In highlighting the incredible background of Miguel Estrada and the impressive list of credentials that make him an outstanding nominee, President Bush said, "There's a lot of talk in Washington about making sure we have diversity on our courts, and there should be....I ask the Senate to move this man's nomination through..."

In my opinion, that remark from the President underscores both the dilemma and the rationale for partisan Democrats in the Senate and within the Democratic Party who oppose this nomination. Their opposition to this true American success story is driven by fear. A fear of President Bush and his genuine and heartfelt connection to Hispanic-Americans and minorities in general.

After decades of falsely demonizing the GOP as a Party that has little or no interest in reaching out to minority Americans, partisan Democrats have been confronted with their worst nightmare. A Republican President who speaks from the heart, does not need to take a poll to decide his "deep-held beliefs," and has a long and distinguished history of reaching out to minority Americans and giving them a place at the table.

Years of hateful, distorted and divisive rhetoric crafted by Democrat operatives is in danger of going down the drain because of George W. Bush. These partisan Democrats are petrified that Hispanic-Americans, and all minority voters, will discover that this President and his Party really do care about them and their concerns and are anxious to offer real solutions to their problems.

While some Democrats will predictably question the President's outreach to minority Americans, I would like to offer a personal example of his commitment. In August of 2000, I authored a column for The New York Times entitled, "No Cameras, Just Straight Talk." That column spoke of George W. Bush's long standing belief that the GOP had to do more to reach out to minority voters.

In the column, I wrote that back in 1987 and 1988, I was a junior staff member on then Vice-President Bush's campaign for President. George W. Bush was naturally working on the campaign and traveling back and forth between Texas and Washington. When George W. was not in Washington, campaign manager Lee Atwater, and his deputy Ed Rogers, would sometimes park me in his office.

On more than one occasion, George W. walked in and found me sitting at his desk. The first time this happened, I jumped up and apologized. He told me to sit down in his chair while he sat in the guest chair in front of his desk.

During the course of several discussions, he asked about my background. I explained that I was far from a stereotypical Republican. I told him that I had grown up on welfare, that my family had been homeless a

number of times, and that I had spent much of my childhood in inner cities where I was often the only white kid in a class of Hispanic and African-American students.

George W. almost immediately began asking me if I thought the GOP was doing enough to reach out to black and Hispanic Americans. I told him it was not. He then proceeded to tell me why the party had to do more, and

that for the party to grow and survive, we had to reach out.

What struck me most about those conversations 15 years ago, was that George W. was not trying to spin or impress anyone, because there was no one to impress. There were no cameras, no reporters, no senior staff members - no one. It was just he and I, a junior campaign nobody, sitting in his office agreeing that the Republican Party needed to reach out to minority Americans. He was sincere, he was animated and he was determined.

Fifteen years later, now President George W. Bush, is more sincere, animated and determined than ever to reach out to minority Americans and give them a much deserved seat at the table. It is those strong-held beliefs by this President that fuels the fear which drives these partisan Democrats to oppose such a good and honorable candidate like Miguel Estrada.

Some have theorized that the Democrats are drawing a line in the sand with Miguel Estrada as their dress rehearsal to defeat President Bush's first Supreme Court nomination. While I agree that's part of the rational, I believe their character assassination of a man they know is more than qualified, plays but a minor role.

Partisan Democrats, who for years, have fed minority Americans and the media a constant supply of lies about the GOP and minorities, have finally met their match. A Republican President who believes that Americans of color enrich our Party, make it stronger and make for a better America.

That is a message that all Republicans can proudly take forward and spread to all Americans and all voters. By blocking the nomination of Miguel Estrada, these partisan Democrats are only hurting their own Party, exposing years of lies and outlining their strategy for 2004. Deny, divide and destroy.

President Bush is betting the American people are smarter than that and are sick and tired of partisan politics meant to destroy the American dream. Let the Senate vote on Miguel Estrada and his American dream.

WASHINGTON, DC...U.S. Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald (R-IL) is urging his Senate colleagues to follow the House’s lead and quickly approve legislation banning all forms of human cloning. The ban, which the House approved yesterday, is vital to help protect the sanctity of human life, Fitzgerald said.

"The possibility of cloning human beings presents grave ethical and moral challenges," explained Fitzgerald. "Creating living human embryos for laboratory manipulation, whether in the name of medical research or otherwise, is a Pandora’s box that should not be opened. I urge my Senate colleagues to follow the House’s lead and act quickly to ban all forms of human cloning."

Like the House bill, the Senate version of the cloning ban would prohibit all forms of human cloning, including therapeutic cloning — the process of creating human embryos for medical research. The bill does, however, allow biomedical research involving the cloning of DNA, genes, tissues, organs, plants, animals, and cells other than human embryos, Fitzgerald said.

At a January committee hearing on the issue of human cloning, Fitzgerald reiterated his support for the ban and urged Congress to address the issue. The senator said that questions about the legitimacy of embryonic research arise because we as a society have yet to comprehensively define the moral and legal status of an embryo that’s not implanted in a human or an artificial womb.

###
U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HONORS SEN. FITZGERALD WITH 2002 SPIRT OF ENTERPRISE AWARD

Senator earns 90 percent rating for pro-growth votes

WASHINGTON, DC...The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has honored U.S. Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald (R-IL) with its 2002 "Spirit of Enterprise" award for his support for businesses and jobs.

