Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I just heard the Democrat leader come to the floor to demand a vote on Miguel Estrada so we could move on to other important issues. He had the opportunity to have that vote, and he objected. He wants to raise the issue of moving judges to a supermajority vote, denying this man, Miguel Estrada, a vote on the floor of the Senate under the constitutional clause of advice and consent to the President.
Let me talk about that for a few moments. Before I talk about that, as the chairman of the Aging Committee who has spent countless hours, as has the Senator from Massachusetts, on the issue of Medicare, he and I would both agree that when Medicare was passed in 1965, some 33 years ago, medicine was practiced much differently than it is now. Yet he is saying we want Medicare just like it was, and we want to add a new program to it.
As the Senator from Massachusetts well knows, when he voted for Medicare in 1965, it was expected to be about a 10, 20-billion-dollar-plus program. Today it is verging on a quarter of a trillion dollars, at least by the end of the decade, and it will potentially, by 2030, consume a quarter of the U.S. Government's budget.
I know the Senator from Massachusetts knows as well as I that the world has changed and health care delivery has changed and that we are not going to practice 33-year-old medicine on 2003 seniors. They don't expect it. They don't want it. They demand change.
In that change comes prescription drugs as a reasonable and right approach. But as we offer that to America's seniors, let us offer them a modernized, contemporary health care delivery system. Let us not lurk in the concept of a 33-year-old system that is now close to pushing us to deny services simply because it has become so costly and so bureaucratic. To deny them anything more than a modern health care delivery system with prescription drugs in it is to deny them the obvious; that is, quality health care.
Those are the facts. Those are the statistics. We can certainly debate those today. But we ought to be debating Miguel Estrada. The Democrats want to debate him. They deny us the vote that he is entitled to have. So for a few moments today, I would like to visit about Miguel Estrada.
Before I do that, I found this most intriguing. This is a fascinating issue. We suggest that it is partisan, and it appears to be almost at times. Yet I noticed in the RECORD of today a few quotes from a Democrat Senator. He said:
Mr. President, the court provides the foundation upon which the institutions of government and our free society are built. Their strength and legitimacy are derived from a long tradition of Federal judges whose knowledge, integrity, and impartiality are beyond reproach. The Senate is obligated, by the Constitution and the public interest, to protect the legitimacy and to ensure that the public's confidence in the court system is justified and continues for many years to come. As guardians of this trust, we must carefully scrutinize the credentials and qualifications of every man and woman nominated by the President to serve on the Federal bench. The men and women we approve for these lifetime appointments make important decisions each and every day which impact the American people. Once on the bench, they may be called upon to consider the extent of our rights to personal privacy, our rights to free speech, or even a criminal defendant's right to counsel. The importance of these positions and their influence must not be dismissed. We all have benefited from listening to the debate about Miguel Estrada's qualifications to serve on the district court. After reviewing Mr. Estrada's personal and professional credentials, including personally interviewing the nominee, I believe he is qualified to serve on the district court, and I will vote for him.
That is Senator Nelson of Nebraska. That Senator wants a vote. I want a vote. We owe Miguel Estrada a votenot a supermajority vote, not an effort to change the rules of the Senate, not an effort to deny the constitutional responsibility of this body that the other side is now doing, tragically enough, for the politics of the business instead of the substance of the issue. That is a tragedy that ought not be laid upon the floor of this Senate nor ought to come before what has been a responsible process and very important procedure.
I have been out in my State for a week, as have many of my colleagues. I say oftentimes to Idahoans: We watch the President. We see him every night on television. We, Members of the Senate and the other body, make headlines and are often talked about in the press. But very seldom does the third and equally important branch of Government, the judicial branch, get the attention. There are no natural lobbyists in general. There is no influence out there urging and pushing that the courts be treated responsibly, that these vacant positions be filled so that courts can do their duty and responsibility under the Constitution and provide for fair judgment of those who might come before them.
That responsibility lies in the President of the United States and in the Senate. We are the ones responsible for assuring that the courts are filled when those positions are vacant by appropriate people who have great integrity, who have moral and ethical standards, and who believe in the Constitution of our country.
Miguel Estrada fails on none of those qualifications. Here today, for the first time, Mr. Estrada is a target for a much larger hit; that is to suggest that a minority of the Senate could ultimately control the Supreme Court of the United States. I believe that is the battleground, while a lot of subterfuge may go on, smoke and mirrors, or diversion of attention; and I think most people who are now watching this debate are beginning to understand there is something very strange about it.
