Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding to me. I was listening to the gentleman's remarks from my office and decided to come down precisely to ask to join him for just a few minutes because I very much agreed…
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding to me. I was listening to the gentleman's remarks from my office and decided to come down precisely to ask to join him for just a few minutes because I very much agreed with what he was saying.
I heard the gentleman speaking first on the President's economic plan to help create jobs in the United States. Eighty percent or more of the jobs in the United States are created by small business. And in my district, when I started to talk about the President's plan, what impressed me was the amount of small businessmen who spoke to me and told me that that provision in the President's plan to triple the amount that a small business can deduct from its taxes to make equipment purchases, in other words to expand the small business, is something
that will immediately not only inure to the benefit of those small businesses but will produce growth in those small businesses, will produce new small businesses and, thus, will produce jobs in this country.
The President's plan is multifaceted. It will create jobs in many ways. And I think it is incumbent upon us in this Congress to have a vigorous debate but to act quickly and pass that plan.
Of course, as the gentleman was saying with regard to the reality of the tyrant in Baghdad, I think the President just a few days ago, when he spoke here before us, made a very convincing case when he reminded the American people and the world that that tyrant in Baghdad has used in the past weapons of mass destruction. He not only possesses weapons of mass destruction, in the case of chemical weapons, biological weapons, but he has used those weapons against people within his own country.
So he had obviously an obligation, after he lost the war in 1991, to rid himself of all weapons of mass destruction. He not only did not do so, but in 1998 he expelled the United Nations inspectors.
Now, the fact is that the international community then, despite the fact that it had imposed a requirement on the tyrant in Baghdad to get rid of weapons and to permit inspections of the process of getting rid of those weapons, despite the fact that he not only did not get rid of the weapons, he not only did not facilitate the process that he had to because of resolutions of the international community by way of the Security Council, he not only did not cooperate, but he expelled the inspectors.
The fact that the international community, at that time led by the United States, did nothing does not excuse the inaction. The fact is that there is a President now who does not want to see and who certainly wants to do everything in his power to prevent what has occurred repeatedly in the past decade.
In 1993, there was a terrorist attack in New York that could have been much worse. It was a direct act of urban terrorism, which happened to be at the same site of the attack that killed 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. But the attack occurred already in early 1993, another attack, and then multiple other attacks occurred afterwards in that decade. And the reality of the matter is, as we said before, the tyrant in Baghdad has used weapons of mass destruction against people within Iraq, and he has not only not gotten rid of the weapons as required by international resolutions, but even now, facing the leadership of George W. Bush and facing a new initiative by the United Nations Security Council, he still, as the President reminded us a few days ago here, has not provided any evidence whatsoever of the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction.
In addition to that, he is close, as we have seen from declassified documents from British intelligence, close to acquiring a much more dreadful and dangerous weapon of mass destruction: a nuclear weapon. So, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, said recently when he testified before the committee that I am honored to be a member of, the Committee on Rules, and somebody said, well, where is the smoking gun? The gentleman from Illinois said, I think what we have an obligation to do is to do everything possible to avoid a smoking city.
How will the American people and history judge us if, knowing as we do that that tyrant in Baghdad has weapons of mass destruction, and knowing as we do that he has the relations that he has with other international terrorists, we simply acquiesce in doing nothing because, for example, some of our allies wish to do nothing? No, we have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to avoid a smoking city.
We have an obligation. I agree with the gentleman. I think the primary obligation of government is to protect the people. The reason people came together and formed government in the first place was to protect themselves from common enemies of the community. And so I think the President has not only made a case, a very impressive case, he did so here and he has done so repeatedly, but I happen to thank God repeatedly, and obviously the American people, for having elected a leader like the American people elected in November of 2000, a leader of the United States of America and of the Free World who, despite all the pressures, despite all the difficulties, he is doing everything imaginable, everything possible to comply with the first obligation of government, which is to protect the people.
That is correct.
I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia bringing that subject up because while we are on the subject of terrorist states, it is important to remind our colleagues and the American people that there is one such terrorist state 90 miles from the shores of the United States, a terrorist state that harbors multiple terrorist organizations from throughout the world.
