Henry Bonilla

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. I realize that the majority on the Committee on Rules always tries to do their utmost to provide this body with the fairest of rules possible. In fact, this is a fair rule, considering the parliamentary needs that are required to consider this legislation. But I hope that the Members understand that I am going to oppose this rule because I am doing everying I possibly can to defeat this legislation, because this legislation is about something happening in my congressional district. This is the same legislation that was overwhelmingly defeated in the 104th Congress by an overwhelming vote of 243 to 176 against. This is about allowing a low-level dump site of nuclear waste to be constructed in one of the poorest areas of the country that falls in the heart of my congressional district. So honestly, it does not matter what kind of rule was granted, because my constituents and I think this legislation is beyond repair. There are other developments that have occurred in this that have indicated it is dangerous to the environment in my congressional area. I will bring those up later, but at this point I would just like to advise my colleagues I oppose this rule.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment and in support of the language that has been put in this bill by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). This entire effort is designed to protect the rights of the American people against an anti-American effort resulting from the Kyoto Treaty that has been proposed before the United States Senate. Thank goodness that the American people have risen up and said we do not want this treaty to be passed and the Senate has actually listened to the American people. It is anti-American because it imposes a lot of strict, costly penalties on Americans, while allowing many countries, many Third World countries to continue to pollute our environment at will. Frankly, I am mind-boggled as to how the administration could look at this as a positive thing for our people, and then after the people have said no, we do not want this to be implemented because it will cost us money and jobs, to then try to implement this through the back door, trying to go through the EPA to implement some of the rules and regulations, even though we do not want them. This is a classic maneuver that the administration has used in recent years, and when the Congress and the people say no to something, they find agencies that are currently in existence to try to implement rules and regulations and circumvent the will of the United States Congress and the American people. So I commend my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for inserting this language to prohibit this back-door effort at costing the American people money and jobs to implement this anti-American treaty.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the National Institute of Dental Research. NIDR was established in response to the deplorable oral health of our recruits during World War II. As the third oldest institute of the prestigious National Institutes of Health, NIDR was entrusted with a leadership role designed to improve and promote the oral health of the American people. In this capacity, NIDR supports biomedical and behavioral research in its laboratories and in public, private and academic research centers throughout the nation. The far-reaching results of these efforts have greatly improved the oral health status of the nation and reduced America's dental expenditures by $4 billion annually. While NIDR continues to support research to further understand and prevent conditions that lead to tooth loss, its focus has broadened over the years to embrace studies of the entire craniofacial-oral- dental complex. Critical areas of investigation include infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS; inherited diseases; oral cancers; and autoimmune diseases. There is avid interest in studying tissue repair and regeneration and the interactive roles of various factors involved in the generation of craniofacial-oral-dental diseases. I commend the National Institute of Dental Research on its accomplishments over the past 50 years. I am confident that over the next 50 years, NIDR will continue to greatly improve America's oral health through its outstanding oral health research.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing along with my colleague from Washington State, Mr. Dicks the ``Military Retiree Health Fairness Act of 1998''. This bipartisan bill is an important step in keeping our promises to military retirees. Specifically, this legislation will make sure that all military retirees have the opportunity to participate in Tricare Senior Prime, by waiving penalties for late enrollment in Medicare Part B. Without such relief those most dependant on the military medical system may well see their access reduced. Medicare Subvention will allow military retirees to receive the health care they were promised by having Medicare reimburse DOD for care provided to Medicare eligible beneficiaries at DOD facilities. Retirees will be able to continue using the same physicians they have always relied and depended upon. Current law mandates that retirees who had counted on using the military health care system and did not enroll in Medicare Part B will be denied the opportunity to participate. Without change, these individuals would have reduced access to DOD health services due to Tricare Senior Prime participants increased use of the system. The ``Military Retiree Health Fairness Act of 1998'' makes sure all military retirees have the opportunity to participate in Tricare Senior Prime. The ``Military Retiree Health Fairness Act of 1998'' waives the penalties for those who do not have Medicare Part B, but would like to participate in Tricare Senior Prime. We can not allow our military retirees to be neglected. I urge my colleagues to join me and cosponsor this worthy legislation.