Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to express my support for House Resolution 522. This resolution is a modest, but important, first step in recognizing and honoring the tremendous contributions of Mexican guest workers, known as braceros, to our country in a time of great need. On September 29, 1942, sixty years ago this past Sunday, the U.S. government entered into a program that was designed to help America get through the economic challenges that accompanied World War II. Under the program, nearly 5 million workers came to the U.S. from Mexico, to carry out the back-breaking labor that kept our nation going. They filled in where labor was in short supply--especially in agriculture. Their work allowed America to carry out its war effort and to feed the country and its troops. In the years that followed, the program was expanded to include railroad laborers and guest workers from other nations. Working under harsh conditions and living far from their families and loved ones, these guest workers filled critical jobs, bolstered wartime production, put food on our tables, and helped build our country's transportation system. Braceros represented up to twenty-five percent of farm workers in several states, providing a significant source of labor that secured our nation's global leadership in agriculture. Many of the workers ultimately settled in the United States and raised families--more than one million braceros and their descendants are now permanent residents or citizens of our nation. Despite these significant contributions, however, braceros suffered neglect and injustice at the hands of our government, the Mexican government, and many of the contractors that employed them. Despite putting in a full day's work in the fields, despite being fully exposed to the elements and a full range of other challenges, braceros did not receive compensation for their back-breaking work in full. As many as 400,000 workers saw their paychecks reduced by ten percent, totaling an estimated $70 million. During the first seven years of the program, the explicit policy governing the program required that each worker sacrifice ten percent of his or her salary, with the promise that it would be available to them upon their return to Mexico. These deductions disappeared and went unaccounted for. At least $70 million of it--which, with interest, may be worth as much as $500 million to a billion dollars today--was gone. Do we know where the money went? No. However, we do know this: under the bracero program, the U.S. government acted as the employer. Workers were contracted out to various businesses--farms, for example. The U.S. government withheld ten percent of their wages. The funds were then to be transferred to Wells-Fargo bank. The bank would transfer it to the Banco de Mexico which would then (supposedly) transfer it to regional banks. Somehwere along the way--sometime during a process which we know began on U.S. soil and may, for all we know, ended on U.S. soil, too-- the money was lost or taken away. All we know for sure is one thing: the money is still owed. In June of this year, I was pleased to introduce legislation that sought to secure relief for braceros who have long-awaited the compensation that they are due. My bill, the Bracero Justice Act of 2002, H.R. 4918, would allow people to seek resources in a venue that so often has protected the most vulnerable in our society: the federal judicial system. In short, my bill would help secure a deserving group of people their day in court and to have their case heard on the merits. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H. Res. 522. This nation owes the braceros a great debt for having helped us win World War II. Let us regard this resolution as the first step on the road to justice for these former guest workers, who, despite their sacrifices and suffering, remained hard-working compatriots in the war effort. I urge my colleagues to recognize the invaluable contributions of the braceros on this sixtieth anniversary and to support this resolution.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor and say goodbye to our good friend and colleague Congresswoman Patsy Mink. For 24 years, Congresswoman Mink served as a strong and courageous voice for those who are not always heard in our political process. She was an unwavering champion and tireless advocate for women's rights, including authoring the landmark Title IX section of the Education Act. Among her many accomplishments, we should never forget her ardent and selfless struggles to promote equal opportunity for all races, to improve the current education system across the nation and to protect our environment. As impressive as her legislative accomplishments were, the personal and professional barriers that she had to overcome in her life were, equal, if not more, impressive: she was the first Asian-American woman to practice law in Hawaii; the first Asian-American woman elected to her state legislature and the first Asian-American woman elected to Congress. The courageous choices she made in her life made her a unique role model and afforded countless others the opportunity to follow in her amazing footsteps. Make no mistake about it, what Patsy may have lacked in physical stature, she more than made up for with a heart that could fill this room and the courage and tenacity to match it. Robert F. Kennedy once said, ``It is not enough to understand, or to see clearly. The future will be shaped in the arena of human activity by those willing to commit their minds and their bodies to the task.'' To the end, Congresswoman Mink embodied those attributes and served as role model and beacon in the fight for social and economic justice. I am humbled to have had the opportunity to work closely with her. Congresswoman Mink received her law degree at the University of Chicago. Although there is no doubt she would have made enormous contributions to our city, Patsy was destined to return to Hawaii, where her devotion and dedication to public service helped shape the state and also our nation. Our hearts and prayers go out to Patsy's husband, John, and daughter, Wendy. Congresswoman Mink was a true star from heaven, who walked among us and touched our lives in countless ways. She will be greatly missed.