[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4493-4499]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     UNFAIR DELAY IN CONFIRMING APPOINTMENT FOR MR. MIGUEL ESTRADA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Porter). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-
Balart) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be 
here in this wonderful Chamber to discuss what I think is a rather 
puzzling situation that has taken over our government, our legislative 
branch of the government, and in particular, the legislative branch on 
the other side of the Rotunda.
  We have seen that a number of people have tried to do anything and 
everything to avoid, to stop a brilliant young attorney who has been 
nominated by the President of the United States to be on the Appellate 
Court for the District of Columbia.
  I say he is a brilliant young attorney because everybody has had to 
recognize his brilliance. Those that have worked with him have had to 
recognize his brilliance. He has worked not only as a prosecutor from 
the great State of New York; he has also worked in the office of the 
Solicitor General with two administrations, a Republican administration 
and also a Democrat administration.
  All the people who have worked with him from both parties in both 
administrations have publicly recognized the brilliance, the decency, 
the integrity of this brilliant young attorney; a man who got here to 
the United States at age 17, Mr. Speaker, barely speaking English, and 
he got here and worked and studied, and was able to graduate with 
honors just a few years later from that most prestigious university, 
Columbia University; with honors, I repeat.
  Then he went on to study law, but not just in any law school, in 
Harvard Law School, probably, I guess, among the most prestigious law 
schools in the entire country; I would rather say in the entire world.
  He also graduated from that university, that law school, with honors. 
While he was studying, he was also the editor of the law journal there, 
the law review in that prestigious law school. He graduated with honors 
and went on to become a prosecutor in the State of New York. That was 
after he was prosecutor, I am sorry. He went on to work with the 
Solicitor General's office under President George Bush, Senior; and 
then he also worked for President Clinton's administration in the 
Office of the Solicitor General; an incredible, impeccable record.
  I am trying to see if I can get some of my colleagues here to maybe 
try to explain to me what is going on here. Why is it that this 
brilliant young man, this brilliant Hispanic lawyer, is being treated 
differently than others who have had similar records, similar 
experiences, who have gone on to become judges and have not received 
the obstacles, have not been attacked the way Mr. Miguel Estrada is 
being attacked today? And this attack has been going on now for a long, 
long time.
  I brought just a calendar to kind of let us know how long it has 
been. It has been almost 2 years, 2 years since this young brilliant, 
talented, effective man of integrity has been held hostage. As we see 
here, not only has Miguel Estrada been held hostage, but diversity in 
our court system has been held hostage.

                              {time}  1930

  I just do not get it. I see here the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Feeney).
  I do not know if the gentleman has an explanation as to why it is 
that the minority party in the other Chamber insists on not letting 
this man even come up for a vote, to the point where they are using all 
sorts of procedural matters to not permit this man to even have the 
opportunity for his nomination to be voted up or down.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would request Members refrain

[[Page 4494]]

