Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the news for the Telecom industry is still not good. While there are certainly signs of recovery, there is also significant weakness in the industry.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, April 28, that capital spending by the six major telecom operators was down an average of 19 percent in the first quarter, compared to the same quarter last year. This is 19 percent lower than already low capital spending.

One reason for the lack of spending is regulatory uncertainty. The Federal Communications Commission ruled in February that some of its regulations on broadband should be eliminated. The only problem is that the FCC still has not issued its rules, so companies cannot make their capital spending plans.

Cuts in capital spending mean fewer jobs for those workers who make telecommunications equipment, and those who install it. It means less broadband availability for under-served areas. It means less competition in broadband services. The FCC needs to work to reverse these trends, and should start by issuing the order it agreed on more than 3 months ago.

Mr. Speaker, I had some prepared remarks, but in response to my colleague's remarks about these 53 individuals not being at the Alamo, I would say this. They are exhibiting the same type of courage and bravery that the defenders of the Alamo exhibited on that eventful day. They are standing up for principle. They are saying our voices will be heard.

We are duly elected representatives of equal status with every member of the majority party in that Texas Legislature, and what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has attempted to do is export a corrupt and unfair system that in which we engage in this House floor to the Texas floor, and we have 53 brave and courageous Democrats that are saying, no, we will not allow the gentleman to export that kind of divisive political game into our House of Representatives.

So I applaud and I commend these individuals, and it is time that someone would say something. After all, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has indicated that Democrats are irrelevant. Each one of us in this Chamber represents the same number of people. Since when is anyone irrelevant in the Texas House of Representatives or the United States Congress?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I know we have gone over some matters that have transpired in the State of Texas that should shock the conscience of any American citizen.

What are we talking about, because I know we have alluded to it, and maybe it may have been read into the Record earlier, but I would like to revisit it and use the very quotes from Mr. Craddick and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) as they appear in the Fort Worth Star- Telegram. This is from the newspaper article.

``At the Capitol in Washington, United States House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said that the speaker of the Texas House in Austin, Tom Craddick, had asked for the FBI or U.S. marshals to intervene. `The Speaker asked the FBI and/or U.S. marshals to go up and get these Members,' DeLay told the reporters.

``But Craddick, who a day earlier had suggested the possibility of Federal involvement, said Tuesday that he made no calls to any Federal agencies, saying that it was an issue for the Department of Public Safety in Texas. He said, `I'm not into that.'

``However, a spokesman for the United States Attorney's Office,'' in my hometown of San Antonio, ``had no official comment, but a source confirmed that an unidentified person had called to inquire about federalizing the arrest warrant.

``The point seems moot now,'' a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice said, ``because it definitely is not for the Federal authorities. However, one Federal agency that became involved early on was the Air and Marine Interdiction and Coordination Center based in Riverside, California, which now falls under the auspices of the Homeland Security Department.

``The agency received a call to locate a specific Piper turboprop aircraft. It was determined the plane belonged to former House speaker Pete Laney, Democrat from Hale Center, Texas.

``The location of Laney's plane proved to be a key piece of information because, Craddick said, it's how he determined that the Democrats were in Oklahoma. `We called someone, and they said they were going to track it. I have no idea how they tracked it down,' Craddick said. `However, that is how we found them.'''

So we know there were Federal funds, Federal personnel used, definitely for an improper purpose if not for an illegal act.

We will get to the bottom of this. But what has spurred all this on? When they could not get the Federal authorities to go and arrest these individual members, our great Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, contacted the attorney general in New Mexico, because they thought that is where they were going.

New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid responded today to a request from Governor Rick Perry's office to allow Texas officials to make arrests in her State. ``My office is researching the issue. It appears the short answer is no. Texas, as all other States, must first issue a valid arrest warrant upon which New Mexico officials may act and make an arrest, and then extradition procedures will apply to remove the person arrested to Texas.''

That can never happen, because we do not have a criminal act. No warrant is going to be issued, we know that, but, nevertheless, the Governor of Texas had the audacity to make that kind of request.

Now, how did the attorney general handle it in New Mexico? She ended it with this quote: ``Nevertheless, I have put out an all-points bulletin for law enforcement to be on the look out for politicians in favor of health care for the needy and against tax cuts for the wealthy.''

Because that is really what it comes down to. At the beginning of this process, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and other members of the Republican leadership were telling Texans that their plan would create new minority districts. This was not about partisan politics and more Republicans and getting rid of Democrats, it was about doing the lofty and admirable thing of adding minority districts.

Well, the map is out there, 1 of 10, but all 10 do not create minority districts.

Last week the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) finally admitted, ``Hey, look, I am a Republican. The purpose of all this is to get more Republicans.''

