[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3949-3958]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

   NOMINATION OF MIGUEL A. ESTRADA, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE UNITED STATES 
           CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume executive session and the consideration of Executive 
Calendar No. 21, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Miguel A. Estrada, of 
Virginia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of 
Columbia Circuit.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the presiding officer.
  Let me say in response to the majority leader, it has been 8 days now 
since Miguel Estrada's nomination came to the Senate floor. The issue 
in this case is not only Mr. Estrada's qualifications. An even more 
immediate issue is

[[Page 3950]]

Mr. Estrada's continued refusal to fill out what, for all intents and 
purposes, is a job application. Mr. Estrada is asking for a lifetime 
appointment to the second most powerful court in the land, the court 
just below the Supreme Court, and yet he refuses to answer the simple 
questions that are asked routinely of men and women who are nominated 
to the Federal bench.
  We do not need more time to debate the nomination. We need more 
answers. Without those answers, debate is hollow because we lack the 
basic information we need to make an informed judgment about Mr. 
Estrada's fitness. We are prepared to wait as long as we have to for 
his answers. Whether that wait lasts an hour, a day, a week, or even 
longer, is up to the administration and Mr. Estrada.
  The Constitution does not suggest, it does not hint that maybe it 
would be a good idea for us to advise the President on his nominees and 
withhold or offer our consent. The Constitution requires the Senate to 
advise the President on the nominees and offer or withhold our consent. 
By refusing to answer even the most basic questions, Mr. Estrada is not 
only stonewalling the Senate, he is undermining the Constitution. He is 
preventing the Senate from exercising our fundamental constitutional 
responsibility in this matter.
  I will simply say to my colleagues: We will not relent on this 
matter. We are united in our resolve to fulfill our obligation under 
the Constitution.
  There have been efforts made by some on the other side to confuse 
people. They want the American people to believe that Democrats have 
been unfair in our handling of judicial nominations. I think most 
people know better than that. In the last 17 months, we confirmed 100 
Federal judges. All of those judges were nominated by President Bush 
and all of them, one can assume, are quite conservative judges.
  Our Republican colleagues have even suggested that this debate may be 
about Mr. Estrada's ethnicity. Some of his supporters have suggested--
incredibly--that if you ask Mr. Estrada to answer questions, you are 
somehow hostile to the rights of Hispanic Americans. They have asserted 
on the floor of the Senate and also on the floor of the House that 
those who ask questions are somehow anti-Hispanic.
  That charge is desperate and, frankly, offensive, and it is obviously 
untrue. In fact, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which unanimously 
opposed Mr. Estrada's nomination, has actually demanded an apology from 
those who have made this false claim. Regrettably, we have heard no 
apology from those who have had the poor judgment to make such 
unfounded allegations. Even one of the groups that supports Mr. 
Estrada's nomination has denounced those allegations by Republicans. So 
I hope we are not going to hear any more of that ill-advised talk on 
the Senate floor.
  The fact is, many groups have expressed concern over Mr. Estrada's 
refusal to answer the Senate's questions. Among them, few have spoken 
out more forcefully than the organizations representing Hispanic 
Americans.
  His nomination is opposed by every member of the Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus, by the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education 
Fund, and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
  Leaders of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund 
said:

       It is unclear whether Mr. Estrada would be fair to Latino 
     plaintiffs as well as others who would appear before him with 
     claims under the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and 
     Due Process clauses of the Constitution.

  They continued:

       Further, we found evidence that suggests that [Mr. Estrada] 
     may not serve as a fair and impartial jurist on allegations 
     brought before him in the areas of racial profiling, 
     immigration and abusive or improper police practices . . . .
       We have concerns about whether he would fairly review 
     standing issues for organizations representing minority 
     interests, affirmative action programs or claims by low-
     income consumers.
       We are also unsure, after a careful review of his record, 
     whether he would fairly protect labor rights of immigrant 
     workers, or the rights of minority voters under the Voting 
     Rights Act.

  All this, not from some Democratic Senator, not from some partisan 
Democrat, but from one of the most respected Hispanic groups to speak 
out on this issue, on either side.
  Other Hispanic groups, including the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and 
Education Fund have expressed very similar concerns.
  If these perceptions are inaccurate, Mr. Estrada could disprove 
them--if he would stop stonewalling. But, unfortunately, so far he has 
refused to do so.
  As I said, there is far too much we don't know about Mr. Estrada. We 
will do everything we can to prevent his nomination from coming to a 
vote until he provides this Senate and the American people with some 
straight answers.
  Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this situation is not the red 
herrings. It is not the cynical or false accusations of obstructionism 
or anti-Hispanic bigotry, as offensive as those charges are. What is 
even more troubling is what the Senate is not doing right now.
  We have made it clear that the Senate cannot vote on the Estrada 
nomination until the necessary information is provided. Yet our 
Republican colleagues have chosen to force this fight onto the floor 
rather than to take up other, more urgent business.
  Americans who watched as this debate stretched late into the night 
last night must have been mystified. They know we are facing daunting 
challenges at this critical moment in our history. Our Nation may be on 
the verge of war. We are told that America is at a high risk of 
terrorist attack. People are experiencing great anxiety about their 
safety and the safety of their loved ones. What is more, millions of 
Americans are out of work and our economy is in trouble.
  Why--Americans must have asked themselves last night--with all of the 
great challenges confronting our nation, why has the Republican 
majority chosen to pick this fight at this time?
  I don't understand, and I doubt that people at home do, either.
  America faces serious, even life-and-death challenges: homeland 
security, the economy. That is what the Senate should be working on day 
and night. That is a good reason for an all-night session.
  Miguel Estrada should stop the stonewalling. He should answer the 
Senate's questions and we should get on with addressing the real, 
urgent issues confronting our country--the economy, the terrorist 
attacks, and war in Iraq.
  We can wait and we can talk, or we can set this nomination aside 
until we have the information to make an informed judgment and, in the 
meantime, we can deal with the issues that are of far greater 
consequence and far greater concern to the American people. Until we 
deal with those concerns, we are not really meeting our 
responsibilities.
  (The remarks of Mr. Daschle pertaining to the introduction of S. 385 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I had an opportunity to come to the 
floor once before and express my views about the nominee who is before 
the Senate for confirmation, Miguel Estrada. But I want to make a few 
additional points at this time, and I hope I don't repeat myself.
  I want to say for my part and for the part of many others in the body 
that this is not a debate we were eager to begin; this is not a debate 
we are eager to continue; but this is a debate that really goes to the 
heart of the separation of powers and the checks and balances that the 
Founders of this Nation so carefully crafted more than 200 years ago.
  The President makes nominations to the Federal judiciary. This is 
true. But it is a judiciary that Congress fashioned, and it is a 
judiciary that the Senate has been given the constitutional 
responsibility to help fill, through our advice and consent role.
  I am one who has always believed that every nominee should get a full 
and fair hearing and that every nominee should then get an up-or-down 
vote. For too long, I watched one after