"If there was ever a crucial time to have members of Congress fighting for our businesses and economy, it’s now," said Thomas J. Donohue, U.S. Chamber president and CEO. "Peter Fitzgerald is a leader who has voted time and again for legislation to create jobs, improve our domestic security, and promote economic growth."

The Chamber honors Senators with the "Spirit of Enterprise" award based on rankings it gives members of Congress for key business votes. Among the votes cited by the Chamber were Fitzgerald’s efforts to permanently repeal the death tax and his support for presidential trade promotion authority.

With Fitzgerald’s support, Congress voted to phase out the death tax over a period of ten years. However, the death tax is set to reappear in 2011, when the provisions of President Bush’s tax relief plan expire. Fitzgerald backed legislation to make the death tax repeal permanent. That measure was narrowly defeated in the Senate, but Fitzgerald said he expects Congress to reconsider the proposal in the near future.

"Our tax code should reward hard work, saving, and investment, not penalize them," said Fitzgerald. "Death should not be a taxable event — not now or nine years from now. I hope that the new Congress, working with President Bush, will permanently end the death tax for farmers, small business owners, and all Americans."

The Chamber also praised Fitzgerald for supporting the restoration of presidential trade promotion authority (TPA). TPA will free the president’s hand to negotiate trade deals with foreign partners, potentially enabling Illinois manufacturers and agricultural producers to sell their products more freely on world markets, Fitzgerald said.

"Free and fair trade is a key to long-term economic growth — particularly in the agricultural sector. Family farmers must be able to sell their products on the world market in order to remain competitive in the new agricultural economy," the senator explained.

The Chamber scorecard rated lawmakers on 20 Senate votes cast during 2002.

#####

Fitzgerald: Abusive lawsuits hurt consumers, hinder access to medical care

WASHINGTON, DC..."The high cost of medical liability insurance is ultimately passed on to patients, making health care increasingly unaffordable," said U.S. Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald (R-IL). "Reforms that curb abusive lawsuits will help make health care more affordable and available for my constituents, particularly families and seniors."

Fitzgerald made his comments today at a meeting with constituents to discuss medical liability and other tort reforms. The senator told the group that abusive lawsuits are jeopardizing the stability of the Illinois health care system. According to the American Medical Association (AMA), Illinois malpractice insurance costs rose an average of 15 percent last year and are projected to further increase this year. The AMA is also considering whether to add Illinois to its list of malpractice crisis states. A group of Illinois physicians organized a statewide strike today to raise awareness of the issue’s growing seriousness.

Fitzgerald is particularly concerned about the effect skyrocketing insurance costs could have on smaller and downstate communities. Rising insurance premiums could cause doctors in these areas to abandon higher risk services or relocate to communities or states with lower malpractice rates, leaving many patients without access to adequate medical care, the senator said.

Last year, Fitzgerald supported an amendment offered during the prescription drug debate by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to limit abusive malpractice lawsuit awards. Although the proposal was not approved, Fitzgerald said the president’s recent public support for medical malpractice and other tort reforms could help revive the measure.

Now NATO member Turkey has agreed to allow U.S. troops to be based within its borders for the possible war against Iraq. But Turkey, which borders Iraq, may well be vulnerable to Iraqi Scud missiles and other weapons of mass destruction. Turkey called on its fellow member nations for defense. It was turned down by France and Germany. Thus the United States will have to round up a coalition of nations to defend Turkey--in short, to do NATO's job.

This calls into question why the United States should support NATO at all. Secretary of State Colin Powell has condemned its reluctance and has asked it to reconsider. The Baghdad newspaper Babil is ecstatic that the United States has been rebuffed. It justifies Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's critique that France, Germany and Belgium represent the ''old Europe,'' a Europe that is no longer willing to face up to the threat of aggression.

Gratitude is in short supply from some of the original partners. We saved France and Belgium in two bloody world wars and overthrew one of the worst dictators to give Germany a democratic future. We have a right to expect support against another threat to world peace, but we have been shoddily treated by our so-called allies.

It goes without saying that we would be better off building a new coalition of partners who see the Iraqi threat as we do. If France, Germany and Belgium hold fast to their position, we should terminate our agreement and build a new vital group of military partners.

Already within Germany, critics of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder are assailing him for having gained his re-election victory at too great a cost. He ran on a shoddy, anti-U.S. platform, vowing no help in meeting Iraq's threat. One opponent, Edmund Stoiber, has charged that Schroeder has caused a widespread disillusionment of Germany for flying the flag of neutralism in an effort that will become a great moral cause. And Angela Merkel, who leads the Christian Democrats, has said that were she in power, Germany would be in support of the United States.

So by all means, if there is no change of heart from France and Germany, we should withdraw from NATO. And we should fully consider the recommendation of Marine Gen. James Jones. He has called for a phasing out of the huge army garrisons now in Germany, replacing them with lighter units that can be shifted more easily throughout Europe. There are 100,000 U.S. troops in Germany who should be sent to other regions of the continent--to Poland, Hungary or Turkey--where they would stabilize areas of the Balkans and Middle East. There are 75,000 military dependents who shore up the German economy. Some say they should be sent home. Lighter, more flexible army units would cut the costs to our taxpayers.

By sending troops to other areas of Europe, we would allow the Germans and French to take greater steps to defend themselves, a new experience for them. Mutual security still stands as a concept. It's just that changing times require new methods and more vigorous allies.

After all, 50-plus years defending the French and Germans is long enough. It's time they did their own policing.

==>Bill Clinton, in 1998.