Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores Brownfields appropriations to the current $25 million level by transferring $5 million from NASA's Human Space Flight account into HUD's Brownfields Redevelopment account. In fiscal year 2000, the very least we should do is maintain this year's spending levels for programs that generate jobs and help neighborhoods in other important ways. Instead, H.R. 2684 gouges appropriations, including over half a billion dollars for public housing funds in order to meet Congress's self-imposed budget caps and to fund an enormous tax cut. My amendment seeks to reprioritize our budget by putting people first. In other words, we should cut the least from programs that directly help people. This initiative is one that will deliver the kinds of jobs and development needed desperately by these distressed towns and urban neighborhoods; and it is called the Brownfields Redevelopment, a small, modest, cost-effective program that should not be made smaller. Brownfields' goal is to return contaminated sites to productive, employment-generating uses. The program emphasizes job creation for lower income people and economically distressed neighborhoods. Nearly 450 sites across our country qualify as Brownfields sites. In my own congressional district, a contaminated parcel that used to be the former Hammond Refrigerated Warehouse site at 4555 South Racine. When re-habbed, this currently vacant parcel will return to commercial use with a new 190,000 square foot industrial building and 200 new jobs for low- and moderate-income Chicago residents and adds handsomely to the tax base. The amendment also restores HOME Investments Partnership funding to its fiscal year 1999 level by transferring $20 million from NASA's Science, Aeronautics, and Technology Account to HUD's HOME account. I am offering this amendment for one clear reason. There is a serious shortage of affordable housing in the United States. Currently, rents are increasing faster than wages almost everywhere and nowhere in the country can a household with one full-time minimum wage earner afford basic housing costs. As a result, a record 5.3 million low-income households are spending more than half their incomes on rent, leaving precious little money for food, clothing, day care, insurance, transportation, education, and all of the other costs associated with raising a family. Funds must come from some source to help cities and towns expand housing for low- and moderate-income working class families. Why? Because it is the right thing to do for our constituents who earn too little and pay too much for rent, often falling into homelessness. The HOME Investment Partnership program is one of the few Federal initiatives for encouraging the development of affordable housing. It is a success story. Since 1990, HOME has financed some 350,000 units of housing for low- and moderate-income families. Every American hurts when families cannot find safe, decent, warm, affordable housing in communities where they work. Again I ask we prioritize families first. The amendment also restores Homeless Assistance Grants to the FY 1999 level by transferring $5 million. Homeless Assistance Grants provide shelter and services to people without homes. This $5 million amendment may seem small considering the VA-HUD appropriation bill deals with almost $90 billion dollars. And a $5 million cut to HUD's Homeless Assistance program from FY 1999 levels may seem small. After all, H.R. 2684 slashes funding to important public housing programs by more than half a billion dollars as it reduces community development block grants by 250. However, the Homeless Assistance cuts, as well as those to Brownfields and HOME, are significant. Our priorities are wrong when we retreat from a commitment to helping the most vulnerable people in our country when there are 750 people who are homeless in America on any given night. During a year, as many as 2 million people experience homelessness for a short period of time. If we reduce Homeless Assistance Grants, we reduce our compassion and our intelligence. When we refuse adequate Federal assistance to individuals and families on the street, we increase the potential for emergency room visits, crime, deaths, and the stunting of homeless children's educational and emotional development. Our Nation is richer than ever before. Shame on us if we cut assistance to people living on streets and sidewalks during a period of historic Dow Jones Industrial Average record-breaking corporate profits, an increasing tax revenue. I ask all my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from Illinois, and from Chicago specifically, for yielding. I guess I understand the arguments made by the chairman of the committee. I would just like to say that as the House considers this amendment that, as we continue space exploration, I would like to simply suggest to America tonight that we look at our own homes, we look at our own neighborhoods, we look at our own Nation, we look at our own planet Earth. I want people to understand what Brownfields means. It means contaminated, polluted areas, over hundreds of thousands of them that have already been sighted across our Nation. It seems ironic to me that we are going to continue to spend money. The chairman is absolutely correct when he suggests that the NASA program has been cut by $9 million but HUD has been cut by a billion dollars. So in the parlance of congressional discourse, they may seem equal. So I guess then the question is, what are our priorities? Are we going to take care of our own contaminated neighborhoods and sites across our own Nation, as we venture into space, and lose our own planet Earth, which I think we quickly need to reclaim first before we ever pretend to claim outerspace. Secondly, I would just like everybody to think for a moment. It seems interesting that I know that the astronauts as they look back on Earth, they cannot see the 750,000 people that are homeless at that given night in our country, but I assure my colleagues that it is a cold and a mean and a very desperate situation that 750,000 people and up to 2 million in any year see. So as they look out into the stars, I wish we would give them some hope also, so as we explore space we take care of our own. Third, let us not create homelessness by inaction of this Congress. The home program works and it forms those wonderful partnerships between the public and private sector and, as I said, created over 350,000 units of housing since 1990. It is a success story. Let us continue on those success stories. Mr. Chairman, last, I would just like to add, let us remember that we are dealing within the confines of this budget. We really do not need to. We have hundreds of billions of dollars in our surplus. I think we can find $30 million to reduce homelessness, to clean up contaminated waste sites across our Nation and to make sure that families who are out there in the cold can come in and feel the warmth and the humanity which this Congress can give them by allowing this modest increase of $30 million.