Xavier Becerra

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BECERRA. I join with my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier) in recognizing that not only is he an able reverend but he is also a very important constituent. I thank the Speaker for this opportunity to express some thoughts for this 1 minute. I thank the reverend for making the trip to Washington, D.C., and bringing the sunshine with him.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 2, 2003, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 227, 228, and 229. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 227 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Res. 159, Expressing Profound Sorrow on the Occasion of the Death of Irma Rangel; rollcall vote 228 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Res. 195, Congratulating Sammy Sosa of the Chicago Cubs for Hitting 500 Major League Home Runs; and rollcall vote 229 on Suspending the Rules and Passing H.R. 1465, the General Charles Gabriel Post Office Building Designation Act. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 227, 228, and 229.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 21, 2003, I was unavoidably detained, and therefore unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 201 through 204. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 201 on the procedural vote of ordering the previous question; rollcall vote 202 on Agreeing to H. Res. 245 on Agreeing to the Resolution providing consideration of H.R. 1588; rollcall vote 202 on the Motion to Suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1170; and rollcall vote 203 on the Motion to Suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1911. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 203 and 204, and ``nay'' on roll call votes 201 and 202.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom, the recent record of investment advisers serving their own interests above those of employees or investors is an unambiguous one and is not a pretty one. The time is not right for this particular idea because opening up a loophole to allow an employer to offer conflicted investment advice to its employee shareholders is something that, with previous history right before us, makes it very clear that we open up a Pandora's box. Maybe sometime in the future we can figure out how to do this the right way, and I believe the Democratic alternative does exactly that. It finds ways to make sure that our investment by employees who work very hard not only are protected, not only is there flexibility, but that it can be done in a way that gives the employer the best opportunity to make sure employees are making the most of their investments, but to today believe that we can open the door to permitting conflicted investment advice is to not look at history and to not look at history of just the recent past. Has the scandal of Enron left our mind so quickly that we believe we could do this? Are we still not aware that Global Crossing is still in the bankruptcy court? Did we forget that WorldCom could not provide to its employees its 401(k)s? It does not make any sense, and when we take a closer look at this legislation and see that for older workers we are not only harming them and encouraging more risk, but we are actually making it more difficult to protect older workers' investments, that does not seem like a very smart thing to do. Then finally when we add to that that we do not provide to rank-and- file employees the type of flexibility they would need so we could have avoided the Enron scandal, because remember, in the Enron scandal, a lot of employees saw their stock, the value of their 401(k), tanking, just going down to nothing, and a lot of them, before it turned out to be valued at zero, said, let me pull it out, but they could not. They were stuck. The way the law was written, they could not pull it out. Executives could, but the rank-and-file employees could not. If we are going to reform pension opportunities, why do we not reform that to provide employees more flexibility? Democrats tried to do that. This bill does not. This is not the right bill at the right time. Let us vote this down and vote for the Democratic substitute.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 2003 through May 1, 2003, due to medical reasons, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 146 through 158. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 146, 147, 148, 150, and 158; and I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, and 157.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Tennessee was right. We talk these days about shared sacrifice. We have men and women in uniform who are returning from service where they were in harm's way. These are individuals, all of our enlisted men and women, who earn incredibly less than $30,000 a year. They put their life on the line for us. They are looking to come back home and have a job. It is true, jobs, jobs, jobs are what matter. Yet today we are hemorrhaging 75,000 jobs per month in this country. We have lost nearly 3 million jobs since President Bush took office in 2001. We need jobs, not deficits. Yet, that is what we are getting from this tax cut bill. Deficits do matter. A $550 billion tax cut mostly for the wealthy will blow up the bank. We have a $350 billion deficit for this year. We pay a quarter of a trillion dollars a year in interest on the national debt. What is the message to our returning soldiers? It is $100,000 for a millionaire in tax cuts. They will get about $200 for the year, about enough to pay for a tank of gas a month. Our children will pay for this tax cut. Let us defeat this bill.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, the earned income tax credit (EITC) provides cash assistance to lower income working parents and individuals through the tax system and is an important part of the Federal ``safety net'' of programs for Americans living in poverty. Under current law, there are three categories of EITC recipients: those with no children, those with one child, and those with two or more children. One does not need to owe taxes at tax time in order to benefit--the EITC benefit amount may exceed tax liability and be received in the form of a payment from the U.S. Treasury after the tax year's end. Moreover, certain eligible workers with children may choose to receive a portion of the EITC in the form of advance payments throughout the tax year. While the EITC has been tremendously successful and has lifted more children out of poverty than has any other government program, I believe that our efforts to use this important tax credit to fight poverty can be further improved. Recent studies have shown that 29 percent of all children in families having three or more children subsist at incomes below the poverty level. This is more than double the poverty rate among children in