Joe Baca

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1338 and I want to thank Congresswoman DeLauro for her leadership on this important bill. She has fought for paycheck fairness for women during every Congress for the past decade and should be commended for her tenacity. We are a nation with a constitution and bill of rights. It is sad to admit that in a country as prosperous as ours, women only earn 77 cents to every dollar that men earn. It's even worse for minority women: with African American women earning 66 cents to the dollar of Latinas earning 55 cents to the dollar. This bill corrects this injustice by making it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform equal work. In 1923, women's suffragist Alice Paul, wrote the Equal Rights Amendment which would guarantee ``equal justice under law'' to all citizens. I was proud to sponsor a bill that would honor Alice Paul with a congressional Gold Medal for her heroic leadership in fighting for the ERA and in working to achieve women's right to vote. My bill, H.R. 406 passed the house with 406 cosponsors, a historic record of support! While the ERA was never ratified, the Paycheck Fairness Act brings us closer to achieving its intent. Wage discrimination keeps women down and harms the overall economy. It also represents the worst of America. We must confront discrimination head on and ensure that all Americans, regardless of gender, receive equal pay for equal work.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation with a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, with human rights; and that's what makes our country so great. These rights were violated for hundreds of families in immigration raids throughout the country, including Postville, Iowa. What we fail to see at times are the long-lasting and devastating impact raids leave behind. In Postville, hundreds of children have been ripped from their families, elderly left to fend for themselves, single parents forced to wear ankle bracelets are prohibited from working to feed their children. And the schools now resemble ghost towns with the absence of so many children. We cannot continue to look the other way and ignore what is happening in this country. The human dignity of these families have been stepped on. We are a country with moral principles and core family values. There is no blanket solution for the immigration crisis. We need to look beyond this ugly anti-immigrant rhetoric that is dividing our Nation and work towards comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 896, the Primary Lateral Sclerosis Awareness Month Act. I would like to thank Chairman Dingell, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Nathan Deal, along with Mr. Terry, for helping guide this legislation through the committee. Primary lateral sclerosis, commonly referred to as PLS, is a neurological disorder that affects the cells that control the voluntary muscles. PLS is similar to ALS, often called Lou Gehrig's disease. Can you imagine someone who is diagnosed with PLS, but yet they are told that it is ALS and in fact it was PLS that they were diagnosed, and thinking that they only had X amount of time to live, its impact it has on the family members and others as they begin to look at that disease because not enough research has been done? That is devastating to the individuals and the family members who are diagnosed. That is why it is important that we do the research. This illness is, of course, named after the famous Yankee baseball player who suffered and died of ALS before we knew much about it. As with many other neurological disorders, once the nerve cells that control the voluntary muscles are affected, a person's physical ability to function becomes very difficult. Symptoms of PLS include difficulties with balance, sudden involuntary muscle spasms in the hands, feet, legs, and speech problems when the facial muscles are affected. But these symptoms are not unique to PLS alone. PLS is often very difficult to diagnose because the symptoms vary, and may progress slowly over a period of time of many years. I would rather have someone be diagnosed with the right PLS versus ALS to know that they are going to live a lot longer. Because of this, many Americans are still unaware of the severe nature of PLS, even though the disorder was first discovered in 1850 in France. That is why we need to continue with greater and more expansive research. My resolution serves to raise awareness across the Nation by urging all Americans to recognize February of 2009 as PLS Awareness Month. This resolution emphasizes the need of greater funding and more research to combat neuromuscular disease. With this bill, Congress is helping educate our doctors and nurses and the rest of the medical community about PLS. However, there are many courageous and dedicated individuals who are doing this already. One is my good friend, Hardy Brown, who is from my district and, of course, owner of the Black Voice Newspaper in California. He has dedicated his life to serve as a voice for underrepresented communities in the Inland Empire. Throughout his life, Hardy Brown has done a tremendous job in the community raising awareness of Lou Gehrig's disease. Now he is diagnosed with PLS. Hardy Brown, once a vibrant, active leader, is now in a wheelchair doing what he can despite difficulties moving, speaking, and typing. Another individual, Tyonja Bathgate from Maryland, whose husband was diagnosed with PLS, has torn herself from her husband's bedside to advocate on behalf of this issue. We want to thank these individuals and all others who have worked to raise the awareness of these conditions. But we must do more, and urging the establishment of a PLS Awareness Month is a step in the right direction. There is currently no cure for PLS, and hopefully one day we will find a cure. God willing, we will do that. Treatment and symptoms vary from person to person, and the age of onset is generally between the ages of 35 to 66, and, as it was stated, over 2,000 have been diagnosed with this. Because of the similar symptoms, researchers believe that PLS patients are often diagnosed with ALS, and I have already stated the effects it has on families when they are told that. Most of us have heard of Lou Gehrig's disease, but this legislation today will help raise the awareness and stress the importance of a very familiar disorder. The medical community must be able to properly diagnose those individuals who suffer from PLS and other neuromuscular disease to ensure proper care and treatment. I urge my colleagues to vote for H. Res. 896, and join me and all individuals and organizations in this effort to fight this devastating illness. And I want to thank again Mr. Pallone, Mr. Terry for helping us with this legislation and many of the others that will support this to make sure that not many other individuals suffer from this type of disease that will affect others as well.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of two great Americans, Jose and Felice Zamora, beloved parents, grandparents, and friends on the occasion of their fiftieth wedding anniversary. Jose and Felice--known to all as Tony and Phyllis--first met in the spring of 1958. They met at a Los Amigos dance at Barstow High School. After dating for only four months, they were married on August 29, 1958. Tony proposed to Phyllis in between innings of a baseball game he was playing in. She happily accepted. The two were married in a small private ceremony attended by close friends and family. After renting a house for a year, Tony and Phyllis bought a house in Barstow, the same house they still reside in today. Tony started work as a bus boy at the Bun Boy restaurant in Barstow. He eventually worked his way up to chef, while Phyllis was a homemaker. In 1967, Tony started working as a warehouseman at the Marine Corps Logistics Base and stayed there until retiring in 1996. Phyllis began working as a housekeeper at a local hotel, and would continue for 20 years. On July 16, 1959, the Zamoras were blessed with their son, Victor Anthony. On October 10, 1967, the Zamoras celebrated the birth of their daughter Donna Lynn. On October 19, 1981, Tony and Phyllis had their second daughter, Crystal Ann. Family has always been the focus of the Zamora's life. And they have been blessed with six grandchildren. They have four granddaughters-- Kristina Victoria Zamora, Heather Marie Zamora, Ciera Ariel Taylor, and Cienna Faith Davis. They also have two grandsons, Sebastian Antonio Taylor and Simon Antonio Taylor. In addition, they now have three great-grandsons and a fourth on the way. Children have always been a big part of Tony and Phyllis' lives, and since 1959, the sound of kids at play has filled their house in Barstow. Growing up with Tony, we played fastpitch softball together for many years. He was a great second baseman and I feel fortunate to have such wonderful memories of our days together, all of the great tournaments we used to play in as part of the same team and our young days spent in the sun. Having known the Zamoras nearly all of my life, I would like to extend my heartiest congratulations on their fiftieth wedding anniversary. On behalf of my wife Barbara, my family and I, felicidades, and may you have many more years of happiness. God bless you.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, the foreclosure crisis is hurting communities all across the Nation and my district has been especially impacted: In San Bernardino County, 11,817 notices of default were recorded in the first quarter, 130 percent more than a year earlier. Everyone pays when there are foreclosures. Crime increases, home values decline, schools are affected, and cities run deficits which impacts revenues for local police, fire, and social services. Last Wednesday, I came to the floor in support of a legislative package that would stimulate our Nation's struggling economy and help prevent foreclosures. The House passed the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 with bipartisan support on that same day and the Senate approved it last Saturday, sending the bill straight to the President for his signature. I am particularly pleased that the final package included an important housing counseling provision which I offered with support from Reps. Mahoney from Florida and McCarthy from New York. This provision directs the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation to give greater consideration to counseling agencies that have a demonstrated track record in working with servicers and that provide in-person contact and in-person [face-to-face] housing counseling to borrowers in trouble when awarding their grants. It evolved out of the growing concern that despite all of the media attention given to the foreclosure crisis, as well as the creation of the HOPE Now Alliance, many homeowners were still not receiving assistance they needed to avoid entering foreclosure. According to a Freddie Mac study, 56 percent of homeowners don't even know free counseling exists. Also, counselors across the country have reported delays and challenges connecting with telephone counseling. Counselors that receive referrals from hotlines often have to start fresh with the client, and language minorities report having difficulty reaching a live counselor. Whenever possible, in-person foreclosure counseling is preferable over telephone counseling alone. In fact, one-on-one counseling is shown preference in the HUD Housing Counseling Program--one that has demonstrated enormous success. Of course, the intention of this provision is not to exclude any struggling family. If telephone counseling is the only means of support available, the family should absolutely have access to it. The intention is to promote first the most effective and efficient services to families, then ensure a back up