Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand that we are on the Executive Calendar under the executive order; is that correct?

Mr. CRAIG. And that we are considering the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the Tenth Circuit.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I listened to my colleague from South Carolina for a good number of minutes and have always been fascinated by his review of the budget and budget processes. I am also always frustrated by the reality of a general fund budget, in a comprehensive budget policy under which we operate, and the fungibility of moneys, and the broad general system in which we take Social Security moneys, once appropriately registered in the trust funds of Social Security, and then it being moved into the general fund of our country; that, in fact, Social Security money is spent and bonds are taken out or loans are made against the trust funds and interest is bearing and money is replaced. So to suggest that trust fund moneys cannot be spent once they have been appropriately accounted for is a frustration. But let me stop there because I came to the floor this afternoon to once again speak about Miguel Estrada and his nomination and, of course, where the Senate is at this moment in time, which is not only important for all of us but important for the judiciary of our country, that we are able to bring to the floor of the Senate highly qualified men and women who have been appropriately vetted by the administration--no matter what administration it is--and that the nominations of these people are reviewed by the Judiciary Committee and then brought to the floor for a vote. What has gone on here for well over 4 weeks is the denial of that opportunity to vote. We did have a vote last week. It was a cloture vote. It is part of the inside ball game of the Senate that oftentimes those who are observers of what we do do not understand. We got 55 votes, if you will, for Miguel Estrada. My goodness, that is 50 percent plus 5 of a 100-member body. Surely, that would confirm this fine judicial nominee. Quite to the contrary, it was a cloture vote. Under a cloture vote, with a supermajority rule in the rules of the Senate, it simply says you have to get 60 before you have the right to get 50 plus 1 of those present and voting. That has to be awfully confusing for anyone listening or observing. Clearly, the rules of the Senate are to make sure that our Constitution is upheld, or at least a prescription of our Constitution, that requires that all States enter in and are members of the United States under our Constitution and are equal in the Senate. Therefore, we have historically, and appropriately so, erred on the side of protecting the minority. And that, of course, is the cloture process: to make sure that a supermajority finally decides it is time to vote on an issue. I hope that over the course of the next several weeks we can gain cloture and that we can get to the real vote, the honest vote, the fair vote, the appropriate vote of 50 plus 1 of those present and voting for the confirmation of Miguel Estrada under the advice and consent clause of our Constitution. Let me recap, for a few moments, some of the arguments we have heard on the floor of the Senate over the last several weeks about this fine nominee: We are asked, if you will, to rubberstamp everyone the President sends up, and we should not inquire, we should not be probative, we should not look into the individual's background. Well, that is an interesting argument, but it echoes in such a hollow way on the floor of the Senate when you look at the reality and the fact that Mr. Estrada has been before the Judiciary Committee for over 2 years and that we have had now a very extensive filibuster--or shall I say extended debate--that has talked about almost every aspect of Miguel Estrada's professional life--his career and his life in general; that he was thoroughly investigated by the FBI, and those records were brought to the Judiciary Committee for all of us to examine, and somehow we are no ``rubberstamping,'' after literally hundreds and hundreds of pages of material, and the process of this investigation is now compiled in the Judiciary Committee on Mr. Estrada. Rubberstamping? I think not. Rubberstamping is not when any Senator can vote how he or she wishes. We are not suggesting that everybody vote yes. We are suggesting that everybody vote--yes or no, up or down--and that Mr. Miguel Estrada be given his day, as should the President be given the right to have his or her nominees brought to the floor for an up-or-down vote. I say to my colleagues on the other side, that ain't a rubberstamp; that is doing what you are asked to do when you are sworn in as a Member of the Senate--to vote up or down on the issue, face the tough votes, face the easy votes. I have one job here, as do 99 other Senators, and that is to come to the floor of the Senate and vote. That is what my State asks. That is the role I play for my State. That is all our President asks. I am quite sure that is what Miguel Estrada would like. Our colleagues have complained that Mr. Estrada is a ``blank slate;'' that there is not enough information for Senators to be able to make a responsible judgment about his ability to serve. You have heard my colleague from South Carolina say not all the questions have been answered. Well, Miguel Estrada has literally called every Senator's office and said, ``I will come and visit with you and I will respond to your questions.'' But, no, that is not good