[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 32 (Thursday, February 27, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2893-S2903]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Homeland Security

  Mrs. CLINTON. Now, Mr. President, on another issue that is of deep 
concern to me, I come also to raise questions about our commitment to 
homeland security. This is something I have come to this Chamber to 
address on numerous occasions, starting in those terrible days after 
September 11, 2001. And it is an issue I will continue to address in 
every forum and venue that I possibly can find because, unfortunately, 
I do not believe we have done enough to protect ourselves here at home.
  On February 3, Mitch Daniels, the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, said:

       There is not enough money in the galaxy to protect every 
     square inch of America and every American against every 
     conceived threat.

  This statement bothered me at the time. It has continued to bother 
me. I suppose, on the face of it, it is an accurate statement. Not only 
isn't there enough money in the United States, the world, or the galaxy 
to protect every square inch, but what kind of country would we have if 
we were trying to protect every square inch? That would raise all sorts 
of issues that might possibly change the character and quality of life 
here in America.
  But I do not think that is what really motivated the statement. The 
statement was a kind of excuse, if you will, as to why this 
administration has consistently failed to provide even the rudimentary 
funding that we have needed for our first responders and to deal with 
national security vulnerabilities.
  We have learned, in the last few months, that threats do exist all 
over our country. It is not just New York City or Washington, DC, that 
suffered on September 11. We know that in the months since then, we 
have seen many other parts of our country respond to alerts--our latest 
orange alert--which have required huge expenditures of resources in 
order to protect local water supplies, bridges, chemical plants, 
nuclear powerplants, to do all that is necessary to know that we have 
done the best we can.
  Life is not certain. There is no way any of us knows where we will be 
in an hour or in a day or in a year. But what we try to do is to plan 
for the worst, against contingencies that might undermine our safety. 
And then we have to just hope and trust and have faith that we have 
done enough. But if we do not try, if we do not make the commitment, if 
we do not provide the resources, then we have essentially just put up 
our hands and surrendered to what did not have to be the inevitable.
  When I heard Mr. Daniels make that comment, I thought to myself, if 
you had made a list of every community in America that might possibly 
be a site for an al-Qaida terrorist cell, I am not sure that 
Lackawanna, NY, would have made that list. It is a small community 
outside of Buffalo where the FBI, in cooperation with local law 
enforcement, uncovered such a cell of people who had gone to Bin 
Laden's training camps in Afghanistan and then come back home, most 
likely what is called a sleeper cell. Their leader was in Yemen where 
one of our predator aircraft found him and took action against him and 
his compatriots who are part of the al-Qaida terrorist campaign against 
us. If we were just thinking, where should we put money to protect 
ourselves, I am not sure Lackawanna, NY, would have been on that list. 
Yet we have reason to believe it should be on any list anywhere. Just 
yesterday four men in Syracuse, NY, were accused of sending millions of 
dollars to Saddam Hussein.
  I don't know that we can sit here in Washington and say: Well, we 
can't possibly protect everybody so we shouldn't protect anybody. But 
that seems to be the attitude of this administration. That is what 
concerns me most. We should be doing everything we possibly can to make 
our country safer. We should be thinking 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 
about new steps, smart steps that we should be taking. Why? Because 
that is what our enemies do when they think about how to attack us. If 
somebody is on CNN or the Internet, it doesn't stop at our borders. 
That is viewed and analyzed in places all over the world. We know that 
they are working as hard as they possibly can to do as much harm to us 
and our way of life as they possibly can.
  Since September 11, our first responders, our mayors, police and fire 
chiefs have said over and over again they need Federal support so they 
can do their jobs to protect the American people. During this recent 
code orange alert, they have done a remarkable job. They have responded 
to their new responsibility as this country's frontline soldiers in the 
war against terrorism with grace, honor, and a dedication that 
Washington should emulate.
  We have had the opportunity to do so. We could have already had in 
the pipeline and delivered more dollars to pay for needed training, 
personnel, overtime costs, equipment, whatever it took as determined by 
local communities that they require to do the job we expect them to do. 
But every time the Senate has tried to do more for our first 
responders, the administration and some in Congress have said we should 
do less.
  Senator Byrd stood right over there last summer and offered an 
amendment, which the Senate supported, that would have provided more 
than $5.1 billion in homeland security funding. It included $585 
million for port security; $150 million to purchase interoperable radio 
so that police, firefighters and emergency service workers can 
communicate effectively, a problem we found out tragically interfered 
with communication on September 11 in New York City; another $83 
million to protect our borders. But in each case, despite having passed 
it in the Senate, the administration and Republican leaders settled for 
far less. They called such spending ``unnecessary.'' In some cases, 
such as the funding for interoperable radios, not only did we not get 
the increase to buy this critical equipment, the funding was cut by $66 
million.
  It was during that debate that we needed the administration's 
support. But instead, they opposed such efforts,

[[Page S2894]]

and the President himself refused to designate $5.1 billion last August 
as an emergency to do the kinds of things that mayors and police chiefs 
and fire chiefs and others have been telling me and my colleagues they 
desperately need help doing.

  The paper today says the President acknowledges we need to do more. I 
welcome that acknowledgment. But I have learned that we have to wait to 
see whether the actions match the words. We have to make sure this new 
awareness about having shortchanged homeland security doesn't translate 
into taking money away from the functions that firefighters and police 
officers are called upon to do every day, transferring it across the 
government ledger, relabeling it counterterrorism, and wiping our hands 
of it and saying: We did it.
  That just doesn't add up. That is what they tried to do for the last 
year, take money away from the so-called COPS program, which put police 
on the beat onto our streets, which helped to lower the crime rate 
during the 1990s, taking money away from the grants that go to fire 
departments to be well prepared to get those hazardous materials, 
equipment, and suits that will protect them and claiming that we take 
that money away, we put it over here, and we say we have done our job. 
That is just not an appropriate, fairminded response.
  We cannot undo the past, but every day we don't plan for the future 
is a lost day. I don't ever want to have a debate in the Senate about 
what we should have done or we could have done or we would have done to 
protect ourselves, if only we had taken as seriously our commitment to 
homeland security as the administration takes our commitment to 
national security.
  Last month I issued a report about how 70 percent of the cities and 
counties in New York are not receiving any Federal homeland security 
funding. I commissioned this study because I wanted to know for myself 
whether maybe some money had trickled down into their coffers that I 
was not aware of. Well, 70 percent say they had gotten nothing; 30 
percent say they had gotten a little bit of the bioterrorism money that 
we had appropriated. But then I also asked them, how much did they need 
and what did they need it for and how did they justify their needs. And 
I must say, most of the requests were very well thought out, prudent 
requests for help that in this time of falling revenues and budget 
crunches, city and county governments just cannot do themselves.
  When that orange alert went out a week or so ago, what happened? I 
know in New York City, if you were there, you would have seen an 
intense police presence because our commissioner of police, our mayor, 
knew they had to respond. They had to get out there and keep a watchful 
eye. But there was no help coming from Washington for them to do that. 
It may be a national alert, but it is a local response. And we are not 
taking care of the people we expect to make that response for us.
  Then I was concerned to see that in so many of the discussions of 
potential weapons of mass destruction, doctors and nurses and hospital 
administrators are saying: We are not ready. We do not have the 
funding. We don't even have the funding to do the preventive work, the 
smallpox vaccination. We don't have the means to be ready for some kind 
of chemical or biological or radiological attack.
  When we had the incident a few months ago of the shoulder-fired 
missile that was aimed at the Israeli airline in Kenya--thankfully it 
missed--I called the people in the new Department of Homeland Security. 
I said: What are our plans? How do we respond to the threat posed by 
shoulder-fired missiles?