So now the mask is off, and that is where we are today. We have an abuse of the legislative process for partisan gain. It is the worst thing that could ever happen. It is practiced day in and day out in the Capitol of the United States, and they are attempting to export it to the State of Texas, and we have 53 brave and courageous State legislators saying, no, thank you, and do not mess with Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I come before you today to pay tribute to Staff Sergeant Eric Alva, a resident of my district in San Antonio. I stand here with both a great sense of pride for S.Sgt. Alva's bravery and with a heavy heart for the sacrifice he ultimately made for our country. Mr. Speaker, S.Sgt. Alva was recently injured by a landmine explosion while on duty in Iraq. As a result, S.Sgt. Alva lost his lower right leg. There is no doubt that S.Sgt. Alva has experienced a tremendous loss, but through his service he has gained respect and gratitude from myself and his fellow Americans.

The ancient historian Herodotus once said ``Great deeds are usually wrought at great risks''. S.Sgt. Alva accepted this great risk when he chose to wear the uniform of the United States Marines. He accepted this risk fearlessly, with pride and conviction. Although his pledge to serve and to defend this nation is a great deed alone, the loss he has suffered in service merits particular distinction. It is because of the selfless actions of men and women like S.Sgt. Alva that American freedom and democracy endures.

Although this war has brought sorrow and suffering to some in our nation's armed forces and to their loved ones, their sacrifice serves as a symbol of the American spirit. Honoring those who are injured and killed in battle who stand up bravely to fulfil their duty is a fitting testimony to the values this country was founded upon.

In recognition of S.Sgt. Alva and those like him who are serving their country during this time of war, I implore the world, that in their honor, we achieve the one goal we are all fighting for: Peace.

Mr. Speaker, last week the San Fernando Cathedral celebrated the completion of its renovation. Today I am introducing a resolution honoring the San Fernando Cathedral--the oldest cathedral in the United States and the oldest standing structure in my district of San Antonio, Texas. I and my fellow colleague from San Antonio, Ciro Rodriguez, want to pay tribute to this exquisite building, and the great history and culture that it embodies.

San Fernando Cathedral is both literally and figuratively the geographic centerpoint of San Antonio. This cathedral is not only revered by the people of San Antonio, but by all the people of this Nation, who remember the strength and sacrifice of those who built this country. As I mentioned before, just last week, the renovation of this magnificent building was completed. I stand here today to mark this achievement.

The San Fernando Cathedral is a grand structure, rich in its history and meaning. Like

many of America's greatest institutions, it was built by the worn hands of the very poor. Fifteen Spanish families, sent by the King of Spain to establish a mission in Texas, laid the cornerstone of the church in 1731. They called it ``La Villa de San Fernando.'' Like most of us, they were immigrants, looking towards a new future, looking to build a new home. What they ultimately built was a nation. A nation of many people, of many backgrounds.

They united under the cathedral's roof. As a symbol of their unity, the congregation joined Old World and New World saints--Our Lady of Candlemas and Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe--as patrons in addition to the town's official patron, King Fernando III of Spain. San Fernando Cathedral is a place where all people still come together each week, by the thousands, to meet and pray. Like the generations before them, they also come to the cathedral to seek refuge from a world too often ravaged by hunger and violence, as soldiers did during the Battle of the Alamo.

I honor the San Fernando Cathedral today because I believe that, like the immigrants that built it, this building has an honored place in our history and most certainly has an honored place in our future.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 522. I believe this bill makes important changes to the deposit insurance system to improve its effectiveness and increases incentives for people to save.

I wish to particularly speak in support of the provision in this bill that will require the FDIC to report annually on efforts by insured institutions to increase their deposit base by encouraging unbanked households to enter the conventional finance system and to avail themselves of bank accounts and other conventional services offered by depository institutions.

Unbanked families as defined by this provision are those individuals who rarely, if ever, held a checking account or savings account or other type of conventional account in an insured depository institution. Joining me attaching this provision in committee was the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. Chairman, too many families lack access to basic fundamental services. It is currently estimated that nearly 10 million American families are unbanked. Unfortunately, for unbanked families there are no real financial alternatives but payday lenders or check cashers, which is often the worst form of financing for a struggling American family.

The Hispanic community particularly struggles with high rates of unbanked families. One recent survey found that 35 percent of Hispanic families did not have a bank account, with that number rising to 42 percent for those Hispanics who are foreign born. With limited access to formal saving tools, it is no surprise that the financial net worth of the median Hispanic family in the United States today is estimated to be zero.

Fortunately, great strides have been made by major financial institutions to increase their presence in the Hispanic community through the use of such things as money remittance technology and the matricula card. It is my hope and expectation that all major depository institutions will look at unbanked minority families as a business opportunity and aggressively attempt to include them in the conventional finance system.

A relationship to a mainstream financial institution has long-term positive economic and financial effects on families and the communities where they reside, fostering their greater integration into the United States economy. The best defense against predatory financing is education and a bank account. The unbanked provision in H.R. 522 is intended to highlight those efforts which are most effective in expanding the banking system to every American family. I urge the passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a co-sponsor of H.R. 758, I want to express my strong support for this legislation, the Business Checking Freedom Act of 2003, legislation designed to help small businesses obtain a better return on their checking account deposits and to permit banks to receive interest on the reserves they must maintain at Federal Reserve Banks. The House has passed similar legislation in the past few years and it should take the same action regarding this bill.