In this hemisphere we are facing extraordinary tragedies on a daily basis, especially in the wonderful country of Colombia whose people elected a president just months ago, and they have come together and they are fighting heroically against terrorism. Yet those terrorist groups that are attacking on a daily basis the people in Colombia receive not only orientation but guidance and, in effect, are in all sorts of dealings with the tyrant in Havana.
The reality of the matter is that the tyrant in Havana harbors terrorists not only from Colombia, from throughout the Western Hemisphere, from Spain, the Basque ETA terrorists, they have a base in Cuba. Just recently terrorists from the IRA Irish organization based in Cuba were arrested in Colombia for providing training to the Colombian FARC terrorists in urban warfare. We have seen recently a dreadful, horrible increase in the urban bloodshed, in the urban terrorism, in the bloodshed caused by the urban terrorism. Terrorists have trained those Colombian terrorists, terrorists based in Cuba. There
is this entire network that finds harbor, of terrorism, international terrorism, that finds safe harbor in Cuba. And that is a reality.
I was very pleased with the President's answer, because some people get confused when we deal with, for example, the trade ban on Communist Cuba and we say, we insist on three steps be taken in Cuba before there is a normalization of relations with the United States: Legalization of all political parties, labor unions, the press; liberation of all political prisoners; and the scheduling of free and fair elections with international supervision. When those steps happen, there will be normalization, and until those steps happen, there will not be.
President Bush is very clear and from the very beginning has made it very clear that he will not, and he has said so, he will veto any attempts if he has to to normalize relations until and unless those steps are taken, because the Cuban people, like the rest of the world, deserve freedom as well.
He has got to pay.
Yes.
What the dictatorship in Cuba most wants is the American tourist dollar, because the American tourist dollar, which would be billions even in the first year, would provide the repressive machinery obviously with a boost like it has not had in decades.
And the apartheid system that exists there where, for example, those tourist centers and the hospitals and the wonderful health centers, they are for people with foreign currency, with dollars, tourists, and of course the hierarchy of the dictatorship. The Cuban people have no access to those things.
But to maintain that system, obviously the dictatorship seeks the infusion of hard currency. The way in which the dictatorship could have the largest infusion of hard currency would be with the American tourist dollar.
What we are saying is, and President Bush agrees, liberate the political prisoners, legalize political parties, labor unions, the press, and schedule free elections, and then there will be normalization. Then you can have your tourist dollars. Not before. Not when the tourist dollars will inure to the benefit of the repressive machinery.
The President, and he was very clear again at the retreat in West Virginia this weekend, he made it clear that, number one, the policy is clearly rooted in a purpose, to contribute to a democratic transition from a terrorist regime 90 miles away. And also some people and the President was very explicit on this, some people say, well, we have trade with China, why not with Cuba? The President was not only explicit, but went at length in explaining the differences.
There has been a capitalist resurgence in China with an entrepreneurial class and many differences and some decentralization of power, many differences from the Cuban situation. So even though I happen to have been and continue to be an opponent of business as usual with Communist China, I agree with the President that there are substantial differences. I think it was very appropriate for the President to have brought out and demonstrated once again his clarity, not only of vision but his grasp of the details with regard to important policy matters.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to, if I may, I know the gentleman from Georgia has been one of the most interested Members of this House with regard to the need and the appropriateness to recognize the great accomplishments of the Hispanic community in the United States. I not only commend you for that, but thank you for your solidarity and always your sensitivity and your compassion to the Hispanics in this country and to Hispanic issues.
How are we going to feel about a nation, about a country that, for example, in my case when I also was a refugee child like those friends that you talked about that you grew up with, and I had to leave with my family as a refugee when I was 4 years old and arrived in this country. How are we to feel about a nation that not only permits us to go to schools in freedom and to worship in the churches of our choice and to associate with whomever we wish to associate in freedom, but that has, through the ultimate generosity of spirit of the American people, permitted a refugee child who arrived at age 4 to be elected to the Congress of the United States and along with our other colleagues participate in the process of making laws for the American people? Only a country of ultimate spiritual greatness and generosity permits something like that.
And so that is something that not only we recognize as people who have come, in my case I know there are other Members of this House who also immigrated to this great land, not only do we recognize it, but we are reminded of it each and every day, the compassion of the American people, the greatness of the American people, the generosity of spirit of the American people has no parallel in the world.