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that my bill, the Support Scleroderma Research bill (H. Con. Res. 320) has been scheduled to be considered in the suspension calendar today. The speed with which this bipartisan bill has traveled from the committee mark-up to Floor consideration is a testament to the importance of this bi-partisan and non-controversial measure. Seleroderma is a chronic, often progressive autoimmune disease in which the body's immune system attacks its own tissues. The disease can manifest itself in two forms: localized scleroderma, affecting the skin and underlying tissue and systemic scleroderma, also known as systemic sclerosis, a potentially life-threatening disease that attacks internal organs including the lungs, heart, kidneys, esophagus and gastrointestinal tract. The wide range of symptoms and localized and systemic variations of the disease make it especially hard to diagnose. In fact, the average diagnosis is made five years after the onset of symptoms. Once diagnosed, however, people with this incurable disease can only look forward to symptomatic relief. More than 300,000 Americans suffer from sclerodema. More than 80 percent of them are women between the ages of 25 and 65 years old. Scleroderma is the 5th leading cause of death among all autoimmune diseases for women under 65 years of age. The estimated annual direct and indirect costs of scleroderma in the United States are $1,500,000,000. In spite of these statistic and figures, we still don't know what causes scleroderma and we have yet to find a cure for it. My bill seeks to move a step closer to finding a cure by bringing awareness to scleroderma and expressing our solid support for Federal efforts to fight this disease. As marked up last Thursday by the full Energy and Commerce Committee, this bill, among other things, expresses the sense of Congress that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) should continue to take a leadership role in research efforts regarding the fight against scleroderma and should allow for broad dissemination of the information learned from such research. The also believe that the Centers for Disease Control can, should, and must play a role regarding methods to improve disease surveillance of scleroderma. Ideally, I believe that NIH should continue to play a leadership role in the fight of scleroderma by working more closely with private organizations and researchers and by funding research projects regarding scleroderma conducted by private organizations and researchers. I also urge NIH to hold a scleroderma symposium to bring together distinguished scientists and clinicians from across the U.S. to determine the most important priorities in scleroderma research and to support the formation of small workgroups composed of experts from diverse but related scientific fields to study this disease. I would like to thank Chairman Tauzin and Ranking Member Dingell for their strong support for this resolution and their fast scheduling of it. I would also like to thank my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Congressman Christopher Smith of New Jersey, who has been a consistent and strong supporter of all initiatives on behalf of finding a cure for scleroderma, including an increase in Federal funding for research on scleroderma as being conducted by the National Institutes of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Skin Disease. I would also like to recognize the hard work of my Legislative Assistant, Annie Grace Toro, on behalf of this bill. Finally, I would like to thank the Scleroderma Foundation and the Scleroderma Research Foundation for their dedication and hard work on behalf of all individuals suffering from scleroderma.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably delayed on June 26th and was absent for a journal vote. I would like the record to reflect that had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 261. I was also unavoidably absent from this chamber on July 12, 2002. I would like the record to reflect that had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 295, 296, 297, and 298. Further, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber on Monday, July 22, 2002 and I would like the record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 324 and 325. I was also unavoidably delayed on Thursday, July 25, 2002. I would like the record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 347.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of the ``Alien Child Organ Transplant Act of 2002'', a bill that would provide coverage under the medicaid program for organ transplant procedures. Under my bill, children under 18 years of age who are currently residing in this country and develop a medical condition that requires an organ transplant would be able to receive Medicaid coverage for the procedure. Many of my colleagues may not be aware of this, but current law does not allow legal permanent residents to receive Medicare coverage for a live-saving measure such as an organ transplant. And I am referring to legal permanent residents, that is, immigrants who are here legally. Melannie Veliz is such an immigrant. Melannie has cystic fibrosis and the disease has left her with only marginal lung function. She is very ill and her lung capacity is about one-third of what it should be. In her delicate state, she is susceptible to bronchitis and infections. This means she has trouble, sometimes, playing. Sometimes, she can't go to school or be with her friends. She can rarely do the things that every child deserves. No matter where he or she was born. Melannie, is an 11-year old student at Smith School in Aurora, Illinois. She lives with her parents, Christian and Johanna, and her younger brother. Melannie, who was born in Chile, traveled here with her family on visas, as required by the law. Unlike most immigrants who come to America seeking a better life, the Veliz family came to America not simply seeking a better life-- but life. Life for Melannie. The Veliz family came here looking for life-saving procedures that were not available in Chile. Unfortunately, although their entry into this country was completely within the law-- the laws of this nation have kept Melannie from becoming healthy. I am referring to the current punitive laws and harsh rules which prohibit people, including children, from accessing key public services, including Medicaid, due simply to their immigration status. Melannie's health can be improved and her life could be saved through a double lung transplant. The procedure is risky but can be done. Her dream of a better life is not being blocked by medical technology. No. Melannie's immediate dream was denied because she is not able to participate in the Medicaid program. However, thanks to the initial enterprising spirit of Melannie's teacher, Maria Lopez, her