[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H684-H690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      NOMINATION OF MIGUEL ESTRADA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to take this opportunity 
to talk to all Americans who might be listening, on behalf of the 
Congressional Hispanic Caucus. We want to take this opportunity to once 
again talk about a very serious situation, one that we take extremely 
seriously, and that is the nomination of Miguel Estrada. Miguel Estrada 
is not qualified to sit on the second highest court of this land. We 
stand behind our position despite incorrect statements made by some of 
our Senate Members.
  Let me say that this decision was not an easy decision for us, to go 
against another Hispanic, but we have to make sure that someone says 
``The King has no clothes.'' Someone has to stand up and be able to say 
there is something wrong with this nominee.
  There has been a lot of rhetoric around the debate, and some have had 
the gall to accuse those that oppose Estrada as being anti-Hispanic. 
Well, a lot of us feel that that is ridiculous. A lot of us feel that 
that type of language is utilized because of the fact that they cannot 
stand up and defend their candidate. They are not talking about the 
qualifications of the candidate; apparently, he does not have the 
qualifications, and so that is why they have chosen to talk about the 
negative and get into negative stereotyping.
  Let me also indicate that if they feel so outraged at the treatment 
of Miguel Estrada because we have stood up as a Hispanic Caucus, as 
congressional Members, 20 congressional Members elected by a majority 
of Hispanics of this country, and questioned not only the 
qualifications of this individual, but questioned the fact that he has 
been unwilling to respond to questions that have been brought to him, 
then we ask why were the Republicans not outraged when it came to 
Anabelle Rodriguez, who was nominated to the U.S. District Court for 
the District of Puerto Rico in 1996. She waited for over 1,000 days. In 
the end, she was never confirmed.
  Where was the outrage on the part of the Republicans for Jorge 
Rangel, nominated to fill a vacancy in the Fifth Circuit? After waiting 
15 months, he withdrew his nomination citing that he could no longer 
wait in limbo.
  Where was the outrage with Hilda Tagle, who sat waiting for 32 months 
before she was confirmed by the Senate to the U.S. District Court of 
the Southern District of Texas?
  And where was the Republican outrage when Richard Paez, who waited 
longer than anyone, more than 5 years? Close to 5 years. Where was 
their outrage then?

                              {time}  2000

  We have called into question the depth of the support from some of 
the Senators who are indicating their support for Mr. Estrada. Those 
same Senators, in fact, some of the very Senators who are accusing 
Democrats of being anti-Hispanic and having biases, voted against 
Richard Paez's nomination three different times.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of South Carolina). The Chair 
will remind Members that it is not in order to cast reflections upon 
the Senate.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In fact, the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, a 
coalition of leading Hispanic organizations, including one of the 
groups that supports Mr. Estrada, have Senate Republicans being given 
an average score of 25 percent when it comes to Hispanics. Why?
  Mr. Speaker, as elected officials both in the House and in the 
Senate, we get elected and one of the first things I was asked and one 
of the first pieces of advice that was given to me, be very careful 
when you write a letter of endorsement of anyone because they might 
turn out to be someone whom you might not like to have your name 
associated with.
  In so doing, I would ask the other body, they have an obligation and 
a responsibility to make sure when it comes to nominations to check who 
they nominate and who they do not nominate. So when it comes to looking 
at the nomination of Estrada, we ask that----

[[Page H685]]

