[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 36 (Thursday, March 6, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3208-S3211]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ESTRADA NOMINATION

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, shortly we will have a vote on cloture on 
the nomination of Miguel Estrada. Let me just say that I am saddened 
that we have to have this vote at all. Democrats are not interested in 
delaying the debate, delaying the vote. What we are interested in is 
the same standard set for judicial nominees virtually all through 
history. Nominees in the past have come before the Judiciary Committee, 
they have answered their questions, they have provided the 
documentation, votes have been taken, and judges overwhelmingly have 
been confirmed. This is the exception, not the rule.
  While we were in the majority we confirmed 101 judicial nominees. I 
haven't checked, and I have no way of knowing, but I suspect all 101 
confirmed judges are conservatives. I don't think they would have made 
it through

[[Page S3209]]

the screening process of the Bush administration were they not 
conservative.
  We have voted on a large number--I don't have the number before me--
of judges this year. Again, I would say, without exception, those 
judges are conservative and, with rare exception, those judges were 
confirmed unanimously.
  There are those who suggest that somehow because this is a 
conservative judge, Democrats are balking at confirmation. I will 
oppose Mr. Estrada even if we have the opportunity at some point in the 
future because I am confident, based on his answers to questions so 
far, and the limited information we do have available to us so far, 
that he represents an extreme point of view, not a moderate point of 
view. I believe those extreme positions are ones that would cause 
concern, whether he were extreme liberal or extreme conservative.
  But the issue in this immediate case is not philosophical 
temperament. This issue is about intransigence. This issue is whether 
or not Miguel Estrada or anybody else ought to be held to the same 
standard for consideration of this important position, the second 
highest court in the land. He has been asked to fill out a job 
application and he refuses to fill out the final pages of that 
application. We are left to guess what his qualifications are. We are 
left to guess what his judicial temperament is. For many of my 
colleagues, that is insufficient. His attitude, his disposition, his 
intransigence is why we are here today. So it is not Democrats, it is 
Mr. Estrada, it is the administration that continues to be unwilling to 
provide the cooperation and the information that Members have used in 
the past to make their judgments.
  There has been so much misinformation regarding past precedent, but 
even if you sift through all of the misinformation in the assertions 
relating to other judges and their degree of compliance with the law, I 
don't know of anyone who has not acknowledged that Solicitor General 
documents have been shared with members of the Judiciary Committee and 
the Senate on past occasions. That is fact. Judge Bork, Benjamin 
Civiletti, Judge Rehnquist--there are many who have provided the very 
information we have requested.
  So it is regrettable we are at this point. We have been debating this 
nomination now for a month. I would like very much for us to turn to 
other important matters. We may be going to war soon. The Senate ought 
to have an opportunity to discuss the implications of war, our thoughts 
about war. We have not had that discussion. Perhaps now is the time to 
do so.
  As I have said on the floor on several occasions, the administration 
seems to be consumed with this one job but ignores the fact that over 
2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs. This Senate ought to be 
devoting its attention and time to dealing with the real issues 
confronting our country domestically, which are the economy, the loss 
of jobs, the stagnation, the uncertainty.