supporters were able to obtain significant donations to secure the operation. The goal at the time was $309,000. This was before the hospital decided that the original estimates were inaccurate and that at least $450,000 would be needed to ensure that Melannie would receive the necessary aftercare. But the human spirit never gives up. And nobody gave up in the quest to secure the needed funds. Fundraising efforts were so successful, thanks in no small measure to the direct involvement of the Cacique Foundation, that Melannie and her supporters have now secured more than the $450,000 needed for the operation. As a Member of Congress, I pledge to continue my fight in defense of the rights of immigrants specially those who, like Melannie, are very young and most vulnerable. I will continue to compel my colleagues to recognize that the harsh penalties that they impose on people because of their immigrant status can--and must--be overturned. Not simply for the health of those kids who are affected by these laws, but for the health of our nation, so that we can truly live up to the standard of decency that we so often attribute to America. Melannie has been fortunate enough to benefit from generous donors, but she has been a victim of the not-so-generous laws. She has lost precious months having to raise this money and her health has deteriorated. But even with all the uncertainties of the delicate transplant operation that awaits her, Melannie is one of the lucky ones. She can now pay for her operation. Other immigrant children are not this lucky. And those who are not fortunate enough to have a teacher like Ms. Lopez, a community like our Latino community and the support of a nation-wide network, may never have a chance to live. The goal of this bill is quite simple: to save children's lives. My bill seeks to give all children a chance, regardless of their country of origin. A fighting chance to live. Please join me in support of the ``Alien Child Organ Transplant Act of 2002.''

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to come to say that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) have done a wonderful job. Obviously, people underestimated their ability last Monday. No one is underestimating their ability today. We have done the work that is necessary in order to expand O'Hare. We feel that it is necessary. Last week, one of the Hispanic Members voted against the bill because some people were saying that Hispanics were going to be hurt by this expansion of O'Hare. Today we have a commitment of all of the Hispanic Members of this Congress to vote for the bill, including myself, who is present today to vote for this bill. We will not underestimate it. We know the quality of your arguments and the commitment that you have. Please understand that this is a gentlemen's disagreement. We respect and love you both very, very much.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Consumer Fairness Act of 2002,'' a bill to address arbitration clauses that are unilaterally imposed on consumers as unfair and deceptive trade practices and prohibit their use in consumer transactions. Increasingly, companies such as banks and credit card companies, computer makers, insurance firms and car dealers are requiring customers to waive their right to sue when a disagreement occurs. Furthermore, these mandatory arbitration clauses are usually not clearly disclosed in agreements and contracts. Requiring consumers, as a mandatory condition of providing a service or selling a good, to waive his or her right to pursue a grievance through the United States justice system is problematic for several reasons. Arbitration can cost more than pursuing a case in court, with fees that often run into the thousands of dollars. Arbitration limits the evidence that can be used. Arbitration usually does not allow for appeals. To address these problems, this Act would prohibit companies from using clauses in contracts and sales agreements that require consumers to agree, in advance, to submit any disagreements to arbitrators. Such clauses ban consumers from suing a company and participating in class action lawsuits. This legislation protects consumers' right to sue and clarifies that consumers can choose to resolve their disputes with companies through arbitration. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation for all consumers in America.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 18, I was honored to be the keynote speaker at my daughter Jessica's eighth grade graduation ceremony and was therefore absent from this chamber during the last two votes of the day. I would like the Record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 237 and roll call vote 238.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber on June 6, 2002 and I would like the record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call vote 209, ``no'' on roll call vote 213. I was also unavoidably absent from this chamber on June 11, 2002 and I would like the record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call vote 220, ``yea'' on roll call vote 221 and ``yea'' on roll call vote 222. Mr. Speaker, I was also unavoidably absent from this chamber on Monday. I would like the record to show that had I been present in this chamber on that date, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call votes 230, 231 and 232.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of my bill, the Bracero Justice Act of 2002. I am joined by Representatives Farr, Filner, Pastor, Napolitano, Solis, Baca, Roybal- Allard, Serrano, McGovern, Rodriguez, Frank, Menendez, Millender- McDonald, Schakowsky, Gonzalez, Ortiz, Velazquez, Acevedo-Vila, Reyes, Lipinski, Becerra, McKinney, Davis (IL), and Berman. I am very pleased to introduce legislation that offers relief to people who have long sought help. My bill would allow people to seek recourse in a venue that so often has protected the most vulnerable in our society: the federal judicial system. In short, my bill would give a deserving group of people their day in court and to have their case heard on the merits. Bracero workers have been waiting for their day in court for nearly six decades. Sixty years ago, in 1942, the U.S. Government entered into a program that was designed to help America get through the economic challenges that accompanied World War II. Under the program, nearly 5 million workers came to the United States from Mexico, to carry out the back-breaking labor that kept our Nation going. They filled in where labor was in short supply--especially in