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently not recorded on rollcall vote 379, the conference report on H.R. 2488, the Financial Freedom Act. Had I been recorded, I would have been recorded as a no vote on final passage of H.R. 2488.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to honor two of my neighbors and constituents on a very happy and joyous occasion. On February 21st, my friends Carolyn and Martin Karbin welcomed to the world a beautiful baby girl. Laura Marie Karbin was born at 8:37 a.m., she was 21.5 inches long and weighed eight pounds, three ounces. I want to share my good wishes and warmest congratulations with the Karbin family. I know that Laura will receive the best of guidance, support and love from her parents and I wish her a life filled with peace, happiness and good health.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, in the evening of Thursday, July 29, 1999, and the morning of Friday, July 30, 1999, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber and therefore missed rollcall vote No. 355 (Motion to Instruct Conferees on S. 900), rollcall vote No. 354 (Motion to instruct Conferees on H.R. 1501), rollcall vote No. 353 (the Pitts amendment to H.R. 2606), rollcall vote No. 352 (the Moakley amendment to H.R. 2606) and rollcall No. 351 (the Campbell amendment to H.R. 2606). I want the Record to show that if I had been able to be present in this chamber when these votes were cast, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 355, rollcall vote 354, and rollcall vote 352. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 353 and rollcall vote 351.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on the afternoon of Monday, July 19, 1999, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber and therefore missed rollcall vote number 310 (H.R. 1477), rollcall vote number 309 (H. Con. Res. 121) and rollcall vote number 308 (H.R. 1033). I want the Record to show that if I had been able to be present in this chamber when these votes were cast, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of them.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996, legal immigrants have been denied access to vital health, income and nutrition assistance programs. Although the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 restored some benefits to elderly, disabled, and minor immigrants who entered legally before August 22, 1996, researchers have documented a dramatic increase in extreme hunger and food insecurity among those affected by the law. The following research memorandum was written by Amy K. Fauver, a research associate for the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA). The memo represents an elaborated version of an article which will appear in issue 19:09 of COHA's publication, the Washington Report on the Hemisphere. The article addresses the consequences of the immigrant-specific provisions of welfare reform, and demonstrates the need to restore essential benefits to immigrants who have come to the U.S. legally and have paid taxes, but in some circumstances have needed government assistance. Fear and Hunger in the Wake of Welfare Reform (By Amy K. Fauver, Research Associate, Council on Hemispheric Affairs) On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed the ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act'' (PRWORA), mandating in his own words, ``the end of welfare as we know it.'' The justification for these measures was moral and financial: welfare recipients in general ``abuse'' the system; welfare ``hurts'' people by encouraging ``dependency''; and above all, taxpayers should ``not have to foot the bill for immigrants'' who viewed the U.S. as, according to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, ``nothing more than a taxpayer-funded retirement home.'' Among the most dramatic changes were those affecting the eligibility of legal, documented immigrants for federal benefit programs. Of the $60 billion projected savings from welfare reform, approximately $24 billion--44%--was to come from cuts in social services to immigrants. 85% of these savings were from reductions in Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, Food Stamps and Air for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) PRWORA provisions target immigrants The immigrant provisions of PRWORA created new categories of distinction among immigrants based not on their legal status, but on their date of arrival in the U.S. Previously, federal means-tested benefits were available to any legally admitted immigrant on the same terms as natural and naturalized citizens after a period of deeming. PRWORA redefined immigrants as ``qualified'' or ``unqualified,'' which effectively replaced the ``legal'' or ``illegal'' dichotomy for determining entitlement, and essentially denied most legal immigrants access to benefits. Aside from emergency medical assistance and a few other programs necessary for the protection of life and safety, any benefits the newly ``unqualified'' were receiving at the time of the law's enactment were terminated. Although the majority of legal immigrants were ``qualified,'' most were nonetheless barred from SSI and Food Stamps until they were naturalized. The only exemptions were those able to prove 10 years of Social Security-qualified work history, refugees, asylees and those granted withholding of deportation (but only for their first five years in the U.S.), as well as veterans and active duty military, their spouses and dependent children. PRWORA also distinguished between immigrants based on their date of arrival in the U.S. The ``before'' group, of those immigrants who were legally present before August 22, 1996 (this date coincides with the signing of PRWORA), were granted greater access to benefits than the ``after'' group, who arrived on or after that date. The ``after'' group was barred from benefits for their first five years in the country, except the life and safety provisions. Pressure to amend PRWORA came from immigrant advocacy groups and President Clinton himself, who vowed to soften the immigrant provisions of PRWORA even as he signed it. The Balanced Budget Act of 1998 reinstated $11.4 billion of the $23.8 billion cut from immigrant benefits, restoring SSI benefits to most ``before'' immigrants. The legislation also extended the length of time that refugees and asylees can collect benefits from five to seven years in response to an INS backlog of over a year. This formula was intended to provide a realistic time frame in which to naturalize before benefits would be discontinued. In June 1998, the Agricultural Act restored $818 million in food stamps to specific immigrants, including the elderly and legally present children under 18 from the ``before'' group. Although these restorations returned food stamps to approximately 250,000 immigrants, two-thirds of those previously eligible remain without such assistance. This law did not address immigrants who entered after the arbitrarily chosen cut off date. consequences: fear and hunger Despite these attempts to soften the blow that PRWORA dealt to legally-present immigrants, it has profoundly impacted all non-citizen welfare recipients and destroyed the safety net for those not currently needing help, but who might require it in the future. A July 1998 Urban Institute study of Los Angeles County portrays a sharp decline in immigrant applications for welfare benefits even though the vast majority remained eligible under state-funded programs. This study suggests that many immigrants are not attempting to prove their eligibility partly due to confusion about the law, but especially out of fear of negative consequences. They are afraid that revealing information about their immigration status (as in the case of undocumented parents trying to collect benefits for legal immigrant or citizen children) could result in deportation or compromise future attempts to naturalize if they are labeled a ``public charge.'' These well-founded anxieties can prevent those who are aware of their eligibility from seeking benefits for themselves or for their children. PRWORA's provisions requiring public agencies to report to the INS any persons ``known to be unlawfully present'' in the U.S., have exacerbated this fear. Although public health care providers are exempt from such reporting requirement, because they are prohibited from having an official policy that they will not share immigrant status information with the INS, they cannot guarantee protection for undocumented patients. According to the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin, TX, ``Public health providers report that this is already having a chilling effect on the use of prenatal care, preventative care and primary care.'' One of the most egregious problems directly resulting from PRWORA has been an extraordinary increase in hunger among legal immigrants. As for the welfare reductions in general, a disproportionate share of the federal savings from Food Stamp cuts came from restricting immigrant eligibility. Prior to PRWORA, 5.2% of all Food Stamp recipients were immigrants, yet over 30% of Food Stamp cuts came from slashing immigrants benefits. Not surprisingly, many immigrants who lost benefits now are suffering. A May 1998 study by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) tracked household hunger among legal Latino and Asian immigrants in California, Texas and Illinois. Finding 79% of households interviewed to be food insecure, PHR called ``the cuts against individuals who are in the U.S. legally and who pay taxes. . . a serious human rights violation.'' Legal immigrant households were ten times more likely than the general population to suffer from severe hunger and one-third of immigrant households surveyed reported moderate or severe hunger caused by a lack of sufficient resources. A similar study by the California Food Policy Advocates (CFPA) echoes these findings, but also documents an ``alarmingly high rate of hunger among children in legal immigrant households where food stamps have been cut.'' Immigrant households in Los Angeles that lost benefits were 30% more likely to experience ``food insecurity with extreme hunger'' than those that did not. In San Francisco, this number jumped to 173%, making immigrants affected by PRWORA almost twice as likely to be suffering from extreme hunger than an unaffected group. Moreover, in both cities, immigrant households with children which had lost food stamps were almost two-thirds more likely to experience serious food problems than similar households that retained complete benefits. Although both studies were conducted prior to the Agricultural Act, CFPA's findings were shocking even though California exercised its option--unlike most states--to fill the gap with state funds for the same population that now has regained eligibility. Without further legislation, marked improvements of this nature in the future are unlikely because most of those benefiting from the restoration are immigrant children living in ``mixed'' households where ``eligible'' individuals live with others who are not. In Texas alone, there are 65,396 ``mixed'' households with approximately 9,000 legal immigrant and 145,000 citizen children. Although these children can again collect food stamps, the total resources available to the family remain low because their parents still cannot. Is ``fairness'' in the future? The Fairness to Legal Immigrants Act of 1999, recently introduced in the Senate, proposes the most extensive restoration to date and offers the first substantive opportunity to right the wrongs done to legal immigrants by PRWORA. If approved, this bill would restore food stamps to all eligible ``before'' immigrants and those otherwise qualified ``after'' immigrants who suffer domestic abuse. It would also allow states to cover all pregnant legal immigrant women and children who entered after August 22, 1996 under Medicaid and restore many health and SSI disability benefits for certain immigrants from both the ``before'' and ``after'' groups. This bill represents a significant step towards rectifying several of the most controversial outcomes of welfare reform by protecting dependent children, addressing the mixed household problem and providing essential food assistance to many needy legal immigrant families. Wholehearted support by this Congress would send a clear message to law-abiding, taxpaying immigrants that they need not fear, that they need not go hungry and that they will not be abandoned in their times of need.