Henry Bonilla

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, the time is now for reform of the Endangered Species Act. Our people have waited long enough. Private property owners are sick and tired of the Federal Government taking their land because it cares more about bugs than people. Today I am submitting a discharge petition to bring the Endangered Species Management and Conservation Act to a vote. The current ESA has failed the people and it has failed species. This ESA reform bill works by providing incentives to encourage private property owners to conserve species. ESA reform establishes a cooperative framework for these landowners to work together with the Government to protect species. The people of Texas want to conserve species and protect the environment. They also want to be able to live their lives and enjoy their property without the threat of Government seizure. Texans have been patient in waiting for ESA reform. The time for patience has passed and the time for action is now. Please join me and support the Bonilla discharge petition.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to commend my colleagues who have succeeded in cutting spending. Cutting spending, Mr. Speaker, that is something that has not occurred in this body for 40 years. The news is out, the deficit has fallen as a result of this Congress' historic and unprecedented budget restraint. According to yesterday's Congressional Budget Office mid-season review, this country's deficit has been cut nearly in half, and that is wonderful news for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, making cuts is not easy. Just like making cuts and restraining ourselves from spending in our very own homes is not easy, but it is necessary to preserve the opportunity for our children's future. Last year, here in the Capitol I had my two young children, Alicia, who is 11 and my son, Austin, who is 7, here in the Capitol watching what I do at work and it struck me how profound the decisions are that we make in this chamber and how critical sometimes the votes that we cast are to their future. Mr. Speaker, we are here today for the future of our children. We possess, each one of us in this Chamber, a voting card that is ironically just about the same size as a credit card, a Visa or Mastercard, that most Americans carry in their pockets. This credit card for 40 years has run up the deficit, a trillion-dollar deficit that we have now, bills that we are going to be paying in the future even if we were to cut spending drastically for years to come now. We have a lot of catching up to do, Mr. Speaker. This voting card that we have has been put in the electronic voting card slots here for many years running up deficits that our children, as I looked at my children's faces last week, I felt very sad for the fact that we have so many years of catching up to do to cut spending so that we can preserve their future, Mr. Speaker, so that when they grow up, they still have the same opportunities that we have in this country now to live the American dream, as I did. I come from a neighborhood, low-income neighborhood, primarily Spanish-speaking, on the south side of San Antonio, and I had no special privilege when I grew up. All I had was opportunity guaranteed by this wonderful country of ours. But at the time I was not saddled with the tremendous deficit that the Congress had left behind; therefore, as I grew up, and my father often had to work two jobs to send us to school, he was not faced with looming mega interest rates and deficits in his future that we are going to saddle our ability as a family to prosper. That opportunity could be threatened, Mr. Speaker, in the future because if we keep running up the charges with these credit cards that we vote with, we are going to threaten the future for our children. My constituents understand this as well, Mr. Speaker. They know, I represent one of the poorest districts in the Nation, they understand how difficult it is to live on a budget. These are tough choices that we must make and must continue to make. When we cut the deficit and we have a balanced budget, we are going to have lower interest rates for our children as well in the future. When they want to buy a car, when they want to borrow money to go to school, to go to college, when they want to buy, make that first purchase to buy a stereo or books for college or anything that they need to sustain themselves, they are going to have lower interest rates as we continue, as this Congress has done, in cutting spending to cut the deficit and balance the budget. It is with our children's hearts in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to continue working to cut spending in this Congress, because I know that is what the American people want. I came from the private sector, never ever having held public office before being elected in 1992, and I remember what it is like to be in the private sector making tough decisions to balance the budget at your business, in your homes, at the dining room table each night having to decide what you have to do to make the future of your family sustain itself and not with a deficit but with a promising future because you are paying your bills as you are going along. I promise, Mr. Speaker, that as long as I am here serving in this wonderful Congress, I am going to use this credit card wisely and continue to cut spending for the future of our children in this country because, Mr. Speaker, I ask if we are not here to do this for the future of our children, I ask what are we doing here, what are we here for in the first place?

