Henry Bonilla

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Mr. Joe A. Guerra for his excellence in public service. Mr. Guerra currently serves as the dean of the Laredo City Council and is mayor pro-tempore. Mr. Guerra has been a member of the Laredo City Council for 18 years with his last, and final term ending in 2002. He has served under four distinct administrations, J. C. Martin, Aldo Tatangelo, Saul N. Ramirez, and Elizabeth G. Flores. A true representative of the people, Mr. Guerra was instrumental in the inception of Laredo's citywide paving program, and is a strong supporter for the disadvantaged and elderly. Jose Antonio Guerra was born on July 9, 1934 in Laredo, TX, to Jose M. and Josefina Valls Guerra. His lineage traces all the way back to the first Guerra who came to the New World from Montana de Castilla, Spain, Jose Guerra Canamar. He is the oldest of nine children, carrying on the legacy of the Guerra family raising and educating eight children, and enjoying the blessing of six grandchildren with his wife of 39 years, Josie Guerra. Joe attended local schools and graduated from Martin High School in 1953, following high school he received his Bachelor of Science degree from Saint Mary's University in San Antonio, TX, in 1957. Following his college experience, Mr. Guerra returned to Laredo to join his family in the automotive replacement part business. Since 1969, he has been involved in the commercial oil and gas business, and is the owner/operator of a local service station. Not only is he involved in the city council and the local business community, he is also a member of the City/County Government Consolidation Committee which was created to study and establish a metropolitan government, the City of Laredo Water Issues Committee, and the Ad Hoc Insurance Committee. A member of the Republican Party since 1964, Mr. Guerra attributes his success to the party's ideals and values. He served as Webb County Chairman to the campaign for Governor William P. Clements. He served on the committee working to promote George Bush for President in 1988, and 1992. He also worked diligently to ensure my election as Representative of the 23rd District of Texas. Currently he is working hard for the George W. Bush for President campaign efforts. Mr. Guerra was asked to lead the ``Pledge of Allegiance'' at the fourth session of the 2000 Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, which he proudly accepted with honor and dignity. Mr. Guerra has made great contributions to society as a public servant. His commitment and dedication to his community are evident in the dynamic growth and development the city of Laredo has recently experienced. I want to send sincere thanks and best wishes to him, his wife Josie and the entire family for exceptional service.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, Monday, July 31, 2000 is the 80th birthday of retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert F. McDermott. I offer congratulations and continued happiness to him and his loved ones. On this special day for ``McD,'' I wish to honor and salute him for his lifelong service to his fellow Americans. Born in Boston, Massachusetts, General McDermott attended Boston Latin School and Norwich University. He graduated from West Point with the Class of January 1943. After commissioning, he flew 61 combat missions in a P-38 over Europe. After World War II ended, he continued his military service in Europe, the Pentagon, and, after earning an MBA at Harvard, on the faculty at West Point. His assignment to the newly created Air Force Academy in 1954 signaled the beginning of his outstanding contributions to the U.S. Air Force. As Dean of the Faculty for the first ten graduating classes, he pioneered and championed a number of innovations that changed the face of service academy education. These included a modernized and enriched curriculum, academic majors, the first Department of Astronautics in the country, and cooperative Master's degree programs with prestigious universities such as UCLA and Purdue. He also developed a whole-person admissions program which brought the highest quality students to the Academy. These innovations were so successful that West Point and Annapolis broke with their traditions and instituted many of them. For these accomplishments, General McDermott is universally acknowledged as the ``Father of Modern Military Education.'' For many this would have been enough success for one lifetime, but not for McD. In 1969 he tackled the private sector, becoming the head of USAA, an insurance and financial services association that served military officers and their families. Under General McDermott USAA grew from a relatively small property and casualty insurer into a successful financial services supermarket. He added no-load mutual funds, credit cards, a discount brokerage, and a full-service bank. He also pioneered technology-based customer service, employing ``800'' phone services, computers, and IMAGE processing. Today USAA is a worldwide insurance and diversified financial services family of companies, where the majority of customers continue to be members of the U.S. military. General McDermott also made USAA a great place to work. No company was rated higher in the first publication of the ``Best Places to Work in America,'' and Fortune selected USAA as the best service provider in the insurance industry. McD has received virtually all the highest accolades offered to businessmen, including selection to the National Business Hall of Fame. After retiring as USAA Chairman Emeritus in 1993, his methods continue to be a model for insurance and financial services companies. At the same time McD has made enormous contributions to his community, including founding the San Antonio Economic Development Foundation, the Texas Research Park, and a mentor program that has reached thousands of children. General McDermott's energy, vision, intelligence, character, and belief in the Golden Rule has made everything he touches positive and successful. Once again, Happy Birthday McD. Congratulations on a great 80 years and best wishes for many more.