Ed Pastor

Mr. PASTOR

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Ms. Anjila J. Lebsock who recently was 1 of 10 students to receive the All-American Vocational Student Awards. A Cibola High School senior in Yuma, AZ, Anjila's special talents and determination were recognized early on by her teachers. After expressing an interest in the field of electronics, she was immersed in a special curriculum to meet her needs. During the day, she completed advanced placement courses while maintaining her rank as 1 of the top 10 students in her class. After school hours, Anjila pursued vocational studies at Arizona Western College, studying servo robotics, programmable controllers and computer-integrated manufacturing. These led her to special training programs with Weyerhauser Paper Co., the United States Bureau of Reclamation and Allied Signal. Her robotics projects earned her numerous awards at the local, State and National Levels. In addition to displaying leadership in the classroom and the robotics lab, Anjila has also excelled as a community leader. She has represented the State of Arizona as a national VICA delegate, and held offices as regional vice president and as parliamentarian. She has also devoted many years as a Girl Scout leader and as a volunteer in the Yuma Crossing Park. Anjila's goal is to pursue a career as a manufacturing engineer. Anjila's accomplishments point not only to the value of vocational education, but to the courage and spirit of our Nation's youth. She serves as an inspiration to us all. Again, I send my sincerest congratulations to Anjila for this deserved recognition and wish her even greater success in the future.

Mr. PASTOR

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention today to a major milestone and achievement of a most accomplished young man. This coming Sunday, in Tucson, AZ, Drew Monson will be awarded the rank of Eagle Scout. This is a level of achievement attained by only 2\1/2\ percent of all Boy Scouts. Drew joins the ranks of approximately 1 million others who, since 1911, have achieved this goal. As his final project toward becoming an Eagle Scout, Drew spent more than 150 hours planning and directing 17 different volunteers in the construction of a nature trail at the Saguaro National Park in Tucson. This is not Drew's only accomplishment. He will soon begin his senior year as an honor student at Salpointe High School in Tucson, AZ. In addition, he has earned six varsity letters in track and field and cross country running. He is also a skilled musician, specializing in piano. Complementing his other activities, he also participates in the activities of his Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Drew Monson exemplifies the hopes and dreams that we hold for all of our youth. I am proud to add my voice to so many others in commending Drew for his attainment of the Eagle Scout rank. I wish Drew the best of luck in all to which he aspires.