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in light of the fact that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] is not present, I ask that his name and my name be reversed in the list of special orders tonight so we can proceed.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here is a simple debate between spending money on health care needs of people in low- income and rural areas and spending money on a politically correct study that some of our colleagues in some parts of the country think is very important. My colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr, made the point very well earlier: What is the Centers for Disease Control doing studying a politically correct idea that some few people in this country think is important? This is a classic idea of a Federal agency that has grown appendages over the years that have nothing to do with the original mandate that Congress set up in the first place. If our friends from New York or other States in the country or other cities believe that this study is important, why do they not go to their local citizens in their cities, why do they not go to their States, and ask them to pay more tax money to fund a politically correct study like this? Why do they not tell them it is a great idea and raise new tax money for something like this? Why do they think the Federal Government ought to be studying such an issue? There is not a one of us in this Congress who believes that kids should have guns, that people should be using firearms for any reasons aside from sport. The law-abiding citizens of this country use firearms. We are for that, but we are not for firearm abuse or misuse in any way. So we would encourage everyone here to think about that. We are not talking about a vital function for the Centers for Disease Control. We need to look after the needs of our people and our communities, but we cannot stand here and say it is more important to fund something like this, as opposed to giving people in need health care that they need in low-income and rural areas. If Members love this idea, they should go back and ask their local citizens to raise tax money locally to fund a crazy idea like this.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, what we have here is again a debate between those of us who believe that people who are out in the heartland operating, managing, working for small businesses are pretty smart people and they are what make our economy tick. After all, the small-business community in this country is the backbone of our economy and employs 80 percent of the workers in this country. On the other side we have those who believe that they cannot police their work force and their work environment effectively without having a big set of Federal regulations handed to them, and Big Brother, after all, is smarter, according to the opposition on this debate, smarter than the people who are the entrepreneurs and those who pursue free enterprise ventures in this country. The bureaucrats are smarter, and the entrepreneurs are too dumb to implement ergonomic standards in their own workplace. Oftentimes those who are opposed to this issue in the past somehow think that those of us who are trying to stop this regulatory burden on small business are not concerned about worker safety. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I do not understand why Federal bureaucrats and those who advocate big government do not understand that any business owner out there, any manager, is interested in keeping as many workers as they possibly can healthy and productive, on the job every day. When someone gets injured on the job, when they have got to pay Worker's Comp, productivity suffers, the product suffers; the people running the company, oftentimes they would have to make cuts in other areas. No one in this country in the private sector is interested in allowing unhealthy conditions and bad working conditions to exist in the workplace in this country. And I think oftentimes we get mired in the debate, and some of those on the other side try to make it seem like we do not care about worker safety. We not only care about worker safety, we care about preserving jobs and about keeping the regulatory burden off the small-business community in this country so that they can continue to be more productive and to increase productivity and increase the number of jobs in their communities. That is what we are interested in doing. Finally, I would like to just point out how voluntary standards that have been referred to here tonight can exist out in the workplace without the Federal Government coming out and saying: ``Hey, we have some paperwork here or some kind of new standard that you can voluntarily impose.'' We have been around long enough in this country to understand that once something becomes voluntary on paper via the Federal Government and OSHA and regulators, sure enough before too long it becomes a real regulation, and we are trying to stop that from occurring. A lot of good employers in this country are already developing their own ergonomic standards. When I visited a lot of these good work environments across this country, I am delighted to hear people on the front line talk about the priority at companies these days, about worker safety. Safety, safety, safety is the most important thing now that more employers are recognizing how significant it is to increase their profits and become more productive and to employ more people, because after all, when they have more productivity and more profits, that means more jobs, more expansion and more people able to pursue the American dream in this country. Once again, in closing on this argument, I want to emphasize that those who vote for the Pelosi-Nadler amendment are voting to burden small business in America with a whole new set of regulations that have no scientific data at all to back it up. We do not believe at this point that OSHA is made up of scientists, doctors and researchers that are capable of implementing these kind of regulations. So vote with small business in America. Vote against the Pelosi amendment. I ask all my colleagues to support me in this cause.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes and 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], Republican whip.