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank the committee for its work and to ask that they once again consider in conference as they come back with the Senate report and obviously the House report; in the House Report there is $2 million for the Blue Line in Chicago. It is a line that needs to be completely rebuilt at a cost estimate of $425 million. The State of Illinois has passed a rather robust transportation authorization of over a billion dollars that the Chicago Transit Authority will receive to redo those lines, so from the State point of view, and of course Mayor Daley and the Governor of the State of Illinois have worked together on the legislative process, so we have got the dollars from the State of Illinois to really make a big infusion, but we have only been able to receive $3 million thus far from the authorized amount of money at $325 million from the House of Representatives. So I would simply ask that in conference my colleagues take another look at the needs of the Blue Line in Chicago, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for their work on this issue.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman. I rise today to reiterate my strong support for much-needed and already authorized funding for the Douglas Branch of the Chicago Transit Authority's Blue Line. I am extremely concerned about the inadequate level of funding H.R. 2084 includes for the Blue Line and I urge conferees from the House and the Senate who will consider this legislation to dramatically increase funding for this vital project. The Douglas branch of the Blue Line is more than a century old. It has never undergone systematic capital improvements. Due to its age and deterioration, the Blue Line has become increasingly difficult to operate efficiently and safely. The House of Representatives clearly recognized the need to improve and rebuild the Douglas branch of the Blue Line and authorized federal funding of $315 million in TEA-21 legislation passed last year. Obviously, many projects were competing for this limited pool of money and this authorization represented a thoughtful and reasonable response to the needs of Chicago-area residents who use the Blue Line. In response to this federal authorization of funds, the State of Illinois has appropriated more money than is needed for the local matching portion of this project. Improving the Blue Line has the strong support of the entire Illinois Congressional delegation, the Illinois Legislature, Governor George Ryan and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. The need for an adequate appropriation of funds could not be more urgent. The Chicago Transit Authority has reduced services on the line drastically, with weekend and late evening services eliminated. Speeds have been reduced considerably on the Blue Line, making daily commutes impossible or extremely inefficient for the 27,000 passengers who rely on this route to travel to work, school, health care facilities and other essential destinations. Mass transit is absolutely vital to the economic health of the Chicago area and the many communities this transit link serves directly, including the Pilsen and Little Village neighborhoods. The funding request I have been joined by local, state and federal leaders in making for the Blue Line is very important to the economic vitality of the community I represent. Unfortunately, H.R. 2084 includes only two million dollars in funding for the Douglas Branch of the Blue Line, far less than the $77 million that was requested for this year. This level of funding is inadequate to serve the needs of the residents who count on this vital transit line. I urge the members of this Congress to respond to the needs of the people of the Chicago area and provide the requested level of funding for the Blue Line.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago House Republicans said they believed that the United States should not take a leadership role in the world; a war in Europe was someone else's problem, they said. But this week, the GOP says the United States should be the leader of the world. The United States, according to House Republicans, must retain its title as world leader: in murders, assaults and other incidents of gun violence. I used to think that the Republicans' isolationism simply meant that they closed their eyes to the rest of the world's problems. Now I see that they have closed their eyes to the rest of the world's solutions. The solution to gun violence and crime in every other industrialized nation has been fewer guns; more gun safety laws. It has proven it works. Sometimes it is hard to figure out what the Members of the GOP stand for. They want us to stand alone in the world, too proud to take a lesson from other countries. They do not want us to stand up for freedom or stand up to an evil aggressor, but at least it is clear what the letters GOP stand for: Guns over people.