from improper references to the Senate.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from South Florida 
and, indeed, a colleague in the Florida legislature, a mentor, advisor, 
and a dear friend of mine for many years. And I want to congratulate 
the gentleman for his leadership, because as long as I have known the 
gentleman from South Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) when he sees 
wrongdoing going on, he speaks out and he does so with a passion and a 
fervor.
  The gentleman understands the difference between freedom and 
oppression because of his background on the Communist state of Cuba and 
the freedom he enjoys and fights for every day and hour of his waking 
life here in America. And I want to thank the gentleman for being such 
a great friend not just of mine but, more importantly, to freedom.
  The gentleman has asked me to explain the inexplicable: why a man 
like this would be held hostage; why diversity would be held hostage by 
his critics; he has asked me to explain why somebody with incredible 
merits, impeccable academic background, incredible moral background, a 
hard-working gentleman who came to America as a 17-year-old and has led 
and proven the American dream.
  The gentleman has asked me to explain why enormous integrity is 
actually held against an applicant for the United States Federal bench, 
and I cannot explain the inexplicable even though I am a politician, 
while there will be some politicians that will try. Being punished for 
having all the enormous merit that Miguel Estrada has is something that 
I find very personally offensive. I think it is offensive to the 
American way. I think it is offensive to the entire notion of an 
independent judiciary.
  And I will state for those of the American public that are watching 
tonight, maybe they do not understand all the details of what it takes 
to succeed and get to the Federal bench. I want to boil it down.
  I am a former practicing attorney in business in the real estate 
field. I want to boil it down so I think that normal people, people 
that really are not politicians or lawyers, can understand. There are 
really two basic qualifications, I think every American would agree 
with this, in order to get appointed to and succeed on the Federal 
bench:
  Number one, you need to be fit. You need to be fit morally. You need 
to be fit intelligently. You need to be fit academically.
  Number two, you need to adhere to the United States Constitution and 
to the rules of law.
  I would suggest to my great friend that the sin that Miguel Estrada 
is being accused of is that he is enormously well fit and he is 
enormously dedicated to adherence to the Constitution and the rule of 
law. And that bothers some people because they want to pull it aside. 
They want to twist the Constitution. They want to rewrite the 
Constitution.
  I will tell you that one of the things that the gentleman is being 
held up for is because when he was asked specifically how he would rule 
on specific cases that might come before him as a United States Supreme 
Court Justice, he said that he would have to decline to say 
specifically, because the entire notion of an independent bench is not 
to make promises.
  It is not like the political world that we live here in the Congress. 
It is not like the executive branch. In the executive branch and the 
legislative branches we share our biases with the voting public. We say 
we are for this and we are against that. People get to vote in a 
representative democracy in favor of one candidate against another 
because of their political biases. But on the bench you are supposed to 
put your political biases away and you are supposed to adhere to the 
Constitution and adhere to the rule of law. That is what offended 
political activists who want to take over the judiciary and use it in a 
way to take over the representative government. In my view, that is the 
fundamental reason why Miguel Estrada has been torpedoed.
  But he has another sin. The fact that he is, as the gentleman 
understands, a great colleague of mine, he represents a great district 
in south Florida, both east and west coast. The notion that this is a 
gentleman with an ethnic background that is not white, Caucasian like 
me, but that comes from a wonderful part of our American society, but 
he does not adhere to the liberal big-government notion of rewriting 
the Constitution in some people's minds disqualifies him from serving 
on a bench that they want to turn into a political operation.
  And by the way, the wonderful thing about the arguments that we are 
able to make, and our colleagues on behalf of the Miguel Estrada 
nomination, is that no individual critic of his has come forward with a 
specific sin. They admit that he was one of the brightest students, 
actually the brightest student, magna cum laude, editor of the Law 
Review at Harvard Law School, as the gentleman pointed out. He has the 
intellectual IQ. They have admitted that he has incredible integrity. 
There is no question about the gentleman's integrity. He has fantastic 
integrity.
  They have admitted that he has got a great background, that he has 
worked hard, that he has lived the American dream. Their problem is 
that they cannot point to one flaw in this man's character, his 
capability, his academic career, his working career. And so as a sort 
of camouflage for why they are really opposed to Miguel Estrada's 
nomination to the Federal bench they say this; and, by the way, as the 
gentleman knows, he would be the first Hispanic American ever on this 
appeals court that he has been nominated to. They say little things 
like he has not disclosed secret advice in a legal memorandum to his 
client.
  Now, I can state that while I was a business and real estate lawyer, 
that if we are going to force every applicant to the Federal bench to 
disclose secret memorandums and advice to their clients, a couple 
things will happen: Number one, nobody who has ever written candid 
advice to their clients in the public or private sector will ever apply 
to the bench. We will disqualify all the best lawyers in the country, 
because the truth of the matter is that the obligation of an attorney 
is to zealously advocate for their client and give them candid, secret, 
private advice. The attorney/client privilege is critical because if 
you do not have it, your lawyer will not tell you the truth about what 
you need to do to protect yourself.
  There is a second application here in terms of undermining the 
attorney/client privilege, and that is that people in government will 
not get the best advice that is available. If lawyers who work for the 
government know that everything they say to their clients one day will 
remain public, then the President, individual Members of Congress, and 
others will know every day that their lawyers are not going to tell the 
truth to them. What their lawyers are going to prepare is documents 
prepared later for a publishment so that the whole world will see 
exactly what their advice to their clients was. This will undermine the 
entire legal system in my view, and, in all candor, anybody who has 
ever been subject to a traffic ticket, some sort of criminal problem; 
who has had a civil litigation matter, if they can imagine; a divorce, 
for example, as my colleague may know some people, we dealt with some 
divorce law in Florida.
  Imagine going through a divorce and as a spouse fighting over a 
child's custody, fighting over issues of whether or not you will be 
able to get enough alimony to support your children. Imagine if 
everything your lawyer tells you or writes to you is going to be 
published in the New York Times and the rest of the journals throughout 
the world tomorrow, imagine how candid and honest and decent your 
lawyer is going to be with you. He is not.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question on that 
note? If I may, there is a letter that has been, that we have all seen, 
that is signed by every living former Solicitor General, some of them 
are Republicans, some of them are Democrats, stating exactly what the 
gentleman has just said; how that would be devastating for