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman I rise in support of the fiscal year 1999 Defense Appropriations bill. This legislation provides essential funding for our military. Chairman Young has done a remarkable job addressing the most significant shortfalls confronting the armed services. Today we are hearing criticism of this legislation from two quarters, the bean counters and the dreamers. The dreamers believe we live in an age when the lion lays down with the lamb and we should be the lamb. It is a beautiful vision, one we all wish was true. Unfortunately, the reality is that it is not. If we follow this path we will soon become the lamb chop and put our liberties at grave risk. The bean counters keep telling us we can't afford to maintain our military. The bean counters tell us we can't afford weapons modernization, we can't afford to give our troops decent pay, we can't afford to maintain our bases. They couldn't be more wrong. We can't afford not to provide for our defense. America's history tells us that the cost in lives of not being prepared is just too great. We are failing in our duty as congressmen if we fail to provide adequately for our military. If there is any fault in this bill it is that we should do more. I hope some of you will work with me to fix our budget and insure the future security of our nation. The fact is we do not have sufficient resources to maintain short term and long term readiness. Please join me in supporting this excellent legislation and let's work together to increase the resources available to our military in the future.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. If we support this amendment we are not supporting the safety of children in this country. This would limit our ability to use the wildlife services to protect Americans, specifically children, from predators, to lessen the risk to aviation and lessen the livestock losses sustained by American ranchers. But more specifically, let us look at some cases where children would be hurt if this money was cut. There have been eight fatal alligator attacks in the last 50 years and three of them have occurred in the last 4 years, including the killing of a 3-year-old. A short while ago, an 18-year-old high school senior was killed by a cougar while out jogging. Recently in Montana, the Department of Fish and Wildlife captured a cougar on a campus stroll at the University of Montana. And last year, a 4-year-old was mauled by a mountain lion in Colorado. We have countless cases. Children traveling on aircraft, for example, would be put at risk if animal damage control were not allowed to deal with wildlife that puts aviation at risk near many of the airports in this country. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to think seriously about what they are voting for here. A vote for this amendment is voting against the safety of children in this country.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Agriculture Appropriations bill. I know the Chairman has worked very hard to bring a balanced bill to the floor today that addresses all of the challenges that face American Agriculture, whether it be the pests that damage our crops to competing in the world market. I believe that this bill works to balance the needs of agriculture from Texas to Washington to California to Connecticut. It was a very difficult task to balance all of the important competing interests, but the bill before you today does just that and still meets the needs of a balanced budget. This bill provides money to fund vital agriculture research to help our farmers and ranchers become more competitive and improve production, it supports food safety and conserves our natural resources while improving the lives of those who live in rural America. More specifically the bill provides funding for the boll weevil eradication program which is vital to cotton producers across the cotton belt. The boll weevil is the primary cotton pest and it has cost our economy billions of dollars. Currently five states has passed referenda and are planning for program initiation. This program is at a pivotal point and the money in this bill will allow for full implementation of the program across the cotton belt. This bill also contains funding to support a variety of research projects for both plants and animals. One example is a research project that enhances cancer fighting agents that occur naturally in vegetables. A super carrot has already been developed and now they are working on other foods. The Committee has also made a significant commitment to food safety. The bill increases spending on food safety by $20.6 million. Not only will our producers be growing more food that is better for you we will be able to maintain our outstanding record on food safety. These are just a few examples of very important projects that are in this bill. The list is certainly much longer. Americans enjoy the world's safest and most abundant food supply. This bill goes a long way to ensure that Americans will continue to enjoy this privilege in the future. The bill supports the people who keep Americans fed and clothed, our food supply safe and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gilman Amendment which insures the safety and security of Americans are not compromised to promote questionable scientific theories. The Kyoto Treaty may not succeed in combating the phantom threat of global warming, but it has sinister consequences for our military and our security. Simply put the Kyoto Treaty will restrict military fuel consumption. This will cut armor training by 328,000 miles per year, cut naval steaming by 2,000 days per year and cut Air Force training by 210,000 hours per year while placing no restriction on the Chinese and other militaries. The Gilman Amendment will stop this onslaught on America's security. The Gilman amendment will safeguard our independence. My colleagues, let's defend our sovereignty from real foes not phantom threats. Please join me in voting to safeguard our independence and vote for the Gilman Amendment.