  The response I got back was: Well, that is a local law enforcement 
responsibility.
  Are we going to provide more funding so we can have more police 
patrols on the outskirts of large airports similar to the ones we have 
in New York and other States have?
  Well, no, that is not in the cards. You just go out there and keep an 
eye out for those shoulder-fired missiles.
  Time and time again we hear about a threat. We hear the conversations 
from our government officials. We listen to the experts tell us what we 
have to be afraid of. And if you are a police chief or a fire chief 
sitting in any city in our country, you are sitting there in front of 
the television set saying to yourself: My goodness, how am I going to 
protect my people? How am I possibly going to do the work I need to do 
when my State budget is being cut, when my local budget is being cut, 
when the Federal budget is not providing me any resources? How am I 
going to do that?
  It is a fair question. Yet when we dial 911, we expect that phone to 
be answered, not in this Chamber, not down at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House, but right in our local precinct 
and our local firehouse. Yet in place after place around America, we 
read stories about police being laid off or being enticed into early 
retirement to save money, firehouses being closed or firefighters being 
encouraged to take early retirement, not filling classes in the police 
and fire academy.
  There is something wrong with this picture. Now, we have done all we 
know to do to give our men and women who wear military uniforms every 
bit of support we believe they need. If we are going to put them in 
harm's way, then we owe it to them, to their families, to equip them 
and train them, and give them the best possible protection so they can 
fulfill their mission without harm to themselves.
  But this is a two-front war. We hear that all the time. My gosh, 
there is nothing else coming across the airwaves except about what is 
happening in the Persian Gulf and on the Korean peninsula and what is 
happening with al-Qaida. We know we are in a global war against terror 
and against weapons of mass destruction. That is good offense. We need 
to be out there trying to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction, 
rid the world of tyrants and dictators who would use such weapons.
  But what about defense? What about what happens here at home? We have 
not done what we need to do to protect our homeland or our hometowns. 
That is absolutely unacceptable. The one thing we have learned from the 
horrors of September 11 is that in this new globalization of 
transportation and information we now live in, boundaries mean very 
little. Part of the reason we were immune from attack through many 
decades--with the exception of Pearl Harbor and the attack on this city 
and on Baltimore in the War of 1812--is we were protected by those big 
oceans, and with friendly neighbors to the north and south. But those 
days are gone. You can get on a jet plane from anywhere. You can be in 
a cave in Afghanistan and use your computer. You can transfer 
information about attacks and about weapons of mass destruction with 
the flick of a mouse.
  So we have to upgrade and transform our homeland defense, just as we 
have to think differently about our military readiness and capacity. 
This does not come cheaply. This is not easy to do. I spend a lot of 
time talking with police, firefighters, hospital administrators, and 
front line doctors and nurses; they are ready to make the sacrifice to 
perform in whatever way they are expected to do so to protect us. But 
we are not giving them the help they need.
  Now, we can remedy this. It was a good sign when the President 
admitted today that he and his administration have not funded homeland 
security, and I am glad to hear they have finally admitted that. But 
now we have to do something about that admission. It cannot be just a 
one-day headline. We have to figure out, OK, now that you are seeing 
what we see, what we have been worried about, let's do something. Let's 
make sure that whatever budget is sent up here has money in it for 
these important functions, so we can look in the eyes of our police 
officers, firefighters, and emergency providers, and say we have done 
the best we know how to do.
  That doesn't mean we are 100 percent safe. There is no such thing. 
That is impossible. That is not something we can possibly achieve. But 
we have to do the best we can. I believe it is probably a good old 
adage to ``hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.'' When you 
have done all you knew how to do, when something does happen, 
hopefully, you are prepared to deal with it.
  From my perspective, Mr. President, this is a national priority that 
cannot wait. Many of the commentators and pundits of the current theme 
talk about the likely military action necessitated by Saddam Hussein's 
refusal to

[[Page S2895]]

disarm, and point to the possibility that such action will trigger an 
upsurge in potential attack not only here at home but on American 
assets and individuals around the world. It would be impossible 
to write any scenario about the next 10 years without taking into 
account the potential of future terrorism.

  But what is not impossible--in fact, what is absolutely necessary--is 
for us to be able to say to our children and the children of 
firefighters and police officers and emergency responders that we did 
all we knew to do; we were as prepared as we possibly could be. That is 
what I want to be able to say, and I know we cannot do that without the 
resources that will make it a real promise of security, instead of an 
empty promise.
  So, Mr. President, it is my very strong hope that in the wake of the 
administration's recognition of the failure thus far to fund homeland 
security, now we can get down to business; that we not only can fund 
it, but do it quickly, get the money flowing, and get local communities 
ready to implement it, and we can get about the business of making 
America safer here at home. I will do everything I can to realize that 
goal. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle as we provide the kind of homeland security Americans deserve.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to speak in morning business for up to 25 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Arkansas is 
recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Pryor are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise once again to speak in support of 
the confirmation of Miguel Estrada, an exceptionally well qualified 
nominee who does not deserve to have his nomination obstructed by this 
filibuster. I have been a strong supporter of Mr. Estrada's since he 
came before the Judiciary Committee last year. At that time, I argued 
that his nomination should come up for a floor vote, but we were not 
allowed to vote on his nomination then. Here we are a year later, and I 
am still strongly supporting Mr. Estrada, and I am still arguing for a 
floor vote, and that vote is still being refused. I think it is 
shameful to continue holding up the vote on this very qualified 
judicial nominee, who, by the way, will make an excellent member of the 
US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
  I know my colleagues heard Mr. Estrada's credentials many times last 
week. In fact, I am pretty sure that some of my colleagues could quote 
his credentials in their sleep. However, I think it is important that 
the Senate is reminded of how qualified this nominee is who is being 
filibustered. Not only is he regarded as one of the Nation's top 
appellate lawyers, having argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court of 
the United States, but the American Bar Association, which I think 
Democrats consider the gold standard of determination of the person's 
qualifications to be a judicial nominee, has given him a unanimous 
rating of, in their words, ``well qualified.'' This happens to be the 
highest American Bar Association rating. It is a rating they would not 
give to just any lawyer who comes up the pike. According to the 
American Bar Association, quoting from their standard:

       To merit a rating of well qualified, the nominee must be at 
     the top of the legal profession in his or her legal 
     community, having outstanding legal ability, breadth of 
     experience, the highest reputation for integrity and either 
     have demonstrated or exhibited the capacity for judicial 
     temperament.

  We ought to demand that more qualified people like Miguel Estrada be 
appointed to the bench rather than fighting his nomination.
  As my colleagues know, I am not a lawyer. There is nothing wrong with 
going to law school, but I did not. I have been on the Judiciary 
Committee my entire time in the Senate. I know some of the 
qualifications that are needed to be a Federal judge, particularly a 
Federal judge on this DC Circuit that handles so many appeals from 
administrative agencies and is often considered, by legal experts, to 
be the second highest court of our land.
  Mr. Estrada's academic credentials are stellar. He graduated from 
Columbia University with his bachelor's degree magna cum laude and was 
also a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Then he earned his juris doctorate 
from Harvard University, also magna cum laude, where he was editor of 
the Harvard Law Review. Mr. Estrada did not just attend Harvard Law 
School; he graduated with honors. He also served as the editor of the 
Harvard Law Review. To be selected as the editor of a law review is a 
feat that only the most exceptional of law students attain.

  While Mr. Estrada certainly has the intellect required to be a 
Federal judge, his professional background also gives testament to his 
being qualified for a Federal Court of Appeals judgeship as opposed to 
just any judgeship.
  After law school, Mr. Estrada served as a law clerk to the Second 
Circuit Court of Appeals and as a law clerk to Justice Kennedy, on the 
United States Supreme Court. Subsequently, he served as an Assistant US 
Attorney and deputy chief of the appellate section of the US Attorney's 
Office of the Southern District of New York, and then as assistant to 
the Solicitor General of the United States of America.
  Mr. Estrada has been in the private sector as well. He is a partner 
with the Washington, DC, office of the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & 
Crutcher. In this exceptional career, Mr. Estrada has argued 15 cases 
before the United States Supreme Court. He won nine of those cases. Mr. 
Estrada is not just an appellate lawyer; he is one of the top appellate 
lawyers in the country. So for a young lawyer, I think I can give my 
colleagues a person who can truly be labeled an American success story. 
In fact, instead of degrading his ability to serve as a circuit court 
judge, we should all be proud of Mr. Estrada's many accomplishments.
  This is the nominee that the Democrats are filibustering. I fail to 
understand why a nominee of these outstanding qualifications, and who 
has been honored by the ABA with its highest rating, would be the 
object of such obstruction. In all my years on the Judiciary 
Committee--and that has been my entire tenure in the Senate--
Republicans never once filibustered a Democratic President's nominee to 
the Federal bench. There are many I may have wanted to filibuster, but 
I did not do it--we did not do it--because it is not right.
  In fact, as I understand it, in the entire history of the Senate 
neither party has ever filibustered a judicial nominee. Going back over 
200 years, Republicans and Democrats have resisted the urge to obstruct 
a nominee by filibustering. Good men of sound judgment have come to the 
conclusion that to use this tool of last resorts to obstruct a 
nomination is, at best, inappropriate, and, at worst, just down right 
wrong.
  This nominee, like all nominees, deserves an up-or-down vote. 
Anything less is absolutely unfair. I hope my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle will reconsider this filibuster. The Senate should 
not cross this Rubicon and establish new precedent for the confirmation 
process.
  Over 40 newspapers from across the country have published editorials 
advocating that the Senate give Mr. Estrada a vote. Even the Washington 
Post, which is not exactly a bastion of conservatism, published an 
editorial last week entitled, ``Just Vote.'' In that editorial, the 
Post correctly characterized the Democrats obstructionist efforts. With 
regard to the Democrat request for the internal memos Mr. Estrada 
drafted while he was in the Solicitor General's Office, the Post said

[[Page S2896]]

that this filibuster of Mr. Estrada goes beyond the normal political 
confirmation games, because,

       Democrats demand, as a condition of a vote, answers to 
     questions that no nominee should be forced to address--and 
     that nominees have not previously been forced to address.

  I agree with the Post:

       It's long past time to stop these games and vote.

