[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 25, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H1318-H1324]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                NO SUPPORT FOR MIGUEL ESTRADA NOMINATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Beauprez). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for allowing us the 
opportunity to be here tonight.
  I wanted to come out tonight to talk a little bit about the issue 
that the Senate is having to deal with and that is the issue of the 
nomination of Miguel Estrada. And I want to personally, first of all, 
thank the Senators that are choosing not to support the nomination. And 
I want to personally thank them because I know that as a caucus we had 
appointed the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Becerra) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez) and several others to look at the nomination process. And we 
have had a process where we have asked Members to come forward, and my 
understanding is that we have always, every single Hispanic that has 
ever come before us we have approved. This is the first nominee that we 
have chosen not to approve.
  And the reason we have done this, and it was not an easy decision, it 
was a hard decision because of the fact that, after all, he is a 
Hispanic and we recognize that it would be very difficult for us to go 
against him. But the reality was and what we were all unanimously in 
agreement that we could not endorse this nominee and, in fact, that he 
did not deserve our nomination, our recommendation. And the reason we 
came to those conclusions was after we had had the opportunity to 
interview him, after we had an opportunity to look at the 
documentation, and, first of all, we found that Mr. Estrada has no 
judicial experience. And when we have looked at the fact that we are 
going to be nominating this person for life to a court that will be the 
second most powerful court next to the Supreme Court, we really need to 
take note that he has to be a little bit more responsive about 
answering the questions that come before him. He has to be a little 
more truthful about coming forward because either he is naive about 
some of the questions or the fact is that he chooses not to respond on 
the questions that were asked of him. And that really disturbed us.
  One might ask, well, let us give him a shot. Well, the reality is 
that that might be the case for elected officials, individuals that 
might be here who get elected. But here is a person that we are going 
to be appointing for life. Here is a person that we recognize that we 
do not, if we do not ask those questions will be there for rest of his 
life.
  It is not a typical appointment of someone like ourselves that we run 
for office that you might say, well, let us give this candidate an 
opportunity to serve. If he does not make it, then we will not vote for 
him the next time. That is not the case when it comes to Federal 
appointments. They are in there for life. So it becomes really 
important that the Senate have the opportunity to have the 
documentation that is needed, to have the documentation that is asked 
of them, and it is something that is fair.

                              {time}  2145

  As elected officials, one of the things that we are told from the 
very beginning, at least the advice I was given some time back, was 
that be very careful as an elected official about writing letters of 
endorsements, and so I take that very seriously. I never write letters 
of endorsement unless I know the person, and even then, in certain 
cases, if I know the family, but we have to be very cautious because we 
do not know.
  In this case, the Senate has an obligation, a constitutional 
obligation, a responsibility, to make sure that if they nominate 
someone, that they have had a chance, because it is kind of giving a 
letter of recommendation, and this is a letter of recommendation as a 
form of a nominee and accepting the nominee for life. So they have to 
make sure that, if nothing else, the person is able to respond to some 
of the questions that are up there and to be able to respond in a way 
that allows an opportunity for us to learn a little bit about the 
candidate.

[[Page H1319]]