There used to be an old advertisement on television asking, "where's the beef." Well, where's the issue here? Where is the substance of the issue, after the committee of jurisdiction, the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, and on which the Senator from Massachusetts serves, very thoroughly went through the background of Miguel Estrada? He came out with high qualifications, having been reviewed by the ABA. Wherein lies the problemthe simple problem of allowing this name and nomination to come to the floor for a votea vote. I tendered that vote a few moments ago by unanimous consent, to see it denied on the other side of the aisle because they say you must have a super vote, a 60-plus vote. No, we suggest the Constitution doesn't say that. We suggest that threshold has never been required. So I think what is important here is the reality of the debate and how we have handled it.
I have the great privilege of serving from the West, from the State of Idaho. There are a lot of traditions out there. One of the great traditions is sitting around campfires, visiting, telling stories, and talking about the past. Probably one of the most popular stories to tell in the dark of night in only the glow of the campfire is a good ghost story. It scares the kids, and even the adults get a little nervous at times because their back side is dark and only their faces are illuminated. The imagination of the mind can go beyond what is really intended. So great stories get told at the campfire.
I have listened to this debate only to think that great stories are attempting to be told hereor should I suggest that ghost stories are being proposed hereabout Miguel Estrada. Why would we want to be suggesting there is something about this man that is not known, that there is not full disclosure on all of the issues? I suggest there is full disclosure. The other side is deliberately obstructing a nomination that has been before the Senate for 21 months. In that 21 months, there were no ghost stories; nothing new was found, except the reality of the man himselfthe reality of a really fascinating and valuable record for the American public to know.
Their argument is that because they cannot find anything wrong with himno ghost storiesthen there have to be bad things hidden. Somebody could not be quite as good as Miguel Estrada. Why not? There are a lot of people out there who achieve and are phenomenally successful, morally and ethically sound, and well based, and who believe in our Constitution and are willing to interpret it in relation to the law and not to the politics of something that might drive them personally.
I don't believe in activist judges on the courts. I don't believe they get to go beyond the law or attempt to take us where those of us who are lawmakers intend us not to go or where the Constitution itself would suggest we do not go. So search as they may, they cannot find. And when they cannot find, they will obstruct. They have obstructed. Week 1. We are now into week 2. My guess is we will be into week 3 or 4. Hopefully, the American people are listening and understanding something is wrong on the floor of the Senate; something is wrong in that there is an effort to change the Constitution of our country simply by process and procedureor shall I say the denying of that. I think those are the issues at hand here. That is what is important.
Mr. President, there was nothing more in telling a ghost story than in the imagination that came to the mind. There is nothing wrong with Miguel Estrada, except in the imagination in the minds of the other side, who would like to find a story to tell. But they cannot find one, dig as they might. There have been 21 months of effort, 21 months of denial. Why? Are we playing out Presidential politics on the floor of the Senate this year? It is possible. I hope we don't have to go there, and we should not. These are issues that are much too important.
This President has done what he should do. It is his responsibility to find men and women of high quality and high integrity, who are well educated and well trained in the judicial process and systemsearch them out and recommend them, nominate them to fill these judgeships. That is what he has done. Now he is being denied that.
A difference of philosophy? Yes, sure. It is his right to choose those he feels can best serve. He has found and has offered to us men and women of extremely high quality. Yet, at these higher court levels, and here in the district court, they are being denied.
Miguel Estrada has been under the microscope and nobody has found the problem. On the contrary, we have found much to admire. At least let me speak for myself. I have found much to admire in Miguel Estrada. By now, I don't need to repeat his history. I don't need to repeat the story of a young man coming to this country at 17 years of age, hardly able to speak English, who changed himself and the world around him, so that he is now recognized by many as a phenomenal talent and a scholar. Let me just say I think he and his family should be very proud of his achievements. They should also be proud of his receiving the nomination. Of all the people, they surely do not deserve to have the judicial nomination process turned into some kind of gamut, in which you run a person through and you throw mud at them, or you allege, or you imply, or you search for the ultimate ghost story that doesn't exist, to damage their integrity, to damage the image and the value and quality of the person.
Senators are within their rights to oppose any judicial nominee on any basis they choose. In the last 8 years, when President Clinton was President, I voted for some of his judges; I voted against some of them because they didn't fit my criteria of what I thought would be a responsible judge for the court. But I never stood on the floor and denied a vote, obstructed a vote. I always thought it was important that they be brought to the floor for a vote. Then we could debate them and they would either be confirmed or denied on a simple vote by a majority of those present and voting. That is what our Constitution speaks to. That is what our Founding Fathers intended. They didn't believe we should allow a minority of the people serving to deny the majority the right to evaluate and confirm the nominations of a President to the judicial branch of our Government.
