Ciro Rodriguez

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. It is a sham.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, first of all, for coming out here tonight and talking a little bit about some of those issues that concern us. I know that as the gentleman talks about health, one of the things that really bothers me is now, the President's proposal, as it deals with the issue of health, one of the things that he has done is that he has begun to look at Medicaid, which is the monies that go to the most indigent of this country, and he has also looked at what we call the disproportionate share. That is the money that goes to those hospitals out there that are providing that indigent care that have no reimbursement except what we provide them. So these are two areas of serious concern because it deals with the most indigent, the most needy in our country. In addition, he has also looked at what we call the CHIP program. The CHIP program for Americans out there is the program that addresses the needs of those youngsters, of those parents that are hard-working, they are working, they are making $20,000, $30,000, $40,000; but they do not qualify for Medicaid because they are not poor enough and they are hard-working. When they go to the hospitals, they do not get reimbursed on the disproportionate share. So here we have three programs: the Medicaid for the most indigent, the disproportionate share for those hospitals to help them out, for providing that care, and the CHIP program that addresses the needs of those youngsters of those parents. He is proposing to lump them all up. Here is a program that is a direct attack on the most needy of this country, the ones that are hurting the most in health care; and instead of responding and providing the needed resources that are needed out there, he is looking at providing a block grant and, at the same time, providing those resources to the States. But as the gentleman well knows, those States are in need right now. Those States are hurting when it comes to health care. These are programs that have worked and have somewhat been responsive to some of those needs. What is he doing? He is attacking the most needy of our population. So that really concerns me. It really bothers me. I wanted to share that, because I know the gentleman has talked about health care and the importance of health care, and I know the gentleman has also been touching on the budget. What also bothers me is that as he looks at the budget, he is also doing the same thing when it comes to the most needy of our children. Under the Department of Health, we have a program that is called Head Start, one of the most beautiful programs that we have had for a long time. It has been very good. Statistics indicate, it has been shown that it has been the program that has responded and has been real good for those kids that are out there and has been meeting the needs of our youngsters. Yet we know it only represents 40 percent of the kids that qualify for Head Start that we are funding at the present time, and it only has 2 percent of the early childhood, those kids that are 2 and 3 years old. Yet the President is choosing to destroy this program because his proposal is to block grant those monies and give it to the States, when right now those programs are being run locally, they are locally controlled, and he is going to create, by moving that money from the Department of Health to the Department of Education, it is a very serious move because right now the Department of Health also with Head Start, they work with our parents, they work with our kids; and they provide not only cognitive skills and educational skills, but also reach out to them in terms of services and needs. So what he is choosing to do is he sees these dollars out there, and he is choosing to put them in a block grant and throw them at the States. Well, I can attest to my colleagues, if they come to Texas where I am from, Texas has had a history of not funding full-day kindergarten. We only fund half; the rest of the day is funded only by the taxpayer through local school districts. So if that occurs, I can attest that we will have a real problem, and they are going to destroy a program that has been there providing for those needs. By doing this, they are going to use that money to supplant because of the fact that they do not have the resources to provide the existing services that they have throughout this country. So I am real disappointed, after what has happened in his efforts that when it comes to education, he has not been there. I also want to share, and I do not mean to take too much of the gentleman's time, but I want to share a couple of other things, because there is a pattern here. He decided to attack Head Start and try to put it into a block grant; he has attacked the most needy of this country with Medicaid, CHIP, and disproportionate share in terms of health; and he is also now attacking our veterans. These are the individuals that have fought for this country. At a time that we have declared war, he is asking Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans, those veterans that are making just about $30,000 or so, for them to begin to pay more than what they already do for the services. And at the same time, not only is he attacking the resources for our veterans, but he is also attacking their kids. Not the kids of the veterans, but kids of the servicemen who now we are asking, or who are out there in Afghanistan, we are asking them to go to the Middle East, we are asking them to go to the Philippines, we are asking them to be in Colombia. So those are the same soldiers of those kids that now we are saying we do not plan to help fund their education through the assistance. So those are the types of proposals that we have before us. At the same time, he brings to us a tax cut when we do not have sufficient resources. If we do have a war, if we do have one, who is going to pay for that war? At some point in time every war, and I asked for a CRS study from the Congressional Research Office, I have found that for every single war we have had, with very few exceptions, we have always had a tax to pay for that war. In this case, we do not. It is being paid out of the deficit, which means we are asking our soldiers to go out and fight, and then we are asking them and their kids in the