is in place. Telephone counseling should augment and supplement in-person counseling when it is unavailable or work is overflowing. Not the other way around. The intent of the effort which I have described is to make housing counseling dollars as effective as possible and to reach as many borrowers in trouble as possible. Providing in-person outreach to homeowners in trouble and in-person housing counseling is more effective than just sending a default notification in the mail. Having someone individually reach out to these borrowers to work through their options to avoid foreclosure by analyzing their specific situation, including their loan document, is a necessary line of prevention and defense. My amendment simply directs some of the counseling funding in the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act (H.R. 3221) to organizations that already promote this proven method. It is our hope that the lenders, servicers, and federally regulated and federally chartered institutions like the GSEs and HUD would also do everything possible to include in-person outreach and in-person counseling in their efforts, including working with organizations that have the demonstrated capacity to reach out to homeowners needing assistance. Increasing this type of outreach and assistance is especially critical in non-judicial foreclosure states where notice of default and foreclosure is limited. We also hope the language in this bill will help level the playing field to ensure organizations with established servicer partnerships and the demonstrated experience and capacity to offer more in-depth service through in-person counseling and outreach can receive grant funding so that they have the resources they need to assist those hard- to-reach borrowers. This is good public policy and good business because it will increase loan modifications and decrease foreclosures and thereby minimize the adverse impact on local communities. It will also strengthen relationships between counseling agencies, servicers, and lenders to enhance outreach out to borrowers who are behind in their payments. More importantly, it will help keep struggling families in their homes. Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act contains another provision I authored in my bill, H.R. 4019, the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act and I want to thank Senator Reed (RI) the author of the companion bill, for his leadership in shepherding this provision in the Senate. This provision will ensure that consumers are provided with timely and meaningful disclosures in connection with not just home purchases but also for loans that refinance a home or provide a home equity line of credit. It requires that mortgage disclosures be provided within 3 days of application and no later than 7 days before closing. This should allow borrowers to shop for another mortgage if they are not satisfied with the terms. If the terms of the loan change, the consumer must be notified 3 days before closing of the changed terms. If consumers apply for adjustable rate or variable rate payment loans, there will now be an explicit warning on the 1-page Truth in Lending Act form that the payments will change depending on the interest rate and an estimate of how those payments will change under the terms of the contract based on the current interest rate. The bill also provides a new disclosure that informs borrowers of the maximum monthly payments possible under their loan. The bill provides the right to waive the early disclosure requirements if the consumer has a bona fide financial emergency that requires they close the loan quickly and increases the range of statutory damages for TILA violations from the current $200 to $2,000 to a range of $400 to $4,000. Finally, it requires lenders to include a statement that the consumer is not obligated to purchase the mortgage loan just because they received the disclosures. This will give consumers the opportunity to truly shop around for the best mortgage terms for the first time ever. They will be able to compare the payments and costs associated with a certain loan product and decide not to sign on the dotted line if they do not like the basic terms of the loan. This will help prevent foreclosures in the future especially given the fact that many consumers facing foreclosure on their homes who have adjustable rate mortgages never understood how their loan products worked or how high their payments would be once their loans reset.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I stand here today to honor and remember a distinguished member of the Colton community and a beloved wife, mother, grandmother and friend, Barbara ``Bobbie'' Eloise Earnest. Bobbie was born in Indio, California on January 30, 1930. After moving as a child, she became a lifelong resident of Colton, California. Her mother, Gertrude Valenzan, was the first female Mayor Pro-Tem of Colton. Bobbie graduated from Colton High School in 1948. An enterprising young woman, long before women were encouraged to work outside the home, Bobbie began working at the age of 16 in the mail room of the Retail Clerks Union, which would later become the United Food and Commercial Workers Union UCFW. For nearly forty years, Bobbie worked tirelessly for the UCFW, rising through the ranks from what she called ``an envelope licker'' to Insurance Department Supervisor for the UCFW for all of San Bernardino County. She was also the recorder for all of the minutes of all the union meetings for all of those years. After retiring in 1985, Bobbie took up golf. Always insisting on walking, never using a cart or caddy, she famously walked all 18 holes 3 or 4 times a week well into her seventies. She was known in her neighborhood as a caring, compassionate woman, the ``Mother Teresa'' to her friends. A devout woman, Bobbie was an active member of Immaculate Conception church in Colton, CA. Also a family woman, she raised her three children Nick, Larry, and Becky by herself. In 1980, she met and married Leroy Johnson and shared in a loving relationship for 28 years. Bobbie's true pride was her 12 grandchildren and 8 great-grandchildren. In her youth, Bobbie was known as a first-rate dancer, and had once been a dance partner of the great Johnnie Bracia. And it was with that same spirit of grace, style and elegance that Barbara Eloise Earnest touched the lives of all those around her. Let us take a moment to remember this amazing woman and her admirable dedication to others and leading an exemplarily life, one of whose footsteps we all hope to follow. Having known her for over twenty years, the thoughts and prayers of my wife Barbara, my family and I are with her loved ones at this time. Madam Speaker, the community of Colton has lost one of its greatest native daughters, but she will forever live on in the hearts of those that knew her. God Bless Bobbie Earnest for love of country and mankind.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I speak on behalf of the 12 to 14 million immigrants in the United States. Throughout history, America has been a Nation of immigrants. For decades, immigrants have contributed with their heart, sweat, and tears to have the American dream like the rest of us. Immigrant families continue to pay property taxes in the form of rent, pay sales taxes on every purchase, and most importantly, contribute to Social Security without legally having any claim to any of it. Yet, there are those who wish to downplay these positive contributions for political gain. You don't see many local governments turning away taxes paid by undocumented immigrants. However, you do see local governments spending these tax dollars to create anti-immigration legislation that strip away families of basic services. I urge my colleagues to get past the anti-immigrant myths and look at the facts about the true positive contributions of immigrants. We must stand firm and pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the chairman of the committee for his leadership on this, and for including the provision that deals with counseling that I support, and I submit my statement for the Record. First let me thank the gentleman for his hard work on this legislation and his dedication to helping homeowners in need. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to talk about the importance of housing counseling and how to make these dollars more effective. Statistics show that 8,500 homeowners are foreclosing each day and 2.5 million are expected to lose their homes by the end of this year. Some States require that homeowners be notified in person if they are about to foreclosure. But many States such as California and Texas do not. These States just send letters in the mail. The bill before us today includes an important provision that requires the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation to give consideration to counseling agencies that provide in- person contact and in-person housing counseling to borrowers in need when awarding their grants. Statistics show that when homeowners are notified in person that counseling is available, a large percentage can save their homes. For those States that just send default and foreclosure notices through the mail, we hope that federally chartered and regulated institutions doing business in those States will use every effort to notify homeowners in person that counseling is available. This is important because when borrowers go 30 or 60 days late on paying their mortgages, they often stop answering the telephone or opening mail from their lender. They give into despair, and believe there is no hope. Fifty percent of homeowners in default never contact their lenders. What I find most troubling is that according to a Freddie Mac study, 56 percent don't know counseling is available. The money is there, but the counseling is not getting to the people that need it. This will promote partnerships between counseling agencies and lenders to improve outreach to borrowers, whether in person or through other means, to advise them that help is available. And second, it encourages in person counseling so that counselors can advise homeowners individually to help them work through their options and prevent foreclosure. I also want to thank Mrs. McCarthy of New York and Mr. Mahoney of Florida who co-sponsored this language. As you know, our amendments passed the Committee on Financial Services under unanimous consent and with bipartisan support. And I thank the Republicans on our committee for their support and especially thank Chairman Frank for his leadership.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of the 12 to 14 million immigrants here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, the memory of Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez will always remain in our hearts. Gutierrez, an undocumented immigrant who came here as an orphan from Guatemala, graduated from high school despite many obstacles. While in community college, he enlisted as a marine to show his patriotism and love for this Nation. On March 31, 2003, Gutierrez became the first combat casualty of the war of Iraq. His belief in the American dream of a better life is a testament of what many others who come to this country wish to have. Gutierrez will forever be a symbol of patriotism, hard work, and commitment. Sadly, his sacrifices are lost in the hateful anti-immigrant rhetoric. Every day, 12 to 14 million immigrants work from sunset to sundown to reach the American dream--all positively contributing to America's economic health. I urge my colleagues to keep in mind these contributions and make a firm commitment to work towards comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of immigrants. Sometimes heroes come from the least expected places. Such is the case of Edwin Ramirez from Pacoima, California. Ramirez, despite his obstacles, successfully built small businesses with his brother. In 1990, as a parent and a leader with a vision, he quickly rose as a leader in his local PTA and within Los Angeles Unified School District. Ramirez also founded and became president of the Pacoima Neighborhood Council to voice concerns of his community. Edwin Ramirez is an example of the American dream and a hero in the community. Edwin is an immigrant. It is because of Edwin Ramirez and other role models like him that our country has always welcomed immigrants. For those reasons, on behalf of the American dream, I urge my colleagues to support comprehensive immigration on behalf of the 12 million to 14 million people here in the United States.