That is why it hurts us so deeply when we see in other places of the world, now, for example, when the President is trying to lead an international coalition to disarm a tyrant who has weapons of mass destruction and is threatening the world, when we see allies, in some cases allies who had American GIs go and liberate them twice; and it takes going to the cemeteries in France and in Belgium and throughout Europe to see the heroism and the greatness of the American people, that twice in the 20th century liberated Europe, to see allies putting up now the roadblocks and the difficulties in the path of a President who wants to rid those allies' peoples, of the threat of weapons of mass destruction from a tyrant in Baghdad. It hurts.
It is obviously an interesting
story. It obviously is personal, and I think at some point it might be appropriate to talk about it, but I do not think necessarily it is the time to do so now.
Suffice it to say that those examples that you talked about, the people whom you met and my family and all who come from this particular vantage point of a country that was lost to a totalitarian tyranny and had the opportunity to come here and live day in and day out, the miracle of freedom, it is true what you have said that we not only do not take it for granted, but that there is not one day that we are not cognizant of the miracle of freedom.
With your indulgence, I would like to point out a story about a young, still a young man who is also Hispanic. He did not come from Cuba. He came from Honduras.
That is correct. He came when he was 17 years old. Like so many of us, obviously the dream of his family, and his dream as well, was to be able to live in this marvelous country of freedom and to have a chance to work hard, to have a chance to work hard and live a dignified life that he, his family and all Americans could be proud of.
And this young man came over at age 17, did not speak English, got to work immediately, though, worked so hard, was such a good student that he was able to go to Columbia University, obviously on a scholarship. His parents did not have the money to send him. He worked so hard in Columbia. He got extraordinarily good grades. He got a scholarship to go to Harvard Law School and there not only did he do well, he became editor of the law review. I am a lawyer. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is a lawyer too, is he not?
The gentleman knows what it means to be law review editor.
The law review editor, only the most superb legal minds in law school are able to become, in effect, the leaders at the law review, the editor of the law review. And this young man who did not speak English at 17, by the time he was in law school was editor of the law review.
Anyway, he graduated from law school, was such a talented jurist that he was able to become a law clerk for a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. And later he became an associate solicitor general, representing the Government of the United States before the Supreme Court of the United States, arguing cases. Obviously only very important cases get heard by the Supreme Court, and obviously only someone of extraordinary talent and ability can argue on behalf of the Government of the United States as an associate solicitor general before the Supreme Court. Fifteen cases he argued before the Supreme Court.
He is an extraordinary symbol of success of what is referred to as the American dream. But I know it must seem hard to believe, but the Democrats have now said that they are going to stop in the Senate President Bush's nomination of this jurist, of this extraordinary young man, President Bush's nomination of this man to be in the second most important court, a member of the second most important court in the United States, the court of appeals here in the District of Columbia. His name is Miguel Estrada, and now the Democrats are saying that because he is not a leftist, because he does not have a record of leftist, extremist, so-called accomplishments, whatever they are supposed to be, that the Senate is not going to confirm him.
In the long history of the Republic, in that second most important court in the United States, the District of Columbia's Federal Court of Appeals, there has never been a Hispanic nominated by a President of the United States just like there has never been a Hispanic nominated by a President of the United States to the most important court, to the Supreme Court of the land. This man with the extraordinary record that he has where even the American Bar Association, which cannot be called a conservative organization under any measuring ability, the American Bar Association says that Miguel Estrada is very, very competent, that he is superbly qualified.
One of the ways in which the Democrats are objecting to Miguel Estrada's nomination, they are saying we want to see the internal memoranda that Mr. Estrada wrote when he was an assistant solicitor general. We want to see the internal memoranda because, number one, we want to see all the internal writings and, number two, we do not like Mr. Estrada because he is not a judge already. Those are the two main arguments that are being used against Mr. Estrada by the Democrats.
Let us analyze those two roadblocks that are being put down by the Democrats to try to stop Miguel Estrada's confirmation. There have been 67 cases approved by the Senate of nominees to the United States Courts of Appeals who previously worked at the Department of Justice. In none of the 67 cases have the internal memoranda of those judges, when they worked for the Department of Justice like Mr. Estrada, who was an assistant solicitor general, in none of the 67 cases have the internal memoranda been made public. But in the case of Miguel Estrada, he is the only one that the Democrats are saying we want to see the internal memoranda.
