Silvestre Reyes

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my colleague and the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I want to, first of all, commend my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). Year after year he comes to the floor, out of sheer frustration with this recommendation. I am here this afternoon, Madam Chair, because I spent a whole career on the border between the United States and Mexico, so I know and understand the frustrations that we face as a country about controlling and doing a better job, and understanding and identifying and stopping those that are coming into this country. This arises perhaps out of frustration, making sure that we do a better job. But this amendment is not a good idea. It was not a good idea 4 years ago, it was not a good idea last year, and it certainly is less of a good idea today, because just recently, President Bush activated 50,000 reservists. That tells us, it sends a very clear message that we do not have enough troops to go around. Those reservists that have been activated have been activated because we are about to go and make those accountable for the very acts that my colleague mentioned, the bombing and the terrible and tragic acts against the World Trade Center and against our own Pentagon. This is not an argument about illegal immigration, this is not an argument that we are engaged here in about who has a better plan. It is a practical understanding of the limitations that our military is capable of carrying out. We clearly do not have enough active military to carry out the mission that the President has stated will be necessary against terrorism, so he has activated 50,000 reservists. I would ask my colleague to, instead, work to get a plan to fund on, an overtime basis, police and sheriff's department personnel to augment and better staff our already understaffed Border Patrol and Customs personnel. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the distinguished gentleman who, prior to coming to Congress, was in law enforcement as a sheriff. (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. I know this puts my colleagues in a difficult situation, whether to show the courage to vote against this amendment, which is the right thing to do, or whether to go along and seem patriotic by saying let us put our troops on the border. My colleague mentioned we do not know who our enemy is but we do know that the people who live along the border, both on the Southern border and the Northern border, are not the enemy; and we should not deploy the military to the Southern border or the Northern border. Let us use some of that money that we just authorized, that $40 billion, to augment through overtime the presence of professional law enforcement personnel to help the border patrol and to help customs. That is the rational thing to do. That is the right thing to do. Putting the military on the border has never been a good idea. Marshal law is not a good idea just because we fear terrorism. President Bush, the Secretaries this afternoon have said, let us go back to normal life. A normal life is not marshal law. I urge all my colleagues to vote against this amendment

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2629, the Air Transportation System Stabilization Act. As our nation begins the hearing process in the aftermath of last week's attacks, we must focus our efforts toward getting back to the important business of our nation. I appreciate the hard work of Chairman Young, Ranking Member Oberstar and all of the Members on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for crafting this legislative relief package for the airline industry. We as a Congress and a nation need to continue to unite during this tragedy, set aside partisanship, and focus on issues that protect our way of life. We need to pass this important bill. Addressing the immediate situation confronting the airline industry must be one of our top priorities. The airline industry provides an essential public service and is an integral component of the United States national transportation infrastructure. For example, during calendar year 2000, the 1.2 million U.S. airline employees served approximately 670 million passengers traveling over 700 billion miles and provided over 25 billion ton miles of freight delivery. The terrorist attacks have had a grave and dramatic effect on the airline industry. As we as a nation comes to grips with the vulnerability of our transportation systems to terrorist attacks, more resources will need to be allocated to assure the safety and security of everyone who travels by air. This will cost a tremendous amount of money and should not be borne solely by the airline industry. The effect is not only being felt with airlines, but also in travel agencies and other businesses associated with the travel industry. As a Congress, we need to do everything in our power to assist the many people across our country who have businesses that have been adversely effected due to the dramatically reduced demand for air service. Airlines are reducing flight schedules and are expected to announce the layoff of 100,000 employees in the near future. Federal assistance to the airlines is an important first step, however, assistance must also be provided to our businesses that are dependent on the airlines. There are many businesses in my district and districts across the country who are facing severe layoffs. Travel agencies, which are losing $26 million per day, restaurants, hotels, cruise lines and many, many others are experiencing great hardship. We need to make sure that we address their issues. Without immediate and significant U.S. government financial support, many U.S. airlines will go bankrupt, severely threatening our way of life. It is estimated that the overall impact on the airline industry alone from the September 11th attack will be $24 billion based on anticipated revenue declines and cost increases. H.R. 2629 goes a long way toward stabilizing the airlines by providing $5 billion in direct grants and an additional $10 billion in loan guarantees. Safe and efficient air travel must remain a national priority. A strong airline industry is vital to our economy and the security of our country. I pledge my support for this important piece of legislation and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, I rise today to support the defense authorization and to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for putting together a strong defense bill. In this time of national crisis, I am pleased that we are able to come together to support increased funding for our military services. Our combat troops, which President Bush has or soon will call to deployment, are trained and ready; let no one anywhere make any mistake about that. These men and women who are at the point of the spear are ready to handle whatever mission we require of them. However, it is those others who are further back from that point that need increased funding to fix problems. I want to also thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for having the vision to put together a fact-finding trip that we recently completed. On this trip we visited 23 bases across the country and saw horrendous living and working conditions. Ceilings were falling in, sewage was