Mr. PASTOR

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, there are fewer eloquent leaders in Arizona, or the Nation, than Chairman Ronnie Lupe of the White seized the attention of a large crowd in a busy meeting with his passion and spirit as he speaks of his Apache people and their heritage. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Lupe's eloquence is not confined to the English language. He is as eloquent and as forceful in his sacred Apache language as well. In a recent article published in the newspaper ``Indian Country Today'', Chairman Lupe writes of the threats posed by today's cultural influences on native America languages. I would call the attention of all my colleagues to this excellent and forceful article: [From the Indian Country Today] Apache Language Key to Culture's Survival (By Ron Lupe) A recent article in the Arizona Republic rekindled my deep concern about the preservation of our Apache language. This article, which reported on a meeting of linguists, said that in the opinion of the experts, half of all spoken languages will become extinct in the next century. It further stated that there are currently 6,000 languages spoken in the world, but in the next 100 years half of them will become extinct. The thought of the possibility that our sacred Apache language could be among those that become extinct was truly upsetting. To me, that is thinking the impossible. Not only would it mean an end to our spoken language, but it would be the demise of the cultural richness we reflect in our Apache language and express in our prayers. Who would we be without our language? Yet, as I go around our reservation, I hear fewer and fewer of our younger children speaking Apache. I see less emphasis on the speaking of our language in our homes. And while the recent efforts of the school district to incorporate the teaching of the Apache language in the lower grades is commendable, I'm afraid that alone will not be enough to reverse these trends. According to the newspaper report, the culprits in the extinction of Native languages are no longer official government policies, as it was back in the boarding school and early reservation days. Rather, it's the pervasive influence of the electronic media. The ever-present television, the videos, the music tapes and CDs and all of the other media influences that come to us in the dominant English language are having a destructive effect on the survival of Native languages. The trend is true not only for the White Mountain Apache but for people all around the world. The influence of the modern electronic media is powerful and we see it operating on our own lives, as well as the lives of our children and our grandchildren. It will take an extraordinary effort to counteract the dominating influences that are undermining the preservation of our Apache language. It's interesting that the federal government will go to great lengths to protect endangered species like the loach minnow or small plants and insects, and yet it does very little to preserve the Native languages that exist within the United States. It's a sad commentary on federal policies that plant and insect life have a higher priority with our government than the Native languages, which are capable of capturing and reflecting so much cultural beauty and diversity. The same newspaper article reported on an 80-year-old Promo woman from California who recently died. She was the last Native speaker of her tribe's language. What a tragedy! We must work hard to see that similar tragedies never happen to our people and our Apache language, which reflects so much of the beauty and richness of our culture and traditions. Another article on the same page reported on recent research findings showing that languages are best learned when an individual is young. Research has shown that as we get older, we lose the ability to learn languages. Experts feel that the best time to learn languages is between the ages of two and 12. It's clear that we must concentrate on instilling the Apache language in our very young. That means there has to be a concerted effort in the home, at Head Start and the lower grades. And, it is in the home where the greatest influence on the acquiring of the Apache language will take place. If the ability to speak Apache is important to the parent, it is likely that it will be important to their children. Apache parents need to know that they have a responsibility to pass on our rich cultural heritage to their children, and that the future of the Apache language truly depends on them. Likewise, it should be the role of our tribal government to try to reinforce and emphasize--to our youngsters and other tribal members--the importance of learning our Apache language. Such efforts can only supplement what the child is exposed to at home and with his friends. Despite the formidable obstacles, we must continue our efforts to keep our Apache language as a vibrant and vital part of our everyday life. That's why the recently adopted constitution included provisions requiring tribal council members to be fluent in our language. This was done to insure that our special Apache way of looking at the world, as reflected in our Apache language, is maintained in our governmental decision-making processes. There were times when we were discriminated against by government agencies and schools for speaking our own Apache language. We were considered second-class citizens if we chose to speak our Apache language, rather than English. To a great extent, this cruel psychological attack from the government and others was successful. Even today, there is legislation in Arizona and other states designed to embarrass other nationalities who speak their own language and to establish English as the only ``official'' language of the United States. Such discrimination will undermine our bi-lingual education efforts. While we still have a majority of our tribal members speaking our Apache language, we must do all that we can to insure that our language is preserved and transmitted to future generations of the White Mountain Apache.