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, today, we find ourselves fighting for H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. It is with great pleasure that I stand here today in support of this necessary veto override measure, fighting and doing my part to protect our seniors, the disabled and the American people. For months now, I have been actively listening to leaders in my district in San Bernardino, California, about the necessary need to pass H.R. 6331. Congress has made it clear over the last weeks that we are standing our ground on behalf of the American family. Unfortunately, President Bush is playing politics on the backs of our seniors and today vetoed H.R. 6331. This is unacceptable. Congress will not stand by and watch our seniors on Medicare get turned away next time they go see their doctor. This is not about politics; it's about our struggling American families that are constantly choosing between putting food on the table and paying for medicines. Today, I proudly will vote to override the President's veto and put America's seniors and their families first. I urge my colleagues to vote for this veto override and remember that we are here to represent the families in our district that so desperately need help.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of immigrants. In the midst of our energy crisis, gas prices, and housing crisis in the United States, there are those who continue to positively contribute to our economy. Immigrants throughout history have come to this Nation with a hunger for success in the American dream, to provide for a family, and have their kids obtain an education. And many of them are working two to three different jobs contributing to our country at stores, restaurants, and gas stations. Immigrants often live near their establishments, are avid sponsors for local Little League, soccer, schools, and churches. Our country has always welcomed immigrants. Let's remember that we need comprehensive immigration reform for those who positively contribute to our local communities. I urge my colleagues to support comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, immigrants have served in our Armed Forces with courage and dignity since the Revolutionary War. Even today, they continue to defend our country's freedom. They've even earned the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Nation's highest military decoration. For example, Alfred Rascon, an undocumented immigrant during his service in the Vietnam War received the Medal of Honor for his courage and dedication to America. Immigrants have also reached the highest ranks in the U.S. military. General John Shalikashvili, an immigrant from Poland who came to the United States after World War II, was a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From 2002 to 2005, over 15,000 immigrants have served in our armed services and later completed their naturalization process. There are thousands of other success stories that we should honor. We cannot ignore these positive contributions and the unique and valuable functions that immigrants perform. I urge my colleagues to support a comprehensive immigration reform on behalf of those servicemen and women and their families.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, Congress came back this week from celebrating our Nation's Independence Day. This is a special time to reflect on America's difficult history and the true essence of what she stands for. Since the beginning, America has thrived on the contributions of its immigrant labor force. Sadly today, the positive contributions of the immigrant labor force to our society are too often unnoticed. Hardworking families contribute daily and pay their share into the American system. Hardworking mothers sometimes work three jobs, give up their weekends, and take overtime and night shifts to feed and clothe their children. Hardworking fathers wake up at 4 a.m. to go to work, earn below minimum wages, and manage to provide for their families. Immigrants contribute in taxes from their paychecks just like the next person through shopping at a variety of stores, restaurants, and gas stations. In fact, the IRS reported that between 1996 to 2003, immigrants contributed $50 billion in Federal taxes. We cannot afford to ignore the figures, and more importantly, we cannot afford to ignore the positive contributions of immigrants in America. We need comprehensive immigration for the security of our Nation.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support of H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. My top priorities are the patients and their families from my District. Over the past several months, I've received several phone calls from hard-working families. These families are worried whether the Medicare physician payment cuts will prevent them from being able to see their doctor. These families are worried about their ability to receive life saving medicines and medical supplies in the mail next time they run out. These families are worried about their local pharmacy's ability to offer discounts on medicines. For these families, I stand here in support of H.R. 6331. This bill delays physician payment cuts, protecting our seniors from facing difficulty in accessing needed healthcare. In these times of skyrocketing gas prices, this bill improves low-income assistance programs for Medicare beneficiaries. Many working families from the Inland Empire, in California, are faced with putting food on the table or paying for medicines. Furthermore, my constituents will face a unique situation when the competitive bidding process rolls out on July 1st. This bill delays this process; preventing any possible harmful interruptions in the shipment of medical supplies to patients. Time is quickly running out, these deadlines are approaching and we must not stand by and watch. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6331, our working families are counting on us.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, the positive contributions of the immigrant labor force to our society are too often unnoticed. Hardworking families contribute daily and pay their share into the American system. Hardworking mothers sometimes work three jobs, give up weekends, and take overtime and night shifts to feed and clothe their children. Hardworking fathers wake up at 4 a.m. to go to work, earn below minimum wages, and manage to provide for their families. Immigrants contribute in taxes from their paychecks, just like the next person. In fact, the IRS reported that between 1996-2003, immigrants contributed $50 billion in Federal taxes. Social Security reported that ``other than legal immigrants,'' will contribute 15 percent of the system's projected long term deficit. We cannot afford to ignore the figures and more importantly, we cannot afford to ignore the positive contributions of immigrants in America.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 6304, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008. This bill gives the intelligence community the tools it needs to keep America safe from terrorists, and at the same time protects the constitutional rights of all Americans. The FISA Amendments Act is a balanced bill that is tough on terrorists while also protecting the rights of Americans and increasing oversight of U.S. intelligence activities. H.R. 6304 allows the intelligence community to conduct foreign electronic surveillance for the purpose of defending against terrorism and national security without the need for individual court orders. But in situations where these investigations would involve surveillance of American citizens, the Courts will have the oversight to review and approve the surveillance to ensure constitutional rights are upheld. We must remember that the United States has enemies abroad who wish to do us harm. Under this bill, Americans will have stronger protections of their constitutional freedoms than the current foreign surveillance policy allows, and at the same time, the intelligence needed to protect our country will not be compromised. The legislation protects American civil liberties and upholds constitutional values by clarifying that FISA and Title III of the criminal code are the exclusive means by which the government may conduct surveillance on U.S. soil. This will prevent any President from using executive power to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance. The legislation also clarifies that to conduct surveillance of a person in the United States, the government must first obtain an individual warrant from the FISA Court based on probable cause. H.R. 6304 ensures compliance measures, but not automatic immunity, for private-sector companies that allegedly participated in anti-terrorism surveillance programs. Federal district courts will be allowed to determine whether substantial evidence supports civil liability protection for companies which assisted in post-9/11 activities. The bill also ensures liability protections for companies which provide lawful assistance to the government in the future. This is good legislation that reaches the necessary balance between keeping the American people safe and protecting our civil rights. We will have greater oversight of our nation's surveillance programs, while at the same time encouraging greater compliance with our private sector partners in the ultimate goal of keeping America and her people secure. Please vote in support of H.R. 6304.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5781, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act. The legislation gives Federal employees 4 weeks of paid leave for the birth or adoption of a child. Strong parental involvement plays an important role in raising a happy, healthy, and successful child. As the country's largest employer with over 1.8 million employees, the Federal Government should set the standard for family friendly workplace policies. I am proud to support this common-sense legislation, which promotes the family values that are at the core of our society while also setting an example for all employers across America to follow. Studies consistently show that paid parental leave is a smart business practice. Not only does paid leave help to reduce turnover, but it can also lead to increased productivity and better morale. Simply put, offering 4 weeks of paid parental leave is the right thing to do--especially now, when the Federal Government is struggling to recruit and retain qualified, young individuals. As the economic and industrial leaders of the world, the U.S. Government should be the standard bearer on issues relating to fairness and family. I urge the President to reconsider his misguided veto threat, and work with Congress to give more American parents the tools they need to build healthier and stronger families. Please vote in support of H.R. 5781.