enough. We don't want him in our office; we want him before the committee again responding to the questions that the committee would choose to ask and, of course, we would like more of the record that he compiled while serving in the Justice Department under both Democrat and Republican Presidents. It is a very frustrating time we have here when, in fact, that which they argue has been answered not only once but twice or a hundred times over. When you, therefore, compile all of this and analyze the record, there has to be something more than just the background, just the information. I think it is, in fact, the politics of the issue today, and the effort on the part of the far left to cause the Democrat Party to try to deny Miguel Estrada his day on the floor of the Senate in an up-or-down vote with Members present and voting. Let me talk a little bit about some of the questions asked. I am quoting from a phenomenally comprehensive letter which was sent to the Senate by the legal counsel at the White House. I have it here. It is 15 pages. Counsel to the President, Judge Gonzales, sent this up on February 12. It goes into great detail. I thought for a few moments I would, once again, for the record, talk of some of that detail and some of the answers that both Miguel Estrada has responded to and that Judge Gonzales, legal counsel to the White House, has responded to--only for those who are concerned about the Congressional Record that we compile here to clearly understand that the arguments placed by the other side are so hollow, they have hardly no echo today, because questions have been asked and answers have been given. Miguel Estrada answered the committee's questions--and this is according to Judge Gonzales. I was not there at the time. I now serve on the Judiciary Committee, but these questions were leveled at Miguel Estrada in the 107th Congress. I was not a member of the committee at that time. Miguel Estrada answered the Committee's questions forthrightly and appropriately. Indeed, Miguel Estrada was more expansive than many judicial nominees traditionally have been in Senate hearings, and he was asked a far broader range of questions than many previous appeals court nominees were asked. He goes on to catalog the questions and the answers in the area of rights, privacy and abortion, unenumerated rights. When asked by Senator Edwards about the Constitution's protection for rights not enumerated in the Constitution, Mr. Estrada replied: ``I recognize that the Supreme Court has said [on] numerous occasions in the area of privacy and elsewhere that there are unenumerated rights in the Constitution, and I have no view of any sort, whether legal or personal, that would hinder me from applying those rulings by the court. But I think the court has been quite clear that there are a number of unenumerated rights in the Constitution. In the main, the court has recognized them as being inherent in the right of substantive due process and the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. When asked by Senator Feinstein whether the Constitution encompasses a right to privacy and abortion, Mr. Estrada responded, ``The Supreme Court has so held, and I have no view of any nature whatsoever, whether it be legal, philosophical, moral, or any other type of view that would keep me from applying that case law faithfully.'' When asked whether Roe v. Wade was ``settled law,'' Mr. Estrada replied, ``I believe so.'' That is a pretty straightforward answer. That is as clear as you can get on issues of privacy and abortion. I cannot understand why the other side cannot accept that as a responsible and clear answer. General approach to judging. In other words, what is your philosophy? How do you react? When asked by Senator Edwards about judicial review, Mr. Estrada explained: ``Courts take the laws that have been passed by you [meaning the Senate] and give you the benefit of understanding that you take the same oath that they do to uphold the Constitution, and therefore they take the laws with the presumption that they are constitutional. It is the affirmative burden of the plaintiff to show that you have gone beyond your oath. If they come into court, then it is appropriate for courts to undertake to listen to the legal arguments--why it is that the legislature went beyond [its] role as a legislature and invaded the Constitution.'' Mr. Estrada stated to Senator Edwards that there are 200 years of Supreme Court precedent and that it is not the case that ``the appropriate conduct of the courts is to be guided solely by the bare text of the Constitution because that is not the legal system that we have. In other words, he was talking to that precedent in relation to the strictness of the Constitution. When asked by Senator Edwards whether he was a strict constructionist, Mr. Estrada replied that he was ``a fair constructionist,'' meaning that, ``I don't think that it should be the goal of the courts to be strict or lax. The goal of the court is to be right. . . . It is not necessarily the case in my mind that, for example, all parts of the Constitution are suitable for the same type of interpretive analysis. . . . [T]he Constitution says, for example, that you must be 35 years old to be our chief executive. . . . There are areas of the Constitution that are more open-ended. And you adverted to one, like the substantive component of due process clauses, where there are other methods of interpretation that are not quite so obvious that the court has brought to bear to try to bring forth what the appropriate