backing up; our men and women in uniform and their families were being forced and are being forced to live in substandard housing. Madam Chairman, we have the finest military personnel in the whole world, and they simply deserve better. They give us 110 percent each and every day, and we as a Nation owe them a better quality of life. This bill will begin to fix some of those problems, but we must still do more for them. In this time of great peril and danger, let us not forget to get our priorities straight. I ask all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, today we are authorizing the use of the U.S. military against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against us. We are simply at war. We did not seek this war; but make no mistake, we will respond. We will finish the conflict on our terms, but only after we determine that our enemies have been defeated. The coming days, weeks and months will continue to test us. We will hear heart-breaking stories, see tragic images. We will continue to say good-bye to American troops as they head off to defend us against terror and those who hate America, those who hate everything that America stands for: freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of democracy. As President John F. Kennedy once said, ``Let every Nation know, whether it wishes us ill or well, that we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.'' We will persevere. We will be victorious. God bless our great country.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, yesterday our Nation was attacked by cowards. I, like all of my colleagues, am equally outraged by this attack on the people of the United States. Today, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, said yesterday, we as a Congress and as a government stand united. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this was an act of war. We must find those responsible and bring them to justice. We must do so swiftly, with the full might and power of the United States. We will find those responsible for these mass murders, and they will be punished. We, likewise, must develop the response that will destroy the very system responsible for this attack on our freedom. The global terrorist organizations that take refuge in some nations across the world must be destroyed, and any nation who protects any terrorist network or who provides shelter or refuge to these terrorist networks are on notice that they will also be subjected to the justice and the might and power of the United States military if they continue to protect those responsible for these mass murders. This attack was intended to bring down the most powerful Nation in the world, to paralyze our government and to weaken our resolve. This has not happened and they have failed. Last night, our President spoke from the Oval Office of the White House, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld never actually left the Pentagon while working with some of the rescue crews and consulting with the national security team. Last night, the world saw and heard representatives of the people of this Nation speaking with one voice. Today, we are all here on the floor of the House ready to continue our work. We will not allow cowards to shut us down. No one will ever forget the images that we have all seen in the last 2 days. We must never forget those who lost their lives. My thoughts and prayers are with those rescuers working around the clock to save those trapped in the rubble of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The events of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, have changed the face of America forever. I have no doubt that we will respond to this crisis in a very American way . . . we will unite, we will defend our freedoms, we will persevere. In closing let me commend all those first responders that worked so hard and have sacrificed so much, the police, the fire fighters, EMS and medical personnel and our own dedicated, committed and very professional Capitol Police.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As an original cosponsor and strong supporter of H.R. 2540, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2001, I am pleased that we are moving forward to assure a cost of living increase for our Nation's disabled veterans and their families, and the other benefits provided in this legislation as well. The sooner the benefits provided in this bill can be enacted into law, I believe the better. I want to acknowledge the cooperation of our chairman and ranking member, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), as well as our new subcommittee chair, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), in moving this bill forward. I appreciate their commitment and leadership to the benefits accorded to our veterans. I want to highlight the provisions addressing the needs of Gulf War veterans. A new report of the Institute of Medicine acknowledges that symptoms experienced by Gulf War veterans have a significant degree of overlap with symptoms of patients diagnosed with conditions such as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and irritable bowel syndrome. When legislation was originally passed to provide service-connected compensation benefits to our Nation's Gulf War veterans, it was the intent of Congress that those who were experiencing these symptoms, such as fatigue, joint pain, and others noted in the recent IOM report, would be compensated. Unfortunately, VA's General Counsel ruled that only veterans whose symptoms did not carry a diagnostic label would be compensated. Currently, VA's ability to receive compensation depends on the happenstance of whether or not the examining physician attributes a diagnostic label to the symptoms. This is unfair to our Nation's veterans and must be changed. The Gulf War provisions of H.R. 2540 place the emphasis where it was originally intended by focusing on the symptoms experienced by Gulf War veterans rather than a particular label which may be attributed to them. The term chronic multi-symptom illness is intended to include veterans who experience more than one symptom lasting at least 6 months. It is my understanding that thousands of Gulf War veterans have had claims denied because their symptoms were attributed to a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. Most of these war veterans would be eligible for benefits provided by this bill as of April 1, 2002. I deeply regret that the large tax cut recently signed into law leaves no funds available to make this provision effective any sooner. I would prefer that this bill provide those benefits and be effective as of November 2, 1994, when the original law was passed. Nonetheless, I recognize that under the financial constraints that we must now live with, there is no money to provide for an earlier effective date. Sick Gulf War veterans deserve the compensation provided by this bill. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to state that I support the manager's amendment extending until December 31, 2003, the period in which Gulf War veterans may manifest symptoms qualifying for compensation as an undiagnosed illness. The measure before us moves us towards the goal of meeting the needs of our sick Gulf War veterans in a responsible manner. Again, I want to thank the chairman, the ranking member and the chair of the Subcommittee on Benefits for their leadership and their vision to our Nation's veterans. H.R. 2540 is a good bill and I urge all the Members to support it.