  I was with a group this morning who said investment is simply not in 
evidence in large measure because of uncertainty, because people do not 
know what the future holds economically. We ought to be moving forward 
on an economic debate. We ought to be moving forward to address those 
2.5 million Americans who have lost their jobs, but we have not done 
so. Yet day after day, hour after hour, we continue to be consumed by 
the one job at the expense of the millions.
  There are many reasons I wish conditions would be different this 
morning. I do hope Mr. Estrada will see fit to be more cooperative. I 
have appreciated the willingness on the part of the administration to 
encourage Mr. Estrada to meet with Members. But as many of us have 
noted, it is not his willingness to meet; it is his unwillingness to 
provide information that has brought us to this point. Meeting alone is 
cosmetic. Meeting alone is more of a public relations ploy than a 
meaningful way with which to ascertain the facts. We don't need more 
public relations. We don't need more efforts to meet if those meetings 
cannot be more productive.
  So I hope we can move on to issues of great import to this country, 
whether it is foreign policy or the economy or the many other domestic 
issues we face. We have attempted day after day to bring an economic 
stimulus bill to the Senate floor. Perhaps with this vote the way can 
be cleared to allow that to happen. But whatever happens, I think it is 
important to put my colleagues on notice that the vote will not change 
regardless of how many votes may be cast. We feel strongly as a caucus, 
and we will continue to hold the position as a caucus, that the 
information Mr. Estrada has so far failed to provide is not in keeping 
with past precedent; it is not in keeping with constitutional 
expectations; it is not in keeping with our expectations with regard to 
the cooperation we would expect from any nominee.
  I hope as we consider how we might resolve this matter, Mr. Estrada 
will work with us, provide information we have asked, work with us to 
ensure that those unanswered questions can be answered and that in the 
meantime we can turn to the matters of interest, of import, of concern 
to the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent before we go into 
executive session to have printed in the Record two documents. One is 
an editorial that appeared in the Chicago Tribune, written by Eduardo 
M. Penalver, who was a Supreme Court clerk for Justice John Paul 
Stevens.
  I further ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 
letter written to Majority Leader Frist, dated today, from a number of 
Hispanic leaders from around the Nation, with the final paragraph:

       We want more representation for our community in the 
     courts, but not at such a high price. We accept liberal and 
     conservative thinkers among us, but Mr. Estrada is much more 
     than a conservative, he is an ideologue. We cannot support 
     the confirmation of an ideologue to such an important 
     position in our society. The cost is too high. We urge you 
     and the members of the Senate to oppose Mr. Estrada's 
     confirmation.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Chicago Tribune, Mar. 4, 2003]

                  Are Estrada's Opponents Anti-Latino?

                        (By Eduardo M. Penalver)

       No merit to argument that to oppose Estrada's nomination is 
     to oppose interests of Latinos.
       The fight over the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the 
     influential Washington, D.C.-based federal appeals court has 
     lifted the veil on the riddle that lies at the heart of the 
     Latino identity: What exactly does it mean to be a 
     ``Latino''?
       Republican politicians have struggled to paint Estrada's 
     opponents as anti-Latino. They have been joined by a handful 
     of the Latino organizations supporting Estrada's nomination. 
     And then there's the national TV ad, sponsored by Estrada 
     supporters, that depicts a brown boy seeking work and 
     confronting a shop owner who apparently does not want to hire 
     a Latino. The ad not-so-subtly suggests that Estrada's 
     opponents are like the bigot in the store.
       I count myself among those who--for ideological reasons--
     firmly oppose Estrada's nomination. But I am also Latino. And 
     while the Republican moralizing is hard to swallow from the 
     party that in the last decade has given us such ``Latino-
     friendly'' faces as U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and 
     former California Gov. Pete Wilson, it still seems worth 
     asking whether there is some inconsistency between being 
     Latino and opposing the first Latino to be nominated to the 
     D.C. federal circuit.
       To answer that question, we have to first decide what it 
     means to be a Latino. This is no easy task. Although we have 
     learned to call ourselves Latino or Hispanic, those of us of 
     Latin-American ancestry have often questioned the propriety 
     of being grouped under a unitary label.
       After all, it is not immediately clear what my Cuban-
     American family, which lived in relative privilege in Cuba 
     and was embraced by the United States as victims of communist 
     tyranny during the Cold War, shares with Mexican farmworkers 
     in California's central valley or the El Salvadoran woman who 
     cleans my office, both of whom likely come from extreme 
     poverty and who have been greeted in this country with 
     exploitation and disdain.
       Still, I have always believed (or perhaps hoped) that being 
     a Latino, like being an African-American, had some 
     substantive, perhaps even political content. In discussing 
     the Estrada nomination with other Latinos, particularly those 
     who support the Estrada nomination, however, I have struggled 
     to articulate what that content might be.
       Estrada has been criticized by some (both Latinos and non-
     Latinos) for being insufficiently Latino because his family 
     in Honduras was not poor. By that definition, however, 
     virtually none of the Cubans who arrived in the United States 
     in the first years after the revolution would qualify as 
     authentically Latino. Estrada has also been criticized for 
     being too conservative.