I am the first one to say that Miguel Estrada deserves to be a judge of the appellate court not because he is Hispanic but rather I am also the first one to say that he deserves to be a judge and he deserves not to be stopped because he is a Hispanic. And we see that in 67 other cases they have not made public the internal memoranda and that has not stopped the nomination, but in the case of Miguel Estrada that is an impediment. And another thing. The thing about he is not a judge now. Precisely. There has not been one Hispanic named before President Bush named Miguel Estrada to the appellate court of the District of Columbia in the history of the Republic. How do you expect Hispanics to come before the Senate already having been judges if this
is the first nomination of a judge by a President of the United States who is Hispanic to the second most important court? A glaring problem is the lack of Hispanic judges until now. President Bush is trying to remedy that; and the Democrats are placing roadblocks, because he is Hispanic, in the path of a decent and honorable man with a superb record.
Exactly. Actually, I would agree with the gentleman that once one analyzes, if one has a chance to go through the road blocks and analyze them, one realizes that they are farcical. But it is really sad here because we are dealing with a life of a human being. We are not dealing with a farce. We are dealing with the life of a real human being who came to this country at age 17 to work very hard, and he has worked very hard and he makes all Americans proud. And if I may, I think it is relevant to point out, by the way, when Mr. Estrada was Solicitor General, most of the years that he was Solicitor General was under a Democratic administration, the administration of President Clinton; and let us hear what Mr. Clinton's Solicitor General has to say about Mr. Estrada. This is Seth Waxman, the former Solicitor General under President Clinton: ``During the time that Mr. Estrada and I worked together, he was a model of professionalism and competence. I greatly enjoyed working with Miguel, profited from our interactions, and was genuinely sorry when he decided to leave the office in favor of private practice. I have great 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 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.'' That is Clinton's Solicitor General.
If I may read the comments of Ronald Klain, the former counselor to Vice President Gore: ``Miguel Estrada is a person of outstanding character, tremendous intellect, and with a deep commitment to the faithful application of precedent. Miguel will rule as a judge justly toward all, without showing favor to any group or individual. The challenges he has overcome in his life have made him genuinely compassionate, genuinely concerned for others, and genuinely divided to helping those in need.
My dear friend, the Democrats have chosen the wrong case upon which to make a stand in opposition. They chose the wrong case when they placed roadblocks before a young man who arrived at 17 from Honduras and got here to work hard and has worked hard and made all Americans proud. They have chosen the wrong case when they oppose an immigrant, a Hispanic immigrant, who arrived here and who has made his family and all Hispanics proud. They have chosen the wrong case.
Mr. Speaker, I share another thing with the gentleman, and I have not met him either. What has incensed me and what has bothered me to the core is that people on the other side of the aisle are accusing him of not being Hispanic enough. When I heard those accusations and I read his biography, because when I started hearing the accusations I started studying the biography and the work of the life of this immigrant, Miguel Estrada, it has bothered me to the core that they would have chosen to make a political case out of a man who arrived here as a very young man and has done nothing more but in an honest and day-in-and-day-out intense manner worked hard to honor his family and his country. It is extremely bothersome.
I think the American people who have had the opportunity to hear us tonight, I am sure, must be bothered as well. What I would urge is that since in these upcoming hours the other body is going to have that decision to make, I would urge that they not make the serious mistake, because of petty politics, to stop, in effect, the career of a brilliant young man who has done nothing but work hard to honor his family, to honor all Hispanics, to honor all immigrants, and, yes, to honor the United States of America.
I thank the gentleman very much for the opportunity to have been able to join him.
I was confused, because the gentleman said I dodged his question when he asked about my personal background. By the way, I am very proud of my family's background. In no way did I want to seem when I did not want to get into the family background today that I am not proud of it. I am, as I am proud of all Cuban Americans and all Hispanics and all immigrants in this country and all Americans. But I did not want to get into that, because I wanted to focus tonight on Miguel Estrada.
I agree with the gentleman and commend him on his hard work on so many issues, day in and day out. The gentleman from Georgia is an honor to this Congress, his district and constituents, and to all of the American people.