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, four minutes, to the gentleman from El Paso, Texas (Mr. Reyes), who is on the right side of this issue.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from San Antonio, Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), my neighbor, friend, and colleague. (Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this compact between the States of Texas, Maine, and Vermont. This is a situation that is endangering the future and the environment for many of the constituencies that I have in the western part of my congressional district. I have received communications from no fewer than a dozen local government, city and county governments that are right now hoping that the Congress will stand up and finally do the right thing on this issue. Let me make it clear that there is no language in this bill at all that refers to where in Texas this dump would be constructed. That was decided by the State legislature, the State senators and State representatives, and the governors of Texas. What this does is allow the deal to be consummated, if you will; and we are the last hope that these folks have. Because, in their view, the State government did not do its job back home and have it constructed somewhere else, rather than right in their backyards. Let us all understand that there have been earthquakes in this area, that the geology is not stable in the surrounding area, and that there is a strong threat to the water supplies, there is a strong threat to the future of communities that want to survive and thrive in this particular part of west Texas. So it is incumbent upon ourselves to consider how it is going to affect the people that live in these areas that could be threatened by these toxic substances that are going to be buried right next to where they have raised their families. The other issue that is of great concern, not just to the folks who live in this area, but to the people who live in areas leading up to the area, in other words, the highways and the railway systems that lead to these areas where these toxic substances would be brought through, communities as far as 2 or 300 miles away, not only in Texas but in other States surrounding Texas where many of this low-level toxic radioactive waste material would be coming through their areas. In fact, this question has been raised in the community of San Antonio by some who are questioning right now, ``Where is this stuff going to be moving through? Will it be coming through our neighborhood, traveling westbound to be deposited in this particular area?'' So these questions have not been answered, and it is a strong threat to the future of many of these communities. It is for that reason I rise in strong opposition to this compact and urge my colleagues to vote no. This thing has come up before in the House of Representatives on the floor here. One time earlier we were able to defeat it. The last time around, a lot of folks were spoken to very strongly and it turned out that we lost the second time around. And here we are one more time with an opportunity to say no to this dump and yes to the people that live in this community and are hoping to have their families and grandchildren and future generations survive and thrive in these areas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I am introducing legislation, along with my San Antonio colleague Representative Ciro Rodriguez, to grant a federal charter to the American GI Forum (AGIF). The American GI Forum is an institution in Texas and has more than 500 chapters across our great nation. It is the largest national veterans service organization without a federal charter. AGIF members, through their commitment and sacrifice have earned this honorary status for their organization through their military service. It is long past time to grant this honor. I am fortunate to represent one of the most patriotic congressional districts in America. There are seven military bases in and around my district. There are two veterans cemeteries and three veterans hospitals in my area. It is not surprising that this patriotic area has many chapters of the American GI Forum. The patriotism of the region makes it a natural home for the GI Forum and makes me all the more committed to granting this organization a federal charter. The American GI Forum celebrates its 50th anniversary this year as our nation's largest predominantly Hispanic veterans organization. It is only fitting that we commemorate this occasion by granting a federal charter. This bipartisan bill provides a means for this Congress to recognize the sacrifices of the one million Hispanic veterans. I urge my colleagues to join this bipartisan effort to provide a federal charter to the American GI Forum.