agriculture. Their work allowed America to carry out its war effort and to feed the country and its troops. After the war, during the late 1940s and into the 1960s, braceros helped keep America growing and expanding. Some worked on farms, others in railroad construction or other jobs. Unfortunately, despite working a full day in the fields, despite being fully exposed to the elements and a full range of other challenges, braceros did not receive compensation in full. As many as 400,000 workers saw their paychecks reduced by as much as $70 million. During the first 7 years of the program, it was an overt, explicit policy that each worker would sacrifice 10 percent of his or her salary, with the promise that it would be available to them upon their return to Mexico. It was a policy which very well may have continued long after that period, and affected far more workers. And, yet, the money disappeared. It went unaccounted for. At least $70 million of it--which, with interest, may be worth as much as $500 million to a billion dollars today--was gone. Today, Members of both parties speculate about the possibility that American workers will not get the full Social Security payout to which they are entitled upon their retirement. Here is a real-life example of exactly that scenario. In this case, it was tens (perhaps hundreds) of millions of dollars that rightfully belonged to people who had little resources then--who had little resources in the years since. And, in many cases, few resources today. Without this legislation, these people will lack the most basic resource of all: the ability to have their complaint heard. Do we know where the money went? No. However, we do know this: Under the Bracero program, the U.S. Government acted as the employer. Workers were contracted out to various businesses--farms, for example. The U.S. Government withheld 10 percent of their wages. The funds were then to be transferred to Wells-Fargo Bank and this bank was to transfer it to the Banco de Mexico which would then (supposedly) transfer it to regional banks. Somewhere along the way--sometime during a process which we know began on U.S. soil and may, for all we know, ended on U.S. soil, too-- the money was lost. Or taken away. All we know is, the money is still owed. To discover where the money went, to get some accounting of what went wrong, is one of the primary goals of a lawsuit filed last year in federal court. But, even that basic step is blocked until certain legal matters are resolved. These matters are addressed in this bill, the Bracero Justice Act of 2002. For example, my bill addresses the issue of the statute of limitations. We must eliminate any time limits on legal action. Just as we have seen with Holocaust survivors who were robbed of their assets or the Japanese citizens interned in our country for years--waiving the statute of limitations is a necessary step in seeking justice that is decades overdue. My bill also addresses jurisdictional questions, allowing suits to be filed in any district court, so the full universe of workers can gain relief. The Bracero Justice Act also seeks a waiver of sovereign immunity, so that action can be taken against a government--whether the United States or Mexican Government--if it is found that their actions contributed to this fiasco. Eligibility of class members matters, so that the full category of workers who may have been harmed, which may have included braceros working into the late 1960s, may have legal standing. In short, what we are asking is that such cases be heard and decided on their merits so that justice cannot be dismissed on a technicality, so that we can discover--first and foremost--the truth. I am confident that my colleagues will agree that the American legislative and judicial system can be put to work to help people who were put to work to build and grow and feed our country. Please join me in cosponsoring my bill, the Bracero Justice Act of 2002.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was briefly absent from this chamber on May 22, 2002 and missed voting on rollcall vote 196. I want the record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 196. Also, due to a family situation, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber on May 23, 2002 and I would like the record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 197, ``no'' on rollcall vote 198, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 199, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 200, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 201, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 202, ``no'' on rollcall vote 203, ``no'' on rollcall vote 204, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 205 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 206.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber on May 7, 2002, I want the record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 127 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 128. I was also unavoidably absent for a few minutes on May 9th and would like the record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 139 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 140 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 152.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind my colleagues of the countless sacrifices made by many police officers who serve us every day. In particular, we owe a special debt of gratitude to the many courageous men and women who have given their lives while protecting and defending others. In Congress, we enjoy the protection provided by members of the Capitol Police force, just as in our states, cities and localities we are privileged to be protected by some of the finest and bravest men and women. Unfortunately, far too many of their colleagues have lost their lives in the line of duty. In the city of Chicago, these brave men and women will be remembered tomorrow, May 10, 2002 as part of the Cook County Peace Officer Day of Remembrance and Recognition. Last year, the Cook County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution establishing May 10th of every year, beginning this year, as this special day of remembrance. Tomorrow, the Cook County Peace Office Memorial Foundation will hold a special public ceremony to honor all current police officers for the difficult work that they do every day. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Cook County Peace Officer Memorial Foundation and their Co-Chairmen Jason H. Watson, Edward Sajdak, Nathan Camer, Daryl Bernard for organizing this special event. I also join them in saluting the officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice while making America's communities safe and secure for all of us.