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001. This bill has almost 370 cosponsors and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. This bill amends the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 and increases benefits to railroad employees and their beneficiaries. In addition, this important legislation provides for full annuities to employees and their spouses at age 60 with 30 years of service. This bill also reduces the vesting requirement for railroad retirement benefits for employees and survivors from ten to five years of service. This legislation is fair and must be enacted into law. El Paso, Texas has a long history and association with the railroad. In fact, the original Arizona & Southwestern Railroad, built in 1888- 1889 by the Copper Queen Consolidated Mining Co., a subsidiary of Phelps Dodge Corporation, was built to transport copper from a smelter in Bisbee, Arizona to a refinery in El Paso, Texas. The railroad and its workers have always played an integral role in the fabric of our city. The Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001 recognizes the work that our rail workers perform in service of this country and takes into account their extremely physical work. Again, Mr. Speaker, there are almost 370 cosponsors of this legislation representing literally millions of people across the country. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this extremely important piece of legislation.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, every American is concerned with good health and accessing quality health care. However, far too many Americans including many Hispanics do not have adequate health care options. When Health Maintenance Organizations, HMOs, were first introduced, they were promoted as cost-saving revolutions in preventative health care. However, what subscribers did not anticipate is that their health care options would be restricted. It is dangerous for health related decisions to be taken away from doctors and health care professionals and assigned to HMOs, insurance companies, and corporate bureaucrats. With 37 percent of the Hispanic population lacking health insurance, access is a huge issue. However, access to coverage does not always translate into access to quality health care. Many Latinos with health insurance experience numerous barriers to quality health care. Anyone who deals with the bureaucracy of managed care plans knows that it is daunting; for those with limited English skills, it is overwhelming. Two-thirds of privately-insured Latinos are enrolled in managed care, while only about half of privately-insured Whites are in managed care. Hispanics are thus, more likely to be the victim of care delayed, or more even disturbing, care denied. In addition, Hispanics are more likely to have limited provider options and limited treatment options. We must enact patient protections for all Americans in managed care plans. In so doing, we are not only protecting Hispanics, but all Americans. We must pass the bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights and return medical decision to patients and their doctors. Again, I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 36, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the United States flag. I urge all Members to support this resolution. This is a positive step toward finally taking necessary accountability in protecting the integrity and sanctity of our most precious national symbol. I understand that this issue has experienced years of contentious debate involving constitutional challenges. Rather than focus on these arguments, I would rather take this time to share parts of a story written in my local newspaper, the El Paso Times. The story concerns a local shopping center that proudly flies a 30-by-30 foot American flag that has recently been taken from its flag pole for the first time in several years in order to have its wind-torn, tethered appearance repaired so that it may return with a new and fully restored appearance. Since its removal, motorists and pedestrians, inhabitants of the neighborhood of where the flag resides, tourists and travelers, every single person that has come in contact with this flag have missed its presence. As one person stated, ``People love it when they notice it, and they notice when it's gone.'' And the people who love this symbol, not just the people in my district who give directions to their homes based on the shopping center flag, but people all over the country will notice when their symbol is destroyed. We have traditional codes and customs that encourage utmost respect for the American flag, yet we have never protected this symbol with the strength of our laws. We have sent soldiers to wars who fought and sometimes died in defense of the flag, carrying it honorably and proudly into battle. We have erected monuments all over this country and around the world that fly the American flag. We have placed the American flag on places where Americans have claimed victory in battle and scientific achievement, including one place that is not even on this Earth. I ask the Members to consider what protest would be profound, what speech should be protected and what principle is to be defended if the American flag flying over the Iwo Jima memorial is burned, or the flag flying over the Memorial at Normandy, or the flag that adorns the casket of a fallen soldier, or the flags that fly proudly over our international embassies, or the flag that flies in a shopping center in my district of El Paso, Texas. People will certainly notice it when it is gone. Mr. Speaker, the brilliance of our constitutional laws is that they are amendable, they can change with the will of the people. And I believe and encourage that the will of Congress is to finally protect the symbol that flies over this House.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the men and women of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization for the successful ballistic missile defense test that took place late Saturday night over the Pacific Ocean. The first success since 1999, the ballistic missile interceptor that shot down a dummy warhead used a ``hit to kill'' technology and was able to destroy its target hundreds of miles away from launch point. This test demonstrates our commitment to defending against the threat of Intercontinental Ballistic Missile launches and once again shows that this ``bullet to bullet'' method of target destruction is technologically feasible. Further, it justifies our need to continue with vigorous testing as we aggressively move forward with maturing our ballistic missile defense capabilities. We must continue to develop, test and fund missile defense technologies to create a defensive system to protect this nation and our allies against missile threats worldwide. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Maloney- Rangel amendment to improve the accuracy of the Hispanic census count. Compared to the 1990 census, the 2000 census changed the way it asked Hispanics to identify their country of origin. In both censuses, individuals were asked to identify their Hispanic origin as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other. The way the ``other'' category was treated is what changed. In both 1990 and 2000, those who marked other were asked to write in a particular group. In 1990, after ``other,'' the questionnaire listed ``Print one group, for example: Argentinian, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadorian, Spaniard, and so on.'' In 2000, those who marked other were only given the instruction ``Print group.'' The result of this was that far fewer people who marked ``other'' wrote in a group, and the count of groups like Colombians and Dominicans is understated in the 2000 census. The Moloney-Rangel amendment will enable the Census Bureau to conduct a report on what the census results would have likely been, had the question been phrased the same way it was in 1990. This will provide us with useful, supplemental information about the Hispanic population. The Hispanic community is becoming increasingly diverse. Having accurate information about the diversity of the Hispanic population will enable us to better target resources that are culturally sensitive to these communities. It is important to remember that the Hispanic community is not homogeneous. For example, the best way to communicate and reach out to Mexican-Americans is not the same as the best, most effective way to reach out to Dominican-Americans. This is why we should enable the Census Bureau to conduct a study and provide the public with information that gives us a better understanding of the true diversity within the Hispanic community. Hispanics deserve to be accurately counted. As Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I therefore support the Maloney-Rangel amendment and urge all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I am here to convey my strong support for the ``Healthy Solutions for America's Hardworking Families'' package developed to provide critical health, nutrition, and protection benefits to legal permanent resident children and women. This package includes three pieces of legislation that take steps to address some of the most blatant gaps in our nation's effort to help those legally here in our country in times of greatest need. As Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and as a Member whose district includes a large Hispanic community, one of my top priorities is to advocate for the fair treatment of hard-working, tax paying families. The Immigrant Children's Health Protection Improvement Act, H.R. 1143, gives States the option of providing basic health care coverage to legal permanent resident children and pregnant women who arrived in the U.S. after August 22, 1996. As a result of the 1996 reforms, lawfully present children and pregnant women who arrived in the US after 1996 must wait five years before they can apply for basic health care. Because many of these recent immigrants are concentrated in low- paying, low-benefit jobs, these hard-working, tax-paying families, like so many citizens in our country, simply cannot afford private health care coverage. Thus, this vulnerable population cannot obtain proper health treatment such as preventative and prenatal care. Many are forced to delay care and rely on emergency room services to receive treatment. I believe this is an unacceptable risk for any American, as well as for current legal immigrants and their future American children. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that this legislation would provide coverage to insure 130,000 children and 50,000 mothers per year who have followed the rules and are in this country legally. In light of the fact that the Hispanic population is the most uninsured in our country, with over 33 percent having no coverage, this legislation is a critical step in meeting this need. A second component of this package is the Nutrition Assistance for Working Families and Seniors Act, H.r. 2142, which would permit qualified legal immigrants to obtain food stamps regardless of their date of entry. The majority of those impacted would be in low-income families with children and elderly. I have seen first hand, in my district, the detrimental affects of hunger and under-nutrition. Hungry children are more likely to suffer from adverse health effects and studies show that hunger has a negative impact on a child's ability to learn. Furthermore, pregnant women who are undernourished are more likely to have children with low birth weights, Likely leading to developmental delays. This important bipartisan legislation is widely supported and endorsed by many, including the National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Counties, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National Governor's Association. Restoring this component of our nation's safety net system is not only critical step toward ending hunger in our country, it is just simply the right thing to do. Finally, the third bill in the Healthy Solutions package is the Women Immigrant's Safe Harbor Act, H.R. 2258, which would allow legal immigrants who are victims of domestics violence to apply for critically needed safety services. These victims are frequently economically dependent on their abusers and isolated from their support networks. I believe we must do everything we can to support victims of abuse and get them on a path toward a better life. Mr. Speaker, restoring Medicaid and SCHIP, nutrition, and protection services to this group is simply good public policy, but more importantly, the provisions in the ``Healthy Solutions for America's Hardworking Families'' packages can mean the difference between life and death. We cannot let these children and mothers down. I urge my colleagues to support this important package.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 14th, we celebrated the 226th birthday of the United States Army. The Army's proud tradition, which dates back to 1775, has always stood tall, both in times of peace, and times of conflicts which placed American men and women in harm's way. For more than two centuries, the soldiers of the Army have been poised and ready to answer the call of duty to defend this great nation. The military is a noble profession and those who have served have demonstrated their patriotism and selflessness. The Army has always been relevant and remains relevant today. With the Transformation of the Army to a leaner, lighter, and more lethal force, the Army will continue to be relevant in the future. As we forge into the future, let us reflect on the great legacy the Army has given this nation, through the great men and women who were and are proud to be Americans.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, as we begin to celebrate Men's Health Week, the week leading up to Father's Day, I rise today to applaud the efforts of my colleagues to bring attention to many issues surrounding men's health. I would like to encourage my colleagues and members of their staffs to have screenings for prostate cancer. Except for lung cancer, prostate cancer is the greatest cause of cancer deaths among American men. At highest risk are African-Americans and those with a family history of prostate cancer. One in five men will develop prostate cancer in his lifetime and the American Cancer Society estimates that over 32,000 men will die from the disease this year, a mortality rate approaching that of breast cancer in women. It is recommended that men at high risk begin annual prostate cancer screenings at age 40, and that all other men begin at age 50. As one of my former colleagues and good friend, Bill Richardson once said, ``Recognizing and preventing men's health problems is not just a man's issue. Because of its impact on wives, mothers, daughters and sisters, men's health is truly a family issue.'' We owe it to our families to have our prostrate screenings. A tiny bit of discomfort is worth saving your life and sparing your families from the pain of an untimely death.