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pelosi amendment. What we have here is a basic disagreement among those of us who feel very strongly that the private sector is capable of policing its own work force and its work environment, and those who believe that it cannot be done without Big Brother stepping in with a whole ton of Federal regulations to tell them how to do it. The language in the bill as it currently stands would be removed by the amendment proposed now. It is a funding limitation. It is not a legislative rider. Perhaps the gentlewoman who proposes this amendment is not clear on that particular point. It simply says that the Labor Department and OSHA cannot spend money on developing a ton of bureaucratic rules on ergonomics that would apply equally to businesses like restaurants, like professional athletic teams, like trucking companies, to parcel post carriers. In other words the Federal Government is now poised and interested in trying to develop a new set of regulations that it would apply uniformly to every small business in America, and it is absolutely absurd to think that OSHA is capable of conducting such research to apply these rules. Mr. Chairman, let me cite as an example, in the gentlewoman's own State of California, under a legislative mandate CALOSHA will issue an ergonomic regulation by the end of the year that is estimated to cost Californians $9.7 billion and cost more than 12,000 jobs, because anyone who has ever been in the private sector, as I have as a manager in a private business, understands that when you get a whole ton of regulations that suddenly come into our office, your productivity is automatically cut back. The implementation of silly regulations suddenly causes additional costs and in some cases causes tremendous job loss, and that is what we are talking about here. Think about in California what 10 pages has done, as I have cited here, and I have an example here of so far what OSHA has developed on proposed ergonomic standards in the private workplace or small businesses in America across this country. Mr. Chairman, can you imagine running a restaurant in this country or running any kind of a small business where you are trying to make ends meet, operate on very marginal profits, and suddenly you see this show up at your front door? Who, first of all, is going to be able to understand any of this? How much is it going to cost a small employer in this country to implement such regulations? Mr. Chairman, I think what people who love big government fail to understand is that there is not a staff of people at every business in this country that is prepared to handle such a load of bureaucracy and rules and regulations just waiting to do that. If any of my colleagues have ever managed a business or owned a business or worked in the private sector, done real work in this country, they know that everyone there is already interested in doing something, answering the phones, putting together, making a product, delivering a product. This kind of thing, Mr. Chairman, only adds to the burdens that so many people in the private sector have at this point. Unlike what was pointed out earlier by my colleague from California, the language in the current bill does not prohibit OSHA from continuing to use ergonomics data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and does not prevent research institutions such as the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH] from collecting scientific research on ergonomics. Mr. Chairman, OSHA relies on those organizations because it does not conduct its own scientific research. If I could be convinced that suddenly OSHA has qualified doctors and scientists to be able to develop these regulations, but I am not convinced that they are qualified to do this kind of research. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to look hard at this amendment. It is something that if my colleagues believe, as I do, that what distinguishes our economy in this world is the private sector and private sector jobs, that is what makes us the greatest economy on Earth. Why do we want to put this monkey on their back and drive them back into the Stone Age because big labor is interested in promulgating such rules as I am holding in my hand? And this, Mr. Chairman, is only the beginning. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I am going to lay a guilt trip on some of my colleagues who are considering at this time voting against this bill, because if they are for children and if they are for education and if they are for an improved health care system, they want to vote for this bill. Otherwise, frankly, I do not know how my colleagues who are considering voting against this bill can sleep at night. Examples: We are increasing Job Corps funding in this country that would allow nine new Job Corps centers to be built by June of 1998, $45 million more for Job Corps this bill contains that we had in the last bill. So if Members want to support young people who are trying to get a second chance in communities across this country, they are going to vote for the bill. Otherwise, I do not know how they can live with their guilt of abandoning these young people who desperately need this money. The same could be said for the Centers for Disease Control. We are increasing funding for them $75 million over fiscal year 1996. How can my colleagues live with themselves if they consider voting against this bill and abandoning the good work that is done at the Centers for Disease Control. Breast cancer screening increased by 8 percent. How could we live with ourselves if we vote against this bill when it provides increased funding for this most important cause? Community and migrant health care centers, again very necessary in many of our rural and poor areas of this country. How can Members vote against this bill and abandon the people who need this service so desperately in our communities? Pell grants. We