If they want to administer a particular litmus test, as one of our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee has been advocating, that is their choice. If they simply do not like the way a nominee answered the questions that were put to him, then they can vote against the nominee for all of the reasons and the responsibilities of a Senator. But to say they cannot vote because there is no information about the nominee, or because he has not answered their questions, or because critical information is being withheld, well, that is clearly a figment of their imagination. That is a ghost lurking somewhere in the mind of a Senator, because for 21 months, try as they might, that ghost, or that allegation, has not been found or fulfilled.
In the real world, there is an enormous record on this nominee, bigger than the records of most of the judiciary nominees who have been confirmed by the Senate. In the real world, Mr. Estrada has answered question after question, just not always the way his opponents wished he would answer them; not just exactly the way his opponents would wish he had answered them, but he did answer them. In the real world, there is no smoking gun in the privileged documents that the opposition is unreasonably and inappropriately requesting.
There is something very familiar about the tactic being used against Miguel Estrada, and I finally realized what it was. This is the same obstructionism we have seen again and again from our friends on the other side, the same process that denied us the right to a budget, the right to appropriations for 12 long months. They could not even produce a budget. So we brought it to the floor and in 4 weeks we finalized that process.
For the last year and a half, we have lived with that issue of obstructionism, and today we are with it again. Now we are in our second week of denying an up-or-down vote. What is wrong with having an up-or-down vote? That is our responsibility. That is what we are charged to do under the Constitution.
I believe that is the issue. Instead of fighting on policy grounds, they are simply wanting to deny this issue to death. In the last Congress, as I mentioned, we had no budget, we saw an Energy Committee shut down because they would not allow that Energy Committee to write an energy bill, and they would not allow authorizing committees to function in a bipartisan way when they controlled the majority. Denial and obstruction is not a way to run a system. It is certainly not the way to operate the Senate.
Now we have a personality. Now it is not an abstract concept. Now it is not a piece of a budget or a dollar and a cent, as important as those issues are. We are talking about an individual who has served our country well, who has achieved at the highest levels, who is a man of tremendous integrity, and because he does not fit their philosophic test, the litmus test of their philosophy as to those they want on the court, but he does achieve all of the recognition of all of those who judge those who go to the court on the standards by which we have always assessed nominees to the judiciary system, that is not good enough anymore. The reason it is not good enough is because it is President George Bush who has made that nomination.
In the current Congress, that is an issue with which we should not have to deal. We should be allowed to vote, and I hope that ultimately we can, and certainly we will work very hard to allow that to happen. That is what we ought to be allowed to offer: to come to the floor, have an up-or-down vote on Miguel Estrada, debating for 1 week, debating for 2 weeks, debating for 3 weeks, if we must, but ultimately a vote by Senators doing what they are charged to do.
That is the most important step and, of course, that is the issue. Or is the issue changing the name of the game, changing or raising the bar, in this instance, to a higher level of vote, not for Miguel Estrada but for future votes, possibly a Supreme Court Justice? I do not know what the strategy is, but there is a strategy.
It is undeniable because we have seen it day after day, time after time. We watched it when they chaired the Judiciary Committee last year. I now serve on the Judiciary Committee. I went there this year with the purpose of trying to move judges through, trying to get done what is our responsibility to do, trying to fill the phenomenal number of vacancies. When there are vacancies in the court and caseloads are building, that means somebody is being denied justice. We should not allow our judiciary system to become so politicized by the process that it cannot do what it is charged to do. Therein lies the issue. I believe it is an important issue for us, and it is one I hope we will deal with if we have to continue to debate it.
Let me close with this other argument because I found this one most interesting. They said: We are just rubberstamping George Bush's nominations. Have you ever used a rubberstamp? Have you ever picked up a stamp, tapped it to an ink pad, tapped it to a piece of paper? That is called rubberstamping. My guess is it takes less than a minute, less than a half a minute, less than a second to use a rubberstamp.
That is a false analogy. Twenty-one months does not a rubberstamp make; 21 months of thorough examination, hours of examination by the American Bar Association. I am not an attorney, but my colleague from Nevada is. It used to be the highest rating possible that the American Bar Association would give in rating the qualifications of a nominee. I used to say that rating was probably too liberal. Now I say it is a respectable rating. Why? Because the bar on the other side has been raised well beyond that rating. Now we are litmus testing all kinds of philosophical attitudes that the other side demands a nominee have, and if they say, We are simply going to enforce or carry out or interpret the law against the Constitution, that is no longer good enough. Rubberstamping? A 5-second process, a 2-second process, or a 21-month process? I suggest there is no rubberstamping here.