Mr. PASTOR

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, on May 13, 1995, the College of Santa Fe held its graduation ceremonies in Santa Fe, NM. The principal speaker was Congressman Bill Richardson, who spoke to the graduates on preparing for a changing world. I commend to you the Congressman's address by placing it in the Record as follows: Congressman Bill Richardson--Speech Before the College of Santa Fe--May 13, 1995 President Fries, Dr. Lawrence, distinguished members of the faculty, family members, and especially the graduating class of 1995: I am very pleased to be here with you today as you graduate. Be proud of yourselves and cherish this day. There are few accomplishments in life that will bring you more fulfillment and prosperity than education. Everyone is talking about welfare, the budget, Russia--but I want to talk about education. Education is the single most important factor in determining the success of an individual life or a community. When I use the word success, I mean more than economic gain: the ability to enjoy family and friends; to create art, and music; to help your community solve pressing problems--all are made possible by education, and all are characteristics that benefit the communities in which we live. People say that everything comes down to economics--but I believe that education is really the key to what we are and where we are going. Our world is changing rapidly, and education must change with it. Learning should be continuous, occupationally relevant, and it should function transnationally. New Mexico doesn't just compete with Texas or California-- we compete in new ways with eastern rim nations, countries that were formerly behind the Berlin Wall, and South Africa. Today, information moves at an incredible rate of speed. When I was in college, the knowledge gained by an engineering student remained valid for 20 years after graduation. Today, it is estimated that the facts college freshmen learn are obsolete by the time they graduate. Education should reflect these rapid changes. As a nation, America believes that good education is fundamental, but there are some uncomfortable realities that we must accept. Students in the United States are consistently outperformed in science and mathematics by students from Asia and Europe. In New Mexico, only 14% of 8th graders perform at a proficient or advanced level in math--while twice as many students perform at these levels in Taiwan, Korea, and Switzerland. These test scores are significant because the employment growth rate for scientists and engineers is 112%--four times the growth rate for managers. Future prosperity for many young people depends on their abilities in math and science. Why do our students test poorly? Well, there are fundamental differences in education abroad that we can learn from. First of all, countries overseas are more successful in assuring that the majority of [[Page E1143]] children begin school in good health and so, are ready to learn. Children should have complete immunizations, maintain a nutritious diet, and receive adequate medical care in order to do well in elementary school. Today, only half of American children enter school with complete immunizations, only half of low income children have seen a dentist, and only one-quarter of preschoolers maintain a nutritionally sound diet. We must see that our children are ready to learn when they enter school. Second, students in other democracies receive twice as much instruction in core academic subjects, such as language, literature, math, science, and art. A student in Germany devotes 35-hundred hours to core subjects in 4 years of high school, while a student in the United States spends only 14- hundred hours on those same subjects. We should reaffirm our commitment to teaching core subjects. In most systems abroad, students learn one, and often two foreign languages. I believe that every American child should be required to study and speak at least one foreign language. We are one of the most diverse countries in the world, yet we discourage communicating cross-culturally. This is not logical, but more importantly, it is not productive. Becoming bilingual is an asset, not a burden. It is likely that today's students will be required to converse in any number of foreign languages in the business world, and in their neighborhood. A recent survey confirms this--40% of big business executives hire people who speak Spanish, and here in the Southwest two-thirds of companies surveyed say they need Spanish-speaking employees. We must prepare students for these opportunities. Foreign languages should become core curriculum for all students. New technology and computer skills must also become core curriculum. The number of online information users in the United States is expected to double from 10 million in 1995 to 20 million in 1997. Young Americans simply will not succeed in the working world without computer knowledge, and we should be preparing students for that every day in school. Teleconferencing technology can be used to bring students information that their instructors are unable to provide. The University of Texas is experimenting with this process to reach the children of migrant farm workers. Migrant children are able to travel with their families, but receive diplomas through correspondence and teleconferencing. The medical community has also begun this process by bringing rural doctors new scientific data and procedures via teleconferencing. It has improved the delivery of health care in many regions in the country including New Mexico. Our local school districts should be using it to enhance their existing curriculum. School and public libraries should be on the internet. Recent legislation provides user fee discounts for local educational units; let's take advantage of that. Our libraries can again become the community learning centers they once were. The technology curriculum should include improved vocational program for students who do not attend college, or may otherwise drop out of school. Our high-school drop-out rate is increasing, even though children need a completed education now more than ever. In New Mexico, 1 in 3 high school freshmen who start school will not graduate. Many may find crime a more profitable path to take. As our continuing debate on welfare reform indicates, we are disheartened by this. Our ability to move people from welfare to work depends in large measure on the availability of programs for young adults while they are in school. Germany alternates classroom instruction and apprentice programs with great success. Such programs were quite prevalent in America in the 1940's and 50's, and they put people to work. We should modernize the idea for the 1990's to include emerging opportunities in robotics, health professions, and communication systems. Many foreign cultures continue their work with students after school. For instance, the use of tutors is prevalent in Japan where 35,000 professionals work as tutors and earn $2,500 per child, per year. Americans typically use tutors only when problems arise and just passing a course is questionable. This is revealing: our