  I make a unanimous consent request that this Washington Post 
editorial, ``Just Vote'' be printed in the Record after my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  [See exhibit 1.]
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Those denying the Senate an up-or-down vote on Mr. 
Estrada's nomination claim that he has not answered questions or 
produced documentation, and so he should not be confirmed to the 
Federal bench. I can think of a number of Democratic nominees who did 
not sufficiently answer question that I submitted to them, but that did 
not lead me to filibuster. As far as I know, Mr. Estrada has answered 
all questions posed to him by the Judiciary Committee members.
  His opponents claim that he has refused to hand over certain in-house 
Justice Department memoranda. What actually is happening is that the 
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have requested that the Department 
of Justice submit to the Committee, internal memoranda written by 
Miguel Estrada when he was an attorney in the Solicitor General's 
Office. These internal memos are attorney work product, specifically 
appeal, certiorari, and amicus memoranda, and the Justice Department 
has rightly refused to produce them.
  The Department of Justice has never disclosed such sensitive 
information in the context of a Court of Appeals nomination. These 
memoranda should not be released, because they detail the appeal, 
certiorari and amicus recommendations and legal opinions of an 
assistant to the Solicitor General. This is not just the policy of this 
administration, the Bush administration, a Republican administration. 
This has also been the policy under Democratic Presidents.
  The inappropriateness of this request prompted all seven living 
former Solicitors General to write a bipartisan letter to the Committee 
to express their concern regarding the Committee's request and to 
defend the need to keep such documents confidential. The letter was 
signed by Democrats Seth Waxman, Walter Dellinger, Drew Days III and 
Republicans Ken Starr, Charles Fried, Robert Bork and Archibald Cox. 
The letter notes that when each of the Solicitors General made 
important decisions regarding whether to seek Supreme Court review of 
adverse appellate decisions and whether to participate as amicus curiae 
in other high profile cases, they:

       relied on frank, honest and thorough advice from [their] 
     staff attorneys like Mr. Estrada . . .

  and that the open exchange of ideas which must occur in such a 
context

       Simply cannot take place if attorneys have reason to fear 
     that their private recommendations are not private at all, 
     but vulnerable to public disclosure.

  The letter concludes that

       Any attempt to intrude into the Office's highly privileged 
     deliberations would come at a cost of the Solicitor General's 
     ability to defend vigorously the United States litigation 
     interests, a cost that also would be borne by Congress 
     itself.

  The Democratic committee member's request has even drawn criticism 
from the editorial boards of the Washington Post and Wall Street 
Journal. On May 28, 2002, in an editorial entitled ``Not Fair Game'' 
the Washington Post editorialized that the request

       For an attorney's work product would be unthinkable if the 
     work had been done for a private client. . . . [and] legal 
     advice by a line attorney for the federal government is not 
     fair game either.

  According to the Post editorial

       . . . In elite government offices such as that of the 
     solicitor general, lawyers need to speak freely without 
     worrying that the positions they are advocating today will be 
     used against them if they ever get nominated to some other 
     position.

  On May 24, 2002, the Wall Street Journal in an editorial entitled 
``The Estrada Gambit'' also criticized the request, calling it ``one 
more attempt to delay giving Mr. Estrada a hearing and a vote.'' The 
Journal further criticized the Committee's request in a later 
editorial, entitled ``No Judicial Fishing'', calling the request 
``outrageous'' and noting that the goal of the request ``is to delay, 
trying to put off the day when Mr. Estrada takes a seat on the D.C. 
Circuit Court of Appeals.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two editorials also 
be printed in the Record after my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  [See exhibit 2.]
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. Estrada is not the only former deputy or assistant 
to the Solicitor General nominated to the Federal bench. In fact, there 
are seven others now serving on the Federal Courts of Appeals. None had 
any prior judicial experience, and the committee did not ask the 
Justice Department to turn over any confidential internal memoranda 
those nominees prepared while serving in the Solicitor General's 
Office. The seven nominees were: Samuel Alito on the 3rd Circuit, Danny 
Boggs on the 6th Circuit, William Bryson and Daniel Friedman on the 
Federal Circuit, Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner on the 7th 
Circuit, and A. Raymond Randolph on the D.C. Circuit. Why should Mr. 
Estrada be treated any differently?
  During Mr. Estrada's hearing, Judiciary Committee Democrats alleged 
that the committee has reviewed the work product of other nominees, 
including memos written by Frank Easterbrook, by Chief Justice 
Rehnquist when he served as a clerk to Justice Jackson, and by Robert 
Bork when he was an official at the Justice Department.
  For the record, there is no evidence that the Department of Justice 
ever turned over confidential memoranda prepared by Frank Easterbrook 
when he served in the Solicitor General's Office. There also is 
no evidence that the committee even requested such information.

  During Robert Bork's hearings, the Department did turn over memos 
Judge Bork wrote while serving as Solicitor General, but none of these 
memos contained the sort of deliberative materials requested of Mr. 
Estrada and the Justice Department. The Bork materials include memos 
containing Bork's opinions on such subjects as the constitutionality of 
the pocket veto, and on President Nixon's assertions of executive 
privilege and his views of the Office of Special Prosecutor. None of 
the memos contain information regarding internal deliberations of 
career attorneys on appeal decisions or legal opinions in connection 
with appeal decisions. Moreover, the Bork documents reflected 
information transmitted between a political appointee, namely the 
Solicitor General, and political advisors to the President, rather than 
the advice of a career Department of Justice attorney to his superiors, 
as is the case with Mr. Estrada.
  You see, the Judiciary Committee has never requested and the 
Department of Justice has never agreed to release the internal memos of 
a career line attorney. To ask that Mr. Estrada turn over his memos is 
unprecedented, and frankly unfair. No Member of this body would ever 
condone a request to turn over staff memos. What my staff communicates 
to me in writing is internal and private. I am sure every other Senator 
feels the same way as I do. This Democrat fishing expedition needs to 
stop. Miguel Estrada is a more than well qualified nominee and he 
deserves a vote on his nomination, today.
  In conclusion, we are again seeing an attack on another very 
talented, very principled, highly qualified legal mind. It all boils 
down to this, Mr. Estrada's opponents refuse to give him a vote because 
they say they do not know enough about him. They further contend that 
the Justice Department memos, which they know will never be released, 
are the only way they can find out what they need to know about Mr. 
Estrada. It is a terrible Catch-22.
  These obstructionist efforts are a disgrace and an outrage. We must 
put a stop to these inappropriate political attacks and get on with the 
business of confirming to the Federal bench good men and women who are 
committed to doing what judges should do, interpret law as opposed to 
making law from the bench, because it is our responsibility to make law 
as members of the legislative branch.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S2897]]

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 18, 2003]

                               Just Vote

       The Senate has recessed without voting on the nomination of 
     Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 
     Circuit. Because of a Democratic filibuster, it spent much of 
     the week debating Mr. Estrada, and, at least for now, enough 
     Democrats are holding together to prevent the full Senate 
     from acting. The arguments against Mr. Estrada's confirmation 
     range from the unpersuasive to the offensive. He lacks 
     judicial experience, his critics say--though only three 
     current members of the court had been judges before their 
     nominations. He is too young--though he is about the same age 
     as Judge Harry T. Edwards was when he was appointed and 
     several years older than Kenneth W. Starr was when he was 
     nominated. Mr. Estrada stonewalled the Judiciary Committee by 
     refusing to answer questions--though his answers were similar 
     in nature to those of previous nominees, including many 
     nominated by Democratic presidents. The administration 
     refused to turn over his Justice Department memos--though no 
     reasonable Congress ought to be seeking such material, as a 
     letter from all living former solicitors general attests. He 
     is not a real Hispanic and, by the way, he was nominated only 
     because he is Hispanic--two arguments as repugnant as they 
     are incoherent. Underlying it all is the fact that Democrats 
     don't want to put a conservative on the court.
       Laurence H. Silberman, a senior judge on the court to which 
     Mr. Estrada aspires to serve, recently observed that under 
     the current standards being applied by the Senate, not one of 
     his colleagues could predictably secure confirmation. He's 
     right. To be sure, Republicans missed few opportunities to 
     play politics with President Clinton's nominees. But the 
     Estrada filibuster is a step beyond even those deplorable 
     games. For Democrats demand, as a condition of a vote, 
     answers to questions that no nominee should be forced to 
     address--and that nominees have not previously been forced to 
     address. If Mr. Estrada cannot get a vote, there will be no 
     reason for Republicans to allow the next David S. Tatel--a 
     distinguished liberal member of the court--to get one when a 
     Democrat someday again picks judges. Yet the D.C. Circuit--
     and all courts, for that matter--would be all the poorer were 
     it composed entirely of people whose views challenged nobody.
       Nor is the problem just Mr. Estrada. John G. Roberts Jr., 
     Mr. Bush's other nominee to the D.C. Circuit, has been 
     waiting nearly two years for a Judiciary Committee vote. 
     Nobody has raised a substantial argument against him. Indeed, 
     Mr. Roberts is among the most highly regarded appellate 
     lawyers in the city. Yet on Thursday, Democrats invoked a 
     procedural rule to block a committee vote anyway--just for 
     good measure. It's long past time to stop these games and 
     vote.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2002]