have been talking about that for awhile now. We are increasing funding for Pell grants, when under previous leadership of the other party, Pell grants were actually cut. How can my colleagues live with themselves if they consider voting no on this bill that provides more money for Pell grants? The TRIO Program, that is an extremely important program for this country. We are providing $37 million more money for TRIO programs in this country. Think about the young people that come from families that have never had an opportunity before to go to college, families around this country that have been struggling, they are finally getting an opportunity to send someone to college in their family, and TRIO is going to give them an opportunity. How can we live with ourselves if we vote against this bill that provides more money for TRIO? The bill also contains additional money for health care professions, young people from disadvantaged areas in this country who are wanting to study to become nurses and dental hygienists in low-income areas, that provide health care in low-income areas, rural areas that oftentimes do not have health care that is necessary in their areas, this is going to provide $31 million more in funding for health care professions. I ask my colleagues, how can they live with themselves if they consider voting no on this bill? Please consider voting yes on this bill. We are all in this together. We want to help children, education and health care in this country. I ask Members to support us in passage of this bill.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, it is time to reform the Endangered Species Act and our people have waited long enough. Private property owners are sick and tired of the Federal Government stepping in and taking their land because the ESA cares more about bugs than about people. There has been a lot of talk in this Congress about reforming the ESA to make it work for people and species. I commend the gentleman from Alaska, Chairman Young, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Pombo, for the tremendous efforts in developing legislation to reform ESA. But this bill deserves our immediate attention. This is why I have chosen to go the extra mile for hard-working farmers and ranchers who have suffered the consequences of a bad law. Today I am beginning the process of submitting a discharge petition to get much-needed ESA reform to this floor as quickly as possible. The current ESA legislation has failed to recover species. The ESA has saddled property owners with outrageous fines because of Federal designation of critical habitat. ESA reform establishes a cooperative framework for these landowners to work together with the Government to protect species. The people of Texas want to conserve species and to protect the environment. I ask everyone in this Congress to support me and sign the Bonilla discharge petition.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3610 the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, which provides the bare minimum to keep the peace and ensure that America's military remains second to none. I am troubled that some fail to recognize that the only guarantee of peace is a strong America. Those who would disarm, those who would further downsize the military fail to understand the basic concept of cause and effect. Like most dreamers they steadfastedly refuse to cloud their crystal clear vision with reality. Others argue we can't afford our military. They argue that America cannot continue to spend funds on our defense. This view is as dangerous as it is irresponsible. But don't take my word for it. Walk across the street. Go to the Library of Congress. Pick up any history book and read about the past. I ask the dreamers to read about Nazi Germany's respect for their disarmament treaties; read about imperial Japan's respect for other's independence. Read this before you vote. I ask the penny pinchers to read about how unprepared America and democracies were. To read about how small our military was, to think about what kind of world we would live in today if that decade's penny pinchers had won their argument and stopped the modernization of the R.A.F. I shudder to think who would have won the Battle of Britain and ultimately the war in Europe if they had won that debate. These are the facts, it's history, it's there in black and white for each and every one of you to read. I am disturbed that some of you ignore these experiences saying that's old news. History is for the past and mankind is different today. My friends you are playing with fire. Remember we have a sacred responsibility to uphold the Constitution and defend our Nation. If you remain unconvinced take a few minutes and go to Arlington National Cemetery. Listen to those who speak so articulately in their silence. Remember their sacrifices and remember your responsibility to those who are following in their footsteps by serving America and defending freedom. Then stop and visit the Archives. Look at our Declaration of Independence and our glorious Constitution and remember your responsibility. These are not mere pieces of papers. These are the heart and soul of what America is. As Americans we can make only one choice if we are to remain true to those heroes who fell defending our freedom. Our only choice is to vote for this bill. A ``no'' vote betrays those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. A ``no'' vote jeopardizes the freedoms we hold so dear. A ``no'' vote is wrong for America. My friends as we vote today under the watchful gaze of our first Commander in Chief--our greatest leader-- George Washington--be true to his legacy--be true to America--and vote ``yes'' for this Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New Mexico for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeFazio amendment. It is bad news, it is bad news for agriculture. It is bad news for consumers. It is bad news for the