[[Page 3951]]

another Clinton nominee languish without any such courtesy, and with no 
explanation as to why. Many of his nominees were minorities who never 
even got the chance to speak to the Committee.
  Chairman Hatch and I had many conversations during that time about 
moving more nominees through the committee. And I know he did more than 
many in his caucus would have liked him to do to move nominees. For 
that, I thank him. I believe deep in his heart he also believes 
nominees should move through and get a hearing. But still, too many 
nominees were stopped from even the most basic of rights during the 
nomination process--a hearing--a basic right for someone who is 
nominated to the Judiciary Committee. They should have a right to have 
a hearing, in my view.
  In this case, the Democrat-controlled Senate gave Miguel Estrada a 
full and fair hearing and every opportunity to show the committee what 
kind of judge he would be. But he did not use that opportunity well.
  Although I believe that every nominee deserves an up-or-down vote, an 
up-or-down vote on final confirmation should only occur after the 
Senate has had a full opportunity to learn about the nominee and to 
properly judge whether or not that nominee can serve impartially in the 
Federal judiciary. In this case, I don't believe we have enough 
information to make such a decision, as a direct result of the lack of 
cooperation by this nominee and by the White House. As a result, we 
should not be asked to make such an important decision.
  I want to clearly state this is not an issue of retaliation, as some 
have suggested. It is true that the Republican Senate did block a 
number of very qualified Hispanic nominees--female nominees, and so 
on--under President Clinton.
  And it is true that many on this floor have mentioned those 
nominees--Enrique Moreno, for instance. But they were mentioned not to 
begin some tit-for-tat exchange of blocked nominations. Quite the 
contrary. Under Chairman Leahy, the Judiciary Committee and the 
Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed 100 nominees in just over a year.
  Mr. Estrada has already been given far better treatment than many 
were given by the other side in the recent past. All we ask for is some 
basic answers to the most basic of questions. Think about this: Before 
us now, we have a 41-year-old nominee about whom we know little. He has 
been nominated to a crucial appellate court, the DC Circuit, which is, 
at present, evenly split. That raises the question, Do we have a right 
to know if this judicial nominee can be impartial? I believe we do.
  In this case, this nominee, for some reason, has been very 
controversial from the beginning. We have heard from many who have 
worked with Mr. Estrada or even supervised him, and many who have 
watched him work throughout the years.
  Without exception, all of these individuals believe Mr. Estrada is 
bright. And I am confident that every Democrat in this body agrees with 
that assessment. But that is not the problem. And that is not the 
question today.
  Without exception, all these individuals believe Mr. Estrada to be 
well educated, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
indicated throughout the last few days. But that, too, is an issue that 
is not in doubt, and it is not the problem.
  And essentially, without exception, all of these individuals believe 
Mr. Estrada is conservative. Some believe him to be very conservative, 
some less so, but all recognize him to be a conservative. Even Mr. 
Estrada himself, as I understand it, would likely describe himself in 
this manner. But make no mistake, this is not about whether or not 
Miguel Estrada is conservative.
  I have already voted for nominees whom I know to be conservative, as 
have most, if not all, of my Democratic colleagues.
  At the present time, I have just given my proxy to the Judiciary 
Committee that is considering three nominees to appellate courts who 
are, in fact, conservative. And I will vote yes on those nominees.
  So the question is not whether this nominee--or any nominee--is 
liberal or conservative, White or Hispanic, Jewish or Catholic, or any 
other group or inclination. The question with this nominee--and with 
every nominee--is whether the nominee can put aside personal beliefs to 
rule fairly and impartially on the cases that come before him or her.
  In some cases, we can get a clear idea of how a nominee would handle 
the responsibilities of a Federal judgeship. But in this case, as we 
tried to get a clear idea of how this nominee would handle these 
responsibilities, we were really stymied at every turn.
  On the one hand, we have letters, phone calls. To my office, we have 
received almost 8,000 phone calls in opposition to this nominee; and 
less than 400 in favor. All these phone calls seem to indicate the 
belief that Mr. Estrada is an ideologue who cannot be trusted with a 
circuit court judgeship.
  We have Professor Paul Bender, Mr. Estrada's direct supervisor at the 
Department of Justice, who said to the press that he believed Estrada 
to be so ``ideologically driven that he couldn't be trusted to state 
the law in a fair, neutral way.'' Mr. Bender recently sent a letter to 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee essentially reaffirming this 
statement.
  We have major Hispanic organizations--just those groups one might 
expect to most strongly support Mr. Estrada--strongly opposing him 
instead.
  On the other hand, as we look for facts to counteract such serious 
concerns, we have almost nothing.
  Miguel Estrada has never been a judge, so we have no record of 
judicial decisionmaking to examine. This in itself is not dispositive, 
but it is the first area where we find no record to help us in our 
decisions.
  Mr. Estrada is not a prolific writer, so again, unlike many, we have 
no real record of writings or speeches to examine. Again, this alone 
would not be dispositive, but, as I said earlier this week, in a sense, 
it is strike two in terms of where we can get information about this 
nominee.
  We have not been granted access to the memos he wrote at the 
Department of Justice, so we can only take the word of the man who 
supervised him that those memos were ideologically driven and could not 
be trusted. That is strike three.
  Mr. Estrada refused to adequately participate in his own confirmation 
hearing, so we have no real answers to these questions. And the 
questions are legitimate.
  Even when given time to think about his answers, even when he was 
given questions in written form, he refused to answer those questions, 
using precisely the same language he used to refuse to answer at his 
hearing.
  For instance, when Senator Durbin asked this nominee, in writing: 
``Do you have an opinion on the merits of Roe v. Wade?'' Mr. Estrada 
responded, as he did to me in committee, ``it would not be appropriate 
for me to express such a view without doing the intensive work that a 
judge hearing the case would have to undertake--not only reading briefs 
and hearing the arguments of counsel, but also independently 
investigating the relevant constitutional text, case law, and 
history.''
  In the hearing, I asked him: Do you believe Roe was correctly 
decided? And he said he could not answer that question.
  When Senator Kennedy asked Mr. Estrada, in writing, how he would have 
resolved a case that came before the DC Circuit and was then decided by 
the Supreme Court--Hoffman Plastics--Mr. Estrada again answered that 
because he had not read the briefs and was not present at oral 
argument, he could not answer.
  When Senator Kennedy asked him about the Maryland/DC/Delaware 
Broadcasters case, again Mr. Estrada said he could not, or would not, 
answer.
  When Senator Durbin asked Mr. Estrada to name any judge, living or 
dead, whom he would seek to emulate, Mr. Estrada said he could name not 
one judge he would emulate.
  In contrast, let me take a moment to talk about Judge Richard Paez, a 
well-

