those candidates 
did to prepare them to sit on the bench, such as Circuit Court 
clerkships, Supreme Court clerkships, and Federal Government service. 
Look, these others had none. Yet, they were deemed to have had adequate 
experience to go on the bench. And Miguel Estrada is not.
  Look at what he has done compared to them. Just look at the list. 
Obviously, he graduated from a comparably good law school. His is 
Harvard. One of theirs was Chicago. One of theirs was Harvard. One was 
North Carolina. And then look at all the other things he has done. Yet 
they say he is unqualified. But these two--these three get appointed. 
They are serving, and they are apparently qualified.
  Look at the really important issue. Look at how long it took this 
judge from the time her name was submitted to take her seat on the 
bench--51 days. No aspersions on this judge. She must be great. She got 
there in 51 days. But she had none of the experience Miguel Estrada 
had. She graduated from a good law school, certainly. And she went to 
an undergraduate school, got a degree at Duke, a great university.
  But how about experience, the experience of being part of the 
Attorney General's Office of the United States, which this candidate 
did under a Democrat and a Republican, a circuit court clerkship, 
Supreme Court clerkship? They had none of that, and look at how quickly 
they got appointed: 51 days, 113 days, 108 days. Look at Miguel 
Estrada: 650 days and counting since he was recommended until today 
while they continue to say: No vote.
  Again, we have a lot of time in the Senate. So the Democrats can come 
down here this afternoon, and nobody is going to keep them from 
debating the economy. If they want to equate a debate in the Chamber of 
the Senate about the economy and call it 2 million to 1, or whatever 
words they were using, let them have it. It doesn't do anything to help 
the American people and the working man. What it does is detract from 
the fact that they want to change the precedent of this institution.
  I am hopeful that before we are finished, good leaders on that side 
of the aisle, including the distinguished minority leader, will 
exercise some common sense about the future of the Senate and the 
appointment of Federal judges. The future of this institution as an 
institution that is supposed to look at the Presidential nominees and 
work with Presidents and then indicate whether we want to approve them 
or not is in real jeopardy because they are about to say that from this 
day forward, because of their stubbornness about this nominee, they are 
going to change the rules so that judges will need 60 votes, not the 
majority rule that we thought existed.
  I will not yield to my good friend. I see him standing out of the 
corner of my eye, and I will save his words. Please understand, I will 
yield soon.
  So what they would like to do is to change from 51 votes being 
necessary to approve judges of the United States under our 
Constitution--because of what I perceive as nothing more than an 
unfounded fear--and you know, their fear is not the one that has been 
expressed. Their fear is that this young man will be a great judge and, 
besides that, he is Hispanic, whether you want to argue, as some would, 
that a Honduran who is Hispanic is not Hispanic, which is a most 
incredible argument. If we were to start that across America when we 
are talking about Hispanics, we are going to have to decide which one 
is Hispanic, and if a Honduran with his family name is not one, as some 
would say on that side of the aisle, that is pure, absolute lunacy.
  So they are going to say we don't want him there, but it is not 
because they fear him as a circuit court judge. They fear him because 
he is then, if he sits on the circuit court, a legitimate, potential 
U.S. Supreme Court member. We have not had one who is Hispanic. They 
are frightened to death. While all of their fear is illegitimate, some 
of it is selfish fear because they think their party should be the one 
that nominates a Hispanic who would be on the U.S. Supreme Court. They 
think that because Hispanics are predominantly members of the 
Democratic Party, they should be the party that puts into position a 
Hispanic who might go to the highest bench in the country.
  I believe that is a terrific burden to place on this young man, who 
at this early age has accomplished more, by way of experience, legal 
accomplishments, and academic accomplishments, than any of the members 
sitting on the circuit court today.
  I finished talking about those judges who were far less experienced 
and how long it took them to become judges. Now I will take these 
judges who have comparable experience to Miguel Estrada. I find that by 
looking in the records and seeing what they did. In addition to the law 
schools and undergraduate, it looks like circuit court clerkships, 
looks like Supreme Court