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1029, recognizing Chi-Chi Rodriguez for his generosity and work with low- income and disadvantaged youth in our country. Chi-Chi is famous for his success on the golf course. He was a self- taught golfer that started out fusing a branch from a guava tree for a club and a metal can as a ball. He then went on to win 8 titles on the PGA tour and represented our country as a member of the 1973 U.S. Ryder Cup team. He is a true ambassador of the game, and a role model for all Latino golfers, including myself. From his childhood in the sugar cane fields of Puerto Rico, to the World Golf Hall of Fame, Chi-Chi has lived the American Dream. What most people don't know about Chi-Chi is his dedication to working with underprivileged kids. He inspires others to pursue their dreams as well. At the Chi-Chi Rodriguez Academy, kids learn valuable lessons to help them in life--respect, confidence, honesty, responsibility, integrity, and sportsmanship, to name a few. Under-achieving students with behavioral problems and learning disabilities get free help at Chi-Chi's academy. This resolution recognizes Chi-Chi's continuing efforts to improve the lives of thousands of low-income and disadvantaged youth in our country, I encourage my colleagues to join with me and honor Mr. Juan Antonio ``Chi-Chi'' Rodriguez.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I stand here today to honor a dedicated civic leader, loyal friend, loving father and husband, adoring grandfather and doting great-grandfather--Peter B. Ramos. Born in El Paso, Texas, Pete moved to San Bernardino, California where he grew up to become a longstanding member of the community, including his participation at San Salvador Church in Colton and Sacred Heart Church in Palm Dessert. After graduating from San Bernardino High School in 1955, Pete proudly served in the U.S. Army and was stationed in Germany until 1958. Returning to San Bernardino, Pete was hired by the San Bernardino Unified School District, remaining a devoted employee for thirty years. In 1973, Pete was an instrumental founding member of the GENTS Organization, a community-based association whose purpose is directed at helping today's youth become tomorrow's leaders. The leadership of Pete within the GENTS Organization has contributed to it's successful fundraising events, generating thousands of dollars in scholarships, donations to charitable organizations and the sponsorship of sports activities for the youth. In addition to his service to the San Bernardino Unified School District, Pete was also a part-time employee of the San Bernardino Golf Club. An avid golf player, his fervent passion for both the sport and the community was demonstrated by all of the golf clubs he helped establish. These include the Gents Golf Association, San Bernardino County Twilight Golf League, Golf Buddies, Colton Golf Club, and San Bernardino Golf Club. Pete was an empowering leader within the San Bernardino community, an excellent role model who set his sights on helping others have a better life. He lived by example, saying to me, ``Joe, you can change life and attitudes by believing and giving others a chance.'' Having always enjoyed his company on the green, he was also a strong supporter of my political endeavors. More then anything, Pete was a true friend to my family and I, especially in his great support of my sons, City Councilman Joe Baca Jr. and Jeremy Baca. Pete is survived by his wife of 49 years, Helen Ramos, former City Councilwoman, whom he deeply loved. Pete is also survived by his daughter, Roseanne Reyes; his son, Armando; grandchildren, Raylene Soto, Leandra Soto, Bree Reyes, Michael Reyes; great-grandchild, Noelle Tavie; his sisters, Connie Hernandez, Lucy Zamora; brothers, Louis, Daniel, Joe; and many nieces, nephews and godchildren. Let us take a moment to remember this great man and his admirable dedication to instilling positive change and leading an exemplary life, one in whose footsteps we all hope to follow. The thoughts and prayers of my wife Barbara, my family and I are with his family at this time. God Bless Pete Ramos for love of country and mankind.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I stand here in support of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter Defense Authorization Act of FY 2009. Just a few months ago, we reflected on the 5-year anniversary of this war. Today we send a message to our troops that we are with them. This bill authorizes additional funds for the needs of our troops overseas, and more importantly will authorize a pay raise larger than that requested by the President. During these hard economic times of recession, foreclosures, and high gas prices, our military families need all our help and support. This bill prohibits fee increases in TRICARE and expands available health care services. This bill is a step in the right direction, with directives for the Afghanistan conflict, and more accountability of the Iraqi government and contractors. Today we make our commitment to the Americans we represent, and their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, sisters and brothers serving as part of the Armed Forces. They are fighting a war that is not their fight. In my district alone, 13 families will sit at their dinner table without a loved one. To these families in my district and those throughout the Nation, I thank you for your service, your sacrifice and your love for this Nation. You are the back bone of the Armed Forces. I urge my colleagues to keep our commitment to our troops, redirect this war in the right direction and vote for H.R. 5658.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, the nutrition title in the Conference Report for the 2008 Farm Bill is a monumental achievement for the millions of Americans who struggle to put enough healthy, nutritious food on the table. I know it's not always easy to make ends meet and to put food on the table each day. I've walked in those shoes, and I've sat at that table. But with this bill we start to fulfill our responsibility to our neighbors. We have improved and strengthened food stamps and other important nutrition programs for our children and seniors. I want to take a few minutes to expand upon some of the accomplishments that are in this nutrition title. First off, we have updated the name of the program. The new name will be SNAP: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. We needed a new name because there are no places left in this country where food stamps actually are ``stamps.'' Instead, like with other modern transactions, people swipe their cards at the store to access their benefits. This has been a huge success for reducing fraud and stigma in the program. We hope and expect that the new name and new image for the program will help us to continue to chip away at the stigma that keeps some proud people, especially senior citizens, from signing up for help in paying for their groceries and puts them at risk of hunger. The name reflects the fact that the program provides a ``supplement'' to help people afford an adequate diet when their own resources are not quite enough. We also say ``nutrition,'' instead of ``food,'' because the program is about more than just food. It has got a vibrant nutrition education component to help our low-income population learn about healthy diets and make the choices that will improve their health status over their lifetimes. So I'm very proud of this new name for food stamps: an established program that is one of the best government programs we've got. Let me be clear, however, that in changing the name and eliminating food stamp coupons we did not intend to make any other policy changes to the program. I think the biggest single accomplishment in the nutrition title is to end the decades of erosion in the value of food stamp benefits. We're all aware of the rising gas and food prices of recent months and the bite they've taken out of the pocketbooks of most Americans. But for many low-income Americans the squeeze has been getting tighter for decades, as the value of their food stamps has been able to purchase less and less food with each passing year. Food stamp benefits average only $1 per person per day. It's not easy to purchase a healthy, nutritious diet on such a limited amount. So in this bill we have addressed this problem. We made critical improvements, and, for the first time in the program's history, we have ensured that, in every aspect, the food stamp program keeps its purchasing power over time. We raise the standard deduction from $134 to $144 and index it for inflation. That is an important accomplishment. It helps about 10 million people afford more food-- families, seniors, people with disabilities--all types of low-income food stamp recipients are helped by this change. We raise the minimum benefit, and index it for inflation. We uncap the dependent care deduction so that families can deduct the full cost of the child care they so desperately depend on to hold down their jobs. And we index the asset limits. We don't know what the future will hold. Hopefully, the high inflation of the past months will shortly subside as the country gets back on track. But we now can rest assured, as never before, that if there is substantial inflation our low-income families and senior citizens won't lose out on food. For me what this bill really is about is people. It's about our senior citizens who have worked hard their whole lives and deserve better than to face the fear of hunger in their last years. It's about children, who come home from school and look to their parents to put a nutritious meal on the table. One of the groups that will be most helped are our Nation's senior citizens. We were able to increase the minimum benefit, which goes predominantly to senior citizens, from $10 to about $14 a month. This is the first increase in almost 30 years in the minimum benefit. I would have liked to have increased it even more, but this change will help make it worthwhile for some of our seniors who qualify for a low benefit to participate in the program. We did this by setting the minimum benefit at 8 percent of the thrifty food plan for a single person. Because USDA adjusts the thrifty food plan every year for increases in food prices, so too will the minimum benefit now adjust. In addition, because of higher food prices in some places, like Alaska, Hawaii, and some of the territories, seniors in these places will now also see a modestly higher minimum benefit. For example in some parts of Alaska, the minimum benefit will be as high as $25 per month. In this bill we've also excluded retirement accounts from assets and indexed the asset limits to inflation. These changes will help seniors and working families to save for the future. It makes no sense to require people who fall on hard times to virtually liquidate all of the savings they've managed to put away in order to get help paying for groceries for themselves and their families. Our seniors, especially, may have no ability to replace these savings, and as a result, no cushion to deal with unexpected expenses. And a working family who is forced to spend down savings now will be that much closer to poverty in their older years. So this is an important change for the long-term ability of low-income individuals to move toward financial independence and for our senior citizens to be able to retain an ability to support themselves in their retirement. But I also want to reaffirm that we did not take away, as President Bush proposed, the State option in the food stamp program to design a more appropriate asset test at the State level. In my home State of California the legislature and Governor have been working together to design an ``expanded categorical eligibility'' program that will revise the asset limit for many food stamp recipients and make it easier for them to save for the future. I hope that other States consider this option, and I urge USDA to work with other States to promote this important policy. In another major improvement for senior citizens, we have expanded