[[Page 4495]]

the country in that office's ability to represent the U.S. before the 
United States Supreme Court.
  So, again, the gentleman is stating some pretty obvious, I think, 
commonsense reasons as to why that should not be released.
  Number two is that every Solicitor General, former Solicitor General 
of both parties, so this is bipartisan, this is a bipartisan statement, 
in writing have said exactly what the gentleman has just said: that 
that information cannot be released.
  But I have to admit to the honorable gentleman from Florida that the 
part that has me more preoccupied, more worried, is that if that is the 
standards that some people want to use as to why certain nominees for 
judge should be disqualified, then it may be wrong. It clearly is 
because every living Solicitor General of both parties has stated it in 
writing. If that is the standard, there is an argument. What really 
worries me is the double standard that is being applied to Mr. Estrada.
  There have been seven judges that have come out of the Office of 
Solicitor General. Seven judges. And not once have those documents been 
requested of those individuals. Not once was that deemed to be 
necessary. Not once was that deemed to be essential. And clearly never 
was that used as a something to block the nomination of seven other 
people who have come from the same office. So why the double standard? 
Why the double standard on this brilliant Hispanic lawyer who, as the 
gentleman stated so eloquently, there is nothing in his record other 
than talents, discipline, hard work, decency, integrity. Why the double 
standard when there are seven other people who have passed this process 
and those documents were never asked of them, and now that is being 
used as an excuse for this one individual. That is what really worries 
me.
  And I do not know if the honorable distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Feeney) has any comments on that, because I really am 
worried about that.
  Mr. FEENEY. Well, I have some sure thought, and then I know the 
gentleman has some other Members here that are really passionate about 
how offensive it is about what is happening to Miguel Estrada. But I 
will tell you this: There is a double standard. Miguel Estrada would be 
the first Hispanic ever on this bench. He is a Solicitor General not in 
just the Republican administration, but he worked for President 
Clinton's administration. He got high marks everywhere he worked.
  The problem is this. The critics of Miguel Estrada do not want a 
vote. They do not want a debate over his talents, his capabilities, his 
integrity, his morals, his academic achievements; and they especially 
do not want to discuss the fact that this wonderful gentleman came here 
as a 17-year-old, lived the American dream, and now is an outstanding 
American statesman. They cannot vote against a man if they have to live 
with a description of his incredible achievements.
  So what the critics are using is all sorts of excuses. And as the 
gentleman points out, they have never ever once demanded that any of 
the nominees in the past live up to the technical requirements that 
they are trying to place on him. The double standard the gentleman 
speaks about, in my view, is because Mr. Estrada is a lesson to 
Americans that you do not have to think, just because you are a 
Hispanic American, in a one-little-box mentality. You do not have to be 
a liberal activist. You do not have to promise to undermine and rewrite 
the original intents of the United States Constitution. And the lesson 
that the liberal critics want to teach not just Mr. Estrada, but 
everybody else, that they are going to crush you if you believe that 
the Founding Fathers wrote what they meant, meant what they said. And 
we are especially going to crush you if you come from some minority 
background or if you are a woman, for example, because they never, 
never want to have a day in America where people, regardless of their 
ethnic background or their gender or their race or their religion, can 
actually think outside a small liberal box.
  And I want to tell the gentleman once again that for as long as I 
have known him, he has been a freedom fighter. When he sees wrong going 
on, he leads the fight to basically stand up for decency, for values, 
for the American way. I am a huge fan of the gentleman from south 
Florida and I believe, as I know he does, that if we just let the 
American people know that there is a crime being committed in public 
against Miguel Estrada, that two things will happen: Number one, he 
eventually, despite, despite this ugly episode led by his opponents 
attacking him in a surreptitious way because they cannot do it 
directly, he has no flaws in his background; despite that, he will end 
up on the Federal bench.

                              {time}  1945

  Secondly, the wonderful news is that free thinkers throughout 
America, regardless of whether they are women or what their religion is 
or what their ethnic background is, will be sent the message they do 
not have to pander to the liberal left wing special interest groups; 
they can be true to the United States Constitution; they can still make 
it as a Federal judge. That is a great message.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Florida 
for that very clear explanation, crystal clear explanation as to what 
some of the problems that we are seeing with this move to use all sorts 
of procedural maneuvers to try to block, torpedo the nomination of Mr. 
Miguel Estrada; and again, it is hard to believe that this is actually 
happening in this day and age.
  We have talked about, as the honorable gentleman from Florida talked 
about, the double standard; and it is not just one double standard that 
is being applied to Mr. Estrada. It is multiple double standards; and 
it is multiple double standards, and some of the people that are 
actually speaking these words and opposing Mr. Estrada's nomination are 
on record in the past saying just the opposite. Why? Why all of the 
sudden, when it is this person, again, the first Hispanic American ever 
to be nominated to this most prestigious court, why is it that now 
there is this double standard?
  There are people who have said, for example, that the gold seal to 
determine if one is so qualified or not is the ABA's rating; and yet 
Mr. Estrada has been rated as the highest-qualified person that that 
organization rates anybody. And yet all of the sudden, for Miguel 
Estrada, that is not good enough, and it seems to me a very sad day 
when people who just a few months ago said something totally different 
are now backtracking on their own words, reversing what they said. Were 
they not saying what they meant then, or are they not saying what they 
mean now? Were they deceiving the people then or are they deceiving the 
people now? It is a very, very sad state of affairs.
  I am honored to have the gentleman from the State of Colorado here 
join us today; and I would, Mr. Speaker, like to yield some of my time 
to the honorable gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida; and 
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this subject very directly.
  The gentleman from Florida just mentioned moments ago the rating from 
the American Bar Association, the American Bar Association, as well 
qualified for Miguel Estrada to serve on the Federal bench. That 
rating, I might remind the Speaker, and I doubt that I need to remind 
the gentleman from Florida, they not only granted that rating of well 
qualified, the highest rating, they unanimously granted a well-
qualified rating for Miguel Estrada to serve on the Federal bench.
  I would like to tell a very personal story that I just last week 
experienced about Miguel Estrada. Many of us were back in our districts 
last week. Many of us had neighborhood meetings, town meetings, 
meetings with constituents. I did the same; and at every meeting I went 
to, every meeting, certainly questions came up about the possibility of 
war in the Middle East and people are concerned about that and about 
the economy. Amazing to me, amazing to me was that people, average 
people,

[[Page 4496]]

normal folks that are concerned about their everyday living know who 
Miguel Estrada is; and they understand clearly that an injustice is 
being done, Mr. Speaker. An injustice is being done to this fine 
American.
  How fine of an American is he? The gentleman from Florida explained 
very well. He comes here as an immigrant, barely speaks the language. 
He not only graduates from the university, he graduates with honors, 
magna cum laude from Columbia College in New York, from Harvard Law 
School, edits the Harvard Law Review, not exactly your average 
fraternity newsletter. He is not only well qualified. He is eminently 
qualified.
  He served on the U.S. court of appeals as a law clerk. He served as a 
clerk in the Supreme Court for Justice Kennedy. He served as the 
Assistant U.S. Attorney and deputy chief of the appellate section of 
the U.S. Attorney's office of the Southern District of New York where 
he argued appeals cases before the second circuit court. He served as 
the Assistant Solicitor General of the United States, as the gentleman 
from Florida already pointed out, for two Presidents' administrations, 
President Clinton and President Bush 41. Still he has opponents. Why?
  In my town meetings, again, my constituents, average Americans, they 
had it figured out. I asked them what do they think this is about. They 
said it is about politics. It is about politics. I understand that if 
they are talking about me. I expect the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mario Diaz-Balart) understands that if they were talking about him. We 
are, after all, politicians.
  Mr. Estrada aspires to be a judge, a judge; and in the very 
definition of judge, the word ``judgment,'' that is what we expect him 
to do is exercise good, balanced, educated, unbiased judgment over the 
laws that our colleagues will pass in this Chamber, that have been 
passed in this Chamber by politicians, legislators before us.
  The folks back home understand that Mr. Estrada, who wants to be a 
judge, is being subjected to the judgment that is typically reserved 
for politicians. That is the injustice. That is the injustice that is 
being perpetrated on a good American, an American that has achieved the 
American dream; that has passed all standards; that has been nominated 
by a President; that deserves a fair hearing and is not getting one.
  Mr. Estrada, some of his opponents say he has never been a judge. How 
can one who has never been a judge be a judge? Well, to the average 
observer, perhaps that makes sense. Should he not be a judge first? 
Amazingly enough, I find that five of eight judges currently serving on 
this current D.C. circuit court, five of the eight had no previous 
experience as judges before they were nominated and confirmed, 
including two of President Clinton's appointees.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me, if I may 
interrupt the gentleman from Colorado. Let me see if I understand what 
the gentleman just said because that is a key point there.
  Some of them who are objecting to him are saying that because he has 
not been a judge before, that alone disqualifies him? Just that fact 
alone disqualifies Mr. Miguel Estrada?
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Correct.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, but what the gentleman 
has just expressed right now, and I want to make sure this is clear 
because this almost sounds funny, the gentleman is saying that in the 
same court where Mr. Miguel Estrada has been nominated to sit, right 
now there are five judges that, before they were there, they had never 
been judges before, and is the gentleman telling me that there was no 
objection on that basis to those judges?
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. They were nominated, they were confirmed, they serve on 
the court. It gets better.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Please proceed.
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, it gets better. On the Supreme Court of 
the United States, two recent Supreme Court Justices, names that are 
certainly familiar to me, I expect familiar to most Americans, Byron 
White, Wizard White from my State, Colorado. Byron White was nominated 
by President Kennedy, confirmed by the Senate, served with distinction 
on the Supreme Court, never was a judge prior to being nominated to the 
highest court in the land, not just a Federal judgeship, the highest 
court in the land, the Supreme Court.
  William Rehnquist, currently the Chief Justice, of course, no prior 
judicial experience before being appointed to the Supreme Court.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Colorado 
for his comments.
  Those are disturbing facts. Those are very disturbing facts because 
if the litmus test, as some are saying for Mr. Estrada, is that he has 
never been a judge, how is it possible that there are others on that 
same court, today, right now, as we speak, and of course, as you just 
mentioned, sir, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United 
States right now, they had never been judges, and yet those same 
individuals that are now saying that that is the reason why Mr. Estrada 
cannot be a judge, those same individuals did not object to these other 
fine public servants on the court?
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Please. I am having a very 
difficult time understanding this.
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I shared some of this same information 
again with my constituents back home. They said, are his opponents 
grasping for straws? I said, well, one might conclude. Allow me, allow 
me to pursue the possibility, I think a reasonable possibility, that 
this is really about politics.
  What we are looking for is a judge, someone who can exercise 
judgment; again, one who is fair and balanced; one who can be praised 
and acknowledged and accepted by both people of a more liberal as well 
as a more conservative political bias, people who are still going to 
accept one who carries the title of judge, the distinguished title of 
judge, carries that title, carries it well and that people of all 
different perspectives are going to recognize their skill, their 
talent, their fairness, such as Ron Clay, former Vice President Gore's 
chief of staff.
  A Democrat, Vice President's former chief of staff, said this about 
the same Miguel Estrada: ``Miguel is a person of outstanding character, 
tremendous intellect and with a deep commitment to the faithful 
application of precedent.'' That is what judges do. ``Miguel will rule 
justly toward all without showing favor to any group or individual.''
  I cannot think of a stronger mission statement, a stronger 
definition, a stronger statement about the credentials that I would 
hope all judges could pass before being appointed, nominated, confirmed 
to a judgeship as important as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia; and I certainly hope, it is my belief, it is my 
prayer, that a true American hero, these are the kind of stories, these 
are the kind of individuals we in this body ought to be about raising 
up as a standard of excellence, something for our young people, for all 
Americans, for all citizens of the world to look at and say that is 
what is America. That is the best of America. That is what America is 
for. And yet this poor man is being persecuted, not praised and not 
elevated.
  I thank the gentleman from Florida for the time, and I thank him for 
what he is doing to advance the cause of this fine American.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Colorado for really shedding some light, and I had a 
friend who used to say do not let the facts confuse the issue, and 
there are some people that do not want to let the facts confuse the 
issue.
  The honorable gentleman from Colorado just brought some impressive 
facts. He talked about Miguel Estrada's qualifications. Yes, he would 
be the first Hispanic to sit on this court; but let me tell my 
colleagues, I am of Hispanic descent, and I am very proud of that, but 
I am not supporting Miguel Estrada merely because he is Hispanic.