answer should be. That is an understandable answer when the law is as specifically as 35 years; that is interpretive. When the Constitution gives you the opportunity for some interpretation, of due process, then of course that goes to the fairmindedness of the individual judge involved within the framework of precedent so ruled. When Senator Kohl asked him about the environmental statutes, for example, Mr. Estrada explained that those statutes come to court with a ``strong presumption of constitutionality.'' In other words, there is a presumption that those laws that the Congress of the United States passes are constitutional by their passage, only later to be tested in the courts to find out how constitutional or if they can withstand that test. In response to Senator Leahy, Mr. Estrada described the most important attributes of a judge: The most important quality for a judge, in my view, Senator Leahy, is to have an appropriate process for decisionmaking. That entails having an open mind. It entails listening to the parties, reading the briefs, going back beyond those briefs and doing all of the legwork needed to ascertain who is right in his or her claims as to what the law says and what the facts [are]. In a court of appeals court, where judges sit in panels of three, it is important to engage in deliberation and give ear to the views of colleagues who may have come to different conclusions. And in sum, to be committed to judging as a process that is intended to give us the right answer, not to a result. In other words, not to what had been planned or anticipated but the right answer in relation to the law and the Constitution. And I can give you my level best solemn assurance that I firmly think I do have those qualities or else I would not have accepted the nomination. Here, of course, he is talking about his own character, his own makeup, the thinking processes that have allowed Miguel Estrada over the years to rise as far as he has and to be recognized by most as a very brilliant legal mind. In response to Senator Durbin, Miguel Estrada stated that: The Constitution, like other legal texts, should be construed reasonably and fairly, to give effect to all that its text contains. Mr. Estrada indicated to Senator Durbin that he admires the judges for whom he clerked: Justice Kennedy, Judge Kearse, as well as Justice Lewis Powell. Miguel Estrada stated to Senator Durbin: I can absolutely assure the committee that I will follow binding Supreme Court precedent until and unless such precedent has been displaced with subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court itself. That is an interesting and a very important response to a question that many will argue he has not been asked or he has denied or refused to answer. Let me repeat that. When asked about how he will respond to certain cases brought before the court as it relates to decisions made by the Supreme Court, he said: I can absolutely assure the committee that I will follow binding Supreme Court precedent until and unless such precedent has been displaced by subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court itself. In response to Senator Grassley, Mr. Estrada stated: When facing a problem for which there is not a decisive precedent from a higher court, my cardinal rule would be to seize aid from any place where I can get it. Depending on the nature of the problem, that would include related case law in other areas that higher courts had dealt with that had some insight to teach with respect to the problem at hand. It could include the history of the enactment, including a statute's legislative history. It should include the custom and practice under any statute or document. It should include the views of the academicians to the extent they purport to analyze what the law is, instead of prescribing what it should be. And in sum, as Chief Justice Marshall once said, to attempt not to overlook anything from which aid might be derived. There is a very open, probative, bright mind responding to that kind of question. You go to the resources at hand to ultimately compile the information from which to make a decision, to make judgment. In response to Senator Sessions, Mr. Estrada said: I am firmly of the view that although we all have views on a number of subjects from A to Z, the first duty of a judge is to self-consciously put that aside and look at each case by starting withholding judgment with an open mind and an answer to the parties. So I think the job of a judge is to put all of that aside and, to the best of his human capacity, to give a judgment based solely on the arguments and the law. Again, straightforward, very clear answers with which I think all should be satisfied. In response to Senator Sessions, Mr. Estrada stated: I will follow binding case law in every case. I may have a personal, moral, philosophical view on the subject matter, but I undertake to you that I would put all that aside and decide in accordance with binding case law and even in accordance with the case law that is not binding but seems constructive on that area, without any influence whatsoever from my personal view I may have about the subject matter. The letter goes on to deal with Miranda, with congressional authority, ethnicity, racial discrimination, right to counsel, congressional authority to regulate firearms--phenomenally complete responses to very critical questions that speak to the mind and the legal training of a tremendous talent whose nomination we now have before us. Somehow that is not good enough. Somehow our