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, as our First Lady Laura Bush said in April of this year ``Early reading isn't just good medicine, it's an important part of a child's daily activities. Children benefit greatly from reading activities starting at a very young age.'' Mr. Speaker, our First Lady is absolutely right! Unfortunately, in the 2002 budget, President Bush cut all federal funding for a 35-year-old nationwide reading program. The program which is know as Reading is Fundamental (RIF) is supported through the U.S. Department of Education's Inexpensive Book Distribution Program (IBDP). RIF provides free, new books and family literacy services to 18,000 school and community sites with the vital help of more than 310,000 local volunteers. RIF has a proven record and should not be destroyed or altered. For 35 years, it has given free paperback books to poor children in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. offshore territories. If the federal government gives states reading grants, as President Bush wants, there is no guarantee that this kind of program, which is badly needed, will continue. My district of El Paso, Texas is an impoverished area of our country. Programs like Reading is Fundamental may not make much of a difference in more affluent areas, but they certainly do in El Paso. For some kids, a free book is the only access to reading that they have. RIF programs operate in schools, libraries, community centers, child- care centers, Head Start and Even Start centers, hospitals, migrant worker camps, homeless shelters, and detention centers. Today, thanks to public-private partnerships, RIF is the nation's largest child and family literacy organization. RIF has placed more than 200 million books in the hands and homes of America's children. Now, President Bush has proposed a five-year plan to improve young children's reading ability by cutting all funding for IBDP and consolidating the funding into state-level reading grants. This is simply not the answer. The answer is RIF. I respectfully request that the Administration restore the RIF program in the 2002 budget. The RIF program is an example of a program that is working and making a real difference in the lives of countless children across the country. It would be a travesty to destroy it.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, the President's request for Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) is $277 million for fiscal year 2002. Funding at this level puts the GEAR UP program in my district and many others at serious risk. We should do everything in our power to protect and augment programs like GEAR UP that have proven to be effective. As you know, GEAR UP is a nationwide program to encourage disadvantaged children to have high expectations, stay in school, study hard and make appropriate decisions that will lead them on the road to a college education. With high school dropout rates so high among Hispanics, programs like GEAR UP are critical. The program directs the Department of Education to offer competitive grants that will build partnerships while creating and expanding alliances between colleges and school districts which have at least 50 percent low-income students. Since its enactment, GEAR UP has provided a much needed service to nearly 1.2 million children. No other federal program holds more promise for middle school children in low-income schools and does more to institutionalize the necessary reforms that provide early college awareness than GEAR UP. The 73 new partnership grants and seven new state grants awarded last year brought the two-year total to 237 GEAR UP partnerships and 28 state programs. The second year competition, like that of the first year, was extremely competitive. However, due to funding limitations, only 28 percent of the partnership applications and 33 percent of the state grant applications could be awarded. There is truly a demand for more GEAR UP money. I believe it is critically important that we remain steadfast in our commitment to GEAR UP, which sends a message to students that a college education is indeed within their reach. I urge my colleagues to support $425 million for GEAR UP in the fiscal year 2002 Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations bill to allow GEAR UP schools to continue to operate their programs.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1291, the 21st Century Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act. I would like to thank my good friend and colleague, the Ranking Member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Lane Evans as well as Chairman Christopher Smith and Benefits Subcommittee Chairman J.D. Hayworth for their efforts to improve education benefits for our nation's veterans. I commend each of you for your leadership and your efforts toward improving the lives of America's veterans. However, as the Ranking Member on the Benefits Subcommittee, I am very disappointed that this matter was brought to the House Floor without Members of the Benefits Subcommittee or the Full Committee on Veterans' Affairs having an opportunity to debate and consider the measure in a mark-up. Consistently, history has referred to GI Bill benefits as the most significant reason for the high educational attainment and post World War II economic leadership success of the United States. Through financial and tuition benefits, the GI Bill still provides millions of today's returning military service members the opportunity to gain important educational skills and knowledge they could not afford otherwise. With the cost of college climbing over the last two decades, and our nation's military plagued with recruitment problems, our obligation to our nation's veterans is to keep pace with these costs and provide stronger, more adequate GI Bill benefits. Increasing sources of private scholarships and funding, along with the Montgomery GI Bill's current inadequate level of benefits, has seriously hurt military recruiting efforts. Our veterans certainly deserve better. From a national security standpoint, we cannot afford to allow our military to be without necessary manpower and strength. We must continue to work to maintain and improve the benefits for our veteran population. By doing this, we honor their service and provide for their future. As the Ranking Democratic Member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Benefits, I, along with my colleagues on the Subcommittee, held hearings on this legislation and heard testimony surrounding the significant issue of GI Bill enhancement. The testimony of individuals such as Representative John Dingell, himself an architect of GI Bill