[[Page 3952]]

qualified Hispanic nominee sent to the Senate by President Clinton and 
eventually confirmed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Judge Paez spent more than 1,500 days before this Senate before he 
finally got a vote. And this came despite the fact that he answered 
every question put to him.
  For instance, Senator Sessions asked him: ``Which Supreme Court 
Justice or federal judge has most influenced your judicial 
philosophy?'' Judge Paez named Judge Harry Hupp, a man he appeared 
before as a litigator, and a colleague of his on the district court 
bench.
  Senator Sessions asked Richard Paez: ``In your opinion what is the 
greatest Supreme Court decision in American history?'' Judge Paez did 
not refuse to answer, or claim that he could not give an answer because 
he had not been present at oral arguments. Instead, he simply named 
Brown v. Board of Education.
  Senator Sessions then asked: ``What is the worst Supreme Court 
decision?'' Judge Paez answered: ``Dred Scott.'' This is the decision 
where the Supreme Court ruled, essentially, ``once a slave, always a 
slave.''
  Miguel Estrada, on the other hand, would not answer these types of 
questions.
  Senator Schumer asked him to name any Supreme Court case he thought 
was wrongly decided.
  He did not simply say he thinks Plessy v. Ferguson was wrongly 
decided. That is the case that upheld the concept of separate but 
equal. And even the Supreme Court has since overturned it. I know of 
few people who would claim Plessy was correctly decided. But Miguel 
Estrada apparently thinks he could not say so without having heard the 
oral arguments. He did not say he disagreed with the Dred Scott 
decision, which upheld slavery. He did not say he believed Korematsu, 
which upheld the right of the United States to put American citizens of 
Japanese descent into internment camps. He named none of these cases. 
He simply said he could not answer the question.
  This is in direct contrast to a recent experience with Jeffrey Sutton 
during his hearing less than 2 weeks ago. Mr. Sutton is also a 
controversial nominee, but he answered every question put to him. We 
got a good sense of how he would think and act as a judge. I, myself, 
who was concerned about him initially, felt he was a strong advocate, 
but he knew the difference. He could separate himself from the 
positions of advocacy and become a fair and impartial judge. So I have 
given my proxy right now to be carried out to vote yes for Judge 
Sutton. Mr. Estrada, on the other hand, did his best to keep from 
putting himself on record on any issue of real substance.
  Quite frankly, there are options. One, return this nominee to the 
Judiciary Committee for answers. The Senate deserves the answers. 
Democratic nominees were asked by distinguished Republican Senators to 
answer questions such as this, and they did. Even of those, many had 
judicial records. Many had prolific writings. Many had speeches so that 
there were tools we could go to to understand what their thinking was. 
But in this case we have no speeches. We have no writings. We have no 
record. Therefore, the answers to the questions become extraordinarily 
dispositive. They also become meaningful to any Senator who wants to 
cast an informed vote.
  It is that simple. That is what this debate is about. We cannot 
possibly fulfill our constitutional duty to advise and consent to 
nominees if we are not given the necessary information about the 
nominee.
  In a case where you have a critical circuit such as the DC Circuit, 
not only the plumbing grounds for the U.S. Supreme Court, but handling 
environmental appeals, Superfund appeals, wetlands appeals, OSHA 
appeals, all kinds of administrative case law appeals, how this court 
is tilted becomes important to us, particularly if we take this job of 
confirmation of nominees seriously.
  There is another option. That option is appoint Miguel Estrada to a 
district court. Give him an opportunity to gain that record. He is 41 
years old. He is younger than my daughter. Give him an opportunity to 
gain that record. Remember, this is a man who will serve for 30, 40, 
possibly even 50 years. It is a lifetime appointment. We are entitled 
to answers to these questions.
  In Miguel Estrada's questionnaire, he admitted to having written no 
books, articles, or reports of any kind, save one Law Review article in 
law school. That was titled ``The Policies Behind Lending Limits.'' He 
wrote that in 1985. At Miguel Estrada's hearing, he would not comment 
on whether any case had ever been wrongly decided, even cases that have 
been overturned. He would not name any single judge he would want to 
emulate on the bench in any way. He would not answer written questions 
put to him that would help us learn more about how he thinks about 
cases and how he would judge them. He would not even try to convince 
the Justice Department to turn over some of the memos he wrote for the 
Solicitor General's Office, nor would he himself turn them over.
  If this nominee is confirmed, we believe we would be sending a signal 
that stonewalling the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate is the 
way to succeed on the way to a judgeship. That is the wrong signal and 
the wrong message.
  In effect, we would be abdicating our constitutional role, our 
constitutional duty to advise and consent to nominees, because we would 
never again be able to learn enough about a nominee to make reasoned 
decisions.
  Nominees could become increasingly young, increasingly ideological, 
and increasingly silent. The courts would soon be packed with judges of 
unknown disposition, unknown temperament, and unknown proclivities to 
judge fairly and impartially.
  We should take our constitutional duties more seriously than that. We 
simply are determined not to let that happen.
  I would like to read the concluding sentence from the editorial in 
today's New York Times:

       The White House can call this politics or obstruction. But 
     in fact it is Senators doing their jobs.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague from California. She laid out the 
facts beautifully. I will attempt to try and talk about this issue from 
my perspective as someone who worked so hard on getting a couple of 
nominees through the Senate. Senator Feinstein touched on those 
particular cases. They are relevant to what we are doing here.
  I remind colleagues--I know they are aware of this, but it is worth 
repeating--we are talking about a lifetime appointment to one of the 
most important courts in the Nation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia. It is a lifetime appointment. It is very 
important when we are looking at these types of appointments.
  I have voted for well over 90 percent of the President's appointees 
up to this time. It is very unusual for me to stand up here and say: We 
need more information. It is important to go back to the Constitution 
and read exactly what it tells us we have to do. Section 2:

       [The President] shall have the Power, by and with the 
     Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided 
     two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall 
     nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the 
     Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and 
     Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers 
     of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein 
     otherwise provided for . . .

