Henry Bonilla

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, there is no Member in this body who represents a larger portion of the Mexican border than I do. I have almost 800 miles of the Texas-Mexico border in my congressional district. I oppose this motion, not because I am against enforcing our borders. In fact, we do have a war zone in some portions of my district with drugs and illegal aliens swarming across the river. But today's vote is not about having our military support the Border Patrol; they already do that. This is about having the military replace the Border Patrol along the Mexican border. As I said, we do have a war zone, but this is a situation that could magnify in the future. Instead of having police officers doing their job where they should be, we could have tanks and troops stationed at every street corner of America when there is a crime problem, in Detroit, Philadelphia, Miami or New York, and we do not want that. I oppose peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and any other corner of the world, and I also oppose peacekeeping along the Mexican border. We do not need troops down there, we need to get together and support sending 10,000 new Border Patrol agents along the border to enforce our laws. That is how we can deal with this problem. That is where the administration has dropped the ball in the last couple of years, because of political reasons sending more Border Patrol agents to other States that are more politically advantageous to him than the States of Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. I ask my colleagues to support me in sending more Border Patrol agents and not deploying peacekeeping troops to the Mexican border.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment presented by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. We have the highest standard of living in the world and have had for generations now not only because we have wonderful people in this country working hard every day but because of our military and because of the strength of our Defense Department. To propose a cut in spending on our military at this time would be a huge mistake. This money does not just provide the necessary weapons we need to maintain our freedom and liberty around the world but it provides money for training, very important training that must go on regardless of whether we are in peacetime or war. It also provides for the maintenance necessary to keep our planes running and keep the tanks running, keep the trucks going, keep all of those things ready in the event we do have a problem. All of this affects readiness. The reason that we are at peace right now is because the strength of the military through these processes keeps us at a level where no one wants to mess with us and threaten our quality of life. Quality of life is what I started out talking about a moment ago. In this country regardless of our income bracket, whether we are at the top or bottom, the biggest concern we generally have these days is whether or not we are going to be able to watch the video of our choice this weekend or what clothes we are going to be wearing this Saturday night or whether or not we are going to be able to get a cell phone to use in our car. All of those things are a great, great accomplishment and a great testament to our quality of life in this country because our military allows us to maintain that standard of living. We are also talking about health care for our military troops and for retirees. There are situations in this country right now where retirees cannot get in to see a doctor when necessary because of the funding cuts over the years. This bill tries to address all of these needs. It is a crime in this country when a military retiree has to wait 5 weeks to see a doctor. We are talking about people who saved the world in situations like World War II and saved the country. How can we not provide them the funds necessary to see a doctor? This also includes money for pay raises, very important. We have still too many people serving in the military that are on food stamps, and it is a sad commentary on having that occur in this country in this day and age when our quality of life is so high in the civilian sector. The other thing that this affects greatly for those who support peacekeeping missions, and I do not, it threatens the ability for our military to serve in peacekeeping missions around the country and for situations like Haiti. Haiti has turned out to be a fiasco. Whether we had a peacekeeping mission there or not, the government is about to fall apart, and we have wasted probably $3 billion in Haiti. Mr. Chairman, those who support peacekeeping on the other side ought to be able to stand up and say, ``Well, we can't be gutting the military at this time because we need to pay for these peacekeeping missions as well.'' So all of these things make a big difference. To stand up here and say that the military ought to be the first place we ought to look to make cuts are very misguided. Let us enjoy our peacetime. Let us continue to enjoy it providing the military the funds that they need to do the job right not only for this generation, but for generations to come.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo]. I was the one who originally proposed the amendment in the subcommittee markup. Mr. Chairman, my understanding of this issue, it is a clear distinction of what we stand for philosophically as conservatives in this body versus those who believe that big government needs to micromanage local government. This is a case where we have a Hispanic mayor and Hispanic leadership in a community that are asking for Washington to let them determine their own future, and with the understanding as well that there is an abundance of low-income housing. Mr. Chairman, I am a Member who is proud to have been recognized by farm worker organizations throughout my work in Congress. I have a large migrant farm worker population in my district that I work very closely with. Neither I nor the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], would do anything that would harm this population, because they are hard-working Americans aspiring to live the dreams that all of us have had in this body. So I would suggest that we should allow the local officials, the mayor and the council, and the others who feel that they should have the latitude to control their destiny, to let them do this. I hope that there is not an implication here that the Hispanic leadership of this local community somehow is not capable of determining their own future, and perhaps because they are people of an ethnic group or people of color that perhaps they are not capable of making decisions that are in the best interest of their community. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues in this body to allow these people to determine their future for the best interest of the farm workers and the best interest of this population.