to seniors a State option from the 2002 farm bill that dramatically reduces paperwork requirements. This policy is known as ``simplified reporting'' and it will allow seniors to participate without filing paperwork for 12 month periods, unless they have a major increase in their income that makes them ineligible for food stamps. I urge USDA to make this option as simple and streamlined for seniors and States as possible, and to find ways to insulate food stamp benefits from interactions with other programs that low-income seniors participate in, particularly Medicaid. Finally, we have heard reports that despite the overwhelming success of the electronic benefits, some seniors can find the technology confusing. For those at the minimum benefit who receive maybe only $10 to $20 a month, we've heard concerns that if they don't use their benefits fast enough those benefits can be taken away--or moved ``offline''--sometimes in as short a period as 3 months, with the senior citizen not understanding why this has occurred. I don't think this is a very common problem, but it is understandable that a senior citizen might want to store up small benefits to use at one shopping trip every few months, rather than have to keep track of the card every month. This bill allows States to move benefits off-line after 6 months of inactivity, but requires them to notify the household and restore the benefits within 48 hours upon request. This benefit reinstatement should be a simple process, and States should aim to help seniors navigate it, so we don't have our seniors being bounced around an EBT call center trying to figure out what happened to their food stamp benefits. For children and families, the biggest change we make is the increase and indexing of the standard deduction which will significantly boost the ability of low-wage workers to afford food for their families, especially over time. More than $5 billion of the nutrition title's 10- year investment go to this change, which primarily benefits families with children. We also lift the limit on the dependent care deduction. This change will help about 100,000 families who pay out-of-pocket child care costs above $175 per child per month (or $200 for infants), by recognizing that money that is needed to pay for child care so that a parent can work is not available to purchase food. On average, families who are helped will receive an additional $40 a month (or $500 a year), according to the Congressional Budget Office. The dependent care cap has not been raised since the early 1990s, despite the increases in the costs of safe, reliable child care. Families incur all types of costs in order to secure child care for their children, and USDA should continue to allow all of these expenses to count toward the deduction-- such as transportation costs to and from day care and the cost of informal care. Finally, as states roll this out to the 100,000 families currently on the program, its important that they make it easy for eligible families to claim the new deduction. Families shouldn't have to make extra trips to the food stamp office or be at risk of losing benefits if they fail to claim a new higher deduction. A household should never have its benefits cut or reduced because of a failure to document child care expenses, but should be given a full opportunity to receive the higher deduction if they have expenses above the current capped amounts. We hear all the time that despite the importance and success of the food stamp program, for most families the benefits run out before the end of the month. That is why it is so important that we provide more than $1.2 billion in this farm bill for additional food purchases for emergency food organizations, like church food pantries and soup kitchens, to feed our families and seniors. We provide $50 million in additional funds this year to help meet food banks needs in light of rising food costs. And, we increase the basic The Emergency Food Assistance Program annual funding level to $250 million. That amount will be adjusted for inflation in future years to insure that this program does not lose any of its food purchasing power. Another important provision for our children is a provision that ensures that children who receive food stamps can automatically, or ``directly'' be certified as eligible for free meals. The eligibility rules for the two programs overlap: virtually every child who receives food stamps is eligible for free meals. So making that connection in an automated way can save the family from falling through the cracks or from having to file duplicative paperwork. Unfortunately, too many States and schools don't currently make the connection adequately. So this bill requires USDA to report to Congress annually on each State's progress in directly certifying food stamp recipients for free school meals, and asks for USDA to report on best practices among the various States and school districts. This is a provision that is about good government--there is no reason the government can't make these connections, instead of requiring school administrators and families to be responsible for duplicative paperwork. In addition to my role as the Agriculture's Subcommittee Chair on Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, I also have the great pleasure to assess this bill from the perspective of my role as the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. More than 5 million Latinos, or more than 10 percent of the Latino population, receive food stamps each month. Food stamps constitute 25 percent of total monthly income for a typical Latino family that participates in the food stamp program. All of the changes that I have just described will benefit low-income Latinos who rely upon this program. I must take one moment to express my deep personal disappointment that we were not able to restore food stamp benefits to all legal immigrants who are currently ineligible for the program. Keeping food assistance from hard-working immigrants with whom we live side by side is simply wrong and I will not stop fighting until we fully repeal the benefit cuts to legal immigrants enacted in 1996. In spite of this major setback, we have achieved a number of important improvements for the Latino community. First, USDA will conduct a study on the possibility of bringing the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico back into the national food stamp program. Since 1982 Puerto Rico has received a fixed block grant amount for food assistance, rather than be a part of the U.S. program like the 50 States, District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. This block grant does not take into account changes in economic or demographic conditions, such as unemployment or the number of people who are in need of food assistance. The poverty rate in Puerto Rico (45 percent) is more than three times the national poverty rate. However, because of the block grant, Puerto Rico cannot afford to provide benefits to all households poor enough to qualify for benefits using food stamp program standards. Instead they have been forced to impose rigid eligibility criteria. For example, a family of four with net income above about $600 a month (or 34 percent of the Federal poverty level) cannot get any food assistance in Puerto Rico. The same family living in California, or any other State on the mainland, could have almost three times as much income and still be eligible for food assistance. An elderly person living alone faces an income limit of $192 per month--just 23 percent of the poverty level. Clearly, some of our most vulnerable American citizens are at risk of being denied food assistance they greatly need. It seems just plain wrong to knowingly leave some Americans with insufficient food. With this study we hope to get a better understanding of what the local conditions are in Puerto Rico, in terms of food costs, poverty and other programmatic factors so that we can figure out how to address the issue in the next farm bill, or earlier if possible. Another important achievement of the bill is to ensure that both Federal statute and regulations have the full force of law, ensuring that clients who do not receive adequate service under these rules and standards may bring suit. Recently, a district court in Ohio dismissed a case brought against the State to enforce the Department's regulations for serving people whose primary language is not English. I can't speak to whether the case had any merit, but my colleagues and I were surprised and disturbed to learn about the court's dismissal. We felt that it was critical to clarify in this bill that it has always been Congress's intent that the program's regulations should be fully enforceable and fully complied with to the same extent as the statute. The farm bill, therefore, clarifies that the Department's rules on serving non- and limited-English speaking people have the force of law and create rights for households. Beyond the issue of bilingual access rules, this legislation makes clear that the Department's civil rights regulations are among those which have the full force of law and which households have the right to enforce. Discrimination is not acceptable in any form or at any point in the food stamp certification process. Households should not be assisted, or not assisted, approved or denied for any reason other than an individual assessment of their need for help or their eligibility by the State. I am pleased to be playing a role in making clear that the committee and the Congress wish the program to be administered in compliance with the Food Stamp Act and its regulations. I'd like to also talk about a somewhat related matter that we did not manage to agree to include in this farm bill, much to my disappointment. I worked hard to include in the House bill, and shepherd through the conference negotiations, a provision that would have strengthened the long-standing policy in the food stamp program that certification and eligibility decisions should be done by State employees, rather than private companies. We would have added to the traditional restrictions around merit systems and provided specific exceptions for certain activities, such as outreach. In recent years the Bush Administration has let two States, Texas and Indiana, experiment with using private companies to collect and review food stamp applications and conduct the sensitive eligibility interview. In my view, these projects are not consistent with current law or good sense. These experiments have been disastrous to the States' treasuries but, more importantly, to the vulnerable families and senior citizens who rely on food stamps and found their applications delayed or improperly denied. Some people even had their private, personal information shared inappropriately. The activities involved in determining eligibility--and ineligibility--for food stamps should be public functions and should not be governed by profit motive or a company's responsibility to its shareholders. While the House voted to include this provision in the conference agreement, the Senate did not because of opposition from the other party and a veto threat from President Bush. I regret this outcome and I am determined to not drop this issue until we have restored the proper balance to food stamp administration. But I urge my colleagues to not forget, that separate from this ``privatization'' issue, in recent years States have been experimenting with a wide variety of changes to food stamp policies and practices that incorporate new technologies and modern business practices. For example, some States are using technology to create new pathways to apply for and retain benefits such as food stamps, health insurance, and child care, including online applications, online program redetermination or recertification, phone interviews, and call centers where changes in circumstances can be reported. On the one hand, creating ways for families to participate in these programs without having to travel to a human service office can expand access and save time and money for States and families alike. In fact, in this bill we've created a new option for States to accept food stamp applications over the telephone. No doubt technology offers numerous opportunities for improved customer service and simpler application and retention processes. On the other hand, if these processes are not well-designed, evaluated, and implemented, then families can face new access barriers. Moreover, some States are exploring these options at the same time that they are reducing human service staffing and closing local welfare offices. These steps can create new access barriers for certain groups of families and need to be carefully monitored. And I am concerned because neither States nor USDA appear to be asking the important questions about what has been the effect of these technological changes on access for food stamp households, particularly vulnerable populations like seniors, people with physical or mental disabilities, or people who do not speak English proficiently. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) last year published a report that found that USDA has not sufficiently monitored the States' ``modernization'' efforts in terms of their effects on program access, payment accuracy, or administrative costs. So in this bill we have included several provisions to require that States that are eager to pursue modernized systems are pausing to ask the necessary questions about how to ensure that the new systems are designed in such a way that they are effective tools for connecting eligible families to benefits. In this bill we require USDA to establish standards for when States are making major changes in program operations and to monitor the effects on households, especially the types of households I just mentioned. I urge USDA to do this in a way that yields useful information so that States can refine and improve their systems to make them as accessible as possible to all clients. Another provision requires States to adequately pilot test new computer systems before they go full-scale. This responds to situations where States have implemented new computer systems without adequate testing. This occurred even though some at USDA knew that there were weaknesses in the system and that serious benefit delays and errors were likely to occur. We also included a provision the Administration suggested to require States, instead of households, to repay any over- issuances that occur because of one of these preventable major systems failures. Finally, in light of all of the modernization changes and the potential access to sensitive information that new players may have, we strengthened the act's privacy protections to ensure that anyone receiving confidential information for appropriate program purposes cannot then share that information with a third party. In addition to our fears that too many people may have access to private food stamp information as a result of new technology, we were also concerned that clients have not been able to access their private records. We heard about clients in Texas who had their benefits cut off, or who never were able to obtain benefits, and could not get access to their case records in order to pursue a claim against the State. That is unacceptable. We also clarified that despite all of the changes in how States are storing and maintaining client records, clients can access these records in litigation. These changes are not in conflict because confidential records would continue to be unavailable to the general public and others not having a legitimate reason relating to program administration. Another concern I have is about two new provisions that would disqualify certain people from food stamps for misusing their benefits. One relates to situations where a recipient of food stamps intentionally uses food stamp benefits to buy a product, like water, that is in a disposable container that can be redeemed for cash, then discards the product and redeems the container in order to obtain the cash deposit. The other new disqualification addresses individuals who intentionally purchase food with food stamp benefits in order to resell the food for a cash profit. I agree that both of these practices are contrary to the purposes of the food stamp program in assisting people in obtaining an adequate diet and it's appropriate to address them in this bill. However, I caution USDA to implement them in a way that ensures that only those who intended to defraud the system in these manners be disqualified. I do not want to see innocent people--who may simply have bought groceries for a neighbor or relative--be caught up as somehow engaging in fraud under this provision. My concerns here are not completely without precedent. In this bill we are revisiting and clarifying a different disqualification rule that was enacted in 1996, and that has, in fact, ensnared innocent people and denied food stamp benefits in inappropriate ways. The intent of the law was to aid law enforcement and prevent criminals who are fleeing to avoid prosecution from receiving food stamps. Unfortunately, in practice, the provision has disqualified innocent people who had their identities stolen, or who have outstanding warrants for minor infractions that are many years old and where the police have no interest in apprehending and prosecuting the case. So in this bill we direct USDA to clarify that people should only be subject to disqualification if they are actively fleeing law enforcement authorities who are, in fact, interested in bringing them to justice. In addition to the very important changes we have made to the food stamp program and new funding for food banks through TEFAP, the bill would expand and improve the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. This program has been receiving $9 million a year in mandatory funds and operates in 14 States. (Three Indian tribes also operate the program.) Under the conference agreement, mandatory funding would increase to $40 million for the 2008-2009 school year and continue to grow. By 2012, the program would be funded at nearly 8 times its current size: $150 million each year, with annual adjustments for inflation in years after that. In addition to providing increased funding, the conference agreement takes important steps to target program funds to elementary schools with a significant share of low-income children. Our goal is to provide free fresh fruits and vegetables to all elementary schools in the country where more than half of the children are eligible for free or reduced price school meals. This program should expose a whole new generation of children to a healthy way of eating. To sum up, I am extremely proud of the work that our committee and our Congress have undertaken in the nutrition title of the farm bill. With these changes, we are building a healthier better fed population. As a result, we are taking a few important steps towards a stronger future for our children and our communities.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong opinion in support of this farm bill, and urge my colleagues to override the President's veto. Simply put, this farm bill strengthens our nutrition, conservation, energy independence, and specialty crops like no other farm bill has ever done before, and it is done in a bipartisan fashion. People asked us to come here in Washington, D.C. and vote on a bipartisan, not to vote on a partisan. We have come together on a bipartisan. This currently will feed 38 million Americans who do not have enough to eat. We are in an economic recession. People have lost their jobs. People have lost their homes because of foreclosures. Gas prices are going up. This farm bill will put food on the table for over 13 million American families. We have raised the food stamp benefit index to keep up with the lost of living. These changes will help an additional 10 million Americans, including poor working families, the elderly, the disabled, and the veterans. We expanded the USDA snack programs under the fresh fruits and vegetables. We will leave no child behind. This will feed them. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and override the President. This is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2642. This bill calls for a responsible redeployment from Iraq; and forces the Administration to answer for its actions. The cost of this war continues to devastate America. This bill includes $96.6 billion in funding, but not without accountability. This bill includes funds to equip our troops. You would not have a surgeon perform a surgery without proper tools; we must not send our patriotic Americans to war without the proper equipment. This bill will increase transparency in our relationship with Iraq, and redirects the voice of America back to Congress, not the Administration, and pass on the cost of future reconstruction of Iraq back to the hands of the Iraqi people. I believe our troops and their families should be our first priority. The cost of this war comes in many forms, including unexpected costs for our military families. Just like World War II veterans, our soldiers returning from overseas will now have a GI bill that keeps America's promise of an education to them. With the costs of the war rising, the costs of oil skyrocketing, and the number of foreclosures hitting emergency levels, many working families are facing uphill battles. Congress must not just stand by and watch. This bill includes emergency provisions for harmful Medicaid cuts and an extension on the devastated unemployment compensation program for working families. From my District alone, this war has cut short the lives of 13 young men and has brought back hundreds of injured soldiers. The cost of this war is too high both at home and overseas; our families are hanging on by a thread. I urge my colleagues to bring our troops home and support H.R. 2642.

Mr. BACA