[[Page 4497]]

I am supporting him because of his talents, because of his integrity, 
because of his record, because of his life of achievements; and we 
heard from the gentleman from Colorado what some of those achievements 
are: graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia College, magna cum laude 
from Harvard Law School, unanimously stated to be well qualified, the 
highest rating from the American Bar Association, and then, yes, he 
worked at the Department of Justice for both Republican and Democrat 
Presidents and has been called ``an extraordinary legal talent and 
generally compassionate,'' by President Clinton's Solicitor General.

                              {time}  2000

  What, then, is the real reason? What is the true reason that the body 
across the hall is using procedural measures to stop a vote? They do 
not even want him to have a vote. They do not want this gentleman to 
have the possibility to receive a vote, a public vote in front of the 
entire country, to let people decide in an open fashion whether they 
should vote up or down. Why is it then, if he is so qualified, why is 
it then, if the reasons du jour, the excuses du jour, are proven to be 
false, like the ones we just heard before, that the reason he cannot be 
a judge is because he has never been a judge before, yet there are five 
members of that same court that had never been a judge? That was never 
a problem for them. Why is it only a problem for this man?
  They say, well, some documents have not been released. But there are 
seven individuals that have also come out of that same office who have 
become judges, and those documents were never asked of them. And in a 
bipartisan fashion, all living ex-Solicitors General have said, both 
Republicans and Democrats, that those papers cannot be released, and 
they have never been requested. Why is it then, that only for this man, 
for this individual, these things are requested? And why is it then, 
that they are going to the most extraordinary means to use procedural 
measures to not even permit a vote, to not even permit a vote on one 
who would be the first Hispanic, the first Hispanic in the history of 
this noble country to reach that position?
  I am honored tonight to also have the distinguished gentlewoman from 
the State of Michigan, and who comes here with an extensive public 
record from her State, who I will yield to at this time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank and 
appreciate the gentleman from south Florida for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a new Member of Congress, as I know my colleague is 
as well, and when I thought about what I wanted to do with the rest of 
my career, I thought about the idea of running for Congress; because I 
have watched, as I think so many Americans have watched, the political 
partisanship and the gridlock that has happened in our Nation's 
Capital. I am sure it has always been there, but it seems to have 
gotten worse over time. And what is happening to Miguel Estrada is a 
very vivid demonstration of political gridlock and it must be stopped. 
It has to be spoken out against, and I am here tonight to try to do so; 
at least to lend my voice to that as well.
  How can we stop the political posturing, how can we break the 
gridlock? I think one of the charts that my good colleague from south 
Florida held up here tonight, he titled it ``Diversity Held Hostage,'' 
has a very vivid demonstration of how long this nomination has been 
held up. The chart, with just a simple calendar, has the X's as the 
days and the days go by. The months are going by. Years now are going 
by on the Miguel Estrada nomination. In fact, President Bush nominated 
Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in May of 2001. 
2001. In May of 2001. Nearly 2 years later, Miguel Estrada has yet to 
be confirmed. I would say that this, by any reasonable standard, is 
quite outrageous. I believe that to be quite outrageous.
  Miguel Estrada, as has been mentioned here tonight by many of my 
other colleagues, quite frankly is the American dream. We are a Nation 
of immigrants. I am first generation here, from Scotland. We are all 
