[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.
____________________