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, the nutrition title in the Conference Report for the 2008 Farm Bill is a monumental achievement for the millions of Americans who struggle to put enough healthy, nutritious food on the table. I know it's not always easy to make ends meet and to put food on the table each day. I've walked in those shoes, and I've sat at that table. But with this bill we start to fulfill our responsibility to our neighbors. We have improved and strengthened food stamps and other important nutrition programs for our children and seniors. I want to take a few minutes to expand upon some of the accomplishments that are in this nutrition title. First off, we have updated the name of the program. The new name will be SNAP: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. We needed a new name because there are no places left in this country where food stamps actually are ``stamps.'' Instead, like with other modern transactions, people swipe their cards at the store to access their benefits. This has been a huge success for reducing fraud and stigma in the program. We hope and expect that the new name and new image for the program will help us to continue to chip away at the stigma that keeps some proud people, especially senior citizens, from signing up for help in paying for their groceries and puts them at risk of hunger. The name reflects the fact that the program provides a ``supplement'' to help people afford an adequate diet when their own resources are not quite enough. We also say ``nutrition,'' instead of ``food,'' because the program is about more than just food. It has got a vibrant nutrition education component to help our low-income population learn about healthy diets and make the choices that will improve their health status over their lifetimes. So I'm very proud of this new name for food stamps: an established program that is one of the best Government programs we've got. Let me be clear, however, that in changing the name and eliminating food stamp coupons we did not intend to make any other policy changes to the program. I think the biggest single accomplishment in the nutrition title is to end the decades of erosion in the value of food stamp benefits. We're all aware of the rising gas and food prices of recent months and the bite they've taken out of the pocketbooks of most Americans. But for many low-income Americans the squeeze has been getting tighter for decades, as the value of their food stamps has been able to purchase less and less food with each passing year. Food stamp benefits average only $1 per person per day. It's not easy to purchase a healthy, nutritious diet on such a limited amount. So in this bill we have addressed this problem. We made critical improvements, and, for the first time in the program's history, we have ensured that, in every aspect, the food stamp program keeps its purchasing power over time. We raise the standard deduction from $134 to $144 and index it for inflation. That is an important accomplishment. It helps about 10 million people afford more food-- families, seniors, people with disabilities--all types of low-income food stamp recipients are helped by this change. We raise the minimum benefit, and index it for inflation. We uncap the dependent care deduction so that families can deduct the full cost of the child care they so desperately depend on to hold down their jobs. And we index the asset limits. We don't know what the future will hold. Hopefully, the high inflation of the past months will shortly subside as the country gets back on track. But we now can rest assured, as never before, that if there is substantial inflation our low-income families and senior citizens won't lose out on food. For me what this bill really is about is people. It's about our senior citizens who have worked hard their whole lives and deserve better than to face the fear of hunger in their last years. It's about children, who come home from school and look to their parents to put a nutritious meal on the table. One of the groups that will be most helped are our Nation's senior citizens. We were able to increase the minimum benefit, which goes predominantly to senior citizens, from $10 to about $14 a month. This is the first increase in almost 30 years in the minimum benefit. I would have liked to have increased it even more, but this change will help make it worthwhile for some of our seniors who qualify for a low benefit to participate in the program. We did this by setting the minimum benefit at 8 percent of the thrifty food plan for a single person. Because USDA adjusts the thrifty food plan every year for increases in food prices, so too will the minimum benefit now adjust. In addition, because of higher food prices in some places, like Alaska, Hawaii, and some of the territories, seniors in these places will now also see a modestly higher minimum benefit. For example in some parts of Alaska, the minimum benefit will be as high as $25 per month. In this bill we've also excluded retirement accounts from assets and indexed the asset limits to inflation. These changes will help seniors and working families to save for the future. It makes no sense to require people who fall on hard times to virtually liquidate all of the savings they've managed to put away in order to get help paying for groceries for themselves and their families. Our seniors, especially, may have no ability to replace these savings, and as a result, no cushion to deal with unexpected expenses. And a working family who is forced to spend down savings now will be that much closer to poverty in their older years. So this is an important change for the long-term ability of low-income individuals to move toward financial independence and for our senior citizens to be able to retain an ability to support themselves in their retirement. But I also want to reaffirm that we did not take away, as President Bush proposed, the State option in the food stamp program to design a more appropriate asset test at the State level. In my home State of California the legislature and Governor have been working together to design an ``expanded categorical eligibility'' program that will revise the asset limit for many food stamp recipients and make it easier for them to save for the future. I hope that other States consider this option, and I urge USDA to work with other States to promote this important policy. In another major improvement for senior citizens, we have expanded to seniors a State option from the 2002 farm bill that dramatically reduces paperwork requirements. This policy is known as ``simplified reporting'' and it will allow seniors to participate without filing paperwork for 12-month periods, unless they have a major increase in their income that makes them ineligible for food stamps. I urge USDA to make this option as simple and streamlined for seniors and States as possible, and to find ways to insulate food stamp benefits from interactions with other programs that low-income seniors participate in, particularly Medicaid. Finally, we have heard reports that despite the overwhelming success of the electronic benefits, some seniors can find the technology confusing. For those at the minimum benefit who receive maybe only $10 to $20 a month, we've heard concerns that if they don't use their benefits fast enough those benefits can be taken away--or moved ``offline''--sometimes in as short a period as 3 months, with the senior citizen not understanding why this has occurred. I don't think this is a very common problem, but it is understandable that a senior citizen might want to store up small benefits to use at one shopping trip every few months, rather than have to keep track of the card every month. This bill allows States to move benefits off-line after 6 months of inactivity, but requires them to notify the household and restore the benefits within 48 hours upon request. This benefit reinstatement should be a simple process, and States should aim to help seniors navigate it, so we don't have our seniors being bounced around an EBT call center trying to figure out what happened to their food stamp benefits. For children and families, the biggest change we make is the increase and indexing of the standard deduction which will significantly boost the ability of low-wage workers to afford food for their families, especially over time. More than $5 billion of the nutrition title's 10- year investment go to this change, which primarily benefits families with children. We also lift the limit on the dependent care deduction. This change will help about 100,000 families who pay out-of-pocket child care costs above $175 per child per month, or $200 for infants, by recognizing that money that is needed to pay for child care so that a parent can work is not available to purchase food. On average, families who are helped will receive an additional $40 a month, or $500 a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The dependent care cap has not been raised since the early 1990s, despite the increases in the costs of safe, reliable child care. Families incur all types of costs in order to secure child care for their children, and USDA should continue to allow all of these expenses to count toward the deduction-- such as transportation costs to and from day care and the cost of informal care. Finally, as States roll this out to the 100,000 families currently on the program, it is important that they make it easy for eligible families to claim the new deduction. Families shouldn't have to make extra trips to the food stamp office or be at risk of losing benefits if they fail to claim a new higher deduction. A household should never have its benefits cut or reduced because of a failure to document child care expenses, but should be given a full opportunity to receive the higher deduction if they have expenses above the current capped amounts. We hear all the time that despite the importance and success of the food stamp program, for most families the benefits run out before the end of the month. That is why it is so important that we provide more than $1.2 billion in this farm bill for additional food purchases for emergency food organizations, like church food pantries and soup kitchens, to feed our families and seniors. We provide $50 million in additional funds this year to help meet food banks' needs in light of rising food costs. And, we increase the basic Emergency Food Assistance Program annual funding level to $250 million. That amount will be adjusted for inflation in future years to ensure that this program does not lose any of its food purchasing power. Another important provision for our children is a provision that ensures that children who receive food stamps can automatically, or ``directly'' be certified as eligible for free meals. The eligibility rules for the two programs overlap: Virtually every child who receives food stamps is eligible for free meals. So making that connection in an automated way can save the family from falling through the cracks or from having to file duplicative paperwork. Unfortunately, too many States and schools don't currently make the connection adequately. So this bill requires USDA to report to Congress annually on each State's progress in directly certifying food stamp recipients for free school meals, and asks for USDA to report on best practices among the various States and school districts. This is a provision that is about good Government--there is no reason the Government can't make these connections, instead of requiring school administrators and families to be responsible for duplicative paperwork. In addition to my role as Agriculture's Sub-committee Chair on Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, I also have the great pleasure to assess this bill from the perspective of my role as the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. More than 5 million Latinos, or more than 10 percent of the Latino population, receive food stamps each month. Food stamps constitute 25 percent of total monthly income for a typical Latino family that participates in the Food Stamp Program. All of the changes that I have just described will benefit low-income Latinos who rely upon this program. I must take one moment to express my deep personal disappointment that we were not able to restore food stamp benefits to all legal immigrants who are currently ineligible for the program. Keeping food assistance from hard-working immigrants with whom we live side by side is simply wrong and I will not stop fighting until we fully repeal the benefit cuts to legal immigrants enacted in 1996. In spite of this major setback, we have achieved a number of important improvements for the Latino community. First, USDA will conduct a study on the possibility of bringing the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico back into the national Food Stamp Program. Since 1982 Puerto Rico has received a fixed block grant amount for food assistance, rather than be a part of the U.S. program like the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. This block grant does not take into account changes in economic or demographic conditions, such as unemployment or the number of people who are in need of food assistance. The poverty rate in Puerto Rico, 45 percent, is more than three times the national poverty rate. However, because of the block grant, Puerto Rico cannot afford to provide benefits to all households poor enough to qualify for benefits using Food Stamp Program standards. Instead, they have been forced to impose rigid eligibility criteria. For example, a family of four with net