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, America is the land of opportunity. More Americans have owned homes than any people in the history of man. However, the American dream is not a reality for far too many of our countrymen. For all too many Americans the dream of homeownership is just that, a dream, not a reality. Federal government actions have raised the cost of building materials leaving homes beyond the financial reach of many of our countrymen. The Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) between our nation and Canada continues to deny Americans the benefits of homeownership. It violates the spirit of NAFTA by creating barriers to commerce instead of ripping them down. It denies American consumers the competition that leads to increased choice and lower prices. The American people have waited far too long for a free trade agreement in softwood lumber. An IMF economist has estimated that the SLA increases new home costs as much as $1300 per home, denying over 300,000 Americans the ability to purchase a home according to Census Bureau projections. However, there is hope. We can have free trade in softwood lumber soon. The SLA is scheduled to expire on April 1, 2001 and we have the opportunity to share the benefits of free trade with home buyers. 113 Members of Congress have joined me as cosponsors of H. Con. Res. 252, calling for free softwood lumber trade between the U.S. and Canada. The support for free trade is evident, but in order to make it a reality we need to negotiate a long term free trade agreement with Canada. Let's begin negotiations now to replace the SLA with a free trade agreement in softwood lumber and make housing affordable for more Americans. The American Dream should be a reality for all Americans.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I am so grateful for the strong bipartisan support that we have had for this provision in this bill for some time now. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) should be thanked for recognizing the tremendous need out there for wool and mohair producers. For anyone to try to draw a parallel between difficulties faced with small businesses in this country, like pizzerias and bakeries, for goodness sakes, is ridiculous. Foreign nations do not subsidize their own pizzerias, their hardware stores, and their auto parts stores. We are talking about foreign nations that unfairly subsidize their areas in agriculture. This is an area where wool and mohair producers have been subsidized to a great unfair advantage. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) pointed out, that gives competitors a tremendous advantage over a lot of our producers in this country who are suffering tremendously. Falling commodity prices over the years and other factors, drought and so forth, have affected agriculture across the board in this country. This bill that makes up the whole of this aid covers peanut farmers and tobacco farmers. There are more AMTA payments in this bill. Why for goodness sake are we singling out one small portion of this bill in agriculture that has suffered equally as other areas in agriculture have other the last few years? I cannot figure out why this amendment is singling out one small group of all of American agriculture to try to pick on them and leave them out in the cold. If my colleague could only see the hardships that many of them have faced throughout the last several years, I think he would change his mind. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to the DeFazio amendment. This is amazing, this debate, and what kind of rhetoric is being tossed around this Chamber. The Wildlife Services program is violating Federal law in the air? FAA regulations? Give us a break. These accusations that the program is inhumane. The accusations that it is not focused and that innocent wildlife are somehow caught in the cross-fire. The accusation that because there are more coyotes today, and there are, that it is a direct result of this program? Those who are going to stand up and propose this amendment ought to at least stick to the facts. I have a fact here and a photo to prove how if we do not participate in this program, this inhumane activity will occur. These are several sheep in Oregon that were destroyed earlier on in a brutal way, as my colleagues can see from the photo, by wild coyotes who were roaming this area. This is the kind of inhumaneness that we are trying to stop. It is not only inhumane, it is of great cost to producers and farmers and ranchers around the country. All of those who are standing up with this false rhetoric right now should perhaps consider, as they look at this photograph, about rewriting the nursery rhyme ``Mary Had a Little Lamb'' and we failed to protect it. That is what should rest on the consciences of those who would eliminate this very important program that promotes humaneness, is cost effective, and very important to farmers and ranchers around this country.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and commend my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for offering this. On the Subcommittee on Appropriations, as well, we have had great difficulty in dealing with the specific item that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) has mentioned. This office is, quite frankly, a loose cannon. It is not standing up for the rights of farmers. The USDA is supposed to look after the interests of American agriculture; and in this particular case, with this particular office, it is not. The issue of the total daily maximum load that would impose onerous regulations on American agriculture is out there, and this office is supposed to be looking after the interests of agriculture and rejecting these costly, onerous regulations that are pending out there for American farmers. Also, this office has been audited by the Inspector General, who discovered that $21 million in this budget that is overseen by this office was not used appropriately. These are dollars that could go to American farmers and ranchers who are interested in conservation programs. And instead, throughout the years, it has spent money, misappropriated money, misspent money on crazy ideas like wall murals