enhancement legislation, my colleague on the Committee Representative Ronnie Shows, and Secretary of Veterans' Affairs Anthony J. Principi, reflected a need to ensure that a GI Bill for the new century must provide a meaningful readjustment benefit to discharged service members while also giving our military an effective recruiting tool. We understand that there have been significant economic, societal, and military changes since the implementation of the GI Bill. These changes must be addressed, and Congress is now addressing its responsibility to make improvements to the structure and benefit level of this program. It is unfortunate to mention, however, that this bill came to the floor of the House of Representatives without a mark-up. While this bill does much for American veterans and service members, many, including myself, wish it could do more. I intended to introduce an amendment to H.R. 1291 that would index the GI Bill to educational inflation rather than the Consumer Price Index. Indexing the GI Bill to the inflating cost of college tuition and expenses would allow veterans and beneficiaries of the GI Bill to receive full educational benefits without constant Congressional or governmental adjustment. The benefits would correspond with the significant costs of an institution of higher learning. My colleague, Representative Lane Evans, was going to introduce his bill, H.R. 320, as a substitute to H.R. 1291 during mark-up. H.R. 320, of which I am a co-sponsor, was designed to restore the GI Bill program to a benefit level comparable to that once provided to veteran students after World War II. Essentially, H.R. 320 would pay for the full cost of attending college and would remove the large enrollment fee that is paid by service members. This legislation is modeled after the recommendations made by Secretary of Veterans' Affairs Anthony Principi when he was chairman for a Congressional Commission charged with studying the needs of military service members when they leave the military to return to civilian life. This legislation enjoys broad Congressional support and the support of several national veteran service organizations. Despite the absence of a mark-up or a chance for full Committee deliberation on this matter, the provisions within H.R. 320 and the amendment I intended to offer continue to enjoy strong support among Members of Congress and veteran service organizations. I, along with my colleagues, will continue to address this issue until all our veterans are finally given a fully functional, fully beneficial, fully enhanced GI Bill. I am a supporter of H.R. 1291 because this measure does provide a considerable increase in veterans' educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill. Under H.R. 1291 the monthly benefit would increase to $800 per month for fiscal year 2002, increasing to $1,100 by fiscal year 2004. While I do believe that students and service members entering college in 2002 would benefit more from a bill that includes the amount of benefits that would be provided to veterans if the bill was adjusted to educational inflation, I encourage my colleagues to vote for the passage of this bill. It is the first step in a long road toward veterans' benefits enhancement.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Health Task Force, for all his hard work and leadership on this issue and other issues that affect his community and minority communities all across the country. The gentleman has demonstrated true passion and determination in ensuring that the health needs of Hispanics and all minorities all across the country are met. In addition, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), of the Congressional Black Caucus, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, for their leadership and collaboration that has brought us here today to reflect on the importance of this date. As chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I am here to commemorate the first reported AIDS cases in our country some 20 years ago. On this date, we not only remember those who have died and those whose lives are being affected by HIV/AIDS but also to continue to raise awareness about the devastating impact this disease has had on minority communities across the country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, AIDS has taken the lives of more than 21 million people around the world, including 450,000 Americans, since it was first diagnosed in 1981. An estimated 1 million Americans have been infected since the virus began spreading quickly in the early 1980s through unprotected sex, intravenous drug use, blood transfusions, and other workplace accidents. I have heard others say that this deadly virus does not care about the color, age, gender or sexual preference of individuals. However from July 1999 to June of 2000, African Americans and Hispanics have accounted for nearly 70 percent of new HIV infections. The disproportionate effects of the virus among Hispanics and other minorities today continue to grow. Hispanics currently represent 20 percent of all new AIDS cases, even though we only make up 13 percent of the United States population. Hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population and the Centers for Disease Control report that HIV exposure risks for U.S.-born Hispanics and Hispanics born in other countries vary greatly, indicating a need for specifically targeted prevention efforts consistent with the values and beliefs of these communities. These include language-appropriate educational materials and health care professionals who have had training on the cultural factors that can make a difference in the treatment and prevention of this disease among Hispanics and minorities all across the country and the world. The Congressional Hispanic, Black, and Asian Pacific Caucuses have responded to the need for targeted initiatives by collaborating to establish the Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative, which addresses the critical need for prevention and care resources in communities of color, where the majority of new AIDS cases are occurring. Our caucuses, along with other policymakers, health care professionals and advocates will continue to work to increase Federal spending for HIV/AIDS programs, such as the Minority AIDS Initiative and Ryan White Care Act. I urge my colleagues to support the $540 million request for fiscal year 2002 for Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative and other resources needed in the fight against this deadly disease. These resources must be dramatically increased to keep pace with the changing epidemic and to work toward the elimination of both the health disparities between ethnic and racial groups and the disease all together. Again I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, just days before the recent Memorial Day recess, my colleague from Oregon, David Wu, experienced a disturbing incident at the U.S. Department of Energy. He has already eloquently and movingly addressed the House. Rather than recount the details of how he was refused entry to the Department and questioned repeatedly about his nationality, I would like to pose one simple question: when will it end? When will we as a society be able to free ourselves from the pain and constraints of ethnic stereotyping and racial