income above about $600 a month, or 34 percent of the Federal poverty level, cannot get any food assistance in Puerto Rico. The same family living in California, or any other State on the mainland, could have almost three times as much income and still be eligible for food assistance. An elderly person living alone faces an income limit of $192 per month--just 23 percent of the poverty level. Clearly, some of our most vulnerable American citizens are at risk of being denied food assistance they greatly need. It seems just plain wrong to knowingly leave some Americans with insufficient food. With this study we hope to get a better understanding of what the local conditions are in Puerto Rico, in terms of food costs, poverty and other programmatic factors so that we can figure out how to address the issue in the next farm bill, or earlier if possible. Another important achievement of the bill is to ensure that both Federal statute and regulations have the full force of law, ensuring that clients who do not receive adequate service under these rules and standards may bring suit. Recently, a district court in Ohio dismissed a case brought against the State to enforce the Department's regulations for serving people whose primary language is not English. I can't speak to whether the case had any merit, but my colleagues and I were surprised and disturbed to learn about the court's dismissal. We felt that it was critical to clarify in this bill that it has always been Congress's intent that the program's regulations should be fully enforceable and fully complied with to the same extent as the statute. The farm bill, therefore, clarifies that the Department's rules on serving non- and limited-English speaking people have the force of law and create rights for households. Beyond the issue of bilingual access rules, this legislation makes clear that the Department's civil rights regulations are among those which have the full force of law and which households have the right to enforce. Discrimination is not acceptable in any form or at any point in the food stamp certification process. Households should not be assisted, or not assisted, approved or denied for any reason other than an individual assessment of their need for help or their eligibility by the state. I am pleased to be playing a role in making clear that the Committee and the Congress wish the program to be administered in compliance with the Food Stamp Act and its regulations. I'd like to also talk about a somewhat related matter that we did not manage to agree to include in this farm bill, much to my disappointment. I worked hard to include in the House bill, and shepherd through the conference negotiations, a provision that would have strengthened the longstanding policy in the food stamp program that certification and eligibility decisions should be done by State employees, rather than private companies. We would have added to the traditional restrictions around merit systems and provided specific exceptions for certain activities, such as outreach. In recent years the Bush Administration has let two States, Texas and Indiana, experiment with using private companies to collect and review food stamp applications and conduct the sensitive eligibility interview. In my view, these projects are not consistent with current law or good sense. These experiments have been disastrous to the States' treasuries but, more importantly, to the vulnerable families and senior citizens who rely on food stamps and found their applications delayed or improperly denied. Some people even had their private, personal information shared inappropriately. The activities involved in determining eligibility--and ineligibility--for food stamps should be public functions and should not be governed by profit motive or a company's responsibility to its shareholders. While the House voted to include this provision in the Conference agreement, the Senate did not because of opposition from the other party and a veto threat from President Bush, I regret this outcome and I am determined to not drop this issue until we have restored the proper balance to food stamp administration. But I urge my colleagues to not forget, that separate from this ``privatization'' issue, in recent years States have been experimenting with a wide variety of changes to food stamp policies and practices that incorporate new technologies and modern business practices. For example, some States are using technology to create new pathways to apply for and retain benefits such as food stamps, health insurance, and child care, including online applications, online program redetermination or recertification, phone interviews, and call centers where changes in circumstances can be reported. On the one hand, creating ways for families to participate in these programs without having to travel to a human service office can expand access and save time and money for States and families alike. In fact, in this bill we've created a new option for States to accept food stamp applications over the telephone. No doubt technology offers numerous opportunities for improved customer service and simpler application and retention processes. On the other hand, if these processes are not well-designed, evaluated, and implemented, then families can face new access barriers. Moreover, some States are exploring these options at the same time that they are reducing human service staffing and closing local welfare offices. These steps can create new access barriers for certain groups of families and need to be carefully monitored. And I am concerned because neither States nor USDA appear to be asking the important questions about what has been the effect of these technological changes on access for food stamp households, particularly vulnerable populations like seniors, people with physical or mental disabilities, or people who do not speak English proficiently. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) last year published a report that found that USDA has not sufficiently monitored the States' ``modernization'' efforts in terms of their effects on program access, payment accuracy, or administrative costs. So in this bill we have included several provisions to require that States that are eager to pursue modernized systems are pausing to ask the necessary questions about how to ensure that the new systems are designed in such a way that they are effective tools for connecting eligible families to benefits. In this bill we require USDA to establish standards for when States are making major changes in program operations and to monitor the effects on households, especially the types of households I just mentioned. I urge USDA to do this in a way that yields useful information so that States can refine and improve their systems to make them as accessible as possible to all clients. Another provision requires States to adequately pilot test new computer systems before they go full-scale. This responds to situations where States have implemented new computer systems without adequate testing. This occurred even though some at USDA knew that there were weaknesses in the system and that serious benefit delays and errors were likely to occur. We also included a provision the Administration suggested to require States, instead of households, to repay any overissuances that occur because of one of these preventable major systems failures. Finally, in light of all of the modernization changes and the potential access to sensitive information that new players may have, we strengthened the Act's privacy protections to ensure that anyone receiving confidential information for appropriate program purposes cannot then share that information with a third party. In addition to our fears that too many people may have access to private food stamp information as a result of new technology, we were also concerned that clients have not been able to access their private records. We heard about clients in Texas who had their benefits cut off, or who never were able to obtain benefits, and could not get access to their case records in order to pursue claims against the State. That is unacceptable. We also clarified that despite all of the changes in how States are storing and maintaining client records, clients can access these records in litigation. These changes are not in conflict because confidential records would continue to be unavailable to the general public and others not having a legitimate reason relating to program administration. Another concern I have is about two new provisions that would disqualify certain people from food stamps for misusing their benefits. One relates to situations where a recipient of food stamps intentionally uses food stamp benefits to buy a product, like water, that is in a disposable container that can be redeemed for cash, then discards the product and redeems the container in order to obtain the cash deposit. The other new disqualification addresses individuals who intentionally purchase food with food stamp benefits in order to resell the food for a cash profit. I agree that both of these practices are contrary to the purposes of the food stamp program in assisting people in obtaining an adequate diet and it's appropriate to address them in this bill. However, I caution USDA to implement them in a way that ensures that only those who intended to defraud the system in these manners be disqualified. I do not want to see innocent people--who may simply have bought groceries for a neighbor or relative be caught up as somehow engaging in fraud under this provision. My concerns here are not completely without precedent. In this bill we are revisiting and clarifying a different disqualification rule that was enacted in 1996, and that has, in fact, ensnared innocent people and denied food stamp benefits in inappropriate ways. The intent of the law was to aid law enforcement and prevent criminals who are fleeing to avoid prosecution from receiving food stamps. Unfortunately, in practice, the provision has disqualified innocent people who had their identities stolen, or who have outstanding warrants for minor infractions that are many years old and where the police have no interest in apprehending and prosecuting the case. So in this bill we direct USDA to clarify that people should only be subject to disqualification if they are actively fleeing law enforcement authorities who are, in fact, interested in bringing them to justice. In addition to the very important changes we have made to the food stamp program and new funding for food banks through TEFAP, the bill would expand and improve the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. This program has been receiving $9 million a year in mandatory funds and operates in 14 States. (Three Indian tribes also operate the program.) Under the conference agreement, mandatory funding would increase to $40 million for the 2008-2009 school year and continue to grow. By 2012, the program would be funded at nearly eight times its current size: $150 million each year, with annual adjustments for inflation in years after that. In addition to providing increased funding, the conference agreement takes important steps to target program funds to elementary schools with a significant share of low-income children. Our goal is to provide free fresh fruits and vegetables to all elementary schools in the country where more than half of the children are eligible for free or reduced price school meals. This program should expose a whole new generation of children to a healthy way of eating. To sum up, I am extremely proud of the work that our Committee and our Congress have undertaken in the nutrition title of the farm bill. With these changes, we are building a healthier better fed population. As a result, we are taking a few important steps towards a stronger future for our children and our communities.