                           The Estrada Gambit

       Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy keeps saying he's 
     assessing judicial nominees on the merits, without political 
     influence. So why does he keep getting caught with someone 
     else's fingerprints on his press releases?
       The latest episode involves Miguel Estrada, nominated more 
     than a year ago by President Bush for the prestigious D.C. 
     Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Estrada scares the legal briefs 
     off liberal lobbies because he's young, smart and 
     accomplished, having served in the Clinton Solicitor 
     General's office, and especially because he's a conservative 
     Hispanic. All of these things make him a potential candidate 
     to be elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court down the road.
       Sooner or later even Mr. Leahy has to grant the nominee a 
     hearing, one would think. But maybe not, if he keeps taking 
     orders from Ralph Neas at People for the American Way. On 
     April 15, the Legal Times newspaper reported that a 
     ``leader'' of the anti-Estrada liberal coalition was 
     considering ``launching an effort to obtain internal memos 
     that Estrada wrote while at the SG's office, hoping they will 
     shed light on the nominee's personal views.''
       Hmmm. Who could that leader be? Mr. Neas, perhaps? Whoever 
     it is, Mr. Leahy seems to be following orders, because a 
     month later, on May 15, Mr. Leahy sent a letter to Mr. 
     Estrada requesting the ``appeal recommendations, certiorari 
     recommendations, and amicus recommendations you worked on 
     while at the United States Department of Justice.''
       It's important to understand how outrageous this request 
     is. Mr. Leahy is demanding pre-decision memorandums, the kind 
     of internal deliberations that are almost by definition 
     protected by executive privilege. No White House would 
     disclose them, and the Bush Administration has already turned 
     down a similar Senate request of memorandums in the case of 
     EPA nominee Jeffrey Holmstead, who once worked in the White 
     House counsel's office.
       No legal fool, Mr. Leahy must understand this. So the 
     question is what is he really up to? The answer is almost 
     certainly one more attempt to delay giving Mr. Estrada a 
     hearing and vote. A simple exchange of letters from lawyers 
     can take weeks. And then if the White House turns Mr. Leahy 
     down, he can claim lack of cooperation and use that as an 
     excuse to delay still further.
       Mr. Leahy is also playing star marionette to liberal 
     Hispanic groups, which on May 1 wrote to Mr. Leahy urging 
     that he delay the Estrada hearing until at least August in 
     order to ``allow sufficient time . . . to complete a 
     thorough and comprehensive review of the nominee's 
     record.'' We guess a year isn't adequate time and can only 
     assume they need the labor-intensive summer months to 
     complete their investigation. (Now there's a job for an 
     intern.) On May 9, the one-year anniversary of Mr. 
     Estrada's nomination. Mr. Leahy issued a statement 
     justifying the delay in granting him a hearing by pointing 
     to the Hispanic group's letter.
       These groups, by the way, deserve some greater exposure. 
     They include the Mexican American Legal Defense and 
     Educational Fund as well as La Raza, two lobbies that claim 
     to represent the interests of Hispanics. Apparently they now 
     believe their job is to help white liberals dig up dirt on a 
     distinguished jurist who could be the first Hispanic on the 
     U.S. Supreme Court.
       The frustration among liberals in not being able to dig up 
     anything on Mr. Estrada is obvious. Nam Aron, president of 
     the Alliance for Justice, told Legal Times that ``There is a 
     dearth of information about Estrada's record, which places a 
     responsibility on the part of Senators to develop a record at 
     his hearing. There is much that he has done that is not 
     apparent.'' Translation: We can't beat him yet.
       Anywhere but Washington, Mr. Estrada would be considered a 
     splendid nominee. The American Bar Association, whose 
     recommendation Mr. Leahy one called the ``gold standard by 
     which judicial candidates have been judged,'' awarded Mr. 
     Estrada its highest rating of unanimously well-qualified. 
     There are even Democrats, such as Gore advisor Ron Klaim, who 
     are as effusive as Republicans singing the candidate's 
     praises.
       When Mr. Estrada worked in the Clinton-era Solicitor 
     General's office, he wrote a friend-of-the-court brief in 
     support of the National Organization of Women's position that 
     anti-abortion protestors violated RICO. It's hard to paint a 
     lawyer who's worked for Bill Clinton and supported NOW as a 
     right-wing fanatic.
       We report all of this because it reveals just how poison 
     judicial politics have become, and how the Senate is 
     perverting its advise and consent power. Yesterday the 
     Judiciary Committee finally to help fellow Pennsylvania 
     Brooks Smith.
       Mr. Estrada doesn't have such a patron, so he's fated to 
     endure the delay and document-fishing of liberal interests 
     and the Senate Chairman who takes their dictation.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination 
of Miguel Estrada to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia.
  The President has the right to make judicial nominations. The Senate 
has the Constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. I take 
this responsibility very seriously. This is a lifetime appointment for 
our nation's second most important court. Only the Supreme Court has a 
greater impact on the lives and rights of every American.
  The District of Columbia Circuit is the final arbiter on many cases 
that the Supreme Court refuses to consider. That means it's responsible 
for decisions on fundamental constitutional issues involving freedom of 
speech, the right to privacy and equal protection.
  In addition, the D.C. Circuit has special jurisdiction over Federal 
agency actions. That means the D.C. Circuit is responsible for cases on 
issues of great national significance involving labor rights, 
affirmative action, clean air and clear water standards, health and 
safety regulations, consumer privacy and campaign finance. The 
importance of this court highlights the importance of placing skilled, 
experienced and moderate jurists on the court.
  I base my consideration of each judicial nominee on three criteria: 
competence, integrity and commitment to core Constitutional principles.
  I don't question Mr. Estrada's character or competence. He is clearly 
a skilled lawyer. Yet the Senate does not have enough information to 
judge Mr. Estrada's commitment to core Constitutional principles.
  He has refused to answer even the most basic questions during his 
hearing in Senate Judiciary Committee. For example, he was asked to 
give examples of Supreme Court decisions with which he disagreed. He 
refused to answer. He was asked basic questions on his judicial 
philosophy. He refused to answer.
  The Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility to advise and 
consent on judicial nominations. This consent should be based on 
rigorous analysis. The nominee doesn't have to be an academic with a 
paper trail. Yet the nominee must be open and forthcoming. He or she 
must answer questions that seek to determine their commitment to core 
Constitutional principles.

[[Page S2898]]

  This is a divisive nomination--at a time when our Nation should be 
united. Our Nation is preparing for a possible war in Iraq. We are 
already engaged in a war against terrorism. We are also facing a weak 
economy. Americans are stressed and anxious. The Senate should be 
working to reduce this stress--to make America more secure; to 
strengthen our economy and to deal with the ballooning cost of health 
care.
  I urge the administration to nominate judicial candidates who are 
moderate and mainstream--and to instruct those nominees to be 
forthright and forthcoming with the Senate so the Senate can address 
the significant issues that face our Nation today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as 
if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Nickles pertaining to the introduction of S. 2 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, one of our most important 
responsibilities as Senators is the confirmation of Federal judges. 
Federal judges are appointed for life, and they will be interpreting 
laws affecting the lives of all our citizens for many years to come. 
Yet my colleagues across the aisle suggest that something far less than 
a full review of a nominee's record is warranted. Republican Senators 
pretend that by seeking additional information to help us understand 
Mr. Estrada's views and judicial philosophy, we are upsetting the 
proper constitutional balance between the Senate and the executive 
branch. They claim the Senate has to consent to the President's 
judicial nominees, as long as they have appropriate professional 
qualifications.
  In fact, the Constitution gives a strong role to the Senate in 
evaluating nominees. The role of the Senate is fundamental to the basic 
constitutional concept of checks and balances at the heart of the 
Federal Government. And when we say ``check'' we don't mean blank 
check.
  The debates over the drafting of the Constitution tell a great deal 
about the proper role of the Senate in the judicial selection process. 
Both the text of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and the 
debates over its adoption make clear that the Senate should play an 
active and independent role in selecting judges.
  Given recent statements by Republican Senators, it is important to 
lay out the historical record in detail. The Constitutional Convention 
met in Philadelphia from late May until mid-September of 1787. On May 
29, 1787, the Convention began its work on the Constitution with the 
Virginia Plan introduced by Governor Randolph, which provided ``that a 
National Judiciary be established, to be chosen by the National 
Legislature.'' Under this plan, the President had no role at all in the 
selection of judges.
  When this provision came before the Convention on June 5, several 
members were concerned that having the whole legislature select judges 
was too unwieldy. James Wilson suggested an alternative proposal that 
the President be given sole power to appoint judges.
  That idea had almost no support. Rutledge of South Carolina said that 
he ``was by no means disposed to grant so great a power to any single 
person.'' James Madison agreed that the legislature was too large a 
body, and stated that he was ``rather inclined to give [the appointment 
power] to the Senatorial branch'' of the legislature, a group 
``sufficiently stable and independent'' to provide ``deliberate 
judgements.''
  A week later, Madison offered a formal motion to give the Senate the 
sole power to appoint judges and this motion was adopted without any 
objection. On June 19, the Convention formally adopted a working draft 
of the Constitution, and it gave the Senate the exclusive power to 
appoint judges.
  July of 1787 was spent reviewing the draft Constitution. On July 18, 
the Convention reaffirmed its decision to grant the Senate the 
exclusive power. James Wilson again proposed ``that the Judges be 
appointed by the Executive'' and again his motion was defeated.
  The issue was considered again on July 21, and the Convention again 
agreed to the exclusive Senate appointment of judges.
  In a debate concerning the provision, George Mason called the idea of 
executive appointment of Federal judges a ``dangerous precedent.'' The 
Constitution was drafted to read: ``The Senate of the United States 
shall have power to appoint Judges of the Supreme Court.''
  Not until the final days of the Convention was the President given 
power to nominate Judges. On September 4, 2 weeks before the 
Convention's work was completed, the Committee proposed that the 
President should have a role in selecting judges. It stated: ``The 
President shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court.'' The debates, make 
clear, however, that while the President had the power to nominate 
judges, the Senate still had a central role.
  Governor Morris of Pennsylvania described the provision as giving the 
Senate the power ``to appoint Judges nominated to them by the 
President.'' The Constitutional Convention adopted this reworded 
provision giving the President the power, with the advice and consent 
of the Senate, to nominate and appoint judges.
  The debates and the series of events proceeding adoption of the 
``advise and consent'' language make clear, that the Senate should play 
an active role. The Convention having repeatedly rejected proposals 
that would lodge exclusive power to select judges with the executive 
branch, could not possibly have intended to reduce the Senate to a 
rubber stamp role.
  The reasons given by delegates to the Convention for making the 
selection of judges a joint decision by the President and the Senate 
are as relevant today as they were in 1787. The framers refused to give 
the power of appointment to a ``single individual.'' They understood 
that a more representative judiciary would be attained by giving 
members of the Senate a major role.
  From the start, the Senate has not hesitated to fully exercise this 
power. During the first 100 years after ratification of the 
Constitution, 21 or 81 Supreme Court nominations--one out of four--were 
rejected, withdrawn, or not acted on. During these confirmation 
debates, ideology often mattered. John Rutledge, nominated by George 
Washington, failed to win confirmation as Chief Justice in 1795.
  Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists opposed him, because of his 
position on the controversial Jay Treaty. A nominee of President James 
Polk was rejected because of his anti-immigration position. A nominee 
of President Hoover was rejected because of his anti labor view. Our 
Republican colleagues are obviously aware of this. Their recent 
statements attempting to downplay the Senate's role stand in stark 
contrast to the statements when they controlled the Senate during the 
Clinton administration. At that time, they vigorously asserted their 
right of ``advice and consent.''
  Indeed, while public debate and a demand to fully review a nominee's 
record is consistent with our duty of ``advice and consent,'' many of 
the actions by Republicans were damaging to the nominations process. 
Democrats have made clear our concerns about whether Mr. Estrada has 
met the burden of showing that he should be appointed to the DC 
Circuit, but Republicans resorted to tactics such as secret holds to 
block President Clinton's nominees. For instance, it took four years to 
act on the nomination of Richard Paez, a Mexican-American, to the Ninth 
Circuit. Senate Republicans repeatedly delayed floor action on Judge 
Paez through use of anonymous holds.
  Republicans voted to indefinitely postpone action on Judge Paez's 
nomination. Finally, in March 2000, 4 years after his nomination and 
with the Presidential election on the horizon, Judge Paez was 
confirmed, after cloture was invoked.
  Reviewing Mr. Estrada's nomination is our constitutional duty. We 
take his nomination particularly seriously because of the importance of 
the DC Circuit, the Court to which he has been nominated. The important 
work we do in Congress to improve health care, protect workers rights, 
and protect civil rights mean far less if we fail to fulfill our 
responsibility to provide the