environment. And it is bad news for America's children. Here is the bad news the DeFazio amendment has for agriculture. In 1994, 520,000 sheep and lamb were killed by predators, direct losses to agriculture from wildlife damage totaled $461 million. The DeFazio amendment says too bad, so sad, let us increase these losses. The DeFazio amendment would cut animal damage control that is essential for the continued viability for many American ranches already battered by the drought. Let us not forget about the drought. The DeFazio amendment would punish these ranchers with increased losses. My friends, that is wrong, it is just plain wrong. Here is the bad news the DeFazio amendment has for consumers. Higher grocery bills are on the way for millions of American families struggling to make ends meet. These higher costs are courtesy of the DeFazio amendment which will increase predator damage and reduce supply. At the same time, ADC plays a vital role in the safety of millions of air travelers. By 1991, 635 airports participated in the ADC program. The importance was illuminated when a bird strike at Kennedy Airport in New York caused severe damage to a plane and, more importantly, threatened the lives of 300 passengers. The DeFazio amendment says so sad, too bad, we should accept this level of risk. That is wrong. It is plain wrong. We should reject this amendment for that reason as well. Here is bad news the DeFazio amendment has for the environment. ADC activities protect threatened and endangered species from predators. The black footed ferret, the San Joaquin kit fox, the desert tortoise, the Aleutian Canadian goose might well be extinct were it not for ADC protection from predators. The DeFazio amendment says too bad, so sad, we may as well terminate these species. That is wrong, plain wrong, another reason to reject this amendment. Finally, and most troubling, the DeFazio amendment delivers bad news to America's children. Rabies is rearing its horrifying face across America. Between 1988 and 1992, rabies cases have doubled. New York reported 1,761 new cases, while 640 of my fellow Texans were treated for rabies. Predators also directly threaten our youth. In Los Angeles, a 3-year-old girl was killed in her front yard by a coyote. ADC fights these threats. The DeFazio amendment tells us not to worry about the predator threat. It is not important, too bad, so sad. This is wrong. We should reject the DeFazio amendment. If we care about either agriculture, consumers, the environment or children, we should stand strong and reject the DeFazio amendment.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 222, 223 and 224, I was unavoidably detained by bad weather in Dallas on my connecting flight to Washington. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all these votes.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the foreign operations appropriations bill. The committee is like the tireless work horse who moves forward despite the weight of its load. yet, unlike the work horse, the members of this committee do not wear blinders. This bill is fiscally responsible, and it preserves and protects the long term interests of this country. It marks the beginning of the important task of the restructuring of foreign aid. Our world has changed significantly in the last decade, and it will continue to change. The fall of communism in Eastern Europe and Russia, the rising powers in Asia, the torrent of terrorist activities. The list of challenges for America is significant. The answers may be different, but the goal remains the same. We are working toward preserving our independence, and promoting our national security. At the same time, we have to try to spend less in our foreign efforts. This does not mean that we are ignoring our duties. It does mean that we should cut back on wasteful spending that does not achieve our goals. This bill accomplishes the long awaited consolidation of similar, repetitive programs. It reduces foreign aid spending by $458 million from fiscal year 1996. Reductions in spending have been made possible by the consolidation of funding that was doled out in the past to many different programs which seek to achieve similar goals. Appropriations are thus targeted to specific areas of concern more effectively and efficiently. It is an attempt to cut down the proverbial forest of redtape and bureaucracy that have become all too familiar. After all, even the workhorse has trouble plodding through an endless maze of dead ends. The aim is to achieve our goals in a direct manner, with less reliance on international organizations where we can't control the way our own money is used; the way the tax dollars of the American people are used. It is clear that this bill allows the United States to maintain a steady course as the eminent global leader. The empathy of the American people is as clear in our humanitarian efforts, as their practicality and common-sense is in our appropriations. This bill is one that protects our sovereignty, and works toward our goal of American security. I support this bill wholeheartedly, and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the sacrifice and achievement of our Persian Gulf war veterans. This month marks the fifth anniversary of the end of the war which liberated the small country of Kuwait and ensured access to the region's energy supplies. Unfortunately, we have done little to reduce the threat of energy dependence. Five years later the U.S. dependence on foreign oil has grown; America now imports 52 percent of its annual oil supply. We import 9 million barrels of oil a day to satisfy demand. For a country that in on the cutting edge of technology, there is no excuse for a lack of energy preparedness which places American lives at risk. U.S. producers have the capability to tap into an estimated 60- year supply of oil and natural gas that lies undiscovered in America. And they can do this without threatening the environment. Five years ago we learned a lesson--we need to open the doors to energy independence to ensure our freedom from foreign tyrants' threats.