Mr. President, I would like to discuss for a few minutes with the Senate, and those who are interested in what we are doing here, first, the issue of the American economy and what we ought to be doing about it because the other side of the…
Mr. President, I would like to discuss for a few minutes with the Senate, and those who are interested in what we are doing here, first, the issue of the American economy and what we ought to be doing about it because the other side of the aisle--the Democratic leadership in the Senate--has decided that they are not going to permit us to vote on a most eminently qualified nominee, whose qualifications I will discuss shortly.
They come to the floor and discuss an issue--to wit, the American economy and the plight of the American worker--as if they can do something about that problem, as if they have a solution to the economic woes in this country, as if they could do something in the Senate that would help the working people.
They have no plan. The plans they have submitted are, according to most economists, far inferior to the only plan we have, and that is the plan of the President of the United States.
Nobody should be fooled by this discussion. We can take to the floor for the next 5 weeks and have speeches by the other side of the aisle claiming that they are concerned about the working people, that we have problems in the economy, but none of that will do anything to help the American people. If we know how to help them, we have to do something. And to do something, we have to act in the Senate and the House or the President has to act. As a matter of fact, the Budget Committee, which is currently chaired by the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, which I used to chair, and which 3 years ago was chaired by a Democrat because they were in control, has to produce a budget before we can do anything.
So in response to all the rhetoric, we can take no action until we have a
budget that lays forth what we will do, when we will do it, and how we will do it.
I submit that the chairman of the Budget Committee this year will produce a budget on time. It will come to the floor on time. I predict it will be passed on time, as compared with last year when the other side of the aisle was in charge of the budget. They produced no budget. They came to the floor and said: We can't produce it because it is too hard and we don't have the votes. So we did nothing. Isn't that spectacular, that the leadership on that side of the aisle, the last time they were charged with doing something for the American people with a budget, punted? They punted. They had no plan. They produced none.
Today, when we have a bona fide issue that we can do something about--that is, appoint a circuit court judge who is qualified--they have the effrontery to come to the floor and engage in a discussion as if a discussion about the plight of the American worker would solve the problems of the American worker. What will their discussions do for the American worker? Do they have some grand plan they want to come down here and talk about? They have been doing it in spite of whatever the debate is. They have been talking about whatever plan they had. I have not seen it foment any great enthusiasm on the part of those who are worried about the American economy, unless it is themselves talking to themselves. I have heard no great group of American economists saying: Boy, they have a great plan to help the American workers. Quite to the contrary.
There is only one plan around that has significant support. And if they want to change it, they will have their opportunity. But it will not get changed with speeches. It will get changed when the bills come to the floor. They will be here in due course. As a matter of fact, they will be here faster than they ever got here when the Democrats were in control.
We have a commitment from the chairman of the Budget Committee that it will be here on time and that it will be a plan that will be voted on by that committee and presented to us so we can vote on it on behalf of the American people. That side will have their chance to amend it, if they can. That is what we are going to do. We are going to start that and then move it right along. We will move it more expeditiously than it has ever been moved before because we have the will, we have the leadership in the White House, and we understand that we have to produce a budget resolution with the requisite mandates to the committees of the Senate to reduce taxes in whatever way we collectively want, be it the President's wishes or some other plan. But we have to do it--not speeches, not coming down here and creating something sort of a let's have another showdown here on the floor, let's talk about the economy because we don't want the Senate to vote on the issue that is justifiably before us--to wit, whether or not Miguel Estrada is entitled to have a vote.
I thought it might be interesting to look at a few comparisons. I took some of these judges who sit on the DC Circuit. Let's see how they compare with the nominee and what happened to them as they came before the Senate.
We have Karen Henderson, appointed by George Bush; we have Justice Rogers and David Tatel; then we have Miguel Estrada. Let's look at a comparison. These judges are there on the bench, they were appointed and confirmed. Here is one from Duke University, Judge Henderson, who attended the University of North Carolina Law School. It is interesting, as far as other things are concerned that those candidates did to prepare them to sit on the bench, such as Circuit Court clerkships, Supreme Court clerkships, and Federal Government service. Look, these others had none. Yet, they were deemed to have had adequate experience to go on the bench. And Miguel Estrada is not.
Look at what he has done compared to them. Just look at the list. Obviously, he graduated from a comparably good law school. His is Harvard. One of theirs was Chicago. One of theirs was Harvard. One was North Carolina. And then look at all the other things he has done. Yet they say he is unqualified. But these two--these three get appointed. They are serving, and they are apparently qualified.
Look at the really important issue. Look at how long it took this judge from the time her name was submitted to take her seat on the bench--51 days. No aspersions on this judge. She must be great. She got there in 51 days. But she had none of the experience Miguel Estrada had. She graduated from a good law school, certainly. And she went to an undergraduate school, got a degree at Duke, a great university.