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is my point; I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts reiterating it.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the Obey amendment. As working families in every corner of the country go to the grocery store today, they will find about 10,000 items to choose from. In many cases, the overwhelming majority of the cases, they will find good prices for good food products that people can buy in this country. People take that for granted, not understanding how important our agriculture industry is to this country. To amend this bill and to hurt farmers eventually will hurt consumers as they try to buy food in the grocery store. I know in this day and age we have become a victim to a great degree of our materialistic success and as we go to buy food in stores many Americans think somehow it just comes from the back storeroom or from a truck that came down the road, but that all started out on a farm in some State in this country. To do this to our farmers is a sad commentary on what we are arguing about here today. The WIC Program is something that we all support. We on our subcommittee in a bipartisan way have supported increased funds for the WIC Program because it is important. But to demagog this issue in the way that it is being demagoged this morning is a real tragedy. I hope Members will look in their hearts and look for the truth in what we are debating about here today and support the position that we have taken on the subcommittee to fully fund crop insurance and fully fund the WIC Program.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, everyone in this Chamber should understand that this has absolutely nothing to do with the base closing process. In Texas, we are willing to take our medicine. We felt that our depot should stay open at Kelly Air Force Base, but we were chosen to be closed and we must now face the music and deal with reality. But what is wrong, and I appeal to the people in this body who have any sense of fiscal conservatism, or any sense of competition and supporting private sector involvement in government contracts, what is wrong with having us set up shop at the former base, to invite private contractors to come in and bid for business? What is wrong with that? And if the depots that are surviving this process do indeed come forward with a lower bid, then they win. What is more American than having competition out there to bid for business in this country? That is what we are talking about. I can appreciate the parochial interest of the States that have the remaining depots. They want it all. And they want the law to say they will get it all without any competition. But I say to any Member in this body who believes in fiscal conservatism, fiscal responsibility, free enterprise or competition, they must see our plan on this and support what we are trying to do. If Members stand with those who want to save money for the Air Force, with those who believe in free enterprise, with those who believe in competition, with those who stand with the United States Air Force at trying to control costs, they will support, as I will, the Everett amendment. I thank the gentleman from Alabama for offering this amendment, and we certainly hope it succeeds.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 220, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ambassador Dick Carlson, the former president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting [CPB]. Ambassador Carlson's strong leadership and commitment guided the CPB during its most turbulent years. Ambassador Carlson brought his broad experience as a journalist and former news anchor in Los Angeles and as a public servant under the Reagan and Bush administrations to the CPB. He served in the Reagan and Bush administrations as director of the Voice of America and was appointed as Ambassador to the Seychelle Islands by President Bush. The unique combination of diplomatic skills, knowledge of journalism, and broadcasting, and wideranging contacts proved to be a powerful attribute for successfully leading CPB for the last 5 years. Ambassador Carlson leaves a legacy of commonsense reform at CPB at a time when Congress is moving to balance the budget. Under his leadership CPB moved in the direction of becoming a system of greater efficiency. He helped bring improved ideological balance to the CPB. CPB should continue in the direction Ambassador Carlson has set out. Following in Ambassador Carlson's footsteps to bring modernization to the CPB as we encounter the 21st century will protect the future of public broadcasting. We salute him and thank him for a job well-done.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Boehlert amendment and for H.R. 478, the Pombo bill. Let me say first of all that I am as committed as any other American in this country to preserving clean air and water and to preserving wildlife across this Nation. But this debate is not about preserving wildlife and saving species in this country. What we do is we stand here today, 25 years after the Endangered Species Act was enacted, trying to figure out how we got to this position in the first place. The authors of that law never intended for us to have this battle today. What we are standing here talking about is groups that are way out there on the fringe who have figured out a way to use this law to now impose power, their personal agenda over communities across this country. Do we think for one second that they care about these beetles or these bugs or these snails or these creatures all across the country that in many cases are just used in court documents and have never even been seen by the groups that are pushing to try to save these species? That is not what this is about. This is about power. If I could engage the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] in a colloquy for just a second, let me just show another instance of how we have gotten out of control. Is it true that there is a fly that is classified as a maggot in California that is on the endangered species list and then caused a delay of construction of a hospital that a community needed?