expectations may hover at mediocrity, and the value we place on hard work may be slipping. Here in New Mexico, local schools have begun a program in which scientists from Los Alamos will teach children on an ongoing basis about their research, and about working in a science field. These are programs that energize the learning process and create successful students. We should work to make these programs prevalent in all schools. Foreign schools and some schools here in New Mexico are experimenting with extending the class period to longer blocks of time. Many students need extended periods to grasp complex subjects; learning and creativity may be frustrated by an arbitrary end to discussion. Also, many schools abroad group students according to ability, needs, and experience rather than by age. American college and postgraduate programs operate on this basis; perhaps it is time to experiment with the concept in early education. There is also a strong outcry today that children aren't being taught a system of values in school. It is a touchy subject because our values are personal, and they sometimes conflict. But we cannot ignore the facts--teenage crime and drug use are rising. Educators have proposed teaching leadership skills, the importance of honesty, and mutual respect in the classroom. Surely we can agree that these are desirable character attributes. Let's support efforts to bring them into the classroom. Studies consistently show that family involvement in a child's education is the single most important factor in determining the success of that child's performance in school. Schools should seek family involvement in defining and teaching a clear set of values. Our educators should be treated as valued professionals, as they are in foreign systems. The impact our teachers have on the nation's young people cannot be overstated. For many families, teachers spend more time with our children than any other adult. At the college level, professors are guiding students who may one day discover the cure for cancer, or create a great symphony. We should elevate educators' status to reflect the important work that they do. They should be paid as professionals. Two countries that consistently out-score Americans on tests, Switzerland and Japan, pay their secondary teachers far more than the United States. If we are willing to pay our accountants and lawyers well, we should be equally willing to pay out teachers. Teachers and their schools should be rewarded when their students' performance improves. Incentives such as this have worked well in other professions; it's time to try them in education. Post secondary and graduate education should be affordable to any student with the ability and desire to attend. There is no surer route to creating a permanent underclass in America than by denying college education to vast numbers of middle and low income people. Access to education has, for 200 years, been the fundamental reason we can say ``you can be anything you want to be in America.'' We are recognized around the world for this principle, but it is at risk. Income level rises in direct proportion to the amount of advanced education an individual has. High school graduates earn less than one-third of the salary that college graduates do. However, college tuition costs continue to outpace inflation, and low cost financing is threatened. We must do all we can to preserve low-interest loans for students, establish additional work-study programs, and create new grants to ensure that students from all walks of life can pursue a college education. Businesses should consider providing assistance to promising employees. In 1991 30% of all U.S. Workers received some sort of employment benefit for education. However, the number of minorities who received these benefits was lower: only 21% of African Americans and 25% of Hispanics reported receiving education benefits. We must raise these numbers for all employees to ensure a healthy, competitive economy. College schedules should become more flexible. Part-time students are the fastest growing population in baccalaureate programs. They comprise approximately 40% of current college enrollees. We should accommodate their work or home schedules to ensure graduation. We provide less education financing for part-time students: only 10 percent of part-time students receive federal grants, while 30 percent of full-time students receive grant money; only 6 percent part-time students receive federal loans, while 29 percent of full-time students receive loans. In effect, we create disincentives for working people or people with responsibilities in the home to attend college. Technology can help improve prospects for those who seek college degrees. Our cable television and communication system should be used to its greatest capacity to allow working people to attend class from their homes, at low cost. Some regions are experimenting with this concept. Let's make it a universal option. We must also enlarge our continuing education programs. Continuing education can prepare high school students for skilled work, and increases the ongoing employability of college graduates. Good education ultimately requires community involvement. I'm sure many of you have heard the African proverb ``It takes an entire village to raise a child.'' I believe that is true, particularly with education. The community must take an interest in its educational system, and should be willing to invest in programs that will pay dividends in the long run. Also, a good educational system would instill a sense of community responsibility in its students. Students should be encouraged to become involved in improving the school and the community. You know that one of the primary means I have for keeping in touch with New Mexicans while I am in Washington is through your letters. I receive on an average 200 letters a week. One recent letter stands out in my mind. It was from a young father in New Mexico. He and his wife worked minimum wage jobs. They had no health care insurance. They like so many other young families are teetering on the edge of American's middle class and poverty--yet this father's greatest concern for the future was not the His greatest concern was his 4-year-old daughter, Erica. How can we ensure that Erica and all other American children will be safe, secure and successful in this changing world? The answer is we must build an education system that makes sure Erica is healthy and alert; has the basic skills to compete with youngsters from all over the world for high technology jobs; and most importantly, our education system must give Erica access to the continuing education and knowledge that she will need throughout her lifetime. Erica's small rural school in New Mexico and schools like hers all over our country must have the ability to keep up with the changing world. My charge to you today as you begin a new life is this: Please don't stop educating yourself. Make it a lifelong pursuit. And just as important--please care for your community's educational system so that children like Erica have that same opportunity in the years to come. Thank you and congratulations.