immigrants. We are a Nation of immigrants. We are a Nation that 
reflects how to build the American dream, and he certainly represents 
the mainstream American values as well as mainstream American law. If 
we think about it, from his roots in Honduras, certainly his struggle 
as an immigrant who came here speaking very little English, Mr. Estrada 
has literally risen to the very top of the legal profession, of his 
chosen field, and now he is on the brink of making history in our 
Nation. If confirmed, Mr. Estrada would be the very first Hispanic 
ever, ever to serve on the D.C. Circuit. Many consider this actually to 
be the second most important Federal court in America. Unfortunately, 
regrettably, his appointment has been held up, as we say, by the very 
smallest of causes. And that, I truly believe, sincerely believe, is 
simply political posturing.
  Mr. Estrada should be confirmed because he is highly qualified to 
serve on the Federal bench, period. He has every possible qualification 
that would meet any reasonable standard. And let me just reiterate some 
many have been spoken about previously, but I think it bears speaking 
again. This is an individual who actually earned his law degree magna 
cum laud from Harvard Law School, and he did so at the same time he was 
serving as the editor of the Harvard Law Review. Five years after his 
graduation, he was clerking for the United States Supreme Court. He 
served as a clerk for the U.S. Supreme Court. He served as an assistant 
United States Solicitor General under both President Clinton as well as 
President George Bush. He has had experience in the Manhattan United 
States Attorney's office. He has practiced constitutional law 
extensively. He actually argued, and I find this fact really quite 
fascinating, he actually argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court 
before the age of 40. That is really quite remarkable. The American Bar 
Association has unanimously, unanimously being the operative phrase 
here, rated Mr. Estrada as well qualified, which is the very highest 
rating that anyone can possibly achieve. Some Senators actually refer 
to this as the gold standard. He has very strong bipartisan support. 
And, again, when we speak about how we break political gridlock, 
political posturing, he has very high bipartisan support.
  Mr. Estrada, as I say, would be the first Hispanic judge on the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Court. So, of course, I am here speaking 
out in support of him. I do support the President's choice. But, 
fortunately, it is not just me or the President or the vast majority of 
Americans who support Mr. Estrada. In fact, there are a number of 
organizations who have spoken out very publicly in support of Mr. 
Estrada. And let me just read a couple of quotes, because I think they 
speak volumes to the background of this individual and why this 
nomination must proceed and proceed successfully.
  These, again, are bipartisan, some of them through the media. This is 
what the President of the Latino Coalition said about Mr. Estrada. ``To 
deny Latinos, the Nation's largest minority, the opportunity to have 
one of our own serve on this court in our Nation's Capital is 
unforgivable'' .
  The chief of staff of former Vice President Al Gore had this to say 
about Mr. Estrada. ``Miguel is a person of outstanding character, 
tremendous intellect, and with a deep commitment to the faithful 
application of precedent. Miguel will rule justly toward all, without 
showing favor to any group or any individual.''
  And this from Seth Waxman, who was a former Solicitor General to 
President Clinton. ``I have respect both for Mr. Estrada's intellect 
and for his integrity. In no way did I ever discern that the 
recommendations Mr. Estrada made or the views that he propounded were 
colored in any way by his personal views, or indeed that they reflected 
anything other than the long-term interests of the United States.''
  And one other quote as well. The president of the Hispanic National 
Bar Association said, ``Mr. Estrada's confirmation will break new 
ground for Hispanics in the Judiciary.''

[[Page 4498]]