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, there was a quote that said, it is a ``fly you can love.'' The point I am making here is that the folks that oppose the gentleman's bill and oppose what we are trying to do here are the same folks that are quoted as saying this maggot is a fly we could love and do not care how it affects the community at hand. That is the point I am trying to make.

Mr. BONILLA. The groups that are in favor of spending this money and delaying a hospital that a community needed were quoted in an article in the Washington Post as saying that this maggot is actually a national treasure and was worth spending this money on. Is the gentleman aware of that?

Mr. BONILLA. It cost millions of dollars, if I am correct.

Mr. BONILLA. Now, what we have had is, we have had people lose their lives in California. When is it going to stop? What we are talking about here is human life. We are talking about human rights. In many cases, these folks who are thinking maybe somewhere in the cosmos up there that perhaps these bugs and beetles and snails are more important. I frankly do not understand how someone can think like that. What we are talking about here today is we are either standing with us for human rights and human life or we are standing with the bugs and the slugs and the scrubs. Get real.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I want to give my colleagues a brief course today on a new word called ergonomics. It is confusing because it sounds a little bit like ebonics or economics. Why are we hearing more about it lately? Because OSHA is starting to promulgate and write a rule that will hurt every American small business. Since ergonomics a tough word to remember, I will spell it out. The E in ergonomics stands for expensive. It will cost small business an arm and a leg to comply. The R is for redtape and the regulatory nightmare it would create. The G is for grab more power by the big labor unions, and that is their goal. The O is for OSHA, attempting to control every nook and cranny in the workplace. The N is for no, because no definitive science exists to support such a standard. The O, once again, is for OSHA for overzealous. The M is for the medical experts who do not know what causes ergonomic injuries yet. The I is for if, because if you think this is a bad rule or the EPA-proposed standards were bad, wait until you see this. The C is for common sense and the lack of it in proposing this idea, and the S is for science and the need for a well-respected National Academy of Science report before we promulgate this rule.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, the legislation to decertify Mexico, reflects the failed practice of legislating foreign policy. My friends, history has clearly demonstrated that doesn't work. This Congress has no authority over foreign nations and our efforts to legislate another country's actions will either be ignored or fan the flames of anti- Americanism. The fact is that the normal diplomatic process provides the tried and true means to voice our concerns. Traditional actions such as withdrawing our Ambassador, limiting or stopping cooperation, opposing loan requests and a variety of other measures that impact the day-to- day relations between nations are by far the most effective means of forcing other nations to consider our concerns. What we really should be voting on today is scraping the entire failed certification process. Policies, like decertification, which are waived once they are implemented only serve to increase contempt, while lessening respect, for American power. Decertification has not stopped the flow a single dollar's worth of drugs from Colombia and decertification of Mexico will prove no more effective. I represent well over 600 miles of our border with Mexico. I know first hand that our current domestic policies are not working. Too many of my constituents are living in fear of the drug smugglers. This must stop. Our Government needs to take substantive action to get more cooperation from Mexico. Further statements, such as decertification, promise only to deliver further failures in the war on drugs while possibly threatening the stability of the Mexican economy leading to increasing illegal immigration. My colleagues, please join me in rolling up your sleeves and do the hard work of stopping the flow of drugs rather than continuing the business-as-usual decertification approach of empty promises.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of American Heart Month. Heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases remain the No. 1 killer in the United States. On an average day in Texas in 1995, 150 Texans died due to cardiovascular diseases and stroke. Heart disease affected my family this year, and, it affected many other families too. Every year since 1963, February has been designated American Heart Month. This month is the time to learn more about cardiovascular disease detection, prevention, and treatment. The American Heart Association has designated this year's educational message as ``Get in on the Action!,'' urging Americans to make physical activity a part of their daily lives. There are a few simple things we can all do to reduce the risk of heart disease. Exercising regularly is an important step. We all enjoy some form of exercise. So, whether it's horseback riding, jogging, walking, or bike riding, help keep your heart healthy and ``just do it!'' Other easy approaches to control heart disease include eating a diet low in fat and high in fiber, and controlling stress. One of the myths surrounding heart attack and stroke is that it is a ``male disease.'' Wrong. Heart attack and stroke do not discriminate. In fact, heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases remain the No. 1 killer of American females. Research and education are key to battling and preventing heart disease. Today, the chances of saving a life and reducing disability from heart disease and stroke are better than ever because of research done in our lifetime. Important discoveries such as life-extending drugs, bypass surgery, and pacemakers, have improved the lives of many heart patients. But the fight against heart disease is far from over. Hopefully, with more heart disease research and better education, fewer Americans will fall victim to the disease this year. As with any other health problem, please consult a physician immediately if you, or someone you know, shows any sign of a heart problem. For now, as we observe American Heart Awareness Month this February, get in on the action and increase your physical activity!