                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The Chair 
reminds Members to refrain from urging the Senate to take any specific 
action.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I know full well if I sign someone's 
letters, that I have to know them personally, and I would ask the 
questions that need to be asked of this candidate.
  Let me take this opportunity, as we interviewed the candidate, we 
asked when there was a discussion in terms of the commitment to equal 
justice for Latinos and Hispanics, there seemed to be no record.
  When we asked about a commitment regarding protecting a Latino's 
interests in the courts, there was no record. When we asked about 
support for congressional right to pass civil rights laws, there was no 
record. When we asked for support of individual access to courts, it 
remained unclear.
  When we asked the candidate about support for Latino organizations or 
causes that he had participated in, or whether he had done any pro bono 
work, there was no record.
  When we asked about Latino organizations or causes that he 
volunteered for in the community, there was no record.
  When we asked for support of Latino law students or any young legal 
professional, there was no record. Commitment to individual Latino 
internships, there was no record.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gonzalez), who headed the task force on the interview. The 
gentleman did a great job on the interview. The gentleman has also 
served as a district judge.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me explain by way of background that 
the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is comprised of 20 Members of this 
body. There are 24 Latinos in this August body, 20 of whom are Members 
of this particular caucus.
  Early on we realized we had a special duty and responsibility not 
just to our communities but to all Americans to make sure that we had 
the most qualified people in the judiciary, especially those that were 
being advanced on the basis of ethnicity, and especially because they 
were Latinos because they were supposed to bring something to the table 
that was very unique based on that particular ethnicity, in this case, 
being Hispanic.
  So what we did is we started what we referred to as the Hispanic 
Judiciary Initiative, and I am going to read from a basic document 
which provided us the guidance as we proceeded with evaluating and 
interviewing the nominees that would come before our caucus in order 
for us to make a recommendation.
  Statement of Purpose on the Recruitment and Support of Judicial 
Nominees.
  Political leadership, particularly in the Federal Government, 
benefits from a diversity of thought and action. In an effort to 
promote this ethnicity, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus promotes and 
encourages Hispanic representation at all levels and every branch of 
government.
  In order to ensure that the judicial branch more accurately reflects 
the communities that it serves, the caucus will actively work to 
identify and recommend qualified Hispanic candidates to fill Federal 
court vacancies. As with all positions, the caucus strives to find 
judicial candidates who are qualified, experienced, have demonstrated a 
commitment to the Hispanic community and will enhance diversity on our 
courts by contributing underrepresented perspectives, what we all seek 
when we strive to achieve diversity.
  The evaluation criteria. The purpose of the criteria established for 
the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Hispanic Judiciary Initiative is to 
measure the diversity that a nominee can bring to the bench, and I 
emphasize that because I think it goes to the very crux of the argument 
and the problem that we have with the Miguel Estrada nomination.
  In addition to evaluating the honesty, integrity, character, 
temperament, and intellect of nominees, the Hispanic Caucus will place 
an emphasis on concerns specific to the Latino community, equal justice 
and advancement opportunities for Latinos working in the judiciary. 
Because of the nature of our mission and the central role that the 
courts play towards the success of that mission, the Hispanic Caucus 
requires that a nominee have a demonstrated commitment to protecting 
the rights of ordinary residents of the United States through 
professional work, pro bono work and volunteer activities, and to 
preserving and expanding the activities that we have made on civil 
rights and individual liberties, including rights protected through 
core provisions in the Constitution, such as the equal protection 
clause, due process clause, first amendment, fourth amendment and the 
right to privacy, as well as through the statutory provisions that 
protect Latinos' legal rights in such fundamental areas as education, 
voting, affirmative action, employment, and contracting.
  Then we proceeded, and we had a formal meeting with Mr. Estrada in 
June of last year. It lasted over an hour. The members of the caucus 
were there. Mr. Estrada did demonstrate that he is a keenly intelligent 
and talented lawyer. There is no doubt about that, and we will not 
argue that point; but that is not what is in controversy.
  Having been licensed in 1972 as a lawyer in the State of Texas and 
having practiced for 10 years, and after more than 14 years on the 
bench and a couple more years in private practice, I can tell Members 
that the most gifted, talented lawyers should never sit behind the 
bench and pretend to be impartial and unbiased judges of law and fact.
  There is a way that we can gather that information, and that is what 
we attempted to do in our hour-long session with Mr. Estrada. My 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), has pointed out 
where we believe Mr. Estrada fell short; and I will get more specific 
later in the evening. However, I do not want to detract from what is 
the major argument here.
  It is not whether someone went to an Ivy League law school, which is 
a great accomplishment which we do recognize. It is not that they wrote 
for the journal or bar review. They could have been president of the 
class, went on to have a highly successful professional career in a 
highly respected law firm. That is fine.

  The Hispanic Caucus looks at those things as givens. We expect 
integrity and honesty and hard work and accomplishment from each and 
every nominee that is presented by the President of the United States, 
whether that President is a Republican or Democrat. Those are the 
givens, and the American people should expect that those are the 
givens.
  What is so extraordinary about an individual who will put those black 
robes on and will sit there in judgment of his or her fellow man is 
what really is the issue and what is so important as we proceed with 
the nomination and confirmation process at the Federal level.
  The first thing we have to recognize is the incredible power of the 
third coequal branch of the government, the judicial branch, which in 
my humble opinion is the most powerful branch of government. If one 
thinks of judges and what they do day in and day out, at the State 
level they will determine who raises your child. They can even 
determine whether you have any rights to your child. They will 
determine whether you have any property at the end of the day. They can 
deny you your freedom, and even sign your death warrant. On the Federal 
level the same thing. They will determine at the end of the day whether 
you own anything, the sanctity of a contract. They can deny you your 
freedom, and they can sign your death warrant.
  The third branch of government can even determine in the final 
analysis who will sit in this Chamber or the other Chamber, or who will 
occupy the White House, as we all know from just a couple of years ago.
  Members know exactly what I refer to, and it is our Constitution 
which we must all love, obey and follow. That is what is at stake here. 
That is what my colleagues and I are trying to impress on those that 
will listen.
  This is not just about a Hispanic nominee; this is about a judicial 
officer who will have tremendous power and will sit in the second most 
powerful court of the United States of America for a lifetime. Based on 
our interview and the particulars that I am willing to go into, there 
is no doubt that Miguel Estrada fell short.