colleagues on the other side, time and again, have said: No, no, we need to go back to the committee to ask the questions. We need now all of the legal drafts and the memos that are a part of Mr. Estrada's record at the Justice Department when he worked there for both Presidents Bush, Sr. and President Clinton and, of course, Democrats and Republicans alike have said those are simply off the record and we cannot go there, nor should we go there. The question is: Why go there at this time when we now have such a very complete record that speaks to the mind, the temperament, the judgment, the talent of Miguel Estrada? I think the answer is quite simple: We should not. There is a simpler answer, and it is one we seek and one we have asked our colleagues for, and that is the right for an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. Under the advise and consent clause of our Constitution, I am one who firmly believes that is the responsibility of the Senate, to review, to analyze, to be probative, as we have, but ultimately to bring a President's nominee to the floor for the purpose of a vote, a 50-percent plus 1 vote of those present and voting. I firmly believe that. We are going to continue to pursue the confirmation of Miguel Estrada, as we must. We can simply not allow a nominee to come to the floor and for those who are in opposition to simply filibuster until all are exhausted and we all retreat into the shadows because no one wants to vote up or down. That is quite the opposite in this case. We clearly do need a vote. We want a vote. Let us not hide behind the supermajority in this instance. That is not an excuse for the ultimate oath of office that we have taken and the responsibility that we have at hand as Senators. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Monday, March 10, 2003 from 2:00 p.m.--5:00 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mark Carlson, a fellow in Senator Hatch's office, be given the privilege of the floor for the remainder of today's session.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I believe we are considering the Moscow Treaty.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for no longer than 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. I see my chairman here. I want to make sure it is OK with him. It is. (The remarks of Mr. Craig are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to speak with my colleagues as chairman of the Special Committee on Aging. Every person in this Chamber, every Senator, has an abiding interest in the welfare of America's seniors. The issue I wish to speak to this afternoon is, No. 1, how double taxation unfairly targets older Americans and the disastrous effect of the dividend penalty on corporate governance. During the first week of February, the Aging Committee held a hearing entitled ``Tax Fairness: Does Double Taxation Unfairly Target Older Americans?'' Those attending the Aging hearing learned that older Americans, both working and retired, are subject to double taxation more than any other age group in the United States. Just yesterday, Larry Kudlow, economist-spokesman on Fox News, a television commentator, was here to speak to many of us on the issue of double taxation. Older Americans are literally being taxed to death by their own Government. Let me share with you three reasons seniors are double taxed. The reality is, first, many seniors pay taxes twice on Social Security benefits. Secondly, the Government collects the death tax when a senior passes on. Third, dividend income is also taxed twice; it is taxed once at the company level and again at the individual level. Older Americans are more likely to hold investments that pay dividends than any other age group. Over 70 percent of all taxable dividend payments are received by Americans age 55 and older. Clearly, eliminating the dividend penalty will benefit older Americans and seniors who have worked hard all of their lifetime, sacrificed, and saved a nest egg for their retirement. More than 9 million seniors age 65 years and older, many on fixed incomes, rely on dividend income to make ends meet from month to month. The average--and this is an important figure because, remember, our critics are saying, but this is just for the rich; remember, 9 million seniors, 65 years of age and older--dividend income for these taxpayers is a little over $4,000 per year. But $4,000 additional money per year for someone living on a fixed income is a substantial amount of money. Let me share with you the testimony of one of the witnesses at the Aging Committee hearing, Dick Buxton from Idaho. Mr. Buxton was there to talk about the beneficial impact of ending double taxation on dividends and what it would do to his father and mother-in-law. His father is 89 years old, a railroad retiree; his mother-in-law is 91 years old and a retired schoolteacher. They both worked very hard all their lives, saved a little money, and invested in corporations that paid dividends as a part of their life savings to benefit their income. They are not wealthy people. They are what is clearly part of the number I am talking about. They are not retired Wall Street investment bankers. They are not wealthy heirs to family fortunes. These are the middle-class seniors who were frugal throughout their lifetime and saved a nest egg for retirement. These are the faces of seniors across the country who should not be penalized for saving. That is what our President has said, and that is one of the reasons he has offered up the opportunity to take down the