future to pay for it because of the debt. So, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that as we move forward we will have an opportunity to talk about these issues and concerns that confront us. I want to touch base just a minute on education, because here we have a bill that is basically the President's bill. It is the Leave No Child Behind Act. Well, for 2003 we are already going to leave some children behind, because he has cut $7 billion from that. As the proposal comes out for 2004, it is a $9 billion cut. So when we talk about a promise, and then we come back on that promise of leave no child behind and we cut $9 billion from the 2004 proposal, and this is at the same time that our States are having a rough time, I have difficulty comprehending what the rationale is. I have difficulty understanding, when he has verbalized his concerns for education, but at the same time he does not display that through the form of a good budget. The budget basically determines everything. If he cuts taxes and we do not have the resources, I do not care what we say about anything else, it is not going to be there. So it becomes really important that we are forthright about that. Now we hear that he is willing to come up with about $50 billion on foreign aid to try to pull off this war, not to mention that the war might cost us from $100 billion to $200 billion additional. These are issues that we really need to go and talk about before the American people. I want to thank the gentleman for coming up tonight and allowing us an opportunity to talk a little about the budget and the issues that concern us. I know that the gentleman has been a constant worker, especially in the area of health care. I want to personally thank the gentleman, and I know we have another colleague that might want to say a few words.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

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

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for heading the task force on nominations and for doing such a good job. In fact, I know it was a hard decision to make and to decide. We have been there and supported many other nominees that have been Republican and we have supported those. This particular candidate we felt that we were not going to be rubber stamping anyone, and we also felt, and I am glad the gentleman did it in a very good way, we get elected for 2 years. The Senate gets elected for 6 years. These individuals, one can say I made a mistake, I am going to knock him off next time, I am not going to support that Congressman and not vote for him. With this Senate and the judges, they are appointed for life. They are appointed for life, and it is important that we take this seriously; and I am glad that at least we have some of the Members that are really looking at it and asking that he respond to these questions appropriately. I also take pride tonight to recognize the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), and I was really pleased to see today the breaking news from the State of California that the California LULAC had also gone in opposition to the confirmation of Miguel Estrada. And with us we have the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Let me thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) for her kind words. And let me also indicate that we cannot support someone just blindly just because they have a Spanish surname. I want to take this opportunity also, and we have the pleasure tonight of having a leader of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) for joining us tonight on this important issue. One of the key things we want to mention is, Mr. Estrada has failed to answer the questions before our committee and before the other body. On at least seven occasions, Mr. Estrada refused to answer questions on Supreme Court cases, and on at least nine occasions, Mr. Estrada refused to answer whether he could name any Supreme Court case that he disagreed with. My God, I am not an attorney, but if I were to ask, do you have any cases out there that you have some kind of disagreement with, I would have said, Plessy v. Ferguson and a lot of those other decisions that have discriminated against African Americans in this country. There are a lot of cases he could have named, but he chose not to respond or say anything. I want to take this opportunity to indicate I know that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) had mentioned the letter that we had received about the statement by Mario Obledo. I want to talk a little bit about Mario Obledo, because Mario Obledo is one of our founding fathers, one of our pioneers. He was a cofounder of the Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project, the first General Counsel and Past President of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. He was a cofounder of the Hispanic National Bar Association, a former Harvard Law School professor, the recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom award and a past national president of LULAC. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mario Obledo for coming forward, because I know it is difficult coming forward and indicating that a fellow Hispanic is not qualified to be a judge. I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez). I know, as a task force member, he has worked diligently on this issue. I want to thank him personally. I am not sure if he wants to continue on the dialogue and say a few words. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

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