  There has been a lot of discussion that we are in essence interfering 
with the rights of the President. It is very clear: If we sit back and 
don't do the work of advice and consent, we don't deserve to be in the 
Senate. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is where we have 
to play a role. Advice and consent just means that.
  I want to relate a story, when Senator Hatch, who is now 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was chairman before 
Senator Leahy and President Clinton was President at that time. Senator 
Hatch had a very direct conversation with me, and I am

[[Page 3953]]

sure he did with other Democrats. What I like about Senator Hatch is, 
you kind of know where he is coming from.
  He said: Senator Boxer, you have to send me moderates. Don't send me 
any liberals. Don't send me any progressives. Don't send me any 
activists. I want moderates for the bench. I am telling you here now, 
if they are not, they are not going anywhere. I had a little 
conversation with him about that but realized this was the pragmatics 
of politics and this is what we are going to do.
  In essence, the nominees I had recommended to the President and 
President Clinton were mainstream moderate candidates. Even with that, 
a lot of them had a hard time here. But they made it, and I want to 
talk about how long it took and how many questions they had to answer 
and what we went through to make it happen.
  I feel sometimes like Alice in Wonderland when I hear the kind of 
double standard that seems to be coming forward. This man, Mr. Estrada, 
cannot answer any questions, but look at how many questions they asked 
Margaret Morrow. Margaret Morrow--we recommended her to President 
Clinton. She was a distinguished lawyer in a business law firm. She is 
as straightforward as motherhood and apple pie. They asked her question 
on question on question. These are Republicans on the Judiciary 
Committee. She waited maybe 2 years before she could be voted on. Here 
is the interesting thing. Not only did the Republicans ask her every 
question known to humankind about everything she had ever written, they 
had to see everything she ever wrote, and everything else. They then 
went back and asked her how she voted in elections in California 
dealing with referendum. It was amazing. The first question was, How 
did you vote on every memorandum, I think it was, in the last 10 years. 
She was so stunned with it, she said: Barbara, this is between me and 
the secrecy of the ballot box. I said: If you want to move forward, you 
are going to have to respond.
  We went to Senator Grassley, who wanted answers to these questions, 
and he limited it to the 10 most controversial referendums. I am 
talking about the ones that deal with every single hot button issue. 
She answered the questions. Believe me, it is really a personal issue, 
how you vote when you get to the ballot box.
  Now there is a big fuss about our getting answers to questions such 
as: Will you give us one Supreme Court case you didn't agree with or 
send us your writings, for which there is adequate precedent.
  So under the Constitution, the President and the Senate share the 
power to appoint the principal officers of the United States. I read 
the Constitution and, if we were to do otherwise, it really would be a 
dereliction of our duty if we rolled over and said whatever any 
President wants, just go ahead and roll over the Senate. Not me; I 
don't care if I have to stand here all night--and I might have to at 
the rate this is going.
  I am here because I have to represent the 35 million people of 
California. When someone comes up to me in the grocery store and says, 
I noticed they had a vote on Miguel Estrada to the second most 
important court in the land, what does he think? I would say that I 
have no idea.
  I have to tell you, there are a lot of groups against Miguel Estrada 
and they have their reasons. I will list the groups--a lot of Hispanic 
groups and a lot of other civil rights groups. They have their reasons.
  I need to see what he stands for. If I get these papers--that is the 
reason we are not permitting a vote because if we would get these 
papers, we would permit a vote here. He may well win that vote or he 
may lose that vote. That is the fair thing. But advise and consent--
before you can consent, you have to see who this man is. Maybe when I 
see his writings--and I hope we get answers to our questions--I 
certainly would have no interest in holding this up at all.
  Blind judgment is not the proper way to confirm someone to the 
Federal court. As I said, if I were to engage in blind judgment, I 
would not be true to my constitutional responsibilities and what I owe 
the people of my State. Frankly, I told them I would vote for 
mainstream people, just as President Bush said he would nominate 
mainstream people. That is what he promised us. The night the Supreme 
Court decided the election, he said eloquently, ``I am going to govern 
from the center.''
  Maybe Miguel Estrada is from the center. Nobody here can tell you 
because he cannot even name one Supreme Court case he disagreed with--
even the one on making slavery legal. So these are very serious 
matters, very serious matters.
  Stealth maneuvers are appropriate for the military but not for 
judicial nominees. By evading questions about his record, Mr. Estrada 
is trying to slip into a lifetime position on the Federal bench without 
sharing information about his record. So if we were to just say, OK, we 
don't know anything, the man cannot name a case he disagrees with and 
won't show us any writings, and we just have the vote, what will happen 
when we get a Supreme Court nominee for a vote?
  We have reason to believe there are some who are advising these 
nominees not to say anything about anything. I will talk about that 
later. It was really at a Federalist Society luncheon last year that a 
panelist coached potential nominees on how to get confirmed by the 
Senate. This has been written about in the legal times.
  The simple instructions that came were--I am quoting because this 
isn't very nice language, but it is the language that was used--``Keep 
your mouth shut.''
  What a situation. It is an honor to be nominated by the President, a 
chance to tell people what you believe in--not to talk about a case 
before the court or one that is coming. That is not what we are saying.
  I represent the largest percentage of Hispanics in the United States. 
There are close to 11 million Californians who are Latinos. That is 
approximately 33 percent of my State. I resent roundly some of the 
comments by my colleagues on the other side that somehow those of us 
who are saying to Miguel Estrada: answer the question, be a grown up, 
this is a serious job, that are against minorities. If it wasn't such a 
serious charge, it would be, in a way, laughable.
  I could tell you that the organizations that oppose Mr. Estrada, or 
have raised concerns, most of them are Latino. They know, in the case 
of the Democrats in my State, who fights for the Latinos. That isn't 
even a question. I fought hard to get a Mexican-American nominee, 
Richard Paez, a position on the Central District Court of California. 
Mr. President, he became the first Mexican American to sit on that 
court, and it was a struggle. It was a struggle. President Clinton 
nominated him. Judge Paez was so stellar in the district court that he 
was nominated by President Clinton to the circuit court. He had to wait 
4--count them--not months, not weeks, but 4 years before the Senate 
acted on his nomination.
  Judge Paez was voted out of committee three times, Mr. President, 
three times, and still he had to endure 4 years of waiting before the 
Senate acted on his nomination.
  He was nominated in three different Congresses before his 
confirmation in March 2000. He was the first Hispanic to sit on the 
district court. He had extensive experience as a judge on State courts, 
as well as Federal courts, with lawyer reviews in the Almanac of the 
Federal Judiciary such as ``well prepared,'' ``runs a good courtroom,'' 
``excellent judicial temperament,'' ``fair,'' ``evenhanded,'' and 
``gets to the right result.''
  Who held him up for 4 years? Not the Democrats. The Republicans.
  He answered every question. Every single bit of his writing was 
analyzed. There were more written questions asked and answered. He was 
strongly supported by Hispanic groups, such as the Mexican American 
Legal Defense Fund, in contrast to Mr. Estrada, who has a huge number 
of Hispanic groups with great concern about his nomination.
  I have to tell you when I hear some of the comments from the other 
side--