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act and the rule for the bill. As you all know this bill was considered by the House back in September. The House overwhelmingly defeated this bill by a vote on 243 to 176 under suspension of the rules. I commend the Rules Committee for a job well done in developing this rule. It is an open and very fair rule, however I believe this bill should not be coming to the floor for another vote. This rule would have been appropriate had the bill been considered in regular order back in September when it was first voted upon. The House already made its statement loud and clear by rejecting this bill. This bill is not in order today and I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and the rule.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, politics stop at the border. Each and every Member of Congress, each and every American, must always stand united in confronting any foreign foe. When our troops are sent in harm's way they deserve our full support. They also deserve our measured judgement not to put their lives at risk in the first place unless the national security of the United States is at stake. We must respect the President's prerogatives as commander-in- chief, but not forget Congress' power of the purse. The President should feel confident that he can deploy our forces in a military emergency. But this, my colleagues, is not a military emergency. Sending U.S. combat troops to Bosnia has long been advocated by the administration as a political measure and linked to a flimsy, unrealized peace agreement. We will be failing our troops, failing their families, and failing the American people if we fail to answer the following simple questions posed by the majority of Americans. Is there a national security interest in Bosnia? Do we have goals and objectives for our forces? Is there a strategy which would lead to the withdrawal of our forces? Will peace continue after we leave? The answer to these questions is no, no, no. No--we should not involve ourselves in an embattled country where we have no national interest, no clear objectives, and no exit strategy. We owe it to our troops to vote for this resolution. We owe it to our troops to vote for no missions without objectives. We owe it to our troops to vote to keep our responsibility to declare war. Each and every one of us was elected to fulfill these responsibilities. We owe it to the American people and to our troops to do no less. There should only be two considerations when you vote today. The safety of our troops and the well-being of our republic. This legislation puts the lives of our troops and America's interest first. Please join me in voting for this important resolution.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to report an important step forward in cancer research and medical affairs. The newly formed Intercultural Cancer Council [ICC] will be a leader in helping the Nation find solutions to why some of our largest population groups suffer from cancer at much greater levels than others. In the United States cancer will become the leading cause of death within the next several years. Partly because of the progress made against cardiovascular diseases; and partly because of the greater incidence of more than 200 different types of cancer. The ICC explains that by far the highest incidence and lowest survival rates from cancer are found in our minority and medically underserved populations. For instance, while we can be thankful that breast cancer detection, treatment, and survival is now improving significantly for the Nation, for African-American women it has actually become worse. Among Hispanics and native Americans cervical cancer takes lives at a rate far above the national average. This for a disease that can often be cured on an outpatient basis--when detected early. Alaskan Americans and native Americans are the leading victims of lung cancer, which remains among the cancers most resistant to treatment. Prostate cancer is several times more common in African-American men compared to white men from the same socioeconomic group. We don't yet know why Asian Americans have such a high rate of liver cancer, or exactly why Asian- American women have an increasing rate of breast cancer. The ICC was formed earlier this year to help explain the disparities in where and why these cancers strike, and what steps may be taken to save the lives that would otherwise be lost in the future. As a Texan, I am particularly proud that the founders and cochairs of the ICC are department heads from two of my State's finest medical institutions. Lovell Jones, Ph.D. is from the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas, and Armin Weinberg, Ph.D., who is also a cancer researcher, is from the equally prestigious Baylor College of Medicine. In addition the Dallas-based Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation is one of the original sustaining members of the ICC. To this life affirming effort the ICC brings an impressive breadth of membership and expertise that crosses all racial and ethnic lines. The ICC includes institutions and advisers from the American Cancer Society, National Hispanic Leadership Initiative on Cancer, Howard University, American Indian Physicians Association, National Appalachian Leadership Initiative on Cancer, American Association for Cancer Research, the Kellogg Company, American Public Health Association, Bosom Buddies, YWCA, Harlem Hospital, Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations, National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, and the Institute of Medicine, among others. The ICC will be a valuable asset to public education as well as to Congress and government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A major objective of the ICC is to