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I know full well if I sign someone's letters, that I have to know them personally, and I would ask the questions that need to be asked of this candidate. Let me take this opportunity, as we interviewed the candidate, we asked when there was a discussion in terms of the commitment to equal justice for Latinos and Hispanics, there seemed to be no record. When we asked about a commitment regarding protecting a Latino's interests in the courts, there was no record. When we asked about support for congressional right to pass civil rights laws, there was no record. When we asked for support of individual access to courts, it remained unclear. When we asked the candidate about support for Latino organizations or causes that he had participated in, or whether he had done any pro bono work, there was no record. When we asked about Latino organizations or causes that he volunteered for in the community, there was no record. When we asked for support of Latino law students or any young legal professional, there was no record. Commitment to individual Latino internships, there was no record. I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), who headed the task force on the interview. The gentleman did a great job on the interview. The gentleman has also served as a district judge. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003. While proponents of H.R. 4 argue that they are building upon the successes of the sweeping 1996 welfare reform plan by promoting independence through work and lifting millions of Americans out of poverty--they in fact promote helplessness and misery for millions. They fail to recognize that while research tells us that even though poverty levels are down, hunger, utility cut-offs, and hopelessness have increased among former Temporary Assistance of Needy Families (TANF) recipients. Within these poor families many children suffer because poverty prevents them from having basic needs met. When the prevalence of poverty is combined with the fact that less than one fourth of children eligible for a range of government subsidies receive any of them, we are failing to protect our most important and vulnerable assets--our children. H.R. 4 does not provide sufficient funding for programs essential to reaching the goal of reducing poverty. It would freeze the amount of the TANF block grant at current funding levels for the next five years. These funding limitations are especially critical during these times of increasing unemployment and State budget deficits. The reality is that the value of the TANF block grant has fallen by 13.5 percent between fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 2002. In my home State of Texas alone it would take $688 million, over the next five years, in addition funding to implement the work participation requirements in H.R. 4. Forcing States to implement new provision in the welfare bill, while providing no new resources for either TANF block grants or child care, is a recipe for disaster and not a responsible approach to reauthorizing TANF. States should be provided appropriate funding to ensure that TANF recipients receive the assistance they need to become self-sufficient. H.R. 4 does not provide states with the financial support, or the programmatic flexibility needed to tailor work activities to the individual needs of parents and families to overcome workplace barriers. Instead it imposes harsh work requirements that are recipes for failure and restricts States' ability to operate education and training programs that prepare TANF recipients for long term, well compensated employment. Finally, an important component of any proposed reauthorization of TANF must ensure access to job and health care programs for this Nation's legal immigrants. Despite widespread support for providing hardworking, tax paying legal immigrants with the opportunity to apply for safety-net programs, H.R. 4 continues the unfair ban on providing such critical services to legal immigrant families with children. Medicaid and CHIP eligibility should be based on need, not the date one enters the country. States should be allowed to continue to use state funds to provide primary and preventative care to immigrants. I will only support a welfare reauthorization bill with the true purpose of reducing poverty, and one which provides its participants with real opportunities and with the self-dignity to pursue the necessary tools to ensure future success. I will support the amendments presented to this bill, made in the form of substitutes, which increase childcare funding, which allow States more flexibility to count education and training and other work preparation towards more realistic work requirements, that restore eligibility and benefits to legal immigrants and that reward States that place parents in real, long term employment.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, on February 1, 2003, our nation was faced with a tragedy that occurred hundreds of miles above the earth but hit close to our homes and our hearts. The mission of the space shuttle Columbia came to an unexpected end in the midst of the Texas skies sixteen minutes away from its destination. My heart and the hearts of all Americans go out to the families of the seven honorable and courageous astronauts on board. These men and women were heroes fulfilling their goals and dreams in the space program. Sadly, this tragedy happened almost exactly seventeen years after the January 28, 1986, loss of the seven heroes of the Challenger mission. During their mission, astronauts on the Columbia took time to honor their fallen comrades from both the Challenger and Apollo missions. As a nation mourns, the memories of all three tragic events will be remembered with mixed feelings, for the lives lost and for the missions they were set forth to accomplish. The Columbia mission was assisted by the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center located in the state of Texas. The primary responsibility of the center is for the designing and developing of space shuttles used for human journey into space as well as training them and participating in programs devoted to medical and engineering experiments. We in Texas are proud to be the home of this integral part of the space program. I commend them in every effort and share their deep sorrow for this tragic loss. I would like to extend my appreciation and that of a grateful nation to those who assisted in the search for debris. Their ranks include volunteers, fire fighters, and National Guard members. Among those working are local East Texas residents who have taken the time to aid their country by collecting the remnants of Columbia and protecting the locations of debris. These volunteers have helped authorities document the information from this tragic event. The combined efforts of the volunteers represent the caring, giving spirit of Americans. The space shuttle symbolizes the hope for our global future, to reach out as one world into the stars. On Columbia, the United States was not the only country represented. Astronaut Kalpana Chawla was the first