double taxation of dividends. These are the kind of people who would benefit clearly from the abolition of that double taxation. Ending the dividend penalty not only benefits older Americans. It gives a much needed boost to our economy. It also makes corporations more accountable. At the hearing, we learned that restoring trust in ensuring the honest financial management of our Nation's companies is extremely important as an issue of this moment in our Nation's history. Larry Kudlow spoke very clearly to that issue yesterday, that it is a unique time in our Nation's investment history, and we need to give this area of our economy a jolt. Improving confidence in our financial markets is critical to all workers, retirees, especially after the Enron and WorldCom debacles. How would ending the dividend penalty improve corporate accountability? Well, dividends don't lie. You either have the cash to pay them or you don't. Increases in dividend payments would provide a clear and unmistakable signal of a company's strength and viability in the market to the average person who would invest in that company. No corporate report, no message by a corporate executive saying: Here is what we are going to do, and here is how we are going to bump the stock, and here is the game we are playing for all of your investors as the story. The story is, are we making a profit and are we paying a dividend. That is kind of the old way that created the stability in corporate America that most investors began to rely on years ago. Dividends signal stability. They encourage shareholders to hold for the long term even when companies go through tough times. For example, Bristol-Myers is a company that has gone through tough times recently. The current annual dividend is $1.12, with a yield of about 5 percent. Investors know Bristol-Myers is basically a sound, healthy, productive company. The dividend is a big part of investor confidence in the long-term strength of a company. The psychology of shareholders changes with short-term to long-term as it relates to the value of dividends and when those dividends go up. Dividends encourage internal investment in only the best ideas. Dividends are taxed at a much higher rate than capital gains. The higher dividend tax encourages companies to hoard cash rather than pay it out in dividends. The dividend penalty causes too much money to be chasing too few good investment ideas. We have seen that in spades as companies have come tumbling down as a result of bad decisions made by corporate America. One of our experienced witnesses known as an expert, Hillary Kramer, who is often on television and has her own program, speaking to the stability of investment, spoke about United Airlines. Over the past couple of decades, UAL invested their cash in Internet ventures and car rentals and hotels. United Airlines ventured out of their core competency; that is, getting people from one spot to another on an airliner, in part because the Tax Code pushed them in that direction. Shareholders might have been better served if they had paid a higher dividend instead and stayed with the business of efficiently and safely moving people through their airlines. The dividend penalty diverts cash away from shareholders into bad but tax-favored activities. On the other hand, paying cash out in dividends encourages stockholders to channel the cash into the most productive investment opportunities available inside and outside the company. This encourages management to be more careful and prudent when investing cash. After all, this is cash that is owed to the stockholder or owned by the stockholder. The dividend penalty encourages a dangerous buildup of debt and discourages using cash to finance internal investments. Heavy business debt makes companies less stable. The cost of debt is artificially low compared to using cash because of the double taxation of dividends. Interest payments on debt are subsidized by the Tax Code as an expense. In other words, we encourage corporate indebtedness by this very method. Dividends, on the other hand, are taxed now at a rate of nearly 70 percent, second highest in the world. The first highest is Japan. The flattest, most stagnant, economy in the world today is Japan. There is a simple and clear explanation. We all know that if we want more of something, we subsidize it; if we want less of something, we tax it. Remember, heavy debt has been associated with many of the recent large bankruptcies about which I have spoken. You will remember that Enron had significant debt levels, among other things, that it had most of its problems investing in a variety of areas outside of its core competence. The Tax Code encourages debt and discourages dividend payments. The double taxation of dividends encourages the creation of noncorporate entities. These noncorporate entities include partnerships and limited liability corporations. Again, Enron left many of its debts off the books. As a result, Enron overstated profits by some $400 million in its annual reports. Noncorporate entities do not pay double taxes like corporations. Many of the scandal-ridden companies that imploded over the past few years had created several noncorporate entities--in part, to escape double taxation. Again, the Government says to do one thing--be honest and straightforward. But the same Government encourages complexity and dishonesty with its very own tax policy. A year ago, Professor Jeremy Siegel of the Wharton School of Business wrote in the Wall Street Journal: Nothing could possibly excuse Enron, Arthur