  One of the things that I know he has been asked time and time again 
about, for example, simple questions about which court cases does he 
think have been wrong or have been decided or have been harmful, which 
court cases have not. I am not an attorney but I could tell my 
colleagues that there have definitely been some court cases out there, 
some of the cases that allowed for slavery, Plessey versus Ferguson, 
and a lot of those cases that allowed us not to treat African Americans 
as full human beings. Those could be easily responded to, but he chose 
not to do that. He chose not to open up and talk about his concerns.
  We asked the Senate to continue this effort until we get a response 
from the candidate. And one of the things that I want to share is I 
know there is a lot of dialogue about the fact that we are Hispanics 
and we ought to be supportive. The reality is it is because he is 
Hispanic. We also want to hold that anyone accountable, but more so 
anyone who is Hispanic; and before we would ever go against it, we 
would make sure that it would be for the right reasons. One of the 
concerns that we have is that he is just not responsive. He has not, 
and the reality is that he does not have the experience that a lot of 
other attorneys have had.
  Once again my colleagues say, well, he is well qualified. But we have 
a lot of municipal judges out there, we have district judges out there, 
we have had some of our own Members, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gonzales), has been a judge and has had some experience in that area. 
There is a great number of other people that are well qualified that 
could basically serve, but the administration chose to bring one of the 
most difficult candidates. At the same time, I know that the Senate has 
confirmed more than a hundred other candidates. So this is one 
candidate that we have a problem with.
  The other side talks about the fact that, well, he is a Hispanic and 
that we ought to push forward because of the fact he is a Hispanic. 
Well, someone has to stand up and say the king has no clothing, and in 
this case, there is nothing there. Maybe there is. Maybe after he opens 
up and addresses the questions that are out there, we might decide 
that, yes, he ought to be nominated; but at this point, we stand on the 
fact that we are not endorsing the candidate and we are hoping that the 
Senate stays with that.
  Let me talk about a couple of other nominees. I know we have had 
Richard Paez on the Federal district court in Los Angeles. On June 16, 
1994, the Senate unanimously confirmed Richard Paez to the Federal 
district court. That was after he had waited for a long time before 
that ever occurred, and he was one of the ones that I think waited the 
longest, with difficulty. So we have had a lot of nominees that have 
waited a long time, and I would ask the Senate to take this nomination 
extremely serious and would ask them to really look at those issues 
that are before us.
  I want to ask my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Becerra) who is here with me to say a few words because I know he 
participated on the committee, and I want to ask if he would come 
forward.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Beauprez). If I might remind Members to 
be very cautious in their reference to the Senate. Members should not 
urge action by the Senate.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair. I will be.
  I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), and I want to 
thank him because I know that in California LULAC has also decided to 
go in opposition to the nomination. So I know, coming from California, 
I want to thank him personally for that.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, let me begin first by thanking the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for yielding me some time and for 
taking this opportunity to speak on a very important issue which 
oftentimes, given the crush of the agenda here in Washington, D.C., 
potential war with Iraq, potential war with North Korea, with a growing 
budget deficit that is now surpassing $200 billion for this year and we 
thought we were going to be looking at budget surpluses, the fact that 
more and more Americans are losing their jobs, the fact that we have 
more than 42 million Americans today that are without health insurance, 
the fact that in almost every State in the Union, Governors are talking 
about having to cut back on what they will do for schools, and as a 
father with three little girls, all of those things have to concern us. 
They certainly concern me.
  So without putting aside those very important issues, I believe that 
it is important this evening to talk a little bit about another very 
important role that Congress plays with regard to the Nation's life; 
and, that is, helping select the lifetime appointees to our Federal 
courts. And I believe it is very important to point out that we are 
talking about a lifetime appointment. Once this individual who must be 
nominated by the President, then confirmed by the Senate, is so 
confirmed, that person is entitled to remain in that position until he 
or she expires. And so that person will be setting the course of this 
Nation's future, not just for us but for our kids and well beyond that 
with his or her actions and words.
  For that reason, the Founding Fathers of this great Nation decided 
that while the President has the right to nominate, it is the 
obligation, the duty under the Constitution of our country for the U.S. 
Senate to confirm, to provide, as the words of the Constitution say, 
its role is to advise and consent the President of the United States.
  It is very interesting in this particular case, as my colleague and 
friend from Texas has pointed out, that we have a nominee who has been 
nominated by the President, Mr. Miguel Estrada from the Washington, 
D.C. area, to serve on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Some 
consider the Second Circuit Court of Appeals the second most important 
court in the land after the U.S. Supreme Court.
  This individual who has been nominated by the President is in many 
respects a blank page. He has never served as a judge. He has not, as 
far as I know, written any legal articles, certainly not since his law 
school days. He has not provided any writings that are essential to 
determine what his philosophy is, what his background has been in the 
law. He is a question mark. Some would consider him a phantom 
candidate. And to believe that the U.S. Senate would just vote to 
confirm an individual, without going into the qualifications of an 
individual, is not only unconscionable but it is downright scary, and 
yet that is where we are today.
  The worst part about this whole situation with this confirmation 
process is that it seems that some are trying to toy with this 
nomination and play this as a battle on ethnicity; that because Mr. 
Miguel Estrada, a U.S. citizen, is not being confirmed automatically 
because the President has nominated him, that it must be because people 
are anti-Hispanic.
  I thought quite some time ago, the most important court of the land, 
the U.S. Supreme Court, decided that we do not operate in this country 
based on quotas and that a person does not get in because they have a 
particular ethnicity or they are a particular race or because they are 
a particular gender; that they must prove themselves. Certainly we can 
consider everything that makes a person an American, their background, 
all those factors, but that one factor alone does not grant a person 
the right to such an important position, certainly one where a person 
would serve for a lifetime.
  But yet this controversial nominee, and across the Nation everyone is 
calling this a controversial nominee, is before the U.S. Senate. The 
President is asking for a vote on this gentleman, and this is an 
individual who has refused to answer some of the most basic, most 
fundamental questions that have been asked of previous nominees in the 
past, and it makes it very difficult to understand why we would want to 
go down the route of ever, ever confirming any individual who is not 
willing, who refuses to disclose information about himself or herself, 
that would lend to the Senate the ability to cast an informed judgment 
on whom should serve in the courts of this country to dispense justice 
for all of us as American citizens.