help institutions develop prevention, treatment, and research policies so that American medicine free of racial tensions. The ICC believes that the practice of medicine can be a positive example for other institutions. We must allocate select resources where the disease is most prevalent. For cancer this means special study on why specific populations are so much more vulnerable. Finding these answers is good medicine because it will allow us to more effectively prevent or cure cancer throughout our entire population. Besides being good science, this approach reflects the best in America by showing special compassion for the most vulnerable among us. Many population groups face economic restraints in obtaining the early detection and successful treatment of cancer. This is only a minor part of the reason for cancer's disproportionate impacting these groups, though it is sometimes used an excuse not to do the critically needed research into the many genetic, cultural, and epidemiological causes of cancer. Mr. Speaker, some of our House colleagues can testify on being cancer survivors. Others are thankful that they have a loved one with them today who a few years ago would have been lost because the best that science and medicine then had to offer would not have been enough. Unfortunately, everyone in our society does not benefit equally from this lifesaving progress. The significantly higher incidence of cancer, and lower survival rate among minorities, culturally diverse, and medically underserved communities is a human tragedy. It is also an unnecessary burden on the Nation since so many of these deaths, are avoidable. There are many unknown reasons for these tragic imbalances. I am pleased that we now have the ICC to help us seek the answers to these life and death medical matters.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, just a point I would like to make to start out in support of this bill, if the entire Congress worked as cohesively as the members of this subcommittee have worked on this issue, we would be all at home picking out our turkeys at this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It provides adequate, by no means more than necessary, funding for important factions of our military: Pay raises, tank-killers, helicopters, F-22s, and yes, the B-2 bomber. Those of us who have the vision that this bill is not just about this year or next year, it is about the next century and how we are going to protect our country from outside aggressors, some of which may not even have been born yet, but we have to have that vision to preserve our freedom and liberty. People in this country can walk down the streets safely knowing that foreign aggressors are no threat, and we enjoy the freedom to speak out, freedom of speech, freedom to demonstrate, freedom to express ourselves as conservatives, as liberals, as moderates in this country from all across the Nation. We have enjoyed these freedoms forever, because we are always ready, and we demonstrate to the world through the support of our military that we are going to be ready for anything that might transpire. For those idealists who sit out there and say, well, there is no threat out there now, lose sight of the vision that this bill is important for the next century as well. We have to maintain a strong military, because without a strong military, we do not even have an opportunity to talk about preserving programs like HUD or Commerce or any of these other things that people might think are important. If we do not protect ourselves in the future, we are not going to be able to consider any of this stuff. Education will not even be a possibility for us if we are not willing to all stand up and preserve the greatest military that this planet has even seen to make sure that our children are protected well into the next century.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to close on this amendment by pointing out very clearly that no one who is supporting this amendment is opposed to free speech in this country. There is no American in this country that supports free speech as strongly as I do. What we have here is the philosophical difference. Those of us who are supporting an amendment and other issues similar to this in this Congress are tired of groups that have opinions of feeding at the public trough and then using that money to advocate political positions. I believe the NEA should thrive and survive and have a long life beyond this day to advocate the positions that they feel strongly about, absolutely. What I do not think they should do is use public money or have special privileges in order to advocate those positions. As my colleagues know, there is one sense that the American people believe in very strongly in this country, and that is fairness, fairness. There is no other union that has this special tax exemption. Fairness. There is no other group that has this special tax exemption that is allowed to venture beyond the congressional charter boundaries which were originally created to go out and advocate their position. If the NEA or any other advocacy group in this country, be they left, or right, or in the middle, would like to go out and continue advocating their positions, wonderful, do it with their privately raised funds, do it with volunteers, do it with people who believe in their position. But do not try to hoodwink the public into trying to fool them and thinking that their tax money is somehow going somewhere else when in fact it is going to subsidize a position, a political position, in this country. And I do not care whether that position again is a liberal position or a conservative position. It is wrong to feed at the public trough and then go out and advocate political positions in this country. We are tired of this. This is a dirty little secret that we are determined to expose across this country, and a ``yes'' vote on this amendment will help put an end to this once and for all.