[[Page S2645]]

clerkship, looks like Federal Government service are pretty much 
equivalent to what Miguel Estrada has. Look here, it took only 15 days 
from the time of nomination to confirmation. Raymond Randolph, 
appointed by George Bush, attended Drexel University; graduated from 
Pennsylvania Law School, summa cum laude, much like Miguel Estrada; who 
was a circuit court clerk for a Second Circuit Judge; Assistant 
Solicitor General and Deputy Solicitor General. That is much like 
Miguel Estrada. It took 66 days from nomination to vote. A comparably 
equipped nominee, it took 66 days.
  Another one is Merrick Garland, appointed by President Clinton, 
graduate of Harvard, summa cum laude; Harvard Law School, circuit court 
clerk, special assistant--very much the same as Miguel. That took only 
71 days. Isn't that amazing? Very comparable credentials. This man has 
been waiting 650 days--Miguel Estrada--and it is continuing day by day.
  I don't get a chance to come down here as frequently as some, 
although Senator Nickles and I agreed many months ago that we would be 
special friends to Miguel Estrada and help him as he moved through 
here. He has so many helpers in a job that is very simple. Senator 
Nickles spoke yesterday and he referred to that special kinship. I 
haven't been here as often as some but I have heard some very good 
speeches. I heard some very good efforts on the part of the other side 
of the aisle to justify the delays that are taking place. Some have 
wondered whether it does any good for Republicans to insist that this 
man be given an up-or-down vote, and that whatever is occurring on the 
other side of the aisle--I have given you four or five reasons it may 
be occurring--but I suggest our effort is doing some good.

  I will tell you that in my State three newspapers over the weekend 
announced in open and bold editorials that the Democrats should stop 
the filibuster, retreat from it, and get on with the vote. One of them 
is a newspaper known as the Santa Fe New Mexican. Obviously, those who 
know our State know that this paper--a very old newspaper--is certainly 
not a conservative newspaper. They say in their editorial--the lead 
words are--Bingaman--meaning our Senator--``Bingaman should lead the 
Dems' filibuster retreat.'' They have a very lengthy discussion of why 
my colleague, the junior Senator from New Mexico, should lead the 
Democrat retreat from the filibuster that is working its way on the 
Democrat side. I ask that the editorial be printed in the Record.

             [From the Santa Fe New Mexican, Feb. 24, 2003]