I suggest the Judiciary Committee, under the chairmanship of PAT LEAHY, now under the chairmanship of ORRIN HATCH, has done a thorough job of examining Miguel Estrada, who has a personal history that is inspiring, work achievement that is phenomenally impressive, a competence and a character that has won him testimonials from all of his coworkers and friends, Democrats and Republicans, liberal and conservative.
As I mentioned, I am a new member of the Judiciary Committee. It is the first time in 40 years that an Idahoan has served on that committee, and I am not a lawyer. So I look at these nominees differently than my colleagues who serve on that committee who are lawyers. But I understand records. I understand achievement. I understand integrity. I understand morals, ethics, and standards that are as high as Miguel Estrada's.
I am humbled in his presence that a man could achieve as much as he has in as short a time as he has. I am angeredno, I guess one does not get angry in this business. I am frustrated, extremely frustrated that my colleagues on the other side would decide to play the game with a human being of the quality of Miguel Estrada, to use him for a target for another purpose, to use him in their game plan for politics in this country, to rub themselves up against the Constitution, to have the Washington Post say: Time's up. Enough is enough. To have newspaper after newspaper across the country say: Democrats, you have gone too far this time. Many are now saying that, and that is too bad to allow that much partisan politics to enter the debate.
We all know that partisan politics will often enter debates, but it does not deny the process. It does not obstruct the process. It does not destroy the process. Ultimately, the responsibility is to vote, and it is not a supermajority. The Senator from Nevada knows that, and the Senator from Idaho knows that. I could ask unanimous consent again that we move to a vote on the nomination of Miguel Estrada, and the Senator would stand up and say: I object.
That is how one gets to the vote on the floor of the Senate. After the issue has been thoroughly considered, Senators ultimately move to a vote. That is my responsibility as a Senator. That is one that I will work for in the coming days. That is one that many of my colleagues are working for.
We will come to the floor, we will continue to debate the fine points of Miguel Estrada, but we will not raise the bar. We should not set a new standard. In this instance, we should not allow a minority of Senators to deny the process because there is now a substantial majority who would vote for Miguel Estrada because they, as I, have read his record, have listened to the debate, have thoroughly combed through all of the files to understand that we have a man of phenomenally high integrity who can serve this country well on the District Court of Appeals that he has been nominated by President Bush to serve on.
Our responsibility is but one: to listen, to understand, to make a judgment, and to vote up or down on Miguel Estrada. So I ask the question, Is that what the other side will allow? Or are they going to continue to deny that? Are they going to continue to demand that a new standard be set? The American people need to hear that. They need to understand what is going on on the floor of the Senate, and many are now beginning to grasp that.
As newspapers talk about it, some in the Hispanic community are now concerned that somehow this has become a racist issue. I do not think so. I hope not. It should not be. It must not be. Tragically, we are talking about a fine man who is ready to serve this country and who is being caught up in the politics of the day, and that should not happen on the floor of the Senate.
Before I got into politics, I was a rancher in Idaho, and I can vouch for the fact that a lot of cowboy traditions are still alive and well in the Intermountain West. One of those great traditions is storytellinggathering around a campfire and telling ghost stories. Some of those stories can be pretty scary. But nobody really believes themcertainly not adults, and not in the light of day.
I am reminded of that storytelling tradition of the West when I look back on the debate surrounding Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. District. The reason this debate reminds me of those old ghost stories is that the opposition's arguments amount to just that: stories about imagined ghosts and monsters, told for the purpose of frightening people.
I have been serving in the Senate for better than a decade, and I have seen a lot of filibusters about a lot of things, but this is the first time I have seen a filibuster over nothingthat's right: nothing. The other side is deliberately obstructing the nomination of Miguel Estrada because after 21 months they can find nothing wrong with this nominee.
Their argument is that because they cannot find anything wrong with him, all the bad things must be hidden, and therefore they need more time for their fishing expedition on this nomination. Only now, that fishing expedition is going into documents that are privileged, and public policy itself would be violated by breaking that privilege. That's not just my opinionas we have heard again and again, it is the opinion of the seven living former Solicitors General, both Democrat and Republican.
With nothing to complain about, the opposition is trying to get us all to believe that there must be some terrible disqualifying information that is being withheld from the Senate. What that terrible information is, they leave us to imagine: maybe some writings that will reveal a monster who is going to ascend to the bench where he can rip the Constitution to shreds and roll back civil liberties. Maybe something even worse.
These are nothing more than ghost stories, deliberately attempting to frighten the American people and this Senate. It is time to shine the light of day on this debate, time to realize there is no monster under the bed.