smaller families. Nearly three of every five poor children in this country live in families with three or more children. Our former colleague Rep. Bill Coyne introduced legislation during the 107th Congress that targeted this particular problem and made other needed improvements to the EITC program. Today I reintroduce that bill. The bill will create a new EITC benefit level for families with 3 or more children, with a credit percentage of 45 percent, to provide a higher benefit than what they currently receive under the ``two or more children'' category (which has a 40 percent credit rate). The bill would also double the credit percentage for workers with no qualifying children from 7.65 percent to 15.3 percent. This change recognizes the fact that there is virtually no safety net for people in this category, who face high federal tax burdens. The 15.3 credit percentage is the amount needed to fully offset the amount of the payroll tax, including the employer's share. In addition, the bill will increase EITC benefits for all family categories by raising the maximum creditable earnings used to calculate the credit. For all eligible individuals with children, this amount for the year 2002 will be $10,710, the annual wages of a full-time worker earning the minimum wage. For childless workers, the maximum creditable earnings will rise to $6,000, approximately 60 percent of those wages. In order to balance program costs, benefits will phase out at the same income level, as is the case under current law. The creation of the additional EITC category involving three or more children will benefit approximately 3.2 million households and further reduce poverty among these larger families. The economic stimulus function of my bill cannot be overlooked, as it will benefit the U.S. economy by providing additional incentives for more people, especially low-income women, to join the work force. Mr. Speaker, at a time when our country is facing so many economic challenges, we must not forget that our low-income families continue to remain at the margins of our economy and are the first to suffer the effects of an economic downturn. I urge all my colleagues to join me in this effort to further enhance the highly successful EITC by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 7, 2003, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 109, 110, and 111. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 109 on Suspending the Rules and Passing H.R. 1055, the Dr. Roswell N. Beck Post Office Building Designation Act; rollcall vote 110 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Res. 127, as Amended, Expressing the Sense of Congress that a month should be designated as ``Financial Literacy for Youth Month,'' and rollcall vote 111 on Suspending the Rules and Passing, as Amended H.R. 1368, the Norman Shumway Post Office Building Designation Act. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 109, 110, and 111.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I first would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), and also the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for the work that they have done on this legislation. Certainly, those of us who have worked on this issue in the past know that we need to deal with these issues for all of those beneficiaries who are out there trying to collect their well-earned Social Security benefits, and also for those who have in the past had difficulties going before the Administration, the Social Security Administration, to get the benefits they deserve. Too, oftentimes we find that some of the folks that are now trying to collect their benefits are old, disabled; in many cases they have become incompetent and cannot do some of these things for themselves, and we have had to find ways to help them move their case along. The ``representative payee'' program has been a good one. Oftentimes, unfortunately, it has been abused by some, and we are trying to make sure that we forever guarantee that those people who have earned these benefits will get them and not someone who is trying to take advantage of them and claims to be providing advocacy on their behalf. This is a good bill. H.R. 743 was a bill that was passed last year by this House. I hope it does have a chance to become law this year. I do want to support, and I associate myself with the words of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) who spoke. We have an issue with the government pension offset that we must address. We must address it in a way that deals with reform in its entirety. Many of us have talked about the need to make sure that we strengthen Social Security into the future. There are a lot of folks, teachers, police officers, firefighters, who find that because they have not been in the system, or if they have been in part of the system for part of the time, the treatment that they will receive is different from those who have been within Social Security or completely outside of Social Security throughout the process. We must deal with this. To some people who may be watching, it may seem confusing what we are talking about with regard to the government pension offset but, really, the bottom line here is whether you understand GPO and what it stands for or not. What we are trying to do is make sure the system under Social Security is fair for everyone. At this stage there is an issue that has been raised whether or not through this legislation we should be trying to make changes to the GPO. I would urge all of my colleagues to support the bill, and I also urge my colleagues to support the Green amendment that he has offered today.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 27, 2003, 1 was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall numbers 90 and 91. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 90 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Res. 153, Recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer; and rollcall vote 91 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Con. Res. 118, Concerning the treatment of members of the Armed Forces held as prisoner of war. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``present'' on rollcall vote 90 and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 91.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, March 4, 2003, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall numbers 40, 41 and 42. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 40 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Res. 106, Congratulating Lutheran Schools; rollcall vote 41 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Con. Res. 54, Expressing support of National Visiting Nurse Association Week; and rollcall vote 42 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Res. 111, Honoring the Legacy of Fred Rogers. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 40, 41 and 42.