             Bingaman Should Lead Dems' Filibuster Retreat

       As legendary prizefighter Joe Louis said of an upcoming 
     opponent reputed to be fast on his feet: ``He can run, but he 
     can't hide.''
       Senate Democrats, along with the Republican majority, fled 
     Washington last week as their way of honoring Presidents' 
     Day. The annual recess suspended their filibuster against a 
     federal judgeship vote. The Dems are making an unwarranted 
     stand, and an unseemly fuss, over the nomination of Miguel 
     Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
       The filibuster--protracted talking under senatorial 
     privilege--had consumed a week of debate about Estrada before 
     the senators left town. Now they're gravitating back to the 
     Potomac, and the Dems can hide no longer. Resumption of their 
     verbose balking will make them look ridiculous--at a time 
     when the nation needs statesmen to stand up against the White 
     House warmonger and his partisans commanding Capitol Hill.
       The Democrats have chosen a particularly poor target: 
     Estrada, who came from Honduras as a boy and went on to lead 
     his law class at Harvard, is better qualified than many a 
     Democratic appointee now holding life tenure on one federal 
     bench or another.
       But after confirming so many less-qualified judges while 
     they held power, Estrada's senatorial tormentors now offer 
     ``reasons'' why he shouldn't be confirmed; too young; too 
     bashful about answering leading questions; appointed only 
     because he's Hispanic--or, to some senators' way of thinking, 
     not Hispanic enough.
       What really rankles with the Democrats, though, is 
     Estrada's politics. He's a conservative. Surprise, surprise; 
     we've got a conservative president, and it's the president 
     who makes the appointments to the federal judiciary.
       As the party on the outs, the Dems had better get used to 
     like-minded appointments from the president. If their game-
     playing goes on, a disgusted American public might keep 
     George W. Bush in office for the next six years. The country 
     certainly didn't see any reason to balance Bush against a 
     Democratic Congress when it had a chance just a few months 
     ago. With their spiteful behavior toward Bush appointees, the 
     Dems aren't exactly gaining goodwill.
       If they find the Republican so repugnant, let 'em vote 
     against him; at least they'll be putting their ideals--or 
     their party colors--on display. But this is no Mr. Smith 
     against some diabolical establishment; it's a bunch of sore 
     losers making themselves even more so.
       To break a filibuster by cloture takes 60 senators. The 
     Senate's 51 Republicans need nine of the 48 Democrats, or 
     eight of them and ex-Republican Jim Jeffords of Vermont.
       New Mexico's Jeff Bingaman should lead the Democratic 
     blockade-runners. By all measures, Bingaman is a class act; a 
     lawyer who knows that senators have no business obstructing 
     appointments on purely political grounds. He also knows that 
     Republicans aren't going to hold the White House forever; 
     that sooner or later a Democratic president will be choosing 
     judges. And he realizes that Republicans, like their mascot, 
     have long memories.
       The last thing our justice system needs is an ongoing feud 
     over appointments to district and appellate judgeships. Let 
     Judge Estrada's confirmation be a landmark of partisan 
     politics' retreat from the courtroom.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have a rather active University of 
New Mexico newspaper. It is named the Daily Lobo, after the athletic 
team. They have a columnist there, Scott Darnell, who wrote:

       Miguel Estrada isn't probably someone with an immense 
     amount of name recognition--yet.

  That is this University of New Mexico editorial comment. Then they 
proceed to quote the distinguished Democratic Senators who have in the 
past stated that we should not filibuster Federal judge appointments. 
They cite Ted Kennedy, our distinguished Senate colleague, and Patrick 
Leahy, our distinguished colleague, and they quote from them as to why 
we should not use a filibuster when it comes to the appointment of 
judges.
  Of course, the editorial asks, Why now? The editorial proceeds to 
talk about this young judge and his great qualifications. It indicates 
that we should not make this mistake in changing what we have been 
doing for so many years and create a 60-vote requirement for a 
judgeship.
  Then the third article is from the largest newspaper in the State--
the Albuquerque Journal. They have a very lengthy editorial piece. The 
headline is ``End Filibuster, Put Court Nominee to Vote.'' That is the 
daily Albuquerque newspaper. They merely conclude that the time has 
come. That is from my home State. I suggest when you put the three 
together, they have gotten the message very well. They have heard both 
sides. They quote arguments made on the other side and find them 
without merit, and they proceed to indicate that, without question, the 
time has come to have a vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that those two articles be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Albuquerque Journal, Feb. 24, 2003]