[[Page S2899]]

best possible advice and consent on judicial nominations. Tough 
environmental laws mean little to a community that can't enforce them 
in our federal courts. Civil rights laws are undercut if there are no 
remedies for disabled men and women. Fair labor laws are only words on 
paper if we confirm judges who ignore them.
  What we know about Mr. Estrada leads us to question whether he will 
deal fairly with the range of important issues affecting everyday 
Americans that came before him.
  Mr. Estrada has been actively involved in supporting broad anti-
loitering ordinances that restrict the rights of minority residents to 
conduct lawful activities in their neighborhoods. Mr. Estrada has 
sought to undermine the ability of civil rights groups like the NAACP 
to challenge these broad ordinances which affect the ability of 
minority citizens to conduct activities such as drug counseling and 
voter outreach in their communities.
  Information we need to know about Mr. Estrada's record has been 
hidden from us by the Department of Justice. Democratic Senators have 
asked for Mr. Estrada's Solicitor General Memoranda. We have moved for 
unanimous consent to proceed to a vote on his nomination, after those 
memoranda are provided. Yet, the White House refuses to provide any of 
Mr. Estrada's memos, even though there is ample precedent for allowing 
the Senate to review these documents.
  Even as Republicans refuse to allow us to see Mr. Estrada's memos 
from his time in public office--and even as Mr. Estrada declined to 
answer many basic questions about his judicial philosophy and 
approach--Republicans repeatedly make clear that they are familiar with 
Mr. Estrada's views and judicial philosophy.
  Since his nomination, Republican Senators have repeatedly praised Mr. 
Estrada as a ``conservative.'' A recent article from Roll Call states 
that the Republican Party is confident that Mr. Estrada will rule in 
support of big business. The article also states that the Republican 
Party has asked lobbyists to get involved in the battle over Mr. 
Estrada's nomination.
  I have spoken in recent days about the importance of the DC Circuit 
and it's shift to the right in the 1980s and 1990s. In the 1960s and 
1970s, the DC Circuit had a significant role in protecting public 
access to agency and judicial proceedings, protecting civil rights 
guarantees, overseeing administrative agencies, protecting the public 
interest in communications regulation, and enforcing environmental 
protections. In the 1980s, however, the DC Circuit changed dramatically 
because of the appointment of conservative judges. As its composition 
changed, it became a conservative and activist court--striking down 
civil rights and constitutional protections, encouraging deregulation, 
closing the doors of the courts to many citizens, favoring employers 
over workers, and undermining federal protection of the environment.
  It seems clear that Mr. Estrada has been nominated to the DC Circuit 
in the hope that this court will continue to be more interested in 
favoring big business than in protecting the rights of workers, 
consumers, women, minorities, and other Americans.
  Mr. Estrada's nomination is strongly opposed by those concerned about 
these rights. Republicans repeatedly praise Mr. Estrada as a Hispanic--
but many Hispanic groups oppose his nomination. The Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the Southwest 
Voter Registration Project, 52 Latino Labor Leaders representing 
working families across the country, the California League of United 
Lationo Citizens, the California La Raza, the Puerto Rican Legal 
Defense Fund and fifteen past presidents of the Hispanic National Bar 
Association, whose terms span from 1972 until 1998 have stated their 
opposition to Mr. Estrada. As these Presidents write:

       Based upon our review and understanding of the totality of 
     Mr. Estrada's record and life's experiences, we believe that 
     there are more than enought reasons to conclude that Mr. 
     Estrada's candidacy falls short. [These] reasons include: his 
     virtually non-existent written record, his verbally expressed 
     and un-rebutted extreme views, his lack of judicial or 
     academic teaching experience (against which his fairness, 
     reasoning skills and judicial philosophy could be properly 
     tested), his poor judicial temperament, his total lack of 
     connection whatsoever to, or lack of demonstrated interest in 
     the Hispanic community, his refusals to answer even the most 
     basic questions about civil rights and constitutional law, 
     his less than candid responses to other straightforward 
     questions of Senate Judiciary Committee Members.

  I would like to include in the Record statements at the end of my 
remarks of two of the past National Presidents of the League of United 
Latin American Citizens opposing Mr. Estrada's nomination. The first 
statement is from Belen Robles, a native Texas who has a long and 
active involvement in the Latino civil rights community. He writes that 
he is ``deeply troubled with the nomination of Miguel Estrada.'' He is 
troubled by the positions that Mr. Estrada has taken on racial 
profiling, and on whether the NAACP had standing to put forward the 
claims of African-Americans arrested under an anti-loitering ordinance.
  Mr. Robles writes:

       As a former National President of LULAC, I know very well 
     that on many occasions LULAC has been a champion of the 
     rights of its membership in civil rights cases. We asserted 
     those rights on behalf of voters in voting cases in Texas, 
     and in many other civil rights cases. Under his view, Mr. 
     Estrada could decide that a civil rights organization such as 
     LULAC would not be able to sue on behalf of its members. NO 
     supporter of civil rights could agree with Mr. Estrada's 
     confirmation.

  Ruben Bonilla, an attorney in Texas who is also a past National 
president of LULAC, opposes the confirmation of Mr. Estrada.
  Mr. Bonilla writes:

       I am deeply troubled with the double standard that 
     surrounds the nomination of Mr. Estrada. It is particularly 
     troubling that some of the Senators have accused Democrats or 
     other Latinos of being anti-Hispanic, or holding the American 
     dream hostage. Yet, these same Senators in fact prevented 
     Latinos appointed by the Clinton Administration from ever 
     being given a hearing. Notably, Corpus Christi lawyer Jorge 
     Rangel, and El Paso attorney Enrique Moreno, and Denver 
     attorney Christine Arguello never received hearings before 
     the judiciary committee. Yet, these individuals who came from 
     the top of their profession were schooled in the Ivy League, 
     were raised from modest means in the Southwest, and in fact 
     truly embodied the American Dream. These highly qualified 
     Mexican-Americans never had the opportunity to introduce 
     themselves and their views to the Senate, as Mr. Estrada did.