Indian-born woman to enter space. Her native India and her adopted United States will always remember her efforts and accomplishments. Ilan Ramon, a distinguished colonel in the Israeli Air Force made history as the first Israeli astronaut to ever venture the realms beyond Earth. Israel's pioneer into space was lost, but his spirit of exploration and international cooperation will live on. Space exploration has been an important part of the technological advancements achieved during this last century. As we embark upon a new one, the need to explore the unknown and venture beyond remains compelling. The families of the Columbia astronauts have made bold statements on behalf of their loved ones urging us to keep their dreams alive, ``Their hearts were full of enthusiasm, pride in country, faith in their God, and a willingness to accept the risk in pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge that might improve the quality of life for all mankind.'' This knowledge that we grasp and the essence to know more has kept our nation's space exploration program alive as it will continue to do so for the sake of our children. We best honor these fallen heroes by continuing their work, building a more robust space program for the future.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Pan American Health Organization, which celebrates its 100th anniversary this year. PAHO is the oldest international health organization in the world, and serves as the Regional Office of the Americas for the World Health Organization. It is headquartered in Washington D.C. and has a U.S.-Mexico Border Field Office in El Paso, Texas, as well as country offices in 27 nations throughout the Americas and nine scientific and technical centers. This year, as we celebrate the Centennial of the Pan American Health Organization, we also celebrate the notable health achievements of the countries of the Americas, with the support of PAHO. One hundred years ago, public health in the Americas was an uncoordinated jumble, as individual countries made separate efforts to protect themselves and their people against the threat of ``imported'' diseases. Yet over the next century, through coordinated action, health progress unrivaled in history swept the Western Hemisphere as health leaders joined together to fight disease and to bring water, sanitation, and health services to millions. The achievements of the countries of the Americas, led by the Pan American Health Organization over the last century, tell a story of ongoing progress: Measles, smallpox and polio have been eradicated from the Americas. In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001 and with the threat of bioterrorism, the countries of the Americas are enhancing their emergency preparedness capabilities, improving their surveillance and response to outbreaks of infections, and expanding their laboratory capacity to diagnose agents used in bio-terrorism. Disaster and public health experts are being trained to prepare for and manage biological, chemical and radiological incidents. A new ``Building Blocks Model for HIV/AIDS Comprehensive Care'' program is improving care for the 2.6 million people in the Americas who are infected with HIV. Life expectancy at birth rose from less than 50 years at the start of the last century to 69.8 years in Latin America and the Caribbean, and to 76.9 years in North America today. Efforts to promote quality control in blood services in the region have reduced the risk of diseases transmitted by blood transfusion by one-half. Water supply and waste disposal services have improved significantly in many countries, with coverage exceeding 90 percent in some of them. Progress is on track toward elimination of onchocerciasis, targeted for 2007. Regional information systems have been developed for epidemiological surveillance of food borne diseases and for food legislation and regulations that both protect and favor international trade. Progress toward the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease has been stepped up, and the original date for achieving eradication, 2013, has been advanced to 2007. There has been a 65 percent reduction in leprosy in the region since 1992. A health information system now enables front-line health workers to analyze health trends and health inequities between and within countries and, on the basis of that analysis, to target the most needy. Laws have been passed on a broad spectrum of health issues, including health of the elderly, mental health, adolescent health, safe motherhood, vaccination, blood banks, and health insurance. Intense work in emergency preparedness enabled countries to prepare for and mitigate the effects of many natural disasters, including Hurricane Mitch and the deadly floods in Venezuela. Eighteen countries of the region have established national plans to fortify food with micronutrients such as iron, iodine, and vitamin A. I would like to commend Sir George A.0. Alleyne of Barbados, for his eight years of exemplary service as the Director of the Pan American Health Organization. The reputation that PAHO now enjoys with the U.S. Congress and the Executive branch is a direct attribute to the steadfast efforts by Dr. Alleyne and the excellent work by the entire organization. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Mirta Roses Periago of Argentina on recently being elected to be the new Executive Director of PAHO. She will be the first woman and first Argentine to lead the world's oldest international health organization. As PAHO enters its second century of service, I hope we can continue the path of achievement. The region certainly faces numerous ongoing challenges, but together, across regional and national lines, we can join in this great effort to improve the lives of everyone living in the Americas.