               End Filibuster, Put Court Nominee to Vote

       What the Colt revolver was on the dusty streets of the Old 
     West, the filibuster is on the floor of the U.S. Senate: The 
     great equalizer gives 41 senators the ability to bring the 
     chamber's business to a halt.
       The tactic should be unholstered only on issues of high 
     principle or grave importance. Considering the issues 
     currently confronting Washington, the judicial nomination of 
     Miguel Estrada does not rise above partisan wrangling. To 
     block a vote on his appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals 
     for the District of Columbia Circuit is an abuse of the 
     filibuster.
       Democrats say the filibuster is justified because too 
     little is known about Estrada and he has not been forthcoming 
     about his judicial philosophy.
       New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman said Friday he has not made 
     up his mind about backing continuation of the delay tactic, 
     and echoed the Democratic indictment of the Honduran 
     immigrant as a stealth conservative.
       ``Obviously, you become suspicious of a person's point of 
     view if he won't answer questions,'' Bingaman said.
       Let's get on past mere suspicions of Democrats and declare 
     guilt by association. Estrada is the choice of President 
     Bush. His views doubtlessly come closer to mirroring Bush's 
     than those of left-leaning Democrats or those of Clinton's 
     judicial nominees.
       Feminist Majority president Eleanor Smeal, for one, doesn't 
     need any more information about Estrada to know that in 
     blocking him, ``the Democrat leadership is giving voice to 
     its massive base of labor, civil rights, women's rights, 
     disability rights, environmental, gay and lesbian rights 
     groups.''

[[Page S2646]]

       Oh, then this is about constituent politics.
       There's another constituent-oriented facet: Miguel Estrada 
     is a successful immigrant, current front-runner to become the 
     first Hispanic Supreme Court justice and an obvious role 
     model--in short, a poster boy for Republican recruitment of 
     minorities away from the one, true political faith.
       This isn't about suspicions; Estrada is Democrats' worst 
     nightmare from a partisan perspective.
       From a personal perspective, Democrats who have worked with 
     him in the Clinton administration have high praise. Seth 
     Waxman, Clinton's solicitor general, called Estrada a ``model 
     of professionalism.'' Former Vice President Al Gore's top 
     legal adviser, Ron Klain, said Estrada is ``genuinely 
     compassionate. Miguel is a person of outstanding character 
     (and) tremendous intellect.''
       During Judiciary Committee hearings in September, Estrada 
     said: ``although we all have views on a number of subjects 
     from A to Z, the first duty of a judge is to a put all that 
     aside.''
       That's good advice for a judge, and it's good advice for 
     senators sitting in judgment of a nominee. Put aside pure 
     partisan considerations; weight Estrada's qualifications, 
     character and intellect; end the filibuster and put this 
     nomination to a vote.
                                  ____


                  [From the Daily Lobo, Feb. 24, 2003]

                     Estrada Naysayers Hypocritical

                           (By Scott Darnell)