[[Page H686]]

  Would I hire him as my lawyer to represent me in some sort of 
transactional litigation? I probably would if I could afford him. But 
would I trust him to put those black robes on, listen to our argument 
and then render a fair and impartial decision? I think not, and I will 
tell Members why.
  It is about life's experiences, and let no one make a mistake about 
when a judge sits up there, it is the totality of that judge's 
experiences and life experiences that form those opinions that go into 
the judgment-making process. It is not in a vacuum. It is based upon 
experience and history.
  All we ask of Latino nominees presented by the President of the 
United States is that those nominees, they do not have to be Democrats, 
they do not have to be Republicans, liberals or conservatives, we do 
not care what schools they went to, we want them to have an 
appreciation for the historical role that the courts have played in the 
lives of minorities in this country. In the final analysis when the 
legislative branch lets you down and the executive branch's programs 
and agenda let you down, when you are a minority, many times it is your 
first, but definitely your last, resort in seeking justice. It comes 
from those men and women that put those black robes on every morning in 
the courthouses of the United States. That is what is at stake for us.
  It is not a conservative or liberal ideology. We just want them to 
bring into the decisionmaking process the importance that the most 
powerful branch of government plays today in the lives of minorities. I 
need not remind Members of the landmark cases that have come from the 
courts that have provided us freedom and opportunity when it was not 
forthcoming from the legislative or the executive branch.
  As we all know, whatever laws we pass here, whatever the President 
proposes, whatever we adopt, they are going to be interpreted and 
applied by the third branch of government, the judicial branch.