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber on April 30, 2001 when rollcall votes Nos. 117, 118 and 119 were cast. I want the record to show that had I been present in this chamber at the time these votes were cast, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of these rollcall votes.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber on April 9, 2001 when rollcall votes Nos. 80, 81, and 82 were cast. I want the Record to show that had I been present in this Chamber at the time these votes were cast, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of these rollcall votes. I was also unavoidably absent from this Chamber on April 16, 2001, when rollcall vote Nos. 65, 66, and 67 were cast. I want the Record to show that had I been present in this Chamber at the times these votes were cast, I would have also voted ``yea'' on each of these rollcall votes.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber during the week of March 18th. I want the Record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted in the following manner: On rollcall vote 65, yea; on rollcall vote 66, yea; rollcall vote 67, yea; rollcall vote 68, yea; rollcall vote 69, yea; rollcall vote 70, yea; rollcall vote 71, yea; rollcall vote 72, yea; rollcall vote 73, yea; rollcall vote 74, yea; rollcall vote 75, no; rollcall vote 76, no; rollcall vote 77, no; rollcall vote 78, no; rollcall vote 79, no.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, February 7, I introduced H. Con. Res. 320, a bill to help the more than 300,000 Americans who suffer from Scleroderma. Scleroderma is a chronic, often progressive autoimmune disease in which the body's immune system attacks its own tissues. The disease manifests itself in two forms: localized Scleroderma, effecting the skin and underlying tissue, and systemic Scleroderma, also known as systemic sclerosis, a potentially life-threatening disease that attacks internal organs including the lungs, heart, kidneys, esophagus and gastrointestinal tract. Scleroderma can vary a great deal in terms of severity. While for a few individuals it is merely a nuisance, for many it is a life- threatening illness. For most, it is a disease that affects how they live their daily lives. The wide range of symptoms and localized and systemic variations of the disease make it especially hard to diagnose. The average diagnosis is made 5 years after the onset of symptoms. Once diagnosed, however, people with Scleroderma can only look forward to symptomatic relief, as there is no known cure. Symptoms may include swelling, hardening and thickening of the skin, blood vessel spasms with severe discomfort in the fingers and toes, weight loss, joint pain, swallowing difficulties, nonhealing ulcerations on the fingertips and extreme fatigue. In its more advanced forms, Scleroderma can prevent patients from performing even the simplest tasks. Among the goals of my legislation is to help adequately fund research projects regarding Scleroderma; hold a Scleroderma symposium that would bring together distinguished scientists and clinicians from across the United States to determine the most important priorities in Scleroderma research and to establish a national epidemiological study to better track the incidence of this disease. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in bringing awareness and find a cure to this devastating disease.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, I come here thinking this is really a good bill, and at the same time, knowing and understanding that we had a better bill until last night, a bill which balanced the needs of our immigration policy; a bill that said 245(i) would be part of this bill. I remember when I and other Members of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus early in this first term of President Bush met with the President, and he agreed to support 245(i). I remember once again when 245(i) ended in April 30 of this year, when I was heartened to hear the President of the United States come forward and say that we are going to continue with 245(i) and we are going to extend this important bill. Many in America may ask, just what does it do? It allows families to stay together. It allows American citizens to get the permanent residency for their wives. It allows citizens of this country and permanent residents legally here in this country to allow their wives and their children, and yes, their moms and dads, their very immediate family, to stay here and not be separated. Somebody would say, well, if they do not pay the penalty, what do they have to do? Well, they pay a huge penalty, and shame on this Congress and shame on those Members of this institution who yesterday went before those who were negotiating and said that we could not have 245(i). While they come before this House repeatedly to talk about family values, here we had an opportunity to do something about family values. I am always thinking, when I listen to the President of the United States say, ``This is a war against terrorists; this is not a war against Islam, this is not a war against Muslims,'' I wish he and other Members of this institution would state as categorically and as clearly that this is not a war against immigrants. The people who attacked us on September 11 were terrorists, who came here to destroy and be destructive in this country. Immigrants come here to build this country, to sweat and toil and make this the rich Nation that it is today. Shame on this institution for confusing one thing with the other. I think it is really regrettable that we do not have 245(i), and I say that we redouble our efforts so we can keep families together. We need a sane immigration policy, an immigration policy based on keeping families together and uniting those families. I just want to end by saying I thank the gentlewoman for giving me the time, and I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and all of those who truly believe. I think when history is written, people will ask: Who stood up, who stood up for immigrants, for people who work? And shame on everybody in this Congress who walks on a shiny floor every day, knowing who mopped that floor; walks into a hotel room and says, my, it sure is clean, and has their laundry done, has their dishes washed, has all of the menial jobs done in their lives, and yet cannot vote to keep those families together.