and civil lawsuits and are working on an agenda that is out there that no one even knows for sure what they are doing. This is the United States Department of Agriculture. Again, it is supposed to be looking after the interests of our farmers and ranchers. Money contributed directly to the Sierra Club. It does not matter what interest group is out there advocating or fighting for whatever the cause that they are interested in, this office should not be giving this money away when farmers and ranchers are in desperate need of it, and for field trips for some of these groups for goodness sake. That is not what the American taxpayers should be spending. I questioned the head of this office, as well as the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) did in the authorizing committee yesterday, questioned him extensively on why is all of this going on. What is this, a rogue operation out there, a mission that no one is authorizing or interested in pushing? And somehow someone has given this office the authority to work on these interests that, again, have nothing to do with the well-being of American agriculture. So I commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for offering this amendment, will strongly support it. We have to put a stop and rein this loose cannon in.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I am a person who can recall back when I started high school in the late 1960s that, not only did we have a problem with facilities, we had no facilities with which to attend high school classes, and they had to split the class size up. Freshmen and sophomores went in the morning, and juniors and seniors went in the afternoon. I would venture to say that because of the disarray with the local school board back then, that even if we had a program in place like this, they would have squandered that money; and they would have never seen the light of day and created one single classroom. The myth exists in this country that some people, and with good intention, stand up and try to say, if we give Washington the power, they can solve all problems locally for us, education, health care, school construction, child care, all of these things, if only Washington will create one more program. But I venture to say this, the solutions for these problems do lie back in the neighborhoods, and they will not be easy problems to solve. But they must be done at the grassroots level, or the true solutions will never be found. Solutions like this will only, at best, provide a Band-Aid for very temporary relief for a very serious problem. Point of Order

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. BONILLA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) for bringing this good program to the attention of the subcommittee, and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), gives his assurance that he will work to increase the line item for this particular program, the Stars Schools Program in conference.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. BONILLA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, first, for a moment, a word about the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), a member of this body who has the unmatched sense of caring, fairness and wisdom that will, when he is gone, be very difficult shoes to fill. He set an example here that I think has been respected for many years; and I think it is difficult for those who are trying to be critical of what this bill is representing this time to be critical of the gentleman from Illinois and his subcommittee. Because we all know, everybody in this body understands, on both the Democrat and Republican side, that he is truly a man who comes to work every day with a sense of caring for the people of this country and tries to do the right thing day in and day out without any political factors included. I say to the gentleman that he is a person who all of us respect tremendously in this body; and he will be sorely missed, and we will work hard to pass this last and final bill that he has put out of the subcommittee of which I have been a part of for my eighth year now and have learned so much under the gentleman's leadership; and I look forward to carrying on its legacies at some time in the future as a continuing member of this subcommittee. It is very difficult, I am sure, for a lot of the critics to step up here and say this is a bad bill and act like Chicken Little as though the sky is falling for supporting such a bill, because this is the People's bill. We have more money in this bill for such programs as education programs like TRIO, increasing that program by $115 million, $35 million more than the President requested; community health centers increased by $81 million, which is even $31 million more than the President requested; health professions up by $69 million, $113 million more than the President requested; biomedical research dollars, also a tremendous increase to 6 percent, we are trying to get it even higher, but on track. We are doubling the biomedical research funds for over a period of 5 years. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. This is a bill that provides a lot of services for a lot of people out there. Anyone who stands up and tries to oppose this bill should understand they are opposing people programs, education, biomedical research, all of these good programs that make a true difference in the community. We will also hear more today about a provision in this bill that saves the private sector from an onerous OSHA regulation involving ergonomics. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4577, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act. It seems that year after year, this bill attracts more and more rhetoric about how it will devastate American families, American workers, the elderly. . . . you name it. The truth is this bill is the People's bill and it will help the American people. This bill provides vital funding for important labor, health and education programs while maintaining the fiscal responsibility that the American people demand of us. We have made some tough decisions and have funded high priorities. The other side claims that we have cut health care, cut education, cut job training. Since when is a $4 billion increase a cut? Let me set the record straight. The bill increases funding for the community health centers program by $81 million, $31 million more than the President requested. This means that more uninsured Americans will have access to high quality health care in their communities. The bill increases funding for the health professions programs by $69 million, $113 million more than the President requested. These programs provide vital training for health care professionals, many of whom go on to provide care to patients in medically underserved areas. The President's budget zeroed out funding for primary care physicians, dentists and gerontologists--denying opportunities to those students and denying health care to patients. The bill increases funding for the TRIO programs by $115 million, $35 million more than the President requested. The TRIO program works to help low-income complete high school and go on to college. These are just a few examples of the priorities placed in this bill. As the American people watch this debate, I trust that they will listen to the sincerity of our efforts to try to help Americans in every neighborhood, in every city, in every state. I urge my colleagues to stop the rhetoric and pass this bill.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a defining moment and offers the opportunity for all of us in this body to actually show the American people whose side we are on. There are many of us who came to this body to fight for what we believe is the driving engine of America's economy, the small business out there, providing 80 to 85 percent of all jobs in America; people who work hard, people who are fighting for raises, for better benefits, for higher-paying jobs in their community, expanding the opportunity for jobs for people across the country. I believe that is what we should be doing here every day we come to work, because America has risen to great heights historically because of private sector growth. On the other side, we have OSHA bureaucrats and power-hungry union leaders who are trying desperately to implement an ergonomics rule that would put a noose around the neck of many employers in this country. This is an issue quite frankly that many Members have been struggling with for many years. I would ask rhetorically for Members of both sides of the aisle, when is the last time they had a town meeting and they had people stand up and say, my goodness, Congressman, we really need that OSHA ergonomics rule to be implemented as quickly as possible? I happen to represent an area that is very independent-minded, not necessarily a Republican or Democrat district, and I have not had one piece of mail, not one phone call, not one question at a town meeting where someone said, please, we need this regulation at our workplace. This is strictly driven by bureaucracy, bureaucrats at OSHA, and driven by power-hungry union leaders who are desperate to get a greater grip on the private sector of this country. On the side we are fighting for, we do have the small business community. We have small manufacturers, we have farmers, we have ranchers, we have hospitals, we have all of the folks out there who are working hard every day to make a living. It is mind-boggling to me that anyone could find even any gray on this issue at all. There is no science, there is no medical research that has conclusively shown that this regulation is necessary. In spite of what a lot of people up here who love big government like to say, believe it or not, the private sector is doing a lot to improve the work environment when it comes to dealing with repetitive stress injuries in the workplace. Grocery store chains, insurance companies, computer manufacturers, all of those that are creating this tremendous economic growth have dealt with this issue in the workplace privately, and it is working. Let us all review the statistics that OSHA has even been presenting over the last few years: Workplace injuries are down consistently over the last decade. There is a lot being done out there to improve the work environment for workers. Again, this is something that is going to have a high price tag, as well. Those who are trying to rush this rule into place have not acknowledged, for example, that for each particular industry, for whatever it may be, the cost of implementing it could run into the billions of dollars. In some industries the cost will be upwards of $20 billion. The Post Office is even against this. So if Members cannot find that they can identify with small business in America, if they cannot identify with the farmers and ranchers and the doctors and the hospitals, maybe they can identify with the Post Office, because they are against it, as well. Or maybe they can identify it with the former OSHA director, who is also against this regulation. I asked a question recently in a hearing about this issue to the director of OSHA, the head of OSHA, of how, because of the vagueness of the way the rule is written, how would an employer even know they are in compliance, because there is tremendous vagueness in the rule? That is the problem with one-size-fits-all rules. They are written for dance studios, bakeries, restaurants, and farms and ranches. We cannot possibly apply a single rule like that, where everyone can fit in a particular category and say, yes, we are in compliance. The director of OSHA said, do not worry, we will let the employers know when they are in compliance, which means that this will give the Federal bureaucracy at OSHA a tremendous latitude in determining when employers are in compliance. This has the ability, Mr. Chairman, all across the board in America, again, whether it is an auto parts store, a customs broker office, a doctors office, a restaurant, a small manufacturing company, the cost of mailing a letter, all of this is going to increase, could increase greatly in cost for consumers out there if this rule is implemented the way it has been written. I would just strongly encourage all of my colleagues to look at whose side they are on on this issue. There is no gray. They are either on the side of the salt of the Earth economic engine that drives this country, the small business sector, or they are on the side of the power hungry union leaders who are trying to implement this.