  Mr. President, the Senate is entitled to see Mr. Estrada's full 
record. Both the Constitution and historical practices require us to 
ignore the Administration's obvious ideological nominations. Judicial 
nominees who come before the Senate should have professional 
qualifications and the right temperament to be a judge. They should be 
committed to basic constitutional principles. Many of us have no 
confidence that Mr. Estrada has met this burden. I urge the Senate to 
reject this nomination.
  I ask unanimous consent that supporting material be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          HNBA's Past Presidents' Statement, February 21, 2003

       We the undesigned past presidents of the Hispanic National 
     Bar Association write in strong opposition to the nomination 
     of Miguel A. Estrada for judgeship on the Court of Appeals 
     for the District of Columbia Circuit.
       Since the HNBA's establishment in 1972, promoting civil 
     rights and advocating for judicial appointments of qualified 
     Hispanic Americans throughout our nation have been our 
     fundamental concerns. Over the years, we have had a proven 
     and respected record of endorsing or not endorsing or 
     rejecting nominees on a non-partisan basis of both Republican 
     and Democratic presidents.
       In addition to evaluating a candidate's professional 
     experience and judicial temperament, the HNBA's policies and 
     procedures governing judicial endorsements have required that 
     the following additional criteria be considered: The extent 
     to which a candidate has been involved in, supportive of, and 
     responsive to the issues, needs and concerns or Hispanic 
     Americans, and the candidate's demonstrated commitment to the 
     concept of equal opportunity and equal justice under the law.
       Based upon our review and understanding of the totality of 
     Mr. Estrada's record and life's experiences, we believe that 
     there are more than enough reasons to conclude that Mr. 
     Estrada's candidacy falls short in these respects. We believe 
     that for many reasons including: his virtually non-existent 
     written record, his verbally expressed and un-rebutted 
     extreme views, his lack of judicial or academic teaching 
     experience, (against which his fairness, reasoning skills and 
     judicial philosophy could be properly tested), his

[[Page S2900]]

     poor judicial temperament, his total lack of any connection 
     whatsoever to, or lack of demonstrated interest in the 
     Hispanic community, his refusals to answer even the most 
     basic questions about civil rights and constitutional law, 
     his less than candid responses to the other straightforward 
     questions of Senate Judiciary Committee members, and because 
     of the Administration's refusal to provide the Judiciary 
     Committee the additional information and cooperation it needs 
     to address these concerns, the United States Senate cannot 
     and must not conclude that Mr. Estrada can be a fair and 
     impartial appellate court judge.
       Respectfully submitted,


     John Roy Castillo, et al.
                                  ____


                  [From The Oregonian, Feb. 24, 2003]

              Estrada Would Destroy Hard-Fought Victories

                         (By Dolores C. Huerta)

       As a co-founder of the United Farm Workers with Cesar 
     Chavez, I know what progress looks like. Injustice and the 
     fight against it take many forms-from boycotts and marches to 
     contract negotiations and legislation. Over the years, we had 
     to fight against brutal opponents, but the courts were often 
     there to back us up. Where we moved forward, America's courts 
     helped to establish important legal protections for all farm 
     workers, all women, all Americans. Now, though, a dangerous 
     shift in the courts could destroy the worker's rights, 
     women's rights, and civil rights that our collective actions 
     secured.
       It is especially bitter for me that one of the most visible 
     agents of the strategy to erase our legal victories is being 
     called a great role model for Latinos. It is true that for 
     Latinos to realize America's promise of equality and justice 
     for all, we need to be represented in every sector of 
     business and every branch of government. But it is also true 
     that judges who would wipe out our hard-fought legal 
     victories--no matter where they were born or what color their 
     skin--are not role models for our children. And they are not 
     the kind of judges we want on the federal courts.
       Miguel Estrada is a successful lawyer, and he has powerful 
     friends who are trying to get him a lifetime job as a federal 
     judge. Many of them talk about him being a future Supreme 
     Court justice. Shouldn't we be proud of him?
       I for one am not too proud of a man who is unconcerned 
     about the discrimination that many Latinos live with every 
     day. I am not especially proud of a man whose political 
     friends--the ones fighting hardest to put him on the court--
     are also fighting to abolish affirmative action and to make 
     it harder if not impossible for federal courts to protect the 
     rights and safety of workers and women and anyone with little 
     power and only the hope of the courts to protect their legal 
     rights.
       Just as we resist the injustice of racial profiling and the 
     assumption that we are lesser individuals because of where we 
     were born or the color of our skin, so too must we resist the 
     urge to endorse a man on the basis of his ethnic background. 
     Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus met with Miguel 
     Estrada and came away convinced that he would harm our 
     community as a federal judge. The Mexican American Legal 
     Defense and Educational Fund and the Puerto Rican Defense and 
     Education Fund reviewed his record and came to the same 
     conclusion.
       Are these groups fighting Miguel Estrada because they are 
     somehow anti-Hispanic? Are they saying that only people with 
     certain political views are ``true'' Latinos? Of course not. 
     They are saying that as a judge this man would do damage to 
     the rights we have fought so hard to obtain, and that we 
     cannot ignore that fact just because he is Latino. I think 
     Cesar Chavez would be turning over in his grave if he knew 
     that a candidate like this would be celebrated for supposedly 
     representing the Hispanic community. He would also be 
     dismayed that any civil rights organization would stay silent 
     or back such a candidate.
       To my friends who think this is all about politicians 
     fighting among themselves, I ask you to think what would have 
     happened over the last 40 years if the federal courts were 
     fighting against worker's rights and women's rights and civil 
     rights. And then think about how quickly that could become 
     the world we are living in.
       As MALDEF wrote in a detailed analysis, Estrada's record 
     suggests that ``he would not recognize the due process rights 
     of Latinos,'' that he ``would not fairly review Latino 
     allegations of racial profiling by law enforcement,'' that he 
     ``would most likely always find that government affirmative 
     action programs fail to meet'' legal standards, and that he 
     ``could very well compromise the rights of Latino voters 
     under the Voting Rights Act.''
       Miguel Estrada is only one of the people nominated by 
     President Bush who could destroy much of what we have built 
     if they become judges. The far right is fighting for them 
     just as it is fighting for Estrada. We must fight back 
     against Estrada and against all of them. If the only way to 
     stop this is a filibuster in the Senate, I say, Que viva la 
     filibuster!
                                  ____


Statement of Ruben Bonilla, in Opposition to the Confirmation of Miguel 
                                Estrada

       I write to join other Latinos in opposing the confirmation 
     of Miguel Estrada to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I have 
     a long history of involvement in the Latino civil rights 
     community. I am an attorney in Corpus Christi, Texas, and am 
     a past National President of LULAC. I am deeply concerned 
     with the betterment of my community.
       I am deeply troubled with the double standard that 
     surrounds the nomination of Miguel Estrada. It is 
     particularly troubling that some of the senators have accused 
     Democrats or other Latinos of being anti-Hispanic, or holding 
     the American dream hostage. Yet, these same senators in fact 
     prevented Latinos appointed by the Clinton Administration 
     from ever being given a hearing. Notably, Corpus Christi 
     lawyer Jorge Rangel, and El Paso attorney Enrique Moreno, and 
     Denver attorney Christine Arguello never received hearings 
     before the judiciary committee. Yet, these individuals who 
     came from the top of their profession were schooled in the 
     Ivy League, were raised from modest means in the Southwest, 
     and in fact truly embodied the American Dream. These highly 
     qualified Mexican Americans never had the opportunity to 
     introduce themselves and their views to the Senate, as Mr. 
     Estrada did.
       In addition to my concerns regarding this double standard. 
     I am also concerned that Mr. Estrada showed himself unwilling 
     to allow the Senate to fully evaluate his record. He was not 
     candid in his responses. Yet, Mr. Estrada, as every other 
     nominee who is a candidate for a lifelong appointment, must 
     be prepared to fully answer basic questions, particularly 
     where there is no prior judicial record or scholarly work to 
     scrutinize. By declining to give full and candid responses, 
     he frustrated the process. Individuals with values should be 
     called to explain those values honestly and forthrightly. We 
     can demand no less from those who would hold a lifelong 
     appointment in our system of justice.
       Finally, I am also concerned with some of the answers that 
     Mr. Estrada did give when he was pressed. For example, I 
     understand that as an attorney he argued that the NAACP did 
     not have legal standing to press the claims of African 
     Americans who had been arrested under a particular ordinance. 
     As a former National President of LULAC, I know that on many 
     occasions LULAC has represented the rights of its membership 
     in voting cases, and in other civil rights matters. I would 
     be troubled that if he were confirmed, Mr. Estrada would not 
     find a civil rights organization to be an appropriate 
     plaintiff, and would uphold closing the courthouse door on 
     them.
       Given these concerns, I oppose the confirmation of Mr. 
     Miguel Estrada.