Mr. PASTOR

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 12, I was granted a leave of absence to return to Arizona to attend the graduation of my daughter from Arizona State University. Consequently, I was absent for three rollcall votes on H.R. 961. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: ``Nay'' on rollcall vote No. 327; ``Aye'' on rollcall vote No. 328; ``Nay'' on rollcall vote No. 329.

Mr. PASTOR

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, today I returned to Arizona to attend the graduation of my daughter from Arizona State University. Consequently, I missed a number of rollcall votes on H.R. 961. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: ``Nay'' on rollcall vote No. 323; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 324; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 325. legislative program

Mr. PASTOR

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate one of the greatest jazz musicians in America, Poncho Sanchez. To recognize the accomplishments of Mr. Sanchez within the music industry, the city of Washington DC has proclaimed April 19 as ``Poncho Sanchez Day.'' Mr. Poncho Sanchez is a self-taught musician who has dedicated his life to the cultivation of the Latin jazz genre. He is considered one of the most prominent conga players and percussionists in America today. Beginning his musical career in 1975 as a member of the Cal Tjader band, he toured and recorded with the band until Tjader's death. During that stage of his career he had the honor of sharing with Tjader, a friend who was also a mentor, one Grammy award for the album ``La Onda Va Bein.'' Mr. Sanchez not only has enjoyed the opportunity to perform with the Cal Tjader band, he also has had the pleasure to performing and recording with other jazz stars, including Carmen McRae, Clare Fischer, and Woody Herman. In 1982 Poncho Sanchez began his solo career with the album ``Sonando'' which helped reaffirm his place in the jazz world. His more recent achievement have included performing with Tito Puente, who played with Sanchez's band at the Playboy Jazz Festival and who appears in the album ``Chile con Soul,'' as well as receiving three Grammy nominations. The unique style he has developed, blending powerful Latin music with lyrical jass notes, places him in a category all his own. Mr. Speaker, Poncho Sanchez is an exceptional artist whom I am honored to recognize. His contribution to Latin music is a sample of the richness of the Latin community. Again, I would like to send my sincerest congratulations to Mr. Sanchez for this deserved recognition.

Mr. PASTOR

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Arizona Agriculture Committee's 1995 Friend of Agriculture award winner, Hugh Lynn Anderson. An Arizona native, Mr. Anderson has been a rancher, farmer, and community leader for over 50 years. His career in agriculture began at a young age while working on his parents' ranch in Adamana, AZ. He later attended the University of Arizona and received his bachelor of arts degree in animal husbandry and range ecology in 1934. After working for the U.S. Department of Interior and Agriculture, he moved with his wife to Maricopa County where they purchased a 1,900 acre ranch. Throughout his life, Mr. Anderson has played an active role in community and agriculture-related organizations. He has served as the president of the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association, director of the Arizona Cotton Growers' Association and the Maricopa County Farm Bureau. He has also served as a mediator for the State land commission during the implementation of the Taylor Act. I am proud to know Mr. Anderson as a friend, and it is my pleasure to recognize his outstanding achievements and contributions to the people of Arizona.

Mr. PASTOR

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I think it has become clear to the American people that the Contract With America is nothing more than a contract on the middle and working class of America. And now, the Republican majority has a new contract out on the college students of this country. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of attending college is rising. And yet my Republican colleagues have suggested giving the wealthy a tax cut by reducing funding for Federal financial aid programs. On the Republican chopping block is the interest-deferred Stafford Loan Program which if eliminated would cost the average student $4,344 in added loan repayments. The work study programs, which provide Federal dollars to colleges to hire low- and middle-income students for campus jobs, would also be eliminated if Republicans have their way. Other GOP targets include the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants and the Perkins Loans, which go to the neediest students. These cuts will do nothing for this Nation other than assure that college students, especially the neediest students, will be forced out of school altogether. To put it simply, Mr. Speaker, anything that would help the children of low-income and working American families to get ahead has been or will be eliminated if the Republican Contract on the average American becomes law.