[[Page S3210]]

       But the voting patterns of Latinos (and not of just Cuban-
     Americans) are far too mixed to impose such a simplistic 
     political litmus test on Latino authenticity. Moreover, as a 
     devout member of the Federalist Society, Estrada's most 
     conservative, and--in my opinion--troubling, views likely 
     relate to his understanding of the proper role of the 
     national government in the federal system, an issue on which 
     few Latinos who are not lawyers have much of an ax to grind.
       Despite the definitional difficulties, those of us who call 
     ourselves Latino at a minimum must share a commitment to the 
     notion that being Latino has some significance.
       That significance may be rooted in the fact that, despite 
     our obvious diversity, we are perceived by the Anglo majority 
     to fall within a single group and to possess a common set of 
     stereotypical traits, and that, as a result of the way we are 
     perceived, we share an experience of discrimination in this 
     country. It is possible--though I do not think it to be the 
     case--that being Latino means little more than that. But if 
     it does not even mean that much (or that little), why would 
     we ever even use the term and why would we waste our time 
     forming organizations around such a meaningless notion?
       I believe that this minimal shared belief provides a 
     principled basis for opposing the Estrada nomination from a 
     distinctively Latino point of view. In addition, I believe 
     that this shared belief suggests that those Latino 
     organizations that have endorsed the Estrada nomination have 
     betrayed the very ideals on which they were founded.
       From this minimalist Latino perspective, it is not decisive 
     whether Estrada is rich or poor or liberal or conservative. 
     What matters is that Estrada has never said or done anything 
     to indicate that he views himself as belonging to, or having 
     something to contribute to or gain from, this Latino (or 
     Hispanic or Latin American) community we have chosen for 
     ourselves. Indeed, by all accounts, he thinks racial and 
     ethnic categories are irrelevant, even harmful.
       Miguel Estrada is not less Latino because he comes from a 
     professional Honduran family or because he is a hard-line 
     conservative. But he is certainly less worthy of Latino 
     support because he is against the notion that a Latino 
     identity is a concept with any meaning or value. As a result, 
     organizations whose founding principles revolve around the 
     opposite belief have no business endorsing his nomination to 
     a U.S. Court of Appeals.
       If Estrada did believe that his Latino identity had some 
     significance, I would probably still oppose him--perhaps 
     because my ideological commitments are more important to me 
     than my desire to see a Latino on the D.C. circuit. But even 
     under those circumstances, given the typical conservative 
     denial that race or ethnicity should ever matter, his 
     Republican supporters' attempt to manipulate ethnic loyalties 
     for the sake of their ideological crusade would still seem 
     particularly cynical and offensive.
       Nevertheless, the notion that his presence on the federal 
     appeals court would be good for Latinos would be entitled to 
     more weight. Given Estrada's apparent beliefs that Latino 
     identity is irrelevant, however, there is not the least bit 
     of merit to the argument that to oppose Estrada's nomination 
     is to oppose the interests of the Latino community. To the 
     contrary, those of us in the Latino community who oppose 
     Estrada's nomination are simply giving him what he has always 
     asked for: to be treated as an individual and not as the 
     member of a group.
                                  ____