Mr. BECERRA

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

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. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (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. 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. BECERRA. Hispanic presidents. Correct.

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, could I stop the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) on that point?

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. 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 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. 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 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. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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? 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 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. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents to commemorate the Day of Remembrance. As we know, on February 19, 1942, then President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 that led to the internment of 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent. With the stroke of a pen, innocent men, women, and children became prisoners and were branded disloyal to the nation they called home. Lives were disrupted and homes were broken as these Americans were uprooted from their communities and locked behind barbed wire fences. The force of wartime hysteria darkened the light of justice and reasonable people suddenly embarked on an unreasonable course. Indeed, America was engaged in a monumental struggle as our soldiers engaged the enemy in the European and Pacific Theatre. Here in the United States, many citizens had faces that looked like that of the enemy. Without any evidence, fear was mounting, and the patriotism of these Japanese Americans was questioned. Some worried that they were intent on doing harm against the very flag they saluted. Decades later, history vindicated these loyal Americans as not even a single documented case of sabotage or espionage was committed by an American of Japanese ancestry during that time. What our nation found through the disinfectant of time, those who endured internment knew all along. Surrounded by armed guards behind a prison fence, mothers thought of their sons who fought for the freedom of the nation that denied them of their own liberty. Indeed today the annuls of military history show that the Japanese American soldiers of the 442nd and combat regiment fought honorably and bravely for ideals they knew our nation had not yet afforded to their own families back home. Still, they were worth fighting for. And this regiment would become the most decorated group of soldiers in American history as they proved their devotion to our nation fighting in both the European and Pacific theatres. It took more than 50 years, but finally in 2000, President Bill Clinton awarded 22 of these heroes with the Medal of Honor. In 1983, a Presidential Commission concluded that the internment was the result of both racism and wartime hysteria. Five years later, then President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act into law that provided an official apology and redress to most of those confined in U.S. internment camps during World War II. This was the culmination of half a century of struggle to bring justice to those to whom it was denied. I am proud that our nation did the right thing. But fifteen years after the passage of the CLA, we still have unfinished work to be done to rectify and close this regrettable chapter in our nation's history. Last Congress, I introduced bi-partisan legislation in Congress to finish the remaining work of redress. While most Americans are aware of the internment of Japanese Americans, few know about our government's activities in other countries resulting from prejudice held against people of Japanese ancestry. Recorded thoroughly in government files, the U.S. government involved itself in the expulsion and internment of an estimated 2,000 people of Japanese descent who lived in various Latin American countries. Uprooted from their homes and forced into the United States, these civilians were robbed of their freedom as they were kidnapped from nations not even directly involved in World War II. These individuals are still waiting for equitable redress, and justice cries out for them to receive it. That is why today I re-introduced the Wartime Parity and Justice Act of 2003 to finally turn the last page in this chapter of our nation's history. This bill provides redress to every Japanese Latin American individual forcibly removed and interned in the United States. These people paid a tremendous price during one of our nation's most trying times. Indeed, America accomplished much during that great struggle. As we celebrate our great achievements as a nation let us also recognize our errors and join together as a nation to correct those mistakes. My legislation is the right thing to do to affirm our commitment to democracy and the rule of law. In addition, the Wartime Parity and Justice Act of 2003 provides relief to Japanese Americans confined in this country but who never received redress under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 given technicalities in the original law. Our laws must always establish justice. They should never deny it. That is why these provisions ensure that every American who suffered the same injustices will receive the same justice. Finally, my legislation will reauthorize the educational mandate in the 1988 Act which was never fulfilled. This will etch this chapter of our nation's history into our national conscience for generations to come as a reminder never to repeat it again. Mr. Speaker, let us renew our resolve to build a better future for our community as we dedicate ourselves to remembering how we compromised liberty in the past. Doing so will help us to guard it more closely in the future. As we commemorate the Day of Remembrance, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Wartime Parity and Justice Act of 2003.

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, January 29, 2003, I was unavoidably detained, and therefore unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall No. 17, the Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.J. Res. 2. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 17. Stated against:

Mr. BECERRA

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 27, 2003, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall numbers 13 and 14. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 13 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Res. 26, as Amended, Honoring the Contributions of Catholic Schools; rollcall vote 14 on Suspending the Rules and Agreeing to H. Res. 25, Supporting Awareness of Need for Youth Mentors. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 13 and 14.