Mr. PASTOR

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, supporters of term limits suggest they are restoring the intent of the Founding Fathers of creating a citizen legislature. That's why the term limits constitutional amendment we are considering today is called the Citizens Legislature Act. Those advancing that argument to justify term limits spin history on its head. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Framers of the Constitution were unequivocal in their rejection of terms limits for Members of Congress. Our Founding Fathers thought term limits was a bad idea more than 200 years ago; it is a bad idea now; and it will be a bad idea 100 years from now. I call my colleagues' attention to excerpts from the Congressional Research Service report which treats the constitutionality of congressional term limits. [From the CRS Report for Congress, Jan. 2, 1992] The Constitutionality of States Limiting Congressional Terms (By L. Paige Whitaker) iii. framers' intent State imposed term limits appear to conflict with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution to eliminate the policy of compulsory rotation in office. The concept of rotation in office was embodied in the Articles of Confederation, which provided that delegates to Congress could serve for no more than three years in any six-year period.\15\ As a result, the issue of rotation in office was debated during the adoption of the Constitution. Footnotes at end of article. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rotation, as proposed by the anti-federalists, would force members of Congress to step down from office for a period of time and live among the people in their former rank of citizenship. It was intended to provide members with a greater knowledge of their country and constituency, in order for them to return to the Congress as more informed legislators, with a greater sensitivity to the concerns of their constituents.\16\ The anti-federalists also argued that a rotation requirement would prevent the abuses of corruption and would encourage a greater number of people to hold public office.\17\ After assiduous debate, however, the Framers rejected rotation, citing the right of the people to freely elect and the importance of experienced legislators. As Robert R. Livingston stated during the New York debates: represent them. To dictate and control them, to tell them whom they shall not elect, is to abridge their natural rights. This rotation is an absurd species of ostracism--a mode of proscribing eminent merit, and banishing from stations of trust those who have filled them with the greatest faithfulness. Besides, it takes away the strongest stimulus to public virtue--the hope of honors and rewards. The acquisition of abilities is hardly worth the trouble, unless one is to enjoy the satisfaction of employing them for the good of one's country. We all know that experience is indispensably necessary to good government. Shall we, then, drive experience into obscurity? I repeat that this is an absolute abridgment of the people's rights.\18\'' In response to the anti-federalists claim that rotation would prevent corruption, the federalists argued that indeed, the very prospect of reelection would provide a legislator with an incentive to be responsive to the needs of his constituents. If a legislator knows that his re-election depends on the ``will of the people'' and is ``not fettered by any law,'' he will serve the public well. On the other hand, if he knows that no matter how well he serves, he is precluded from re-election, ``he will become more unambitious, and regardless of public opinion. The love of power, in a republican government, is ever attended by a proportionable sense of dependence.''\19\ As Alexander Hamilton similarly remarked, ``[w]hen a man knows he must quit his station, let his merit be what it may, he will turn his attention chiefly to his own emolument.''\20\ As evidenced by their debate, it is clear that the Framers intentionally rejected rotation in office. In so doing, it appears that they also rejected the policy underlying state imposed term limits. Commentators have concluded that in view of this deliberate rejection by the Framers, the qualifications clauses can only be interpreted as a prohibition on the states from limiting the re-election of their congressional delegations.\21\ footnotes \15\Art. of Confed. art. V, cl. 2. \16\2 Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 288 (J. Elliot) (1888) (speech of G. Livingston). \17\Id. at 310 (speech of M. Smith). With regard to corruption, Smith argued: ``A rotation I consider as the best possible mode of effecting a remedy. The amendment will not only have a tendency to defeat any plots which may be formed against the liberty and authority of the state governments, but will be the best means to extinguish the factions which often prevail, and which are sometimes so fatal to legislative bodies.'' Concerning the argument that rotation would encourage participation in government Smith commented: ``If the office is to be perpetually confined to a few, other men, of equal talents and virtue, but not possessed of so extensive an influence, may be discouraged from aspiring to it. \18\Id. at 292-93 (speech of R. Livingston). In accord, Alexander Hamilton commented that, ``It has been observed, that it is not possible there should be in a state only two men qualified for senators. But, sir, the question is not, whether there may be no more than two men; but whether, in certain emergencies, you could find two equal to those whom the amendment would discard.*.*.* The difficulty of obtaining men capable of conducting the affairs of a nation in dangerous times, is much more serious than the gentlemen imagine. Id. at 320-21 (speech of A. Hamilton).'' Also note that, as Madison made clear in Federalist 63, the purpose of the Senate was to provide stability and expertise: ``Without a select and stable member of the government, the esteem of foreign powers will not only be forfeited by an unenlightened and variable policy, proceeding from the causes already mentioned; but the national councils will not possess that sensibility to the opinion of the world, which is perhaps not less necessary in order to merit, than it is to obtain, its respect and confidence. The Federalist No. 63, at 422 (J. Madison) (J. Cooke ed. 1961).'' \19\Id. at 298 (speech of R. Harrison). \20\Id. at 320 (speech of A. Hamilton). \21\Note, Limits on Legislative Terms: Legal and Policy Implications, 28 Harv. J. Legis. 569, 586-87 (1991). The authoritative commentator on the Constitution, J. Story, similarly concluded: ``the states have just as much right, and no more, to prescribe new qualifications for a representative, as they have for a president. Each is an officer of the Union, deriving his powers and qualifications from the Constitution, and neither created by, dependent upon, nor controllable by, the states.'' J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States Sec. 626, at 101-102 (1970 ed.)''