In addition to expressing my support for the bill as a whole, I also want to express specific support for section 7, entitled Rule of Construction, which will help maintain the legal status quo of the treatment of real estate escrow accounts maintained for the purpose of settling real estate transactions. These accounts, which often last only a matter of days, are usually established by title companies and their agents to collect and disburse funds after the closing of a real estate transaction. This Rule of Construction provision, similar to language in H.R. 1009 passed by the House in April 2002, ensures that neither this legislation nor other laws will affect the current regulatory treatment of certain services and benefits provided by banks in lieu of interest on escrow accounts maintained by title insurance companies and title agents in connection with real estate closing transactions. The inclusion of section 7 in H.R. 758 preserves beneficial financial practices for escrow accounts at the same time that we are eliminating an outdated prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts.

As a co-sponsor of this legislation, I wholeheartedly endorse and support its passage.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor again to appear before the House on this most important and weighty topic.

The nomination of Mr. Estrada means a great deal to all Americans, but especially to the minority communities. The President should be commended and applauded for seeking diversity in all departments, agencies and branches of government. To the extent that he actually accomplishes that is the true question that lies before us in the Miguel Estrada nomination.

I want to start off with, I guess, my understanding of how Federal judges gain their positions, which in many ways are the most powerful positions held by any public official. To start with, it is a lifetime appointment. There is no election, there is no review. That individual, once appointed, will remain there for an indefinite period of time.

Constitutionally, the President of the United States does have the authority, the duty and the responsibility to nominate individuals to the Federal bench, all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. Constitutionally, though, that nomination, not the appointment, but the nomination itself, because there is never an appointment actually until the Senate acts, and that other body under the Constitution of the United States has the power to advise and consent, without which the nomination would not proceed to the appointment and finalization.

The scheme of things and the brilliance of our Founding Fathers as reflected in this document is all part of a checks and balances scheme. That is, we have three equal branches of government. We have the legislative branch, obviously, the executive branch and the judicial branch.

Many will argue which is the most powerful of all those branches. My own opinion is that it is the judicial branch. The reason I say that is, in the final analysis, they actually interpret the laws that we pass in this Chamber. They actually interpret the laws that we pass in this Congress, and they apply the law.

So the very will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives could be frustrated by a judicial branch that did not give life and meaning and substance to what we do in the legislative branch. The executive branch proposes, obviously, and leads in great measure, and then we obviously will legislate. But none of it will ever bear fruit without the judicial branch.

It is one of the most important duties that the legislative branch has as part of the checks and balances system to review these nominees. My colleague from California, I think, put it very well, it is a job interview. It a little more sophisticated. There is pomp and circumstance, it is ceremonial in nature, but that particular hearing really is a job interview. The advise and consent function is a job interview, no more and no less. Important, yes.

There is an individual who, for whatever reason, seeks this nomination and appointment. It seems only fair that those qualifications of that individual will be subject to scrutiny. So we will have a formal hearing in the other Chamber.

It is so important that anyone appearing in this process that will subject himself or herself to that process be forthcoming. You ask, well, what is relevant, what would be relevant that one would ask someone who aspires to put on those black robes and interpret and apply the laws of the United States, statutory and constitutional?

You can have a good faith disagreement as to what might be appropriate or not, but we have not had that debate. No one has really said that the questions posed to Miguel Estrada are inappropriate. No one has said that these questions should not be answered. They have not been answered, but no one has said these are not relevant to judging this individual's qualifications to hold this particular

judgeship, which truly is the second most powerful court in the United States of America, second only to the Supreme Court of the United States. We have never gotten to that.

The duty and responsibility of advise and consent has to be done knowledgeably and informed, and that is where we are today. We are at an impasse, because we have certain individuals that are saying we do not have the necessary information in order to fulfill our constitutional duties, and that is what this argument is all about.

I will go into detail, into the questions that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus were able to pose to Mr. Estrada, and I believe we probably got more information than anybody else that has ever interviewed Mr. Estrada for this particular position.

But this job interview, if you are interviewing somebody, the first thing you are going to ask is what do you know about this job that you seek? Is that so unusual? In this case you would say, what is your judicial philosophy. What is your understanding of the workings of the court? What is your understanding of this third branch of government? Is there something so foreign, so inappropriate, so irrelevant, so immaterial to that question? Of course not.

But you would be surprised that we have not really had anything definitive in response to the question of that nature, which I think goes to the very heart of how one views himself or herself in a particular role. But in the bigger picture as a member of a co-equal branch of government, how you view the job, how you view it, but also a historical perspective.

Are we holding a minority to a higher standard or a different standard than anyone else? No. The President of the United States has indicated, and in this particular appointment has made it very clear, that this is important to the Hispanic community and important to the entire United States because it represents diversity. That wonderful word, diversity. But, standing alone, it has no meaning.