  That constitutional duty that the Senators have should not and never 
has, as far as I know, been taken lightly. But in this particular case, 
when we have someone who has refused or failed to answer simple 
questions, who is your role model on issues of judicial philosophy, 
what cases have you seen as important in driving the legal agenda and 
the direction of our judicial

[[Page H1320]]

process in this country, simple questions are still unresolved.
  Basic information in document form, at a time when we have a nominee 
who is such an unknown, open question, basic documents that relate to 
his work when he worked for the Solicitor General's Office for the 
Federal Government have not been disclosed, and the White House refuses 
to provide those documents.
  It almost seems as if we are being told in this country that because 
Miguel Estrada happens to have a last name that is Hispanic, because he 
is of immigrant background, and I applaud all those things, what he has 
succeeded in doing in getting himself educated and hopefully becoming a 
successful citizen for the rest of his life, but because of that, does 
he receive a free pass to a lifetime appointment as a judge on the 
Federal bench?
  I know that most of us here are very proud to be Members of an 
institution that has reflected a democracy older than any in the 
world's history, and I believe each and every one of us would say that 
we are proud that we have earned the right to be here because Americans 
helped us, through their vote, to get here. But we had to earn the 
opportunity to be here. No one granted us, as a result of some quota, 
an opportunity to serve in this House, and there is no difference in 
the importance of that other branch of government, the judiciary, than 
there is in the legislative branch, to prove your mettle, to show your 
qualifications, to indicate that you are prepared to demonstrate you 
have the disposition to be a judge.
  It boggles the imagination to believe that in the Senate we may see a 
vote on an individual who is still an unknown commodity to the American 
public, someone who will be dispensing justice on the most important 
issues of the day: war, abortion, the right to education, health care, 
the rights of seniors. It seems incredible to believe that we have to 
stand here today to talk about this, but this controversial nominee has 
put us in this position.
  I applaud those Senators, all of those Senators who are standing up 
not just for what they believe is right, but for the history of this 
country and standing up for the Constitution of the United States of 
America that says the Senate must, must perform its obligation to 
advise and give consent to the President of the United States on 
judicial nominees. I hope that they will continue to insist that anyone 
wishing to serve in a lifetime capacity dispensing justice in this 
country as a judge in the Federal courts will provide that information.

                              {time}  2200


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Beauprez). Members are reminded to be 
very cautious about urging action by the Senate.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the Speaker for that admonition.
  I believe it is very important as we move forward that Congress 
fulfill its obligations, and they are obligations that none of us here 
voted on to make it the law. It is something that was done more than 
200 years ago by our Founding Fathers who believed when the 
Constitution of the United States was written back in 1787 that it was 
important to make sure that that coequal branch of government, the 
legislature, participated in decisions that would be made by the 
executive branch, the President, to fill the third coequal branch of 
government, the judiciary.
  I am very pleased that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) has 
taken the time to call for this special order to give us an opportunity 
to talk about this particular controversial nominee and what it means 
to the American public and to the American future when it comes to 
dispensing of justice. I hope that we can engage in further 
conversation.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Becerra) for being here tonight because I know that he worked 
diligently on that committee established by the Congressional Hispanic 
Caucus of which we, over 20 Congressmen throughout this country, 
represent a good number of the Hispanic population throughout this 
country. I know that as you well know how difficult it was for us to 
make this decision but we felt an obligation and responsibility.
  I want to share with the gentleman, we had the LULAC group, the State 
group out of California, come forward.
  Mr. BECERRA. For those who may not know what LULAC is, it is the 
League of United Latin American Citizens. It is the oldest civil rights 
organization representing Hispanics nationwide in the country.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I want to thank you because I know the State LULAC 
group out of California went forward in opposing the nomination. I have 
two letters here that I want to talk briefly about. They are both past 
Presidents of LULAC, they are all leaders in our community; President 
Robles, Belen Robles, in opposition to the confirmation of Miguel 
Estrada.
  President Robles, President, National President of LULAC, past 
President, writes, I write to join other Latino leaders and 
organizations in opposing the confirmation of Miguel Estrada to the 
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. As a native Texan, she writes, I have a 
very long and active involvement in the Latino civil rights community 
and have worked hard to ensure that Latinos have real choices about 
their lives. I am a past President of the League of United Latin 
American Citizens, LULAC.
  I am deeply troubled with the nomination of Miguel Estrada. I am very 
troubled with the positions he seems to have taken about our youth 
being subjected to racial profiling. As I understand his position, he 
does not believe that racial profiling exists, and has many times 
argued that the Constitution gives police officers unbridled authority 
and power. In our community, she writes, racial profiling does exist 
and our children have been subjected to it. This is an issue that 
Latino organizations, including LULAC, have long cared about. In all of 
the years that I was involved with civil rights, LULAC always stood to 
protect our community, including our youth, when law enforcement 
exceeds their authority.
  I am also concerned, writes President Robles, that Mr. Estrada did 
not allow the Senate to fully evaluate his record. He was not open in 
his responses, but instead was evasive. Yet anyone appointed to a 
lifelong position has to be willing to answer questions fully. The 
American people have a right to know who sits in our seats of justice 
and to demand that person be fair.