Mr. PASTOR

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to amend the Clean Water Act to provide a basic level of protection to human health and the environment for millions of United States citizens who live along our border with Mexico. Specifically, the bill authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to provide financial and other assistance to the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission [BECC], the International Boundary and Water Commission [IBWC], and other appropriate State, Federal, or local governmental agencies for the construction of waste water treatment facilities in the vicinity of the United States-Mexico border. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will save lives. More than 9 million people live within 65 miles of the 2,000-mile- long United States-Mexico border. Rapid population growth on both sides of the border in conjunction with relatively unplanned development in Mexico, have overwhelmed the existing wastewater infrastructure in the region. The net result is raw sewage flowing into the United States and contaminating our surface and ground water. It is an environmental and human health debacle of Third World proportions that threatens the health of millions of people. In Nogales, AZ, as well as in many of the border regions of Texas, California, and New Mexico, the geography is such that the rivers and streams flow north. Many times, these ``rivers'' are nothing more than dry washes that run with water only during storms or when effluent is discharged. The Nogales Wash, which runs through the center of the town, is typical of these bodies of water. Nogales, AZ is a small town of approximately 25,000 people. It's sister city in Mexico, Nogales, Sonora, contains between 250,000 to 300,000 persons. The two cities are linked by family ties, a common heritage and language, and a shared environment. Unfortunately, a lack of infrastructure in Nogales, Sonora has turned the Nogales Wash into what the Arizona Republic described in a February 1994 article as ``an open drainage ditch that carries industrial runoff and sewage right through the downtown'' of Nogales, AZ. While an international waste water treatment plant, operated through a binational agreement between the Mexico and United States sections of the International Boundary and Water Commission [IBWC], treats sewage from both Nogales, Sonora and Nogales, Mexico, the plant is near capacity and often exceeds capacity during storms. Since 1990, for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, chlorine has been added to the wastewater in the Nogales Wash to kill the fecal bacteria. Yet, petroleum products and other industrial chemicals continue to pollute the wash. In 1991, the wash, which runs by homes, businesses, and school bus stops, actually caught fire. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I am not describing some impoverished developing nation, but a thriving city in the United States. Recent studies by the University of Arizona and the Arizona Department of Health Services found that rates of lupus in Nogales, AZ are 4.5 times the national average. The rates of leukemia and multiple myeloma cancer were also found to be several times higher than the national average. While no evidence directly linking these abnormally high rates of disease to the pollution problems of Nogales has been found, there is a strong suspicion that such is the case. The report by the University of Arizona found that the incidence of lupus increased among residents living near the Nogales Wash, and the Department of Health Services stated that there is ``strong evidence'' that the high rate of lupus is a result ``complex environmental exposures.'' The problems of Nogales, AZ are, unfortunately, not unique to that city. Towns and municipalities along the border, from San Diego, CA to Brownsville, TX are experiencing similar environmental nightmares that demand attention from the Federal Government. Clearly, it is the Federal Government's responsibility to ensure that a U.S. city is not adversely impacted by waste products emanating from a stating that the purpose of this legislation is to solve environmental crises that, while binational in nature, are adversely impacting communities in the United States. This is not public works legislation for Mexico, but a public health bill for the United States. With the creation of the North American Development Bank [NADBANK] and the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission, we have begun the process of solving transboundary environmental problems in a binational manner. As the Federal agency with the primary responsibility for protecting human health and the environment, it is only proper that the EPA be able to commit its funds and resources to improving one of the most environmentally damaged areas of our country. This bill is a Federal solution to a Federal problem, and I urge my colleagues to support its inclusion in the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Speaker, I am also introducing, at the request of the administration, a bill to protect the environment and human health of those persons living in colonias along the border in the United States. These unincorporated communities lack basic waste water infrastructure and are being severely polluted by raw or partially treated sewage. Surface and groundwater contamination is rampant and these areas are fast becoming human health disasters. The bill would authorize the EPA to make grants for the construction of wastewater treatment works to service these colonias. Under the provisions of the legislation, the States are required to provide 50 percent of the funding for these projects. There is desperate need for this assistance along our border with Mexico, especially in the State of Texas. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that these monies are for waste water treatment works to benefit communities in the United States that are in desperate need of infrastructure most of us would consider rudimentary. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Congressmen Ron Coleman and Kika de la Garza in providing for colonias. Both members have introduced legislation to meet the needs of these communities, and I look forward to working with them to ensure that colonias all along the border become safe and healthy places in which to live. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank EPA Administrator Carol Browner for her leadership on these matters. Finally, after years of neglect under previous administrations, the United States-Mexico border is beginning to receive the attention it desperately needs. I commend Administrator Browner for her fine work and look forward to our continued efforts to improve the environment and health of our border communities.