And it is high time that the Democrat leadership put a stop to the politics of character assassination that go along with all this storytelling. It is outrageous to suggest that Miguel Estrada is hiding something, or being less than forthcoming with this Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee had plenty of time over the last 21 months to find some real problem with this nomineebut no such problem was found. The American Bar Association reviewed him, found nothing wrong with him, and even gave him its highest rating"well qualified." The Bush administration looked into his record before sending up the nomination. And let's not forget that he worked for the previous administration, too, which not only hired him but gave him good reviews.
So Miguel Estrada has been under the microscope, and nobody has found a problem with him. On the contrary, we have found much to admireat least, let me speak for myselfI have found much to admire about Mr. Estrada. By now, his story is pretty well known to anyone who follows the daily news, let alone Senators who study the nominees who come before them, so I won't repeat it again. Let me just say that I think he and his family should be very proud of his achievements. They should also be proud of his receiving this nomination. And of all people, they surely do not deserve to have the judicial nomination process turned into some kind of grueling gauntlet through the mud being generated by the opposition.
Senators are within their rights to oppose any judicial nominee on any basis they choose. If they want to administer a particular litmus test, as one of our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee has been advocating, that is their choice. If they simply do not like the way a nominee answered the questions that were put to him, then they can vote against that nominee for that reason.
But to say they cannot vote because there is no information about this nominee, or because he has not answered their questions, or because critical information is being withheldwell, apparently they do not live in the same world the rest of us do. Because in the real world, there is an enormous record on this nomineebigger than the records on most of the judicial nominees who have been confirmed by the Senate. In the real world, Mr. Estrada has answered question after questionjust no always the way that his opponents wished he would have answered. And in the real world, there is no smoking gun in the privileged documents that the opposition is unreasonably and inappropriately requesting.
There is something very familiar about this tactic being used against Miguel Estrada, and I finally realized what it was: this is the same obstructionism that we have seen again and again from our friends on the other side. Instead of fighting on policy grounds, they just obstruct and delay the issue to death. In the last Congress, we never got a budget, we never got an energy billjust more obstruction and delay. And in this current Congress, instead of having an honest up-or-down vote on this nominee, they filibuster about the past history of judicial nominees under former administrations.
Another of my colleagues revealed during this debate that obstructionism is a tactic out of a playbook for stopping President Bush from getting his nominees to the higher courtsmaybe not every court, but certainly the circuit courts and maybe someday the Supreme Court. We have heard on this Senate floor about that playbook advising our Democrat colleagues to use the Senate rules to delay and obstruct nomineesfirst in committee and then on the Senate floor.
This is the first step in raising the bar for all of President Bush's nominees. That is the goalto raise the bar, to impose new tests never envisioned in the Constitution, for anyone nominated by President Bush. Make no mistake about this: it is partisan politics at its most fundamental. Instead of the Senate performing its constitutional role of advise and consent, the Democrat leadership intends to put itself in a position to dictate to the President who his nominees can be. Instead of allowing the normal process to workthe process through which all judicial nominees have gone beforethey are fashioning a new set of tests that will become the standard.
And while I am talking about raising the bar, let me anticipate the argument of the opposition. I have heard a lot from my Democrat colleagues about how they are offended at being expected to "rubberstamp" President Bush's nominees. Last I checked, it takes about two seconds to "rubberstamp" something; you just pound the stamp on an inkpad and then on a piece of paper, and you are done.
This nomination, on the other hand, has been in the works for 21 months, involved extensive hearings by a then-Democrat-led Judiciary Committee, included supplemental questions posed by Committee members, a non-unanimous vote of that Committee, and weeks of debate on this floor. For any Senator to say this amounts to being pushed into "rubberstamping" this nominee is hogwash.
Furthermore, anybody who wants to complain about "rubberstamping" ought to be out here standing side by side with Republicans, demanding an up-or-down vote on this nominee. I say to my colleagues, if you are not satisfied that this nominee will be a good judge on the Court of Appeals, then vote against him. If you are sincere about your objections, and not just playing political games, then you have nothing to lose by demanding a fair vote.
I do not see how anybody could read the record on this nominee and listen to the debate in this Senate and not conclude that Miguel Estrada will serve the United States with distinction on the Federal bench. His personal history is inspiring; his work achievements are impressive; his competence and character have won him testimonials from friends and coworkers of every political stripe.
I am a new member of the Judiciary Committeethe first Idahoan to serve on that committee in more than forty yearsand I am proud to say that my first recorded vote on that committee was to confirm Mr. Estrada. I am now asking my colleagues to allow the full Senate to have the opportunity to vote on this nominee. Let us stop the storytelling, get back to the real world, and have a fair up-or-down vote on the confirmation of Miguel Estrada.
I yield the floor.