  Mr. Estrada has also taken actions against organizations that make me 
believe that he would not be fair. For example, she writes, as an 
attorney, he argued that the NAACP did not have legal standing to put 
forward the claims of African Americans who have been arrested under a 
particular ordinance. As a former National President of LULAC, she 
indicates, I know very well that on many occasions LULAC has been a 
champion of the rights of its membership in civil rights cases. We 
asserted those rights on behalf of voters in voting cases in Texas and 
in many other civil rights cases. Under his view, Mr. Estrada could 
decide that a civil rights organization such as LULAC would not be able 
to sue on behalf of its members. No supporter of civil rights could 
agree with Mr. Estrada's confirmation. For that, she writes, I oppose 
the confirmation of Miguel Estrada.
  I know the gentleman has had the pleasure of meeting Mrs. Robles, a 
great leader in this country, and has been there working in behalf of 
our constituency and continues to do that, and so I was very pleased to 
also have received her letter. I know the gentleman from California has 
had the pleasure of knowing her.
  I also have before me, I wanted to share with you, because I was also 
pleased to hear from another past President of LULAC, and this is 
President Ruben Bonilla, in opposition to the confirmation of Miguel 
Estrada.
  President Bonilla, as he expressed his concerns, talks about, and I 
will read just part of that. He says, it is particularly troubling that 
some of the Senators have accused Democrats or other Latinos of being 
anti-Hispanic, or holding the American dream hostage, he writes. Yet 
these same Senators in fact prevented Latinos appointed by the Clinton 
administration from ever being given a hearing. Notably, Corpus Christi 
lawyer Jorge Rangel, he recalls--President Bonilla is from Corpus--and 
also El Paso attorney Enrique Moreno and Denver attorney Christine 
Arguello never received hearings before

[[Page H1321]]

the Judiciary Committee. Yet these individuals who came from the top of 
their profession, were schooled in the Ivy League, were raised from 
modest means in the Southwest and in fact truly embodied the American 
dream. He further says, these highly qualified Mexican Americans never 
had the opportunity to introduce themselves and their views to the 
Senate as Mr. Estrada did.
  In addition to my concerns regarding this double standard, and he 
talks about a double standard in his letter, I am also concerned that 
Mr. Estrada showed himself unwilling to allow the Senate to fully look 
at his record. He was not candid in his responses, as anyone who saw 
the interview would have come to that conclusion. Yet Mr. Estrada, as 
every other nominee who is a candidate for a lifelong appointment, must 
be prepared to fully answer basic questions, particularly where there 
is no prior judicial record.
  In this case he has no record because he has never been a judge, so 
it is difficult, and you being an attorney can understand that, in 
terms of looking at how we can scrutinize or whether he is scholarly or 
not.
  This is a comment by Ruben Bonilla, the past President of LULAC, 
also: By declining to give full and candid responses, he frustrated the 
process. Individuals with values should be called to explain those 
values honestly and forthrightly, he adds. He also indicated, we can 
demand no less from those who would hold a lifelong appointment in our 
system of justice.
  Finally, I am also concerned, writes President Bonilla, with some of 
the answers that Mr. Estrada did give when he was pressed. For example, 
I understood that as an attorney, he argued that the NAACP did not have 
legal standing to press the claims of African Americans who had been 
arrested under a particular ordinance.
  And he writes, as a former National President of LULAC, I know that 
on many occasions LULAC has represented the rights of its membership in 
voting cases and in other civil rights matters. I would be troubled 
that if he were confirmed, Mr. Estrada would not find a civil rights 
organization to be an appropriate plaintiff, and would uphold closing 
the courthouse door on them.
  As we see these letters of these leaders, two Presidents of LULAC, we 
see the concerns that they have expressed, and mainly because of the 
lack of information that we have received and the fact that he has been 
unwilling to come forward. I am hoping that as we move forward, he 
might come back and respond to some of those questions.
  I know that the gentleman from California wanted to make a few more 
comments.
  Mr. BECERRA. I cannot agree with what the gentleman has said more. I 
believe the gentleman from Texas is helping to set the record straight. 
It is fascinating that as we are here discussing a very important 
subject of who will serve for a lifetime on our judicial courts, that 
we have to discuss this in terms of brown versus white, Republican 
versus Democrat. I think it is unfortunate because, quite honestly, 
Miguel Estrada has been his own worst enemy, because he has refused to 
provide information that would give people sufficient ability to 
discuss and then entertain his nomination and vote on a confirmation. I 
think at the end of the day, if Mr. Estrada does not move farther 
through this confirmation process, he has only himself to blame.