                              {time}  2015

  And so when we take these nominees into consideration, we had better 
debate their merits. We had better engage in true evaluation and 
assessment. That is our duty and our responsibility, not just to our 
individual districts, not just to men and women of color, but to all 
Americans.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gonzalez) for heading the task force on nominations and for doing 
such a good job. In fact, I know it was a hard decision to make and to 
decide. We have been there and supported many other nominees that have 
been Republican and we have supported those. This particular candidate 
we felt that we were not going to be rubber stamping anyone, and we 
also felt, and I am glad the gentleman did it in a very good way, we 
get elected for 2 years. The Senate gets elected for 6 years. These 
individuals, one can say I made a mistake, I am going to knock him off 
next time, I am not going to support that Congressman and not vote for 
him. With this Senate and the judges, they are appointed for life. They 
are appointed for life, and it is important that we take this 
seriously; and I am glad that at least we have some of the Members that 
are really looking at it and asking that he respond to these questions 
appropriately.
  I also take pride tonight to recognize the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis), and I was really pleased to see today the 
breaking news from the State of California that the California LULAC 
had also gone in opposition to the confirmation of Miguel Estrada. And 
with us we have the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I also want to 
commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), who led us in this 
final night here this evening with the American public to try to shed 
some light on a process that I think has been tainted very negatively, 
especially towards my other colleagues who serve with us in the 
Hispanic Caucus. And I would like to say before I begin my discussion, 
we did go through a very laborious process trying to figure out exactly 
what kind of candidate we would be supportive of, and I want to just 
run through that very quickly.
  As you know and was said earlier, we assess nominees, their 
qualifications in the following areas: one, diversity in the judiciary, 
whether they have shared our views that Latinos are underrepresented in 
the Federal courts. Is there an acknowledgment of that? Involvement in 
the Hispanic community. Someone alluded to Mr. Estrada as being a 
leader in the Hispanic community. I would like to see that proof. 
Leadership, whether they have any intention to remain in the greater 
Latino community after being appointed to the bench. Fourth, opening 
the doors, whether they have worked to advance the number of Latinos in 
the legal profession through mentoring, through internships and through 
outreach efforts in our community. And, fifth, key cases, what are 
their views on key court cases that have heavily affected the Latino 
community, and what have they done to advance the issues of Latinos in 
the courts?
  Supporters of Miguel Estrada's nomination for the D.C. Circuit Court 
of Appeals tout that the League of United Latin American Citizens is 
supportive of his nomination. These supporters should be aware that in 
my own State of California, as was mentioned earlier by the chairman, 
that the California LULAC delegation is not in support of this nominee, 
and we have a letter to that effect that we received today and was read 
at one of our meetings that we had earlier today.
  These supporters should also know that Mr. Mario Obledo, the past 
National President of LULAC, stands in strong opposition to the 
confirmation of Mr. Estrada. Mr. Obledo is a strong advocate and well 
known nationally throughout the Latino community for his work on civil 
rights and his leadership in our community and issues that we care most 
about. Mr. Obledo has been an attorney for 34 years. He is co-founder 
of the Hispanic National Bar Association and was one of the first 
general counsels and past president of the Mexican-American Legal 
Defense and Education Fund. He was also co-founder of the Southwest 
Voter Registration. He was also former Harvard Law School professor.
  Let me just share with you some of his thoughts. Mr. Obledo wrote to 
us and said his opposition to Miguel Estrada's confirmation is based on 
Mr. Estrada's unwillingness to give full answers to many of the 
questions posed to him by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In a 
statement released by Mr. Obledo, he outlines his concerns and says the 
following:
  ``There are serious questions raised by his sparse record on basic 
civil rights and constitutional matters. It is unclear that Mr. Estrada 
would recognize that the first amendment protects the rights of youths 
to congregate and associate on public streets. It is also likely that 
Mr. Estrada would not place proper limits on law enforcement as 
required by the fourth amendment. Given his views of enumerated rights, 
there are serious questions whether he would recognize a suspect's 
right not to make incriminating statements. His record leads me to 
conclude that he would not take seriously and fairly Latino allegations 
of racial profiling by law enforcement. Based on his actions in pro 
bono litigation, there is a question whether he believes that 
organizations which have long represented the interests of communities 
would have the right to represent those interests in court. In 
addition, his views concerning the continued viability of affirmative 
action programs is also suspect.''

  These words all come from a long-time advocate who is known 
nationally who represents our community and who was past national 
president of LULAC.
  I also want to share with my colleagues here that when we were 
reviewing the nomination of Mr. Estrada before the Hispanic Caucus 
meeting that we held back in June, one of the things that came to light 
for me was that this individual, while not having a lot of background 
working in the community, did mention his affiliation with other 
groups; and he mentioned those and I want to reiterate those. He said 
that he was a member of the Federalist Society, which is a form of 
conservative legal professionals and law students who wished to 
dismantle existing civil rights, one of the very important premises 
that we base our vote on, the protection of civil rights. He has also 
stated that he was a member of the national board of directors for the 
Center

[[Page H687]]

