Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious why the Republicans drafted this bill. Republicans learned in 1996 that there is a price to pay for practicing the politics of prejudice. Latino voters grew tired of hearing Republicans' red-hot rhetoric and coldhearted legislation targeting our communities, so in response Latinos voted for tolerance, opportunity and equality. In other words, Latinos voted for Democrats. What is the Republican reaction? To change course to end their anti- Latino anti-immigrant behavior? No. Now they want to create unnecessary fear within the Hispanic community and create unwarranted fear of the Hispanic community in the eyes of our fellow Americans. I am not in the business of giving advice to Newt Gingrich, but let me say this: Latino voters are American voters. When we vote, we remember who stood with us and who stood against us. And we are not alone; Americans of diverse backgrounds are united. They detest discrimination, are sick of scapegoating and are fed up with finger- pointing. The Republicans will go on record today not simply as opponents of Latinos but as opponents of the principles that should make each of us proud to be an American. Well, I'll tell you what kind of name Gingrich is--it's an American name. Every bit as American--in fact--as Garcia. Or Morales. Or Jimenez. Each one an American. Each deserving the right to vote. Each deserving of respect. And none deserving of the scapegoating, suspicion, and cynicism that the Republicans have aimed at them with this legislation. It's obvious why the Republicans drafted this bill: Republicans learned in 1996 that there is a price to pay for practicing the politics of prejudice. Latino voters grew tired of hearing Republicans' red-hot rhetoric and cold-hearted legislation targeting our community. So, in response, Latinos voted for tolerance, opportunity, and equality. In other words, Latinos voted for Democrats. And what is the Republicans reaction? To change course? To end their anti-Latino, anti-immigrant behavior? No. Now they want to create unnecessary fear within the Hispanic community, and create unwarranted fear of the Hispanic community in the eyes of our fellow Americans. I am not in the business of giving advice to Newt Gingrich. But let me say this: Latino voters are American voters. When we vote, we remember who stood with us who stood against us. And we are not alone. The Republicans will go on record today not simply as opponents of Latinos . . . but as opponents of the principles that should make each of us proud to be an American.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are proposing to disenfranchise, degrade and demonize millions of American citizens. Under their legislation, H.R. 1488, certain voters will be singled out, purged from the voting rolls, and forced to prove that they are truly citizens. I believe Members of Congress should go through the same humiliating exercise. After all, using the Republicans' own logic, we must assume that any votes cast in this body could be tainted until we check the status of those who vote here. Therefore, I am urging that any further congressional votes be suspended until we verify the citizenship of every single Member of the U.S. House. I ask that the Sergeant at Arms revoke the voting card of any Member of Congress who cannot immediately produce an Immigration Service or Social Security document proving that he or she is indeed a citizen of the United States. If the Republicans want to protect the integrity of the voting process in precincts around the country, we should start with the voting process here in Congress. It does not seem to bother the GOP when the rights of millions of American voters are at stake. Maybe they will think differently if their rights are at stake, at risk, and their character under attack.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th District of California by the Secretary of the State of California and was seated by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 7, 1997; and Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; and Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California met on February 26, 1997 in Washington, D.C. on April 19, 1997 in Orange County, California and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C. and Whereas Mr. Dornan's unproven allegations and the actions of the Committee on House Oversight have resulted in an unprecedented attack against Latino voters and created a chilling effect with a message to latinos that their votes do not count; and Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting from a business, rather than a resident address; underage voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number of individuals voting from the same address. It was found that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization Service to compare their records with Orange County voter registration records, the first time in any election in the history of the United States that the INS has been asked by Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing supplemental information on that manual check to the Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and Whereas the House Oversight Committee is not pursuing a duplicate and dilatory review of materials already in the Committees possession by the Secretary of State of California; Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California and the Committee have been reviewing these materials and has all the information it needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the information it needs to make judgments concerning those votes; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after nine months of review and investigation failed to present credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and unsubstantiated areas of review; and Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and Whereas, after nearly a year and the expenditure of over $500,000, where Latinos voters have been the target, due process requires that this inquisition of the voters of California's 46th Congressional District end; and Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end now therefore be it; Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed upon the expiration of November 7, 1997.