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Many Republicans who fiercely fight any common sense gun safety measures will try to amend the juvenile crime bill to encourage schools to place the Ten Commandments in their classrooms. That makes sense. After all, it is free publicity for the gun lobby, a good way to reach young people, kids. My colleagues have seen the poster, now see the movie starring Charlton Heston, President of the National Rifle Association. Now I have read the Ten Commandments, I did not merely watch the Hollywood version, and I seem to recall that they teach us thou shall not kill, and yet assault weapons which the NRA fought to keep on our streets kill. Saturday night specials, the small cheap guns favored by criminals, kill. Weapons purchased unchecked today at gun shows or in the future bought in the parking lots of gun shows, thanks to a loophole wider than the part in the Red Sea, kill. The man who played Moses and his supporting cast here in Congress should go back and read their script: Thou shall not kill. Once again it is clear what the letters GOP stand for: Guns over people.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Association House of Chicago as it celebrates its 100th anniversary on June 8, 1999. Association House has been serving the community I represent since before the turn of the century. It was founded by more than one hundred women and served as a settlement house and social service agency for immigrants arriving in Chicago. Throughout its century of public service, the mission and goals of Association House of Chicago have expanded. Association House continues to provide vital services, programs and assistance to families, children, seniors and immigrants throughout our community. Each year, Association House assists nearly 20,000 individuals and families throughout the Chicago area, providing services ranging from the most basic of necessities to managing larger government contracts. The expansion of Association House's services during the past two decades led the agency to buy a second facility last year. This growth helps immigrants take naturalization classes, learn English and master trades. In addition to the programs Association House offers in education, citizenship and job readiness training, Association House offers after- school programs and activities for children. The agency also provides foster care and adoption services, addiction recovery programs and provides emergency food and clothing. The staff of Association House is truly dedicated to their programs and the people they benefit. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Association House of Chicago for building a strong tradition of service toward others. The work that Association House has accomplished since its first days cannot be measured. For one hundred years, Association House has been assisting, teaching and counseling people of all ages, races, cultures and ethnic backgrounds. From preparing people to enter the workforce to teaching them to speak English to caring for at-risk children, Association House has served as a shining beacon of hope in Chicago. I am honored to commend Association House on a century of unequaled service to the people of our city.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Zonta Club of Oak Park, Illinois. The Zonta Club of Oak Park was organized in February 1934 and was chartered on May 26 that same year. It is the 127th chapter of Zonta International, a worldwide service organization of executives in business and the workforce that began in 1919 to advance the status of American women. The Zonta Club of Oak Park will be celebrating its 65th anniversary on May 26, 1999. The Zonta Club of Oak Park has contributed time and money and has worked tirelessly for women's rights since it was organized. Throughout its history, the Zonta Club of Oak Park has supported many local organizations, such as the alliance for the Mentally Ill, Cook County Hospital, Literacy Volunteers of Western Cook County and the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. The Club also gives financial support to international service projects selected by Zonta International through the United Nations and has directly affected the fate of more than 700,000 women and girls through projects in countries such as Argentina, Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Jordan and Zimbabwe. The Zonta Club of Oak Park has a strong dedication to women's higher education and has supported literacy projects. The Club supports the Young Women in Pubic Affairs scholarship program by recognizing and awarding scholarships to local high school seniors to encourage young women to enter careers or seek leadership positions in social policymaking, government and volunteer organizations. The Club also gives financial support to the Amelia Earhart fellowship award program, which was founded in 1938 to support women pursuing graduate degrees in aerospace-related sciences and engineering. The program has supported more than 500 women from forty-eight countries in more than 800 fellowships. Mr. Speaker, I commend the work of the Zonta Club of Oak Park and their efforts to promote literacy, fight domestic violence and encourage students to participate in international service projects. I am pleased to congratulate them on their 65th anniversary.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to make permanent the sexual trauma counseling and treatment services offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Veterans Sexual Trauma Treatment Act, which I also introduced during the 105th Congress, will enable more former military personnel who were subjected to sexual harassment or abuse during their military service to receive proper medical and psychological care. A high incidence of sexual harassment and assault cases in the military have been reported in the past several years. While some of these cases have gained national attention, many more have gone unreported. What is often not discussed is the issue of treatment and counseling for the victims of these offenses. The current law does not provide medical and counseling services for victims of these abuses. The Veterans Sexual Trauma Treatment Act would permanently authorize sexual trauma and treatment for active military personnel, reservists and national guard personnel. My bill would also require the VA to report to Congress regarding the use of sexual trauma programs and their collaborative efforts with the Department of Defense to educate and inform our armed forces personnel about sexual trauma programs at VA facilities. Mr. Speaker, a greater number of women are entering the military each year. These services are needed. I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me by supporting this bill. I look forward to working with them to provide all veterans with the health care they have earned and deserve.