Mr. PASTOR

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to help set the record straight and talk about the actual cuts that the WIC Program would suffer under the Republican welfare proposal. To begin, the House has just passed a $25 million rescission to the WIC Program. Is this cut not to be considered a cut just because it was voted on separately? Second, under a block grant approach, WIC would be competing with other programs for funding and only 80 percent of its funds would be guaranteed for WIC-like services. Yet, how can we in good conscience say that WIC will not be cut when we are drastically cutting the other programs in its block grant? Is the remaining 20 percent that might be diverted to another program not to be considered a cut? Or, more to the point, if the child and adult care feeding program and the summer food program are cut, will that not lead some States to shift funds around to meet the various competing needs? What guarantees will we have to assure that funds for this program will be there when needed? Lastly, I want to clarify how WIC funds are spent. To begin, WIC dollars are not spent on items such as disposable diapers, as was alleged last night on the floor of the House. Expenditures under WIC are used to promote good nutrition and to encourage eligible persons to participate in this program. To fulfill the spirit of the block grant approach, States have already been given some latitude in the administration of this program. States have the option of approving food items to meet the specific nutritional needs of a particular population group which may have certain nutritional deficiencies. This way, nontraditional foods may be permitted to meet these identified needs. The principal point to remember, though, is that WIC vouchers are used exclusively on nutritional products. Are we now switching the terms of the debate to say that States should not determine how to best encourage mothers and children to participate in this program? I would admonish this body to seek a modicum of consistency as we move forward with the year's legislative agenda. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues that, as they consider this amendment, they would think of legal immigrants not as someone who recently arrived, not someone who only came over to receive benefits, but to think of the legal immigrant as a person who has been here for many years, who has worked, has paid their taxes, has raised their family and has been responsible. The only thing that they do not have is the right to vote and are not citizens. But this amendment talks about a person who cannot take the examination, cannot be naturalized because they are physically or developmentally disabled or mentally impaired to take the test. So we are talking about a safety net for those legal immigrants who cannot take the exam because of their disabilities. I would think that Members of this House on both sides of the aisle would show compassion to these people and support this amendment.

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

Mr. PASTOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment. I think what he wants to do is great because we need a little bit of assistance to the people getting off welfare. But with the rescissions and the new budget that is coming up and the budget for section 8 and the budget for public housing almost being destroyed, does the gentleman think it is really going to happen that you will be able to implement his amendment, knowing that the Republicans are going to destroy section 8 and public housing?

Mr. PASTOR

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the Members of this body to seriously consider how they might be undermining the future or our children, and, as a consequence, the future of this country. Children are our future, it is often said. Yet, as I hear those words, I also sense their hollowness. Why, are we so intent on sabotaging their welfare in our haste to enact changes? At best it is a tenuous safety net that we have built for so many of our children. And now we are proposing to make drastic cuts in the most basic segment of this net. The School Lunch Program which the Republican bill is proposing to fold into a block grant is slated to be cut. I speak of real cuts that await hungry children. Yet, I wonder how many Members of this body have taken the time to look in the faces of these children or sat with them in a school cafeteria and watched them eat? I ask myself how many would have the gall to continue to insinuate the School Lunch Program will be increased when in fact it is slated to be drastically cut. Again, I urge you to oppose this most frontal attack on the Nation's future.

Mr. PASTOR

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, but I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I commend Chairman Thomas and ranking Member Fazio for the fine work they have done, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine [Mr. Baldacci].

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].