Diversity means that an individual brings a particular viewpoint or experience which enriches that particular job, that particular environment, those particular duties and responsibilities. Otherwise, what is diversity all about? We seek diversity because someone brings a different viewpoint or life experience to round out and make more full and complete that environment; in this case, the judicial branch.

This is not to say that a minority nominee had to have suffered through extreme poverty and hardship; has to be completely fluent in a foreign language, Spanish. No, not at all. It does not mean they have to be a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative.

What it does mean, though, is that they have an appreciation for the Hispanic or Latino experience in the United States of America and the direct roles that the courts have taken in shaping that experience for the good and for the bad.

Where are we today? History is prologue, and we have to have an appreciation for what the legal system has meant to minorities in this country. No matter how well intentioned a chief executive may have been, no matter how well intentioned a legislature may have been, it has been the courts, in the final analysis, that have really provided the equal rights, the civil rights, the opportunities to minorities in this country of ours. It looms large, larger than it ever has, because we finally are saying that all branches of government should reflect the diversity of this great country. That is all we are asking here.

So it is interesting that when the Congressional Hispanic Caucus interviewed Mr. Estrada that we did ask these questions. We did ask him how he viewed his role as a judge by the fact that he is a Hispanic and was touted as a Hispanic nominee by President Bush. The response was that it would be irrelevant.

To a certain extent, I understand that response. It does not necessarily define one, it should not limit one; but, by the same token, it should not render one irrelevant. What one brings to the table is an appreciation for the roles of the courts in the minority communities. One did not have to experience it oneself. One did not have to be a plaintiff, but surely one understands the landmark cases on which our communities rely day in and day out to make sure that the children in our homes are extended equal opportunity in the schools and for health care, jobs, on and on. That did not happen.

If someone comes in and we are interviewing him for a job, we would think there was a tremendous interest and desire for that job; that somehow they ended up before us because they were seeking it. When we asked Mr. Estrada about his aspirations and desires, career aspirations, he said he did not seek this position; that they sought him, that the administration sought him out.

Standing alone, that is fine, but it is cumulative in nature. Why did the administration go out on such a search when we have many qualified Hispanics out there who would do anything for this type of nomination, highly qualified people, experienced, with judicial experience?

Mr. Estrada does not have any judicial experience; but on that alone I would stand here and tell Members that I do not think it is an asset, but I do not think it should be determinative of whether he would become a Federal judge or not. We have many judges that have had no judicial experience who, seeking appointment, are appointed and confirmed, and have made wonderful jurists.

But it is cumulative, because there is no record there. When an individual is not forthcoming in responding to questions that are posed that are relevant and material, and there is no record, no judicial decisions and so on, what do we have?

We do have memoranda that were prepared by this particular nominee, but they are not going to be released for review by Members of the other Chamber. There is not enough information at this point for them to truly, responsibly, and on an informed basis fulfill their duty of advise and consent.

But the specific questions we did ask Mr. Estrada, I think, are very telling. There should be some understanding of that great body of law that has impacted minorities more so than anyone else. That was not present. There has to be an appreciation for the legal difficulties that minorities still face in this country, because that is a fact. It is a sad fact, but one that we address day in and day out in our courtrooms. That was not present.

Based on that interview of over an hour, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus unanimously wrote to the committee in the other Chamber saying that we would oppose Mr. Estrada's nomination to the circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. We feel more strongly today than we did then. That was back in June and July of last year. There has been no new information that addresses any of the concerns of the caucus; and we do represent the minority communities, Latino minority communities, in this country. The caucus is comprised of 20 of the 24 Latino Members of this House.

Why should we know an individual's philosophy and understanding as it relates to the third branch of government, the judicial branch? It is not complicated. All judges take an oath that they will uphold the Constitution of the United States and such. All judges will say they will be fair and impartial. All judges say they will strictly interpret the Constitution and the statutes, and follow the common law to the extent that it has been codified one way or the other. That is nothing new. They all say that.

But the truth of the matter is that judges are human beings. They are the sum total of their life experiences and their education. When they discuss that judicial philosophy, we learn a great deal. We are not asking them how they will rule on a case, because that would be truly improper.

Felix Frankfurter said this: ``Law touches every concern of man. Nothing that is human is alien to it.'' Judges have tremendous power. They have tremendous discretion. They have powers of logic and rationale, deductive reasoning, and interpretation and application of the law. If it was a simple matter of opening the law book or reading the case and reaching a conclusion, then we would have machines simply judging all cases; but there is discretion, and there are varying degrees of interpretation and application.

The President of the United States today enjoys that office as a result of a

five to four Supreme Court decision. If the law was so simple and the facts were so clear, how could we have five to four decisions? Because there is discretion, because there are different philosophies and views.

What we are hoping is that a judge will keep an open mind on an issue. That is what we seek in this particular nomination. Remember, and I will say it again, as Justice Frankfurter once said, ``Law touches every concern of man. Nothing that is human is alien to it.'' The judge is human, and what he does touches every activity of our lives.