Andersen and other firms from their deceptive and fraudulent practices. But cries for accounting reforms, transparent earning reports, and audit independence will not amount to anything [other than to slightly discourage this effort] if the U.S. tax system encourages firms to do just [what Enron did]. The double taxation of the dividends is hurting efforts to prevent corporate corruption. The frustrating thing is that even after enacting tougher penalties for corporate crooks, it may be wasted effort, unless we end the double taxation penalty. The incentive is backward, Mr. President. If we have learned nothing over the past decades, we should have learned that incentives do matter. I would venture most of us in the Chamber agree that ending the double taxation of dividends is good for older Americans and it is good tax policy. It would be a shame for us to cast aside good policy without a fair and honest appraisal. I urge my colleagues to support the effort to end the double taxation of dividends. We can help improve corporate accountability by proper tax policy, while greatly helping America's seniors. In conclusion, I will quote one of the expert witnesses who testified at our hearing, Hilary Kramer: Abolishing the double taxation of dividends is about keeping companies honest, competent, and resourceful. . . . I say we end the dividend penalty now for the sake of our seniors, who are the savers and investors in stable investments, and who live on fixed incomes, and for the sake of returning trust to the governance of corporate America. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senate will spend the day in executive session trying to reach an agreement for a time to vote on the Estrada nomination. The nomination has been pending before the full Senate since February 5. The majority leader has attempted on a number of occasions to reach a time certain for this nomination. Each time there has been an objection by the other side of the aisle. If Members desire to speak, they are encouraged to do so during today's session. As a reminder to all Members, there will be a rollcall vote today beginning at 5:30. Under the unanimous consent agreement reached last Thursday, the vote will be on the confirmation of Marian Blank Horn to serve on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. I thank all Members for their attention.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to visit with my colleagues about something that is going on in Idaho and across this Nation at this moment that is critical to our economy, and especially critical to the economy of the State of Idaho. The situation that a company in Idaho finds itself in at this moment has resulted in its need to lay off 10 percent of its workforce because of actions taken by the Korean Government to prop up a bankrupt competitor of Micron. Micron is a company in Idaho that has been in place and is the world's second largest producer of memory chips. As a result of the Korean Government's propping up of the Hynix Semiconductor Corporation, the market now is tremendously softened and layoffs are occurring. In the mid-1980s, Micron almost went out of business because of dumping by Japanese companies. At that time, I acted in concert with the Bush Government. President Bush at that time worked with the Department of Commerce to put duties on that offset, but eventually that overrode that impact and it allowed that company, Micron, to become the second larger of the semiconductor companies in the world today. Micron, as I mentioned, is critical to the technological base of the United States. It employs 13,000 people--invaluable high-tech jobs in the U.S. and in other parts of the world. It produces D-RAM semiconductors, or random memory chips, a key component in countless electronic systems, from personal computers to satellites to military command and control systems. Most importantly, Micron is the only remaining producer of D-RAM chips in the United States. There used to be a half dozen of these companies a decade ago, but they all left the business in large part due to the unfair trade practices of other countries such as and including Korea. Now I believe I must do what I can to address this new situation that is costing U.S. jobs in the United States, is weakening our technology base, and is having a substantial impact on the State of Idaho. My bill, introduced last week, S. 492, reflects just how far, in my opinion, the Government of Korea has pushed with what I call illegal subsidies, and it reflects just how far I think we must go to respond to that situation. My bill would impose a duty on Hynix semiconductors as they come into the country. My bill ``suspends liquidation'' for these Korean semiconductors, which is another way of saying it watches them at the border. Then my bill requires a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties in the 80-percent range. That is a serious step. Yet it is a legal and an appropriate step and, yes, it is actionable under the WTO, but it focuses us as a country on the problem we are facing with this kind of competition that I believe is illegal and is heavily Government supported. I am angry, and I say that straightforwardly, at the Government of Korea and their continued unrelenting campaign of illegal subsidies to Hynix in an attempt to bring our domestic producer not only to its knees, but to destroy it altogether and then dominate the semiconductor industry. Since October of 2000, the Korean Government, acting through the banks it owns and controls, has provided