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of legislation commemorating Israel's fiftieth anniversary. The rebirth of Israel in this century is a modern day miracle. Jews from every continent have built a new nation, ancient in history, with a vibrant democracy and a modern economy. Israel represents the rebirth of a nation, a people, and the Hebrew language. The building of a new nation with immigrants from societies as diverse as Russia, Poland, Morocco, Argentina, India, and Ethiopia is a challenge we as Americans recognize and celebrate. The achievements in this regard are truly impressive. Israel has made the desert bloom, has an exemplary education system and a growing economy. It is a world leader in technology and has had an impact far larger than other nations of its size. Israel's accomplishments are particularly impressive as it has been living under siege for its entire history. Independence was secured in a bloody struggle and freedom has been defended at great cost. The Jewish state has faced great struggles maintaining its independence as the sole democracy in a hostile corner of the world. America and Israel have been natural friends. Most Americans admire Israel's commitment to democratic government while living under siege. I think all Americans would like to join me in wishing the Israeli people a future of peace and prosperity on this occasion. I am hopeful that the people of Israel will achieve even more once a real peace, not one imposed by outside powers, is reached with their neighbors.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act. This bill might just as easily be called the No-Brainer Act. If you support creating jobs and promoting a strong economy, you should support this bill. It should be a No-Brainer for all of us to support this goal. This bill is necessary because for years the NLRB has considered imposing a single site rule. For over 40 years, the courts have interpreted the law to provide employers with the right to a hearing on whether a single facility selected by a union is an appropriate bargaining unit. A reversal of this precedence by NLRB would create a litigation nightmare. Simultaneously, it would increase business costs threatening jobs. It should be a No-Brainer to realize that this is a dangerous path to take. Passage of this bill helps ensure NLRB will not threaten jobs with this approach in the future. This bill makes other necessary reforms to abuses of the current system of labor-management relations. The bill stops ``salting,'' a practice where union organizers seek employment solely to organize a workforce. It should be a No-Brainer to recognize that a company must make hiring decision based on an employee's genuine interest in contributing to a company's success, not on their desire to promote big labor's agenda. The bill requires the NLRB to issue a final decision on certain unfair labor complaints within a year. It should be a No-Brainer to support resolving these disputes in a timely manner and not leaving companies in bureaucratic limbo. Finally, the bill requires the NLRB to pay attorney fees and costs to parties who prevail against the NLRB in administrative and court proceedings. It should be a No-Brainer to support this common sense effort to deter bureaucratic persecution. The bill before us represents a common sense effort to protect our economic prosperity from costly government interference and small business from big labor.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is a debate that involves small business, and I think all of us who believe in the American way and in driving the American economy understand that small business is the backbone of that culture that drives the American economy. Too often this Congress dumps on them: more regulations, higher mandated wages, taxes that are too high. So we have people, for example, that are running small restaurants in this country that are asking us not to dump on them one more time. In my hometown of San Antonio, small businesses and restaurants are at the forefront of job creation and economic opportunity. Anyone who has visited San Antonio and the River Walk know how these small businesses enhance my town's premier tourist attraction. These businesses cannot afford in many cases any more ruinous fees. This amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), which I am supporting, provides a reasonable compromise to protect jobs while protecting the copyrights of artists. Simply put, the Sensenbrenner amendment makes needed changes in Federal law by providing for local arbitration of music licensing fee disputes. Small businesses will no longer be forced to travel across the country to New York to make their case. They could not afford to do that anyway. Today's small business has no local recourse. This is a more than reasonable compromise the gentleman from Wisconsin is offering in his amendment. The amendment does not fully exempt businesses from paying royalties or change existing penalties. It merely recognizes that changing technology makes some of the current fees unfair and represents a double charge for licensing. Mr. Chairman, I cosponsored H.R. 789, the Fairness in Music Licensing Act, because I believe it represents a responsibility compromise. I urge my colleagues to please join me in voting for the Sensenbrenner amendment, which will help ensure that small business remains the engine driving our economy.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of the resolution he is presenting today. Mr. Speaker, this is not about some of the issues that have been discussed earlier today and it is not about the merits of the War Powers Act. That will be decided ultimately by the courts. What I mean by that is the constitutionality. This is not about preventing the President, if he would choose to do so, to withdraw our forces from the Balkans and from Bosnia in a smooth fashion, and transfer those responsibilities to Europeans. We are certainly not voting today on the performance of our troops. They are doing an outstanding job, as they are assigned, in Bosnia. In fact, I have just returned from Bosnia and can report that our forces have achieved their military goals. But political success is another story. Political success is many years away. This is not a secret. I think everyone knows that the President's promises of quick success were not grounded in reality. The question before us today is does America, does America have a national interest in Bosnia that justifies a long-term, expensive military commitment. The costs of this