The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a lightning rod. It will hear cases that will resonate and affect individuals throughout the United States, more so than any other circuit court, if Members understand the scheme of the circuit courts, because jurisdictionally, venue will lie with them when it comes to major decisions regarding governmental policy, the execution and implementation by the regulatory agencies, the departments of our government. This is a most important nomination and appointment process, and we must not fail to fulfill our duties. That is what this debate is all about. Some have cast it in some terrible terms.

When I was first elected and I was there with some of my fellow freshmen in the back, we all in our previous lives had been lawyers. I had been a State district judge, and we had a former district attorney and another prosecutor. We were talking about what a great honor it is to serve in the legislative branch, but we were wondering which of the three branches of government was the most powerful.

I was outnumbered. My dear colleague, the gentleman from Oregon, and my dear colleague, the gentleman from Kansas, pointed simply to the fact that this House appropriates. We hold those strings to that money bag; and if we wanted to, we could simply starve another branch of government, if we wanted to.

That is not exactly true, by the way. When it comes to the courts, there is something referred to as the ``inherent power of the courts.'' It is understood that, by mandate and fiat, a court can order what it takes for it to survive. I am not sure on the Federal level, because we ran into this on the State level, whenever we had commissioners or legislators on the State level and county level that would not fund the courts properly for many reasons. The inherent power of the court is that it will not depend financially on another branch of government for its existence. So I was telling them, take that argument away.

Let us go to the next one. I earlier touched on that. It does not matter what the President may propose in his agenda, it does not matter what we adopt in the House or in the Senate, if it is well intended and it reflects the will of the people, because we were properly elected; but it will be an appointed individual who will breathe life into our legislation, that will interpret it and will apply it, who will decide whether what we have done in this Chamber is constitutional or unconstitutional.

They will pass judgment on the legitimacy of our actions in this body. As a matter of fact, they will also determine whether someone will sit in this body. They will determine how our districts are configured. They will determine who is eligible to vote. They will even determine who has won an election.

I still like to think that I won that debate; but if we ask my colleagues, I believe they still believe that the strongest and most powerful branch of government remains the legislative. I do not share that. We could be stopped in our tracks today by a ruling from a Federal court. We could be stopped in our tracks today by a ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States.

That is as it should be. This Nation is really about the rule of law and not of man. We have heard that often. What do we mean by that? Let us harken back to December of 2000, when the Supreme Court ruled, based on Florida statute and the Constitution of the United States of America, that the winner in essence would be George Bush and that he would ascend to the Presidency.

If that does not demonstrate what power the courts have in this country, I have no idea what would be a better example.

But that is the issue before us today. That is why our Founding Fathers, in the scheme of our constitutional system, said we cannot let one branch really dictate how the other is going to be composed. Should we have the executive branch independently determine what a third branch of government will look like, the judicial branch? The answer was no. We will bring in the legislative branch, one of the chambers, to advise and consent. Checks and balances. It has served us well. It has served us well when the nominees are forthcoming in answering questions that are relevant and material to their performance. That is the argument today. That is how we are framing this debate, unlike many others out there.

I want to end this as far as describing what is going on and what is really at stake. This is not an attack, this is not a criticism, of an individual's integrity or character; that is not the issue. It is a given that anyone nominated by the President of the United States to a Federal bench is a man or woman of integrity and character. It is a given that anyone nominated to the Federal bench by the President of the United States has had a good education, got out of law school, passed the bar, and distinguished himself or herself in private practice or in Federal service or State or county service.

Those are givens. Let us expect that. The people expect that. We have the best and the brightest available, so let us take them.

But where we start drawing that line, just because you are bright, you graduated from law school, passed the bar and such, and you were successful in your profession does not mean that you will make a good judge. I guarantee Members, talk to any practitioner out there. There is judicial temperament, there is understanding of the role, there is relevancy, there is history, all combined.

And that is where we find ourselves today with this particular debate and it is a legitimate one. And we should be taking the high road rather than casting aspersions as certain individuals have. Let us not politicize this. Let us all meet the challenge of our responsibilities and duties under the Constitution. That is what we should be doing.

There should not be one nominee for any bench, whether it is a municipal court, a county court, a district court or any State court, or on the Federal level, that does not understand what I am about to read. There is a wonderful book ``The Fixer'' by Bernard Malamud. It takes place in Russia. And we have an individual who was of the Jewish faith, who is basically a handy plan. He is a fixer. He fixes all these things. He ventures out of his small town to strike out on a new adventure to improve his life, and he is wrongly accused of a crime, and he is imprisoned with no hope, no hope that he is going to get any fair treatment.

The state actually investigates you and the chances that the state is going to be impartial and fair are barely nil, but there is this investigator person who takes a great interest in the life of this man and wants to exonerate him because he is truly innocent, and this man does not understand why someone would take such an interest in his life. And this is what this government official investigator, prosecutor, whatever you want to call him. This is what he tells that prisoner behind those bars:

``There is so much to be done that demands the full capacities of our hearts and souls, but truly where shall we begin? Perhaps I will begin with you. Keep in mind that if your life is without value so is mine. If the law does not protect you, it will not, in the end, protect me. Therefore, I dare not fail you. And that is what causes me anxiety, that I must not fail you.''