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of rhetoric about what has become the common currency of those who oppose immigrants. I hope that instead today we will listen to some common sense. The truth about 245(i) is that it is a family unifier. It keeps families together, children with their mothers, dads with their wives. It is a revenue raiser. It will raise more than $200 million in fiscal year 1997. It promotes effective immigration control, that so many Members speak about, by raising the $200 million. It supports American business by helping them retain the skilled and highly qualified workers that they insist upon, that they insist upon. Those are the facts and the figures. But when is it more important to talk about fairness than today? I think we should quote a man who spoke about fairness. When Martin Luther King, Jr. marched on Washington he said, we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vault of opportunity in this Nation. Mr. Speaker, America's immigrants want only to share in the riches of freedom, to know that the security of justice extends to them also. Please join me in sharing this freedom, extending this justice and saying yes to families and fiscal responsibility and fairness above all. Let us keep the families together. Let us keep the moms with their children, mom and dad together raising them in this great Nation of ours. That is what we are based on. Oppose this motion.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I am very gratified that this legislation is being offered today. The bill is nearly identical to legislation that I sponsored during my first term in Congress in 1993, along with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], and others. The problem of employment discrimination within the VA, particularly of sexual harassment within the department, is a problem that cannot be tolerated. The changes called for by this bill should make a major difference in ensuring that cases of discrimination or other improper behavior are handled in a proper manner. Rather than having local VA officials police their own, a situation which invites personal relationships to interfere in an investigation, this bill offers us a better solution. Setting up an office of employment discrimination within the VA central office will enable a fair and more accurate system for dealing with complaints of harassment and discrimination. In addition, I am hopeful that this bill will prove to be a step in the right direction, and encourage us to take action to develop proper care and treatment within the VA for Armed Forces personnel who have been sexually abused or harassed during their service in our military. This body's interest in addressing the problem of sexual harassment should not end today. The VA's function is to serve veterans, and at present, it is doing an inadequate job of serving veterans who have been the victims of sexual abuse or harassment. I introduced legislation earlier this year that would improve such care. I have been alarmed to learn that despite the high-profile cases that we have heard about this year at Aberdeen and other military installations and bases, the opportunity for a woman to receive care and treatment within the VA for those incidents of abuse is very rare. I am gratified that more than 50 Members have agreed to cosponsor H.R. 2253. I would ask that any Members of this House who are voting with me to expand the investigation of sexual harassment within the VA will likewise join with me to pass legislation that will treat former military personnel, and I want to underscore this, that will treat former military personnel who seek help within the VA as a result of such abuse. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans], the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Everett], and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn] for their work on this important legislation. It should be supported by all Members of this House.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Ranking Member Evans and Chairman Stump for their work on this important bill. I would also like to thank Chairman Stearns for his efforts to get this legislation reported out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Health in a timely manner. Today, Mr. Speaker, we reauthorize a number of vital programs that provide treatment and rehabilitation services for homeless and mentally ill veterans. I am sure many of you are aware of the numbers of homeless veterans in our Nation. The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans [NCHV] estimates that nearly 40 percent of homeless men are veterans. The percentage of homeless women who are veterans has also increased during the past decade. Thousands of these men and women who served our Nation and risked their lives for our defense have not been offered the respect and care they earned and deserve. By reauthorizing the provision of vital health and rehabilitative care to this vulnerable but deserving population we pay off a small portion of the debt we owe these courageous Americans. The bill before us today would consolidate, clarify, and I believe improve the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] programs for homeless and mentally ill veterans by enabling the VA to deal more effectively and directly with many of the ailments afflicting these brave individuals. Homeless veterans suffer from substance abuse at disproportionate levels. Approximately 70 percent of homeless veterans currently treated by the VA suffer from substance abuse problems. Community-based residential care, which this bill authorizes for homeless veterans, has been proven to help these men and women restore their lives and I am pleased that we have reinstated