commitment are real and extend far beyond the billions of dollars that we have to appropriate in the upcoming supplemental bill. They include the young soldier that I met from east Texas on the trip to Bosnia who told me that his wife is about to leave him because he has been overdeployed too many months, too many times overseas during the last 2\1/2\ years. His family is falling apart. It was a gut-wrenching moment when he had to confess that before several other troops during a lunch we had with the troops at Camp McGovern. Others told me about the necessities they have for pay raises and health care needs. When I go back home I talk to veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam who say that they cannot even get to see a doctor anymore, because there is not enough money in the budget back home to pay for their medical needs. So what we are making is a choice here between spending money and endangering our troops' lives overseas on questionable social engineering projects, or choosing to spend that money on keeping our military strong. A lot of people out there do not realize that our military is not even what it was during the Gulf War. We cannot sustain another effort like that because of our overdeployment. We are spread too thin. Our troops' morale in some cases is already in question. We do not have a national interest in Bosnia that justifies this cost in other areas of our military operations, or in perhaps some other areas that we may have to cut back on in social spending that my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, alluded to earlier on. He was very eloquent in his remarks about the commitment of Europe in this project. Why can we not, after leading the peacekeeping mission in the first place, now be able to turn over this project to our European friends? Why has not the administration worked the phones and tried to get the leaders of countries in Europe to say, when we have done so much, we have got things established here, why can we not turn it over to you now? After all, it is in your own backyard. The bottom line is we are having to make tough choices today, and let us not think that because of the wonderful things we have accomplished so far in Bosnia that we are somehow doing more than propping up a house of cards that could fall apart once we leave. We cannot make everyone in Bosnia love each other. We cannot solve problems that have existed for generations there. I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution to end this deployment. It would be criminal to do otherwise.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in support of the Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act. It is a mouthful, and to some it might sound like some popular dance step that today's young people are doing. But, in fact, it is a very old dance step that is practiced by the court system all too often. Private property owners are forced to choose between filing a takings claim in either the U.S. court of Federal claims or Federal district court. The Tucker Act splits jurisdiction between these two courts so no one court can provide full relief to a property owner. Then what happens is, the courts wind up shuffling the property owners back and forth, bouncing them back and forth like ping pong balls between the two court systems, literally dancing around the problem and avoid ruling in the case. This bill will stop the old song-and-dance routine by giving both courts jurisdiction over all claims relating to property rights. It would not change any current takings law. Property owners who feel they have had their property taken unfairly should be allowed to have their day in court and not spend years waiting while two courts argue over who should hear their case. I believe this will eliminate unnecessary delays and reduce court costs as well. It is absurd for a landowner's problems to be tied up in court for sometimes up to 10 years or more, Mr. Speaker, waiting on the courts to figure out jurisdiction has forced landowners to watch their time and money waltz away. The time has come to give priority to citizens' constitutional rights over jurisdictional disputes between judges. The right to private property is one of our most fundamental and sacred constitutional rights. That right should be respected by the Federal court system. I encourage Members to vote for the rule and for the bill and for the right of every American to have their day in court. I would also like to commend my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for taking a leadership role in this effort.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 419, The Birth Defects Prevention Act. This bill is aimed at curbing a very serious problem that hits over 150,000 American families each year, birth defects. Birth defects strike over three percent of all births in America and are the leading cause of infant death. The real tragedy is that many of these birth defects and deaths could be prevented. The horrifying impact of birth defects touched my home state of Texas just a few years ago. In the early 1990's health officials noted extremely high numbers of children born with neural tube defects in Cameron County, in my colleague Solomon Ortiz's district. Unfortunately, the tragedy did not stop there. During a short four month period of 1995, six infants were born without brains or with only partial brains in Eagle Pass, Texas, a city in my congressional district. Despite a massive investigation by medical researchers, the cause of these outbreaks were never discovered. Nightmares like these must never happen again. That's why I was proud to join my colleague, Solomon Ortiz in introducing the Birth Defects Prevention Act. This bill will link the researchers and health care providers to the important information they need to curb birth defects and prevent