for Community Interest, which as we know is dedicated to defending 
antiloitering ordinances which have been introduced in many 
communities, some in southern California, to clear the streets of 
Latino day laborers seeking to find jobs. These are things that raise 
questions and issues for me personally as well as other Members.
  I want to also set the record straight that our Hispanic Caucus has 
indeed and in fact supported other Republican Hispanics for 
appointments, and I would proudly say that I can go down the list here 
and name them. Rita D. Martino, who was nominated but not appointed for 
U.S. Treasurer, who also is very active in the community, the Latino 
community. Gaddy Vasquez, who I know personally from Orange County, was 
a county board supervisor, very proudly involved in our community and 
sits on numerous boards related to Mexican Americans and the Hispanic 
community, was nominated for Peace Corps director. We proudly supported 
that nomination. Richard Carmona, who came in and went through also a 
very laborious process with us. I even got on the phone with him to ask 
him his personal views on a woman's right to choose. He was not 
specific, but everything else convinced me that he would certainly do 
his best to defend those issues with respect to the Latino communities 
like diabetes treatment, health care and access, and tearing down 
barriers for Latinos, poor Latinos, to receive health care in this 
country. I proudly supported his nomination and so did other Members of 
our caucus.
  And lastly, Jose Martinez, whom we also supported in his nomination 
to the U.S. District Court of South Florida. I am proud to say again 
that here we were supporting a Republican Hispanic. All of them I 
believe came forward and said that they would defend our community, but 
most of all the American public; and I think that we truly base our 
ideals on the premise that this country should treat everybody fairly. 
Equal protection under the law should be guaranteed no matter what robe 
they wear and if one stands in a courtroom that one be treated fairly 
and justly and not have to go before someone who has already made up 
their mind because of where they come from or because of experiences 
that they have not had.
  And I want to say something lastly tonight. I was very, very 
personally hurt to hear statements made last night on this floor from 
individuals that would call us the left, and I want to quote, if I can: 
``The left is inflamed by any prospective judicial candidate with the 
courage to oppose their unrelenting, small-minded, intolerant hostility 
to the traditional foundations of American life, faith in God, 
reverence for tradition, respect for the true rule of law and the 
recognition that we are all ultimately accountable for our actions.''
  I stand here to say, nothing could be so completely far from the 
truth. Many of us here have taken our oath of office as Members of 
Congress to uphold the Constitution and to do the best thing we can and 
to be objective; and I am insulted to know that people are thinking 
that members of our Hispanic Caucus do not take their job seriously, 
that we stand here and take an oath of office to defend every American 
regardless of the color of one's skin, the language that they speak or 
where they were born.
  I am a proud Latina. My parents are both immigrants. My father came 
to this country as a brazero under the brazero program and worked the 
fields in Colorado, on the railroad, and ended up in Los Angeles where 
he met my mother, who is a central American. I am proud of my heritage, 
and I know the value of having individuals in leadership positions to 
bring about change in our society, and one of the ways you do it is by 
instilling pride and opportunities to open up doors for young people to 
serve. And one capacity that I see lacking in this gentleman, in Mr. 
Estrada, was that at every step of the way in his career he did not 
reach out. He did not extend a hand. He did not allow for future 
Latinos or Latinas to come up that career ladder, and that to me is 
very shocking because everybody else that we have interviewed for these 
positions and others that have been nominated and appointed could go 
back and recite exactly what they did to help improve the situation for 
Hispanics in this country.
  So I agree with my colleagues and with those that serve in the other 
House that we have to block this nomination because we can do better. 
Americans here are expecting the best. We want the best, and we want to 
see that there is evidence to prove or disprove, disprove, anything 
that we have said here tonight. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Let me thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Solis) for her kind words. And let me also indicate that we cannot 
support someone just blindly just because they have a Spanish surname.
  I want to take this opportunity also, and we have the pleasure 
tonight of having a leader of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to speak tonight not as the chairman of the Democratic Caucus 
but as a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and I want to 
join my colleagues in their opposition to the nomination of Miguel 
Estrada for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is generally known 
as the second most important and powerful court in the land.
  It is not lightly or easily that members of the Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus come to the floor to oppose a nomination of an American 
of Hispanic descent to such a high position; but we do it out of a 
principled view, and those principled views are based in the 
fundamental belief that the reason that we advocate for Americans of 
Hispanic descent who are qualified, who are competent, who have the 
judicial temperament and the experience to be able to serve admirably 
for all Americans on the bench is because we want to bring to that 
institution and to other institutions the experience of what it is to 
be a Hispanic American in this country, to bring the challenges and the 
obstacles in this case in the judicial system.
  I will never forget when I was actually trying cases of having judges 
who would yell at me about having my client look at them straight in 
the eye when they were talking to them and having to explain to that 
judge that in the culture of which my client came from that in fact it 
was a sign of defiance to look the judge straight in the eye but a sign 
of respect not to be doing so. I will never forget the trucker with a 
family of four who was trying to keep his job and who had been given a 
ticket for refusing to take a Breathalyzer test, but when we looked at 
the videotape of his particular case and saw that an officer who was 
not bilingual was telling him to breathe in instead of to blow out into 
that Breathalyzer machine gave him a ticket for refusal which would 
have meant a loss of his license. Luckily that case was won. But they 
are two simple examples of culture and language that affected the 
livelihoods and the futures of individuals who came before the court 
system.
  And having someone from the community, as the White House has 
heralded this individual being, it was the White House in the first 
instance who said that Miguel Estrada, we are nominating him and he is 
a Hispanic American, he has a great Horatio Alger story, and in fact we 
are proud to be doing so. Once one puts that as one of the merits of 
the individuals, then it is truly legitimate to look at what 
experiences that individual has in the context of our community.
  When Mr. Estrada came before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for 
nearly an hour, he demonstrated no sense of what it is to be Hispanic 
American in this country.