 Statement of Belen Robles in Opposition to the Confirmation of Miguel 
                                Estrada

       I write to join other Latino leaders and organizations in 
     opposing the confirmation of Miguel Estrada to the DC Circuit 
     Court of Appeals. As a native Texan, I have a very long and 
     active involvement in the Latino civil rights community and 
     have worked hard to ensure that Latinos have real choices 
     about their lives. I am a past National President of the 
     League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).
       I am deeply troubled with the nomination of Miguel Estrada. 
     I am very troubled with the positions he seems to have taken 
     about our youth being subjected to racial profiling. As I 
     understand his position, he does not believe that racial 
     profiling exists, and has many times argued that the 
     Constitution gives police officers unbridled authority and 
     power. In our communities, racial profiling does exist and 
     our children have been subjected to it. This is an issue that 
     Latino organizations, including LULAC have long cared about. 
     In all of the years that I was involved with civil rights, 
     LULAC always stood to protect our community, including our 
     youth when law enforcement exceeds their authority.
       I am also concerned that Mr. Estrada did not allow the 
     Senate to fully evaluate his record. He was not open in his 
     responses, but instead was evasive. Yet, anyone appointed to 
     a lifelong position has to be willing to answer questions 
     fully. The American people have a right to know who sits in 
     our seats of justice. And to demand that the person be fair.
       Mr. Estrada has also taken actions against organizations 
     that make me believe that he would not be fair. For example, 
     as an attorney he argued that the NAACP did not have legal 
     standing to put forward the claims of African Americans who 
     have been arrested under a particular ordinance. As a former 
     National President of LULAC, I know very well that on many 
     occasions LULAC has been a champion of the rights of its 
     membership in civil rights cases. We asserted those rights on 
     behalf of voters in voting cases in Texas, and in many other 
     civil rights cases. Under his view, Mr. Estrada could decide 
     that a civil rights organization such as LULAC would not be 
     able to sue on behalf of its members. No supporter of civil 
     rights could agree with Mr. Estrada's confirmation.
       I oppose the confirmation of Mr. Miguel Estrada.
                                  ____

                                          Hispanic Bar Association


                                              of Pennsylvania,

                               Philadelphia, PA, January 28, 2003.
     Hon. Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
     Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Honorable Sir: I am writing on behalf of the Hispanic 
     Bar Association of Pennsylvania (HBA) to inform you that we 
     oppose the appointment of Miguel Angel Estrada to the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 
     For the reasons

[[Page S2901]]

     that follow, we urge you to vote against Mr. Estrada's 
     confirmation.
       The HBA recognizes that Mr. Estrada's nomination was 
     pending for some time prior to his hearing before the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee on September 26, 2002. Nevertheless, it 
     was the Hispanic National Bar Association's public 
     endorsement of this candidate that prompted our organization 
     to initiate its own evaluation of Mr. Estrada.
       To that end, the HBA created a Special Committee on 
     Judicial Nominations to develop a process for reviewing and 
     potentially endorsing not only Mr. Estrada, but also all 
     future candidates for the Judiciary. As part of the process, 
     we contacted Mr. Estrada, asked to interview him, and invited 
     him as a guest of the HBA to meet the members of our 
     organization. Mr. Estrada, for stated good cause, declined 
     our invitations. Notwithstanding Mr. Estrada's non-
     participation, the Committee completed its work and reported 
     its findings to the HBA membership on November 14, 2002. 
     Following the Committee's recommendation, the membership 
     voted not to support Mr. Estrada's nomination.
       The HBA recognizes and applauds Mr. Estrada for his 
     outstanding professional and personal achievements. Indeed, 
     the HBA adopts the American Bar Association's rating of 
     ``well-qualified'' with regard to Mr. Estrada's professional 
     competence and integrity. However, employing the ABA's seven 
     established criteria for evaluating judicial temperament, the 
     HBA finds Mr. Estrada to be lacking. Our organization could 
     find no evidence that Mr. Estrada has demonstrated the 
     judicial position. In addition, the HBA seeks to endorse 
     individuals who have ``demonstrated awareness and sensitivity 
     to minority, particularly Hispanic concerns.'' Sadly, we also 
     could find no evidence of this quality in Mr. Estrada.
       The HBA shares the concern of the president of the 
     Judiciary Committee that only the best-qualified and most 
     suitable individuals be appointed to the federal bench. 
     Furthermore, the HBA appreciates the efforts, as evidenced by 
     Mr. Estrada's nomination, to consider and promote members of 
     the rapidly growing Latino population to positions of high 
     visibility and importance. However, we believe that there are 
     a myriad of other well-qualified Latinos whose integrity, 
     professional competence, and judicial temperament would be 
     beyond reproach and who would therefore be better suited for 
     this position.
       The Hispanic Bar Association of Pennsylvania regrets that 
     it cannot support the nomination of Mr. Estrada to the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 
     We respectfully request that you oppose the confirmation of 
     his nomination.
           Respectfully submitted,
                                        Arlene Rivera Finkelstein,
     President, and the Special Committee on Judicial Nominations 
        on behalf of the Hispanic Bar Association of Pennsylvania.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today is the 12th day, as remarkable 
as that seems, that the Senate is debating this nomination instead of 
doing what it has to for the important business of the American people, 
as I see it. It is quite clear the other side is just not going to get 
cloture on this nomination. So the choice is either bring forward a 
cloture motion or move on to other business.
  The Nation's Governors are in Washington meeting with President Bush 
and Members of Congress to discuss critically important issues, such as 
homeland security, rising unemployment, and increasing State deficits. 
These are serious issues that need attention, but we are delaying 
tending to the needs of the American people with endless debate on a 
judicial nominee who is refusing to tell the Senate almost anything 
about his judicial philosophy or decisionmaking process.
  This hide-the-ball strategy being used by Mr. Estrada, frankly, I 
think is an affront to the Senate and the American people. We have the 
right to get complete and thoughtful answers to legitimate concerns 
about his approach to his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and 
the laws of the country.
  I was formerly a businessman. Sometimes there are processes that are 
not dissimilar to our functions here. One of them is to be able to 
understand what a nominee or an appointment of a high-ranking executive 
might include and a review of that person's potential, that person's 
experience, that person's attitude before you put him to work.
  My fellow Senators on the other side of the aisle would have the 
Senate, considered the most deliberative body in world history--and, I 
assume, also considered one of the most thoughtful places in the world 
in terms of Government and deliberative bodies--vote to confirm a 
nominee to a lifetime--lifetime, and it is important people realize 
that means you cannot be fired from the job; this means you can go as 
long as you want to, and when you are finished with your service, your 
salary continues at exactly the same level it did when you went to work 
every day--a lifetime appointment without disclosure of what I and my 
colleagues consider required information.
  In the business world, this practice would have been unheard of, and 
the American people deserve better. If someone were seeking a post and 
they appeared before a congressional committee or a department head and 
said, I would like the job, but I am not willing to answer that 
questionnaire, that would make that aspirant unacceptable under any 
condition. It should be a requirement when a lifetime-tenured job is 
under discussion, something so important as the circuit court of 
appeals where people, after getting a decision from district court, go 
to get the judgment of wise and experienced people. His unwillingness 
to answer questions, to talk about what he stands for, and what he 
believes is a shocking disregard for appropriate behavior.
  Responsible business owners do not hire senior managers without first 
conducting a complete and thorough review of that candidate's job 
application. The candidate would answer questions that give 
interviewers an opportunity to measure the candidate's decisionmaking 
process and views on work-related issues. A candidate cannot simply 
refuse to answer important questions of fitness, philosophy, or 
temperament. No business executive would hire a candidate who refused 
to answer basic inquiries. These are not private matters. They become 
the matters of the employer, be it government or business. Those in 
business would put their businesses at risk and leave themselves 
susceptible to future lawsuits based on negligent hiring practices.
  No one is doubting the fact Mr. Estrada is bright and intelligent, 
but his repeated refusal to provide the Senate with any insight into 
his views on the law and the U.S. Constitution is incomprehensible. I 
just cannot understand it. How can we make an informed decision about a 
judicial nominee if the nominee refuses to provide the Senate with 
sufficient information about his judicial philosophy and, therefore, 
his temperament?
  The questions being asked are not prohibited by law or judicial or 
professional ethics codes. Instead of entertaining continuing with 
these dilatory tactics, the Senate should simply move on to the 
important business of the American people concerned about the 
protection of their homeland; move on to repair a hemorrhaging Federal 
budget that under this administration has been converted from a $5.6 
trillion surplus into a 2.$1 trillion deficit; move on to provide 
States that are experiencing dire economic conditions with more Federal 
assistance that would help them weather the storms during these times 
of increasing unemployment, threatening war with Iraq, and a sustained 
fear of potential terrorist acts.
  In the most recent CNN Gallup poll, 50 percent of Americans believe 
the economy is the most pressing issue confronting the Nation. Thirty 
percent of Americans believe the war with Iraq is the most important 
issue, second to jobs and the economy.
  The nomination of Mr. Estrada did not make the list of important 
concerns facing the Nation. Since January 2001, the number of 
unemployed Americans has increased by nearly 40 percent, with nearly 
8.3 million Americans out of work.
  Since President Bush took office, 2.3 million private sector jobs 
have been lost and the unemployment rate for Latinos by way of example 
has increased 33 percent. According to the Department of Labor, there 
are now 2.4 jobseekers for every job opening. So rather than focusing 
on creating jobs for 8.3 million Americans, the Senate is targeted on 
the job of one attorney, a very successful attorney who made a lot of 
money. But how does that influence what the American people see as 
their need?