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that is vital to the interests of minority veterans in our nation. Current law mandates the termination of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans (ACMV) as of December 31, 1999. My bill would simply repeal the provision of law that discontinues this important committee's mandate so that its critical work on behalf of minority veterans can continue into the next century. Saving the Advisory Committee will require no additional taxpayer funding. The Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans operates in conjunction with the VA Center for Minority Veterans. This committee consists of members appointed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and includes minority veterans, representatives of minority veterans and individuals who are recognized authorities in fields pertinent to the needs of minority veterans. The Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans helps the VA Center for Minority Veterans primarily by advising the Secretary on the adoption and implementation of policies and programs affecting minority veterans, and by making recommendations to the VA for the establishment or improvement of programs in the Department for which minority veterans are eligible. The unique concerns of minority veterans will become increasingly important for our nation during the next decade. The majority of African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American and Native American veterans served in the armed forces during Vietnam and post-Vietnam eras. The percentage of U.S. veterans who are minorities is expected to continue to increase as we enter the 21st century. The Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans has helped to ensure that our veterans programs address the unique concerns of these men and women. Outreach to diverse veterans communities, from Native American reservations to inner-city neighborhoods, has helped inform thousands of minority veterans about opportunities for assistance at the Department of Veterans Affairs. I believe that these tasks are essential to the success of the VA in serving all veterans in our nation. Nevertheless, many specific issues of concern to minority veterans need to be addressed further. Minority veterans confront the debilitating effects of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance abuse in greater numbers. Minority veterans suffer from a higher incidence of homelessness. Access to health care for Native Americans is a common problem. In addition, access to adequate job training is a difficulty for many minority veterans, a high percentage of whom qualify as low-income, category A veterans. Unfortunately, discrimination and cultural insensitivity remain problematic for minority veterans at many VA facilities. This is the only advisory committee in the VA that is not permanent. The Department of Veterans Affairs has a VA Center for Women Veterans and an advisory committee on women veterans. We should act now to assure that the VA Center for Minority Veterans maintains its own advisory committee. Mr. Speaker, the specific issues of importance to minority veterans will not disappear on December 31, 1999. I ask my colleague to support this vital legislation.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) very much for yielding the time. Mr. Chairman, I do not think this is an issue that should not be before us. I think our farmers need our help, and we should all support all of our farmers across this country. Agriculture is important to this Nation. Just because in my city there are not a lot of farmers, we certainly drink the milk, eat the meat, fry the chickens, eat the corn. Our farmers are vital to our economy and we should help them all. I think it is crucial and important, and we all know in our heart of hearts we are not doing enough. Yes, what Milosevic has done in Yugoslavia and the genocide there should be responded to with humanitarian aid, with what is going on in the Balkans and in that hemisphere, but we should also look at Mitch, because if Milosevic is bad, Mitch was devastating to Central America. It is in our hemisphere. Remember, this is the Americas, North America, Central and South America, and we share a border and an economy. Those people there are waiting for us to respond in Nicaragua and Honduras. They are waiting for us, and if we do not respond we are sending a very clear signal in this hemisphere and we are giving them the back of our hand. Who are we opening the doors to? We are opening the doors to drug traffickers in Central America. That is what we are saying. We are saying we are not going to be there. Who do we think is going to fill this void in Latin America? Think about what my colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) just said. Think about those burgeoning democracies. The Cold War has ended, but there is devastation. There are 1 million people without food and shelter. Mr. Chairman, where do we think they are going to come and search for that shelter and that food? We share borders with them. Let us develop those economies. Let us develop those infrastructures in Central America, or we will build tents and refugee camps here for them in the United States of America. Let us not do that, and give a hand to them, please.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, during recent days Members of both parties have spoken very reverently about our sailors and soldiers and Marines, showing their concern for our troops deployed overseas. And I join them. But, unfortunately, they are not doing it here today. And unfortunately, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) left. There is not $1 billion over Clinton's budget. There is $900 million over Clinton's budget in their budget today. And the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) forgot to tell them the other half, that in the subsequent 4 years they eliminate $3 billion from the budget of the veterans. He should tell them the truth. And while he is doing that, it is not a small, modest tax break. In that budget, in the first 4 years, there is $142 billion in tax breaks for the richest in this Nation. And in the next 5 years, they add another $437 billion, most of which goes to the wealthiest in this Nation. Yes, my colleagues, $779 billion in tax breaks for the richest in this Nation, and they cannot find $3 billion for our veterans. Shame on this House.