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, a previously scheduled commitment prevented me from being in Washington, D.C. and voting on H. Con. Res. 280 on December 4, 2001. Consistent with my record of strong support for Israel, I would have voted yes on this important legislation. H. Con. Res. 280 expresses solidarity with the people of Israel in the fight against terrorism. The horrific murders of 26 innocent people by Palestinian terrorists during the weekend of December 1-2 make clear the need for all Americans to show their support for the people and Israel during this dangerous and troubled time. Our nation has no more consistent friend and ally in the international struggle against terrorism than Israel. The people of Israel set an invaluable international example with their commitment to democracy and freedom and dedication to working for peace. The people of Israel continue to pay a high price for these ideals. Their nation remains a target of a deadly and unrelenting terror campaign that is often aimed directly at young people and families. Israel deserves and needs our unwavering support at this difficult time. I strongly support the resolution's call for the Palestinian Authority to destroy the infrastructure of Palestinian terrorist groups and to pursue and arrest terrorist whose incarceration has been called for by Israel. I strongly urge President bush to take any and all steps to assure these goals are met, including suspending all relations with Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority if necessary. The safety and security of all people of the world who value freedom and respect the rule of law has never been more threatened. The United States and Israel must remain the closest of allies in our mutual quest to stop terrorism and work for peace. I am pleased to give H. Con. Res. 280 my unqualified support.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber on December 5, 2001 when rollcall votes Nos. 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474 and rollcall vote 475 were cast. I want the record to show that had I been present in this chamber at the time these votes were cast, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 469, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 470, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 471, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 472, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 473, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 474, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 475.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Small Business Insurance Data Disclosure Act of 2001,'' a bill to provide for public access to information regarding the availability of insurance for small businesses. There is no doubt that small businesses have played a significant role in the unprecedented economic prosperity we have enjoyed during the last decade. America's 25.5 million small businesses represent more than 99 percent of our nation's employers. They employ 51 percent of the private sector workforce and create more than 80 percent of all the net new jobs in the United States. In 2000, there were 612,400 new employer firms, an increase of 4.3 percent from 1999. Small business bankruptcies decreased by 14.8 percent between 1999 and 2000, to the lowest level in more than 20 years. And the business failure index also decreased by 1.7 percent since 1999. Small businesses, however, are also the most vulnerable market sector in times of economic uncertainty or downturn and assuredly experience difficulties with making loan payments on existing debts, paying employees, paying vendors, paying rent, insurance premiums or other operating expenses and securing financing for their businesses. The commercial insurers are preparing small business policyholders for rate increases. Please consider the following: According to an Insurance Insider report, insurance premiums for restaurants are expected to rise by an average of at least 15 percent. More than 70 percent of our nation's restaurants are small businesses and are currently experiencing declining revenues. Now, their already weakened balance sheets must incorporate anticipated premium increases. Lack of affordable and adequate insurance will severely limit the ability of entrepreneurs to obtain credit for starting, growing or expanding a small business. Hence, there will be fewer new or increased revenue streams to flow into our already slowed economy. To address these problems, this Act requires insurance companies to compile and make public sufficient data for analyses of the availability and affordability of small business insurance. That data would include the following information for small business insurance: race/ethnicity, gender, census tract, annual revenue of the small business, number of small business policies and amount of premiums, number of cancellations and non-renewals and the aggregate losses by the insurance companies. This Act is strongly supported by numerous grassroots organizations among which are the National Community Reinvestment Coalition; National Congress for Community Economic Development; Woodstock Institute (IL); Women's Business Development Center of Chicago (IL); Rural Opportunities (NY); California Reinvestment Coalition; Fairness in Rural Lending (WI); Women's Business Development Center of Philadelphia (PA); Nevada Fair Housing Center; Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council; Chicago Association of Neighborhood Development Organizations (IL); Center for Women and Enterprise (MA); Coalition of Neighborhoods (OH); Community Equity Investments, Inc. (FL); Dallas/Ft. Worth/Arlington Minority Business Development Center (TX) and the Hispanic Economic Development Corporation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation to ensure that small businesses are afforded equal access to affordable insurance products.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber when roll call vote 422 was taken. I want the record to show that had I been present in this chamber I would have voted ``nay'' on this rollcall vote.