  Certainly I do not believe the administration, the White House, has 
done him any favors in refusing to produce the documents that would 
give the Senate a better sense of who this person, who has never served 
as a judge, who has never taught a class in law, who has not published 
an article on the law since law school days, is not willing to provide 
any additional information.
  Because this has become a very intense debate by those wishing to 
make this into more than what it is, I think it is important to address 
those issues. Some people are saying, well, Democrats don't want this 
gentleman because he is Republican and he is conservative. You don't 
want a conservative Republican Hispanic. That goes contrary to the 
fact.
  Last Congress when the Senate, in majority, was Democrat, you saw the 
Senate Democrats swiftly confirm six Hispanic judicial nominees who 
were chosen by President Bush: Christina Armijo of New Mexico, Judge 
Phillip Martinez of Texas, Randy Crane of Texas, Judge Jose Martinez of 
Florida, Magistrate Judge Alia Ludlum of Texas, and Jose Linares of New 
Jersey, all Republican, all Hispanic, all swiftly confirmed by Senate 
Democrats.
  Then we have heard the charge made that, well, you don't want him 
simply because he is Hispanic, that Senate Democrats are anti-Hispanic; 
which would be farthest from the truth, because if you look back at the 
record, most of our appellate court judges, most of our district court 
judges, have been appointed by Democratic Presidents. I should only 
remind those who keep saying that of the 10 Hispanic appellate judges 
currently seated in the Federal courts, 8 were appointed by President 
Clinton. Three other Hispanic nominees of President Clinton's to the 
appellate courts, I should mention, were blocked by Republicans, as 
well as other district courts, the trial court level nominees by 
President Clinton, also blocked by Republicans when they controlled the 
Senate.
  Some will say, well, what we are really finding is that you are just 
trying to get your kind of judge. The problem here is we do not know 
what kind of judge Mr. Estrada might be. We have no concept of it. He 
has been unwilling to volunteer information on that. So, first, that is 
an unfounded accusation because no one knows enough to say what kind of 
judge he would be, and, secondly, everything that has been uttered or 
provided seems to indicate that he is far from the mainstream. But 
again it is tough to say. Maybe he is close to the mainstream. It would 
help if he would disclose some of that information so we could make a 
decision on this very controversial nomination.
  It is interesting when you think that if the President really wanted 
to make a point about appointing an Hispanic as a judge, and I hope 
what they were looking for was an American who was extremely well 
qualified and prepared and happened to be Hispanic to be judge, but it 
seems like it was just the reverse, he was Hispanic and put him out 
there to be the judge, that the President would have taken the time, 
and others would have taken the time to recognize that if you want to 
get qualified individuals, there are over 1,000 sitting judges today in 
America, over 1,000 judges, State, Federal, local level judges 
throughout America who are American and happen to be Hispanic. But, no, 
instead of that, it looks like the White House picked someone who has 
very little record, very unwilling to disclose, and the White House is 
unwilling to provide documents to help us understand.
  It is unfortunate but there is a constitutional obligation here and 
we must recognize that the Senate must do its job. As much as I want to 
see a diverse America prosper with a diverse judiciary, I will stand 
here and say that I am first and foremost an American, and I am very 
proud of it, and I am very proud of what I have been able to accomplish 
in life, having grown up in a home, was the first born in a place where 
we had about 580 square feet of house in a one-bedroom home for my 
three sisters and I, with parents who did not have much of an 
education. But we were very fortunate. We had great parents. They to 
this day continue to be great parents. That will drive others to 
greatness as well. But let it be that we prove ourselves. Let it be 
that we are willing to show who we are.
  Is there something that Mr. Estrada is hiding? Is there any reason 
why the American public should wait until after the fact instead of 
before the fact to know about this gentleman that wishes to have a 
lifetime appointment?