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, during recent days Members of both parties have shown their concern for our troops deployed overseas. Yet, Republicans have betrayed the men and women who have already served our country, jeopardizing the well-being of our veterans, and ignoring the values for which they fought. Democrats have tried to fight for a VA budget proposal for fiscal year 2000, but the Republicans, a party still apparently wedded to the idea that the wealthiest Americans deserve another tax break, want to keep their promise to them and break their promise to protect veterans health care. The Republicans continue to put their commitment to their wealthy campaign contributors above America's commitment to our veterans. Here is what the Republicans have said no to America: no to $475 million more for VA health care, no to $271 million in long-term care initiatives, no to $681 million in the Montgomery G.I. Bill. Just so America understands, this budget is deplorable for veterans, and remember what they did today. Remember what they did today.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the taino people and the importance of observing the United Confederation of Taino People Day. The Taino people are the descendants of the first Native Peoples of the Americas to greet Cristobal Colon (Christopher Columbus) in the year 1492, and have a distinctive spiritual and material relationship with the lands, territories, waters and coastal seas which they have traditionally been connected to, occupied and used from time immemorial. The Taino people have the collective and individual right to identify themselves as indigenous, to be recognized as such, and to practice, revitalize, develop and transmit to coming generations the past, present and future manifestations of their distinct identity, ethnic, cultural and spiritual traditions, history, language, and customs. The Taino people, beyond international and political borders, have taken positive steps for the recognition, promotion and protection of their collective and individual rights and freedoms, by organizing themselves for their spiritual, social, political, economic, and cultural enhancement. The Taino people, being represented by indigenous organizations, such as Caney Quinto Mundo, Concejo General de Tainos Borincanos, Fundacion Social Luz Cosmica Taina, Presencia Taina, Taino Ancestral Legacy Keepers, Ciboney Tribe, and Cecibajagua, have in solidarity chosen representatives themselves and established the United Confederation of Taino People. The United Confederation of Taino People is celebrating its first historic anniversary, which coincides with, and recognizes the United Nations International decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples, and the equinox that signals the beginning of the planting cycle that the Taino People have observed for thousands of years. Mr. Speaker, March 27, 1999 is the United Confederation of Taino People Day. I encourage my colleagues and all of the people of the United States to observe that day with the respect and dignity it deserves and to learn more about the great contributions of this people to our country and civilization.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, during the past year did we not hear the Republicans say something about the rule of law? I think I recall some Republicans saying everyone deserves his or her day in court, even if it means tying up Congress, the White House and the judiciary, costs the taxpayers $40 million, huge legal bills for everyone. But when it comes to their good friends in the gun lobby and their precious time and money, well, the Republicans simply will not allow them to be threatened with a lawsuit or held accountable through civil action. Mr. Speaker, once again the GOP does the bidding of the National Rifle Association, preempting cities like Chicago who dare to sue the gun industry, the modern-day merchants of vengeance. A Republican bill will be introduced limiting lawsuits against the gun makers, ironically sponsored by the same gentleman who once told the Committee on the Judiciary a plaintiff deserved her day in court. In the eyes of the GOP, a sitting President can be dragged into a civil suit, but not the gun industry. Clearly, the Republicans care more about guns than people. I guess that is what GOP stands for: ``Guns Over People.''

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) was always proud to remind us that he was a professor of history, so he could tell us about the Constitutional Convention, where it was decided that a President could be removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors, or he could tell us that censure was weighed and exercised against chief executives in the 19th century. Let me be clear. No one is condoning the President's behavior, and if we had the chance, we would vote to condemn it. To take poetic license from Mark Anthony's words from Julius Caesar, I do not come here to praise Bill Clinton, but I do not intend to see him buried either, buried under an avalanche of innuendo and salacious scandal. Nor do I wish to see this Congress play the role of Brutus, reaching across the centuries to stab in the back the founders of our democracy who entrusted us with their legacy. No one is attempting to defend the President. We are trying to defend a historical precedent. The voters spoke and they said they were sick of this partisan political process, sick of this extraordinarily expensive exhaustive examination of an extramarital affair. History tells us what to do. Vote against impeachment of the President of the United States.