[[Page 3954]]

it is really amazing--I can only think that this is all about politics 
because reality is not even in the game. This Republican Senate fought 
so hard against Judge Paez. Four years they made him wait and made him 
answer question after question--written and oral--and would not stop 
there.
  When his nomination finally came to the floor, there was a 
filibuster, and it was finally broken.
  I have to say as someone who fought for that first Latino to sit on 
the court in California and for one who fought to get the first Asian 
American judge on the Eastern District of California, Anthony Ishii, 
another wonderful appointment by President Clinton. It is extraordinary 
to me to hear some of the rhetoric from the other side. I have some 
news for the other side: Tell the man to answer the questions just as 
they asked Richard Paez, just as they asked Margaret Morrow, just as 
they asked every single nominee by President Clinton. They asked them 
to answer the questions. They called them back. They sent them long 
questionnaires in the mail. How about saying the man the Republicans 
support has to do the same? It is pretty simple. Then we will not be 
here wasting this precious time we should be using to discuss homeland 
security and other issues.
  I will tell my colleagues right now, I will stand here as long as it 
takes until I get answers to those questions because otherwise, I do 
not deserve to be here. My people in California should boot me out if I 
roll over and play dead simply because the President says: I want this 
man; he does not want to answer the questions; and the Federalist 
Society tells him to keep his mouth shut. This is not what we do in an 
open society. In an open society, there is no room for secrecy in the 
judge selection process.
  This is the greatest country in the world. If somebody is nominated 
for this position, they should be proud to talk about what are the 
Supreme Court cases they may not agree with or some they do. They 
should be proud to say: Yes, I will make sure you get my writings 
because I am proud of my writings.
  The American people do not like secrecy. They do not like it. I hope 
they are, in fact, listening to this debate because I want to state 
again what we Democrats are doing. It is not a handful. The President 
said a handful of people--I forget his exact words. I think it was a 
handful of people were stopping this nomination. The fact is, there are 
a lot of us from different parts of the country and different 
philosophies who are saying: Just give us the information. Some of us 
may wind up voting for Mr. Estrada; some of us may not. Give us the 
information. We need it. We deserve it. It is in the Constitution.
  The Constitution does not say the President shall have everyone he 
wants. Read it. It gives equal power--equal power--to the Senate. I say 
to my colleagues on the other side, where is their self-respect for the 
Senate? That is what it is about. It is unfortunate it turned out to be 
a partisan split.
  I keep remembering back to Margaret Morrow and how many questions the 
Republicans asked her. Oh, my God. There were two hearings: One in 1996 
and one in 1997. There was round after round of followup questions, 
including how she voted in every California ballot measure for 10 long 
years. I ask you, Mr. President--maybe you would remember. If you lived 
in California, I assure you, there would be, oh God, hundreds of 
referenda. Finally, Senator Grassley, who was asking her this, said: 
OK, just tell us how you voted on the 10 most controversial ballot 
measures.
  I want to read a partial list of people who are supporting us in this 
delay: The Congressional Hispanic Caucus; the Congressional Black 
Caucus--these are elected leaders who have fought hard to get 
minorities on the bench. This is extraordinary for them to have to 
stand up and say: We want more minorities on the bench, but we want to 
know who they are; we do not know who this guy is.
  Hispanic organizations: Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education 
Fund; Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; National 
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, National Council 
of La Raza, National Puerto Rican Coalition, California La Raza 
Lawyers, Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois, Southwest Voter 
Registration Education Project, Labor Council for Latin American 
Advancement, 52 Latino labor leaders.
  Mr. President, these are people who fight hard to put minorities on 
the bench, and they are very concerned. Do you think this is easy for 
them? This is not easy for them. It is brave of them. They are doing it 
because they are very concerned.
  There is a list of 52 leaders. I will not read the list. We also have 
the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Alliance for Justice. 
We have the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Lawyers 
for Civil Rights Under Law, Alliance for Justice, and it goes on.
  I also want to read an article that was in the Legal Times. We put it 
in the Record, but I think it is worth listening to it:

       President George W. Bush's judicial nominees received some 
     very specific confirmation advice last week: Keep your mouth 
     shut.
       The warning came from someone who had been a part of the 
     process, Laurence Silberman, a senior judge at the U.S. Court 
     of Appeals. . . .

  And it goes on. He advises: Don't answer any questions. Don't answer 
them and, he basically said, you will land a judgeship.
  This is dangerous. Talk about the role of the Senate. The Senate 
cannot do its work on advice and consent if we are stonewalled.
  My view on this nomination is clear. I am happy to vote up or down on 
this nominee any day of the week, but he has to answer the questions. 
Period. End of quote.
  Someone who is afraid to answer questions either does not know the 
answer, has something he does not want to say, or is hiding something. 
It makes no sense at all. Answer the questions. If Senator Hatch brings 
the committee back and Mr. Estrada gets a chance to answer these 
questions that Senator Feinstein and others have laid out--believe me, 
I have no interest in knowing how he voted for the last 10 years like 
the Republicans asked one of my nominees. I think that is going way too 
far. I do not care about that. I thought it was outrageous when the 
Republicans asked that of Margaret Morrow. I could not believe it. She 
was stunned, but she answered it. Even though it is a secret ballot, 
she answered it because she respected the Senators who asked her the 
questions. She respected the process. She respected the Constitutional 
requirement of advice and consent.
  So we go from a woman who was asked by the Republicans to tell how 
she voted on a series of referenda in her home State on the most 
controversial issues to a candidate where the Republicans say it is 
fine, forget about it, we are not going to give any answers. It is a 
remarkable thing. I make that point today. We need to hear from this 
nominee. We owe it to the American people.
  What do my colleagues think this is? This is not some dictatorship. 
This is not some situation where one man, the President, nominates 
someone and says, OK, that is it, I can tell the Senate who I want and 
that is the end of it. If the Founders wanted that, they would not have 
written this article, which is very clear. As was pointed out by 
Senator Schumer, if we go back to the Federalist Papers, there was a 
big debate over who should have the power. At one point, it was going 
to be the Senate that had the full power, but then in the end it was a 
compromise. So if we assume that what is written in this Constitution 
is what we swore to uphold, then to do any less is to essentially throw 
this away.
  I do not care what people say, I am not going to do that. They can 
say anything they want about me, it is OK. I will take the case to my 
people. I will tell my people it would be far easier to roll over, but 
I am not going to do it. If Mr. Estrada answers the question, I will 
not be standing here. I will be calling for a vote and let the chips 
fall where they may.
  I do not know how my Republicans friends will vote on Mr. Estrada. I 
am

[[Page 3955]]

assuming they will support him, and he will be a judge. Or maybe they 
will find out something in his record that is worrisome that they do 
not like. I do not know what is in the record because he will not show 
us the record.
  As long as this Constitution is the basis of our Government, we 
should respect it. What happens when the next judge comes before us? 
The President may say this is a good deal, my guy did not have to 
answer anything and he will go on to do whatever he wants, and then he 
sends someone else who has no record and will not show writings and 
will not answer questions and listens to the Federalist Society where 
they say keep your mouth shut, which is exactly what they said. Where 
are we headed?
  This is not a partisan question. I would feel the same way if 
President Clinton were still President and sent down a nominee who 
would not answer questions. I went out of my way on Margaret Morrow and 
on Richard Paez. One was held up for 22 months. One was voted out of 
three Congresses, waited 4 years. There were oral questions, written 
questions, more questions. The session ends, and there is a 
renomination. Again, there are questions; appearances again, writings 
again. If we go down this road of not asking questions and not 
demanding answers to basic questions such as was there ever a Supreme 
Court case you did not agree with, and a man or woman says, you know 
what, I cannot answer that question, that is a frightening answer. 
Maybe he agreed with all of them. I do not know, because he will not 
answer the question.
  Mr. President, I believe I have the floor until 12:30, although I 
technically have it as long as I wish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). There is no unanimous consent. 
The Senator has the floor as long as she is able to stand.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I see one of my colleagues. I do not 
intend to go on much longer than about 15 minutes, but I want to talk 
about a couple of other issues.


                    The Challenges Facing Our Nation

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are making the case about advise and 
consent but many of our people around the country are worried about 
what is coming in these next couple of days. The country is on alert. 
People are asking me, should I really go out and get duct tape? What 
can I do?
  I have been around politics for a very long time. I was elected to 
the House in 1982. These are the toughest times I have seen, and I have 
seen some tough ones. We have an economy that is not performing. We 
have a budget which has turned from surplus to deficit.
  The very people who said deficits were terrible when Democrats were 
in the majority are saying deficits are now fine as long as they are 
not more than so many percent of the gross national product, no 
problem. Unfortunately for those people, Alan Greenspan said deficits 
do matter, and we have an economy that is the worst that it has been in 
50 years. On top of that, we have Osama bin Laden who apparently issued 
a warning to Americans and he told the Iraqi people that if the 
Americans come in there, do what it takes to hurt them all around the 
world.
  We have the tragedy and sadness of the Shuttle Columbia. We have the 
news that North Korea possesses perhaps the ability to hit the west 
coast, where I live and my people I represent live and not far from 
where the Presiding Officer lives. We have a lot of challenges.
  What I say today is measured in my comments because whatever the 
future holds for us, and I think many people fear it is war, we are 
going to pull together as one. Looking at all of these challenges I 
mentioned, and I exclude from that the shuttle tragedy, but the North 
Korea situation, the Iraq situation, the Osama bin Laden situation, the 
economic situation, I believe this administration has seen these crises 
and they have amplified them. I do not think they are solving them. I 
think they are amplifying them. I do not see the path to a prosperous 
economy in any of the plans. I see more deficits as far as the eye can 
see. I do not see a path for job creation. I do not see a path where we 
are protected in our homeland. I see my local responders saying, Where 
is the help that was promised?
  I do not see that. I do not see a path to peace in Iraq. I see a lot 
of energy and focus on a path to war. I do not see the path--and I have 
lived through many administrations, Republican and Democratic. I wish 
the President would put the same focus and attention on avoiding war 
and disarming Iraq as he does on war to disarm Iraq. War may be 
inevitable. It should not be a first resort or a second. It should be a 
very last.
  Looking at North Korea, why are we not talking to them? We have 
brilliant people in the State Department.
  As far as I can tell from my post on the Foreign Relations Committee, 
we have not elevated this to the same level as Iraq in any way, shape, 
or form. They keep saying we will resolve this diplomatically. I am 
glad. But I don't see that focus. What I see is when the North Koreans 
want to talk, they fly to New Mexico to talk to Bill Richardson. 
Something is wrong with that. We need to do better.
  I see issues turning into problems, turning into crises, and I don't 
see them being resolved; I see them getting worse. I can tell you, when 
I go home, people are coming up to me in the supermarket--Democrats, 
Republicans, Independents--tugging at my sleeve, literally. They say: 
We are anxious. We are worried. We are scared.
  I am waiting for the type of leadership in this administration on all 
of these issues that will help us see the light at the end of the 
tunnel. We will pull together as Americans, regardless. The greatest 
Nation in the world, we will meet our challenges. But there is much 
more we need to do--not more deficits as far as the eye can see. That 
is not going to help. Not talk about war, war, war, and ignoring the 
chance that we can avoid it and achieve the total disarmament of Iraq. 
I don't see the kind of help to our hometowns, if you will, to get 
ready.
  Someone said it right--this is not original on my part; I believe it 
was a mayor of one of our Midwest cities. She said when people fear an 
attack by a terrorist, they are going to call 9-1-1. They are not going 
to call the Senate, and they are not calling the President. They will 
call 9-1-1.
  What are we doing? We lauded the firemen and the policemen, as well 
we should have. The best way to honor them is to give them the help 
they need. Guess what this administration is doing. It is canceling the 
COPS program. These are the grants to our local law enforcement people 
who are going to get the 9-1-1 call if, God forbid, there is an attack 
on our homeland.
  This President is spending a lot of money in the budget. But talk to 
the people back home, and they are not happy with the unfunded mandates 
they are seeing. We see an unprecedented attack on the environment. 
Talk about danger, I will tell you about danger. As we worry about 
chemical and biological attacks, Osama bin Laden, why have we lost the 
focus on getting him? The President was fierce in his resolve to get 
Osama bin Laden, and we have not achieved that up until this point. We 
fear the chemical and biological attack.
  Seventy million Americans--and that includes 10 million children--
live within 4 miles of a Superfund site which contains these dreadful 
chemicals that harm our children and all of us. What have they done? 
They have slowed the cleanups and are now telling taxpayers they have 
to pick up all of the costs of that program because they do not want to 
continue a fee on the polluters, which was something put into place 
under Republican and Democratic administrations. This is a crisis, and 
it is being amplified by this administration.
  I look around and I see the fund sites proliferating. Under President 
Clinton, we cleaned up an average of 87 sites a year. It is down to 40 
sites. It is down to the taxpayers now picking up the tab, and people 
are beginning to be very fearful about their children's health.
  There are many issues that confront us. I will close with this. Last 
night, the Republicans stayed in the Chamber

[[Page 3956]]