                              {time}  2215

  Let us know now so we can make informed decisions on who will serve 
us on the bench, and I believe Congress that when we stand here and say 
that we find it very difficult to support a process to move forward on 
confirmation of Miguel Estrada, it does pain us. It pains us quite a 
bit because we know that on the judiciary we do not have the kind of 
diversity that we see today in America; but we want to see it filled 
with the most qualified, the most prepared individuals, those who have 
shown the temperament, the disposition to dispense justice for all 
Americans, whatever their color, whatever

[[Page H1322]]

their background; and that is why we have an obligation to insist as 
Americans and as Members of Congress that the Senate abide by the 
Constitution and its role to advise and consent and make sure that when 
the decision is made, they have made it for the right reasons for the 
entire American public.
  And I cannot say at this stage that any of us can believe that this 
controversial nominee has gone anywhere near the point where anyone can 
feel comfortable voting to confirm him to a lifetime position. It is 
difficult to say; and I wish we did not have to stand here when there 
are other issues like potential war, poverty, unemployment, lack of 
health care, failing schools. Yet we must discuss this because we know 
the courts and these individuals who wish to be judges will be making 
decisions for all of our kids, all of our grandparents, our parents, 
our brothers and our sisters, our military men and women. They will be 
making decisions that affect their lives, and we have to make sure that 
the Senate does the right thing. So at this stage what can we say but 
continue, Senate, to fulfill the obligation, to receive the information 
they need, to be able to advise the President and then give consent if 
it is merited to any nominee that the President wishes to put before 
the Senate for confirmation as a lifetime judicial appointment.
  I think it is great that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) has 
taken the time to have this Special Order here, and I hope we will 
continue to have this discussion. We are not debating. It is hard to 
debate someone we know little about. But it is great to discuss it 
because that is what America is all about.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra) personally, but also maybe he can correct me 
if I am wrong, but I have been here 6 years and in the whole process 
this is one of the first nominees, I think, that we have opposed and 
the gentleman would correct me if I am wrong, and I know that we took 
it very seriously. We did not take it lightly. We recognized the 
importance of the nomination process, but as Latinos in this country, 
we also felt an obligation and responsibility to make sure that if 
there is anyone who is nominated up there that we feel that maybe they 
have not been forthcoming in their answers that that needs to happen, 
and so one of the things I think it is important is that here we have a 
Latino Hispanic who is not being responsive and for them I think the 
gentleman mentioned the issue of being anti-Hispanic. We are asking the 
person just to respond to the questions. Just as there would be an 
Anglo or anyone else, we would expect them to do the same.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, could I stop the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Rodriguez) on that point?
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BECERRA. That is a crucial point because people are saying, you 
would not do this to anyone else and we have never done it to anyone 
else in the Senate. That is not true. What is being asked of the White 
House to produce memoranda that were prepared by Mr. Estrada during his 
time with the Solicitor General's office is no different than what was 
asked for of Judge Bork when he was before the Senate for confirmation 
to become a Supreme Court Justice. It is no different than what was 
asked of Mr. William Bradford Reynolds, who was nominated to be the 
Associate Attorney General for the Department of Justice. It is no 
different from what was asked of Benjamin Civiletti, who was nominated 
to be the Attorney General. It is no different than what was asked of 
Steven Trott, who was nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 
and it is no different than what was asked of today's Supreme Court 
Justice, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, when he was nominated to be 
the Supreme Court Chief Justice. No different.
  People say we have never seen a process where Senators are on the 
floor preventing a vote on this through a cloture motion trying to 
prevent a filibuster. There is no filibuster. Business can take place 
in the Senate. That is something that is occurring not as a result of 
those objecting to this process on Mr. Estrada; and it should be 
mentioned that since 1980 there have been, I believe, some 15 to 18 
occasions where this process which we are seeing played out in the 
Senate has occurred where in order to have a nominee before the 
full Senate for a vote, we would have had to have the 60-vote majority 
in order to get there. So when people get out there and say this is 
unprecedented, it has never happened before, that is just not the fact; 
and we should know that there is history to prove that we need Senators 
who will stand up for the American people and the Constitution to make 
sure that that person, once lifetime appointment is granted, will do 
the right job because he or she is qualified.