                                                    March 5, 2003.
     Majority Leader Bill Frist,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Frist: We write you today on the 
     nomination of Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit of Appeals. 
     We are all Latino/Hispanic/Chicano professors researching, 
     writing, and teaching in colleges and universities throughout 
     the country. We come from a world, not too dissimilar from 
     the other worlds in our society, where not only are Latinos 
     under represented in our rank of professors, but we are also 
     under represented among the students and worse yet among the 
     Presidents and Deans of our institutions. Nevertheless, we 
     believe in studying old ideas, developing and exchanging new 
     ideas, and training the next generation of thinkers to 
     explore and improve the world around them, however they 
     choose to do so.
       We have followed with extreme interest the Senate's review 
     and debate on the nomination of Mr. Estrada. For many in our 
     broader society, they may be confused as to whether Mr. 
     Estrada should be supported or not; however, we are not. We 
     stand united in our opposition to the confirmation of Mr. 
     Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
       We recognize and congratulate Mr. Estrada on his 
     professional accomplishments. So few Hispanics have had the 
     privileges that he has had to serve as a Supreme Court clerk, 
     to serve in the Solicitor General's Office of the Department 
     of Justice or to reach the level of partner at a major law 
     firm in this country. At the end of the day, however, the 
     question we ask is whether Mr. Estrada would be a fair judge? 
     We conclude that he would not be.
       He evaded questions from the Senate. That does not give us 
     confidence that he would be a fair and open-minded judge if 
     he feels he has to hide how he approaches the law. His past 
     record, although limited, also provides some disturbing 
     insight into how he would rule as a judge. We see that he 
     would not be a supporter of affirmative action at the very 
     colleges and universities where we teach where Latinos are 
     sorely under represented and under served. A major problem 
     facing Chicanos and other Hispanics is the issue of racial 
     profiling; again, Mr. Estrada downplays its existence. We 
     question whether he has a commitment to protecting civil 
     rights of Latinos.
       We want more representation from our community in the 
     courts, but not at such a high price. We accept liberal and 
     conservative thinkers among us, but Mr. Estrada is much more 
     than a conservative, he is an ideologue. We cannot support 
     the confirmation of the ideologue to such an important 
     position in our society. The cost is too high. We urge you 
     and the members of the Senate to oppose Mr. Estrada's 
     confirmation.
           Sincerely,
       Leonard Valverde, Professor, Educational Leadership & 
     Policy Study, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
       Dorinda Moreno, Napa Community College, Ohlone Jr. College, 
     SF State University, Concord, CA.
       Duane Campbell, Bilingual/Multicultural Education, CSU 
     Sacramento, Sacramento, CA.
       Gary Urdiales, Youth Development Specialist, Lanier High 
     School.
       Ian Haney-Lopez, Professor of Law, U.C. Berkeley, Berkeley, 
     CA.
       Jesus Nieto, Associate Professor, School of Teacher 
     Education, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.
       Jose Anazagasty-Rodriguez, Department of Comparative 
     American Cultures, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
       Lorenzo Cano, Associate Director, Center for Mexican, 
     American Studies, University of Houston, Houston, TX.
       Rquel Rubio-Goldsmith, LLM, Mexican American Studies and 
     Research Center, University of Arisona, Tucson, AZ.
       Julio Bernal, Assistant Professor of Entomology, Texas A&M 
     Unbiversity, College Stanton, TX.
       Luis Moreno, CSU Northridge, Northridge, CA.
       Lisa Garcia Bedolla, Department of Political Science, 
     University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA.
       Richard Griego, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics, Director 
     of Chicano Studies, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 
     NM.
       Roberto Lovato, Founding Member of Central American 
     Studies, CSU Northridge, Northridge, CA.
       Loui Olivas, Assistant VP Academic Affairs, Arizona State 
     University, Tempe, AZ.
       Roxane Royalty, MA, Youth Development Specialist, Lanier 
     High School, San Antonio, TX.
       Ignacio Garcia, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
       Ernesto Virgil, Writer, Activist and Historian, Denver, CO.
       Maria Teresa Marquez, University of New Mexico, 
     Albuquerque, NM.
       William de la Torre, Department of Educational Leadership & 
     Policy Studies, CSU Northridge, Northridge, CA.
       Serigo Romero, Sociology, University of Oregon, Eugene, 
     Oregon.
       Jorge Mariscal, Department of literature, University of 
     California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA.
       Dolores Delgado-Campbell, History, American River College, 
     Sacramento, CA.
       Miguel Paredes, CSU Northridge, Los Angeles, CA.
       Ralph de Unamuno, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
       Amanda Espinosa-Aguilar, Washington State University, 
     Pullman, WA.
       Ruben Davalos, Assistant Professor, Public Administration, 
     Emeritus Graduate Center for Public Policy/Administration, 
     CSU Long Beach, Long Beach, CA.
       Reynaldo Anaya Valencia, A.B., A.M., J.D., Professor of 
     Law, St. Mary's University School of Law, San Antonio, TX.
       Robert Vazquez, CEO, LaRed Latina, The University of Nevada 
     at Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada.
       Angelo Falcon, Senior Policy Executive, Puerto Rican Legal 
     Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), New York, NY.
       Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, Associate Dean for Clinical 
     Affairs, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
       Carlos Munoz, Professor Emeritus, University of California, 
     Berkeley, CA.
       Albert Camarillo, Professor of History, Stanford 
     University.
       Gloria Valencia-Weber, Professor, University of New Mexico 
     School of Law, Albuquerque, NM.
       Jorge Mariscal, Department of Literature, University of 
     California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA.
       Jose Roberto Juarez, Professor of Law, St. Mary's 
     University School of Law, San Antonio, TX.
       Ana Cecilia Zentella, Professor, Ethnic Studies, University 
     of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA.
       Adolfo Bermeo, Associate Vice Provost For Student 
     Diversity, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
       Carmen Gonzalez, Professor, Seattle University School of 
     Law, Seattle, WA.
       David Cruz, Professor of Law, USC Law School, Los Angeles, 
     CA.
       Dr. Guadalupe San Miguel, History Department, University of 
     Houston.
       Dionicio Valdes, Department of Chicano Studies, University 
     of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
       Enrique Buelna, Chicano Studies Department, CSU Northridge, 
     Northridge, CA.
       Dr. Anna Sampaio, Ph.D., Assistant Professor Dept. of 
     Political Science, University of Colorado, Denver, CO.
       Dr. Victor Rodriguez, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Chicano & 
     Latino Studies Dept., CSU Long Beach, Long Beach, CA.

