Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. If I could first yield to the Senator from Kansas.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, here we are in the middle of an unprecedented filibuster against the first Hispanic nominee to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia--against a man who has a unanimously well-qualified rating by the ABA, which was the gold standard of the Democrats and something that a lot of confirmed judges did not have; a man who has all the credentials in the world-- magna cum laude from Columbia, magna cum laude from the Harvard School of Law, editor in chief of the Law Review, clerked for two Federal judges, one on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals put on the bench by President Carter, a Democrat, and, the other, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy--lots of experience, worked in the Solicitor General's Office. We have heard a lot of arguments, and many respected arguments. We have heard that Mr. Estrada has not answered the questions of Senators on that side. Well, he has. He spent a full day when they conducted the hearings. They set the agenda. They asked any questions they wanted to ask. They were in control. They have even said on the floor during this debate that the hearings were conducted fairly by them. Then, when the election was lost, all of a sudden they now want to ask more questions. And, by the way, they had an opportunity to ask any written questions after the full hearing. Only two Senators asked written questions--Senator Durbin from Illinois and Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts. He answered those questions. The problem here is that he didn't answer the questions the way they wanted him to. He answered them the way he should have. We put those questions and those answers into the Record today. It is unfair, after what this man has gone through--after all the hearings, all the questions, all the time that has elapsed--almost 2 years--that this highly qualified individual is now being filibustered on the floor of the Senate. If the Democrat Members of the Senate do not like his answers, then they have a remedy; that is, vote against Miguel Estrada. I can live with that. That is their right. If that is what they want to do, that is a proper exercise of their constitutional duty. But really understand that to constitutionally modify the advice and consent process of the Constitution and now require 60 votes in order to have a Presidential nominee confirmed by the Senate is unprecedented, except in one case, and that was Judge Fortas. President Nixon himself fought against that and argued against that. But it was a bipartisan filibuster, if you have to characterize it. To simply deny the Senate a vote is unfair. It is unfair to the Senate, it is unfair to the President, it is unfair to the process, and it certainly is unfair to this Hispanic American, who, by the way, has risen to be one of the best appellate lawyers in the country even though he has the speech impediment disability. Think of it. He has a speech impediment, and yet he has argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, winning 10 of them. I can't name many candidates for judicial office in my 27 years in the Senate who had even come close to that record. I think this is an abuse of the process. It is an abuse of what has really been precedent through all of these years. It is an abuse by the minority. It is nothing more than what some would call the tyranny of the minority against the first Hispanic nominee in the history of this country to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. First, let's understand the Democratic Hispanic Caucus. They did not allow the Republican Hispanics, the three of them in the House of Representatives, to become part of that. So it is clearly a very partisan group. We have a couple of our colleagues in the Chamber from the House of Representatives watching this very carefully, people who have spoken out for the Hispanic community. Secondly, by saying that he does not have any judicial experience, therefore, he doesn't qualify to be on the Federal bench, what does that say to every member of the Hispanic Bar Association, none of whom, really, except current judges, have any judicial experience in the sense of having been judges. It means he is saying they cannot be judges either. What kind of a representative of the Hispanic community would make that kind of a statement, if he really wants to help the Hispanic community? Or is that representative just making partisan remarks, which is what I believe he was doing? The fact is, we have confirmed 26 Clinton judges who have not had judicial experience--26. That is the phoniest argument I have heard yet, and it is a disgrace to argue it in the sense that Hispanics cannot serve on the judiciary if they have not had judicial experience. Now, let's think of one other thing. Miguel Estrada was a law clerk to Amalya Kearse, a Carter appointee, on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. That is judicial experience. He helped write some of the opinions that she made. He was a law clerk to Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. That is a lot more than a lot of others, than any of the 26 Clinton appointees had. So to say that he has not had judicial expedience--but even if you do not count that as judicial experience, this is a man with every qualification, and they have not laid a glove on him. It is really very unfair, and I think we ought to all stop and think about that. But I would also like to point out--I do not mean to take too long on this question, but I also would like to point out 108 men and women have served on the Supreme Court, and of the 108, 43 had no judicial experience at all. In the Court's history, 8 of the 16 Chief Justices-- most recently, Chief Justice Earl Warren--had no prior judicial experience when appointed to the Supreme Court. Of those Justices appointed in the last 50 years, Justices William Rehnquist, Lewis Powell, Jr., Abe Fortas, Arthur Goldberg, and Bryon White had no prior judicial experience when they were appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. I know that is the phoniest argument I have heard yet.

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

Mr. HATCH. No. Nor am I characterizing yours that way. I have characterized it as anti-conservative Hispanic Republican, which is different.

Mr. HATCH. I am still answering the question of the Senator from Pennsylvania.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I think we ought to give the----

Mr. HATCH. The Senator is correct, in both Democratic control of the committee and Republican control of the committee. There are many reasons. The reason may be because of failure to consult. It may be because of further investigations that have to be conducted. It may be further FBI investigations have to be conducted. It may be because of lack of time. It may be because of holds on the Senate floor, which have been used by both sides through time. But I can tell you this. There were less holdovers at the end of my tenure as chairman of the committee than there were in 1992, at the end of the Democrats' tenure when there was a Republican President. Let me add one last thing to that, and that is none of us complained, to my knowledge, about Senator Biden as chairman when there were 54 holdovers and 97 vacancies. We had 41 holdovers, and nine of those were put up so late there was no way I could have gotten to them in the remaining few weeks we had. So there were really only 32 holdovers and there were a number of those for which there were justifiable reasons for not bringing them up.

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

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

Mr. HATCH. I think he should be allowed to ask his question.

Mr. HATCH. I add one last thing on that. I cannot see any reason for this action against Miguel Estrada unless, of course, the opposition to Mr. Estrada, based upon what I have been hearing tonight, is really retribution for perceived past wrongs perpetrated against Clinton nominees when I was, in fact, one of the best assets you had in getting nominees through. I took a lot of criticism from the conservative right who I told to get lost, I have to say, in contrast to what I think is the liberal left who seem to have lockjaw control over my colleagues on the other side. I yield for a question as long as I don't lose my right to the floor.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania be allowed 6 minutes without my losing the right to the floor and that I immediately be recognized thereafter.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. He did.

Mr. HATCH. And he has done it on behalf of clients as an attorney should.

Mr. HATCH. Is the Senator aware that the Democratic Hispanic Caucus in the House was actually almost equally divided as to whether or not to support Miguel Estrada, but the majority made the----

Mr. HATCH. Is the Senator aware that the Hispanic Caucus in the House is made up of all Democrats because they would not meet the Republicans who were left out of the caucus?

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield again for a question?

Mr. HATCH. No, I think the Senators on the committee can ask any questions they want to, but I think it is incumbent upon the nominee to follow Mr. Lloyd Cutler's suggestion that ``candidates should decline to reply when efforts are made to find out how they would decide a particular case.'' I suspect anybody can discuss general law, but that is not what the distinguished Senators were interested in.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Let me go further, let me modify it to 20 additional hours, which would probably be close to 3 more days.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from New Jersey immediately follow me for 30 minutes, the distinguished Senator from Colorado follow the distinguished Senator from New Jersey for 15 minutes, and that the distinguished Senator from Alabama be permitted then to speak.