  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to reinforce the importance that 
people understand because I know we have heard some people say he is 
well educated, let us give him a chance. You might say to someone who 
is going to be elected for 2 years, let us give him a chance. That 
would be fine. But here is a person we are going to appoint for the 
rest of his life. It is not a chance. We do not have a chance to come 
back and take him down, if they are not qualified, if we find something 
else that they might have responded to or done or whatever. This is the 
time to do the right thing. These people get appointed for life. They 
do not have a second chance on this. So as an attorney, I know the 
gentleman recognizes that fully.
  I also wanted to share that I got a letter that is signed by about 15 
presidents of the Hispanic National Bar Association.
  Mr. BECERRA. Hispanic presidents. Correct.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Fifteen members. Not just one, 15 past presidents of 
the Hispanic National Bar Association; and in their letter, if I can, 
let me just read a couple of quotes. It says: ``We the undersigned past 
presidents of the Hispanic National Bar Association write in strong 
opposition to the nomination of Miguel A. Estrada for the judgeship on 
the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia.
  ``Since the Hispanic National Bar Association, establishment in 1972, 
promoting civil rights and advocating for judicial appointments of 
qualified Hispanic Americans throughout our Nation have been our 
fundamental concerns. Over the years we have had a proven and respected 
record of endorsing,'' and I say again, ``of endorsing'' and also ``not 
endorsing or rejecting nominees on a nonpartisan basis of both 
Republican and Democratic Presidents.''
  This is a group that has been both Democrat and Republican; and they 
go on to talk about their criteria, and they do a very good job of how 
they evaluate the nominee. And the gentleman's being an attorney, he 
probably understands some of this. Then they finally at the end say: 
``Based upon our review and understanding of the totality of Mr. 
Estrada's record and life's experiences, we believe that there are more 
than enough reasons to conclude that Mr. Estrada's candidacy falls 
short in these respect. We believe that for many reasons including his 
virtually nonexistent written record, his verbally expressed and 
`nonreputed' extreme views, his lack of judicial or academic teaching 
experience (against which his fairness, reasoning skills and judicial 
philosophy could be properly tested), his poor judicial temperament,'' 
of which we experienced personally, ``his total lack of any connection 
whatsoever to, or lack of demonstrated interest in the Hispanic 
community, his refusals to answer even the most basic questions about 
civil rights and constitutional law,'' and they go on, ``his less than 
candid responses to other straightforward questions of Senate Judiciary 
Committee members, and because of the administration's refusal to 
provide the Judiciary Committee the additional information and 
cooperation . . . ''
  So it seems like the administration is kind of deliberately putting 
him on the front, knowing full well that there were concerns with this 
candidate; yet they chose to bring him forward, and we wonder why when 
my understanding is that the Senate has looked at over 100 candidates 
and they have all been approved. This is the first one that we have 
decided we are not going to approve because we do not have the right 
information.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Rodriguez) is pointing out, I think, so very well is that no one wants 
to get up

[[Page H1323]]

and speak out against a nomination of an individual whom the President 
puts forward if we do not have to because we want to give respect to 
the decisions of the executive to move forward, but we have to do 
something. We have to speak up for what the Constitution stood for. And 
as someone who, as I said before, would love to see a diverse America 
reflected in its judiciary as well, it pains me, but we are acting now 
not as Hispanics. We are acting now not as Latinos. We are acting now 
not as minorities. We are acting as Members of Congress, the 435 of us 
in the House and 100 in the Senate, with the responsibility to act for 
the entire American public of some 280 million people.
  Those 280 million people depend on us to make the right decisions, 
and it is not just for the 37 million Latinos in this country. It is 
not just for those who are immigrants. It is for everyone. And I would 
hate to see the day come when we believe that simply because the person 
is nominated by the President or the person looks or sounds a 
particular way that we will act a certain way. We have to be prepared 
on issues that require constitutional confirmation, that we move 
forward deliberatively, that we have all the information that the 
public would want to have. No one back home, whether in the gentleman's 
district in Texas, my district in California, or any other district in 
this Nation, no one would go and look for an attorney or a doctor or a 
dentist or an accountant not knowing anything about the person's 
background. One would not have surgery by some doctor one has never met 
and know nothing about. One would not give an important case to an 
attorney that one knew nothing about, that one met on the street. One 
would not go to a dentist to pull out his wisdom teeth if they had no 
way of knowing that this person would do a decent job, and someone is 
not going to send their kids to any school without having some idea of 
what kind of education their child can receive.

  And the same applies in the case of the courts of the United States 
for lifetime appointments. This controversial nominee should not expect 
that the American public will let his name move forward without knowing 
something about him; and when we have that information, then we can 
make some decisions. And I believe that there must be something he is 
hiding because for him not to come forward with it, if he is so 
qualified, he is so prepared, then he is holding himself up. As we say 
in Spanish, es una hoja en blanco, he is a blank page. Es su pior 
enemigo, he is his worst enemy, because it is he and the White House 
who have placed him in this predicament; and it is only he and the 
White House who can remove him from this predicament, and by goodness I 
hope that sooner or later they recognize that there are Senators who 
determined to fulfill their obligation to make sure that we have the 
most qualified people serving on our judicial bench, and I hope they 
will continue that; and we are going to stand here day after day in 
vigil to make sure that we get across to the American public what is at 
stake here, not as Hispanics, not as minorities, but as Americans who 
are fighting to make sure that the best people are going to make those 
decision on those courts for all of us.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Becerra) is also from L.A., and I wanted to also mention to him that 
one of the leading organizations that is stationed there as an office 
in Los Angeles is MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and 
Education Fund, and they have openly come out in opposition also of the 
nomination of Miguel Estrada, and I know the president and general 
counsel of MALDEF, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education 
Fund, Antonia Hernandez, has strongly opposed the nomination; and I 
know that she has written letters on their behalf, and this is a well-
respected organization within the Hispanic community throughout this 
country that when it comes to the legal area, the gentleman's being an 
attorney understands that they have been there on the forefront for our 
issues that confront us, and one of the things that I know concerned us 
when we did the evaluation was that here we had a candidate who was not 
willing to come forward and respond to the questions, and in some cases 
I kind of felt whether the person was either naive about our history as 
a community, as a Latino community in this country.
  There is a history that has been out there, a history that depicted 
the struggle of Latinos in this country as we have confronted the 
issues of bilingual education, for example, that has been so important 
in our schools, and when we asked him whether he was aware or not of 
the Lau v. Nichols, I am not an attorney, but I know about Lau v. 
Nichols because it is a decision that has had a tremendous impact on 
the Hispanic community in this country because it is about bilingual 
education.