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of HR 4967, the ``Border Commuter Student Act of 2002.'' I am a proud co-sponsor of this bill which amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a new category of non-immigrant students from Mexico and Canada who commute for study at a school or college in the United States. Current law prohibits border residents of Mexico and Canada from coming into the U.S. to study on a part-time basis. Students are required to have an Fl student visa and be enrolled for full time study. This act makes their admission for part-time study permanent and creates a new F3 category designed to meet the needs of border commuter students seeking academic training. Further, HR 4967 would create an M3 visa classification for border students seeking vocational training. Institutions of higher education and vocational training along the border have provided invaluable educational opportunities for Mexican citizens for many years. This has served the political and economic interests of both countries. However, many citizens of Mexico and Canada who commute along the border are unable to take the time from work and family to attend as a full-time student. Rather, they attend on a part-time basis during the day or at night when the opportunity presents itself. This measure allows these students to continue commuting and improving the quality of their lives. Enhancing the educational level of Mexican citizens along the U.S./ Mexico border provides these students with the tools necessary to create and take advantage of expanding economic opportunities in Mexico. This advances their contributions to the Mexican economy and serves the strategic interests of both countries. I represent the 28th Congressional District of Texas, from San Antonio south to the border communities of Starr County, and I have heard directly from my constituents and elected officials of the many benefits of enactment of the Border Commuter Act will bring to this region. The border economies of both Texas and Mexico gain from the improvement of skills and education among border residents. The enhancement of partnerships among these two communities will enrich the quality of lives for all of the residents in South Texas and our entire country.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great humility to honor a friend and colleague, Texas Senator Frank Madla, as he marks 30 years of dedicated service to our community as a state legislator, I had the privilege to serve with him in the Texas House of Representatives and then work with him when he moved on to the Texas Senate. Even today, Senator Madla and I continue to work together to improve the lives of our mutual constituents. I remember when Frank Madla first won his seat in the Texas House. I had only recently graduated from his alma mater, St. Mary's University in San Antonio, and was at the beginning of my own career. His was in full swing, a career that includes not only politics, but also teaching and providing home health services. We are fortunate that Frank Madla has dedicated so much of his life and heart to us. Frank Madla has distinguished himself greatly these past 30 years as a leader in many areas. He has served on numerous committees, been honored by scores of organizations as ``legislator of the year,'' and has distinguished himself as a dedicated servant of his constituents. Senator Madla has been an outspoken advocate of improving access to quality health care services, working especially hard to make sure that children have access to the care they need. He is proud of his efforts to simplify Medicaid so that more people can enroll, create incentives to encourage more health care providers to move into underserved areas, and improve the care provided in Texas' nursing homes. Along with health care, Senator Madla has made improving education for Texas' children a top priority. With the determination for which he is known, Senator Madla successfully led the charge to bring a four- year university to the Southside of San Antonio. In the next few years, I look forward to the grand opening of the Texas A&M campus in San Antonio, making the dream of higher education available to his neighbors and constituents. Whether helping at-risk students stay in school or improving the incentives for retaining high quality teachers, Senator Madla has been there for us. Greatness can be measured in many ways. Frank Madla has demonstrated greatness in his steadfast dedication to the people he represents, placing the future of our children at the forefront of his agenda. I look forward to many more years of working together with Senator Madla as he tackles the challenges that confront our state.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, Congressman Gene Taylor from Mississippi, for introducing this important motion to instruct conferees on the issue of concurrent receipt. As I meet with constituents throughout my district--from San Antonio to the border cities of Starr County--the number one issue consistently raised is concurrent receipt. Whether at town hall meetings, school visits, church lectures, or in one on one meetings, military retirees and their families remind me about this injustice. Concurrent receipt is a century old law which forces military retirees to forfeit one dollar of retired pay for each dollar of disability compensation received from the Department of Veterans Affairs. That's retired pay they earned by years of service, and that's disability compensation they receive for injuries sustained in the service of our Nation. This system forces our sailors, soldiers, marines and airmen to subsidize their own disability. This is an outrage. I urge my colleagues to eliminate this disgraceful system completely, once and for all. Time is really of the essence. It is wrong of us to wait one more year. It is appalling to know that disabled veterans, who have sacrificed so much for this country, are not receiving the benefits and support they are entitled to upon retirement. I, like more than 400 members of this House, have added my support as a co-sponsor of legislation which would end this unfair practice. The time for lip service has ended. Now we must act. In recent months this country has called upon our military personal to serve our country, and they have responded quickly, forcefully and without hesitation. Just earlier today this House voted to authorize a full-scale war against Iraq. Many more of our brave sons and daughters will return with disabilities. I urge the defense authorization conferees to end this shameful practice now and provide for the total elimination of concurrent receipt restrictions. I urge the White House to stop threatening to veto the defense bill. We should not balance our defense budget on the backs of disabled retirees. Let's stand up to veto threats. Let's stand up for our heroes. Let's stand up for what we know is right.