an incredible $16 billion--let me repeat that--the banks of Korea have provided an incredible $16 billion in subsidies to Hynix, the Korean producer of D-RAM semiconductors. How much has our Federal Government subsidized Micron? Nada; not one bit. I think it is time we at least put up a barrier and test the international trade community to understand whether this is or is not an illegal action. We have that argument before the ITC at this moment. We hope there is a finding soon. But until then, I hope this Senate and the Finance Committee can come on point to recognize the critical environment that is being created by a company such as Hynix and a government backing them that strictly supports them for the purpose of dominating a world market and keeping its people employed. In the 1990s, Government-controlled banks in Korea lent heavily to Hynix at cheap rates, and Hynix built up massive capacity, over 90 percent of which it exports. Ninety percent of what it produces in Korea leaves for the world market. The Government of Korea built up this company with one goal in mind: to create an export powerhouse. It succeeded, and Hynix became the No. 3 producer of D-RAM chips in the world. When Hynix became unable to repay the debt coming due in 2001, the Government of Korea stepped in and essentially wiped out the debt by providing over $16 billion in debt forgiveness and debt restructuring over the past 2\1/2\ years. There is no rational economic justification for Government support for Hynix. Hynix has been unable to repay its debt, and it has lost $8 billion over the past 3 years. The subsidies it has received have permitted Hynix to stay in business and continue to run all its D-RAM plants at full capacity, flooding the market with subsidized product. They cannot make money. They have lost money, $8 billion over the last 3 years; and yet the Government still dumps money into them, and they are dumping money into them at a time when they are out building new capacity. The most recent Hynix bailout came 2 months ago when the Government provided $4.1 billion in debt relief and another $4.1 billion in subsidy. Hynix only had $2.4 billion in sales last year. It just does not add up. Take a chalkboard out and outline that for the world to see, and the world will say that is a Government-controlled, Government-subsidized plant that is not even making a profit and, in fact, is losing large amounts of money. Hynix will use the debt forgiveness to continue to expand capacity. Just last week--this is almost like a slap in the face to the American workforce and to Micron and its companies--just last week Hynix announced it would begin work on new fabrication lines to produce D- RAMs on state-of-the-art 300 mm wafers which will result in even more subsidized D-RAM from Hynix. They cannot make a profit, they are being subsidized heavily, and they are going to build more capacity. That does not make any sense at all, but then again putting a lot of people out of work in Idaho does not make any sense either when we are asking a company to compete against this producer at well below market prices. Now we read in the papers that Hynix and other Hyundai companies are being investigated for illegally transferring $500 million to North Korea in 2000. If that is true, that is a real slap in the face of Americans and the American worker. Of course, they did that for lucrative contracts. It did so with the help of South Korean banks and with the approval of the President of South Korea. I say that again. North Korea is being investigated for illegal actions with that country. This is the country that plans to reactivate its nuclear arms program and, we are now told, has just started one of its reactors. I hope the world will not tolerate this situation, and I hope our Senate will speak up to the issue. Korea is a developed country. It is one of the most developed economies in Asia. The Korean Government has absolutely no business keeping a company going when it would otherwise be bankrupt, and there is no question about it. Like I said, pull a chalkboard out, and run those figures. You have one conclusion: Unless your banker or your best friend--and in this instance, the bank is the best friend. The Government owns the bank and the bank owns the company and you bail them out for $16 billion. The purpose is obvious. The purpose of my legislation is to urge the Department of Commerce and other U.S. trade agencies to do everything in their power to fix this problem. That is what our trade laws are for. Do I like doing what I am doing? Absolutely not. Will I apologize for trying to protect an American company and a workforce against a heavily subsidized dominating company that wants to control the world marketplace with an undercost product? No, I will not apologize for that whatsoever. Is the action I take if the Senate were to pass my bill and were it to become law actionable at the WTO? Absolutely, and it ought to be to test whether what we have done is appropriate or whether, in fact, what Korea is doing at this moment is illegal, as I believe it is, and as I think the world marketplace would believe and the World Trade Organization. Once again, the ITC is reviewing this. We hope by late March that decision will be out there. The European Union is already reviewing Hynix. I am told they are finding them in violation. Why should American workers, Idaho workers, a great American company, one of the great American success stories, have to shut itself down and put itself in financial stress because it is being dumped on in a world market? Those are the problems we face. That is why I have introduced the legislation. My colleague, Senator Crapo, has introduced a resolution and has spoken to it. On the House side, Congressman Butch Otter speaks to it. Clearly, Idaho and Idaho's economy will take a tremendous hit because the Koreans are illegally playing the world trade game, heavily subsidized by their banks and by their government. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the chairman of the Judiciary Committee yield for a question?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Chicago Tribune has strongly condemned the filibuster the chairman is speaking to tonight. So has the Chicago Sun-Times. Those papers don't agree on a lot of things, but one thing they are now agreeing on is that a filibuster is a bad idea. The Tribune said, regarding this confidential memo request that you have just referred to: Anyone who wants a glimpse into Estrada's thinking can scrutinize the briefs he wrote and the oral arguments he made. The Sun-Times wrote: Our legal system cannot and must not be held hostage to political nitpicking. It agrees with President Bush that this would be a shameful event. Now, I know the Senator from Illinois is not in the Chamber now, but as you referenced him a moment ago, he has been in the Chamber quite often demanding these briefs be turned over. You are the chairman of the committee. At the time you were the ranking member and were there-- I was not, as I am a new member of the Judiciary Committee. I was not there during the core investigation and questioning of Miguel Estrada. Can you tell me if the Senator from Illinois was there and if he asked any questions at the time? He seems not to know about this man.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further for a question?

Mr. CRAIG. I know the Senator is now in the Chamber. I have referenced these two articles. Those papers have condemned the filibuster, and they have condemned the strategy being used here to try to pry well beyond the oral arguments and briefs of Mr. Estrada. I want to also ask, was the Senator also aware that the Freeport Journal-Standard, the oldest news source in northwest Illinois, has editorialized that this demand for Solicitor General memos would do serious damage to the ability of any member of the Justice Department to participate in its deliberative process, and that the same paper concluded Democrats are free to vote against him if they want, but vote they must; to do otherwise is an outrageous abuse of power. The question then: Was the Senator aware that this story had reached our heartland and that now newspapers all over America are reacting? And was he aware that they are speaking to this kind of injustice?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding for questions.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada has asked that we vote on Miguel Estrada. I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a vote on Miguel Estrada now.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I object and restate my unanimous consent request.

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 vote--not 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 problem--the simple problem of allowing this name and nomination to come to the floor for a vote--a 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 here--or should I suggest that ghost stories are being proposed here--about 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 himself--the 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 him--no ghost stories--then 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 procedure--or 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 system--search 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 angered--no, 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 storytelling--gathering around a campfire and telling ghost stories. Some of those stories can be pretty scary. But nobody really believes them--certainly 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 nothing--that'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 opinion--as 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 nominee--but 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 admire--at least, let me speak for myself--I 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 withheld--well, 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 nominee--bigger 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 question--just 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 bill--just 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 courts--maybe 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 nominees--first 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 goal--to 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 work--the process through which all judicial nominees have gone before--they 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 Committee--the first Idahoan to serve on that committee in more than forty years--and 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.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. I would not deny the Senator the right to the floor. I am curious, for the 8 years of the Clinton administration, this was the gold plate. The American Bar Association quality test was a gold plate. I said wait a moment here and voted against some of them.

Mr. CRAIG. A year makes a lot of difference, in the opinion of the Senator?

Mr. CRAIG. And I am a freshman there.

Mr. CRAIG. That is why----