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, these are enormously challenging times for our country. Yet, we are doing what we can to meet these challenges. We are reaching across party lines to show national unity. We are reaching across social and ethnic lines, native-born citizens and immigrants alike, to show that we will not turn away from our nation's highest values, or from each other. We are exercising caution and common sense. We are going about our daily lives. In my case, and that of my fellow members of Congress, going about business as usual has been a little more difficult in recent days. But--as this productive week demonstrates--it has not made our work impossible. And, as parents, we are reminding our children how much we love them. Those are a few of the important steps that each of us is taking. And we can be proud of them. However, no group of Americans has made--or will make, as long as this effort lasts--as valuable a contribution, or as great a sacrifice, or will have as much to be proud of, as the people who are the men and women of our armed forces--full-time uniformed personnel, as well as reservists and members of the National Guard called up for active duty. They are seeking peace for us and for our allies around the globe. Their own security has been put on hold so that we can go about our lives freely and free of fear. Last week, I introduced legislation to ease at least a handful of their many burdens. My bill is admittedly a modest effort when compared to the full scope of challenges which they face. After all, I cannot give them the kind of blanket protection that I wish for them. I cannot ensure that no harm comes to them on the field of battle, or while in transit or training for their mission. However, it is worth remembering that among the many hazards and challenges faced by men and women in uniform, not all of them are found on the battlefield, or foreign soil, or on the high seas. Some confront them here at home. Even while they are far from home. And, to make matters worse, they are challenges that face not only the men and women who sign up for duty--but face their family members too. These challenges are financial. In various ways, members of the armed forces--and in particular, members of the National Guard and the Reserves who leave jobs, homes, and families at a moment's notice--face tremendous economic burdens as a result of their willingness to serve. It is at least within my powers to do something about that. Last week, I introduced legislation, ``The Servicemembers and Military Families Financial Protection Act of 2001'', aimed at giving men and women called up for duty--and their families--new financial protection and peace of mind. First, my bill will help ensure that members of the military who are called away from home still have a home to which they can return. When members are deployed and separated from their jobs, their household income levels often drop dramatically. Yet, there are still bills to pay--in particular, the monthly rent or mortgage payment. My bill would prohibit the removal of an activated military member's family from their place of residence due to a failure to meet monthly housing payments. This protection would be in place during the term of active duty and continue for up to an additional three months after active duty is over. If a landlord initiates eviction proceedings during that period, a judge would be directed to first rule on whether the family's income has been ``materially affected'' by the military service. An eviction can only occur only if a judge finds that the family's income has not been so impacted. This relief would apply to a service member's family whose monthly housing payment is $1,950 per month or less. Under current law--the Sailors' and Soldiers' Civil Relief Act--such relief is limited to families whose monthly housing payments are $1,200 or less. I seek to increase of that threshold by about 37.5 percent. I think that my proposal is reasonable. If you have given up your bed, and the comfort of home and the security of having your own roof over your head . . . and have traded that it for an army cot in a pup tent or a barracks--you are certainly entitled, when your service is completed, to return to your home. And, just as important, you are entitled to know that even if you cannot be at home, at least your family is there. The second major element of my proposal ensures that a family will be well provided for in the event--the very rare event, I hope-- that something unfortunate occurs. Again, our country's reliance on members of the guard and reserves helps illustrate the need for a change in current law, Our military cannot operate without the contributions of civilian soldiers--medical personnel, academics familiar with foreign countries and languages, engineers and people from a vast array of fields--who agree to give up good jobs and good wages here at home to serve where and when they are needed. The economic needs of full-time uniformed personnel are just as great, and only increase with more years of service. As it stands right now, however, significant barriers prohibit those men and women from knowing with confidence that their families will be adequately safeguarded if something should happen to them. Today, armed services personnel are eligible for life insurance paid through an affordable monthly premium, and administered through the Service members' Group Life Insurance program, or SGLI. However, current law caps payouts at $250,000. Far too low. Meantime, it is standard practice for private life insurance policies to include clauses that deny payouts for deaths resulting from incidents occurring as part of war-related service. My bill would enable personnel covered by SGLI to opt for considerably higher payouts for their beneficiaries--if they so desire and if they are willing to pay for it. Under my bill, military personnel could opt for coverage in increments of $250,000 above the current ceiling, up to a total of $1 million. This represents a potential increase of $750,000 above the current limits for members of the Guard and Reserves; an increase of $900,000 for uniformed personnel. All increased benefits would be the result of higher premiums deducted from military paychecks. Coverage usually costs approximately 8 cents per month per every thousand dollars of coverage. Again, this would be optional and it would be achieved at no additional cost to the government. In fact, assuming that the pool of policy holders remains steady and perhaps increases due to this added incentive, it could lead to greater revenues for government coffers. We know that military service is dangerous. But, the already significant risk should not be compounded by additional financial risks to one's dependents. My hope would be that not a single family ever has the need to take advantage of this increased level in benefits. But, even if that is the case--it still will have done some good for all of us. A member of the military can carry out duties better if