these programs in this bill. Compensated work therapy is similarly vital to the rehabilitative needs of homeless and mentally ill veterans. Work therapy is inextricably linked to the success of patients in their fight against substance abuse. The consolidated work therapy program reauthorized in H.R. 2206 should continue to provide this crucial link for veterans who are fighting addiction while rebuilding their lives and careers. H.R. 2206 is important also because it gives the VA authority to create new and innovative treatments and services for Persian Gulf veterans. We don't have all the answers regarding the illnesses afflicting the veterans of the Persian Gulf war. Yet evidence that indicates that the symptoms Persian Gulf veterans are experiencing as a result of their service are real and not figments of their imagination continues to mount. What we do know, is that these veterans have been suffering for too long without health care programs specifically geared to their needs. So I am pleased that this bill creates a new program to fund demonstration projects at the VA that may lead to the development of new treatments for gulf war veterans with undiagnosed or ill-defined medical conditions. This is a positive and long-overdue step toward addressing their unique needs. Once again, I thank the leadership of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for their thoughtful work on this important legislation. I ask my colleagues to recognize this work and the importance of this bill for our veterans by voting your support for this measure.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that, Loretta, the seat is yours and we are going to do everything possible to make sure that justice is done in your case. Let me just share with everybody that this is not the first time that someone of Hispanic descent has been barred from the House of Representatives. About 9 months ago, I came here with my daughter and with my niece, and I waited in line in the main entrance to the Capitol of the United States. And as I walked through that line to come into this House, a security guard from the U.S. Capitol said to me, ``You cannot come in here.'' When I produced an ID, she said it was false. When I told her I was a Member of Congress, she said that I was crazy and that I was ludicrous. And then I said, ``Ma'am, you really have a problem.'' And her response to me was, ``No. The only problem we have is you and your people. Why do you not go back where you came from?'' That was said to me as I entered in a very well published case right here. So, Loretta, it is nothing new. It is nothing new. But do you know something everybody said: She is not fit to serve the House of Representatives and the people of this Nation, given her actions. Do you know what my answer was? What can you expect from her? What can you expect from her when she sees Members of Congress each and every day on the TV set accuse those immigrants of coming across the border in hordes to destroy this Nation? When she sees on TV Presidential candidates with a rifle in their arms campaigning in Arizona and saying, ``This is what we have for you, Jose,'' and then sees the Republican Party seat them at their convention in San Diego? What can you expect from a security guard when she sees Members of Congress come here and say, those seats should be invalidated that Latinos and African Americans were elected to and that we should challenge them in court? What do you think she expects when she sees a welfare reform bill come before this Congress which says, let us not give them any help? Loretta, you won. And in this Congress, you will prevail.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 856, the Puerto Rico statehood bill. Supporters want us to believe the goal of H.R. 856 is to give Puerto Ricans a fair opportunity to decide their future relationship with the United States. Sadly, the only goal of H.R. 856 is to bring statehood to Puerto Rico, despite the clear and consistent opposition of the majority of Puerto Ricans. I want to be an enthusiastic supporter of a true process of self- determination. That is why I am adamantly opposed to any efforts to force statehood on Puerto Ricans. This flawed bill distorts the definition of ``commonwealth,'' the favored status of the plurality of the Puerto Rican people, threatening to deny U.S. citizenship to the children of Puerto Ricans if commonwealth is chosen. It threatens the Puerto Rican people with the loss of Federal benefits if they reject statehood. It denies Puerto Ricans on the mainland in the United States the right to participate in this vital process. It neglects our distinct Puerto Rican history as a people and a nation. It abandons the idea of democracy and embraces the imposition of the will of the few on the hopes and dreams of the many. I urge my colleagues to stand with the majority of the Puerto Rican people and oppose H.R. 856.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, in the afternoon of Wednesday, September 18, 1997, I was unavoidably delayed from reaching this Chamber and therefore missed rollcall vote No. 402, the vote for final passage on the bill making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, and related agencies for fiscal year 1998. I want the record to show that if I had been able to be present in this Chamber when this vote was cast, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing the word ``balance'' a lot today. We applaud ourselves as we balance the budget. It is an important accomplishment, a difficult accomplishment to balance our budget. But I am afraid our Nation is losing its balance in a lot of other areas, like keeping our promises to our veterans who are facing cuts in this budget, like protecting our seniors who face an uncertain future because of this budget, like acknowledging the contribution of immigrants who are still targets for blame and discrimination in this budget, and like the simple idea of tax fairness that the wealthiest in our Nation should contribute a little more to our Treasury. Our budget might be balanced, at least until the tax cuts explode again in the future. But we are creating a lot of new deficits. Deficits of keeping our promises. Deficits of fairness. Deficits of equity. Deficits of caring. These are the deficits I cannot support today, and that is why I will cast my vote against this budget.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see so many of my colleagues so eager to vote on this spending bill. They are excited. They cannot wait. And I know what it feels like. I know what it is like to vote for a deficit reduction package, to vote for a bill that puts our fiscal house in order. I already cast my vote that makes a balanced budget a reality. None of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have ever done so. But I already did it. Did I sneak onto the floor last night to cast that vote? Or is it true what they say about Chicagoans, that we vote early and often? Mr. Speaker, I cast that vote 4 years ago in 1993. I passed and voted for the largest deficit reduction package in U.S. history. It was a package that represented fairness, demanded shared sacrifice in the name of common good asked those of us who were doing well to share in the burden. Unfortunately those principles that just 4 short years ago appeared to be antiquated, out of style, and politically unpopular today, it was a package that passed without the vote of a single solitary member of the Republican Party. In fact, rather than standing with us in 1993, they stood and they jeered and they taunted us who voted for it. And yet look at the facts. It is only thanks to what we did in 1993 that we can even consider this package today. You see, I hear a lot of my colleagues slapping each other on the back congratulating each other for doing something historic. Let me tell my colleagues about historic deeds and the people who were responsible for them, our veterans, men and women who fought for our country. And what does today's historic agreement mean to them? It means $2.7 billion in cuts to the VA medical services, $4.1 billion in cuts in total. It means under this bill a low-income veteran who took a bullet or two at Iwo Jima or in Vietnam has to make another sacrifice to help an investor who wants to take a profit on Wall Street. It tells a veteran: You saved us from fascism in World War II; I hope you saved up some money, too, to pay for your health care; you are going to need it, now in your seventies and eighties. Vote against this rule and these spending cuts.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Veterans Sexual Trauma Treatment Act, which I have introduced today with the support of 33 of my colleagues. I want to begin by thanking four outstanding Veterans Service Organizations; the American Legion, Amvets, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Vietnam Veterans of America for their leadership on this issue. Their input on this legislation has been invaluable. I am very proud that they all strongly support this legislation and thank them for their work. The Veterans Sexual Trauma Treatment Act provides very real help to veterans who experience the very real problem of sexual abuse or harassment while serving in our nation's military. The numbers are alarming. In 1996, approximately 190,000 women served in our armed services. A Department of Defense survey of active duty women found that 5 percent of women had been the victim of a sexual assault. That is almost 10,000 women. These statistics--and news reports of incidents like those at Aberdeen--have made clear the existence of very serious problem in our Armed Forces and the need to move aggressively to end the tragedy of sexual abuse. However, we must also take aggressive steps to help our veterans after this abuse or harassment has occurred. The pain and suffering that sexual abuse causes does not end when a person leaves the military. The physical, psychological and emotional effects are often just beginning. That is why I believe the Veterans' Sexual Trauma Treatment Act is so important. This legislation strengthens existing Veterans Administration programs for aiding victims of sexual assault. Sadly, the current law is inadequate. It states that the VA may provide counseling and care to victims of sexual assault, and that the program must be reauthorized each and every year. It excludes members of the reserves and National Guard--thereby denying care to some soldiers called to duty during the Gulf War. It also excludes any military personnel who separate before 2 years of duty with our armed forces. Finally, the VA has done a woeful job of notifying veterans of what services are available to them and how to access these services. I don't believe these half-hearted provisions are acceptable for veterans who have made whole-hearted commitments to serving our Nation. We know that problems exist. We should pass legislation that guarantees care. Our bill assures a national commitment to our veterans. Our bill makes the provision of care to victims of sexual assault or harassment mandatory--and permanently authorize this care. It allows veterans who separate before they have completed 2 years of service to be eligible for care and counseling. This is vital, because often sexual assault is the very reason these people leave the military. It is illogical and unfair to deny them care. The Veterans Sexual Trauma Act also makes reservists and National Guard members eligible for care. It also ensures that health professionals--not VA administrators-- make determinations about eligibility for care and guarantees that all appropriate medical care is made available to any eligible veteran. Finally, it mandates that the VA aggressively promote the availability of this vital service and assure that veterans are aware of these counseling and care programs. This is not a complicated bill, nor is it an expensive bill. It is however, a vital bill. Each year, more and more women make the decision to dedicate a portion of their lives to serving our Nation. The increasing enlistment of females is a trend that should make our Nation proud--but we should be ashamed when any soldier faces sexual assault or harassment. When Americans enlist in the military they make a promise to dedicate their lives to serving our Nation. This legislation helps America keep its promise to our veterans--its promise to provide all necessary health care. Care and counseling for victims of sexual abuse and trauma should be a basic and fundamental part of the health care services the VA makes available to our veterans. Today, it is not. This legislation accomplishes this important goal. I urge all of my colleagues to support it and push for its quick passage.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I read some alarming news lately about a ship spinning wildly out of control. Power was mysteriously cut but nobody could say who pulled the plug. The ship's commander was suffering from nervous palpitations. Rumors spread that he could not fulfill his duties or that his whole crew might have to abandon ship. People said, ``They've been up there too long, it's time to bring them down.'' Were these the reports of the Russian spaceship Mir floating high above? No, it was the Republican ``ship of state'' right here on Capitol Hill spinning out of control, losing power, a nervous captain at the helm. Like the cosmonauts in outer space, the Republicans are far removed from people here on the ground. How else can we explain the GOP tax bill, a bill with tax cuts for the wealthiest but nothing, zero, for parents working full time to stay above the poverty level? There is only one explanation for tax cuts that are upside down. They must have been written in the weightless atmosphere of outer space. In the last Congress, the Republicans had a Contract With America. Today they have lost contact with Earth.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my disappointment that the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies failed to include funding for the Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act [LIHPRHA] in its fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill. Although Chairman Lewis and others have raised concerns about the LIHPRHA program, many of these concerns are based on a draft GAO report which has yet to be released. I do not believe it is wise or fair to eliminate funding based upon a report that has not been reviewed by either advocates or critics of the program. I also believe that before voting to eliminate a program, this House should have the opportunity to adopt reforms that respond to the concerns raised. Certainly, before any significant changes or cutbacks are made to the program, we should consider the benefit LIHPRHA has provided to thousands of low-income Americans. This program has proven very beneficial to many families in the congressional district I represent. In Chicago, transfers of privately owned HUD-assisted housing from tax driven limited partnerships to resident or community-based ownership provides significant benefits to residents and communities. Northwest Towers Apartments, in my district, is such an example. In 1996, the Northwest Towners Residents' Association purchased their building utilizing a capital grant under the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill. This property is located adjacent to the Chicago loop in a rapidly appreciating area. The purchase of this property by the resident council has preserved affordable housing for low-income residents in a highly desirable neighborhood. In Illinois, six other properties have been transferred to resident council ownership under LIHPRHA with similar success. In addition, the resident purchase has contributed to the well-being of the community. For example, the Residents' Association has established a Neighborhood Networks Computer Learning Center. The Learning Center is assisting residents who currently are receiving welfare benefits to make the transition to the workplace. I believe it is important to point out the contributions made by resident and community-based owners to the social needs of residents and the community. The LIHPRHA program has been instrumental in promoting such opportunities. I will urge my Senate colleagues to support this program and would like to work to ensure the future success of LIHPRHA.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Just to add one quick word, it is not who is purchasing, it is who is selling the timber.

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. No. 1, just in case the time runs out, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for not raising a point of order and allowing me to offer this amendment, so I want to use my time first to get that out of the way. Second, I would like to say that, look, the ``green scissors coalition'' have found this program environmentally and fiscally unsound. Let us face it, it helps a lot of large, huge timber companies who are going to continue to chop down timber regardless of those $5.6 million. One of those companies alone that used this program estimated their gross last year was $1.6 billion. We are not talking about small ma and pa operations where this money is used. They are rather large companies which use this money. So rather than allow huge companies to chop down trees on the clean, we should finally ax a government program that wastes our precious natural resources by chopping down those trees in an environmentally dangerous fashion that they will do, and with our taxpayers' dollars. They really do not need the subsidy. We can use it, obviously, in our inner cities throughout the Nation. And there are 10 programs, and it is good, and the chairman is absolutely right, there is money, $700,000. But really we got 10 programs and some of the money. There was more money before for these programs. There is less money today and I just wanted it see if we could get some more money, so I proposed this amendment. I know that we have agreed to a voice vote, Mr. Chairman, on this, and so I thank the chairman once again for allowing me the opportunity to present this amendment.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that I have had scored by the Congressional Budget Office, and they have determined that this amendment will save taxpayers $4 million in outlays this year. I ask that I be authorized to present this amendment at this time. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], and the ranking member, in whose stead the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] was here for us instead of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], for permitting me the presentation of my amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. I believe that the amendment before us offers the Members of the House an outstanding opportunity to save taxpayers' dollars, to reduce the deficit. My amendment gives an opportunity to eliminate some government waste and inefficiency in favor of deficit reduction and modest funding for programs that promote local community solutions to energy conservation. My amendment would reduce funding for the Bureau of Land Management's Public Domain Forestry Program from the committee recommendation of $5.652 to $1 million for the fiscal year 1998. This amendment would also increase by $2.1 million dollars the appropriation for energy conservation programs. Specifically, and I wanted the legislative history to reflect my intention, this funding would be allocated to the Department of Energy's urban heat island research and highly reflective surfaces program. Those programs would provide technical and scientific assistance to local communities to assist with planning and implementation of measures to reduce energy costs for cooling in public commercial and residential buildings. At the 10 demonstrations sites already established by DOE, every dollar in Federal funding has been matched by $7 or more by local and State governments, utilities, business groups, and nongovernmental institutions. Nationally, the cost benefits of implementing energy conservation measures such as hide reflective surfaces program are estimated to reach $4 billion a year. However, we cannot attain these savings unless we dedicate more money to research. These cost-effective benefits stand in clear contrast to BLM forestry. The BLM forestry program has been found to consistently operate at a significant loss to American taxpayers. Rather than being an economically self-sufficient program, as required by Federal law, the BLM forestry program fails to offset even the cost of administering the program. In fact, the more money the agency has devoted to this program, the more taxpayer dollars have been wasted and lost. Based on data collected by a nonprofit public employee organization, the program stands to lose more than $30 million during the next 5 years. For this reason, Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Concord Coalition support eliminating funding for BLM forestry. In addition to the economic and budgetary reasons for eliminating the program, experts believe it is threatening the unique transitional forests that exist in many regions around our nation. Disregard for to the National Environmental Protection Act has also been well documented in the administration of this program. As we work to balance the Federal budget, I feel well should not devote our precious resources to inefficient programs. This is a simple amendment that accomplishes three goals. We devote $2.5 million to deficit reduction. We increase funding by $2.1 million for energy conservation. We bring under control a wrongful and environmentally damaging program. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and work with me to reduce the deficit, eliminate waste, and increase savings for future generations. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment and I ask unanimous consent to amend part of the bill that has been previously read for amendment.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, some distinguished visitors are seated in the House gallery today. More than 100 Jews from the former Soviet Union, many of whom helped fight with America against fascism in the 1940's and crushed communism in the 1990's. It is an honor to welcome them here and to speak on their behalf. In addition to those 100 people, I also speak on behalf of 100,000 other Americans who are not here with us today but whose names are here on these petitions. Yes, 100,000 Americans have signed these petitions to protest the harsh punitive welfare law that will exact a terrible toll on legal immigrants, the elderly, the disabled, and vulnerable immigrants. There are 100,000 people calling on Congress and the White House to restore benefits to legal immigrants, to restore fairness to the welfare debate, to restore compassion to our Nation's policy, and to restore America's heritage as a nation that welcomes and protects legal immigrants who seek a better life and seek to make America a better place. These are 100,000 Americans who will continue to fight this Congress and the White House until justice is done.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to eliminate the limits relating to cancellations of removal and suspensions of deportation. The new immigration law requires individuals applying for suspension of deportation--now changed to cancellation of removal--to establish good moral character, 10 years of continuous presence in the United States, and exceptional and extreme hardship to a spouse or child who is either a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. It also established that the Attorney General may not cancel the removal and adjust the status and suspend the deportation of a total of more than 4,000 aliens in any fiscal year. The Executive Office for Immigration Review [EOIR] has announced that immigration judges have already granted 4,000 applications in the current fiscal year and ordered immigration judges to discontinue approving more suspension of deportation cases. Many eligible applicants, including refugees, will now be deprived of a way to legalize their status. We must take action to correct this situation as soon as possible. The original intention of this section of the law was never to arbitrarily deny this form of relief to eligible people. The original language, as approved by the Judiciary Committee, restored the Attorney General's discretion to grant relief to eligible aliens who had not been admitted with the condition that an annual ceiling be placed on the number of adjustments of status granted. Nevertheless, the original language was changed during the floor consideration of the bill and the Attorney General now may not cancel the removal and adjust the status to permanent residence of more than 4,000 aliens in any fiscal year. This unfortunate change could result in the unnecessary deportation of thousands of immigrants who may have fled their homes seeking safety and protection in the United States. Very simply, my bill would remove the existing 4,000 cap and allow the immigration courts to use their discretion in suspension of deportation--cancellation of removal--proceedings.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, another day, another story of a senior or a person with a disability who will suffer because this Congress decided to take away vital benefits from legal immigrants. Unfortunately, since we only have 92 days to go, I cannot tell the Members every story. Today I have time to tell about Cheslaw Matyszcyk. Cheslaw worked in Poland as a Solidarity member, working hard, taking care of his family and being part of the movement that swept away communism. He came to America to provide a better future for his family, and he did. He worked hard every day at Ford Motor Co. until an accident left him disabled and unable to continue in the work force, even though he would give anything, anything to continue to provide for himself and his family. But since 92 days is not enough to tell every story, let me have Cheslaw tell you about himself: ``I am not without hope. I believe in America, and that the government of the United States won't hurt me.'' Cheslaw came to our country, gave to our country, and still believes in our country. Let us show him he has a reason to believe, and stand up for legal immigrants.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, in 93 days a harsh new welfare law will wipe out assistance to legal immigrants. Yesterday I told my colleagues about one such immigrant from my district. Today let me tell my colleagues about another. Her name is Adela. If my colleagues voted for welfare reform so they could teach people about the importance of hard work, they did not have to bother in Adela's case. After coming to the United States, Adela worked for 8 years in a factory on Chicago's northwest side. In fact, she worked well past the age at which most Americans would have called it quits and would have retired. But the company moved out of town, closed its doors down. Adela, now 74 years old and in poor health, has been served notice that her years of hard working, playing by the rules and paying taxes is not enough. She got her pink slip. Now it is a computer printed form letter telling her that her only means of support, Social Security, is about to be taken away from her on August 22. Do legal immigrants like Adela need to learn the value of hard work? No. Congress needs to learn the value of hard-working immigrants who have made America what it is today. I suggest to any Member that he look back to see what his grandparents look like or great grandparents looked like.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, in 94 days the new welfare law will rip apart the social safety net for hundreds of thousands of elderly, disabled, and vulnerable legal immigrants. But today, consider one such immigrant, just one, a woman in my district in Chicago. Sophia is a 91-year-old Polish immigrant. She is in poor health and has little means of support besides her supplemental Social Security. During World War II, Sophia, then still in Poland, hid as many as a dozen Jews in her home, saved them from certain death at the hands of the Nazis. Because of her compassion and courage, Sophia received a unique distinction from the Government of Israel. She received and was recognized as a righteous person because she had given others the chance to survive. Now Sophia has received a notice from our Government telling her that she is unworthy of Federal assistance, cutting off her only means of survival. We have 94 days to restore benefits to legal immigrants like Sophia, to restore a sense of fairness and logic to the welfare debate, to restore the principles of compassion and justice. America should be proud to have immigrants like Sophia and ashamed of our harsh new welfare law.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, today the countdown begins. One hundred days from now, the new welfare reform law, a law that is unjust, unnecessary, and un-American, will jeopardize the health of the elderly, blind, disabled, and economically vulnerable immigrants. Yes, the same immigrants who made American richer, stronger and free through their own hard work, their own contributions. The new welfare law would be unfair if it affected one immigrant. Now multiply it hundreds of thousands of times, as much as 1.8 million times. This is the magnitude of the crisis we are facing. We have 100 days to restore benefits to legal immigrants and 100 days to restore something else, too: To restore a sense of fairness and logic to the welfare debate, to restore the principle of compassion. Two years ago, some of my House colleagues acted in 100 days on something called a Contract With America. Within the next 100 days Members of both parties should consider an older contract, a compact, a covenant really, that no matter our background, in America we are worthy of that freedom, worthy of our respect, worthy of our compassion. America should be proud of its immigrants and ashamed of the new welfare law.