Floor Statements

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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. 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. 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).

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. 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. 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.