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ortiz]. I think Frank would appreciate right now that we are smiling because of the memories we had with him on this House floor. He was very serious and diligent in his work, but he was also a very funny guy. I recall so many times here where perhaps a debate was being held on an issue that did not affect our area, perhaps a Federal facility was being debated in Montana or another area of the country, and the gentleman and I and Frank would sometimes sit by that door on the side of the House Chamber and just spend some amusing moments that we will all remember him for. I know he will appreciate that we are reflecting on that as well today.

Mr. BONILLA. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas, Solomon Ortiz, a cosponsor of this legislation. Just to reflect on some of the great moments he and I spent with Frank on this House floor and oftentimes walking between here and our office buildings across the street, it is hard to believe he is not with us. (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 499 to designate this new postal facility under construction in the 28th congressional district as the Frank M. Tejeda Post Office Building. I am honored to sponsor this legislation, along with my dear friend and Frank's long time dear friend, the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Solomon Ortiz. Although it is a small gesture to recognize Frank's lifetime of commitment to our country and to his constituents, this post office will serve as a reminder of his legacy for generations to come. This post office will combine the present Terrell Wells, Harlandale and south San Antonio stations. The new facility will service the largest square mile area, the largest geographic area in San Antonio. The Frank Tejeda Post Office will deliver mail to more than 40,000 city customers. It will house 118 postal employees. Coincidentally, it is going to be built on Barlite Street, which is a street that I grew up about half a mile away from, and used to ride my bicycle up and down that street all the time. I bring that up because Frank and I are from the same part of town. He went to Harlandale High School, and I went to South San Antonio High School, which Barlite runs right alongside. We often talked about coming from that part of town and wondered how we had become so blessed as to serve in this great body at the same time. He and I were elected at the same time. This post office will be only the second one in the city to be named in honor of an individual, the first one being the J. Frank Dobie station in honor of a pioneer Texan and historian born in the 1800's. This bill will provide a permanent landmark in memory of a great patriot and a great friend. Frank represented all that is good about America. He always led by example, and he had the utmost character and dignity, and inspired all who met him. Frank was an outstanding representative for his district, and he made us all very proud. I cannot think of a better way to lead than by example. That is exactly what Frank did and will be remembered for. He was a dedicated public servant whose memory will continue to serve as an ideal example for many. It is difficult to accept that someone with such character, intelligence, vigor, and promise has been taken from us. As I mentioned earlier, we were often together on the airplane flying back and forth between San Antonio, spending hours on the airplane talking about all of the things we wanted to do and all the things we wanted to accomplish while we were in the U.S. Congress. It is now hard to believe that Frank will not be here with us to see some of his ideas carried through. I will always be grateful for my time in Congress. It gave me the opportunity to become friends with Frank. We will miss Frank, but we know that he is always with us, and his legacy will live on forever.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, for yielding me this time. We are all mourning a great loss we have all suffered in south Texas with the passing of our friend, Frank Tejeda. Frank was my personal friend. He and I were both elected at the same time and came to Congress the same year. We would often fly back and forth on the airplane, back to visit our constituents on weekends, and talk about how we all were so fortunate to wind up here representing the people of south Texas and west Texas. During those times we would reflect on the places where he and I came from. He went to Harlandale High School, which is a couple miles up the road from South San Antonio High School, where I attended on the south side of San Antonio. And as we spent those many hours talking about the things we wanted to accomplish and the things that we wanted to do, it is so difficult to believe that in such a short period of time he is no longer with us. He was the kind of person that in the last few days in south Texas we have all been reflecting on his accomplishments and what he did as a great community activist and a great advocate for the poor and for those who had no place else to turn often. Frank Tejeda was always there when they needed him. He sponsored Little League baseball teams. He would pay for funerals for people who could not afford them in the neighborhoods in San Antonio. Never asking for any publicity, never asking for