profiling? This practice has long been decried by Members of Congress, especially those of us who have been the victims of ethnic stereotyping. Two weeks ago, a vivid example of racial profiling was visited upon one of our own colleagues. The contrast in how my colleagues David Wu and Mike Capuano were treated is striking. An Asian American was questioned about his nationality, even after presenting his congressional identification card and refused entry, while a white American was allowed to enter without any hassle. This incident illustrated that racial profiling extends beyond the highways and continues to persist at the very heart of the federal government. I have become accustomed to brushing off the letters to the editor that inevitably follow meetings between Hispanic Members of Congress and officials from Latin American countries. These letters question our national identity, our loyalty and our patriotism. These letters are so absurd, I never take them seriously. Unfortunately, Congressman Wu's experience this week demonstrated to all of us that the sentiment expressed in these letters is not confined to a few misguided and ill- informed souls, but that it is much more pervasive in our society. When will it end? How many more times do we have to remind other Americans about all the Hispanic and Asian American veterans who have fought for America's freedom? How many more times will we have to provide examples of Hispanic and Asian Americans who have made invaluable contributions to the progress of this nation? How many more examples of exemplary citizenship and patriotism among Hispanic and Asian Americans do we have to present before America as a whole finally understands that we too are Americans? Ethnic stereotyping denies minorities full access to the American promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And ethnic stereotyping denies the rest of America all the talents, skills and knowledge that minorities have to offer. As my colleague from Oregon has stated, our national security is indeed at risk if we do not welcome all of the best and brightest Americans into our nation's most critical positions, regardless of their ethnic heritage or the color of their skin. I would add that in addition to our national security, we risk the health and vitality of our country when we continue to make judgments based on ethnic stereotypes. I hope that my colleagues will join me in continuing to speak out and take action against ethnic stereotyping and racial profiling.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor and strong supporter of H.R. 801, the Veterans' Survivor Benefits Improvements Act of 2001, I am pleased that we will have an opportunity to address some of its provisions before this Memorial Day. It is our deeds, as well as our words, that should be used to measure the respect that we pay our departed servicemembers. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the cooperation of the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member, as well as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), in working with the other body to move this legislation forward. I hope that we will have an opportunity to address the provisions of H.R. 801 not included in the Senate amendment in the very near future. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to highlight the insurance provisions of this bill. I am very pleased that the bill retains the provision inserted at my request to make the beginning of fiscal year 2001 the effective date for the increase in the maximum amount of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance from $200,000 to $250,000 for those who have lost their lives during the performance of military duties. As a Vietnam veteran, I know the dangers of combat. Since October 1, 2000, we have sadly lost a number of uniformed service members during the performance of military training exercises. As I emphasized during the subcommittee hearing on H.R. 801, I was particularly concerned that those who lost their lives in the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole as well as those, such as Specialist Rafael Olvera Rodriguez, who was an El Paso native and died in the Black Hawk helicopter crash over Hawaii, would qualify for increased maximum benefits. Since the Cole attack, others performing official duties have died in North Carolina, Georgia, and Kuwait. Two Coast Guardsmen died after an accident while on patrol; two pilots died when their Army plane crashed in Germany; and two Air Force planes disappeared from Scotland with the loss of life. The effective date of October 1, 2000, is intended to provide the maximum benefit of $250,000 for SGLI insured members, such as those who have lost their lives in the performance of their duty and who were insured for the maximum benefit at the time of their deaths. I know that the families of the SGLI members will certainly support this benefit. I also support the provision allowing family members to be covered under the SGLI program. This is a needed improvement and will put our service members on par with other persons who have access to commercial insurance. I strongly support the provisions for outreach to veterans' dependents suggested by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), a very strong advocate for our Nation's veterans. Those who are entitled to veterans' benefits must have appropriate information in order to access them. Finally, the technical amendments in the bill clarify important provisions of law and will improve the administration of educational benefits. I cannot think of a better way for us to send a clear message this Memorial Day than to support H.R. 801. I urge all Members to support this bill.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to any amendment that would allow block granting of federal education programs, including Title I. There are various problems associated with some of the amendments that my colleagues are offering to H.R. 1, legislation that would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). As you know, Title I of the ESEA provides targeted federal resources to help ensure that disadvantaged students have access to a quality education. The block granting of programs under Title I and other titles of the bill dilutes targeting for special needs populations. This would result in significant funding shifts among localities and would weaken accountability of federal funds. For example, in Title III of H.R. 1, the current Bilingual Education Act (BEA), Emergency Immigrant Education Program (EIEP), and the Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) are consolidated into one formula driven state grant. I oppose consolidation of these three programs because it would dilute federal resources to serve three distinct and separate student populations. Given the rising number of limited English proficient (LEP) students and the diverse needs of recent immigrant students, local schools need a targeted amount of federal resources to provide adequate services to each group. BEA provides startup funds for schools to develop quality services for LEP students, whereas EIEP reimburses schools for the extra costs associated with helping newly arrived immigrant students succeed in school--services that go far beyond language classes. Finally, the third program to be consolidated under Title III is FLAP, which helps native English speaking students learn a foreign language. Consolidation ignores the distinctiveness of each of these programs and dilutes the funds available to students in need. Mr. Chairman, while I applaud the bipartisan support for this legislation, I ask my colleagues to oppose any amendments that would consolidate federal funds into state block grants.