                              {time}  2230

  He was either naive about the law or chose not to respond in 
reference to the law.
  So that really kind of concerned me, that he was not willing to come 
forward on that basic law that has meant so much to us. If someone, 
whether they be Anglo or Hispanic or whoever, if they have no history 
in terms of the importance of the struggles of African Americans in 
this country, the struggles of Hispanics in this country, the struggles 
of women in this country, what kind of judge are we going to be having?
  So I think it is important, if nothing else, in terms of hearing 
whether there is even an understanding that there has been a struggle 
out there, whether he has any history or understanding of what has 
occurred in the past, that has bothered me when we asked those 
questions.
  Mr. BECERRA. In pointing out that the Mexican American Legal Defense 
and Educational Fund has taken an explicit position against him, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) is absolutely right, that MALDEF 
has been at the forefront of issues affecting Latinos, and if anyone 
understands what the courts have meant to minorities and to the 
Hispanic community specifically, it is MALDEF; and having, I assume, 
tried to piece together whatever information they could get about this 
controversial nominee, the Mexican American Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund has taken a position opposed to this controversial 
nominee.
  I, with great respect, listened to what MALDEF says because they have 
been at the forefront. The gentleman mentioned Lau v. Nichols; Plyler 
v. Doe, which dealt with education, the basic right of education; Bakke 
v. U.C. Board of Reagents, which dealt with diversity in our 
universities and colleges; MALDEF, they are at each one of those cases.
  We need to know. What will happen when we have a court that is very 
divided on choice for women, where one vote could turn the situation in 
America on the Supreme Court, where we are right now debating whether 
there will be diversity in our institutions of higher learning before 
the United States Supreme Court? All of these things matter. The 
decisions made by the Senate to confirm or not an individual matter, 
because they will have an impact.
  So before the decision is made, before the vote is cast, before the 
confirmation occurs, the Senate and the American public are entitled to 
know who this phantom nominee is.
  Controversial nominees go the way of controversy, and in America I 
hope that means that they will not prevail. Controversy is not the way 
this democracy has operated. We try to come together as a people.
  I believe that we have an opportunity to come together as a people 
and have the President put before the Senate individuals of full 
qualification who have the preparation to serve on our courts, the 
highest courts of the land.
  I believe that we still can resolve this in a way that will be 
constructive for all. But let there be no mistake; there should be no 
give on this issue by any Senator, there should be no give by any 
American in this country, to the standards set forth by the 
Constitution more than 200 years ago. Those standards have served us 
well and we should continue in that vein.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Beauprez). Members are reminded to be 
very cautious, once again, about urging action by the Senate.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas

[[Page H1324]]

(Mr. Rodriguez) for having yielded me so much time. I believe this is 
an important issue.
  Perhaps it is cloaked by the many issues that are before us today 
that are of great importance to the American public. This is one of 
those issues that in the future would surface if it were a bad 
decision, and hopefully, if we can deal with this in a good way and 
make sure that we vote only on those who are forthright and forthcoming 
in information, that this will be something that in 10 years, in 20 
years, in 100 years will not come back and bite us anywhere on our 
body, because what we do not want to see is that we diminish the 
standards that we use to place people in lifetime positions on the 
courts of the Federal Government. That is an important task.
  I appreciate that the gentleman has taken the time to call for this 
special order.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. Nothing 
would be worse than to set a very negative precedent, where a person 
would be confirmed without having to respond to the questions that have 
come before them. Nothing would be more harmful to the Constitution, 
that allows the opportunity for the Senate to review nominees, than for 
them to go without asking for those questions to be asked.
  Tonight I want to thank everyone for allowing us this opportunity, 
and I want to thank the Senate and those organizations throughout this 
country, the past presidents of LULAC who have also gone in opposition, 
as well as many other organizations throughout.

                          ____________________