any recognition but simply writing a check, often, many times, most of the times out of his personal account to help families who otherwise would have no place else to turn. As we think back on the legacy he has left us, what greater legacy can a man leave behind than having led by example with great honesty, with great character, with great integrity, with great dignity; and not only preaching those values everywhere he went but by leading by example at every opportunity. South Texas and San Antonio loved Frank Tejeda. They loved Frank Tejeda, and his memory will live on forever. I just hope that one day as I work in these Halls of Congress that I can accomplish half of whatever he accomplished as a legislator and in the many years he served in public office. Frank, we know you are up there looking down on us today hoping that we can carry on the work that you started here; and as your children reflect on you, as your mother and your family members reflect on you and as your friends reflect on you and what you have meant to them, we all appreciate the great legacy you have left us about the values and honesty and integrity and the things that were important to you. We will certainly try to aspire to meet the standards that you have set. There is no greater legacy that an American will leave behind. We will miss you, Frank. We will all remember your work and try to work and aspire to meet those standards you set for us.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1044, the Health Centers Consolidation Act of 1996. This bill will provide a 5-year authorization for America's Community, Migrant, Homeless, and Public Housing Health Center programs through fiscal year 2001. America's health center programs are doing a tremendous job in rural communities across the country bringing doctors and health facilities to communities in need. In its 30-year history, America's health centers have shown the value and strength of a health system rooted in community partnership and built on the delivery of accessible, quality primary care to Americans in need. Today, this growing network of community-based providers spans rural communities in all 50 States. Its innovative programs in primary care, prevention, and outreach serve nearly 8 million of America's poor and medically underserved population in 2,400 communities. Health centers serve in medically underserved communities. They are defined areas--suffering high levels of poverty, infant mortality, and poor health. They are rural and isolated areas, with few or no providers. Health centers hold the challenging task of providing for some of the poorest, sickest, and most vulnerable. These are people who confront enormous barriers to health care because of where they live--their economic status, and often, their costly and far greater complex health needs. They are people, frequently, locked out of traditional health care--whom others will not or cannot serve. And, they are people whose unmet health and social needs represent a huge and growing cost to the Nation. Today, in approving this reauthorization, we are helping the communities of the Nation project public health. Health centers have proven to be wise public investments. Compelling evidence shows that health center programs work. Their innovative programs in primary care and prevention keep people healthy--save tax dollars--and build stronger communities. In my district, there are 20 migrant and community health center delivery sites serving approximately 76,650 patients. These health centers are providing quality, cost-effective care to individuals who otherwise would not have access to health care. I personally have visited these centers, and have seen the enormous good they achieve. In many cases, they are the only provider of care for the people living in this region. For example, the Uvalde County Clinic, under the direction of Rachel Gonzales, is a key provider of comprehensive primary care. It delivers medical care to approximately 7,000 patients out of a total population of 28,000. It also has the only pharmacy available in Uvalde County. Some patients travel as far as 60 miles to get to this health center for treatment. The Uvalde County Clinic is also vitally important in that it trains medical students, physician assistants, and residents from our medical schools in the State. For the hardworking people of Laredo, TX, the Gateway Community Health Center, of which Mike Trevino is the executive director, is a source of health care for the indigent population in the area. It serves approximately 12,000 patients, 83 percent of whom are uninsured. This center, with its focus on patient-centered care, reaches out with special programs for diabetes, hypertension and other chronic diseases, while promoting wellness and prevention. My friend, Ventura Gonzales, operates the Vida y Salud Health Systems, Inc. in Crystal City. This is an area where unemployment is high and health needs are growing. This center serves nearly 12,000 patients, providing service to approximately 70 percent of the uninsured in that area. Remarkably, in an area where there is no other provider, this center has achieved a 93.3 percent immunization rate for children. It is a major employer in the area, and next to the school board, represents the second largest industry in my congressional