  Clearly, the support for Mr. Estrada lies on both sides of the aisle. 
He is a role model, and not only for Latinos; all Americans can look to 
this individual certainly as a role model. I believe holding up this 
confirmation process is completely unnecessary. I think we need to 
allow Mr. Estrada to make history. He is well deserving of it. I am not 
an attorney, never served as a judge, but I am married to a judge, and 
I am well familiar with the exhaustive background check that goes on 
before someone is selected to serve on the bench, whatever that bench 
is. And I also know what is fair. And what is happening here to Mr. 
Estrada is unfair. In fact, I believe it to be un-American, and I 
wanted to come here tonight to speak out about this.
  As many of my colleagues did, I spent last week, while we were in 
recess, going around my district and holding town hall meetings, 
talking to people, and I was amazed on this particular issue how well 
versed people are. It has really, I believe, caught the attention of 
the average American because they see the unfairness of this. They see 
the persecution of this individual, and for no good reason. For 
absolutely no good reason.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. If I may reclaim my time, Mr. 
Speaker, for just a moment. Let me ask the gentlewoman from the State 
of Michigan a question. Because one of the things I get back home a 
lot, and like my colleague mentioned, I am new to this process here in 
Washington, D.C., but one of the things I get a lot and I have heard 
for years is, well, people are just fed up with the double talk. They 
say, all that double talk up there in Washington. And certainly some 
people say one thing one day and something else a different day, and so 
they are fed up. That is one of the things that we all, I guess, and I 
am going to ask the gentlewoman if she has heard a lot of that in her 
years of public service also, during her campaign, and now that she is 
having public hearings.
  I have seen some really interesting examples of that, which I have to 
admit have shocked me. Even having heard that all these years, upon 
arriving here I have seen some examples that have frankly shocked me. 
They have been so blatant, frankly, it is to the point of being 
shocking. When, as the gentlewoman mentions, certain people say the 
standard, the ABA rating, is the gold standard, and then all of a 
sudden, oops, just kidding, never mind, not for Mr. Estrada. For 
everybody else, yes, but not for Mr. Estrada.
  Then we have certain people, distinguished people, very well-
respected people, people we see in the news all the time, and people 
that we see interviewed all the time who have stated that, for example, 
that they would fight tooth and nail against filibustering of any 
judicial nominee, any judicial nominee. And I have read this from the 
Senate record, that they have said I am opposed to any filibustering of 
any judicial nominee, whether I like the person or not, because they 
have the right to have a vote. And then, all of a sudden, that same 
individual is one of those leading the fight to do what, to filibuster 
Mr. Estrada's nomination. Not vote against him, but filibustering. Just 
a while ago he said that he would go to the extreme to stop a 
filibuster for any nomination, for any judicial nomination.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). The Chair would caution the 
gentleman to refrain from any improper references to the Senate or to 
individual Senators.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I do not 
think I mentioned it was a Senator, but I guess it is pretty well 
known.
  But that double talk is really shocking to me. And we have heard it 
now, frankly, more than I really expected. I do not know if that is 
something that the gentlewoman has gotten back home as well, as to how 
extreme the double talk and double standards have been in the case of 
Mr. Miguel Estrada.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Well, if I might comment on that, the 
gentleman used the term double, double standard, a double standard. It 
actually is no longer a double standard. It is not as though there is 
one standard here and there is another standard here. I think what is 
happening in this particular case is that they are raising the 
standard. They are raising the bar so that it could never be achieved 
by Mr. Estrada. They are going to raise the bar to make sure that there 
is under no set of circumstances that he will ever be able to rise up 
to the level that they are setting for this individual.
  This is a question of basic fairness. And the American public, if 
they understand anything, they know what is fair. And they know what is 
happening to this individual, to this good man, with his background, is 
unfair.

                              {time}  2015

  This whole concept of filibustering, we are here in Washington, again 
we are new Members, we are trying to understand what all this 
filibustering means and what is the relevance of it and those kinds of 
things. What the American people are saying at home is, give the man a 
vote. Vote up or vote no on his nomination. Vote yes or vote nay. But 
they are saying, give the man a vote. That is not happening. That is 
the kind of comment that I heard back in my town hall meetings.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). The Chair would ask the 
gentlewoman to be careful about characterizing Senate action or urging 
Senate action.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I appreciate that. I will try to exercise 
the proper decorum here. I am getting a little carried away with it.
  Let me just close with one final comment. In one of my town hall 
meetings, I have five counties in my district, and in one of my 
counties there are seven county commissioners. One of the 
commissioners, I will not name his name, but he is a Hispanic 
gentleman, very well known, well respected in the community, has had an 
outstanding military background, well thought of by everyone. He and I 
spoke about this for quite a long time. He is of the opposite party of 
myself. But he did express his consternation. Again it came to an issue 
of basic fairness. Basically that is what he expressed to me. He said, 
if you have anything to say about this nomination at all, let the vote 
happen. Just let it happen. Let them vote yes or let them vote no. But 
it is a question of basic fairness.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair again reminds the gentlewoman.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. That is a very interesting point, 
because there is bipartisan support for Mr. Estrada. In the Senate we 
keep hearing that he has more than enough votes, that if in fact these 
procedural steps are just not done and they allow an up or down vote, 
that the votes are there. But they just do not even want to allow for a 
vote. I want to get back to the gentlewoman from Michigan; but before I 
do so, we are also joined by the gentleman from Oklahoma. We just heard 
the passion from our dear friend from Michigan. She is passionate about 
it because of the injustice of what is happening to this fine 
individual. Again, he would be the first Hispanic in the history of 
this country, the first Hispanic American in the history of this 
country to reach that position, to be on such a prestigious court. His 
record is impeccable. Democrats and Republicans have stated that his 
record is impeccable. Those that worked for him have stated just about 
the quality and the talent and the integrity, the immense integrity of 
this human being. There has been nothing that they have been able to 
find negative in his record. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Yet the bar, 
or the goal posts are continuously being moved by those that would 
oppose him.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. I am trying to give the gentleman some 
latitude, but to review this. Please refrain from remarks that 
characterize the Senate or call for action.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will try to do so. I 
thank the Speaker for letting me know about that.
  It is hard to believe why this is happening. It is hard to believe 
why this gentleman is being treated differently

