Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I did read the quote in the Wall Street Journal, and I thought it was a tremendous article. It was written by the former Democratic Congressman from the State of New York. I was privileged to hear Congressman Badillo the other day at our press conference when the Hispanic community came together to decry what is going on against Miguel Estrada. He made one of the most profound and strong statements at that press conference. I have nothing but respect for him. I respected him when he was in Congress, and he certainly has been speaking up, and he is a Democrat. But he is not the only Democrat. Seth Waxman is one of the all time great Solicitors General--wonderful Democrat attorney who I happen to have a lot of respect for. He has spoken up for Miguel Estrada as have so many other colleagues at the Solicitor General's Office. But Mr. Badillo very firmly feels this is an injustice, that it is a double standard, that this is prejudice against this nominee. I can't speak for him, but this is what I got out of his remarks and out of his article; and that there is no justification whatsoever in fighting against Miguel Estrada, and absolutely no justification in conducting the first filibuster in the history of the country against a circuit court of appeals nominee. I have to say I was very impressed with his article, and I appreciate the Senator reading from it.

Mr. HATCH. He did, indeed, and he received rave reviews for his work at the Solicitor General's Office in the Clinton administration by a Democrat Solicitor General.

Mr. HATCH. Without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I am prepared to be here all night, if that is what it takes. I do not want to foreclose any questions from my colleagues. I don't know how many questions there will be. But I am here to answer them, and I would like to make a statement for the Record before we finish. I will try to expedite that, if I can.

Mr. HATCH. Sure, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. The filibuster comes from the word filibustero, which is Spanish. It is a word for pirating, by taking improper control, in this case of the Senate. I hope I am saying that right. I think I am pretty close.

Mr. HATCH. I certainly agree with that. Mr. Waxman, who is a highly regarded and respected lawyer, was the Solicitor General--one of them. Mr. Estrada worked under three Democrat Solicitors General who saw his work product. Mr. Waxman is highly respected. I doubt he would put his reputation on the line, as he did, by vouching for Mr. Estrada if he were not absolutely convinced he would be a fair and unbiased Federal judge. That is none other than Seth Waxman, the Solicitor General in the Clinton administration. I don't understand all this argument by the other side and why a filibuster of this highly qualified person who has the highest rating of the American Bar Association, their gold standard. I have to say I have to admit it is a good standard at this point, too. They are doing a fair job. It isn't just because of Mr. Estrada I say that. I have been saying it for a couple of years. But one time I wasn't very pleased with it.

Mr. HATCH. I yield for a question.

Mr. HATCH. That is generally the viewpoint around here.

Mr. HATCH. It wasn't very funny, but I appreciate the Senator trying to interject levity. We could use maybe a little bit around here, but this is a tough issue and we are all upset.

Mr. HATCH. I respect the Senator, anyway.

Mr. HATCH. That is correct. I have to say our side was fair to Mr. Paez in the end. Admittedly, I wish it did not have to be delayed that long, but in all honesty he was treated fairly in the end. I wish it had been earlier, but I have to say I had my own qualms and my own questions and there were plenty of reasons for that. There were people all over California who did not want him on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considered one of the most activist courts in the country, because of the ``activist'' decisions he was making in contradistinction to what California law really was. Prior to each and every cloture vote in the past which has been mentioned, the Senators in the leadership on our side agreed to provide enough votes to invoke cloture before the cloture petitions were even filed on these Democrat nominees. I wish my colleagues on the other side would agree to that precedent in relation to the cloture votes they keep referring to. Would they assure us, as we did them, that their side will provide enough votes to invoke cloture before we even file a cloture petition for Estrada? That is what we did for Judge Paez and now Judge Berzon. So there was no real filibuster. You cannot call that a filibuster. We provided the necessary votes for them to get votes on the floor, and they did get their votes up or down. That is something Miguel Estrada is being denied right now. Where is the fairness? I do not see any fairness in that. Why should he be denied the same privileges we gave to two people most every Republican disagreed with, but nevertheless gave them a vote and they are now both sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? I have to tell you I had much angst and many upset stomachs that occurred because of these two nominees, but I voted for both. Without me, neither of them would have made the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is just that simple.

Mr. HATCH. Without losing my right to the floor, I will be happy to yield.

Mr. HATCH. There has only been one true filibuster in the history of this country, and that was the Fortas nomination. I have to say even President Nixon was against that filibuster. But it was a bipartisan filibuster of both Democrats and Republicans, unlike what we are faced with today where a minority of Democrats are filibustering against a Hispanic nominee for the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a double standard.

Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. They have not been placed in the Record. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent the questionnaire and the answers be printed in the Record. Anybody who looks at that will realize it is a very intrusive questionnaire.

Mr. HATCH. There is no question. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Texas. That is what is going on here, and they are depriving this qualified Hispanic of his right to sit on this bench without any real justification. That is what bothers me. It is a double standard. It is clearly a double standard, and it is a double standard that is unseemly. I think the Senator put it exactly right. Two of our Hispanic Republican colleagues in the House have come over here to show their support for Mr. Estrada, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart and Mr. Devin Nunes.

Mr. HATCH. Let me yield first to the distinguished Senator from Alabama and then I will be happy to yield to my friend from Nevada without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. A simple majority. It says we have the power of advising and consenting. It does not say we have the power to advise and filibuster or obstruct, which is what is going on here.

Mr. HATCH. It certainly looks that way to me. One argument is that he is not Hispanic enough. That is ridiculous. Others have said he hasn't had any judicial experience. I think we have more than blown that away. I don't think any reasonable person would make that argument. Yet I have heard argument after argument that he doesn't have any judicial experience. I agree that some special interest groups, and others that have been criticizing Mr. Estrada, think all minorities have to think alike. If you are a minority, if you don't toe the liberal line, they don't want anything to do with you. That is the problem here. I don't think my colleagues are against Mr. Estrada because he is Hispanic. No, it is because he is a Hispanic Republican, and they think conservative, who may not agree with some of their more liberal ideas. It seems to me that this is fundamentally un-American. I don't think there is anyplace in our system for this type of thinking. Miguel Estrada reached his views by examining all the facts and coming to his conclusions, and to suggest that he or anyone else has to arrive at a certain political bent--and one only--is simply not fair. He is not being treated fairly here. I don't think anybody who watches this or looks at it, or understands it would think he is being treated fairly. He is just not.

Mr. HATCH. Yes.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as you can see, there is no fairness in this process. This is the first filibuster for a circuit court of appeals nominee in the history of this country. The majority leader has been very fair in granting extra time. The other side said they have debated it long enough. We have always voted up or down at this juncture, and the minority is unfairly filibustering this nominee for the first time in history, this Hispanic-American nominee who has climbed every step of the way into the American dream. They are taking an attitude and a position that takes away from that American dream.

Mr. HATCH. I believe there have been some demands that have been far in excess of what has been allowed by their own chairmen in the past, especially Chairman Kennedy and Chairman Biden. I think the Senator states it correctly.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that one point? I have some new information.