other tragedies like the ones along the Texas/Mexico border. Biomedical researchers are making progress in preventing birth defects. Recently, scientists discovered the crucial role of the vitamin folic acid in preventing birth defects. Despite discoveries like this, the fact remains that researchers and health care professionals just don't know what causes most birth defects. That's why this bill is so important. The bill establishes a National Information Clearinghouse on Birth Defects. This national, state-based, tracking system will count the number of babies born with birth defects, identify the causes and start community prevention programs. By learning all the facts surrounding birth defects, we have a chance to get ahead in the fight against them. Education and research are key to fighting birth defects. With the programs established in the Birth Defects Prevention Act, hopefully fewer American families and children will be forced to live with the tragedy of birth defects. I would like to conclude by recognizing the dedication of the March of Dimes in the fight against birth defects. Their hard work in trying to eradicate the number one killer of American babies is truly outstanding.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the debate we are hearing today reminds me of the demagoguing we heard back when the new majority took over in January of 1995. We tried to do some things that were right for the country, and we were demagogued as those who were trying to end the school lunch program, as those who were trying to eliminate Medicare, and as those who were trying to hurt the environment. We all knew that was not true, but yet the demagoguing continued. The demagoguing continues today by those who are opposed to this bill, who say that it is going to somehow create a State, a new State, instantly. That is false. That is demagoguing. There is also demagoguing about how this bill might be promoting bilingualism. That is not true at all, but nonetheless the arguments continue. They say this is anti-Commonwealth. That is also not true. The demagogues know it but they continue to make these arguments, in spite of the truth and substance of what we are trying to accomplish here today. For those who think somehow that this is going to end the official language of the world, it is also a case of demagoguing. English is the official language of the world. One hundred fifty seven of 168 airlines have English as their official language. There are 3,000 newspapers printed in English in the country of India. Six members of the European Free Trade Association all conduct their business in English, despite the fact that none of the six members are from English-speaking nations. Three hundred thousand Chinese speak English in their own country. Forty-four countries have English as their official language. The size of the English language, the number of words in the English language, is about 1 million. If we count the insects, and entomologists say there are a million known insects that could also become words, if we added them to our language, you could make 2 million words that would be part of the English language, compared to other languages, like German, that has about 184,000, and French, that has about 100,000 words. For those fear-mongers who think we need some kind of amendment on this bill to help us promote English, English is already the official language of the world. We do not need an amendment to tell us that. It is going to continue to be the official language of the world. We should support H.R. 856, and all proudly, because of what it stands for, and not be fear-mongering about what it might do to the great language of English that is used worldwide. I say to my friends, let us stop the demagoguing, let us stop the fear-mongering that we have injected into this debate. Lighten up and support H.R. 856.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, today this Congress has a unique opportunity. A chance to right a wrong, a chance to stand up for America, a chance to show you care to the men and women of our military and the communities which support them. A few short weeks ago, President Clinton vetoed essential military construction projects without properly consulting our military, without consideration of the impact of these vetoes on the lives and well being of our military, without consideration of the long term security interests of America. This has been going on for far too long and today we finally have an opportunity to say enough to this White House. I have the honor and privilege of representing some of the most patriotic communities in America. Two of these communities, Del Rio and El Paso, are home of two of our finest military installations, Laughlin Air Force Base and Fort Bliss. I can say without exaggeration that Laughlin is the finest little base in the Air Force and Fort Bliss' vastness is an unmatched national security asset. Therefore I, along with each and every citizen of Del Rio and El Paso, was shocked when the President chose to veto essential projects in these communities. Today's legislation provides us with an opportunity to stand up for our military, to improve our military quality of life, to show we value our military efforts. I want to personally tell the people of Del Rio and El Paso that this Congress will not abandon you, this Congress will not abandon our military. Today we will demonstrate our complete and total rejection of the President's dangerous and irresponsible cuts. Today we can stand united with the people of Del Rio and El Paso and reject the President's assault on our military and these communities. My colleagues, I urge you, join me in standing united with the good people of Del Rio and El Paso and turn back this President's attack on our military. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2631.