This is what this nomination is all about. Individuals that will be nominated to courts, such as the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, need to understand the essence of this quote, the essence of this lesson here, and that is that the world is much bigger than all of us, but still part of us, and that our individual experience is brought to bear every day and that we should have some sort of understanding of the leadership of our role when we put those black robes on, the experience of individuals that come before us, especially minorities. For if

you protect and understand the rights of the minority, the majority will always be well served.

Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to H.R. 254. So it is my understanding that my colleague from Ohio would then be controlling the entire 20 minutes in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague from Illinois for this opportunity.

Of course, I rise in strong support for passage of H.R. 254. I have great admiration for my colleague from Ohio who stands in opposition to 254 today, but we do have a fundamental difference of opinion. This piece of legislation was not intended in any way to revisit, reopen, recast, or rescind the North American Free Trade Agreement, the treaty itself; rather, it is to improve an institution that was created to assist in any problems that would be encountered as a result of the treaty itself. And that is where we stand today.

This is a bill to authorize the President to agree to certain amendments to the binational agreement establishing the North American Development Bank. H.R. 254 was passed by the House Committee on Financial Services on February 13 by voice vote. Last October, H.R. 5400, a bill exactly like 254, passed the House by unanimous consent. So I will remind my colleagues, Members of this House, that we are revisiting a piece of legislation that was passed by unanimous consent in the 107th Congress. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to take up H.R. 5400, necessitating its resubmission in this Congress.

This bill is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 11 Members of Congress, almost all representing districts along the United States/ Mexican border. I do wish to express my sincere thanks to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley),

chairman of the Committee on Financial Services; chairman of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter); the ranking member, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders); and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity; as well as to the former ranking member of the full committee, Mr. LaFalce, who retired last session, for their cooperation and hard work in making today a reality and, hopefully, finally, in passing this bill once more and allowing the Senate the opportunity to pass it.

Mr. Speaker, NADBank was created pursuant to NAFTA. It is an investment in water, wastewater, and other public infrastructure along the United States/Mexican border. The bank is headquartered in my district, the 20th Congressional District of Texas, and provides conventional loan financing, below market-rate financing, and grants for communities located near the United States/Mexican border to help fund their water, wastewater, and other infrastructure needs. Additionally, NADBank manages an institutional development program that provides training to local officials on both sides of the border on how to effectively manage public utilities.

Since I arrived in Congress, I have heard so many Members use the phrase ``not letting perfect be the enemy of the good.'' I never thought I would resort to that, but today I will because that is what is happening here. NADBank is the only development bank specifically dedicated to the infrastructure needs of the United States/Mexican border. It meets a specific public financing need that has long been neglected by both Washington and Mexico City. Whether or not one is a supporter of the NAFTA treaty it is hard to argue with the purpose of NADBank, which is to provide critical financing and training for infrastructure improvements in disadvantaged United States and Mexican border communities.

Mr. Speaker, in a minute I will be yielding to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), whose district borders Mexico. I will agree with my colleague from Ohio that NADBank has not fulfilled its true mission due to certain restrictions that Congress has neglected, or by not having the authority to really have any say with Treasury. Treasury has been in charge. This is the answer. This is the fix. This is the fine-tuning we have been seeking for so long. Never has this been meant to be an instrument to reopen the debate on NAFTA. This is an essential piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Many of the shortcomings that both my dear friends from Ohio and California have pointed out are actually remedied by this bill. The answer is before us. Is it a complete answer? We never have a complete answer in any one piece of legislation; but this is definitely a start, and it is a meaningful one. My colleague from California poses the question, Where is the input? The input is in H.R. 254 because we as Members of the House of Representatives will finally have a voice. It will not simply be Treasury in the executive branch determining the parameters and the programs and the activities of NADBank. We will finally have something to say about it, so that my colleague from Ohio and my colleague from California will have a voice. That is what this piece of legislation is all about.

If someone sees this as an opportunity to relegislate NAFTA, I cannot do anything about that; but that is not what it does. It does not attempt to do that in any shape or form. But this is the answer that those that speak today in opposition are seeking. We all are in agreement. If this bill does not pass, it is only the House of Representatives that remains irrelevant to NAFTA and to the NADBank. That will be the end result.

I ask again, please consider this piece of legislation carefully, understand its merits, and you will vote for it. I ask each and every one of my colleagues to join us, all of us along the border, all of us from the border States that are so heavily impacted, to do something about the consequences of NAFTA but in a positive and constructive manner.

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 18 and 19 on February 5th, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, let me explain by way of background that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is comprised of 20 Members of this body. There are 24 Latinos in this August body, 20 of whom are Members of this particular caucus.

Early on we realized we had a special duty and responsibility not just to our communities but to all Americans to make sure that we had the most qualified people in the judiciary, especially those that were being advanced on the basis of ethnicity, and especially because they were Latinos because they were supposed to bring something to the table that was very unique based on that particular ethnicity, in this case, being Hispanic.