[[Page 4499]]

than others who have come before him. It is hard to understand why 
others who are equally qualified or less qualified have not had the 
problems in the process that Mr. Estrada has had. He has answered more 
questions than just about anybody. Because I have heard that one of the 
reasons is that, well, he has not answered enough questions. But he has 
answered over 125 questions from the esteemed Members of the other 
body. Other judges have answered many less.
  One judge recently, of President Clinton's two nominees to the court, 
one answered three questions; the other answered, I believe, 20. Mr. 
Estrada answered 125 questions. Yet some will say, that is not enough. 
It was enough for others, but not for Mr. Estrada. I would like to know 
if the honorable Member from Oklahoma is as dismayed to see what is 
happening as are many of us who are watching this going on and are 
wondering what is the real reason, what is really behind this. It is 
not the reasons that they are stating, so what are the real reasons?
  I yield, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is a 
great pleasure to be with my good friend, the distinguished Member from 
Florida. I did not come here with prepared remarks and certainly I do 
not pretend to be able to match the eloquence of my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from Michigan, or the gentleman from Colorado; but I came 
because I was compelled, listening to the debate and having watched the 
debate over many days, to express my solidarity and my sentiments about 
the great injustice that I feel is being done here.
  This is the ultimate expression of politics over principle. And what 
kind of principles are at stake? The principle first of merit. There is 
no question about Miguel Estrada's merit. He is a jurist of outstanding 
quality and a lawyer of distinguished accomplishment, someone who 
Members of both parties have recognized for his individual brilliance. 
This is a triumph over the principle of diversity. It is a good thing 
in a diverse country to have a diverse bench, to have people of 
different backgrounds, with a common faith and belief in this country 
but representing different cultural and different racial and different 
ethnic traditions to occupy important positions.
  It is the triumph of politics over the principle ultimately of fair 
play, the most fundamental American principle of all, the right to have 
a vote, the right to be heard, the right for a decision to be made. It 
is unfortunate. And it is the triumph of politics over the principle of 
bipartisanship, as my good friend from Florida has pointed out. There 
are Democrats and Republicans of good will, of differing philosophies, 
of differing points of view but united in their belief that Miguel 
Estrada is a person of outstanding integrity, of great ability and as 
deserving of the position to which the President has nominated him.
  I reflect back, Mr. Speaker, on what might have happened had similar 
things occurred when Colin Powell was nominated for his position as a 
member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, an action which takes approval, of 
what might have happened when our distinguished national security 
adviser was chosen for her respective position. Questions were not 
raised then about them, what their political philosophy might be, 
because they were people of outstanding character and outstanding 
ability. Their appointment to the posts which they both currently hold 
is an indication of respect on both sides of the aisle for their 
ability.
  I think in this case again we are seeing an individual punished not 
on the basis of merit, not on the basis even of philosophy directly but 
on the off chance that he might be a conservative. Certainly he is not 
being punished simply because he is a Hispanic. I would hope not, and I 
would certainly expect not. I would not attribute that motive to any of 
those who oppose him. But there is a sort of subtle double standard 
here in terms of you have to be the right kind of Hispanic. You have to 
believe in the right set of principles in order to occupy a position of 
trust and responsibility in the United States. That is simply 
inappropriate.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have a Native American heritage. Many of 
the people in the tribe to which I belong are historically Democrat. 
But frankly they supported me because they thought I had the ability to 
represent their views and their point of view. That is in essence what 
is at stake here, whether or not we will discriminate or stand idly by 
and watch someone discriminated against simply because they hold a view 
which a minority of people think might be unpopular but which the 
majority in this country clearly support.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Florida again for taking on this 
fight, for waging it so diligently and for mobilizing so much support 
on behalf of not just an individual but on behalf of the defense of 
fundamental American principles.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I want to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma. As always, he has a way of really speaking 
with a lot of common sense. I want to thank the gentleman for that, for 
bringing some sense of reality to what sometimes can be a pretty crazy 
process.
  Mr. Speaker, in my remaining time, I just want to really thank and 
commend Senator Hatch, Senator Santorum, and many others on that side 
for standing up for the Constitution of the United States, for standing 
up for fairness.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is admonished to not mention 
individual Senators.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. There are many who are standing up 
for the Constitution.

                          ____________________