Mr. BONILLA

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone can dispute the fact that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] has served this institution with honor and dignity. She is hard-working, by all accounts, and I think she should be commended for that in her remarks that she has just made before this body. But this dispute is not about the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez], or Mr. Dornan, the former Member that used to hold this seat. This is about potential voter fraud that has existed in this particular congressional district. I come from south Texas. It is notoriously known for elections that have been stolen over the years and we all know, we have read our history books, about how LBJ got his first Senate victory and zoomed up to the White House rather quickly because dead people voted for him in Duval County in south Texas. In 1990, we had a situation of a judicial race. A Republican candidate won. The Republican candidate goes to bed one night thinking that she had won, waking up the next day where they suddenly found in a border town that they had discovered 1,000 ballots that somehow did not get counted the night before. Then my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] cited the other day a Louisiana newspaper that tried to find out how easy is it to register false names, names that are just made up to see if they can register people to vote, had 25 names that they submitted to the local election officials, 19 qualified somehow to be registered voters; one was a dog. In each of these cases, somehow local communities turn their back and say, hey, well, let us just forget about it and move on. LBJ won the Senate race. The judicial seat was decided one way. In Louisiana, there are 19 new registered voters. But should we as Americans turn our back on the possibility that there was enough fraud committed in this particular race to just turn our backs on it? This is 1997. You would think that this kind of occurrence that has happened, could have happened in California, could not happen in this day and age when we have high-technology operations, when we have the ability to police what people are doing in elections, when we should have the technical expertise to find out who is really qualified to vote in this country. We cannot turn our backs on that. I ask my colleagues what is wrong with getting to the bottom of this investigation? And if we find out one day that there were enough legitimate voters in this election to say that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] should remain in Congress and serve her constituents the way she has been doing, hardworking, with integrity and conviction, like she has demonstrated so far, then more power to her. And, hopefully, she will have a long time here, if she continues to serve her constituents well. But what is wrong? What are we afraid of in finding out the truth and getting to the bottom of it? Before we get to that point, we should explore every opportunity to make sure that every voter was qualified in this election.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, the debate tonight started out on the high road, and I was highly impressed and glad to see Members that are opposed to this resolution standing up and arguing the validity of this case on its merits. I even had a tremendous amount of respect and watched with great attention when the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], my colleague on the Committee on Appropriations, stood up and got very emotional to tell us that he disagreed strongly with what we were doing tonight. But then the debate deteriorated to those who choose to play the race card, when it is inappropriate, when they know they have lost other merits in their argument. That is unfortunate. Three of my four grandparents emigrated here from Mexico at the turn of the century to seek a new life for their children and grandchildren. They did not come here to set up an isolated society within this country. They came here to be Americans first and to become part of the melting pot of this country that stood for certain values that all of us could benefit from regardless of what country we came from. This country has prospered greatly because of the great immigration that we have seen from every part of the world. We should all be proud of that. To see Members tonight talk about racism is totally unjustified and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing that. Members cannot tell me this is racism. I grew up in a barrio, in a Spanish-speaking neighborhood in South Texas, always with a dream that someday I would be able to aspire and work towards the American dream. The implication among those who cry racism is one that says if a burglar broke into their home, that somehow they should have a different standard if the person is of a different color or ethnic background. How dumb an idea can that be? We are talking about people who are possibly implicated in crimes here. This Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, or whatever they call themselves, is one of the most corrupt organizations that has ever existed that is receiving Federal money. We are trying to get to the truth of this. This has nothing to do with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] or Mr. Dornan. And if the gentlewoman comes out winning this election after this investigation is finished, I will be the first to congratulate her on her victory. This is about justice, this is about finding out the truth. That is what all Americans want in every corner of the country, and I urge all Members to support this resolution and the resolution tomorrow as well.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to the motion being considered today and urge may colleagues to oppose it and vote no. Simply put, this congress has not had the opportunity to vote on stopping the automatic cost-of-living increase for Members of Congress. I believe that it is wrong to increase congressional pay at a time when we must make further cuts in Government spending to balance the budget. At the very least, the American people are entitled to a vote so that they know their Member of Congress' position on increasing their own salaries. I want to make it very clear that I would vote no if there was such a vote. Should we fail in our effort to stop the pay raise I will donate the entire amount to charity. I will only accept the salary I was elected to receive.