district. Today, in improving this reauthorization, we are helping the communities of my district and communities across this Nation protect public health and expand access to health care. It is also important to emphasize that health centers are built by community initiative. A limited Federal grant program provides seed money to empower communities themselves to find partners and resources to develop centers, to hire doctors and needed health professionals, and to build their own points of entry into the Nation's health care delivery system. For these reasons I support America's health centers. It is a cost- effective way to do a job that needs doing. This is why I have consistently fought very hard in the appropriations process to provide funding for these health centers. America's health centers meet today's rigid fiscal demands for cost effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability. They do a tremendous job reaching out to energize communities and their people to meet critical health needs and promote greater personal responsibility for good health. They work because they are partnerships--partnerships of people, Government, businesses and communities working together to improve health. Mr. Speaker, I support the passage of S. 1044.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. The fact is, English is America's language in fact, we don't need legislation to make a fact law. No one understands the importance of mastering English more than I do. Growing up in a Spanish-speaking neighborhood in south San Antonio, I was lucky enough to have parents who stressed the importance of being fluent in English. My parents understood that English was essential to get work and succeed. My parents' example clearly demonstrated that learning English was essential to first succeed in school, and later in our jobs. We don't need another Washington mandate, another law with bureaucrats to enforce it to tell us what we all know to be true fact. English is the common language of all Americans, passing or rejecting this legislation will not change this fact. I think it important to get beyond the impassioned rhetoric of this debate and address the facts of this bill, what this bill does and does not do. This bill basically does two things. One, it restricts the use of other languages by the Federal Government with so many exceptions that it is unclear what in fact would change. At this time less than 1 percent of Federal documents are printed in other languages. Two, it ends the Federal requirement for bilingual ballots. This will have no impact on Texas as our State's electoral code provides for these ballots. Now let's cover what this bill does not do. It does not promote usage of English. It will not affect commercial and personal communications. It will not increase English usage. It will not serve to bring us together. While I understand that many of my colleagues have good intentions in supporting this bill, millions of Americans do not see this as a well-meaning affirmation of national unity, but rather as a challenge to their Americanism. Until we eliminate this mistrust we should concentrate on promoting English usage rather than passing legislation. English is America's common language. We do not need a law to prove this. Instead of making symbolic gestures to legislate language, we should take real concrete action to encourage every American to learn English.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis on our border. As the representative for over 800 miles of the Mexican border I know all too well the extent of the threat to America's law abiding border communities. This Congress has dramatically increased funding for the Border Patrol. I am proud to have led the effort for this increased funding. However, far more needs to be done. Agents have been transferred to other regions. Courts and prisons are underfunded; and drug runners and alien smugglers are making this part of America a base for their operations. Our pleas for help along the border have not fallen on deaf ears. The Appropriations bill before us today offers hope in fighting this criminal plague. This Treasury, Postal Appropriation increases funding for the Office of National Drug Control Policy by about 25%. This money can be used to combat the drug runners threatening Americans in Texas border communities, farms and ranchers. It is now up the Administration to spend this money on the border, the front line of the drug war, not on more Washington bureaucrats. The drug czar himself was recently in Eagle Pass, Texas. He saw with his own eyes and he heard with his own ears of the dangers our poor border communities confront. He now should know first-hand the problems border residents face. Today we are voting to give him the resources to conduct this fight. We are restoring cuts made in previous White House budgets. I hope we have gotten the White House's attention now that this is an election year. The evidence has been seen and resources provided. Americans along the border have the same right to safety and security as other Americans. My colleagues, this legislation provides the resources to stop the drug runners and end the crisis on the border. If you care about the safety and security of your fellow Americans along the border vote for this Treasury, Postal Appropriations bill.