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 428, a bill which calls for Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization (WHO). I would also like to commend the author of the legislation, my friend and colleague from Ohio, Mr. Sherrod Brown, for his leadership on this issue. I am proud to join as a co-sponsor of this important bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the World Health Organization is the most important international health organization in the world. In its charter, the WHO sets forth the crucial objective of attaining the highest possible level of health for all people, yet today the 23 million citizens of Taiwan are denied appropriate and meaningful participation in the international health forums and programs conducted by the WHO. Currently, there are over 190 participants in the WHO; Taiwan is not one of them. What this means is that Taiwan is not permitted to receive WHO benefits. Access to the WHO ensures that the highest standards of health information and services are provided, facilitating the eradication of disease and improvement of public health on a world-wide basis. The work of the WHO is particularly crucial today given the tremendous volume of international travel, which has heightened the transmission of communicable diseases between borders. Lack of access to WHO protections has caused people of Taiwan to suffer needlessly. Mr. Speaker, there is no good reason why Taiwan should be denied observer status with the World Health Organization. As a strong democracy and one of the world's most robust economies, Taiwan should participate in the health services and medical protections offered by the WHO. In addition, the WHO stands to benefit significantly from the financial and technological contributions that Taiwan has to offer. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, today the House is taking up extremely important legislation, H.R. 1, a bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Although the bipartisan support for this bill is encouraging, just two weeks ago the republicans passed a budget resolution that committed no new resources for education. In fact, the budget resolution provided less than the amount the President requested by $900 million for fiscal year 2002 and by $21.4 billion over ten years. Instead of providing new resources for education, the conference report set funding levels equal to the amount needed, according the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), just to keep up with inflation. by contrast, H.R. 1 as reported authorizes approximately $5.5 billion more for elementary and secondary education programs for fiscal year 2002 than the $18.5 billion appropriated in fiscal year 2001. This difference between the funding levels authorized in H.R. 1 and the funds committed to education in the budget conference report confirms my concern about the Republican budget. Although Republicans claim to support investments in priorities such as education, their budget did not commit the necessary resources. Furthermore, last week we voted on an unfair rule for H.R. 1 which prevented Democrats from offering key education priorities as amendments. There is nothing in the bill addressing class-size reduction, school modernization or the need to provide adequate funding authorizations for bilingual and migrant education. The absence of a specific class size reduction program in the bill is unfortunate. H.R. 1 combines professional development and class size. In my opinion, schools should not be forced to chose between reducing class size and providing high quality professional development. Research clearly shows that reducing class size, particularly in the early grades, improves student achievement. This bill also falls short of providing enough resources for migrant students. In just the past two years, the average number of dollars spent per migrant student has declined by 11 percent. This bill's proposed increase in migrant education funding does not go nearly far enough to reverse that decline. The bill further fails migrant students by omitting strong provisions to create a migrant student records transfer system. Such a system would eliminate two serious problems faced by migrant students: the health risks caused by multiple unnecessary vaccinations and the denial of high school graduation because of missing records of earned credits. H.R. 1 instead contains weak language that has already been in place for years and produced no results. We should not forgo the opportunity to ensure that migrant children are not left behind. In addition, this country faces a dramatic challenge in bringing schools up to minimally acceptable conditions as well as meeting school construction and modernization needs for the 21st century. In my district there are schools that finally have access to computers and technology, but don't have enough electrical outlets to run the technology. I am sure that this is the case in school districts across the country where the average school building is 42 years old. States and localities cannot reasonably be expected to carry the incredible financial burden of building and repairing our schools. Well-maintained schools are critically important for the health and safety of our students. Federal help is not only appropriate, it is essential. Mr. Chairman, the nation's priorities in education will not be met within the confines of the budget resolution that was passed on May 9th. We need to address issues such as class size reduction, school modernization, bilingual education and migrant student needs before we give massive tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. I also want to share my grave concern about the ``parental notification and consent'' requirements contained in H.R.1. If enacted, these requirements will serve as a barrier to implementing bilingual education programs. According to this bill, schools will be required to ``make reasonable and substantial efforts'' to gain informed parental consent prior to placing children in an instructional program that is not taught primarily in English. This provision places an undue bureaucratic burden on local schools that will deter them from offering bilingual education classes. These parental notification and consent measures have also been inserted into Title I--the section of the bill dedicated to assistance for low-income students. Schools that want to use some of their Title I funds for specialized services aimed at assisting limited English proficient children will be burdened with these requirements. No other group of students with special needs is singled out in this way. These provisions are a step back to the days when limited English proficient students were barred from Title I-funded education. These parental notification provisions are therefore inherently unfair and should be removed when this bill reaches the conference committee.