So what we did is we started what we referred to as the Hispanic Judiciary Initiative, and I am going to read from a basic document which provided us the guidance as we proceeded with evaluating and interviewing the nominees that would come before our caucus in order for us to make a recommendation.

Statement of Purpose on the Recruitment and Support of Judicial Nominees.

Political leadership, particularly in the Federal Government, benefits from a diversity of thought and action. In an effort to promote this ethnicity, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus promotes and encourages Hispanic representation at all levels and every branch of government.

In order to ensure that the judicial branch more accurately reflects the communities that it serves, the caucus will actively work to identify and recommend qualified Hispanic candidates to fill Federal court vacancies. As with all positions, the caucus strives to find judicial candidates who are qualified, experienced, have demonstrated a commitment to the Hispanic community and will enhance diversity on our courts by contributing underrepresented perspectives, what we all seek when we strive to achieve diversity.

The evaluation criteria. The purpose of the criteria established for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Hispanic Judiciary Initiative is to measure the diversity that a nominee can bring to the bench, and I emphasize that because I think it goes to the very crux of the argument and the problem that we have with the Miguel Estrada nomination.

In addition to evaluating the honesty, integrity, character, temperament, and intellect of nominees, the Hispanic Caucus will place an emphasis on concerns specific to the Latino community, equal justice and advancement opportunities for Latinos working in the judiciary. Because of the nature of our mission and the central role that the courts play towards the success of that mission, the Hispanic Caucus requires that a nominee have a demonstrated commitment to protecting the rights of ordinary residents of the United States through professional work, pro bono work and volunteer activities, and to preserving and expanding the activities that we have made on civil rights and individual liberties, including rights protected through core provisions in the Constitution, such as the equal protection clause, due process clause, first amendment, fourth amendment and the right to privacy, as well as through the statutory provisions that protect Latinos' legal rights in such fundamental areas as education, voting, affirmative action, employment, and contracting.

Then we proceeded, and we had a formal meeting with Mr. Estrada in June of last year. It lasted over an hour. The members of the caucus were there. Mr. Estrada did demonstrate that he is a keenly intelligent and talented lawyer. There is no doubt about that, and we will not argue that point; but that is not what is in controversy.

Having been licensed in 1972 as a lawyer in the State of Texas and having practiced for 10 years, and after more than 14 years on the bench and a couple more years in private practice, I can tell Members that the most gifted, talented lawyers should never sit behind the bench and pretend to be impartial and unbiased judges of law and fact.

There is a way that we can gather that information, and that is what we attempted to do in our hour-long session with Mr. Estrada. My colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), has pointed out where we believe Mr. Estrada fell short; and I will get more specific later in the evening. However, I do not want to detract from what is the major argument here.

It is not whether someone went to an Ivy League law school, which is a great accomplishment which we do recognize. It is not that they wrote for the journal or bar review. They could have been president of the class, went on to have a highly successful professional career in a highly respected law firm. That is fine.

The Hispanic Caucus looks at those things as givens. We expect integrity and honesty and hard work and accomplishment from each and every nominee that is presented by the President of the United States, whether that President is a Republican or Democrat. Those are the givens, and the American people should expect that those are the givens.

What is so extraordinary about an individual who will put those black robes on and will sit there in judgment of his or her fellow man is what really is the issue and what is so important as we proceed with the nomination and confirmation process at the Federal level.

The first thing we have to recognize is the incredible power of the third coequal branch of the government, the judicial branch, which in my humble opinion is the most powerful branch of government. If one thinks of judges and what they do day in and day out, at the State level they will determine who raises your child. They can even determine whether you have any rights to your child. They will determine whether you have any property at the end of the day. They can deny you your freedom, and even sign your death warrant. On the Federal level the same thing. They will determine at the end of the day whether you own anything, the sanctity of a contract. They can deny you your freedom, and they can sign your death warrant.

The third branch of government can even determine in the final analysis who will sit in this Chamber or the other Chamber, or who will occupy the White House, as we all know from just a couple of years ago.

Members know exactly what I refer to, and it is our Constitution which we must all love, obey and follow. That is what is at stake here. That is what my colleagues and I are trying to impress on those that will listen.

This is not just about a Hispanic nominee; this is about a judicial officer who will have tremendous power and will sit in the second most powerful court of the United States of America for a lifetime. Based on our interview and the particulars that I am willing to go into, there is no doubt that Miguel Estrada fell short.

Would I hire him as my lawyer to represent me in some sort of transactional litigation? I probably would if I could afford him. But would I trust him to put those black robes on, listen to our argument and then render a fair and impartial decision? I think not, and I will tell Members why.

It is about life's experiences, and let no one make a mistake about when a judge sits up there, it is the totality of that judge's experiences and life experiences that form those opinions that go into the judgment-making process. It is not in a vacuum. It is based upon experience and history.