to make their point. That was a good thing to do. I am in the Chamber 
today to make my point. Give me the information, folks. Tell this man 
to answer the same number of questions you asked Richard Paez. Tell 
this man to answer the same number of questions you asked Margaret 
Morrow to answer. Tell this man to answer the same number of questions 
and in the same depth as President Clinton's nominees answered. And if 
you do not like that approach, simply ask him to answer the questions 
that some of President Bush's nominees answered.
  We are not going to stand here and treat this Constitution as some 
relic. We have equal power with the President. If we were not to ask 
for these answers, we do not deserve to be here.
  I see a couple of my friends on the floor, and I have to say, I am 
ready to vote on Miguel Estrada as soon as he answers the questions. I 
am not going to roll over for any President, Republican or Democrat, if 
they send us people who are either too scared to answer the questions 
or we are told by some Federalist Society expert to keep your mouth 
shut and it will go well. It is wrong.
  I have some self-respect as a Senator. Do you know who gave it to me? 
I was not born with it. The people who sent me here--35 million 
strong--believe me, they did not all send me here, but of those who 
voted, a majority did. Do you know what I told them? I told them that 
the makeup of the courts is very important and the power of the courts 
is very important. I promised them that before I cast a vote, aye or 
nay on anyone, I would have information and I would always tell you why 
I was voting yes or no. And I have voted for more than 90 percent of 
this President's nominees. I don't know how I will vote on this one. I 
might vote for him if I see his writings. I might. I might not. I may 
find that he does not come from the center, which is what President 
Bush promised. We would get judges from the center.
  They can stay here all night and talk and talk and talk and talk. But 
I will be ready to vote when I have seen the answers to the questions, 
the same kind of questions they asked Margaret Morrow, Richard Paez, 
and every one of Bill Clinton's nominees.
  Double standards do not sell with me. I worked very well with Senator 
Hatch and colleagues on the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the 
aisle when I had people I was very interested in getting through the 
process. And I said to them: You deserve to know every single thing you 
are asking for, and I will work with these nominees and make sure they 
give you those answers.
  That is respect. That is respect for the job we are supposed to do. I 
respect this job. I respect the people I represent too much to roll 
over and say to this President or any other: Send nominees down who 
will not answer questions. It does not matter to me. It is your choice.
  If I were to do that, I would be belying this Constitution. When I 
got elected to this body, I held up my hand and I swore to protect and 
defend it. It means everything to me. It is more important than me. It 
is more important than any other Senator. It is more important than any 
President. This is the document that has kept us going as the greatest 
democracy in the world all these years. And God forbid we turn our back 
on it. If we do, we will not recognize the country we will have.
  I see coming, if we roll over on this one, a judge selection process 
that is essentially a secret process. That is something I cannot 
support, I will never support, even if I am the only one left who feels 
that way--and I doubt that will be the case because there are very 
strong feelings on my side of the aisle that the judicial selection 
process should be an open process, an honest process, a fair process.
  I appreciate the chance to express my views on these issues and other 
issues. It is time we solve the problems we are facing and not create 
new ones. A new problem we are creating is judicial nominees who will 
not talk. That is a new problem. I hope, as a result of what we are 
doing today, the Republicans will go back, they will chat with Mr. 
Estrada, they will tell him to answer the questions, and we can get on 
with a vote and the other important business we have before us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the Honorable Senator from California 
laid out a very touching and moving litany of the times in which we 
live. These are difficult times, with the prospect of dealing with a 
brutal dictator in Iraq, a dictator who has used weapons of mass 
destruction against his own people, has shown no hesitation to use 
poison gas, chemicals, and biological weapons, a dictator who clearly 
has ignored resolution after resolution of the United Nations over a 
12-year period, who poses a threat to all of us. That crisis looms out 
there. The day of decision is coming soon. As the President has noted, 
Saddam Hussein will either disarm or be disarmed. We have to be 
concerned about what is happening in North Korea where they are talking 
about restarting a nuclear program that they agreed to abort.
  We have problems of recession. A lot of folks in my State are worried 
about where the next paycheck is going to come from, worried about the 
state of the economy. We have a lot of concerns out there. This is a 
time of great uncertainty. This magnificent, august body, the Senate, 
one of the greatest deliberative bodies in the world, instead of 
focusing its efforts on dealing with those issues of great concern, we 
are involved and engaged in trying to break off a filibuster from my 
honorable colleagues on the other side who are not going to allow us to 
have a vote, a simple up-or-down vote--that is all we are asking for--
on the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the circuit court of appeals.
  I have been here a little over a month. I don't have that great sense 
of history that my colleagues, such as Mr. Byrd, the Honorable Senator 
from West Virginia, has. He is a walking history of the Senate. I sit 
here in awe as I listen to him.
  I listen to the honorable chair of the Judiciary Committee, Senator 
Hatch, who has been here a long time. I still get chills standing where 
I am standing, looking at this great sense of history. Yet we are 
sitting here, and I was listening last night, and we are talking about 
the nomination of the first Hispanic to serve on the circuit court, and 
what I am listening to is a litany of who did what to whom before. You 
would almost think that we were the Hatfields and McCoys instead of 
Democrats and Republicans. You would think we were the Earps and 
Youngers at the OK Corral.
  I don't know who did what in the past. I don't know why a particular 
judge in the past perhaps took a long period of time before they got a 
chance to have a vote on the floor of the Senate. I don't know who was 
right yesterday and who was wrong. But this is today. This is a time 
when I got elected. I can tell you the citizens of Minnesota were 
saying they wanted to get past the bitter partisanship that stops the 
Senate from doing its business. They want public figures to simply get 
something done, move on, take care of the flood problem, the disaster 
problems we have had in northwest Minnesota, the drought that is 
affecting other parts of the country, get an energy bill through, get a 
budget--that would not be a bad thing for the U.S. Government--get a 
budget passed. Moms and dads have to deal with that all the time. We 
have folks out there clamoring for us to just do what we have been 
elected to do, to do our business.
  Instead, I listened last night to the Honorable Senator from New York 
and the Honorable Senator from Illinois, and they had pictures of 
candidates in the past who, for some reason or other, did not get 
through the Judiciary Committee fast enough. We went back and forth and 
back and forth and back and forth. You know, that was yesterday.
  We are never going to be younger than we are today. The proverbial: 
Today is the first day of the rest of your life. What would be so hard 
for us, as a deliberative body, to say we are going to start with 
today, we are going to make sure--we are going to put

[[Page 3957]]

aside all the sins of yesterday and make sure that, from here on, when 
folks come up, they have a hearing and they have a vote?
  By the way, I have to say I have heard my honorable colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle talk about Mr. Estrada not answering questions. 
This has been shown last night; Senator Hatch showed it many times. 
This is the transcript of the hearing, the all-day hearing in which he 
answered question after question after question. Maybe he gave answers 
folks on the other side of the aisle did not like, but he answered 
questions. He answered questions. Then, after the hearing itself, a few 
Senators--I understand two Senators on the other side of the aisle--
sent written questions, which he answered. So he has answered the 
questions.
  What we have today, unfortunately, is we are getting caught up in the 
worst kind of partisan wrangling based on what folks did yesterday.
  I think we are better than that. I think this august, deliberative 
body is better than that. I think it would be good for America today, 
in this new millennium, this new century, to forget what happened in 
the last millennium. Let's move forward on this one and say what we are 
going to do and say a nominee of any President, whether it is a 
Republican President or President not of my party, will get a fair 
hearing and a vote, up or down. In fact, when I ran for office, I 
answered a question in one of the debates, and I said I would use the 
same standard to judge a nominee from the President of another party as 
I would to judge a nominee from President Bush. That is what I think we 
were elected to do.
  If we can just get past what happened yesterday, if we can stop 
talking about who said what to whom and when, then we can kind of move 
on here to act fairly, act deliberately, and, by the way, act with 
great respect for this Constitution that we all love.
  I heard a wonderful discourse from the Senator from New York 
yesterday about the Constitution. I love the Constitution. What we are 
asking for Mr. Estrada is follow the dictates of the Constitution.
  Does the Senator from Pennsylvania have a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask the Senator from Minnesota to yield for a 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I yield for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1 p.m. 
today, the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I ask my friend from 
Minnesota through the Chair how much longer he is going to speak 
because we do have a Member in the Chamber who wishes to speak.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I say to the Honorable Democratic whip, I 
will speak not more than 10 minutes if this understanding is accepted.
  Mr. REID. We have two over here. That leaves only 5 minutes for each 
of them. They have been here waiting for some time.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I say to the Honorable Democratic whip, 
less than 10 minutes. I can move to the other portion of what I was 
going to speak about if the Senator from Nebraska seeks the floor.
  Mr. REID. If my friend would be kind enough to divide the remaining 
20 minutes between Senator Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Stabenow of 
Michigan?
  Mr. COLEMAN. I have no problem with that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is that proposed as a unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. REID. It is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Nevada?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Authority for Committee to Meet

