Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to speak tonight not as the chairman of the Democratic Caucus but as a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and I want to join my colleagues in their opposition to the…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to speak tonight not as the chairman of the Democratic Caucus but as a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and I want to join my colleagues in their opposition to the nomination of Miguel Estrada for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is generally known as the second most important and powerful court in the land.
It is not lightly or easily that members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus come to the floor to oppose a nomination of an American of Hispanic descent to such a high position; but we do it out of a principled view, and those principled views are based in the fundamental belief that the reason that we advocate for Americans of Hispanic descent who are qualified, who are competent, who have the judicial temperament and the experience to be able to serve admirably for all Americans on the bench is because we want to bring to that institution and to other institutions the experience of what it is to be a Hispanic American in this country, to bring the challenges and the obstacles in this case in the judicial system.
I will never forget when I was actually trying cases of having judges who would yell at me about having my client look at them straight in the eye when they were talking to them and having to explain to that judge that in the culture of which my client came from that in fact it was a sign of defiance to look the judge straight in the eye but a sign of respect not to be doing so. I will never forget the trucker with a family of four who was trying to keep his job and who had been given a ticket for refusing to take a Breathalyzer test, but when we looked at the videotape of his particular case and saw that an officer who was not bilingual was telling him to breathe in instead of to blow out into that Breathalyzer machine gave him a ticket for refusal which would have meant a loss of his license. Luckily that case was won. But they are two simple examples of culture and language that affected the livelihoods and the futures of individuals who came before the court system.
And having someone from the community, as the White House has heralded this individual being, it was the White House in the first instance who said that Miguel Estrada, we are nominating him and he is a Hispanic American, he has a great Horatio Alger story, and in fact we are proud to be doing so. Once one puts that as one of the merits of the individuals, then it is truly legitimate to look at what experiences that individual has in the context of our community.
When Mr. Estrada came before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for nearly an hour, he demonstrated no sense of what it is to be Hispanic American in this country.
He never participated in any national organization, he never participated in any State organization, he never participated in any local organization in the Hispanic communities. He never used the ability that he had as a lawyer to do work pro bono work on behalf of any individual or cause or community organization. He never used the opportunity in his firm to bring someone in from the Hispanic community, to open the door of opportunity for others.
He did not know some of the landmark cases that are crucial to the Hispanic community, like Lau v. Nichols, which is the question of what services a limited-English-proficient student
should have, a landmark case. This was not to discuss how he would judge in the future, but simply to say, what do you think about that ruling? Did that ruling make sense? Do you agree with the ruling or disagree with the ruling? Did the court go too far? That was only one of many examples.
Now, either this candidate did not know, in which case it is rather appalling, because even those, Mr. Chairman, as you have suggested in some of our meetings, who may not be lawyers, know about these landmark cases because of how important it is to our community. Yet this individual did not.
Nor did he seek to answer other questions as it relates to other landmark cases that are well established as the law of the land. So either he did not know or he chose not to answer because he was hiding whatever his true positions are.
Now, this is a lifetime appointment. It is a lifetime appointment. And I believe when someone is going to get a lifetime appointment, we clearly have not only the right, but the obligation to know what this person's opinions are, what is their view on the role of the judiciary, what is their view on some of these landmark cases determined by the United States Supreme Court, so we can determine.
Also what is their temperament? To be very honest with you, Mr. Estrada, in the hour he spent with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, in which he was treated with great respect, did not exhibit the temperament that one would want of a Federal District Court judge, or, in this case, a Federal Appellate judge.
He also has no experience. He has never sat on the bench at any level, in a municipal court, a State court, a Federal court, at any level. So that is like going from the stockroom at AT&T to being the CEO of the company. That just does not happen in real life.
Having some experience, especially when you are coming as a member of a minority community, seeking to get onto these benches, and then doing a great job so others will be considered as well, is critically important to us.
So whether it is his lack of experience, whether it is his unwillingness to answer questions about what are landmark cases, whether it is his total, it seems to me, disdain for having anything to do with the Hispanic community, we asked him, what do you view, and I am not quite sure I want to paraphrase the question, because I am not sure exactly how the question was posed, but what does it mean to be Hispanic to you in the context of being a judge, and he said it was irrelevant. Irrelevant.
Well, the White House cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, this is a great Hispanic appointment, and yet the man tells us his being Hispanic is irrelevant to any experience he might bring to the bench.
When we asked him whether he would or has considered in the past qualified law clerks who may be from minority backgrounds, that answer was not in the affirmative.
So, for a wide range of issues, I do not know how one gives consent when one does not even have the information necessary by which one devises consent. And that is why the other body, as it is debating at this very moment, I think, debates on the fundamental crucial issue, which is the constitutional obligation of Members of the other body to give advice and consent; but to give advice and consent, you must have informed opportunities to make a decision.
The reality is, if a candidate is unwilling to give you substantive answers to critical questions or there is nothing to read about his writings because they will not give you his legal writings, or there is no history to look at, how does one make informed consent under the constitutional obligations required of the Members of the other body? They simply cannot.
This is the most stealth candidate that has ever come before the other body.
Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore
Mr. Speaker, this gentleman did not cast any reflections on the Senate. The question was, how does one make a decision under the Constitution. Is the Constitution not permissible to be talked about in this body in the context of what roles the Members of the United States Congress have in terms of the Constitution?
I am not characterizing Senate procedures in this case. I am raising the question of the obligation under the Constitution of Members of the other body. I thought one could not mention the word ``Senate.'' You just did, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in any event, the fact of the matter is, I hope I am not upsetting people, but the fact of the matter is that we have a set of circumstances under which we cannot be supportive of a candidate who absolutely does not want to be forthcoming; that is not providing for informed advice and consent.
I would simply say, Republicans cannot have it both ways. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has supported Republican, conservative judges nominated by this administration. A judge in Florida, a judge in my home State of New Jersey, got the unanimous support of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
This is nothing about partisanship. It has nothing to do with the question of ideology in terms of conservative or liberal. But those individuals received our support because they had the history and the background and the abilities with which we could in fact say, when they go to the bench, they are going to represent our community.
Lastly, I find it incredible to hear those voices who would suggest that those of us who represent Hispanic Americans in this country, over 10 or 12 million Hispanic Americans in this country, are being anti- Hispanic. That is just incredible.
Those voices who are saying they are anti-Hispanic, those are the ones that denied Judge Paez a hearing for 4 years. They are the ones who denied judges coming out of Texas even an opportunity to have their nomination be heard before the committee. Those are the voices that called us ``enemies of the state'' on this very floor during campaign finance reform debate. Those are the voices who say, we want to shut the door on you and we want to deny, as they just did on the welfare reform bill, that legal sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers of the United States citizens living in this country legally, that they cannot receive any of the benefits that they pay taxes for.
So you cannot have it both ways, my friends. You cannot, as Republicans, come to this floor and question us, when you have consistently, consistently, acted in ways and voted in ways that dramatically hurt our community.
That is the most outrageous set of circumstances, and I applaud the Members of the other body who are doing everything they can to uphold their constitutional obligations under the law.
Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore