Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, how would you feel if you walked into a McDonalds, paid $5 for your Big Mac, fries, and a Coke, and were told, ``Thanks for your money. We'll give you your food in a year or so.'' Would you say, ``No problem, I'll wait.'' No; you would say that is outrageous, unacceptable, scandalous. Well, today the Immigration and Naturalization Service is currently saying to every citizenship applicant, ``Thanks for your $95 application fee. Now wait 16 months and we will see if we get to you.'' The are taking the money. The are cashing the check. They just are not providing the service. Let us be clear, at a time when some Members of Congress want to deny basic Government services to permanent residents, this delay is not merely an inconvenience, it is a threat to the very services many people rely on every day. We have tried to make clear to the INS how urgent this crisis is. No luck. Maybe they do not understand English. Ustedes han tomado nuestro dinero. Ahora, cumplan su promesa. Hagan su trabajo. !Hagan a nuestra gente ciudadanos! [[Page H 9900]]

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, with all the changes the Republicans are making, we should put some new signs to warn everybody. Like the new highway bill, your State could have a new speed limit, not 65 miles an hour, but 65 plus. There is another new limit that people should know about. Take a look, it is the Republican health care limit, 65 years old. That is right. When the Republicans raid Medicare, there is going to be a limit on affordable health care for every senior citizen, so if you depend on your car, you are going over 65, do not worry about it, you are safe. But if you depend on Medicare and you are over 65, watch out, the GOP has its sights on you. They are going to pull you over, hand you a big ticket, just so that they can pay out the powerful few who paid for this victory last November. That is why there is a new health limit in America, but there is no limit on how low the Republicans will stoop. They will add to the wealth of the upper class and destroy the health of the middle class. So, slow down, Mr. Speaker, because you are going too fast.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill. But, this bill does one good thing. This one piece of legislation shows bluntly and blatantly where this country is heading under the Gingrich Republicans. Some people say that there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Well, these pages of legislation show that there is a huge gulf between the two parties. And, the Republicans wish to create an even bigger gulf between Americans of different economic means. Look at this bill. They talk about targeted investments--and cite examples like public housing. They define these as ``investments that are selected for the economic benefits they create'' and--these are their words--``may be more accurately described as politically targeted investments.'' You want to talk about targeted investments? Fine. But, let me ask you: What do you think happened last week during debate on the B-2 bomber? The vote on the B-2 had as much to do with local jobs and economies as it did with national defense. [[Page H 8752]] I even received a letter from something called the B-2 Industrial Base Team. They weren't concerned with just the defense-related merits of the B-2. They talked about the economic benefits. They wrote that the ``conclusion of the (B-2) will have a severe impact on our industry in (your district)'', it would mean ``the loss of high technology jobs.'' Now, there are many decent Members on both sides of the aisle who voted for the B-2, and may have done so for these kinds of economic reasons. And that's their right. But, if you voted to continue the B-2, and if you are planning to vote to cancel ETI's, please realize that the economic benefits of the B-2 are the same kind of collateral effects that you think is so terrible when it occurs in the form of public housing or public infrastructure. Let's not forget the fact that today we are talking about private pension plans--not public money. And a time when public money is clearly drying up--isn't this all the more reason to give average Americans the chance to fight crime, to educate our children, to house and feed our families if they so choose? I believe it is. Furthermore, I am deeply upset by the tone of the rhetoric surrounding this bill, and the suggestion that every time the Federal Government sends a dollar outside of D.C., it ends up on the streets of our inner-cities. I've seen lots of streets in my community in Chicago. And they aren't exactly paved with gold. In some cases, they aren't even paved. So, where does the money go? Let's pick--oh, completely at random--Cobb County, GA for instance. Now, part of Cobb County lies in the 6th District of Georgia, a district that is represented by Congressman Newt Gingrich. And while the Speaker and his troops rally against these kinds of targeted investments, guess how many dollars are targeted to flow into Cobb County--already one of the Nation's wealthiest counties? Well, in one recent fiscal year, close to $3\1/2\ billion in federally funded projects. So if you want to talk about targeted investments, the Speaker better draw a big bull's-eye around his district as well. Finally, I am glad we are debating this bill because it shows that the Republicans never had a Contract With America. Nope. They had a contract with some of America. They had a contract with the part of America that can afford to dole out the campaign contributions to make sure Government works for them, while other Americans confront gangs and drug dealers in the lobbies of their public housing complexes. As this bill proves, the Gingrich Republicans not only take the pork and the perks for their districts, they send the pain and poverty somewhere else. That is what this bill is all about.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on yesterday's rollcall No. 619 to continue the current policy to allow the use of Medicaid funds to pay for abortions in cases of rape and incest, I was inadvertently delayed while off the floor. Had I been present, I would have voted yes.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today is very simple and I believe it should be supported by anyone who believes that the Federal Government should do all it can to encourage immigrants to our Nation to become citizens. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is about using Federal dollars efficiently. It is about providing desperately needed community outreach and resources to people who want to become U.S. citizens, and it is about making an important statement that this Government wants to take every action it possibly can to encourage U.S. citizenship. My amendment earmarks $4 million in funding to allow appropriate community groups to work with the Immigration and Naturalization Service to promote the opportunities and responsibilities of United States citizenship. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues how this program works. In my city of Chicago, our regional INS office cannot possibly keep up with the volume of people who desire to become citizens of our great Nation. To help try to provide the basic and vital service of naturalizing qualified individuals, the office has empowered community groups to prepare citizenship applications. All across my city respected and effective community organizations have been approved by the INS office to sponsor and promote citizenship workshops. After these workshops, volunteers help eligible applicants complete their application forms, take the photos and the fingerprints as required by law. In many cases, volunteer attorneys double check the applications to make certain everything is in order. The community organizations then again check the applications for accuracy and turn them into the regional INS office for processing. This convenient, efficient, and affordable practice has allowed tens of thousands of Chicagoans to start on the road to citizenship. It has saved hundreds of thousands of Chicagoans lengthy waits in lines at regional INS offices, bringing government services right to the neighborhoods. In short, Mr. Chairman, it is a rare action that the Federal Government has taken to actually make its services more efficient; to respond effectively to a need; to send a strong message to people that Government will solve problems instead of create them. How do I know? Because on July 8, Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus sponsored a National Citizenship Day in conjunction with NALEO in nine cities. From Houston to New York, from Miami to Los Angeles, in 1 day we efficiently and effectively helped more than 9,000 people start toward citizenship. Mr. Chairman, my office alone in Chicago in the last year has handed in over 5,000 applications for citizenship and it is a program that should be encouraged and expanded. My amendment simply provides the resources to the INS to work to expand this program across the country; to invest in empowering community groups at the local level who can help share the responsibility of an increasing number of citizenship applications. The vast majority of immigrants come to our Nation looking for nothing more than a chance to contribute, a chance to share in the freedom and the prosperity that is America. An opportunity one day to become full partners in the fight for the American dream by becoming American citizens. All my amendment does is make it a little bit easier for them to have that opportunity. It is not a dramatic amount of money, simply enough to expand the modest work already begun. It is reasonable and an expenditure that puts this Congress on record as supporting and helping in an efficient manner people who want nothing more than to contribute to our Nation. My friends, we all know these are dangerous days for immigrants in our Nation. This body has gone on record in supporting dramatic cuts and elimination of services to noncitizens, people who reside in our Nation perfectly legally. I emphasize legal, people who are in this Nation as all of us are here as Members of Congress today, and I ask my friends to help and support in reaching the goals of tens of thousands of others who wish to share in the American dream.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. If the gentleman would yield, if I could enter into a colloquy with the gentleman and ask him one question, No. 1, I would like to thank the gentleman for working and making those assurances, and certainly we are going to be willing to withdraw our amendment. I would just like to ask to make sure that community based organizations are actually going to get dollars so that they can go out and sponsor these workshops and be viable in terms of helping, and I say that, and I want to let all the Members know that when someone goes to an INS office with an application that is badly done, the INS personnel there have to turn that back to that individual, wasting dollars and time. When community organizations do these events, we have lawyers checking them, doing the fingerprinting, and if the INS finds anything wrong, anybody authorized by the INS to conduct these workshops, if they find anything wrong, the INS sends back the application directly back to the community organization and says, ``Fix it,'' ``If you do not get it right, do not bring it back to us,'' which I think is very appropriate.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, when the Republicans cut the size of committee staffs at the beginning of this Congress, I was worried some congressional work would not get done. Then, I figured out how the new GOP chairmen were going to manage. As this week's Judiciary Committee hearings prove, they'll simply turn to the National Rifle Association for help. But what kind of hearings did the NRA help with? With hearings on welfare reform? With hearings on health care? No--with the Waco hearings. Hearings where the actions of law enforcement agents were called into question--the same agents that the NRA calls thugs. Hearings where laws combating the dangerous proliferation of guns are a central issue--the same laws that the NRA wants to wipe off the books. When I entered Congress 2 years ago, I thought that the gun lobby had too large a role to play in the backrooms of Congress. Now, it's obvious that they've moved from the backrooms to the committee rooms. We do not even have to call them the gun lobby these days--because now, they do not even have to do their dirty work in the lobbies anymore.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker] on offering this amendment and ask all the Members to support the amendment. It is 350 jobs and two plants in my district alone. It is a 1-year moratorium. We can return after that year and after all of the discussions are settled, and then come back and see just what the new rules are. That way everybody can work on a level playing field. Three hundred fifty jobs is something, and thousands of jobs across the country, is something that we should consider before we vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker].

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Juan Angel Silen, Ph.D., of Puerto Rico, one of the island's most prolific writers of the last half century, upon the publication of his 25th book, and upon his designation as the Puerto Rico delegate of the internationally prestigious Association of Spanish Writers and Artists, founded in 1872. Born in 1938, Dr. Silen has distinguished himself in the areas of education, the social sciences, history, and Puerto Rican literature. A teacher, college professor, and above all, an educator, Dr. Silen has been recognized by a resolution of the Puerto Rico Senate (1993), a resolution of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives (1994), was nominated for the Juan Rulfo Latin American and Caribbean Literature Prize (1994), and appointed as writer in residence of the Barbara Ann Rossler Academy. His insightful, albeit controversial book ``We, The Puerto Rican People'' has seen six printings in the United States, and has been used in countless college and graduate level courses, where it has helped challenge conventional wisdom and develop critical thinking about the complexities of Puerto Rican history and reality. Dr. Silen's work of many years has now taken him to the field of literature where he has contributed seven historical novels, several important essays and books on literary criticism and history, and a most beautiful book of stories for children. Mr. Chairman, in these times of a culture of violence, of instant gratification, consumerism and banality, the cultural accomplishments of a dedicated scholar, and writer such as Dr. Silen must not be forgotten. They should, rather, be lifted by us all as an example for our youth and our society as a whole.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit mass mailings within 90 days of an election. As all Members are well aware, a prohibition currently exists barring such activities from occurring 60 days before an election. In its simplest form, this amendment is an extension of that limit. But, it is more than that. It is a sign to an American public hungry for change that we are ready to implement reform. It is a sign that we are more interested in doing the people's business rather than our own political business. This additional 30 days makes sense. Common sense. We have all been through campaigns. As candidates. And as voters. So, we know what happens when it's 65 or 70 or 75 days before election day. In some ways, it's not so different from what happens right before election day. That is the point. Here is an example. Most years, Labor Day falls in that block of time that is currently unrestricted by franking prohibitions. Now, for a lot of people, Labor Day's a holiday. But, for any candidate hoping to keep his office, that's a day to labor--it is the heart of campaign season. And, most years, we are on the stump even earlier than that. The ``dog days of August'' are often the red hot days of a tough campaign. Unfortunately, under current guidelines, it is entirely possible that your district-wide newsletter, sent at the taxpayers expense, hits the mailbox at the same time as a challenger's direct-mail campaign piece. That is not fair. It is not fair to voters who deserve a campaign based on the power of ideas, rather than the power of incumbency. And, you know what? As long as these double standards exist, it is not fair to us. It's not fair that Congress is perceived as inactive on reform. But today is our change to erase part of that perception. I offer this amendment in the greatest spirit of bipartisanship. I want to thank members of both parties on the Rules Committee who made this amendment in order. I know that many Republicans have introduced reforms of this nature--including my friend, Jack Quinn of New York. And, at the same time, this amendment is in keeping with the franking reforms initiated by the Democratic leadership--by Mr. Fazio and others--that have led to great savings. Since 1991, when some crucial reforms in franking were first put in place, a considerable sum of taxpayer funds has been saved--to the tune of over $190 million. I believe it is accurate that the trend I have just mentioned would continue and even accelerate with new reforms like this one. Regardless of those trends, let us just try to estimate cost savings this way. In 1994, an election year, House mail costs were $42 million. Let us ask: Did mass mailings--especially those sent in the heat of an election in late summer or early fall--account for half of that money? A quarter? A tenth? If they even accounted for just under 5 percent of such funds, then that equals $2 million. Two million bucks of the taxpayers money. That is a conservative estimate--and I am not usually a conservative. And, if you are looking for a couple of outside authorities on this matter, I think it's worth noting that the National Taxpayers Union--a group committed to cost savings--has pledged their support of this amendment. And, Public Citizen, a group well-known for its work on reform, also supports my amendment, because they see it as an important step--a first step--toward better government. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn].

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time remains.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 75 percent of that time, 45 seconds, to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], and I will keep 15. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. No. 1, I think we can organize our mailings. People are watching us right now as we speak. I just want to say that I offer this amendment because I think it is important for the House to reform itself before the people reform us and demand these reforms. I think that is what a lot of the elections, at least the last two election cycles, have been about. I encourage everybody to support this amendment.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to offer an amendment today that helps the American taxpayer get some relief. My amendment is simple. It saves the American taxpayer $2.6 million by eliminating funding for construction of a new outdoor firing range for the National Guard in Tennessee. Why is this project a perfect example of congressional pork? Because an indoor firing range already exists at the very same site. And because the Army National Guard did not request the funding. And because the Department of Defense did not even request the funding. In fact, no one in the Defense Department has argued that this project is essential for reasons of national security. They did not put it in their request. This unneeded project is a congressional add-on. [[Page H 6134]] Now, a congressional add-on doesn't mean that the 435 Members of this body are going to pass the hat and take up a collection of $2.6 million among ourselves to fund this program. A congressional add-on is a bureaucratic way of saying that a bunch of politicians are ignoring the military request, who say we do not need this facility, and are sticking the American taxpayer with a bill for almost 3 million bucks. In fact the only thing this bill is adding on is adding on the fiscal irresponsibility of the U.S. Congress and the unfair burden to working Americans. It is certainly not adding to our national security. Let me repeat and make clear--this project was not in the Department of Defense budget request for military installations. That means that the people who plan and manage our defense budget have made a clear decision--this project is not a priority. It is not needed. Now, people who defend this pork might say, ``Well, construction has already begun--what's another 3 million to finish it?'' Or, ``The indoor firing range isn't exactly perfect--it doesn't precisely meet our needs.'' Well, in the desperate budget situation our Nation is facing, we cannot always precisely meet our needs. We need to make decisions about priorities. We make them every day. In fact, the majority in this house has decided we can't precisely meet our Nation's needs for more police officers on our streets, or more job-training programs for our workers, or more Head Start for our kids or protecting Medicare for our seniors. But, they want to argue today, we can find $3 million for a firing range the Defense Department doesn't want. It is a question of priorities. Today, let us listen to the priorities of the Department of Defense. Their priorities are clear. A brand new, outdoor firing range, in the same location where an indoor range already exists is not a priority to our Nation's military leaders. They made it clear in their budget request. In fact, when we start tampering with the budget request of experts, we risk funding for programs that are in our Nation's vital national security interests. A ``yes'' vote on this amendment simply says we are listening to the experts and standing up against pork. A ``yes'' vote says that we are listening to our constituents and putting the best interests of the American taxpayer first. A ``no'' vote says that despite all the rhetoric, despite all the promises, despite the American voters' overwhelming desire to have us change business as usual inside the beltway--the pork is still sizzling. Take the pork out of the frying pan today, please vote to support this important amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, we all have priorities. If we want to talk about cuts, we have seen the kind of draconian cuts that we have had here in this Congress that are going to cause pain. Not educating the child is going to cause pain in the Head Start Program, a 3-year-old child. Cutting out a WIC program is going to cause pain. A senior citizen who may not be able to get proper medical attention because you increased their deductible under a Medicare reform program and cuts in Medicare are going to cause pain. I think what we have to do is look at this pain and say to ourselves, let's look at that compared to the $2.6 million that is here. The fact is, it is not a priority. The fact is, that we cut and have cut here in this Congress. I think that the American taxpayers deserve $2.6 million. It was not asked for by the military. They did not say it was a priority. Someone added it on. Unless we are going to pass the hat in this place and the 435 Members are going to pony up for the $2.6 million, then let's give the taxpayers a little bit of relief.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefner].

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do not think anybody is discussing the importance of the National Guard. I do not think that anybody can truthfully argue that the military preparedness of the Nation is on the line because of a firing range. We did take out a Sea Wolf submarine. I do not know about military preparedness and the defense of our Nation, a firing range in Tennessee and Sea Wolf submarine. I think I want the Sea Wolf submarine defending me if we are going to start looking at priorities in terms of this Nation and its defense. Let me just reiterate, and I do not want to get into an argument about the President, it is always easy to bring him into a debate and the argument, it is as though all of our military staff, the generals, the Colonels, all of those people who give everything they can in defense of this Nation, just put their hands up in the air and said ``The President did not allow us to include this essential piece of military preparedness, so we are just going to follow what he says, in spite of what is good for our troops.'' Just a bunch of weaklings we have in our military is what we are supposed to believe, if that argument is supposed to be true. I do not believe that about the military in this Nation. I think if they thought this was an issue that was important, they would have included it there. I think it speaks less of them to think anything else of the military leadership of this Nation. Mr. Chairman, Members say it is a priority, but the fact is if it was such a priority, I just return, why did they not request the funding for this priority? We all can argue about priorities all day long. However, the priorities should have come from the Department of Defense, and they have already said it-is not a priority. I look at page 22 of the military construction appropriations bill of 1996, [[Page H 6136]] and it seems as though there were a lot of priorities in a lot of different districts. It says Component, Army National Guard, the request was for $18,480,000. Well, someone found a whole bunch of more priorities, all the way to $72,537,000. That is a $54 million jump in priorities. I just think that we have to look at what our priorities are. It was not requested. The fact remains that there is an indoor facility right there at that National Guard where they can get trained. The money was not asked for. I think the reason a lot of people do not even know where the land is, where all of the stuff is at, is because it was put in late in the process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.