                              {time}  2030

  He never participated in any national organization, he never 
participated in any State organization, he never participated in any 
local organization in the Hispanic communities. He never used the 
ability that he had as a lawyer to do work pro bono work on behalf of 
any individual or cause or community organization. He never used the 
opportunity in his firm to bring someone in from the Hispanic 
community, to open the door of opportunity for others.
  He did not know some of the landmark cases that are crucial to the 
Hispanic community, like Lau v. Nichols, which is the question of what 
services a limited-English-proficient student

[[Page H688]]

should have, a landmark case. This was not to discuss how he would 
judge in the future, but simply to say, what do you think about that 
ruling? Did that ruling make sense? Do you agree with the ruling or 
disagree with the ruling? Did the court go too far? That was only one 
of many examples.
  Now, either this candidate did not know, in which case it is rather 
appalling, because even those, Mr. Chairman, as you have suggested in 
some of our meetings, who may not be lawyers, know about these landmark 
cases because of how important it is to our community. Yet this 
individual did not.
  Nor did he seek to answer other questions as it relates to other 
landmark cases that are well established as the law of the land. So 
either he did not know or he chose not to answer because he was hiding 
whatever his true positions are.
  Now, this is a lifetime appointment. It is a lifetime appointment. 
And I believe when someone is going to get a lifetime appointment, we 
clearly have not only the right, but the obligation to know what this 
person's opinions are, what is their view on the role of the judiciary, 
what is their view on some of these landmark cases determined by the 
United States Supreme Court, so we can determine.
  Also what is their temperament? To be very honest with you, Mr. 
Estrada, in the hour he spent with members of the Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus, in which he was treated with great respect, did not 
exhibit the temperament that one would want of a Federal District Court 
judge, or, in this case, a Federal Appellate judge.
  He also has no experience. He has never sat on the bench at any 
level, in a municipal court, a State court, a Federal court, at any 
level. So that is like going from the stockroom at AT&T to being the 
CEO of the company. That just does not happen in real life.
  Having some experience, especially when you are coming as a member of 
a minority community, seeking to get onto these benches, and then doing 
a great job so others will be considered as well, is critically 
important to us.
  So whether it is his lack of experience, whether it is his 
unwillingness to answer questions about what are landmark cases, 
whether it is his total, it seems to me, disdain for having anything to 
do with the Hispanic community, we asked him, what do you view, and I 
am not quite sure I want to paraphrase the question, because I am not 
sure exactly how the question was posed, but what does it mean to be 
Hispanic to you in the context of being a judge, and he said it was 
irrelevant. Irrelevant.
  Well, the White House cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, this 
is a great Hispanic appointment, and yet the man tells us his being 
Hispanic is irrelevant to any experience he might bring to the bench.
  When we asked him whether he would or has considered in the past 
qualified law clerks who may be from minority backgrounds, that answer 
was not in the affirmative.
  So, for a wide range of issues, I do not know how one gives consent 
when one does not even have the information necessary by which one 
devises consent. And that is why the other body, as it is debating at 
this very moment, I think, debates on the fundamental crucial issue, 
which is the constitutional obligation of Members of the other body to 
give advice and consent; but to give advice and consent, you must have 
informed opportunities to make a decision.
  The reality is, if a candidate is unwilling to give you substantive 
answers to critical questions or there is nothing to read about his 
writings because they will not give you his legal writings, or there is 
no history to look at, how does one make informed consent under the 
constitutional obligations required of the Members of the other body? 
They simply cannot.
  This is the most stealth candidate that has ever come before the 
other body.


                Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of South Carolina). The 
gentleman will refrain from casting reflections on confirmation 
proceedings in the Senate.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, this gentleman did not cast any 
reflections on the Senate. The question was, how does one make a 
decision under the Constitution. Is the Constitution not permissible to 
be talked about in this body in the context of what roles the Members 
of the United States Congress have in terms of the Constitution?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman can discuss, generally, Senate 
procedures on a factual basis, but to characterize Senate procedures 
with regard to particular confirmation proceedings would not be in 
order.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I am not characterizing Senate procedures in this case. 
I am raising the question of the obligation under the Constitution of 
Members of the other body. I thought one could not mention the word 
``Senate.'' You just did, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, in any event, the fact of the matter is, I hope I am not 
upsetting people, but the fact of the matter is that we have a set of 
circumstances under which we cannot be supportive of a candidate who 
absolutely does not want to be forthcoming; that is not providing for 
informed advice and consent.
  I would simply say, Republicans cannot have it both ways. The 
Congressional Hispanic Caucus has supported Republican, conservative 
judges nominated by this administration. A judge in Florida, a judge in 
my home State of New Jersey, got the unanimous support of the 
Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
  This is nothing about partisanship. It has nothing to do with the 
question of ideology in terms of conservative or liberal. But those 
individuals received our support because they had the history and the 
background and the abilities with which we could in fact say, when they 
go to the bench, they are going to represent our community.
  Lastly, I find it incredible to hear those voices who would suggest 
that those of us who represent Hispanic Americans in this country, over 
10 or 12 million Hispanic Americans in this country, are being anti-
Hispanic. That is just incredible.
  Those voices who are saying they are anti-Hispanic, those are the 
ones that denied Judge Paez a hearing for 4 years. They are the ones 
who denied judges coming out of Texas even an opportunity to have their 
nomination be heard before the committee. Those are the voices that 
called us ``enemies of the state'' on this very floor during campaign 
finance reform debate. Those are the voices who say, we want to shut 
the door on you and we want to deny, as they just did on the welfare 
reform bill, that legal sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, 
mothers and fathers of the United States citizens living in this 
country legally, that they cannot receive any of the benefits that they 
pay taxes for.
  So you cannot have it both ways, my friends. You cannot, as 
Republicans, come to this floor and question us, when you have 
consistently, consistently, acted in ways and voted in ways that 
dramatically hurt our community.
  That is the most outrageous set of circumstances, and I applaud the 
Members of the other body who are doing everything they can to uphold 
their constitutional obligations under the law.


                Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all Members that it is 
not in order to cast reflections on the Senate.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) for joining us tonight on this important issue.
  One of the key things we want to mention is, Mr. Estrada has failed 
to answer the questions before our committee and before the other body. 
On at least seven occasions, Mr. Estrada refused to answer questions on 
Supreme Court cases, and on at least nine occasions, Mr. Estrada 
refused to answer whether he could name any Supreme Court case that he 
disagreed with.
  My God, I am not an attorney, but if I were to ask, do you have any 
cases out there that you have some kind of disagreement with, I would 
have said, Plessy v. Ferguson and a lot of those other decisions that 
have discriminated against African Americans in this country. There are 
a lot of cases he could have named, but he chose not to respond or say 
anything.
  I want to take this opportunity to indicate I know that the 
gentlewoman

[[Page H689]]

from California (Ms. Solis) had mentioned the letter that we had 
received about the statement by Mario Obledo.
  I want to talk a little bit about Mario Obledo, because Mario Obledo 
is one of our founding fathers, one of our pioneers. He was a cofounder 
of the Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project, the first 
General Counsel and Past President of the Mexican American Legal 
Defense and Education Fund. He was a cofounder of the Hispanic National 
Bar Association, a former Harvard Law School professor, the recipient 
of the Presidential Medal of Freedom award and a past national 
president of LULAC.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mario Obledo for coming forward, because 
I know it is difficult coming forward and indicating that a fellow 
Hispanic is not qualified to be a judge.
  I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez). I 
know, as a task force member, he has worked diligently on this issue. I 
want to thank him personally. I am not sure if he wants to continue on 
the dialogue and say a few words.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank my colleague again 
for yielding this time. I am going to be very brief, because this is 
going to be the last you will hear from me tonight regarding the 
nomination of Miguel Estrada.
  I hope everyone understands that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus 
has interviewed at least three different Latino nominees submitted by 
the White House. Judges Martinez and Inares were shown to be sterling 
examples of what a nominee should be to any of the Federal benches. 
Were they Republicans? I am sure they were. But it did not matter 
because they demonstrated that sensitivity and that understanding of 
what the role of a judge is and should be when it comes to all 
Americans, but in particular to minorities.
  The civil rights groups that represent the Latino interests in this 
country oppose Miguel Estrada, and they do it for their own reasons, 
many of which are shared by the Hispanic Caucus. You have heard about 
Mario Obledo, a true trailblazer in the civil rights movement for 
Latinos.
  We also wish to impress on everyone that this is not a question of 
whether a Latino nominee can speak Spanish, is truly bilingual or not, 
whether they were raised in East L.A., West San Antonio or in the 
barrio. That is not the issue. That is not what we are seeking. It is 
more important than just having the Hispanic surname. It is more 
important than simply being bilingual. It is about the heart and the 
soul of the Latino and the experience and the understanding of that 
experience.
  Mr. Estrada was not as forthcoming regarding many of the questions 
that had been posed to him in this process. When he did answer, I have 
indicated that he failed the criteria established, which is basic in 
nature.
  People will say this is all about politics. Well, probably everything 
is always about politics; is it not? I will be the first one to admit 
when the Republican administration is in office, they will appoint only 
Republicans, and when Democrats are in office, they only appoint 
Democrats. We know that is the nature of the game. So it is not a 
question of party affiliation.
  But we do know something, that those individuals, regardless of party 
identification, ethnicity, race and gender, have incredible discretion, 
so we need to know something about them, that they will be fair and 
impartial judges. And the way we do that is through this process. 
People get to ask questions, and the nominees, if they are forthright, 
will fully comply and answer the questions so we can gather some 
insight about their ability to exercise that discretion in a 
responsible and fair and impartial manner.
  You say, well, the law, black letter law, we passed the law, it is 
right there, we should know what it means. That is not true. If that 
was true, every decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
would be 9 to 0.