[[Page S3211]]

       Dr. Ana Juarez Ph.D., Assistant Professor, STSU, San 
     Marcos, TX.
       Dr. Antonia Castaneda, Ph.D., Associate Professor of 
     History, St. Mary's University, San Antonio, TX.
       Dr. Estevan Flores, Ph.D., Executive Director, University 
     of Colorado, Denver, CO.
       Dr. Jorge Huerta, Ph.D., Chancellor's Associates Professor 
     of Theatre, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, 
     CA.
       Dr. Leticia Flores, Ph.D., Psychology Department, Southwest 
     Texas State University, San Marcos, TX.
       Dr. Gloria Contreras, Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Teacher 
     Education, University of North Texas, Denton, TX.
       Dr. Jose Centeno, Ph.D., Dept. of Speech, Communication 
     Sciences, & Theatre, St. John's University, Jamaica, NY.
       Dr. Ayse Yonder, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Chair Pratt 
     Institute, Graduate Center For Planning and the Environment, 
     Brooklyn, NY.
       Dr. Roberto Calderon, Ph.D., Department of History, 
     University of North Texas, Denton, TX.
       Dr. Vivian Tseng, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, CSU 
     Northridge, Northridge, CA.
       Dr. Mario Gonzales, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of 
     Anthropology, Southwestern University, Georgetown, TX.
       Dr. Ray Leal, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, St. 
     Mary's University, San Antonio, TX.
       Dr. Rebecca Blum-Martinez, Ph.D., College of Education, 
     University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
       Dr. Domenico Maceri, Ph.D., Professor of Spanish, Allan 
     Hancock College, Santa Maria, CA.

                          ____________________