But how about experience, the experience of being part of the Attorney General's Office of the United States, which this candidate did under a Democrat and a Republican, a circuit court clerkship, Supreme Court clerkship? They had none of that, and look at how quickly they got appointed: 51 days, 113 days, 108 days. Look at Miguel Estrada: 650 days and counting since he was recommended until today while they continue to say: No vote.
Again, we have a lot of time in the Senate. So the Democrats can come down here this afternoon, and nobody is going to keep them from debating the economy. If they want to equate a debate in the Chamber of the Senate about the economy and call it 2 million to 1, or whatever words they were using, let them have it. It doesn't do anything to help the American people and the working man. What it does is detract from the fact that they want to change the precedent of this institution.
I am hopeful that before we are finished, good leaders on that side of the aisle, including the distinguished minority leader, will exercise some common sense about the future of the Senate and the appointment of Federal judges. The future of this institution as an institution that is supposed to look at the Presidential nominees and work with Presidents and then indicate whether we want to approve them or not is in real jeopardy because they are about to say that from this day forward, because of their stubbornness about this nominee, they are going to change the rules so that judges will need 60 votes, not the majority rule that we thought existed.
I will not yield to my good friend. I see him standing out of the corner of my eye, and I will save his words. Please understand, I will yield soon.
So what they would like to do is to change from 51 votes being necessary to approve judges of the United States under our Constitution--because of what I perceive as nothing more than an unfounded fear--and you know, their fear is not the one that has been expressed. Their fear is that this young man will be a great judge and, besides that, he is Hispanic, whether you want to argue, as some would, that a Honduran who is Hispanic is not Hispanic, which is a most incredible argument. If we were to start that across America when we are talking about Hispanics, we are going to have to decide which one is Hispanic, and if a Honduran with his family name is not one, as some would say on that side of the aisle, that is pure, absolute lunacy.
So they are going to say we don't want him there, but it is not because they fear him as a circuit court judge. They fear him because he is then, if he sits on the circuit court, a legitimate, potential U.S. Supreme Court member. We have not had one who is Hispanic. They are frightened to death. While all of their fear is illegitimate, some of it is selfish fear because they think their party should be the one that nominates a Hispanic who would be on the U.S. Supreme Court. They think that because Hispanics are predominantly members of the Democratic Party, they should be the party that puts into position a Hispanic who might go to the highest bench in the country.
I believe that is a terrific burden to place on this young man, who at this early age has accomplished more, by way of experience, legal accomplishments, and academic accomplishments, than any of the members sitting on the circuit court today.
I finished talking about those judges who were far less experienced and how long it took them to become judges. Now I will take these judges who have comparable experience to Miguel Estrada. I find that by looking in the records and seeing what they did. In addition to the law schools and undergraduate, it looks like circuit court clerkships, looks like Supreme Court
clerkship, looks like Federal Government service are pretty much equivalent to what Miguel Estrada has. Look here, it took only 15 days from the time of nomination to confirmation. Raymond Randolph, appointed by George Bush, attended Drexel University; graduated from Pennsylvania Law School, summa cum laude, much like Miguel Estrada; who was a circuit court clerk for a Second Circuit Judge; Assistant Solicitor General and Deputy Solicitor General. That is much like Miguel Estrada. It took 66 days from nomination to vote. A comparably equipped nominee, it took 66 days.
Another one is Merrick Garland, appointed by President Clinton, graduate of Harvard, summa cum laude; Harvard Law School, circuit court clerk, special assistant--very much the same as Miguel. That took only 71 days. Isn't that amazing? Very comparable credentials. This man has been waiting 650 days--Miguel Estrada--and it is continuing day by day.
I don't get a chance to come down here as frequently as some, although Senator Nickles and I agreed many months ago that we would be special friends to Miguel Estrada and help him as he moved through here. He has so many helpers in a job that is very simple. Senator Nickles spoke yesterday and he referred to that special kinship. I haven't been here as often as some but I have heard some very good speeches. I heard some very good efforts on the part of the other side of the aisle to justify the delays that are taking place. Some have wondered whether it does any good for Republicans to insist that this man be given an up-or-down vote, and that whatever is occurring on the other side of the aisle--I have given you four or five reasons it may be occurring--but I suggest our effort is doing some good.
I will tell you that in my State three newspapers over the weekend announced in open and bold editorials that the Democrats should stop the filibuster, retreat from it, and get on with the vote. One of them is a newspaper known as the Santa Fe New Mexican. Obviously, those who know our State know that this paper--a very old newspaper--is certainly not a conservative newspaper. They say in their editorial--the lead words are--Bingaman--meaning our Senator--``Bingaman should lead the Dems' filibuster retreat.'' They have a very lengthy discussion of why my colleague, the junior Senator from New Mexico, should lead the Democrat retreat from the filibuster that is working its way on the Democrat side. I ask that the editorial be printed in the Record.
[From the Santa Fe New Mexican, Feb. 24, 2003]
Bingaman Should Lead Dems' Filibuster Retreat
As legendary prizefighter Joe Louis said of an upcoming
opponent reputed to be fast on his feet: ``He can run, but he
can't hide.''