  Mr. SANTORUM. I further ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup past the hour 
of 1 o'clock.
  Mr. REID. On behalf of Senator Kennedy, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. In deference to my colleagues, the Senators from 
Nebraska and Michigan, I will shorten my comments with regard to the 
Estrada nomination.
  I want to say this to America. I hope they are listening. They should 
be listening. These are important times. What my colleagues on the 
other side are doing by engaging in this filibuster is really changing 
the constitutional standard. And we love this Constitution. It talks 
about the Senate's role in providing advice and consent. In practice 
that has always meant 51 votes--a majority. The Constitution 
specifically lays out when a super majority is needed. What we are 
witnessing now is a change in the way we abide by this important 
document, where we will now require 60 votes to get our nation's judges 
confirmed. That is not good for America, and that is certainly not what 
our Founders wanted to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                   Urgent Needs for Hometown Security

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak, once again, about 
the urgent needs in our local communities for hometown security--
efforts for us to support local police and firefighters and emergency 
medical workers, including those in our local emergency rooms at our 
hospitals. These people are on the front lines of any terrorist attack 
that our citizens may face in the days or weeks or months ahead.
  Many of us have been talking, since just after 9/11, about the 
importance of partnering with local communities, and that it is not 
enough to ask our local sheriffs, firefighters, police officers, and 
others in the communities, to assume this additional set of duties 
relating to national security without having the support and assistance 
of the Federal Government.
  I commend all of my colleagues and the President for coming together 
to make sure our men and women in the armed services have what they 
need at this critical time. We have come forward with substantial 
increases in the Department of Defense, and I am sure we will continue 
to do so.
  But when it comes to the home front, we have not yet done what needs 
to be done. There is a growing sense of urgency and bewilderment in our 
communities here at home about why this has not occurred and why the 
President is not supporting the efforts that we have put forward.
  I have been holding meetings around Michigan--I believe eight 
different meetings now--from Detroit to Macomb County, Oakland County; 
I was in Port Huron, MI, on Monday; on over to Lansing and Kalamazoo, 
and all the way up to Marquette in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan--and 
I hear the same thing over and over: We need help purchasing updated 
radio equipment; we can't talk to one another; the city versus the 
county or county to county. In some cases, in smaller communities, the 
fire department cannot talk to the police department. We need a better 
dispatch system. We need better communications systems. We need, 
frankly, to be doing this on a statewide and national basis. But the 
communities do not have the resources to do it alone.
  We hear about training, not only having a trainer come in--whether it 
is for bioterrorism, whether it is other types of training that is 
needed--but we are hearing from local law enforcement and others that 
when you have a training certification, and you take 10 police officers 
away from their normal duties of patrolling our streets and keeping the 
citizens safe, and they sit in training, no matter how important it is, 
the police chief still has to replace those 10 officers so the citizens 
remain safe while that is happening, while the training is occurring. 
That takes additional dollars.
  There are multiple costs to training that we need to be supporting in 
order to be able to get this done as quickly

[[Page 3958]]

as possible and as thoroughly as possible. And certainly we need 
additional personnel, different kinds of personnel, in our local 
communities.
  I am sure my colleagues have received many letters. I have received 
many letters in addition to the personal conversations that I have had 
with people across Michigan. Let me share parts of a couple letters 
from mayors in Michigan.
  The mayor from the city of Birmingham wrote to the President and sent 
me a copy:

       Mr. President, I am writing to express my deep concern that 
     funding for first responders promised nearly a year ago has 
     still not been provided to America's cities, towns and 
     villages. As you know, the nation's local municipalities have 
     carried the burden for homeland security during the 15 months 
     since the September 11 attacks, with only the promise of 
     federal support.

  This was written back in December.

       The absence of federal funding for police, firefighters and 
     emergency response staff has been a disappointment for many 
     city leaders across the country as their concerns were voiced 
     at the recent National League of Cities conference held 
     earlier this year.

  I have a similar letter that has come from the mayor of Cadillac, in 
northern Michigan, again expressing grave concerns and saying:

       At the recent National League of Cities conference in Salt 
     Lake City, city leaders from across the country voiced their 
     deep disappointment regarding the absence of federal funding 
     for police, firefighters and emergency response staff.

  The city of Fenton, in Michigan, the city of East Lansing, in my own 
home county--mayors, county officials, police chiefs, sheriffs--and of 
both parties; this is not Republican and Democrat; this is not urban 
and rural; this is not a question of one part of the country against 
another--everyone, every community is saying this same thing.
  I am deeply concerned not only about past actions but what is 
occurring right now in this current budget bill that we will have in 
front of us tomorrow.
  Let me, first, indicate and remind us that last summer we passed an 
emergency supplemental that included $2.5 billion, passed by the Senate 
with bipartisan support, passed by the House with bipartisan support, 
and sent to the President, an emergency supplemental including $2.5 
billion for local communities. It was on the President's desk. All he 
had to do was sign it. And he would not declare it as an emergency and 
would not sign it and release the funds.
  We have come back again and again. Twice this last month, in January, 
Senator Byrd stood in this Chamber and eloquently spoke about the needs 
of communities and first responders. Again, we could not get the 
support.
  And now in the omnibus budget bill that will be coming before us, 
despite a unanimous Senate appropriations vote back last July on a 
series of items that deal with transportation security, border 
security, community policing, Federal emergency management, firefighter 
grants, equipment and communications, emergency operations, port 
container security--and on and on and on--we now have in front of us a 
bill that, in fact, will cut from that amount supported unanimously by 
the Senate Appropriations Committee $4.4 billion from homeland security 
from what we passed, what the Appropriations Committee passed and 
recommended to us last summer based on the needs presented to them from 
communities.
  We could go down the list. I am deeply concerned when I see the cuts 
in community policing, the firefighter grants, the inoperable 
communications equipment grants, which I am hearing so much concern 
about, emergency operations, et cetera.
  It is time for us to act. It is time for us to hear what our 
communities are saying. I urge my colleagues to join with us in making 
sure we truly keep our communities safe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

                          ____________________