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, for many Americans, the years of 1932 and 1933 conjure up memories of depression, bank failures, ``Hoovervilles'' and unemployment lines. This was the reality our nation faced as we were challenged by the greatest financial crisis in our history. We know that we were not alone in our suffering throughout the 1930s. The economies of Western Europe collapsed as well, sending Europe down the slippery slope toward totalitarianism, genocide and war. However, what is often not discussed when we endeavor to recall the era leading to World War II is the great hardship visited on the people of Ukraine by the Soviet government. Our great depression is often called the greatest crisis of modern capitalism. The famine of the 1930s in Ukraine has been called the first great tragedy of modern absolutism. I have learned of this tragedy from people in my district who remember this terrible event. They are the descendants of Ukrainian immigrants to Chicago, people who lost relatives under the oppression of Joseph Stalin. They remember the stories their parents told of the great famine just as many Americans remember the stories their parents told about the great depression. What is important then is that we not forget. In 1929, Joseph Stalin devised a plan to force industrialization on the people of Ukraine. He attempted to strip the land from the peasants of Ukraine to terminate their agrarian lifestyles and traditional values. Yet the people of Ukraine resisted. They had been bound to the land, the fertile ground of Ukraine, for generations and they were not prepared to cede their way of life to toil in factories building Stalin's army. So they fought the usurpation of their property the only way they knew how. They refused to leave it. Stalin would not let this pass. He intended to crush the Ukrainian people into subservience. Not with direct violence but with a tactic just as deadly--starvation Stalin cut off the farmers from grain to seed their farms, from water, from their markets an thus from subsistence. Between 1931 and 1933, the grip of famine spread throughout the Ukraine. Fields were over harvested. Food became scarce. By its end, more than seven million people would perish in Ukraine due to hunger. This event stands as an unprecedented catastrophe, claiming the lives of nearly one-fourth of Ukraine's people. Sadly, as the full details of the famine became known in the West, little action was taken to condemn Stalin's government for this crime. Our attention was fixed on our own financial circumstances as we overlooked the tragic famine in Ukraine. This year is the 65 anniversary of the end of the great famine in Ukraine. The Ukrainian-American community in Chicago and throughout the nation have spent this year solemnly commemorating this unfortunate event. I join them in doing so. I believe that we must forever remember this tragedy and teach our children of it. We must do so in order to ensure that humanity never again endeavors to conceive another tragedy of this kind. This famine was of man's doing, a punishment for intransigence in the face of oppression. It did not have to happen. Nature had no part in this matter. Cruelty lies at its root. So today, I ask my colleagues to remember Ukraine's famine by supporting H. Con. Res. 295. This resolution commemorates the ``Ukrainian Famine Days of Remembrance'' and recommits all of us to fight totalitarianism in all its forms so as to prevent future tragedies of this nature.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998. I commend Chairman Stump and Ranking Member Evans for their tireless effort in producing this important legislation. I also compliment the staff of both the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. Their hard work and dedication to our veterans has made this legislation possible. People outside of this building are often unaware of the vital role staff play in the legislative process. They should not be. Our veterans should know how hard the veterans committee staff works for them each day. I hold this bill up as testament to their efforts. Mr. Speaker, for much of this year I was not sure what this Congress would be able to accomplish on behalf of our nation's veterans. I would venture to say that this Congress's record on veterans issues has been mediocre at best. Funding for veterans health care was cut again, medicare subvention was not achieved and veterans benefits were slashed to fund highway construction. But in the end, with the passage of this legislation, we will be able to point to some notable achievements on veterans issues this year. With this bill, we establish a precedent for the presumptive treatment and compensation of Persian Gulf War veterans. I have long felt that we must give our Gulf War veterans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to health care and service connection. This bill helps us reach this goal that I have long called for. In addition, this legislation helps prepare us to provide quality treatment for the veterans of future conflicts. We were unprepared for the aftermath of the Gulf War. However, by establishing a National Center for the Study of War- Related Illnesses, this bill helps prepare our veterans health system for the aftermath of future conflicts. This bill also extends the VA's authority to treat the medical problems afflicting Gulf War veterans until 2001. We know we are not through dealing with the health problems confronting Gulf War veterans and I am pleased to see this fact recognized in this legislation. The VA's sexual trauma treatment program, a program that I have advocated for throughout this session, is also reauthorized by this bill. During the past two years, the reality of sexual abuse and harassment of women in the military has come to light. It is only right that we maintain the VA's capacity to offer the victims of these crimes the treatment they need and deserve. In addition, I am also pleased by this bill's provisions regarding educational opportunities, housing and medical construction at veterans hospitals. The reforms contained here are necessary and well- intentioned and should contribute to the welfare of veterans throughout America. I am proud to support this bipartisan bill. And I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation as well.