there are fewer worries about what could happen to his or her family. And finally--as long as we are updating current law to reflect the true needs of members of the military--I think it is crucial that the law better reflects the true composition of the military. As we all know, that includes women. The same holds true for our country's economy, and the earnings of the typical family. A family's loss of income does not simply occur when a father or husband leaves his regular job for service--but when a mother or wife does so. Unfortunately, current law inexplicably uses the phrase ``wife'' to describe dependents eligible for protection while a member is on duty. My bill replaces such references with gender-neutral language. Such a change has practical value. Let's make certain that no court or agency denies a family relief on the basis that a mother or wife serves her country. Yet, if some people think that changing the language in this manner is mostly ``symbolic''--so be it. This is a time when symbolism matters. And, among our foes is a Taliban that degrades women to a degree that is beneath civility and decency. Let's take every opportunity to remind them--and ourselves--that our country's success and our country's strength is achieved because in our nation women can carry out any role that they choose for themselves. I am confident that my colleagues will join me in agreeing that risking life and limb for one's nation should never be compounded by a family's potential loss of shelter or economic security. Please join me and cosponsor my bill, H.R. 3173.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber when the following rollcall votes were taken, rollcall vote 336, rollcall vote 337, rollcall vote 349 and rollcall vote 350. I want the record to show that had I been present in this Chamber I would have voted ``yea'' on each of these rollcall votes.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the language in this bill concerning the future of the Puerto Rican island of Vieques. The United States Navy has trained in Vieques for more than sixty years. The effects of that training on the environment of the island and on the lives of its 9300 residents are painfully clear. Thousands of acres on that beautiful topical island are devastated, bearing witness to the presence of hundreds of thousands of tons of metals, chemicals and materials that have been shown to increase the incidence of cancer and other diseases. Vieques, which was once a thriving, albeit developing agricultural, fishing and tourist society of 12,000 residents, has been mired in poverty, unemployment, forced migration and underdevelopment for several decades, because the largest ``tenant'' on the island--the U.S. Navy--who occupies close to two thirds of the total land mass of the island, prevents the development of any significant economic activity in Vieques. After the accidental death of David Sanes--a civilian security guard from Vieques--the people of Vieques, supported by the people of Puerto Rico and by many people from the United States declared that they had enough of the bombing, enough of the contamination, enough of the constraining of their lives hopes and aspirations by the U.S. Navy. Together with the religious, civic, political, and labor leadership of Puerto Rico, the people of Vieques began a sustained campaign of peaceful protest and peaceful civil disobedience to put a stop to the abuses of their land by the Navy. Madam Chairman, last year President Clinton and this Congress attempted to mediate in the dispute. I believe that President Clinton, as commander-in-chief under our Constitution could have resolved the issue the same way President Ford had resolved the matter of Culebra in 1975, or President Bush had resolved the issue of Kahoolave in 1991, by simply ordering his subordinates in the U.S. Navy to cease operations in Vieques. He chose, instead, to do a combination of Executive orders and Congressional action. That is now known as the Clinton-Rossello agreement. I opposed that ``compromise'' precisely because I suspected that what is happening here today--that Congress is literally going back on its word given to the people of Vieques and the people of Puerto Rico could happen. That is why I called on President Clinton to resolve the matter once and for all. Madam Chairman: The people of Vieques have expressed their aspirations for peace in every peaceful manner possible. They have protested peacefully, the have engaged in peaceful civil disobedience . . . and they voted-overwhelmingly, 70 percent of the vote--for the Navy to leave them in peace. And this Congress had promised them that the Navy would indeed leave, if--we told them last year--you vote in a federally sponsored referendum to be held at a date of the Navy's choosing, for the Navy to leave. That referendum, that opportunity for the people of Vieques to once again express their wish to live in peace and free of contaminants and threats to their lives and their safety, was going to take place on November, on the date chosen by the Navy. But the Navy and their allies in Congress now know what I always said, that the people of Vieques, whom the Navy was called their ``neighbors'' no longer want the Navy in their land. So, what do we do when the people of Vieques are about to beat the Navy at a game whose rules were designed by the Navy and its political allies in Congress? We will now change the rules, to prevent the people of Vieques from winning fair and square. In this time of crisis, we are all feeling a growing sense of patriotism. I am pleased and proud that the people of our nation are rallying to our country and about what it stands for. Sadly, what this Congress intends to do to the people of Vieques does not represent the best of America. It disrespects the clearly and democratically expressed will of the majority of the people of Vieques. Madam Chairman, tonight I will vote for this DOD authorization bill, because, despite this and many other disagreements I have with this bill, its enactment is necessary for the defense of our country and of our democracy. But I want to make clear for the record that we are committing a grave injustice to a peaceful people who have the right, the same right as any of my constituents or any of the constituents represented in this body to live in peace, free of fear, free of deadly contamination with a hope for a decent future for themselves and their children. I vote for this bill to support that defense of our nation--and despite language regarding Vieques that is unjust and counterproductive.