                              {time}  2045

  It is not. The President of the United States today occupies that 
position on a 5-to-4 ruling from the court, so the Constitution and the 
laws of the United States are open to interpretation. And we do need to 
know that individuals will go in there and make those determinations 
fairly and impartially.
  I will end it with this: Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter put it 
this way, and he was being brutally honest, and any judge and any 
lawyer knows that this is the reality: The words of the Constitution 
are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or 
by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual 
justice free, if indeed they do not compel him to gather meaning, not 
from the reading of the Constitution, but from the reading of life. 
Members of the court are frequently admonished by their associates not 
to read their economic and social views into the neutral language of 
the Constitution. But the process of constitutional interpretation 
compels the translation of policy into judgment, and we know that for a 
fact, and we are here today recognizing that.
  There is a litmus test, and I believe this should be the litmus test 
for Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, anyone that is 
going to ever occupy the bench. A dear friend of mine, Dan Pozza, was 
running for President of the State bar of Texas and they asked him why 
he became a lawyer, and we should ask, why do you want to be a judge? 
And this should be the answer, and if an individual cannot answer in 
this fashion, they should not occupy that bench and make those rulings.
  This is what my dear friend said: ``I came of age, as the saying 
goes, in the 1960s. The 1960s started off as an era decidedly not 
marked by diversity and pluralism. Women and people of color in 
particular were excluded from the important positions in our society. 
What that meant was that a large segment of society had little or no 
control over their own lives and their destinies. Much of what was 
accomplished in the 1960s and over subsequent decades can be attributed 
to the desire by those marginalized people to be heard. During this 
period, I came to recognize that law is power and that power, the law, 
had often been used to restrain the rightful interests of many of our 
citizens. I also recognize that we as a society would need law to 
liberate our citizens and provide them with the opportunity to succeed 
or fail in life on their own terms, rather than on the terms dictated 
to them by the powerful and the elite.''
  If Dan Pozza felt compelled to become a lawyer on that basis, that 
should be our test, and especially to those that will occupy and rule 
on cases day in and day out and interpret the Supreme Court of our land 
and the Constitution of the United States. Miguel Estrada did that meet 
that criteria when we interviewed him in June, and he does not meet it 
today in February 2003.
  Mr. RODRIQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his hard work 
on this issue.
  Let me take this opportunity to yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to again just clarify that one of 
the misleading advertisements that is out there being presented to the 
public is that there are various Hispanic national organizations that 
are in support of Mr. Estrada and his nomination. I would like to just 
clarify that many of those organizations have bipartisan 
representation, and I would venture to say that many of them happen to 
agree with the Hispanic caucus position.
  I have personally spoken to members of the GI quorum, the LULAC 
organization in my own State, and talked to various other 
organizations. So the ones that are purporting to say that they as 
Hispanic organizations are the voice for Hispanics alone I think is 
very misleading. I will not say that I am the voice for all Hispanics 
in the country, no. But I do want to make it very clear that one of the 
premises behind our caucus, the Hispanic caucus, is that we support the 
advancement of our community through means of protecting our rights and 
our liberties in this country, through actions that the court has taken 
to provide us with our civil rights, the right to vote, the right to be 
able to lead a life here in this country. I think that that is 
something that has to be made clear.

[[Page H690]]

  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here with my 
distinguished colleagues, including the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gonzalez), who led us in this endeavor this evening. Our Hispanic 
community appreciates the work of our leader, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gonzales), the chairman of the Hispanic Civil Rights Task Force.
  Mr. RODRIQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis) for being here tonight and just indicate that we 
will not support anyone blindly and we expect them to move forward on 
answering the questions.



                          ____________________