       Miguel Estrada isn't probably someone with an immense 
     amount of name recognition--yet.
       President Bush appointed him to an open seat on the U.S. 
     Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit on May 9, 
     2001; he immigrated to the United States from Honduras when 
     he was 15 years old, graduated from Harvard Law School magna 
     cum laude in 1986, has been a clerk for a Supreme Court 
     justice, an assistant U.S. attorney and the assistant 
     solicitor general, among other stints in private practice. He 
     is supported by many national organizations, including the 
     Hispanic Business Council, the Heritage Foundation, the 
     Washington Legal Foundation and the Hispanic Business 
     Roundtable.
       Unfortunately, Estrada's confirmation has been delayed and 
     prevented by many Democrats within the Senate, an action 
     fueled by many leftist groups, organizations and lobbyists in 
     America. Currently, Senate Democrats are planning to, or may 
     actually be carrying out, an intense filibuster against 
     Estrada's nomination; filibustering, or taking an issue to 
     death, is definitely a method for lawmakers to prevent a 
     policy or other initiative from ever coming to fruition--
     ending a filibuster is difficult, especially in our closely 
     divided Senate, taking a whopping 60 votes.
       The most unfortunate part of the Senate Democrats' 
     obstruction on Capitol Hill lies in the fact that many high-
     ranking Senate Democrats have at one time condemned 
     nomination filibusters quite harshly, leaving their intense 
     efforts to carry out a filibuster today very hypocritical. 
     For example, Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the 
     Judiciary Committee, said, from Congressional Record in 1998, 
     that ``I have stated over and over again . . . that I would 
     object and fight any filibuster on a judge, whether it is 
     somebody I opposed or supported.''
       Sen. Ted Kennedy said, from Congressional Record in 1995, 
     that, ``Senators who feel strongly about the issue of 
     fairness should vote for cloture, even if they intend to vote 
     against the nomination itself. It is wrong to filibuster this 
     nomination, and Senators who believe in fairness will not let 
     a minority of the Senate deny [the nominee] his vote by the 
     entire Senate.''
       Finally, Sen. Barbara Boxer, from California said, 
     from Congressional Record in 1995, that, ``The nominee 
     deserves his day, and filibustering this nomination is 
     keeping him form his day.''
       It seems people can change quite a bit in only a matter of 
     years.
       But why are Senate Democrats and many leftist organizations 
     so dead set against Estrada's nomination? The obvious answer 
     lies in the fact that the court he is being nominated to is 
     considered the second-highest court in the nation and often 
     times though of as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court.
       Secondly, Senate Democrats and organizations such as the 
     NAACP or the AFL-CIO recognize Estrada's ethnicity--they 
     recognize his heritage and the future he is making for 
     himself--but let's face it, he's just the wrong type of 
     minority. He's Hispanic and these politicians and 
     organizations are all for the pro-active advancement of 
     Hispanics, just not his type of Hispanic. The National 
     Association for the Advancement of Colored People is now 
     going to read ``The National Association for the Advancement 
     of Colored People Who Believe in ONLY Leftist Principles and 
     Ideology.''
       Miguel Estrada will not, while in whatever courtroom he may 
     preside over, pander to the interests of those who wish to 
     establish and ingrain a persistent racial inequality in 
     America, those who do not now carry out the legacies of past 
     civil rights leaders, but instead bastardize those past 
     efforts by forcing racial tension upon Americans to keep 
     society at their beck and call while gaining personal 
     notoriety, prestige and wealth.
       If the Senate Democrats try to filibuster Estrada's 
     nomination, they will be holding back debate and action on 
     the immediate national and foreign issues affecting this 
     country, such as creating and passing the appropriate 
     economic stimulus package, among other important topics.
       If the Senate feels that Estrada has committed a criminal 
     or moral transgression at some point in his life that would 
     injure the integrity and standing of his service as justice 
     of one of our nation's highest courts, they should provide 
     sufficient evidence to that end and take whatever measures 
     necessary to disallow a moral or actual criminal from taking 
     the bench. But, in this case, no such criminal or moral 
     transgression can be seen, and the argument against his 
     nomination is purely idealogical; a filibuster would 
     represent a blatant obstruction of our political system and a 
     disservice to the American people. So, as Democratic Sen. 
     Barbara Boxer put it so succinctly a few years ago, ``Let the 
     nominee have his day.''

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I repeat, it is one thing to delay; it 
is another thing to talk a lot; and it is yet another thing to attempt 
to get the issue that is before us and find a way around it and cloud 
the issue. That is all that is happening this morning with the 
discussion by the Democratic leadership, joined by certain Democratic 
Senators, when they argue that Republicans, by insisting that we vote 
on this nominee, are in some way failing to do justice to the economic 
problems that exist in our country.
  I hope it doesn't take a lot more discussion for people to understand 
that is absolutely an untruth. It is an absolutely irrelevant argument. 
They can talk all they like about the economy and quit talking about 
Miguel Estrada and not one single thing will happen to benefit the 
American workers, not one thing.
  We need to do something, and what we must do is decide whether we 
want the President's plan or some modification of it. The only way we 
can do that is to move with dispatch on the issues before us, those 
issues, in the way prescribed under our rules. There is no one 
suggesting we should throw away our rules and pass a plan tomorrow 
morning. Nobody is suggesting we do that.
  In due course, in the matter of only a few weeks, we will be voting 
on whose plan should be adopted to help the American economy move 
forward.
  I submit that the facts are overwhelming that the arguments against 
Miguel Estrada are not justified. Those arguments do not justify these 
delays.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________