Senate Democrats, along with the Republican majority, fled
Washington last week as their way of honoring Presidents'
Day. The annual recess suspended their filibuster against a
federal judgeship vote. The Dems are making an unwarranted
stand, and an unseemly fuss, over the nomination of Miguel
Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The filibuster--protracted talking under senatorial
privilege--had consumed a week of debate about Estrada before
the senators left town. Now they're gravitating back to the
Potomac, and the Dems can hide no longer. Resumption of their
verbose balking will make them look ridiculous--at a time
when the nation needs statesmen to stand up against the White
House warmonger and his partisans commanding Capitol Hill.
The Democrats have chosen a particularly poor target:
Estrada, who came from Honduras as a boy and went on to lead
his law class at Harvard, is better qualified than many a
Democratic appointee now holding life tenure on one federal
bench or another.
But after confirming so many less-qualified judges while
they held power, Estrada's senatorial tormentors now offer
``reasons'' why he shouldn't be confirmed; too young; too
bashful about answering leading questions; appointed only
because he's Hispanic--or, to some senators' way of thinking,
not Hispanic enough.
What really rankles with the Democrats, though, is
Estrada's politics. He's a conservative. Surprise, surprise;
we've got a conservative president, and it's the president
who makes the appointments to the federal judiciary.
As the party on the outs, the Dems had better get used to
like-minded appointments from the president. If their game-
playing goes on, a disgusted American public might keep
George W. Bush in office for the next six years. The country
certainly didn't see any reason to balance Bush against a
Democratic Congress when it had a chance just a few months
ago. With their spiteful behavior toward Bush appointees, the
Dems aren't exactly gaining goodwill.
If they find the Republican so repugnant, let 'em vote
against him; at least they'll be putting their ideals--or
their party colors--on display. But this is no Mr. Smith
against some diabolical establishment; it's a bunch of sore
losers making themselves even more so.
To break a filibuster by cloture takes 60 senators. The
Senate's 51 Republicans need nine of the 48 Democrats, or
eight of them and ex-Republican Jim Jeffords of Vermont.
New Mexico's Jeff Bingaman should lead the Democratic
blockade-runners. By all measures, Bingaman is a class act; a
lawyer who knows that senators have no business obstructing
appointments on purely political grounds. He also knows that
Republicans aren't going to hold the White House forever;
that sooner or later a Democratic president will be choosing
judges. And he realizes that Republicans, like their mascot,
have long memories.
The last thing our justice system needs is an ongoing feud
over appointments to district and appellate judgeships. Let
Judge Estrada's confirmation be a landmark of partisan
politics' retreat from the courtroom.
Mr. President, we have a rather active University of New Mexico newspaper. It is named the Daily Lobo, after the athletic team. They have a columnist there, Scott Darnell, who wrote:
Miguel Estrada isn't probably someone with an immense
amount of name recognition--yet.
That is this University of New Mexico editorial comment. Then they proceed to quote the distinguished Democratic Senators who have in the past stated that we should not filibuster Federal judge appointments. They cite Ted Kennedy, our distinguished Senate colleague, and Patrick Leahy, our distinguished colleague, and they quote from them as to why we should not use a filibuster when it comes to the appointment of judges.
Of course, the editorial asks, Why now? The editorial proceeds to talk about this young judge and his great qualifications. It indicates that we should not make this mistake in changing what we have been doing for so many years and create a 60-vote requirement for a judgeship.
Then the third article is from the largest newspaper in the State-- the Albuquerque Journal. They have a very lengthy editorial piece. The headline is ``End Filibuster, Put Court Nominee to Vote.'' That is the daily Albuquerque newspaper. They merely conclude that the time has come. That is from my home State. I suggest when you put the three together, they have gotten the message very well. They have heard both sides. They quote arguments made on the other side and find them without merit, and they proceed to indicate that, without question, the time has come to have a vote.
I ask unanimous consent that those two articles be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I repeat, it is one thing to delay; it is another thing to talk a lot; and it is yet another thing to attempt to get the issue that is before us and find a way around it and cloud the issue. That is all that is happening this morning with the discussion by the Democratic leadership, joined by certain Democratic Senators, when they argue that Republicans, by insisting that we vote on this nominee, are in some way failing to do justice to the economic problems that exist in our country.
I hope it doesn't take a lot more discussion for people to understand that is absolutely an untruth. It is an absolutely irrelevant argument. They can talk all they like about the economy and quit talking about Miguel Estrada and not one single thing will happen to benefit the American workers, not one thing.
We need to do something, and what we must do is decide whether we want the President's plan or some modification of it. The only way we can do that is to move with dispatch on the issues before us, those issues, in the way prescribed under our rules. There is no one suggesting we should throw away our rules and pass a plan tomorrow morning. Nobody is suggesting we do that.
In due course, in the matter of only a few weeks, we will be voting on whose plan should be adopted to help the American economy move forward.
I submit that the facts are overwhelming that the arguments against Miguel Estrada are not justified. Those arguments do not justify these delays.
I yield the floor.