All we ask of Latino nominees presented by the President of the United States is that those nominees, they do not have to be Democrats, they do not have to be Republicans, liberals or conservatives, we do not care what schools they went to, we want them to have an appreciation for the historical role that the courts have played in the lives of minorities in this country. In the final analysis when the legislative branch lets you down and the executive branch's programs and agenda let you down, when you are a minority, many times it is your first, but definitely your last, resort in seeking justice. It comes from those men and women that put those black robes on every morning in the courthouses of the United States. That is what is at stake for us.

It is not a conservative or liberal ideology. We just want them to bring into the decisionmaking process the importance that the most powerful branch of government plays today in the lives of minorities. I need not remind Members of the landmark cases that have come from the courts that have provided us freedom and opportunity when it was not forthcoming from the legislative or the executive branch.

As we all know, whatever laws we pass here, whatever the President proposes, whatever we adopt, they are going to be interpreted and applied by the third branch of government, the judicial branch.

And so when we take these nominees into consideration, we had better debate their merits. We had better engage in true evaluation and assessment. That is our duty and our responsibility, not just to our individual districts, not just to men and women of color, but to all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank my colleague again for yielding this time. I am going to be very brief, because this is going to be the last you will hear from me tonight regarding the nomination of Miguel Estrada.

I hope everyone understands that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has interviewed at least three different Latino nominees submitted by the White House. Judges Martinez and Inares were shown to be sterling examples of what a nominee should be to any of the Federal benches. Were they Republicans? I am sure they were. But it did not matter because they demonstrated that sensitivity and that understanding of what the role of a judge is and should be when it comes to all Americans, but in particular to minorities.

The civil rights groups that represent the Latino interests in this country oppose Miguel Estrada, and they do it for their own reasons, many of which are shared by the Hispanic Caucus. You have heard about Mario Obledo, a true trailblazer in the civil rights movement for Latinos.

We also wish to impress on everyone that this is not a question of whether a Latino nominee can speak Spanish, is truly bilingual or not, whether they were raised in East L.A., West San Antonio or in the barrio. That is not the issue. That is not what we are seeking. It is more important than just having the Hispanic surname. It is more important than simply being bilingual. It is about the heart and the soul of the Latino and the experience and the understanding of that experience.

Mr. Estrada was not as forthcoming regarding many of the questions that had been posed to him in this process. When he did answer, I have indicated that he failed the criteria established, which is basic in nature.

People will say this is all about politics. Well, probably everything is always about politics; is it not? I will be the first one to admit when the Republican administration is in office, they will appoint only Republicans, and when Democrats are in office, they only appoint Democrats. We know that is the nature of the game. So it is not a question of party affiliation.

But we do know something, that those individuals, regardless of party identification, ethnicity, race and gender, have incredible discretion, so we need to know something about them, that they will be fair and impartial judges. And the way we do that is through this process. People get to ask questions, and the nominees, if they are forthright, will fully comply and answer the questions so we can gather some insight about their ability to exercise that discretion in a responsible and fair and impartial manner.

You say, well, the law, black letter law, we passed the law, it is right there, we should know what it means. That is not true. If that was true, every decision of the Supreme Court of the United States would be 9 to 0.

It is not. The President of the United States today occupies that position on a 5-to-4 ruling from the court, so the Constitution and the laws of the United States are open to interpretation. And we do need to know that individuals will go in there and make those determinations fairly and impartially.

I will end it with this: Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter put it this way, and he was being brutally honest, and any judge and any lawyer knows that this is the reality: The words of the Constitution are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual justice free, if indeed they do not compel him to gather meaning, not from the reading of the Constitution, but from the reading of life. Members of the court are frequently admonished by their associates not to read their economic and social views into the neutral language of the Constitution. But the process of constitutional interpretation compels the translation of policy into judgment, and we know that for a fact, and we are here today recognizing that.

There is a litmus test, and I believe this should be the litmus test for Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, anyone that is going to ever occupy the bench. A dear friend of mine, Dan Pozza, was running for President of the State bar of Texas and they asked him why he became a lawyer, and we should ask, why do you want to be a judge? And this should be the answer, and if an individual cannot answer in this fashion, they should not occupy that bench and make those rulings.

This is what my dear friend said: ``I came of age, as the saying goes, in the 1960s. The 1960s started off as an era decidedly not marked by diversity and pluralism. Women and people of color in particular were excluded from the important positions in our society. What that meant was that a large segment of society had little or no control over their own lives and their destinies. Much of what was accomplished in the 1960s and over subsequent decades can be attributed to the desire by those marginalized people to be heard. During this period, I came to recognize that law is power and that power, the law, had often been used to restrain the rightful interests of many of our citizens. I also recognize that we as a society would need law to liberate our citizens and provide them with the opportunity to succeed or fail in life on their own terms, rather than on the terms dictated to them by the powerful and the elite.''

If Dan Pozza felt compelled to become a lawyer on that basis, that should be our test, and especially to those that will occupy and rule on cases day in and day out and interpret the Supreme Court of our land and the Constitution of the United States. Miguel Estrada did that meet that criteria when we interviewed him in June, and he does not meet it today in February 2003.