[[Page S2902]]

  This is the same thinking that has produced an economic stimulus 
package that overwhelmingly favors the top 1 percent of American 
taxpayers while giving very little to those who really need some 
economic help.
  The Senate needs to move on to the important work of protecting the 
homeland. CIA Director Tenet and FBI Director Mueller have both 
testified that America is still vulnerable to terrorist attack, and we 
keep on hearing alarms described in different colors. The American 
public does not understand what the difference between red and yellow 
is. They just know it scares them. It panics them. They do not know 
what to do. I get phone calls from people in New Jersey asking, Should 
we stay out of New York City? Should we not take our children on a 
trip? Should we stay home? The answer to all of those is that we do not 
really know, but we ought to get on with finding out.
  The omnibus appropriations bill provides less than half of the $3.5 
billion in funding promised to law enforcement people, firefighters, 
and emergency medical personnel. Meanwhile, America's ports, borders, 
and critical infrastructure remain dangerously unprotected.
  Once again, instead of focusing on protecting the homeland and 
funding our first responders, the work of the Senate is being delayed 
in order to secure the appointment of a judicial nominee who refuses to 
share his views with the American people.
  I do not intend to demean or diminish the importance of this 
nomination. It is very important. To the contrary, the nomination at 
issue is to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which is the 
most powerful intermediate Federal appellate court, second only to the 
U.S. Supreme Court. The DC Circuit is more powerful, it is observed, 
than other Federal courts because it has exclusive jurisdiction over a 
broad array of far-reaching Federal regulations that enforce critical 
environment, consumer, and worker protection laws.
  As history has shown, DC Circuit Court judges are often tapped to 
serve on the Supreme Court. Presently, three of the nine Supreme Court 
Justices--Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg--previously served on the DC Circuit.
  The Senate has a constitutional responsibility. The constitutional 
judicial confirmation process grants authority to the President of the 
United States to make the nominations and gives the Senate an equally 
significant role to agree by advising and consenting with the 
President's recommendation before a nominee can sit on the Federal 
bench. These important, mutually coexisting roles of the President and 
the Senate are central to the democratic system of separation of powers 
and checks and balances.

  Mr. Estrada must provide the Senate with a full and complete 
understanding of his views of the law and the Constitution, including 
important civil rights laws that protect all Americans, especially 
minorities, women, the elderly, and the disabled. However, if he is 
unwilling or the White House is unwilling to nominate judicial nominees 
who are willing to answer reasonable, nonintrusive, and legitimate 
inquiries of the Senate, then these nominees should not be confirmed.
  The role of the Senate in the confirmation process is advise and 
consent. It does not say anyplace to rubberstamp all Presidential 
nominations. The Senate should not abdicate its responsibility to 
thoroughly review judicial nominations. It is a responsibility, it is 
an obligation, for each one of us. Rather, the Senate is dutybound to 
ensure that each nominee maintains the utmost commitment to upholding 
the Constitution of our country--following precedent, listening to 
arguments without fear or favor, and rendering judgment without 
personal bias. Miguel Estrada has failed to respond to legitimate 
inquiries to the Senate and the American people.
  As I said before, it is time to move on to the important work of the 
American people, and let this appointment fall as it should unless Mr. 
Estrada has a reckoning with himself and his obligation and comes to 
the Senate to discuss his views in response to questions posed by the 
Senate.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
  Mr. REID. The Senator is from the State of New Jersey. Of course, the 
State of New Jersey is very aware of the news that is put out in the 
New York Times and the editorials put out in the New York Times. Is 
that a fair statement?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is a very important paper, yes.
  Mr. REID. I do not know if the Senator is aware that I read into the 
Record this morning a New York Times editorial from last fall dealing 
with Estrada. I ask the Senator if he is aware of the first paragraph 
of an editorial written February 13, 2003, in the New York Times?
  Is the Senator also aware that last night the majority read into the 
Record a number of editorials from around the country?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am aware of that.
  Mr. REID. Does the Senator from New Jersey know the circulation of 
the New York Times?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do not know precisely, but it is in the----
  Mr. REID. It is in the millions.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am sorry?
  Mr. REID. It is over a million.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Over a million certainly on the weekends.
  Mr. REID. Yes, I am sure it is.
  Is the Senator aware of this editorial that says, paragraph No. 1, 
``The Bush administration is missing the point in the Senate battle 
over Miguel Estrada, its controversial nominee to the powerful DC 
Circuit Court of Appeals. Democrats who have vowed to filibuster the 
nomination are not engaging in 'shameful politics,' as the President 
has put it, nor are they anti-Latino, as Republicans have cynically 
charged. They are insisting that the White House respect the Senate's 
role in confirming judicial nominees''?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am. I am also aware of the fact that there are 
Latino organizations that are unalterably opposed to this nomination.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield for a question, is he aware that 
it is led by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am aware of all that.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield for a further question, it would 
be difficult, would it not, to say that the Congressional Hispanic 
Caucus was anti-Hispanic?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I absolutely agree that there would typically be a 
determination by them to support the nomination, but they are not. If 
the Senator will help sharpen my memory, I think they said keep on 
talking in the close of that editorial piece.
  Mr. REID. We are going to find out. If the Senator would yield for 
another question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would be happy to.
  Mr. REID. I ask if the Senator from New Jersey agrees with that first 
paragraph of the editorial that I just wrote--read. I wish I had 
written it, but I read it.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I agree with the Senator and wish I had written it as 
well.
  Mr. REID. It is a short editorial. It is only three paragraphs. I 
will ask the Senator a question if he would yield.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
  Mr. REID. ``The Bush administration has shown no interest in working 
with Senate Democrats to select nominees who could be approved by 
consensus, and has dug in its heels on its most controversial choices. 
At their confirmation hearings, judicial nominees have refused to 
answer questions about their views on legal issues. And Senate 
Republicans have rushed through the procedures on controversial 
nominees. Mr. Estrada embodies the White House's scorn for the Senate's 
role. Dubbed the `stealth candidate,' he arrived with an extremely 
conservative reputation but almost no paper trail. He refused to answer 
questions, and although he had written many memorandums as a lawyer in 
the Justice Department, the White House refused to release them.''

  Does the Senator from New Jersey agree with the statement made in 
this editorial, second paragraph, by the New York Times?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I agree with it fully. I read that editorial. I was 
in total agreement with their logic, coming from New Jersey where we 
had candidates who were recommended for the

[[Page S2903]]

appeals court languish--nothing happening for months and months and 
months. The protests we hear now from our friends on the other side 
about the process are a bit shameless because we had a nominee from 
California, Mr. Paez, who waited, I believe, 1,500 days.
  Mr. REID. One thousand five hundred four days.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Waiting for a review by the committee, and could not 
get that.
  If we talk about obstinate approaches to the process about deliberate 
obstruction, the record is very clear.
  When we presented candidates, when the Democrats were a majority, 
they could not move them because the Republican side of the Senate 
would not permit any action at all.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to yield to my friend from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. The final paragraph of this short but powerful editorial, 
does the Senator from New Jersey agree with this:

       The Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, insists that the 
     Senate be given the information it needs to evaluate Mr. 
     Estrada. He says there cannot be a vote until senators are 
     given access to Mr. Estrada's memorandums and until they get 
     answers to their questions. The White House can call this 
     politics or obstruction. But in fact it is Senators doing 
     their jobs.

  Would the Senator agree with this statement?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I agree 100 percent with that statement, and I think 
we ought to get on with the business of the American people.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield for another question before he 
leaves the floor. The Senator mentioned there were aspirants to be 
appellate judges, and is the Senator aware that a number of these 
people were from New York? Is that true?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Indeed, that is true.
  I just got a letter from a district court judge in New Jersey, 
considered one of the most brilliant and able district court judges, 
who was recommended for the circuit court of appeals in our district 
and decided after a long wait that he was not going to get a chance to 
be heard for a circuit court job. He informs me in his letter that he 
is going back to the law firm after 10 years on the Federal bench--a 
distinguished jurist, a great loss. He could not get a hearing, so he 
decided to withdraw rather than sit there and be dangled like a kite in 
the wind.
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator aware of the names of 79 Clinton judicial 
nominees who were not confirmed by the Republicans?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am fully aware of that. I listened when the 
distinguished Democratic whip read that list the first time, and I took 
the liberty of reading the list a second time to make sure it was 
clearly understood.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is very interesting to hear the 
discussions. It is very similar to what we have heard now for a couple 
of weeks. I could not agree more with the Senator from New Jersey who 
says let's get on with it. I have a suggestion as to how we can do 
that. There are more than a majority in this Senate who are satisfied 
with this candidate and ready to vote. All we need to do is have an up-
or-down vote. Those who are opposing that are in the minority. They can 
study as many things as they choose. The fact is, the majority of the 
people on this floor are satisfied this candidate is the right 
candidate and it is time to go. I could not agree more.
  We have a lot of things to do. We have gone through the hearings, we 
have gone through all the background, and certainly most of us would 
like to get away from this delay tactic and get on with our work. I 
have to say that when the majority is ready to go, that is what we 
ought to do. I suggest that.
  I will discuss another subject for a moment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 475 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, again I hope we find ourselves in a 
position to move forward. I don't think there is a soul here who would 
not admit we have talked enough about this judicial nomination. I don't 
think there is a soul here who would deny we have all made up our 
minds, we all know exactly what we are going to do. It is very clear 
that the majority on this floor is prepared to vote for this nominee 
and we are being held up over here by a minority that simply continues 
to ask for something that is not necessary because the majority has 
already been determined. So I hope we can move on and do the business 
of this country for these people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution.
  (The remarks of Mr. Crapo pertaining to the submission of S. Con. 
Res. 11 are printed in today's Record under ``Submission on Concurrent 
and Senate Resolutions.'')