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see we have fixed the Section 110 problem by removing the cumbersome requirements made under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. This is a very important issue to me, my constituents and all Americans living on our nation's borders. I have always made it a priority to see that no unnecessary burdens are placed on border residents. The implementation of Section 110, as proposed in 1996 would have crippled and severely restricted cross border trade, tourism and the environment. It should be highlighted that H.R. 4489 does not create any new documentary requirements. We have amended section 110 to create an integrated entry and exit database system. We have allowed our advanced technology to direct our policy. The new system, once implemented, will match an alien's arrival data with their departure data. It will also produce a report of an alien's country of nationality and identify any non-immigrant who may have overstayed their visas. The bill also creates a task force to study and recommend methods to continuously improve and update the INS' database system as technology advances. This will ensure we are always current with the most efficient and effective ways to safe and lawful border crossing. The people living on our borders will benefit from this legislation, as it will facilitate expedient, safe and lawful cross border trade and tourism.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 396.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support of the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act. This bill ensures that free over-the-air radio will remain free and uninterrupted. All too often, I hear from folks in my district concerned about the power grab of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Unfortunately, this is just the latest example. The FCC is moving forward with a low-power FM plan they have not thought through. The FCC believes that this decision will allow the ``little guy'' to become a radio broadcaster. In reality, this decision will cause massive interference problems for FM listeners. The FCC's low power FM plan was approved without proper consideration of technical and other concerns raised by this new service. Radio is on the verge of converting to digital. Has the FCC really thought about the effect of low-power FM on the digital conversion process? No. Wouldn't it make more sense to rollout digital radio--which is even a larger project than the digital television rollout--and then focus on how to accommodate low-power FM? Yes. Has the FCC really thought about how the millions of Americans who rely on low quality radios as their main source of news, weather, and sports? No. Less expensive and older radios, used disproportionately by minorities and older Americans, are more susceptible to interference from low-power stations. Low-power FM will disenfranchise the very people that the FCC claims it seeks to empower, undeserved communities (including the blind and Spanish language groups). Did the FCC consider low power stations' interference with out public broadcasters? No. In yesterday's Washington Post, Mr. Kevin Klose, president of National Public Radio, made clear public radio's opposition to the FCC's ``rush to add low-power radio stations to the crowded FM dial.'' This year, we are spending more than 60 million taxpayer dollars on public radio. And the FCC is ready to throw that money down the drain. The FCC's low power proposal is a true disservice to current broadcasters' outstanding community service. Local radio and television stations provided $8.1 billion in public service just last year. That is more money than the total annual giving of the top 100 U.S. foundations. Full power radio stations across this country provide life-saving information on natural disasters, preventing drinking and driving, curbing drug and alcohol abuse, crime and violence prevention, just to name a few areas. The FCC proposal presumes that local radio stations no longer provide local service. That assumption is completely false. The FCC should be reined in and local broadcasters should be allowed to continue their good work.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize Sara Martinez Tucker for her outstanding leadership. Sara is the president and CEO of the Hispanic Scholarship Fund [HSF], the nation's leading Hispanic scholarship granting organization. In 1999, Sara secured a $50 million grant from the Lily Foundation, which was the largest direct donation for Hispanic higher education ever. Under Sara's leadership, HSF has instituted community college transfer and high school senior scholarship programs. Sara is a native of Laredo, Texas. She graduated from my alma mater, the University of Texas in Austin, with a bachelor's degree in journalism. She returned to get her master's of business administration graduating with high honors. She is currently a member of UT's Chancellor's Council, the College of Natural Sciences Foundation Advisory Council, and the College of Communication Foundation Advisory Council. Sara is also the chair of the Golden Gate University Board of Trustees. At a national level, she sits on the board for the steering committee of the Council for Aid to Education and the Coca-Cola Scholars Foundation's National Selection Committee. For the third consecutive year, Mrs. Tucker was honored as one of Hispanic Business Magazine's 100 Most Influential Hispanics. In 1998, she received HISPANIC Magazine's Heritage Achievement Award for Education. Before HSF, Mrs. Tucker was a key executive with AT&T. In 1990, she became the first Hispanic female to reach AT&T's executive level. Sara served as the national vice president for AT&T's Global Business Communications Systems in her last assignment with AT&T. I would like to congratulate Sara on these significant achievements, and I would also like to thank her for the great contribution she has made to increase educational opportunity.